4
Wednesday, June 8, 1994
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Weapons not needed for rape to be a threat
According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, saying no is no longer enough to claim that a rape was committed. The decision is a ridiculous one.
The court decided that to prove rape a woman must demonstrate that she was physically threatened into having sex, otherwise she can't prove she was raped.
The opinion is shortsighted because it implies that guns, knives or other such threats are necessary for the threat to be physical. Rape is a physical threat and an act of violence whether or not weapons or threats of physical abuse other than the rape itself are involved.
The decision should hinge on whether a woman believes she is in danger. Guns and knives are unnecessary for a woman to feel threatened. The threat of rage is threat enough.
But the court is saying that two crimes must be committed for the one to exist. By requiring that a threat of violence precedes the act of rape, the court is denying the fact that rape is violent in its own right.
Prior to this decision, women had been told that no should be enough, and they had been advised to do little more than say no if they believed their lives were in danger. They were so advised because it was thought to be better to he defiled and degraded tha
No should still be enough.
KATIE GREENWALD FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The Brady Bill, designed to enforce a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns, has recently been caught in a constitutional crossfire. State law enforcement agents around the country have gone to court claiming the Brady Bill's required background checks are unconstitutional. Court rulings on the constitutionality of the bill have been mixed.
Brady Bill endangers Constitution's power
However, the whole issue raises an important point. No bill should circumvent the Constitution no matter how good its intentions.
State officials claim that state enforcement of a federal law violates the 10th Amendment. A Montana federal judge upheld this claim of unconstitutionality. More recently a Texas judge ruled that these state-performed background checks are constitutional.
Legislators briefly discussed 10th Amendment concerns but glossed over the problem by focusing on the Second Amendment and NRA lobbyists.
A plan now starting would provide a federal structure to perform background checks within five years. This would eliminate the constitutionality issue.
The Constitution is a living document capable of change and adaptation. With this in mind, a bill should not be passed when there are obvious Constitutional problems no matter how noble the bill's intentions.
The issue remains a valid concern until then. The Constitution should not be bypassed even for a relatively brief period.
Congress realized the possibility of this 10th Amendment controversy. They ignored it for the most part in the interests of expediency. Now they are getting a deserved taste of the system that keeps our Constitution vital and current.
MATT HOOD FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
DAVID STEWART
Editor
JUDITH STANDLEY Business manager
KATIE GREENWALD
Managing editor
SHELLY McCONNELL Director of client services
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
CATHERINE ELLSWORTH Systems coordinator
Editors
Business Staff
Campus      Roberta Johnson
Editorial    Susan White
Photo       Matt Wood
Graphics    Martin Altascar
Graphics     Dave Campbell
Regional zonemgr ..J.J. Cook
Production mgr ..Emily Gibson
Classified mgr ..Heather Niehaus
Rental zone mgr ..Mindy Blum
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Oklahoma may submit their letters by mail.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kauan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kauan newsroom, 111 Stauffer Flint Hall.
Dissenting opinions add variety vitality to Kansan editorial page
The University Daily Kansan is a student newspaper.
The Kansan is absolutely the best student newspaper.
One of these statements is fact and the other is strictly opinion. This page is the only place in this paper where these sentences can appear together.
The editorial page provides a forum where fact can lead to opinion, and both are expressed in a way that molds ideas and shapes thought.
Just as opinions can change, the Kansan regularly changes its leadership. New editors are picked every semester. In the case of the editorial page, this can mean a whole new slant. As the new editorial page editor for the summer semester, I feel it is part of my responsibility to reiterate the duty of this page as I see it.
Readers may be familiar with some of my opinions. For the past year, I have been expressing opinions in the form of political cartoons. As editor, I still may dip my pen to make a pictorial point, but I'm also responsible for the rest of the page.
This does not mean, however, that all of the opinions expressed on this
page are mine. The viewpoint box, for example, represents the opinions of the paper as a whole. These opinions are decided upon by an editorial board. It is the responsibility of this board to formulate views on current news items.
These editorials are signed by their author, but again, the editorial is not the opinion of just this one individual. It is the majority opinion of the editorial board and thus the opinion of the paper.
Outside the lines of this viewpoint box, majority opinion is no longer a prerequisite. The rest of the page is devoted to the opinions of individuals.
Columnists voice opinions on the tonics of their choice
The cartoonist, as he or she fashions lines and marks into caricatures and captions, is also unrestricted in the opinions that he or she can express.
---
Columnists or cartoonists are also free to completely disagree with what the editorial board had to say in the viewpoint box.
Such a "house divided" usually leads to weakness, but the editorial page defies many of the otherwise accepted laws of dynamics. Here, dissenting opinions add variety and a special kind of strength.
This statement hints at the greatest responsibility of this page. The opinions expressed here, whether they agree with one another or seem contradictory, have one important job. They push beyond the constricted shell of mere facts and figures. This page breathes a new life into the news. It challenges the readers to do more that just read a story. This page, I hope, will make readers think about a story.
This is the final and greatest ingredient of our page: the readers' thoughts.
Without the reader our paper would be pointless. Your thoughts and opinions are vital if this page is to continue to grow.
Part of this page every week will be devoted to your comments. If you have praise for the paper, we will gladly accept your accolades. Often, however, you won't feel like applauding our opinions. It is then that I encourage you, I challenge you, to express your own. Write letters to the editor. You may enlighten us as well as informing your fellow students. It is only when all views are represented that this page deserves its title.
