4A the university daily kansan
opinion
monday, november 17,2003
talk to us
Michelle Burhenn-Rombeck
editor
864-4854 or mburhenn@kansan.com
Lindsay Hanson and Leah Shaffer
managing editors
864-4854 or lhanson@kansan.com and
lshaffer@kansan.com
Louise Stauffer and Stephen Shupe
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Amber Ages
business manager
864-4368 or adddirector@kansan.com
Taylor Thode
retail sales manager
R64.4358 or adsales@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
884.7867 or malcolm@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or mfisher@kansan.com
--perspective
Free for All Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansas editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com
Honestly, what is it with people in Kansas not using their turn signals?
To the girls at the Rec Center who look like they haven't eaten in a week; Calista Flockhart is out and J-Lo is in.
--perspective
I am taking Chinese, Japanese and German, but I have never seen anything as complicated as the new online enrollment.
What did the hot dog say to the bun at the end of the race? I am the wiener and you are the loser.
I love Michael Jackson
Why do all girls think that they have to have boyfriend? Chill out.
perspective
You know it was a good night when you wake up in a Backstreet Boys T-shirt and girls pants.
letter to the editor
Article regarding Clark supports important points
I was really glad to see your article regarding Gen. Wesley Clark, "Group meets up to support Wesley Clark," Nov. 5, The University Daily Kansan. I believe Gen. Clark has the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in next year's election.
Let's look at what has happened so far in this administration: No Osama bin Laden, no Saddam Hussein, no weapons of mass destruction. We are losing soldiers every day in a war that Bush orchestrated for revenge. The president has launched an all-out attack on public schools with his No Child Left Behind Act. This includes state colleges and universities. (Have you checked out the status of your Pell Grant lately?) Maybe the latter could be because he never attended a public school and has no concept of what that means for 90 percent of our children.
It would be nice to have someone as president who has dealt with multiple nations. Gen. Clark served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander during Kosovo, working with 84 different countries (and he got the bad guy, who is on trial for war crimes). Clark has a master in philosophy and politics. Perhaps he could actually negotiate with our enemies instead of bombing them into submission.
Clark is definitely the man to return America to the core ideals of our democracy. Just check him out for yourself at www.Clark04.com.
Mary C. Relatin
Shawrine
mother of a freshman student
stayskal's view
A
Founders fostered death penalty
COMMENTARY
In the past several weeks, The University Daily Kansan has printed two editorials about the death penalty, both of which came out against such punishment. As a proponent of capital punishment, I have argued many times with other students about this issue. Arguing about the need or basis for putting murders to death is one thing, but one argument I cannot stand to hear is that the death penalty in the United States constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. That idea is flawed in any correct understanding of our Constitution, and bears nothing on the discussion of capital punishment's merits and problems.
Jonathan Sternberg opinion@kansan.com
Every clause in the Constitution has both a positive and negative implication. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Whereas the clause's positive implication is exactly what it says, the negative implication is that, as long as one undergoes due process, one can be deprived of life, liberty or property. With due process, the government may take one's life. The Fifth Amendment also states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital... crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury" — the negative implication being if one has been indicted by a grand jury, one can be charged with a capital crime. According to Black's Law Dictionary, a capital crime is one that merits the death penalty. The founding fathers put it all right there in the Bill of Rights. One can constitutionally be charged with a crime meriting death, and constitutionally your life can be taken.
In 1972, the US Supreme Court placed a moratorium on the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia - a moratorium that lasted until Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. In Furman, the dissenting justices declared: "The constitutional prohibition against 'cruel and unusual punishments' cannot be construed to bar the imposition of the punishment of death." Although initially one wonders at their reasoning, in the end it is understandable.
Wayne Stayskal for Knight Ridder
This is not the least surprising, for two reasons. First, the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789, passed by the reasoning of the time. In the 18th century, capital crimes consisted of everything from theft to treason in many jurisdictions. Before the modern age of prisons began.
the law saw the death penalty as a swift means to rid society of criminals. Thus, the thought to ban the death penalty never occurred to our founding fathers.
Of course, this history lesson only matters if one believes in interpreting the Constitution in terms of its original intent. Even if one disagrees and believes that the Constitution should be interpreted to change with changing times, ignoring the two above statements from the Fifth Amendment would be blatant disregard. Those insisting on interpreting the Eight Amendment's bar on cruel and unusual punishment, itself taken word-for-word from the 1689 English Bill of Rights Act, as anything more than a bar on inhuman torture must account for the Fifth Amendment. To change a major facet of the Constitution, Congress must amend it.
I would disagree with a constitutional amendment to ban the death penalty, but at least such a move would be in accordance with legality, rather than a negation of a very important statute right there in the Bill of Rights itself. To assert otherwise is to negate the most basic understanding of the Constitution.
