4
Tuesday, November 9, 1993
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Pentagon response late in veteran health issue
VIEWPOINT
Pentagon's response to veteran health concerns is too slow. The Pentagon's response to Gulf War veterans' health concerns about their exposure to harmful chemicals was too slow.
Even more disturbing was the Pentagon's acknowledgement of claims by the Czechoslovakian army that it had detected low levels of chemical agents during the 1991 war. This information alone may be inconclusive, but the Pentagon's announcement is belated nonetheless.
Gulf War veterans have had to wait too long for the Pentagon to start a formal investigation. Even if this study points to causes other than exposure to chemical weapons for Gulf War Syndrome, it will be a valuable study for affected veterans and the doctors who have been trying to treat their symptoms.
Before Nov.1, there had been no formal investigations into the veterans' claims of chemical exposure. The Pentagon continued to maintain that there were no chemical weapons attacks or significant exposures to chemicals during the war, even though the health of many veterans had not supported the claim.
Jury selection process does not need alteration
exposure to harmful chemicals was too low. The Pentagon announced Nov. 1 that it would launch an investigation into the possibility that veterans had been exposed to harmful chemicals during the war.
CHRIS REEDY BOT THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The process of jury selection should not be further complicated by sex-based exemptions. Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legality of sexual discrimination in jury selection.
The announcement came two and a half years after the war ended and the veterans' claims first surfaced. Since then, hundreds of veterans have complained about illnesses that they believe are related to their service in the Gulf War. Some veterans have used the term "Gulf War Syndrome" to describe their problems because nobody has discovered what caused them.
Although it may be possible that there is no one cause, the number of complaints has long warranted a more thorough investigation. In one Army company, 85 of the 110 members have reported similar symptoms typical of Gulf War Syndrome.
In 1986, the Supreme Court banned race-based exclusions of potential jurors. This precedent should help dictate the Court's decision. Also, peremptory challenges to remove jurors already allow lawyers some flexibility in jury selection.
The case being reviewed is about an Alabama man who said his rights were violated when an all-female jury decided that he fathered a baby out of wedlock. The jury ruled that the defendant, James E. Bowman, was the child's father, and the judge ordered him to pay child support.
KC TRAUER, Editor
Despite the unusual circumstances in this case, the process of jury selection does not need to be altered unnecessarily. The Supreme Court should not waste any time in ruling that jurors cannot be excluded because of their sex.
Barring jury selection based on sex would slow and complicate an already lengthy process. A tidal wave of appeals and troubles would occur if the Supreme Court rules that jurors can be excluded based on their sex. The last thing the legal system needs is a reason to discriminate in jury selection.
MANNY LOPEZ FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
JOE HARDER, CHRISTINE LAUE Managing editors
KANSAN STAFF
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
Editors
Assistant to the editor ... J.R. Clairborne
News ... Stacy Friedman
Editorial ... Terrilyn McCormick
Campus ... Grove
Sports ... Kristi Fogler
Photo ... Klp Chin, Renze Kneeber
Features ... Erza Wolfe
Graphics ... John Paul Fogel
AMY CASEY
Business manager
AMY STUMBO
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Campus sales mgr ... Ed Schager
Regional Sales mgr ... Jennifer Perrier
National sales mgr ... Jennifer Evenson
Co-op sales mgr ... Blythe Focht
Production mgr ... Jennifer Blowey
Kate Burgese
Marketing director .. Sheilly McConnell
Creative director .. Brian Fusco
Classified mgr. Gretchen Kotterleinich
Business Staff
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 Kansas must include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and never than 200 words. The writer will be photographed.
THE RED CARPET TREATMENT
Like it or not, pornography is a protected form of speech
One of my Shakespeare professor's favorite lines, which occurs in "Love's Labour's Lost," is, "We arrest your word." Though literally meaning that a promise is binding, the words also carry many connotations, especially in today's society. One connotation can be found in a recently published book by University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon. The book, "Only Words," argues that pornography should be illegal. In other words, MacKinnon would like to arrest the "word" of pornography.
MacKinnon argues that not all forms of speech are protected. Sexual harassment, for example, is often verbal (e.g., "Sleep with me and you'll get an 'A'") and is discriminatory. Pornography sets up an oppressor/opressed relationship similar to sexual harassment. Through pornography, MacKinnon claims, men subjugate and eventually rape women. Pornographers' free speech leads to the inequality of the women portrayed in the pornography and to women in general. Thus, the freedom granted in the First Amendment is on a collision course with the equal protection granted in the 14th Amendment. In MacKinnon's opinion, the 14th should prevail.
COLUMNIST
There are at least two major problems with MacKinnon's thesis. The first can be broadly termed "causation." MacKinnon is extremely tentative on whether pornography causes increased violence when she writes, "There is no evidence that pornography does no harm." In fact, studies have been inconclusive. Even the much-criticized Meese Report could not find a definite link. More recent studies have suggested that pornography has a cathartic effect because it releases sexual tension. The rapists MacKinnon tirelessly cites, who were led to their crimes by pornography, have little to do with the millions of people who view or read pornography without raping. MacKinnon's
"blame game" reminds me a bit of the idiotic Beavis and Butt-head controversy.
The second problem lies in definition and application. MacKinnon briefly defines pornography as "graphic sexually explicit materials that subordinate women through pictures or words." In her otherwise problematic book "The Morning After," Katie Roiphe includes a perceptive chapter about MacKinnon. In it, Roiphe recalls asking what MacKinnon would do with "Lolita." MacKinnon said that the novel was about "the tragedy of child abuse" and that if a man committed pedophilia because of the book, it would be because the man misread "Lolita."
