| Cultural
Diversity We're all just dust in the wind Beavis and Butthead really don't suck |
|
|
Cultural
diversity
We're all just
dust in the wind
Viewpoint
by Matt Bielejeski
Columnist
I saw something the other day which intrigued me. This happening is no great feat, mind you, but nonetheless, it made me stop and take a second look. On one of the multitudes of bulletin boards on campus, I saw a flier that read:
"If we could shrink the Earth’s population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:
There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western hemisphere (North and South) and eight Africans. Fifty-one would be female, 49 would be male. Seventy would be non-white, 30 white. Seventy would be non-Christian, 30 Christian. Fifty percent of the entire world’s wealth would be in the hands of only six people and all six would be citizens of the United States. Eighty would live in sub-standard housing. Seventy would be unable to read. Fifty would suffer from malnutrition. One would be near death, one would be near birth. Only one would have a college education. No one would own a computer."
Makes you feel kind of small, doesn’t it? My reaction was the same. It made me realize that here on the Appalachian campus in tiny little Boone, North Carolina, we are only a tiny part of the immense world out there.
Now the gender differentiation I can buy, as well as the racial ratios; but c’mon, six U.S. citizens having 50 percent of the world’s wealth???
Sad but true. We live in a nation that is quite a distance away from any other nation in prosperity, literacy, and technology. Other nations may have a few of these aspects, but none has the combination of success that the U.S. has. Even with the technology we have here in the U.S., it is not enough to make a serious impact in the global community, or at least not enough to let one person own a computer.
The latter part of the article really makes me appreciate being a college student. The fact that only one person would have a college education is very scary, considering that among the six rich people worldwide, the college graduate might not be among them.
OK, now that I’ve put the U.S. on some grand pedestal among the nations of the world, it’s time to bring it crashing down. Although most of the statistics I discovered were for 1993, they still paint a scary picture of the nation we live in.
Most of them have gotten worse with the passing of three years. With the aid of our oh-so valuable Carol Grotnes Belk Library, I found that in 1993:
National welfare (which includes federal, state and local aid) came to $1,165 (in millions of dollars)
there were 5,660 criminal offenses per 100,000 people.
It’s stats like these that really make me wonder: is the U.S. really the best place to live in the world?
Yes, in the global community; but as a nation looking inward at ourselves, we are doing pretty poor.
My point to all of this (and yes, I do have one) is that some of these statistics are staggeringly sad. With a crime rate as high as it is, who can feel safe walking down a street in a large city at night alone, much less on our campus?
In a nation of wealth, power and technology, we have grave problems. The thing is, most of these problems are fixable. Through community organizations, schools and churches, we can do something about it.
I know I sound like a politician trying to get your vote, but I’m not. It’s just sad to see that we live in a nation that ranks so great globally, but so poor within itself. Granted, I’m not ready to join the Peace Corps, but I want to do what I can to help. How about you?
[back]
Beavis and Butthead really don't suck
My Turn
by Daniel Bothun
Columnist
"Beavis and Butthead" has been criticized ever since its debut on MTV. The show is often criticized for being too violent, containing adult situations, and having somewhat graphic language. Basically, the cartoon is being held responsible for everything that’s wrong with American society.
Critics of "Beavis and Butthead" consist mainly of two types: politicians and religious leaders. I am not surprised when politicians criticize the show, as they are experts at blaming things. Republicans blame Democrats for not having a balanced budget, Democrats blame Republicans for the government shutdowns.
I don’t know why some religious leaders criticize the show, because Beavis and Butthead obviously believe in God. That fact is apparent when the teens watch videos by the Jesus and Mary Chain. I guess that religious leaders are just appealing to their target audience, who are quite often bigots.
Although the show has been reproached various times by several people, it was especially reproached during the fire controversy. For those who don’t remember, Beavis used to say the word "fire" more than the Ohio Players did in the 70’s.
Beavis was allowed to keep saying "fire" until some stupid, unsupervised child grabbed a lighter and lit his bed on fire, trying to emulate the characters on the show. His two-year-old sister died in the blaze, which prompted his mother to blame the show for the so-called tragedy. MTV was pretty much forced to remove all fire references from the show.
Cases like this make me wonder how an incredibly irresponsible parent like that can blame a television show for her own mistakes. The woman made three mistakes that I can see.
The first mistake the mother made is to let her son have access to her lighter. The second mistake regards smoke detectors. The smoke detectors either worked and generated no response from the little girl, or didn’t work. The third mistake is the mother not telling her kids what is real and what isn’t. Children who cannot distinguish reality from fiction aren’t going to live long in this society. They’ll probably end up lying down in the middle of a busy highway or retrieving carts in the middle of a violent thunderstorm.