Argue all you want about substantive objections to capital punishment. I only ask that no one put ideas in the Constitution that simply are not there. Let's be logical.
Sternberg is a Leawood senior in history.
perspective
Draft issue needs vital college debate
GUEST COMMENTARY
Despite reassurance from the White House and the Pentagon, the fear of a military draft has become all the more strikingly conspicuous in the past few weeks. Dave Lindorff, a writer for The Nation, reported early last week that the Department of Defense has recently begun to fill some of the 10,000 vacancies on draft boards across the country. If the draft, which ended in 1973, was brought back, these boards would be a key component. The politics of a draft are no stranger on college campuses, the University of Kansas included. In an election year the emotionally charged issue might compel the youth voters to actually care, which makes the relative lack of discussion all the more disturbing.
Greg Holmquist
opinion@hansan.com
Reports of American military power being stretched too thin seem to reoccur every few weeks, and, with new military commitments, the problem only seems to grow. The Bush Doctrine has, until late, been a remarkably effective political strategy, and has shown few signs of slowing Progress in Iraq, despite administration protests, seems slow at best, and the articulation of an "exit plan" seems to be desperately in need of a strategy surely to be provided by Rush Limbaugh and his return to radio today. Ironically, congressional democrats have been some of the most vocal proponents of a return to conscription. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York) called for a return to the draft at the beginning of the conflict in Iraq, and, along with Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina), introduced bills to that effect.
The need for conscription in purely military terms is a hotly contested issue, and the political implications seem enormous. Unlike Vietnam-era drafts, which seemed to offer a number of ways to avoid service for those who could afford college, Lindorff reports that "that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their current semester; seniors could finish their final year."
The popular argument that a draft will restore equity to a military force unrepresentative of America, of course, predicts that 18-to-24-year-old males are somehow
more representative than a volunteer force. In fact, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported this summer that the proportion of women rose by 13 percent from the time of the end of the draft to the present day. These arguments may be only slightly compelling alone, but combined with the widespread belief that a conscript army is substantially less effective, they begin to suggest the problem isn't simply numbers. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been adamant about the advantage of an all-volunteer army.
College campuses were ground zero for this debate 30 years ago. It would be naive to suggest that Nixon's election in 1968 was predicated in part on his pledge to end the war and the draft, a feat he accomplished in 1973. In an upcoming election year, it is not unreasonable to believe a new draft asserts the same political efficacy. In order for it to do so, however, it must be known. There are few national decisions that can affect a domestic population as dramatically and as quickly as a reinstatement of the draft. This is not a debate that can be left to Washington. We have an obligation to be involved.
Holmquist is a Topeka senior in business and psychology. He is a member of the editorial board.
editorial board
Activism, popularity qualify Moore
Qualifications. Moore has experience in both community involvement and activism, the two things Into the Streets Week stresses. In fact, in many ways his work over the years from his initial film Roger and Me to his popular Bowling for Columbine has defined what it means to identify a community issue and, in turn, find ways to improve it. Moore will be able to draw from his experiences in addressing social and political issues around the nation and pass that along to a hall full of students.
Diversity. Moore's selection has come under fire in large part because he is an adamant liberal and an outspoken critic of the current administration, but those facts alone shouldn't keep him from speaking here. A college campus is a place for the open discussion of all sides of an issue whether they are popular or not. Conservatives and liberals alike have spoken on campus over the years. Moore is not coming here to talk about oil and elections, he's coming to promote activism and community involvement, two things that could hardly be deemed simply as "liberal" issues.
Name recognition. Cory Booker, Scott Ritter, and Ben Cohen. Those were three other people on the list of possible speakers for Into the Streets Week. Like Moore, each of them has considerable experience and merit in community issues, but not one of them share the same name recognition and popularity that Moore has among college students.
The selection of Michael Moore, renowned filmmaker and outspoken commentator for this spring's Into the Streets Week has spurred debate and discussion months before he's tentatively scheduled to speak here. If that is not reason enough to convince you that he's a good choice to bring attention to a week of community service and activism, then here are a few more reasons to keep in mind:
Campus fees. The fact that $15,000 of Student Senate money is going to fund the controversial Moore is at the core of the debate. Critics need to realize that campus fees, much like taxes, don't always go to serve their specific interests. The fees are collected and spent for the collective public good. Moore's presence will benefit the community by reaching hundreds of students with a message of service. It only follows that he too should be funded, in part, by student fees.
Michael Moore is one speaker that could potentially fill the Lied Center and motivate hundreds of students to make a difference. In the end that will benefit the entire University of Kansas and Lawrence community — liberals, conservatives, and everything in between.
Steve Munch for the editorial board.
)