Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Julie Wood, Editor
Laura Roddy, Managing editor
Cory Graham, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Brandi Byram, Business manager
Shauntie Blue, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Valler, Technology coordinator
Monday, October 25, 1999
Seth Jones / KANSAN
Editorials
Higher Education Act makes war on drugs into a war on students
The war on drugs has been waged in this country for years now, and regardless of its previous successes or failures, it now has overstepped its bounds. As part of the Higher Education Act of 1986, students now are ineligible for any type of federal financial aid if they are found guilty of possessing a controlled substance and must complete a rehabilitation program to regain eligibility. Although attempting to solve the drug problem in this country is a laudable goal, it is unclear how this measure does anything to accomplish this goal.
Financial aid penalty singles out drug offenders, punishing those who need higher ed
When attempting to analyze any policy, it is important to weigh the costs and benefits of that policy. The costs of this measure are obvious. Those students who have proven themselves worthy of receiving help with college tuition are punished because of past indiscretions. While this may seem logical, it is crucial
to note that no other felonies are subject to such intense scrutiny. This means that committing murder or rape is seen in a far more favorable light than the heinous crime of drug possession.
What, then, are the benefits of this law? It is hard to say there are any. First, it is doubtful that students consider the consequences of possessing drugs in regard to the future possibility of federal aid for college. Further, the law punishes those students who apparently have turned their lives around. Rather than opening the door to an education that will produce productive citizens, this law puts an obstacle in front of students who want to further their education. Education should not be used as a difficult-to-achieve privilege in the war on drugs, but rather as an obvious solution to the problem. Drug use in this country causes many problems, but are students seeking a college education among them?
In an attempt to remedy this unfair and ineffective statute, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would strike this law from the books. Considering the relevance of this issue to college students, it is important that our voices be heard. Whether it is Student Senate passing legislation or students contacting their representatives in Congress, now is the time to speak up about the inequity present in the Higher Education Act of 1998.
Jeff Engstrom for the editorial board
U.S. Senate keeps nuclear threat alive
The U.S. Senate recently rejected a step to prevent the horrors of nuclear war from ever happening again. The world now will continue to live in the shadow of the nuclear threat and the realities of nuclear destruction from fear and nightmares to human death, suffering and disfigurement.
Two weeks ago, the Senate voted against ratifying a worldwide treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.
In our current situation of dangerously unchecked nuclear proliferation, this would have been a crucial step in the right direction for the world. The prime minister of India, a new nuclear power, state that his
Rejection of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty sends a bad signal to the rest of the world
country would sign the treaty as long as the U.S. did as well. Pakistan, India's political archenemy, would then sign or not sign based on India's action.
enough? We already can end nearly all life on earth several times over. We know definitively how much of which elements need to be imploded to send a hell-rain of fire and radiation down on a large area.
Unfortunately, the majority of Congress stated that the treaty was too much of a compromise of U.S. national defense. We vehemently disagree with this.
No one less than the U.S. joint chiefs of staff and the directors of all the major U.S. weapons labs support the treaty.
President Dwight Eisenhower summed up this situation best in 1961 when he said that not achieving a nuclear test ban treaty would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration — of any decade, of any time and of any party.
Have the billions of dollars spent on nuclear weapons not already been
Kansan staff
Erik Goodman for the editorial board
Chad Bettes ... Editorial
Seth Hoffman ... Associate editorial
Carl Kaminski ... News
Juan H. Heath ... Online
Chris Fickett ... Sports
Brad Hallier ... Associate sports
Nadia Mustafa ... Campus
Heather Woodward ... Campus
Steph Brewer ... Features
Dan Curry ... Associate features
Matt Daugherty ... Photo
Kristi Elliott ... Design, graphics
T.J. Johnson ... Wire
Melody Ard ... Special sections
News editors
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special sections
Thad Crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campus
Will Baxter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional
Jon Schitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National
Danny Pumpelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online sales
Micah Kafitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marketing
Emily Knowles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production
Jenny Weaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production
Matt Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creative
Kelly Heffernan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classified
Juliana Moreira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone
Chad Hale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone
Brad Bolyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone
Amy Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote "Never mistake motion for action." — Ernest Hemingway
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 columns: Should be double-
spacepped with fewer than 700 words.
The writer must be willing to be photo-
graphed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansas reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Chod Bottom, or Seth Hoffman at 864-4924.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924
Perspective
Forget responsibility; insomnia is more fun
Some people would say that being unable to sleep at night is a bad thing. Some would say it's a detriment to a person's sanity. Others say it is physically depleting, causing them to endure headaches, backaches and numerous other physical ailments.
Still others would say that not sleeping decreases a person's productivity. A person who doesn't sleep at night instead will sleep all day, through classes, meetings and anything else that is a positive use of a person's time. They'd also say that someone who is sleep-deprived has his or her creativity completely sapped, an aftereffect of the emotional strain of not sleeping at usual times.
Nick Bartkoski columnist
I say they're mistaken — because for all of these
opinion@kansan.com
"negative" impacts, you also get to watch the finest cable television has to offer.
Back in the 1950s, insomniacs had it rough. When they were up at 4:30 in the morning, all they had to watch was static. Now, thanks to a more civilized system of television programming, those who can't sleep at night are treated to a bevy of quality sitcoms, news and infomercials..
For example, how else could average sports fans watch ESPN's *SportsCenter* three times in the course of three hours? They can't. They have to wait from 6 p.m. all the way until 10 p.m. for another installment. But late night cable provides back to back to back episodes of *SportsCenter*. Miss a section that you are interested in, wait an hour and you can see it again
The benefits don't stop there. Look at MTV. Everyone who foolishly sleeps at night has the same complaint about MTV: It was better when it showed videos. If these people would just wise up and stop sleeping, they'd be able to enjoy the
finest videos made. No of this Total Request Live nonsense. No Carson Daily with the Backstreet Boys. No screaming in Times Square with signs reading "N Sync 4ever." Instead you can see the videos for bands that people older than 15 enjoy.
