Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
4A
Spencer Duncan, Editor Sarah Scherwinski, Business manager Lindsey Henry, Managing editor Brian Pagel, Retail sales manager Andrea Albright, Managing adviser Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Wednesday, November 19, 1997
SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS
Raving
Keep it quiet: snooze button a bridge to a nimble mind
I'm quite certain that all college students have an intimate relationship with their snooze buttons. I
do. I can honestly say that if I were required to make a choice between a girlfriend and a snooze button, let's just say that a snooze button is always there when you need it, doesn't complain
There really is no contest. I love my snooze button.
My snooze button has even revealed a few things to me over the years about the human brain and the complex problems it can solve.
I have my alarm clock set 17 minutes fast, and my wristwatch is set five minutes fast. This is a feeble attempt to lie to myself. I've done this since high school in an attempt
Warren Garlock
opinion@kansan.com
never to be late. It doesn't work. What I've discovered is that I will always do the calculations necessary to determine the correct time.
The most notable of these are when I first awake, and my mind is still in that semi-sleep state. It is at this time that I'm capable of some of the most complex mathematical computations known to man.
My alarm is set to go off at 6:26 every morning. Every morning I roll over, look at the alarm and hit the snooze button. It takes all of about two seconds. That's not important. What is important is what happens in those two seconds.
The first thing I do is subtract 17 minutes from the displayed time. From there I calculate the time needed to get to class. This includes driving time, which varies depending on weather conditions, traffic patterns and a slew of other variables, and walking time.
Then I calculate the minimum time needed to take a shower, get dressed and perform various personal hygiene activities. These tell me exactly what time I need to get out of bed. The time I need to get out of
bed, minus the present time is the length of time I have left to sleep. I take it one step further and divide this time into nine minute intervals. Now I know how many times I can hit the snooze button. All of this in two seconds. And I got a C in algebra — go figure.
I wish I could keep myself in that semi-sleep state during tests.
I did manage to reproduce this altered state of consciousness for my SAT exams in high school. I stayed up all night studying and by the time I got to the test, I was exhausted. As a result I would answer a couple of questions, nod off, answer a couple more questions, and nod off again. If my memory serves me, I had the third highest SAT score in the school that year.
Certainly there are side effects to this sleepy state. Some things simply should not be done while nodding off. Driving is probably a bad idea. If you make the mistake of nodding off while driving, you might end up waking up with your car wrapped around a large willow tree and an unattractive person wearing white trying to give you CPR.
You should probably be awake while swimming too. In fact, I'd recommend being awake for any sport. I'd imagine that if a baseball catcher fell asleep he could,potentially have a very bad day.
Most professors prefer that you not sleep in their classes. This makes a little sense. Considering the contiguousness of a simple yawn, if three or four people fell asleep during an organic chemistry lecture then pretty soon you would have 700 sleeping students and a sleeping professor. It's hard to cover material when the professor sleeps in class as well.
What I don't know is why this semi-sleep state is such an effective bridge for me and math. If there is anyone out there who needs a subject for their graduate thesis, give me a call.
Just don't wake me up.
Garlock is a Leavenworth senior in Engineering.
Kansan staff
News editors
Bradley Brooks . . . Editorial
Jason Strait . . . Editorial
Jodie Chester . . . News
Jen Smith. . . News
Adam Darby . . . News
Charity Jeffries . . Online
Kristine Blasi . . Sports
Tommy Gallagher . Associate Sports
Dave Morantz . Campus
Eric Weslander . Campus
Ashleigh Roberts . Features
Steve Puppe . Photo
Bryan Volk . Design, graphics
Mitch Lucas . Illustrations
Mark McMaster . Wire
Ann Marchand . Special sections
Lachelle Rhoades . News clerk
Matt Fisher ... Assistant retail
Michael Sofer ... Campus
Colleen Eager ... Regional
Anthony Migliazzo ... National
Jeff Auslander ... Marketing
Chris Haghirian ... Internet
Brian LeFevre ... Production
Jen Wallace ... Production
Dustin Skidgel ... Promotions
Tyler Cook ... Creative
Annette Hoover ... Public relations
Rachel O'Neill ... Classified
Jaime Mann ... Assistant classified
Marc Harrell ... Senior account executive
Scott Swedund ... Senior account executive
Advertising managers
Broadon your mind: Today's quote
"It itkes a higher level of sophistication and maturity to recognize that an individual cannot be held responsible for actions of their government."
