4a
Opinion
Tuesday, September 26, 2000
For comments, contact Ben Embry or Emily Hughey at 864-4924 or e-mail opinionkansan.com
Perspective Diplomacy works better than missiles
I still remember the Cold War as a kid. I remember fearing that at any moment, something would go wrong, the missiles would fly and the world would come to an end. In fact, I believed that's how I would die. Then in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and I was ecstatic. At last, I thought, governments would destroy their nukes, and we would never live in fear like that again. Unfortunately, a decade later, many of our politicians still think we're in the Cold War.
At the horrific end of World War II, President Truman and others believed that as the only nuclear power, America could expect to have its way in mapping post-war Europe. After all, the only person in the room with a gun doesn't have to compromise or build consensus. But the Soviets got The Bomb, the Cold
War started and our policy shifted to "deterrence."
The theory of nuclear deterrence is a lot like the two guys in the movie *Reservoir Dogs* who, both suspecting the other of treachery, scream their heads off while pointing guns at each other. Both lunatics are thinking, if he tries to shoot me, I'll shoot him, and vice versa. So long as we both know it, neither of us dares shoot the other. Of course if no one whines
David Grummon columnist opinion@kansan.com
out a bigger gun, the other has to pull out a bigger gun too, triggering a nice little arms race.
With nuclear weapons, the stakes were a bit higher — say, the extinction of all life on earth, except for cockroaches. And while deterrence seemed to create stability, it always left the insane risk that somebody might just be stupid enough to push the button. So, for five decades, politicians blew national resources on missiles, and the world lived in fear.
As frightening as deterrence theory is, it does allow both lunatics to wise up. Since 1969, nuclear powers have been reducing their arsenals like same people should. The more nukes we destroy, I say, the safer we all are. Not everyone seems to agree.
Recently, one republican congressman on C-SPAN opposed proposed cuts in the number of nuclear missiles kept in marines.
The bruise left on my forehead from smacking it went away within a few hours.
"These missiles are crucial to our defense," he shrieked, "because they're the only missiles the Soviets can't find!"
Last year, the republican-controlled Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This year's republican platform calls the treaty "an anachronism of obsolete strategic thinking."
Apparently "new" strategic thinking says we still need to blow up warheads periodically just to make sure they can still annihilate all life in a 10-mile radius. And America's goal of stemming global nuclear proliferation? Well, it was a nice thought.
rinally, George W. Bush and the republican platform insist we must deploy a missile defense system. This is opposed by Russia, China and every one of our allies. Why? First, it would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and, supposedly, modern America keeps its treaties. Second, America could theoretically nuke anybody without repercussions. This destroys deterrence and could start a new arms race. Not wanting to be pushed around more than they already are, other countries would either build their own missile defense systems or build enough missiles to overwhelm ours.
That said, America doesn't have the technology for a working missile defense system and won't for decades. But what if it did and someone called our dare? If a rogue state shoots a warhead at us, and we succeed in stopping it, what then? Do we nuke everyone in a developing country run by an idiot for a dictator? Or perhaps we'll just stick out our tongue and say nanny-nanny, you missed? Either choice seems absurd.
Why deploy a missile defense system that costs billions, doesn't work, doesn't protect against terrorists smuggling in nukes and leaves America in more danger than before? Has diplomacy lost its appeal? It's as if some Republicans want to bring back the good old days of the Cold War. Forgive me if I'm not quite as nostalgic.
Grummon is a Beloit law student.
Chan Lowe / TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
By the Numbers
Distance that the silver-spotted skipper caterpillar can propel its own feces, in feet
60,133 Number of leaf-cutter ants required to lift a 10-pound picnic basket
Ratio of K-Mart's U.S. sales in 1998 to the estimated budget of the Russian mill-
tary
Number of rented 40-foot refrigerator trailers the LAPD uses to house biological evidence
Source: www.harpers.org
Perspective
Government decision divides family, town
Meet Aurora. Or is it Zachary? Whatever you choose, this child is like no other you have met.