Which is exactly the point. Who is to define reading and misreading? What exactly is material that subordinates women? Here MacKinnon makes the same mistake that the Meesee Report did — she goes after easy targets. By focusing on child pornography and "snuff films" (films that show the victim being raped and murdered), MacKinnon misses an important problem: subordinating images in the mainstream media. The covers of Teen and Seventeen feature adolescent girls in sometimes arguably sexual poses. But MacKinnon is not going to win a battle against the media, so why not pick on something easier?
MacKinnon seems to think that pornography is the cause of inequality. If it is not around, women will become equal. But pornography isn't the cause. In Holland, where both pornography and prostitution are legal, the earnings of women are greater compared to men than in this country. In addition, the rape rate is lower than it is here. So does this mean that pornography is a good thing?
Though she overdoes the point, Roiphe rightly portrays MacKinnon in mock deified terms. Ultimately, MacKinnon does seem to want to be God. Her interpretation of a written work is the only correct one; all others are misreads. Her definition of pornography, which is hopelessly vague and nearly impossible to apply, is the only correct one. Such singularity, such a desire to arrest the words of others, is a very scary concept.
Nathan Olsen is a Chicago graduate student in English.
College students must use credit cards responsibly now to avert problems later
"Cash. check or charge?"
Picture this:
The answer for John Doe college student is obvious: charge. As Doe happily purchases a $200 item, he promises himself that he will pay off the bill in a couple of months, even though he knows he doesn't have the money to do so.
Mistake No.1.
COLUMNIST
Despite his financial situation, Doe keeps charging items and pays the credit-card company the minimum payment of $10 a month.
Mistake No.2.
Doe has three credit cards, each one with an annual fee: $20, $30 and $55.
Mistake No. 3.
Mistake No. 3.
By the end of the year, John Doe owes about $260 for the $200 item he purchased, because his credit card has an annual fee of $20 and an annual interest rate of 19.8 percent. And
although Doe had paid a monthly minimum payment of $10, he continued to charge items, which obviously increased his bill instead of decreasing it.
The cycle of long-term debt that credit cards can cause is detrimental to everyone, particularly college students. Upon graduation, John Doe will need a car or housing loan. But if he has a history of bad credit, he will be unable to obtain one.
However, it is possible to use credit
cards responsibly and remain debt-free.
First, don't charge it if you can't pay for it when the bill comes in a month. All credit cards charge their members an annual interest rate for the items that they charge. The most common rate is 19.8 percent. The trick is this: If you don't pay off your bill by the end of the year, you'll owe what you charged, plus 19.8 percent of the purchases. But if the bill is paid off in a month, no interest is added.
Second, if you charge an item and you can't pay it off in a month, don't charge anything else. You can't decrease your bill with minimum monthly payments if you continue to charge other items. Instead, you are falling further and further into debt.
Third, never subscribe to a credit card that has an annual fee. Some credit cards charge their members $20, $30 or even $55 a year. Thus, at the end of the year, you owe what you
charged, plus the annual fee. But why pay someone else $20 to $55 so you can spend your own money?
If you truly have an extra $20 a month to spend, put the money in the bank, let it collect interest, and then buy the items that you want. You'll remain in good credit standing, and you'll be at least $20 richer because you will not owe a credit-card company an annual fee or an annual interest rate. Instead, you will be able to apply the interest your money makes toward your purchases, and you will not have to make monthly payments on them.
Make your money work for you by making your money make money. Then spend it as you wish. Don't make yourself work to spend Visa or MasterCard money.
Tiffany Hurt is a Overland Park senior majoring in English and Journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
76ers don't have a shot at NBA championship
I am writing in regard to Lance Hamby's "Philadelphia will compete for the NBA championship" column. Throughout this particular column, Hamby tried to convince readers that the Philadelphia 76ers have a legitimate chance of winning the NBA championship this year. You've got to be kidding me! The 76ers were the laughing stock of the NBA last season, and I bet nobody was chuckling louder than Charles Barkley. Sir Charles was part of a boneheaded trade that sent him to the Phoenix Suns prior to last season, and he led his Suns to the NBA finals while the 76ers floundered to a 26 and 56 record. Hamby had ridiculously
respectful praise for the 76ers top pick, 7-foot-6 center Shawn Bradley. This weak and feeble 21-year-old has shown throughout this preseason that he will get pushed around all season long by the brushes of the league like Shaq, Alonzo Mourning and Patrick Ewing. In more great off-season moves, the 76ers traded away their best guard Hersey Hawkens and signed center Moses Malone, who is about 10 years past his prime. I guess what I'm trying to say is that out of the 26 other teams in the NBA, at least 20 of them will have better records than the 76ers. As for Mr. Hamby, the next time you have a joke for us, save it for April 1st instead of November 1st.
Jeff Rehfeldt Roselle, Ill., senior
InterVarsity Christians are not oppressors
Last Tuesday, I opened up my Kansan and turned to the editorial page. I was surprised to find out that a column talked about my student organization — InterVarsity Christian Fellowship — and our meeting the previous Thursday on the Christian perspective on homosexuality.
As I read the article I found that I, as a member of InterVarsity, was a fundamentalist oppressor who rejects everyone besides myself (all his words). These are some very harsh words - with very bad connotations — which would be hard for Nathan to justify.
First, when Nathan called us fundamentalists, he categorized us with other stereotypical fundamentalists
(like Phelps, Swaggart and Baker) whom we do not necessarily agree with. We are fundamentalists, so far as we believe in the fundamental ideas of Christianity, but not in the connotations and theology that this term encompasses.
Second, calling InterVarsity members oppressors who reject their dissenters seems to imply that we are fascists. If this is the impression he got from our meeting, I must apologize. He is saying this just because we think we are right, then he is being unfair. I assume Nathan thinks he's right — does that make him an oppressor too?
David Zimmerman
President, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship
-