4A the university daily kansan
opinion
friday,august29,2003
talk to us
Michelle Burhenn
editor
864-4854 or mburhenn@kansan.com
Lindsay Hanson and Leah Shaffer
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 Agee**
*business manager*
864-4358 or agee@kansan.com
Taylor Thode
retail sales manager
864-4368 or adsales.kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or mfisher@kansan.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
I just found the Wescoe cafeteria area, and this place rocks. Why didn't people tell the freshmen about these things before?
Has anyone noticed that the lady who drives the Jayhawk Express never really stops to let people get on the bus? I had to practically jump on the bus today with it dragging me behind.
perspective
This is for Arrah Nielsen. I oppose racial profiling, so I am a terrorist.
Practice compassion.
--perspective
Crickets do bite,but their mouths are too little to bite you.
perspective
To Arrah Nielsen, who wrote the article about racial profiling: Congratulations, you are now officially the dumbest person on campus.
--perspective
I've got a half-eaten taco in my Tercel.
四
Dirty secret No. 15: GTAs call the Free-For-All line just like you do.
--perspective
Isn't it kind of weird how Chancellor Bob looks like Ross Perot?
the truth hurts
Writer's satire lost on passive consumers of 'infotainment'
COMMENTARY
Last Friday, an article entitled "Fight for Corporate rights" by Ben McCarthy graced this paper's pages. The article spoke about how we need to stand up for the rights of "our biggest, most objective media outlet," Fox News.
The article went as far to say that "...the First Amendment isn't what it's cracked up to be," simply because Fox was suing the comedian and political commentator Al Franken for use of the words "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his new book, Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The case against Franken by Fox News was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Denny Chin last Friday. Fox then announced that it would not continue litigation.
Chris Cardinal opinion@kansan.com
Some people read Ben McCarthy's article with the numbed perception that has taken over the American public. This perception mostly affects the all-believing, Bill O'Reilly-would-never-lie-to-me, gullible section of the public, who prefer to have its views and opinions spoon-tied to
"Fight for Corporate rights" was a fascinating piece of satire that opened the eyes of many KU students and others, even reaching the likes of Jason Tipton, the director of the Texas Public Interest Research Group, all the way down in Austin, Texas. The question is whether the strong interest in the story was due to the fine writing of the columnist or due to some misinterpretation that occurred.
it
But here's the problem: Without multiple-sided views, we are left with a single-minded majority. This would destroy the small amount of objectivity that already exists.
Fox News has a history of conservative views, and has also become one of the cable networks' biggest infotainment, if-it-bleeds-it-leads channels, reporting twisted news stories with headlines that are obviously flaunting neo-conservative views.
The tactic of "plausible deniability," used by many media outlets and politicians, misleads our public and can influence the views of hundreds of thousands of people. How often do you read an article and analyze every single detail?
Elizabeth Willy for The University Daily Kansan
The other option would be reporting all data and views equally. This also has its downfalls. It would break down our democracy by removing the diversity that is needed to sustain our nation's way of life. As The Friends of Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
everyone has an opinion, and it is everyone's First Amendment right to speak it, and they should. When a reporter starts reporting, we should not want them to become unhuman. Lack of commentary would limit the opinions and diverse ideologies that make America what it is.
it."
It is the individual's responsibility to inform him or herself. Lack of knowledge is inexcusable considering the near-excessive availability of information on the Web from across the world and from countless media outlets, each with its critics and naysayers, including Middle Eastern papers translated into English.
Anyone who bases their views upon a single news station and does not look into the facts or consider differing opinions is naive.
This form of apathy is disarming our nation. Stories of vital concern to our national security — the welfare of our troops, our environment and how our defense dollars are being misspent — are being spun, misread and overlooked daily, discarded for the week's winning lotto numbers and for stories about basketball players killing each other, cheating in their classes and getting charged with rape.
Do we live in a democracy? We do we treat it like one, open our eyes and take advantage of a free country rather than being spoon-fed. Wake up, America.
Chris Cardinal is a Salina junior in journalism and communications.
perspective
Support of gun control misguided; Constitution works, violence does not
The Aug. 22 column "Gun control steals citizen's right to change government" by Matt Dunavan was a poor start to a poor subject choice by its author. To say the article was offensive would give it too much credibility. But I still feel quite compelled to address his rather lost accusations.