Many people, who criticize the show for various reasons, have obviously not watched the show. If these people watched at least one episode in its entirety, they would realize that there is a deeper level to the show.
This deeper level of the show, in my opinion, is satire. This cartoon satirizes the world as we know it. Trailer park residents, militant feminists, PE teachers, hippies, salesmen, and even critics of the show are just a few of the people that are satirized.
There are many examples of the use of social satire in the show. The episode where Beavis and Butthead are dreaming is the best example I can think of.
In this episode, the protagonists spend the day sleeping instead of going to school. In one of the dreams, Beavis and Butthead appear on the Brady Bunch show. The theme song of the Brady Bunch was changed something to effect of: "Here’s a story of a guy named Butthead, who was horny for three very lovely girls. Then along came, some guy named Beavis, and he was horny too."
Critics should realize that this show is satirical, and should not be taken literally. Beavis and Butthead are not real teenagers, they are fake. Real teenagers would not make references to "My Three Sons of bitches," Jerry Lee Lewis, or Tito Jackson. This cartoon is fiction, which is something that some people just don’t seem to understand.
[back]
Smoke
this!
All drugs should
be legalized
Mike Daniels
Sports Editor
Did you ever hear the old saying "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you?" It’s a good cliché that I think carries a lot of weight in today’s world.
This saying doesn’t just include being nice to strangers on the street and always leaving a big tip at restaurants. It also includes knowing when not to interfere in things that you would not want other people interfering in if it were you.
A prime example; the U.S. government telling people what substances they can and cannot put into their own body. Substances such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana and others.
Let me make sure I’m crystal clear about this; the only person who has a right to tell me what I’m going to do with my own body is me. Period.
Personally, I don’t see how any government can guarantee "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in its Constitution and then makes laws to prevent people for achieving this, can be called an even half-decent democracy. It’s more like the greatest hypocrisy in the world.
I don’t understand how a government can legitimately tell people it’s okay for them to roll up one kind of plant in a piece of paper and smoke it (tobacco), but not another (marijuana). Apparently some higher power has decreed that the harmful affects of tobacco are acceptable but the harmful affects of pot are not.
Part of the problem is this so-called "moral majority" who think that it’s their god-given right to enforce their morals on everyone. I don’t know where these people get the idea that just because they don’t do drugs (or at least say they don’t) that nobody else should be allowed to either.
In some religions doing drugs is very important for ceremonial purposes. But I suppose since those religions are minorities in this country, their opinions should not count.
Another reason that pot and other drugs are kept illegal is because of the special interest money coming in from alcohol and pharmaceutical companies to keep it that way. It is well-proven that cannabis, heroin and other illegal drugs can have many positive uses in the medical world. Yet because there are big corporations who would lose money if more people became pot-heads instead of pill-popping alcoholics, money continues to be funded towards government anti-drug propaganda and the "war on drugs."
Of course these companies don’t really care about all of the brutal crime that could be eliminated if drugs were made legal. Making the streets safer never got anybody rich, did it?
If drugs (all of them) were made legal there wouldn’t have to be crack houses and drug blocks in cities anymore. You could move the drugs into the drugstores where they belong and regulate the sale of drugs to minors. The drugs could also be carefully screened during production to make sure they are not being tampered with and added to, essentially letting the buyer know exactly what it is they’re getting.
Remember that scene in Pulp Fiction where Uma Thurman’s character has the heroin with a little more kick than she expected and almost died. Well if that heroin had been in a marked bottle that would have said what it was and how strong it was on the label instead of a clear plastic bag, she might not have had to require an adrenaline needle to be jabbed into her chest.
Now, unlike many people who fight for the legalization of drugs, I’m not just going to write a column in support of the legalization of pot and praise its values. That would go against everything I believe in and be just as hypocritical as thinking alcohol should legal but LSD shouldn’t.
And I’ll come right out and say that I think smoking, in any form, is disgusting and pointless, and is something I would never do. And if I ever have kids and catch them doing drugs I will discipline them so harshly that they would be afraid to even carry a book of matches around near me. And if I did drugs my dad would do the same to me. Yet that has never changed my view that it is each person’s choice as to whether or not they want to do drugs.
In this world every person has one possession that is theirs to own for as long as they live that nobody can take away from them, and that is their body.
Whatever they want to do with it or put into it is up to them and nobody else. And that is why there continues to be a debate about the legalization of drugs in this country.
