4
Thursday March 10, 1994
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Congress should take up Whitewater investigation
President Clinton's most recent assurance about the Whitewater affair shouldn't deter the growing number of people who want a congressional investigation.
After the forced resignation of White House general counsel Bernard Nussbaum, the president again assured U.S. citizens that the White House would be totally honest and straightforward regarding what is becoming known as "Whitewater-gate."
The worst a congressional investigation likely will find is that the Clintons profited from a deal designed to illegally funnel money to pay for Clinton's 1984 gubernatorial campaign debts. The charge would hurt the Clintons, but not as badly as the appearance of a cover up.
Clinton's resistance already has angered many who rightly see their right-to-know being suspended in favor of partisan politics. In order to avoid this anger building further, it is in the president's best interest to agree to congressional investigations.
Opponents of a congressional investigation argue that such an investigation is unnecessary because Special Council Robert Fiske is investigating the same matter. But the two investigations have different goals. A congressional investigation would be concerned with informing the public, a purpose not fulfilled by Fiske's investigation.
Like the Iran-Contra hearings, the questions raised by Clinton's handling of Whitewater deserve to be answered by Congress.
Another argument is that the congressional investigation actually could compromise Fiske's independent investigation. But the relatively small risk posed by a congressional investigation is outweighed by U.S. citizen's right to be informed in this matter.
SEAN FINN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Clinton right to propose limits on waste shipping
President Clinton is taking a step in the right direction by saying he wants to encourage developed countries to curtail the amount of toxic waste they ship to developing countries. Words are not enough, though. Clinton should follow through with action.
The president wants the United States to lead the way on this issue, and he has announced that he plans to place drastic limits on the amount of toxic waste the United States exports. Clinton's statements were made on the eve of a U.N.-sponsored meeting on March 21 to discuss a ban on toxic waste exports to the developing world.
While the developed world totes the banner of environmental regulation at home, it exports toxic waste to the poorer areas of the world. Many of these developing countries lack environmental standards and regulations, proper disposal equipment or the consent of their citizens.
Shipping toxic waste to these countries is immoral and hypocritical.
Shipping material that we consider too dangerous to be disposed of in our neighborhoods to the developing world is wrong, especially when we know such material has the potential to be life-threatening, now or in the future.
If we were made to be more responsible for our own waste instead of leaving developing countries with the long-term costs of our lifestyles, we would put more effort into finding better ways of producing goods or disposing of waste.
HEATHER KIRKWOOD FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Brady law is a noble attempt but it doesn't go far enough
For those of you who were otherwise occupied last weekend and forgot to buy a handgun, you now have to wait up to five days before you can carry that Colt, Magnum or Smith and Wesson home.
Luckily for those in desperate need of protection, there is still a wide range of firepower available that can be taken home immediately upon purchase. There is no waiting period requirement for rifles and shotguns, so it still is quite possible for anyone to buy a weapon without any background checks.
A trip to your local gun shop will reveal an array of weapons. For just $165 you can have the Chinese-made SKS rifle, which fires 7.62 caliber bullets and has a deer-stopping range of about 150 yards. For the more paramilitary among you, there is Colt's civilian version of the army's M-16 rifle that fires the same bullets as the M-16, just not as fast. Colt's weapon is only semiautomatic, so you actually have to keep pulling the trigger to dispense all the bullets from the magazine. Of course, for those of
you who are just too lazy to aim at your target, there is the Winchester 305 shotgun model 70, guaranteed to hit everything in the nearest zip code.
So a law has been passed that many hope will have an effect on crime in the United States. The Brady law is a noble attempt to limit the availability of a type of weapon that in 1992 killed 12,489 people. But by limiting the sale of only one type of firearm, the government simply is swaying your choice of weapons. If you can't get the handgun, buy the shotgun. Some criminals already have come to this conclusion. They are the ones who murdered 1,104 people in 1992 with
those shotguns. Or they are the ones who murdered 698 people with rifles.
