Friday. January 26, 2001
The University Daily Kansan
Section A·Page 5
Letters to the Editor Story misinterprets changes in musical format at KJHK
The article written about KJHK which appeared on the front page of yesterday's Kansan ("KJHK listeners unsure about format shift") was grossly misleading.
After reading this article, one might have been misled to believe that KJHK has fallen prey to the same Top 40 format shift that strangled the Lazer last year. In fact, there is no chance of KJHK going the way of the Lazer. This misconception is due to the author's failure to define the "format shift" (which was properly defined in a separate article on the second page, surprisingly written by the same person) and incongruous comparison of KJHK to the Lazer, which was perpetuated by statements from students who were clearly misinformed when interviewed.
In truth, this "format shift" on KJHK is simply a commitment to playing three songs an hour by more recognizable artists such as Radiohead, PJ Harvey, Johnny Cash, Outkast, George Harrison, or Superdrag. Such artists are recognized for their artistic credibility but may not receive adequate airplay because of changes in less artistically credible stations such as the Lazer. Thus, KJHK is continuing its tradition of exposing artists who deserve airplay but may not receive it. We are preserving our role as "the sound alternative," not abandoning it
In the future, I hope Kansan staff writers are more careful not to create stories where they don't exist. If there is apprehension about KJHK playing popular music, it will be partly due to this misinforming article that unfortunately graced the front page of yesterday's Kansan.
Richard Gintowt
KJHK disc jockey
Palatine, ill., sophomore
Abortion advocates incorrectly use 'choice' to frame debate
I'd like to comment on the columns regarding abortion in Monday's Kansan.
First, I'd like to applaud Mr. Chamberlain for pointing out the legal objections to the the *Roe v. Wade* decision ("*Roe v. Wade undermines democracy*"). It is important that people realize that there was strong opposition to the decision within the Court itself.
Second, Ms. Murphy ("Maneuvering, violence threaten legal abortions") expresses her consternation that some Americans have continued working against what she says is "a woman's right to choose." The expression used here is one that abortion rights advocates have used in order to set up a straw-man argument that may be easily attacked. Instead of addressing the issue of whether or not abortion kills a human being, they accuse opponents of abortion of being against "choice."
Look at it this way. If we were talking about a 5-year-old instead of a fetus, clearly no one would have any problems with limit or not her child will live. The only difference here is whether or not we will treat an unborn child the same as we do one which has survived through birth. On this topic we may debate, but setting up the debate as being over choice is irresponsible and devious.
Brian Thomas Lawrence graduate student
Abortion prevents problems, is a vital part of femininity
Upon reading the editorial focusing on the Roe w. Wade court decision of 1973, and the need for a subsequent revision of the case, I
was horrified by Ms. Laird's ill-conceived notions pertaining to the effects of the case ("Legal abortions foster social irresponsibility," Wednesday).
Her belief that, mentally, men and women simply cannot handle stress nearly as well as before Roe v. Wade is preposterous. As for the percentage she graced us with on the reported cases of child abuse since 1973, I'm curious if those numbers had already begun to rise, with or without the Supreme Court's ruling. Furthermore, as is the case with most crimes, numbers tend to rise over time. If she chooses to keep her argument from being as one-sided as it is, perhaps she will look up the percentage of murders on the whole from 1973 to present. Why do I believe that number is likely to be as large? My greatest issue with Laird's editorial is her persistent blame of society's woes on one court decision. ...
Furthermore, although there was no problem pointing out the painful repercussions of having an abortion, she also failed to point out the possible implications of denying a woman a safe abortion. Despite some stance pro-lifers' belief that a woman gets what she deserves, does a woman deserve a back alley and a hanger? ... Please excuse my harsh rebuttal if I am wrong about my body being an issue of personal liberty.
Liberty is something I believe we take for granted in this country. With that, I also believe many see this world as being better than it is. In spite of the fact that Laird points to all the evils, all of course made possible by Roe v. Wade, she begins to linger on sisterhood and the beauty of motherhood, which we should support both emotionally and financially. As a feminist, a woman, and I hope one day, a mother, I can agree with her statement, but only to a point. How is it that my duty as a sister becomes being mother to all those girls unable to accept responsibility for their actions? My open arms can open only so wide.
Not only do I find fault with her pleas of women to embrace the "fallen" but also her conviction that our society brands and manipulates. She believes we see these children as an inconvenience, and she's right. I will not bear the brunt of raising a child with money I don't have in order to pay for thousands of children who were not wanted to begin with. I accept that people make mistakes; however, I do not accept someone forcing me to "mother" through welfare and other means children who neither the mother nor father would likely have anything to do with.