Plus, you can enjoy all that Nick at Night has to offer. Admittedly on any given night you already will have seen the episode of *The Dick Van Dyke Show* it's showing about 300 times. But it's better to focus on the positive — you can recite along as Mary Tyler Moore cries, "Oh, Rob," and let's face it, at 4:30 in the morning, you should take any conversation you can.
Now some would say the underside of this quality entertainment is infomercials. But really, why suggest infomercials as anything but wonderful chances to see the stars of yesteryear attempting to get people who aren't fully conscious to buy stuff via 1-800 numbers? It wasn't during a normal waking hour that the question, "What ever happened to Judith Light of Who's the Boss fame?" was answered.
Infomercials also serve a purpose similar to the over-repeated sitcoms — they let you have someone to talk to at 4:30 in the morning. It's more dangerous with infomercials, though. I'm personally glad I don't watch TV near a phone as I begin reciting along: "No, I'm not totally satisfied with my life. Yes, I could use more personal power in everyday living. Yes, I do have a credit card..."
So my question to everyone else is: Why are you wasting your life sleeping at night? Come with me, eschew academic progress. Ignore the sense of mental stability found only by getting a good night's sleep. Become irritable and cranky with those you love. Sacrifice all at the altar of the late night cable TV god.
Only three easy installments of $24.95, ship ping and handling not included.
Bartkoski is a Basehor senior in journalism and English.
Pakistani general, GOP part of the same problem
Since the Cold War ended, we almost always don't know where the threats come from until they hit us. Now the world is being threatened once more.
The United States simply doesn't have a single enemy anymore. This fact alone is a serious threat. Americans don't have the Soviet Union and communism to blame for everything.
Times have changed significantly. Superman is no longer fighting Lex Luthor for world supremacy. He is fighting invisible enemies, and those are harder to defeat. Superman is fighting his internal
fears. Kryptonite is now everywhere. It isn't so easy. International politics definitely became a more complicated issue since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The military coup in Pakistan is an example of an invisible threat. It has become common to see military leaders breaking national and international laws and treaties to gain power in their countries. That was OK when it happened in Latin American countries that don't have atomic bombs or
Cássio
Furtado
columnist
opinion @ kansan.com
Many across the border, like Pakistan does. What's worse, the enemy across the border from Pakistan is on its way to becoming the most populous country in the world and also a nuclear power. I'm talking about India.
Pakistan depends heavily on foreign loans from the International Monetary Fund, and these loans ultimately are controlled by the United States. If Pakistan radically changes the status quo, it could
Pakistan has been under a military government since the coup earlier this month headed by General Pervez Musharraf. The new dictator spoke to his nation recently, and he was able to do something that's even worse than giving an end to democracy. He tried to justify why he did it.
He told his people that he was breaking the constitution to save the country. Musharraf said he would end corruption, restore the economy and "true democracy," and allow a free press. Finally, he said he would restore negotiations with India
What strikes me the most is that Musharraf claims that he is trying to save his country. What he forgot is that Pakistan spent 25 of its 52 years under military governments. Pakistan is in bad shape today because of its military.
lose millions of dollars in economic support.
Musharraf is doing this knowing he won't solve any of Pakistan's economic and social problems. He won't solve them because he is in desperate need of money and because he is not a skilled politician. He is doing it for power and because he wants to deal with India. Maybe he thinks Indians will be scared of a military head of state.
Leaders don't care anymore about their people. They care about power. That's happening around the world, and the United States is no exception.
Republicans in Congress also have become a threat to you and me. By not ratifying the nuclear test ban treaty, Congress may have caused other countries to continue developing nuclear capabilities. That's a ridiculous, party-biased and irrational decision.
Republicans don't want it ratified. Why?
Power. That's the word again. Republicans want to win the presidency next year. If this treaty helps the world to be a better place, Republican Gov. George W. Bush may lose his race, and Republicans will take their chances. A bid for the presidency became more important than the lives of billions.
What scares me the most is that one political figure has become indistinguishable from another. I don't see any difference between the Pakistani general and the Republican majority in Congress: Both are sending their countries to the trash can to gain power. The general ended democratic process, the only chance societies have to succeed and achieve common goals.
Musharraf also is playing with India, another huge world power. This eventually could start a widespread world conflict. Republicans are allowing the threats to national security to grow when they can stop them as of today. They are all, in different ways, playing with kryptonite. I hope that the kryptonite doesn't kill us all.
Furtado is a Pelotas, Brazil, junior in journalism.
Feedback
Death penalty not a crime deterrent
In a recent letter, Erik Roesh criticized Erin Simpson as ignorant, while he argued a profoundly ignorant stance on how to prevent handgun violence.
The eye-for-an-eye approach, as he argued for, has never been proven to prevent violent crime. Countless studies have shown that the death penalty does not prevent "senseless violence." I'd challenge anyone to point to a legitimate study that proves a correlation between capital
Most violent crimes are irrational and senseless. The people who commit those acts are not thinking logically and are not going to think about the consequences of their actions, and thus they act senselessly and cannot be affected by so-called logical deterents. Carrying out a televised execution is not only barbaric but will not prevent any crime.
punishment and lower violent crime rates.
Perhaps Mr. Roesh should check his facts the next time he writes
does it, why can't I?). There are many other problems with the death penalty, but the fact that it is not a deterent is enough to question the entire process.
If anything, it will increase violent crime (as some studies have shown) by promoting the message that it is OK to kill (after all, our government
Kyle Browning San Diego, Calif., junior