Opinion The University Daily Kansan
United States First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
THURSDAY NOVEMBER 18 2010
Follow Opinion on Twitter. @kansanopinion
FREE
--decent?
To contribute to Free For All, visit Kansan.com or call (785) 864-0500.
--decent?
I hope Sex on the Hill is as epic as it was my freshman year... but I am not getting my honor
Guys have nipples too!!!!
So tomorrow when I wake up, I better be a Princess or get my acceptance letter to Hogwarts.
--decent?
Why yes, I am wearing silly bandz...thanks for noticing.
--decent?
Double Rainbow all the way across the sky. Yeah, yeaaaahhh. DOUBLE RAINBOW.
--decent?
I just ate so many sandwiches
--decent?
Socks are sooo cuddly. If I could only wear one article of clothing it would definitely he socks!
--decent?
What are the stacks, and why does everyone want to make out in/on them?!
--decent?
What is this Q&A everyone is doing?
--decent?
I didn't think Gwyneth Paltrow could get any hotter.
--decent?
--decent?
Life is a highway... and you just hit a deer.
--decent?
Trix are for kids.
--decent?
Haters go'n hate.
I remember back when I was a freshman, we actually walked to the dorms...imagine that.
--decent?
Western Civ is an abomination.
--decent?
You know you're an architecture student when your Pandora station repeats.
--decent?
I wish I could stay at home and watch Spongebob every
--decent?
That sidewalk by Lindley still hasn't been cleaned yet. How are we ever going to get high school students to come here if we can't look/smell halfway
--midst economic decline and still drowning in campaign debt, President Bush suddenly pulled his support of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. This was a move that, in retrospect, effectively defined his administration's future efforts at curbing global warming; halfhearted and misguided.
I love awkward eye contact.
--midst economic decline and still drowning in campaign debt, President Bush suddenly pulled his support of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. This was a move that, in retrospect, effectively defined his administration's future efforts at curbing global warming; halfhearted and misguided.
Oh winter, what a cruel reminder you are of the fact that I cannot grow a beard.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Progress on climate change still possible in new Congress
Since then, an international agreement on climate change has been a pipe dream. It's time for Obama to reverse the trend and finally allow the United States to be the leader it should have been nine years ago.
The Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. It requires signatory countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a step that scientists agree is a necessary starting point in reversing global warming. Global warming has been proven to disrupt weather patterns, raise sea levels, harm wildlife, and contribute to higher rates of asthma and allergies.
Nearly all industrialized countries have ratified the Protocol, including Japan, most of Europe, Russia, India, and China. The United States which is responsible for just under a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, remains a signatory but has not yet ratified.
President Bush called the Kyoto Protocol "an unrealistic and
BY MEGAN ADAMS
ever-tightening straightbacket," because it put the United States at an economic disadvantage and was far too limiting. In contrast, President Obama stated during his campaign, "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process."
Though it pains me to admit it, President Obama's stance on climate change since the campaign trail has been largely symbolic. And now with exactly half of the Republican newcomers to the new Congress denying human influence on climate change, according to the Center for American Progress, the future looks grim.
The presumptive Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said in April 2009, on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that, "The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical."
However, there are realistic options for the Obama administration that could end our decade-long dry spell on climate change progress. Moving away from the clearly controversial cap-and-trade approach to an energy independence approach is key. President Obama can easily convince the new Congress and the American people of the need for American independence from foreign oil and a renewed focus on alternative energy sources.
Talks on climate change are going to be held in Cancun in December. In between resort-hopping, President Obama should not only be an instrumental part of policy discussions, but also prove to those countries that doubt our intentions that the United States will play a very different role than it did under President Bush.
This is one of the few issues you can be optimistic about with the new Congress. With some reframing of the approach, President Obama can make great progress on climate change. Though we can't take back our nine years of inaction, it is certainly time to turn the page on one of, if not the most, pressing issues of our time.
Adams is a junior from Overland Park in international studies and political science.