Ultimately, the argument she makes for a woman's strenght lying in her femininity is something I believe wholeheartedly. Bearing children is a gift a man will never know and something beautiful that I will look forward to with awesome anticipation. Yet Laird is confusing the strength we gain through motherhood with the strenght we women have by being citizens of this country. Although a woman may be pro-life, she is not shunning that femininity. Instead, she is embracing her constitutional rights and that personal liberty that so many would like to take away.
Ilana Reichman Boca Raton, Fla., junior
Editorial's implied similarities between rape, abortion false
I am writing in response to Katie Laird's editorial. How dare you compare abortion to rape. The two are not even comparable experiences. The most obvious point: Women choose to have abortions, they do not choose to be raped. Women are not held down against their will and brutally attacked during an abortion. I suggest you actually talk with someone who has been raped then think about the scars that a woman suffers, for life.
Women are able to recover after an unwanted pregnancy and live the lives they set forth to live. Women have abortions for reasons that vary, such as interference with ability to work and support themselves, finances, problems with spouse or partner, and not wanting to be a single parent. According to a report issued by the Center for Disease Control in 1988, about 16,000 women have abortions each year because they became pregnant after rape or incest.
You ask what good comes from abortions?
Are you really so naive to think that Roe v. Wade is responsible for society's downfalls? Access to semi-automatic weapons, inadequate education — these are issues that negatively affect society. As for your child abuse argument, don't you think that the incidence of child abuse would rise because of parents forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy and birth?
I have a question: Are you saying that women who aren't feminine or can't have children are not strong women? A woman's strength is not in these things. A woman's strength lies in the fact that she can do whatever she wants to do, and no one should be able to tell her she can't.
Cathy Eaton Anthony senior
Supreme Court forced public to swallow its opinion in Roe
The letter "Supreme Court didn't overstep its bounds in Roe v. Wade ruling" (Letters to the Editor, Tuesday) missed the point in the debate about abortion. The issue is about whether the fetus is a life.
This issue comes down to personal opinion on the state of the fetus. Without scientific evidence, this issue is a matter of opinion rather than fact, and people express their opinion in our government is by voting for legislators who create laws. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade enacted the opinion that a fetus is not a life without scientific evidence or constitutional basis. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by ruling that the states can't create laws restricting abortion, despite that some states have a majority of people who believe that abortion is murder.
The situation would be the same if the Supreme Court stopped states from allowing abortions in states where the majority of people believe that abortion is a woman's right. Without scientific evidence or constitutional basis regarding the state of the fetus, the Supreme Court ruled without any basis other than its own personal opinion. The Supreme Court denied the rights of people to govern themselves, therefore undermining democracy.
John Stowell
Omaha, Neb., junior
Anti-abortion advertisement hurts Kansan's objectivity
I am writing in regard to the advertising supplement that was inserted into the Kansan on Tuesday. It is one thing to be unwillingly swept up into a presidential term that I completely disagree with; it is quite another to witness the apparent poisoning of the "non-biased" outlet of free speech at our University. In my previous experience, I have found that newspapers have discretion as to what ads they will place. It would seem rational that the Kansan would have this same discretion, although it was apparently not exercised so far as this abortion scare-tactic insert. What about considering the other side of this issue?
well as everyone reading this, paid for with our student fees? Doesn't accepting an ad that is this blatant, biased and one-sided violate some principle of media ethics, such as that the media is there to be a source of information without bias? It was my understanding that media in general, as well as the Kansan, are there to provide accurate, unbiased, informative, correct information.
Would the Kansan ever run an eight-page Planned Parenthood insert (even though they removed their name from their ad for the "Sex on the Hill" issue — hmm, isn't that interesting?) Would they be willing to fund one to make up for the unfortunate content displayed in today's paper, that I as
Obviously the income generated by this glossy red herring is more important to the staff at the Kansan, rather than preserving an informative, unbiased image.
Carrie Gray Portland, Ore., senior
Removal of ad supplement damaged freedom of speech
On Tuesday, I witnessed two women removing all the pro-life inserts from the Kansans in the box across from Fraser Hall. When I asked them why they were removing them, they explained that they were preventing the inserts from falling on the ground and creating litter — a flat-out lie from two misguided (and downright underhanded) pro-choice "activists."
A pro-life organization paid good money to have those inserts put into the Kansans, and that organization was perfectly within its rights to do this. The two women, however, were breaking the law by removing the inserts.
Although I'm sure these "activists" thought they were doing good, in reality they were undermining what all Americans, pro-life and pro-choice alike, hold dear: freedom of speech. If those two women didn't like what the pro-life inserts said, they should have written and had published their own inserts (or found a pro-choice organization that would). To resort to guerrilla tactics such as theirs is disgraceful.
