4A the university daily kansan
opinion
wednesday,october 22,2003
talk to us
Michelle Burhenn
editor
864-4854 or.mburhenn@kansan.com
Lindsay Hanson and Leah Shaffer managing editors
864-4854 or ianson@kansan.com and
lishaffer@kansan.com
Louise Stauffer and Stephen Shupe
opinion editors
884-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Amber Agee
business manager
884-4924 or additie@kansan.com
Taylor Thode
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adsales@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or mfisher@kanan.com
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan 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
To the girl on Wescoe Beach with the Nintendo jacket. You rock my world
Is there anything more unattractive than a drunk frat boy?
What the hell ever happened to SARS?
Did we cure that or something?
TWO STUDENTS FAINT AFTER A MYSTERIOUS GAS LEAK IN CHEMISTRY LAB.
Connor Meigs for The University Daily Kansan
perspective
Reverse FCC rule change, pressure Congress to vote on bill
COMMENTARY
Editor's note: This is the second part of a two-part series on the June 2 FCC rule change. The Senate Joint resolution 17 referred to in both columns passed on Sept. 16.
I had a summer fling with democracy. It was really satisfying. My favorite radio station, Kansas City's 96.5 "the Buzz" didn't go through with a threatened format change after thousands of listeners protested. Then, early this September, the U.S. Senate actually listened to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who wrote and called them, begging that they veto new Federal Communications Commission rules. Rules which, if allowed to stand, would allow giant media conglomerates to control even more of the American broadcasting landscape than they already do.
Rachel Robson opinion@kansan.com
Americans didn't like the new FCC rules, and they told their legislators that in a tidal wave of correspondence. More than 2.3 million Americans from groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women, Consumers' Union and the Christian Coalition, had complained to
I was giddy, totally smitten with democracy. It's not every day that our elected officials act in accordance with the wishes of
the FCC about the rule change. More than 99 percent of the comments received by the FCC about the new rules opposed them. In response, the Senate passed a resolution condemning the new rules approved by three of the five FCC commissioners on June 2. This so-called "congressional veto" of the FCC passed the Republican-controlled Senate by a 55-to-40 vote margin, against strong opposition from both its own leadership and the White House. Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts voted for the resolution; Sen. Sam Brownback voted against it.
the overwhelming majority of Americans of all political persuasions, you know.
Unfortunately, they still haven't. For the FCC rule change to be reversed, the congressional veto of it passed by the Senate still has to be passed by the House of Representatives.
This is unlikely to happen. After the Senate bill passed, House Majority Leader Tom I am the federal government" DeLay told the Associated Press that the House version of the resolution is "going nowhere—dead on arrival." Why? Is it because the congressional veto is unpopular with voters? Certainly not. Is it because it wouldn't pass in the House of Representatives? No, the measure would likely get enough votes to pass. So what hubris allows DeLay to say that House Joint Resolution 72 is "going nowhere"?
Quick civics review: When a bill is introduced in Congress, it is first sent to a committee. The Congressional committees then decide which bills will be sent to the floor for a vote. If a bill is still in a committee at the end of a Congressional session, then the bill goes nowhere—regardless of the amount of support for the bill.
"Republican leadership has made it clear that they do not want this to come up for a vote," Kevin O'Connell, a spokesman for Maurice Hinchey (D.N.Y.), the resolution's sponsor, said.
This is what DeLay and his leadership team want the fate of the FCC rules veto to be. They sent the resolution to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Louisiana's Billy Tauzin, who chairs the committee, received more than $100,000 in contributions from media corporations in his last election campaign and is unlikely to let H. J. Res. 72 out of his committee. "We don't have a schedule for discussion of [H. J. Res. 72] yet," a spokesperson for Tauzin said, adding that probably the bill would die in committee, having never been considered on the House floor.
But maybe-it's not too late for democ
To review: On June 2, three unelected FCC bureaucrats decided to change media ownership rules in a way totally contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people. Now one committee chair who's indebted to the broadcast industry is keeping a resolution that would reverse those rules from being voted on by the House of Representatives. Democracy, honey, you're breaking my heart.
racy. A few representatives, Republicans and Democrats are circulating a letter urging the House leadership to let H.J. Res. 72 out of committee so it can be voted on. So far, 190 congresspersons have signed the letter, including Kansan Dennis Moore. If that effort is unsuccessful, representatives opposed to the new FCC rules will launch a formal petition which, if signed by at least 218 of their colleagues, would force a floor vote on the resolution.