Whether they do drugs or not everybody knows this is right, some of them are just to afraid or too sold-out to admit it.
[back]
SGA up to par
With the first half of the school year just about over, it is time to take a look at the Student Government Association and their accomplishments thus far. After all, SGA is the body which controls much of what happens concerning students at ASU.
One of the goals attained early this semester is the implemenatation of the Operation Outreach program. This program provides an opportunity for students to voice their concerns to SGA representatives so that issues can be taken back to SGA sessions for discussion.
SGA has also sent out letters and solicited responses to clubs and organizations and provided an e-mail address for such input at SGA@APPSTATE.EDU.
This has proven to be an adequate system for students to interact with and voice their concerns to SGA. Putting SGA online is a great way to solicit student input and adress issues publicly.
Also in the area of computers, SGA has also held a computer information session during which campus computer lab assistants showed students how to use the VAX e–mail system as well as how to take advantage of other computer systems on campus.
SGA has also held two interactive forums providing students access to administrators and faculty experts on issues such as student fees and a safety forum.
One of the main focuses of the current administration is campus safety and awareness. Besides the safety forum, the Walk for Awareness was organized by SGA and a bill was recently passed to allow Mountaineer Escort to be turned over to campus security. This should allow the service to run more efficiently and reliably.
The future addition of audible alarms on the blue-light system located throughout campus and better lighting for the Appalachian Heights and Mountaineer Apartment complexes are other examples of the effective accomplishments in the area of safety this semester.
Some of the smaller but more relevant accomplishments that affect students day to day, are the call-waiting system in the residence halls and the student discount cards.
Call-waiting was implemented before students returned to school in August and the discount card may be used at local businesses and restaurants throughout Boone.
Finally, SGA has written legislation for an Academic Integrity Policy. If it passes, it will promote a higher level of academic policy enforcement which will boost academic integrity overall.
Overall, SGA has done an adequate job, with more accomplishments than past administrations at this point in the year. The staff is courteous and more accessible than last year’s administration, and this allows SGA to accomplish its most important goal; to be the voice of the students.
We challenge SGA to keep up the good work and keep up their level of success next semester.
[back]
What is Joy Stanley, stoned?
Letter to the Editor,
When tobacco is to blame for more than 400,000 American deaths per year, and alcohol claims the lives of at least 150,000 more, I find it unusual that Joy Stanley, in her story "Where were you while we were getting high?" could fill the bottom half of the opinion page with her unfounded rhetoric about marijuana and its possible dangers.
Her first real attack at cannabis came with the familiar accusation that marijuana smoke "contains the same cancer-producing chemicals as tobacco smoke." That statement shows an obvious ignorance on her behalf since there has never been a documented case of lung cancer from marijuana smoking. On the contrary, cannabis smoke happens to be nature’s best bronchial dilator. There is one more thing that needs to be addressed, and that is her conclusion that if marijuana were legalized then "the money used on programs and campaigns against the drug would be wasted." Better research on her behalf would have revealed that half of the money received by anti-marijuana groups (i.e. DARE, Partnership for a Drug Free America, etc.) is given by pharmaceutical companies protecting their monopoly on legal drugs. It is estimated that anywhere between 20 to 50 percent of prescription medicines could be replaced if crude cannabis was legal. The other half of the money comes from various alcohol producers and a federal VISTA agency. These are examples of the "special interest" groups that invest money, not to keep our kids from becoming potheads, but to insure their own financial success, and in the process making sure our kids remain pill popping alcoholics.
Andrew Harley
ASU Box 6138
Letter to the Editor,
I am writing in response to the article by Joy Stanley, November 12, titled "Where were you while we were getting high." I must admit, her article really got under my skin. Did any research go into that article? Apparently not.
Her first paragraph was very amusing indeed. She states, and I quote, "Tobacco and marijuana are two different substances, and that’s the reason why marijuana should not be legalized." Why, because they are two different substances? Tobacco and metal chairs are two different substances, what is your point?
She continues, saying pot contains the same cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco. I thought she said they were two different substances? What was that old saying? In 10,000 years, no one’s death has ever been linked to marijuana. The same cannot be said of tobacco, period.
One other little tidbit about cigarettes is the fact that they are incredibly addictive. To make matters worse, it is a physical addiction, like cocaine, heroine (sic), and crack. Pot is merely a psychological one.
Stanley goes on to say, "The high usually reaches a peak in an hour, and wears off in about two." What’s she talking about, acid? Pot reaches its peak in about two minutes.