Born as Zachary Lipscomb in an Ohio suburb, Zachary was not a "normal" child, under most classifications. His mother noticed that as a toddler, Zachary was more interested in dresses than action figures. He liked putting a blanket on his head to look like a girl instead of wanting to play baseball.
For years, Zachary's parents struggled with his non-conforming gender behavior.
last year, Zachary's parents gave up on the notion of subduing his behavior. They decided to treat him like a girl, just as he wished.
What followed not only rocked this conservative Ohio suburb, but it also, sadly, tore the Lipscomb family apart.
During the summer,
Aurora (a name
Zachary chose in honor
of the princess in
Sleeping Beauty) asked
to have his ears pierced
and even introduced
An anonymous tip was received by Franklin County Children Services, asking the court to remove the child from the home. A magistrate issued a temporary custody order, citing the idea that the child was suffering from an illness, and he was not receiving proper care from his parents.
Rupali Limaye columnist opinion@kansan.com
So the Lipscombs visited Aurora's school and informed the principal that their child would not be enrolled as Zachary, but as Rori, short for Aurora.
himself to the neighbors as a girl. His parents came to believe that it was not wrong to let their child express his gender in public.
Aurora suffers from gender-identity disorder. But why were the Lipscombs separated because of this illness?
So what is best for Zachary/Aurora? The problem is that not many studies have been done on the subject, and those that have are in disagreement with one another.
The question is not whether Zachary/Aurora wants to be a boy or a girl. The question is why did the government tear apart this family?
It seems evident that this is an unusual case, but in the circumstances, Zachary's parents did the best that they could. Obviously, they wanted him to act like a boy, and they tried to repress his feelings of wanting to be a girl. But after years of struggling, they decided it was in their best interests to allow their child to express himself however he chose. They at least attempted to be supportive of something that they did not necessarily agree with, but it made their child happy.
When does the government get to decide how parents should raise a child? I understand that it is pertinent when abuse or neglect is in question, but in this case, it was not. The Lipscombs, in most cases, are a dysfunctional family. But there are tons of families that have problems, and if the government tried to step in and tell parents what to do, there would definitely be a ruckus.
The most depressing part of this story is the well-being of Zachary. At his foster home, he is not allowed to wear dresses, and his foster parents refuse to call him Rori. As a result, Zachary is miserable, as he can't express himself. Worse yet, he is being told what to do by complete strangers.
Here is a case where the government is indeed conforming people against their will. It's too bad that this conservative suburb can't open its eyes for one moment and realize that it, not the Lipscombs, has committed the most atrocious crime of all.
Limays is an Olathe senior in advertising and political science.
Editorial
Exclusive dress codes continue
Local clubs discriminate through restrictive dresscode policies.
Discriminatory dress codes have no place in local clubs. However, exclusive dress codes persist in clubs throughout Lawrence.
Area clubs, including The Cadillac Ranch, Jack Flanigans, Los Amigos, Paradise Saloon and Tremors, have similar dress codes that prohibit bandanas, sweat suits, baggy pants and shorts, tank tops, motorcycle clothing, and National Football League and other sport jerseys. Flanigans' former dress code, which recently came under fire, was not the only one of its kind. Los Amigos also prohibits the wearing of FUBU clothing in its club.
Flanigans' defense to its former dress code was that it prevented possible factors that could start fights in the club. Although prevention is a valid concern, the club patrons are adults and know how to act.
There is an understanding that the owners are business people and must make a profit by recognizing their specific market, but that does not condone discriminating against groups of people by banning clothing that is connected with ethnic attributes.
There are no restrictions against individuals who have body tattoos, dyed hair or piercings. Dress codes that discriminate against clothing or accessories are unacceptable and discriminatory and violate patrons' right to free expression, a right that local businesses should uphold.