Maybe we ought to give democracy a call. You can call Billy Tzin at (202)225-4031 and ask him to allow a vote on H.J. Res. 72. You can call Rep Jim Ryun at (202)225-6601 and ask him to represent his constituents fairly and sign the letter. You can thank Moore for signing at 842-9513. Tom DeLay can be reached at (202)225-4000, and all representatives can be e-mailed at www.house.gov/writeep/
Let's see if we can't get Congress just to vote on a resolution that most Americans support.
Robson is a Baldwin City doctoral candidate in pathology.
perspective
Senate wrong for committing funds to bring Moore to campus
Recently, the Student Senate voted to commit $15,000 toward bringing liberal "activist" Michael Moore to campus for Into the Streets Week this spring spring. I, for one, am truly dismused at this choice.
Traditionally, campus speakers have been ladies and gentlemen of note, famous for their good work or expertise in some area of public visibility. Certainly, this has included partisan politicians and activists in the past. Within the last four years, we have hosted Kenneth Starr, Ralph Nader and Janet Reno, all of who have or have had political agendas, and none of which I agree with. There is, however, a vast difference between these respectable public figures and Mr. Moore. Senate proponents of Moore's visit argue that he will leave a lasting impression on the University. But Moore only serves to cause trouble through misrepresentation, lies and embarrassment where none is needed.
GUEST COMMENTARY
Jonathan Sternberg opinion@kansan.com
Moore is not a true activist. He is, as his $38,000 fee proves, simply in it for the money. The purpose of Bouling for Columbine, his 2002 Academy Award-winning documentary, was to express his opinion that America needs to adopt the socialist domestic policies of Canada and Western Europe, thus somehow decreasing our rate of deaths from handguns. The film is, however, filled with lies, misrepresentations and conduct
unbecoming of a gentleman.
Although I appreciate Mr. Moore's claim against K-Mart for selling ammunition to minors, there was no need to bring victims of the Columbine attacks into K-Mart headquarters, embarrassing the day staff on film — staff that have nothing to do with the corporate agenda, but simply are honest Americans trying to earn a living. In the film, he attempted to publicly embarrass Charlton Heston, who recently disclosed that he has Alzheimer's disease. Moreover, Mr. Moore recently admitted superimposing false text over former President Bush's 1988 "revolving door" campaign ad, a piece that he later removed from the film's DVD release. In literary and academic circles, one would dub this behavior "plagiarism," something for which people lose their jobs. One can find many more lists of his repeated misrepresenta-
Beyond his film, Mr. Moore continually disrespects others. The annual Academy Awards ceremony is an event on which many people spend a great deal of time, energy and work so that those in the film industry and those watching at home can have a good time and honor achievement in film. Mr. Moore took no heed of this hard work and interrupted the occasion with a political rant. He also frequently insults President Bush and other public figures on both sides of the aisle in terms so egregious they would surprise Bill Maher.
tions on Web sites such as www.moor-
watch.com and www.spinsanity.org.
surprise Bill McNaught.
What happened to make Michael Moore act this way? Years ago, on his series *TV Nation*, he was a witty, albeit leftist, television commentator who I found entertaining. Sometime afterthis, though, he discovered a fundamental truth that Rush
Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken have known for years: shock sells. After all, any publicity is good publicity. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Franken, however, Mr. Moore has taken his shock to a new level, and now presents fallacy and plagiarism as "truth" and callousness and discourtesy as "activism."
While I wholeheartedly believe that all men, including Mr. Moore, have the right to their beliefs, as well as the right to voice them, I do not appreciate any view not presented in a gentlemanly fashion. I am an old-fashioned Yankee elitist Republican conservative, but I do not mind listening to left-wing politicos' points of view. Mr. Moore does not go about his political business in an equally respectable manner, and KU has no business giving this man any money whatsoever.
Sternberg is a Leawocd senior in history.
O