The University Daily Kansan is a student newspaper.
The Kansan is absolutely the best student newspaper.
The second statement is still just opinion, but with the readers' continued support and participation combined with the efforts of the Kansan staff, we can strive to make that opinion a fact.
Matt Hood is an Overland Park Sophomore majoring in Journalism.
War-inspired unity lost in peacetime
I am not a student of war and its ways of killing. I do not pretend to know why battles are fought, victories won, or enemies vanquished.
But I do know peace. I know that this country has seen more peace in my 27 years than when my father or even his father was my age.
All I've learned of war came from a somber visit to Normandy, France a dozen summers ago.
EDITOR
On that overcast day, I began to forever associate war with the 8,000 grave sites blanketing the American war cemetery at Colleby-sur-Mer.
From then on, I never pictured "war" as hardened soldiers, bloodied bodies or gunfire in the distance. For me, the word meant those white crosses on that French field.
Had I spent an entire week reading every grave site, I would not have accounted for all the men left for dead or families left in tears.
The crosses, some marked, many others dignified by anonymity, left me quiet and reflective. I still hated war and its consequences but had gained a new respect for all those who went to fight.
I have never shed those tears myself. A child of the "70s, I came to
see war as evening news folder; the gritty news clips of Vietnam, the live broadcasts of the siege from Panama City and the footage of laser-guided missiles bombing Baghdad.
But these visions will never replace my sense of loss for those American graves in a foreign land.
I sit here today, having known almost exclusively peace during my lifetime. By virtue of history, I must point to "Operation Overlord" as the one of the last and finest efforts by this country to mobilize an entire nation toward a common cause.
In my lifetime of peace, such attitudes toward war, indeed, toward any great effort, have changed. Patriotism fell out of favor for the uneasy trust in pacifism. Our heated battles turned to
cold wars, our conventional warfare to nuclear threats.
With this, public participation, let alone support, for mass movements has diminished. In 50 years, we have moved from outwardly gung ho to "Hell, no! We won't go." But we have confused inaction for discretion, stasis for serenity.
On the battle line and the home front a half a century ago, Americans knew the Allied invasion of Europe was a turning point in the war.
Give me just one issue that the United States can follow through with the unified spirit found in Winston Churchill's mandate: "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall never surrender."
As men fought to gain ground at Utah and Omaha, the nation's church bells rang, people prayed, mothers and fathers held out for news, any news, about their sons who had slogged onto blood-soaked beaches in a desperate search to stay alive.
For better or worse, the nation had a common enemy in Europe during World War II.
But where is the "enemy" today?
Where is the one most pressing problem this nation faces?
Unlike the specter of the Third Reich, the myriad of issues facing us today take on a "fiasco-of-the-week" flavor.
Nearly 8,000 American soldiers in 1944 were unified in their deaths at a small field in northern France. That nearly 250 million American citizens in 1994 remain divided by lack of focus, lack of purpose and lack of reason makes me wonder what those men fought for in the first place.
David Stewart is a Lawrence senior majoring in Journalism.
Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia each hold our collective attention for a while, and then we give up in frustration.
Could we imagine rationing our sugar, rubber, gas, iron, or money, all for a single goal? I find such nobility doubtful in this age.
I find in the half a century since Americans left their marks in blood and stone this country slouching toward aimlessness.
That we have come to hate war and all its evils, I applaud. That we have come to hate responsibility and all its hardships, I regret.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Future marine protests lack of action in Bosnia
I am so sick and tired of hearing the leaders of the U.N. detachment in Bosnia say that there is nothing they can do about the terrorization of the citizens of Gorazde and other Muslim enclaves. What is going on over there is not right. Men are being tortured, women are being raped and little kids are being shot as they try to play in what is left of their towns. Steven Spielberg said that he did not want to show the Nazis using Jewish children as skeet in "Schindler's List" because that image would be too powerful for people to handle. Unfortunately, we have the same thing going on in
Bosnia, but we are too afraid to do anything about it because American lives might be lost. I am going to Marine Corps boot camp this summer, and I would not mind going to Bosnia to stop these atrocities. I am not saying that war is a good thing, but if I were to be killed in a war in Bosnia, I would die knowing that at least I was able to fight back.
Mark Brinkworth
Overland Park freshman
Clinton's foreign policy
fence-sitting must end
We are currently witnessing the perils of employing a president who displays little interest in the management of U.S. foreign policy. Clinton was elected by the American people because of his promise to concentrate on the economy "like a laser beam." This may be fine political rhetoric, but it is a terrible example to set for the rest of the world. The United States cannot act unilaterally to become the world's policeman and ignore the desires of its allies.
Yet President Clinton has apparently decided that he will allow our European allies to formulate U.S. policy in Bosnia and have the United Nations implement it. The president has decided to "propose" a new policy in Bosnia. What is needed are fewer "proposals" and "consultation" and a clear example of
American leadership. The European allies and Russia have heard contradictory statements from the administration. As a result, the policy in Bosnia has been muddled and ineffective. We witnessed the perils of incremental involvement in Vietnam and elsewhere. Now President Clinton should decide whether he wants to become actively engaged in the Bosnian fighting or withdraw totally from the situation and declare that the United States will not become involved. Whatever the decision, the president must show more leadership to the American people and the world than he has shown so far.
Shawn Henessee