The real answer to this runaway problem is not gun control but gun prohibition. It's not an original idea, but just may be the only effective one. It's certainly not an easy answer because about 200 million guns are in circulation in this country. And, of course, an organized opposition to this solution already has an armory of arguments against banning firearms, often found on the bumpers of cars. But if having guns available in society is a good thing, why are there so many victims of firearms? If having those guns is meant to make our society a safer place, why does the United States have the highest crime rate of all developed countries? As to the "right to bear arms" argument, the Constitution should be something that is used to regulate society, not strangle it.
We are being led to believe that having accessibility to guns is a benefit. Imagine, though, a United States without them. For one thing, the 500 people in 1992 who accidentally
killed themselves with firearms at home would have to find some other way to accidentally kill themselves. Children searching through their parents' closets would find clothes to play with, not guns. Antagonists would have to solve arguments with fists, not a great alternative, but not necessarily a fatal one, either. The term "disgruntled employee" wouldn't appear as much in news stories.
Obviously, criminals still would have guns, but they have them now; an outright ban wouldn't make more criminals have guns. The United States always will have crime, and the very determined always will be able to get firearms. But if you think that you can live with the status quo, you might want to know that from 1988 to 1992 the murder-by-firearms rate increased by 41 percent. How close does it have to hit home before you act?
Jack Fisher is a London senior in Journalism.
Gun control is controlling your gun
You will have to look hard to find a more adamant proponent of gun control than I. It is simply undeniable that gun-wielding criminals are getting away with murder in our country.
Here are two examples of excellent gun control: In Seattle, a 16-year-old spotted a dog mauling his three-year-old sister. He ran into his house, fetched a gun and blew the dog away. And in Chicago, a 92-year-old woman killed an intruder in her home.
When I say gun control, I'm talking about controlling your weapon in such a way that you can ruin the day of the criminal who is trying to ruin your day.
In his March Atlantic Monthly article, "The False Promise of Gun Control," Daniel D. Polsby makes a reasonable observation: "[P]eople who are armed make comparatively unattractive victims [for criminals]."
Polsby does not regard the Second Amendment to our Constitution as a good point of departure for discussing guns, as the National Rifle Association tries to make it. After reading what he wrote, it occurred to me that our Constitution is no more than a failed attempt to curtail our
government's ability to interfere in our lives. As such it is not, and it would be ludicrous to think, that rights can be derived from this document. Individuals come together to create an entity, "a government," to protect our rights in situations in which we cannot protect ourselves. Thus the Second Amendment is not where arguments about self-defense and property ownership should start or stop.
In other words, who cares what the Second Amendment says? Like all words, any group with an agenda can claim the words of this or any other document "really" support its goals. How many different ways have you heard the Bible interpreted?
The burden of proof for denying a right rests with those who wish to confiscate our property. As Polsby points, there is compelling reason to believe that prohibiting individuals from legally owning guns will only embolden criminals. After all, criminals are less inclined to attack those whom they think will meet their assaults with deadly force.
Seeming to support Polsby's hypothesis, South Africa and Mexico, with their laws dramatically curtailting gun-ownership, have murder rates twice our own murder rate. And Washington D. C., with its tough restrictions on gun ownership, is the murder "capital" of the world. Additionally, Florida has eased restrictions on gun-ownership in the last few years and seen a decrease in its murder rate.
The practicality of a gun prohibition is another matter: Anyone who thinks the government will be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is not fully with us. No one can seriously claim that the same government, which has wasted billions of dollars, ruined the lives of productive and creative people and still hasn't even put a
dent in the drug trade, will get guns off the streets.
As a Libertarian, I am opposed to the initiation of force to achieve one's goals, and I support an individual's right to use an appropriate amount of force to protect one's life, family, and property.