Club owners should not post dress codes that needlessly exclude specific groups of people. All local clubs with rigid restrictions should revise them to exclude any discrimination against ethnic groups.
After all, people should be able to express themselves through their dress without discrimination.
Tammy Gonzales for the editorial board
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. The Kansas reserves the right to edit submissions, and not all of them will be published. Slanderous statements will not be printed.
图
To the person who made the slanderous comment about the Community Merc and their garden, they obviously don't know that the garden serves the homeless and those living in poverty and has for several years. If they want more parking, then they probably shouldn't shop at the Merc.
-
Why aren't people who work at NTS allowed to park at NTS? NTS employees are forced to walk in the dark, in dangerous conditions because the city of Lawrence and the parking department want to collect more revenue.
Concerning Critical Mass, when Lawrence bicyclists obey traffic signs, then they can have their bike lanes. Until then,they don't deserve them.
-
Finally, the U.N. is exposed for what it really is. Thank you, John McCool. Let's get out of the U.N.
---
Do you find it ironic that GSP can also stand for girls state prison?
-
Justin Phelps' letter to the editor about women who fake orgasms should have taken into account that some of the women involved in the survey are in loving, committed relationships. If they chose to fake anorgasm, it is to make their partner feel better, not for selfish pleasure.
图
If you're on a date and you have a really bad foot fungus, don't tell your date.
图
All the students who have been ripped off by Jefferson Commons should band together and hire an attorney and file a class-action suit against them.
图
The students should stay away from Potter Lake. I promise I saw Gill Man in there the other day.
When is Gary Kempf getting his apology? Swimmers and divers are still leaving the KU program.
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Guest columnn: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words.
The writer must be willing to be photo-
graphrated for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be e-mailed to opinion@kansan.com or submitted to the Kansan newsroom. 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ben Embry or Emily Hughey at 864-4924.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924
Editor ... Nathan Willis
Managing editors... Chris Borniger,
... Kristi Elliott
Readers' rep ... Erinn Barcomb
Opinion ... Ben Embry,
... Emily Hughey
Sports ... Melinda Weaver
Associate sports... Jason Walker
Campus ... Jessie Meyer,
... Mindie Miller
News editors
editor@kansan.com or 864-4854
readerresp@kansan.com
or 864-8100
opinion@kansan.com
or 864-8244
sports@kansan.com
or 864-8038
writer@kansan.com
or 864-8100
The University Daily Kansan
Features ... Clay McCuistion
Jayplay ... BriAnne Hess
Online ... Chris Hopkins
Photo ... Nick Krug
Design, graphics ... Amy Train
Wire ... Lori O'Toole
Special sections ... Clare McLellan
General manager
and news adviser.. Tom Eblen
features@kansan.com
or or864-8924
jaypay@kansan.com
or or864-8910
webbitter@kansan.com
or or864-8910
864-8912
864-8912
864-8910
864-8910
teblen@kansan.com
or or864-7667
Business ... Brad Bolyard
Retail sales ... Becky LaBranch
Marketing ... Trent Guyer
Campus ... Monica Hahn
Regional ... Brooke Johnson
National ... Katy Hyman
Online sales ... Lindsey Gross
Online creative ... Patrick Rupe
---
Advertisement
adddirector@kansan.com
or 864-4324
retailalabs@kansan.com
or 864-4462
864-4350
864-4350
864-4350
864-4350
onlineads@kansan.com
or 864-4350
864-4350
Advertising managers
---
Creative ... Erin Endres
Production ... Jenny Weaver
Classifieds ... Sarah Lando
Zone ... Cecilia Curran
Zone ... Anika Entwistle
Zone ... Chris Davenport
Zone ... Jenny Moore
Sales and marketing Matt Fisher
864-4358
classifieds@kansan.com
or 864-4358
864-4358
864-4358
864-4358
nf shelter@kansan.com
or 864-7666