EDITORIAL CARTOON
MARIAM SAIFAN
GUEST COLUMN
If you've got nothing useful to say, shut up
According to Nielsen Internet ratings, YouTube was the number one most visited Internet video site in the U.S. during September, totaling over 100 million unique users.
While a statistic like that probably doesn't incite a reaction of shock and awe, one might be interested to know that YouTube beat out the number two most visited site for video content (Facebook) by about 68 million users. I think it's safe to say the average American heads to YouTube for their daily video content fix.
If you're a regular "You Tuber" then I'm sure you've found yourself reading the video comments section, maybe even posting a few words of praise or criticism.
Personally, I've spent a long time avoiding entrance into heated YouTube comment wars. Lately however, I find myself tempted to respond — not so much to the video I just watched but to other user's comments.
As the days grow shorter during these approaching winter months, so does my patience for assholes. Yes, assholes. Last night I watched a really bad music video on YouTube (I'll refrain from inserting song and artist information as not to offend anybody's personal tastes) and was curious to see people's feedback on the video. I knew I hated it but it was critically acclaimed, and I hoped that a quick down scroll would provide
Instead of discovering musical revelations, I found myself reading hundreds of comments endorsing and debating smoking weed and doing other drugs (quoted mentions include "shrooms," "da Tacy" and "oxycotton"). I mean, this song did have drug references — don't get me wrong. But any able-bodied Google user could have easily done a lyrics search and realized that the song wasn't putting the "cool" stamp of approval on drug use but was merely discussing this artist's need for an escape tool (believe me, there weren't any complicated metaphors here). And no, I'm not about to start on an anti-drug rant -- that's not my point and not my place.
me with some insight as to what I was missing. After all, this video had thousands of "thumbs up!"
What I'm saying here is that whatever debate might have existed that was actually pertinent to the song had become buried beneath a slew of personal attacks, copied and pasted Erowid factoids and just dumb arguments (both in defense and in opposition of drugs). Now, technically, I could have saved myself the irritation by simply navigating away from the site. Clearly, drug use is a sore subject for me. Sitting on YouTube and allowing my anxiety to escalate was not the best move.
But alas, once I started it seemed impossible to stop. I read and read and then read some more.
There were moments where I felt my heart drop into the pit of my stomach — especially after reading something along the lines of, "your friend is fucking dumb and he didn't know how shoot up the right way, he deserved to die."
I couldn't help but think, who the hell is the asshole and what propels him/her to take time out of their day to talk that kind of shit? It was moments like this, that went so beyond your "pothead vs. sober guy" debate and endorsements of experimentation in moderation, that it was clear that some people weren't interested in weighing in on the already off-topic issue — they just wanted to be dicks.
It's unfortunate that some people have decided to use the number one video site on the Internet to spread their hate and agenda. The beautiful thing about open forums is that they allow you to express your opinions and discuss issues. Like many good things handed to us on a golden platter, people in our society have managed to take negative advantage of the forum — something that could have been, and may still be, a powerful and useful tool for us to honestly learn from one another.
-From UWIRE. Mary Novokovsky for The Maneater at The University of Missouri.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
DADT makes already hard life unnecessarily difficult
Can you imagine waking up one day and discovering your country does not approve you to get married or serving in the military because you'd rather be kissing Cinderella than the prince? Caroline Bledowski's column from Nov. 15th about DADT reminded me that the fight for gay rights is far from over. I believe everyone deserves the right to marry the person they love, gender be damned. If we keep on saying, "soldiers will worry about the guy they are sleeping next to instead of terrorists if we repeal DADT," we are reinforcing fear, not camaraderie. The military believes in integrity and honesty. I don't see any integrity or honesty in telling soldiers to keep their homosexuality quiet while allowing heterosexuals to freely talk about personal lives. All the homosexuals I know in the military serve just as bravely as their heterosexual counterparts, but they are even lonelier because they can't go out and flirt with someone of
the same sex without the fear of being discharged. The life of a soldier is lonely. Gay soldiers have it worse because they can't talk about their personal lives or to their partners on the same level as heterosexual soldiers. The soldiers I know don't think about whom is sleeping near them. They keep their minds on their mission. If we're so concerned about people of the same sex sleeping together, we should probably fix dormitories too. After all, those are separated into single gender sleeping areas, thus they are more dangerous grounds for homosexual acts to occur. Yes, you could catch "the gay" if sleeping near someone who is gay because every gay person is attracted to every person of the same sex, just like every heterosexual is attracted to every member of the opposite sex. Also, pigs could fly.