—Deborah Gerner, associate professor of political science, on stereotyping Arab students.
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 home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
How to submit letters and guest columns
Guest columns: Should be double-spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Bradley Brooks (brooks@kansan.com) or Jason Strait (justtraith@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff [opinion@kansan.com] or call 864-4810.
Feedback
On Nov. 11, L. Shannon Swimmer wrote "This great place now called America is not his homeland because he is not a Native American." I'm sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with this.
White reader claims stake in America
I am a white male, and this country now called America is most certainly my homeland. I was born here. That alone is enough for me.
My ancestry is of sufficiently diverse stock that I could easily claim any one of a half dozen histories as my own, but I don't. The United States is where I was born. It is where I was raised. Powers that be willing, the United States is where I plan to live out my life. I did not come first, and I will not be the last, it makes no difference. It is my home and my homeland.
In as far as the crimes committed by those that came before me, I offer no apologies, and cannot imagine that I ever will for one simple reason: I had nothing to do with them. I will not forget them, lest they be repeated by me or my own, but I will not apologize for them or pretend that I can make them right.
I am not "tired of hearing about racism" and would expect that anyone who is truly interested in fighting it would feel the same. However, I will not force that on another. Everyone has different agendas, and everyone has different interests. We each fight our own fight, and to expect all others to fight with me would be arrogant, misguided and lead only to my own disappointment.
I would be more than happy to sit down with the beverage of choice with Swimmer and further discuss my views. You can reach me at veatch@ukans.edu.
David Veatch Wichita senior
I would like to respond to some of the inaccuracies in Clay McCuistion's editorial "Saddam Hussein Uses Politics to Put United States in Tough Place."
Saddam is given too much credit
First, the editorial gives Saddam too much credit. Iraq has not "forced the United sates into an uncomfortable position" any more than it has in the past. Giving Hussein credit as a masterful international player is like calling Marv Albert a superb moralist. For a start, this is a conflict between the United Nations and Iraq, not the United States and Iraq. The real issue is that Saddam wants nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the U.N. inspection teams that have been active in Iraq since 1991 have uncovered a significant amount of data to support the belief that Saddam is continuing to amass offensive capabilities in weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's claim that having more Russian, Chinese or French inspectors would make the teams more "balanced" is only so much subterfuge. Under U.N. Resolution 715, Iraq is compelled to submit to future monitoring, and not on its own terms. This was clear in 1993 when the United Nations and Iraq agreed to this resolution. Since 1991, thousands of parts and chemicals have been destroyed or removed from Iraq. It has been a highly successful mission.
Secondly, and more troublesome, is McCusition's assertion that "the rest of the Middle East is fearful of growing American intervention in the region." I suppose if you count ruguish states like Iran, Syria and even Lybia, then sure, many ruthless revolutionary regimes are fearful of American attempts, and U.N. programs, that seek to bring order to the region. That our erstwhile allies Russia and France have expressed interest in lifting sanctions on Iraq is not surprising. The French, for motivations that are purely of their own understanding, have once again elected to cause trouble in the world for the United States. Russia on
the other hand, who McCuission credits with having "made a commitment to investing political and economic capital in Iraq," has good reason to want to open normal commercial relations with Iraq. It wants to sell arms to Saddam. In December, 1995, Jordan seized 115 Russian-made missile guidance components bound for Iraq, and in February of this year, Iraq prevented the United Nations from transporting about 130 destroyed missile engines to the United States to determine if they were Russian supplied or made locally.
Thirdly, Iraq has not forced the United States to act alone. Some members of the 1991 coalition are calling into question some of the sanctions, but they are not openly defying the United Nations — a testament to the strength of the international community's resolve to see that Iraq does not acquire a nuclear, chemical or biological capability. McCuistion states that "Quite simply, the rest of the world doesn't hate Iraq as the United States does." The United States does not hate anyone. It acts to maintain order. Furthermore, as Rose Greaves, professor of Middle-Eastern history at the University of Kansas, is so fond of saying, "If one is to have an enemy, who is more perfect than Saddam Hussein?"
Tom Moore Lawrence senior
Wow! I have to say I've never seen as many conclusions drawn in an article as I did in Mr. Colbert's recent attempt to make holy his view of America's favorite pastime. In a stroke of the pen Colbert claims to have remedied America's social and racial disharmony and quite possibly our economic and monetary problems as well.