A high GPA is unattainable if you smoke weed, right? Wrong again, Stanley. Your arguments are just plain ignorant! What government propaganda have you been reading? No educated person could believe this article.
Another moronic statement appeared toward the end of her enlightening article. "Then we wonder why we are so much slower than all of the other countries." God, I want to scream! I was under the impression that we were the standard by which everything else was measured.
Stanley is also under the impression that our government gives a sh-t about us. Hello, our government is as corrupt as they come. Our president smoked it, which is why I voted for him. Anyone who will smoke it, then deny inhaling it, is my choice. In the future, if you know nothing about it, do the world a favor and don’t write about it.
Todd Goodman
ASU Box 18232
Letter to the Editor,
Forgive my lack of tact, but you have swallowed a big bundle of anti-pot propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The question you pose, "If pot was not harmful, then why did they make it illegal in the first place?" shows a lack of understanding about them (the government). You assume that they had a legitimate reason for banning marijuana, but you don’t seem to know that it was. I don’t know what the reason was either. I have yet to find an acceptable argument for pot being illegal. It wasn’t banned for medical reasons. In 1937 (when marijuana prohibition began) tobacco was not considered a health risk. How could anyone condemn marijuana medically and neglect to mention tobacco kills? Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of cigarettes and the poisons they contain.
On to more personal things. I don’t consider myself wasted, unproductive, unintelligent, or weak yet I smoke pot every day. I also have a 3.67 GPA, a double major, a steady job and an intuitive mind. I vote, pay my bills, pay my taxes and believe in God, but still get stoned. To me the question of marijuana is not one of decadence or a desire to ruin my generation. It is a question of personal freedom.
Who is Uncle Sam to tell me which drug I can possess? It has never been proven that cannabis is a killer. I cannot say the same for (government subsidized) tobacco. So, next time you think about the trouble I go through in order to get high, ponder this: Why does our own government, founded on the priciples of freedom and independence, pay for us to become enslaved? I smoke pot because of the radical idea that personal freedom is more important than blind patriotism.
Red eyed and defiant,
Ian Pawlowski
ASU Box 16599
Letter to the Editor,
This is a response to the article, "Where were you while we were getting high?" by Joy Stanley in the November l2 issue. First of all, I can’t understand how any institution for higher learning could print such a misinformed crock as this article. It starts out, "Tobacco and marijuana are two different substances, and that's the reason marijuana should not be legalized." Fact: Tobacco smoking kills more people each year than AIDS, heroin, crack, cocaine, alcohol, car accidents, fire, and murder combined. Marijuana can’t be attributed to one single death. In fact, marijuana has long-recognized medicinal value for easing pain, relieving stress and treating illnesses from glaucoma, asthma, nausea, and ironically even in cancer therapy. Hemp fibers and pulp can be used for fabrics, fuel, and paper.
"If pot was not harmful, then why did they make it illegal in the first place?" To answer your question, loy, (sic) as much as we would all like to think that our government bases all laws on the public’s safety, I think we all know deep down that this is not true. The unfortunate reality is that many laws are made to protect corporate interest (i.e.Salvage Rider), and the almighty dollar for certain people. The fact is that Marijuana prohibition can be traced back to corporate greed, in the same way that environmental degradation today. It’s a long, but interesting story, however I’ll sum it up. These corporate bullies along with the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh (DuPont’s chief financial backer) bought their way into the government. Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank happened to be Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury, and in 1931 appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger to the head of the newly reorganized Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The rest is history so to speak, and the way these corporate crooks are destroying the very environment we depend on for survival, we’ll soon be history as well.
Joy, I don’t mean to attack you, I just believe that to misinform people by distorting the truth or by writing about something you obviously know nothing about is wrong and only adds ignorance to a society that already has enough. In your article you also claim that marijuana contains the same cancer-producing chemicals as tobacco smoke- NOT TRUE, look it up. You also claim that it’s an addictive drug, which hasn’t been proven despite the hard effort to do so. I think that television is far more addictive and causes more "unmotivation" than marijuana ever could. Another fact, marijuana doesn’t kill brain cells, but forms a gel-like substance around them which slows them down, but which also disappears with discontinued use of the herb. Who’s to say that slowing down a little, and giving ourselves time to think before we act, couldn’t be a good thing for a culture of our overconsumption "addiction" to have?
Heath Moody
ASU Box 15948
[back]
A letter from Joy
Letter to the Editor,
This one goes out to the ones I love, or the ones who hate me. To the people who call my room and leave nasty messages, I’d just like to say thanks.