The author asks whether guns are necessary for American society, to which he answers yes. After a list of random arguments, Dunavan cites the war in Iraq, the Declaration of Independence and the invented degeneration of our government.
GUEST COMMENTARY
With respect to the war with Iraq, he says, "A tyrannical regime can often only be toppled through the use of violence."
Joe White
opinion@kansan.com
In reality, the connection between the right to bear arms and the toppling of Iraq cannot be made. If the U.S. government wanted to create a tyrannical power, it goes without saying that a headgun could never override its wish to "shock and awe" us into submission.
Dunavan's quote from the Declaration is taken out of context. He notes, "... whenever any form of government becomes destructive ... it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." What he fails to see is that historians have spent 226 years figuring out what Jefferson truly meant. The future president also said, "... prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
Even constitutional scholars have noted that the second Amendment, the only true argument in this case, was made to allow states, not private citizens, to have standing armies.
Dunavan also discussed the fallibility of the U.S. Constitution in creating social change with respect to slavery. What he fails to note is that slavery was changed with a series of laws that went all the way up to the 1960s. Some could argue that the Civil War altered slavery, but it is commonly accepted that the war was fought over state rights, not slavery.
Should we outlaw guns? I don't know. But when you have a problem with the government or the system fails, as it did in the 2000 election, how many of us go for our guns? Besides shooting people on the streets, at work or in the classroom, what do we use them for? For hunting, perhaps, but never to change the government.
Look at what our government has done to us already, and all the while we had all these guns. Do you really think Washington is holding off its attack until we lose them?
--editorial board
Ever heard of the Kansas National Guard?
As we have seen time and again, our Constitution does work. Violence does not. Just this week, we celebrated an American who preached about peace over violence. How much was accomplished by throwing stones and bombs in the 1960s compared to what was accomplished by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr?.
No, guns are not the answer. Belief in our country is.
What the Oklahoma City bombing teaches us is that the government is not a mysterious higher power. It is citizens like you and me who work in it, live by it and support it. If the government needs change, then we must change ourselves. Notwithstanding Timothy
McVeigh, an American soldier would never take up arms against another American because of orders. Although we have the world's most powerful military, it's still run by Americans who volunteer to serve. Are we really under threat by a government run by its citizens?
Joe White is a Dodge City senior in political science.
Student voices bypassed
Students at the University of Kansas had better get used to being ignored by the University administration. The recent actions of KU officials — regarding the United States Student Association referendum that students passed last spring are fine examples.
USSA is a lobbying organization on Capitol Hill that fights for the interests of students in higher education across the country. The referendum that students approved in the spring would have added 50 cents to the student fees paid with tuition every semester, allowing the University to join USSA.
Upon the advice of a University lawyer, University officials stepped in this summer and prevented Student Senate from going through the proper paperwork to officially join USSA. They claimed it was unconstitutional for the University to be a part of an organization that was not "viewpoint neutral."
Then why were students allowed to vote on the referendum at all? Moreover, why did the University wait until summer to take action to prevent the USSA membership — a time when the majority of students are not in Lawrence? Finally, if Student Senate has control over how student fees are spent, how can University officials prevent an increase for a use that students approved?
The disregard for student opinion in this situation is comparable to the recent tuition increase approved in Spring 2002.
During the Fall 2001 and Spring 2003 semesters, University officials sought a $51.8 million tuition increase that many students questioned and opposed. Kansas was, and is, in a budget shortfall. Throughout the spring semester, students organized and protested against the size of the tuition increase. Many thought it should not be students alone that picked up the tab for a funding shortage at a public university.
Upon feeling the students' ire, the University Council allowed the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on University Funding to consider the necessity of a tuition increase, and, if so, the size. The committee contained four students, four faculty members and two staff members. In its final report, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended a $43 million increase, with 20 percent going to financial aid.
Despite creating the Ad Hoc Committee specifically for the purpose of allowing student input, its recommendations were ignored. The chancellor presented the highest increase to the Board of Regents in April 2002 and the $51.8 million increase was approved.
The main benefit of joining USSA for students would be the classes and seminars that USSA teaches to its affiliates about how to organize and lobby. Such skills would have been useful a couple of years ago when such a large tuition increase was passed, despite opposition from students. Could that have something to do with why the University opposes a University membership to USSA?
State Farm Insurance
Staphionia Lovefft for the edifical board