Carrie Johnson Oklahoma City senior
People should halt hollow talk base opinions on study of facts
People fail to realize that ideological differences breed dissent. All talk of "bipartisan-ship" and "unity," especially following an election such as November's, is nothing more than scapegoating. No mandate was established by any of our country's political parties, period (48 percent for Gore, 48 percent for Bush, 3 percent for Nader, no majority), and so we are divided. The Republicans want to make the Democrats look bad; the Democrats want to make the Republicans look bad and make the Greens look worse (Ralph Nader lost the election for AI Gore?); and the Greens just want in the fight. Politics is about compromise, but when very fundamental beliefs (including concepts of ethical behavior) are at stake in the compromise, don't expect much to happen.
I am tired of people talking about "bleeding heart liberals" and "right wing extremists" as well. Express your own opinion, but do not use slurs to invalidate others' opinions. Use facts. What is it about liberals that gives them a "bleeding hearts"? Liberals and Democrats aren't even the same thing. There are many conservative Democrats. Some people on the right are very liberal, and quite far from being "extremists," and Republicans. Why exactly did Greens "owe" their votes to Gore? Try looking up all these words to see what they actually mean. Use them correctly.
If you aren't extremely well-informed about an issue, please do not speak at all. The world is too full of demagogues and propagandists that confuse issues. As tempting as it may be to deceive others into sharing your point of view, it is not constructive. You can only educate yourself.
Cooper Priess St. Charles, Mo., senior
Cooper Priess
804 Massachusetts St.
Lawrence, Kansas
(785) 843-5000
4:45 7:15 9:40
BARGAIN MATINEES INDICATED BY ()
STADium SEATING • ALL DIGITAL
1 Cast Away 10:30 (1:00)
2 10 Days 10:30 (1:15)
3 What Want Women 10:30 (1:10)
4 Sugar And Spice 10:30 (2:00)
5 The Wedding Planner 10:30 (1:55)
6 Finding Forrester 10:30 (1:15)
7 Snatch 10:30 (1:35)
8 Traffic 10:30 (1:00)
9 Save the Last Dance 10:30 (1:30)
10 The Females New Guests 10:30 (4:20)
Sat & Sun Daily
1 Antitrust $^{90,23}$ (1:50) 4.35) 7.05; 9:35
2 The Family Man $^{90,23}$ (1:45) 4.30) 7.05; 9:30
3 The Gift $^a$ (1:50) 4.35) 7.05; 9:35
4 Double Take $^{90,23}$ (1:55) 4.40) 7.10; 9:40
5 The Pledge $^{90,23}$ (1:45) 4.30) 7.00; 9:40
6 Chocolat $^{90,23}$ (1:45) 4.40) 7.10; 9:40
NO VISIT PASSES & SCAVERS
SHOW TIMES FOR TODAY ONLY
Photo ID required for R movies
Pregnant?
Birthright can help 1-800-550 4900
FREE AND CONFIDENTIAL PREGNANCY TESTS AND REFERRALS
811 NEW HAMPSHIRE • 838-3030
- OPEN FOR LUNCH AND DINNER MON-FRI -
DINNER SERVICE SAT • CLOSED SUNDAY
AUDITIONS! For Singers & Dancers
Worlds of Fun is searching for the Midwest's most talented entertainers for our spectacular 2001 season of shows. We're looking for performers who thrive on the cheers and applause of the more than 1 million guests visiting Worlds of Fun each year. Performing at Worlds of Fun is FUN and can be that important First Step toward a professional career. Performers who work the entire season (six days per week in the summer and weekends in the spring & fall) can earn OVER $8000 in wages and bonuses.
AUDITION INSTRUCTIONS
YOU MUST PROVIDE YOUR OWN ACCOMPANIMENT whether it be a pianist, cassette tape or CD. We will provide a cassette deck and a piano. A cappella auditions will not be accepted. We are not auditioning bands, solo instrumentalists or dramatic actors.
KANSAS CITY, MO
February 11
Park Place Hotel
(Off Front St. al-43)
Registration: 9-2
*Singers*, please sing one verse and the chorus of two contrasting styles of song: one up-tempo and one ballad. Sing any type of music you enjoy, such as rock, gospel, show tunes, etc. (No rap.) Please limit your audition to no more than three minutes. *Dancers*, please prepare a jazz routine (no longer than two minutes) and one song to sing.
MARVILLE, MO
Tuesday, February 6
Northwest MO State
Charles Johnson Theater
Registration: 3 - 5
AUDITION LOCATIONS
LINCOLN, NE
Thursday, February 8
University of Nebraska
NE Union - Ballroom
Registration 3-5
WARRENSBURG, M.
Monday, February 12
CMSU
Union - Room 236
Registration: 3-5
For more information, contact the Live Entertainment Department at:
816.303.5015
www.worldsofun.com
LAWRENCE, KS
Tuesday, February 13
Kansas University
Kansas Union - KS Room
Registration: 3 - 5
---