I spent many years in an infant unit, so I am well-versed in how lethal guns can be and, therefore, the importance of effective gun control. Few things make me as nervous as someone handling a weapon that he or she has not been trained to use. Potentially lethal weapons such as guns and cars, should never be handled when alcohol or other drugs are present. And anyone who purchases a weapon should take the time to become an expert in its use and care. This should include practicing with it on a regular basis. Because, like I said, I am an adamant proponent of effective gun control: Being able to shoot your attacker between the eyes is about the best gun control, not to mention crime prevention, I can imagine.
Allen Tiffany is a Lawrence graduate stdent in English.
KANSAN STAFF
BEN GROVE, Editor
LISA COSMILLO, Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
Editors
Asst Managing Editor...Dan England
Assistant to the editor...J.R. Clairborne
News...Kriett Fogler, Katie Greenwald
Todd Salten
Editorial...Golden McClure
Nathan Olean
Campus...Jess DeHaven
Sports...David Dorssey
Photo...Doug Hesse
Features...Sara Bennett
Wire...Alison Lippert
Freelance...Christine Laue
JUSTIN GARBERG Business manager
JENNIFER BLOWEY Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ... Jason Eberly
Regional sales mgr ... Troy Terwater
Cooperative sales mgr ... Coop sales mgr
Social Services mgr ... Shelley McConnell
Production mgr ... Laurauth B
Gretchen Kootterheilrich
Marketing director ... Shannon Kelly
Creative director ... John Carton
Classified mgr ... Kolly Connally
Teaheads mgr ... Wing Chan
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania are required to submit proof of identity.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
principal.
The students reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Karsan newroom, 111 Stauffer-Fint Hall.
Statues are not reason to attend a university
However, I must say I agree with the basic premise. I am a heterosexual, and I decided to come to the University of Kansas because the peaks on top of Fraser Hall remind me of a pair of breasts. Conversely, I would think that the University could attract a large homosexual student base because we have a huge phallic symbol in the Campanile. You get my point.
Do these people really think that the University would attract more minority students ifJayhawk Boulevard was decorated with statues of
I've seen it all now. "Campus statues and architecture could be racist, sexist or homophobic." Please tell me that not one penny of my $1,000 of tuition is financing thought such as this.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Please stop wasting your time coming up with purely symbolic gestures that will never amount to anything but resume fodder. I am not trying to belittle the accomplishments of any minority, but I believe that if someone deserves a statue, it should be based solely on accomplishments, not ethnic background. If that makes me a racist, so be it.
"people of color" who have contributed to the University? I am amazed when I find someone who, such as myself, came to the University because of the statue of Professor Green in front of Lippincott Hall. Imagine a day when a student comes to the University because of a strong curriculum and outstanding professors.
When coming up with "ideology" in the future, please remember and abide by the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: "... where children will be judged not by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character."
John Percival Lenexa senior
By the way, with a headline such as Monday's "Legalized prostitution benefits women" and other liberal idiocy coming from Stauffer-Flint Hall, I know that I haven't seen anything yet.
Coach Williams was happy about his team's victory (over Colorado) but could not hold back some feelings of displeasure. There was a small turnout of 15,200 fans, and Williams reluctantly commented on the situation by saying, "Our players, coaches, fans, media, everyone is spoiled rotten. That professor up on campus who wrote me that letter is spoiled rotten, and that's the
Coach Williams is right many fans are spolled
I agree with Williams. It's obvious that a lot of students enroll at the University for the wrong reasons. It seems that many come here to party in the middle of campus during March Madness. Suddenly, when they sense that this event might not be possible because our team drops three straight, they turn against the team. The players need positive support from everyone, and if they do not go to the Final Four, they will have more opportunities in the future. The concern for the three-game losing streak even has spawned a letter to Williams from a professor.
nicest thing I'll ever say to him."
If our attitudes do not change, Williams just might leave. After all in the Kansas City Star he was quoted as saying, "I ought to get the heck out of Dodge myself."
Kyle Gregory Overland Park senior