Lauren Bornstein is a KU graduate and former Kansan columnist
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Taxes benefit everyone, but not everyone may realize it
When debating incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, challenger Ronald Reagan scored by replying to Carter's arguments with a simple, scornful "There you go again." Though I was no fan of Reagan, I cite him in the wake of another Seth Robinson column that embarrasses its author.
Seth's targets in his 11.11.2010 column are "Obamacare" and the toll it takes on taxpayers. Known for sweeping denunciations of the federal government, Seth outdoes himself "Nobody should be forced to give his or her money away for anything," he proclaims. Taken at face value, this is hard to dispute. But I think Seth really means to say that "Obamacare" exemplifies the twnancy of taxation.
Let's assume Seth's right. Let's also imagine that Congressional Republicans repeal "Obamacare" and override the President's veto. That would still leave lots of forcible confiscation of citizens' hard-earned money unadressed.
Would Seth have the persistence to keep pursuing his ideal? Unlikely, since he benefits from what he calls robbery. Although Seth boasts that private donations helped build KU's
engineering school, he fails to acknowledge that public donations (i.e., tax revenues) help make his education possible
Perhaps Seth doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) that the "Obama stimulus" has provided almost $20 million to KU research; http://www.rgs.ku.edu/leaders/researchstimulus/. Even though he frequents Learned Hall, maybe Seth has missed the billboard near its main entrance. That billboard displays information about how stimulus funds, combined with private sector initiatives, are working to improve the facility where he earns his degree.
Seth denies that opposing "Obamacare" makes him "greedy." That much is true, but his actions tell a different story. If Seth truly believes all taxation is robbery, he must give up his public university privileges and transfer to an institution funded wholly and voluntarily by private donors. So long as he remains at KU, there is no reason to believe that Seth lives up to his stated principle and every reason to believe that he is greedy.
Ray Pence is a lecturer in the American studies department
The code is cracked
Thanks to several sharp Kanans readers, yesterday's code has been cracked. The code says "TO ALL REMNANTS OF THE MATHEMATIKOI YOU ARE NOT ALONE THERE ARE OTHERS JUST LIKE YOU FIND US."
The mathematikoi were the inner circle of followers of Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician.
HOW TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Jake Skimmer, a sophomore from Overland Park in biology, was the first to get us the meaning.
Send letters to Kanansepdesk@mail.com. Write LETTER TO THE EDITOR in the e-mail subject line.
Length: 300 words
The submission should include the author's name, grade and hometown. Find our full letter to the editor policy online at kaanan.com/letters.
CONTACT US
Alex Garrison, editor
864-4810 or agarrison@kansan.com
Nick Gerik, managing editor 864-4810 or ngerik@kansan.com
Erin Brown, managing editor
864-4810 or ebrown@kansan.com
David Cawthon, kansan.com managing editor
864-4810 or dcwthon@kansan.com
Jonathan Shorman, opinion editor
964-4824 or jshorman@kiawan.com
Emily McCoy, Kansan TV assignment editor 864-4810 or emccovin1arsan.com
Shauna Blackmon, associate opinion editor 864-4924 or sblackmon@kansan.com
Joe Garvey, business manager 864-4358 or jgarvey@kansan.com
Amy O'Brien, sales manager
864-4477 or aobrien@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson, general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mgibson@ikansan.com
Jon Schlitl, sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or jschitlk@kansan.com
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Members of the Kansas Editorial Board and Alex Garionic, Nick Gerik, Erin Brown, David Cawthon, Jonathan Shriman and Shauna Blackman.