Columnist's smoke a bunch of hot air
Snapping back from Colbert's smoking fantasy land, there are a few things that he should realize. First, there are people in American society that can attribute illnesses to what Colbert deems "one of America's favorite pastimes." I am among these, having asthma from birth due to my mother smoking while she was pregnant. Are we supposed to just live with our illnesses so those of Colbert's thought can attempt to solve our county's problems by standing outside Wescoe taking a drag on a cigarette? There happen to be many students who are rather disgusted by walking through a cloud of cigarette smoke collecting under the overhangs. This all because the smokers don't want to get wet or stand too far out in the cold.
Colbert also seems to put down the "politicians, activists, and journalists" for speaking out about the harms of smoking. Now, being a student in college, I like to think I'm smart just like the next guy, but these are people who have graduated college, earned master's degrees and PhDs and, in many cases, multiple graduate degrees. Are your pants feeling a little tight Colbert? These people have spent countless hours researching and testing the affects of tobacco on human physiology. Living in a family with two radiologists, one of whom specializes in the treatment of cancer, I can tell you there is no good that comes from smoking. I've seen the weakened bodies and hairless heads of patients having to go through radiation therapy. I've seen people with emphysema and lung cancer die because of smoking. Try telling them that smoking is the answer to America's social and economic problems.
As far as "bringing people of all backgrounds together" is concerned, I think there are far better ways to do that than taking a drag on a cigarette. In fact I just received an email entitled "Natural Highs." It was a list of things people thought made them naturally high, one of which was coming back from a party on Saturday night sober and knowing you had a good time anyway! Just like alcohol, tobacco is a drug and I wholeheartedly admire
those who can go to a party and not partake in the use of any drug whatsoever, that is unless you consider pure fun intoxicating.
As for social faux paus I, for one, do take the opportunity to meet new people whenever the situation arises, be it on an elevator, a bus or wherever. I'm sure many people don't need a cigarette to make friends, and those that do ... well all I can say is there's a clinical term for that: a crutch.
So while Mr. Colbert is out trying to convince Bill Clinton, William Cohen, and Madeleine Albright to have a smoke with Saddam Hussein, maybe we should pay more attention to what the REAL experts have to say.
Maybe if Colbert's high school buddy had been paying more attention to the road instead of dragging on a cigarette, he wouldn't have hit the bicyclist. That's a nasty thing to have on a driving record, especially when you have to explain it to the insurance company.
Andrew Oster Ponca City. Okla. sophomore
Life of all kinds should be respected
I read a story in another newspaper not too long ago. An animal shelter in another city was broken into by two teenagers. They beat 16 cats to death with baseball bats. The jury ruled it as a misdeanor. Their reason? They said each cat was worth less than $31.50, therefore the total "damage" was less than $500, therefore it was a misdeanor. This is frightening in that it shows what life has come to mean for many people. A monetary value.
Every year at this time, there are letters back and forth in the "Kansan" regarding turkey rights, carnivore rights and human rights.
This year, I think many people are missing part of the point of those who are trying to bring to light the treatment of Thanksgiving turkeys and other livestock. There has been more than one person who asked why we should care about turkeys when people are suffering too.
A point I'd like to make is that caring about animal suffering is not mutually exclusive with caring about human suffering. We can work to improve both. And actually, even for meat-eaters, there is a reason to care about the turkeys and other animals raised solely for consumption
Cruelty in any form should be abhorrent to all of us as civilized beings. For those of you only concerned with human pain, it is well known that many people who go on to kill and torture humans begin by killing and torturing animals. Life should be respected in all its forms. When people respect life in general, they will care about the suffering of animals as well as humans. Genetically engineering animals to the extent that their own bones break under their weight so that we can have our turkey dinner the way we want it is a pathetic and cruel degradation of life. De-beaking a bird and chopping off its toes so that it can be kept in a small confined space with hundreds of others until it is slaughtered is not something that should be tolerated simply so that we can eat in on Thanksgiving and thank God for His goodness. Somehow I doubt God would enjoy partaking of a meal made of a tortured bird.
I believe it is this attitude that people are trying to change with the turkey message. We do not need genetically engineered, brutally treated food. If you chose to eat meat, it is your choice. But at least understand what is going on behind the scenes so that you know what you are buying and supporting. It is possible to change things with a little self-sacrifice. Boycott, write, refuse to consume what is cruelly marketed and produced. Don't buy animal-tested products. No — don't forget human suffering, but also think of the life on this planet that is controlled and manipulated by us. Help to make it better for them too.
Adonia David
Adonia David
Lawrence graduate student
1