The reason I say thanks is because you are only making me more determined to keep writing the type of columns I’m writing now.
The best part about it is, I’m being persecuted in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ. "Not only so, but we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope." -Romans 5:3,4
You may hate me and the articles I write, but I could care less. I care about people, and I am concerned about where their souls are going to be for eternity.
So, whatever ugly, hateful messages you have to leave for me, go ahead. You are only wasting your time, and your breath to do that.
It will not keep me from writing, it will not change my beliefs, and it will definitely not make me start hating you.
In your eyes I may be the worst columnist in the world, but I am not living my life to please you or anyone else. If that were so, I would never be happy with myself, because I cannot live my life trying to be accepted by everyone.
I am living my life to please and serve God, which is a lot better than trying to please everyone else who wants me to change for them. "When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him." -Proverbs 16:7
Maybe the next time you will show that you are a lot smarter, by writing and sending your comments to the paper.
"What will people think when they hear that I’m a Jesus Freak? What will people do when they find out it’s true? I don’t really care if they label me a Jesus Freak-cause there ain’t no disguising the truth."
-DC Talk, Christian alternative rock band
Joy Stanley
ASU Box 11747
[back]
Hutton needs to be more positive
Letter to the Editor,
I am a student here at Appalachian State University and a regular reader of The Appalachian. I would like to express my concern in regard to the editorial section of your paper. The editorial section of a newspaper is, in my opinion, a very sacred part of any publication. Editorials are the only chance reporters or writers have to express their opinions and concerns. Journalistic style requires reporters to remain objective and keep opinion and bias out of news stories. For this reason the editorial section is the only bit of freedom the press has to speak their minds.
However, upon reading many of your editorials through the semester I am constantly amazed at what is published. Many of your editorials not only focus on negative issues, but they also offend many students and faculty members here at Appalachian State. We must keep in mind that this is our paper, and it is not limited to the few students who write for the paper.
I don’t understand why many of the editorials written must focus on offending people. For example, editorialist Bob Hutton has written more than a few editorials that have no other purpose than to offend people. The purpose of an editorial is not to offend as many people as possible. When Mr. Hutton calls our valuable clubs and organizations "insipid" for no apparent reason, it is extremely offensive to those of us who are trying to make a positive difference.
Of course all editorials are going to offend some people because there are always two sides to every story. That is different from writing an editorial for the sole purpose of making people angry. I think Mr. Hutton is an excellent writer and he has much talent and promise, but does everything he writes have to be so negative? For once, I would like to see some praise around here because nobody wants to hear complaints all the time. There are many great aspects to our community that all too often go unrecognized. I appreciate your opinion, and I am glad to listen to what you have to say. But instead of adding to all the negative energy in the world, it would be nice to hear something positive for once.
Sincerely,
John L.Nicholson
ASU Box 21436
[back]
Goodman should appreciate job
Letter to the Editor,
I am writing concerning the article, "Are temp services prostitution?" written by Todd Goodman. Todd wanted a non-structured job. That’s exactly what he got. He worked the hours he wanted, and was paid accordingly.
Todd also expects me to feel sorry for him. I not sure why, he was paid $28 for 6.5 hours of work, that’s $4.30 an hour after taxes, more than he would have been paid working minimum wage. It’s too bad he couldn’t have paid his phone bill, but he is the prime example of why factory workers "do not as a rule, like young college kids." He only worked for 6.5 hours, maybe he should try to make a living, and support a family with that job. At least he has the option to run back to mom. It’s time for you to grow up Todd, a job is a responsibility not a convenience.
Brad Manning
ASU BOX 12086
[back]
Praying for Ball’s critic
Letter to the Editor,
As strange as this may seem, I am writing this letter to the editor not in response to an article, but to another letter to the editor. In the Oct. 24 issue of the Appalachian, Denver Hill wrote a letter to the editor berating an article written by Jeremy Ball in response to the hate graffiti of the River Street tunnels. After reading Ball’s article, I was tempted to write to the editor myself, but for the exact opposite of Hill’s reason. I thought that Ball did a great job of presenting an objective viewpoint to the entire issue. I, too, thought of how false the claim that " God hates faggots" was, an addition made by the graffiti artists, not the Bible. Jesus Christ himself admitted that He did not come to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3: 17). And Ball did a very good job of calling those people on that hatred, in what I hope to be a very convicting manner forthose responsible. He also, however, presented the true Christian view of homosexuality, not balking at calling a sin a sin, but he did so in a way that all Christians need to take note of- focusing above all else on the unbelievable love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Now, I found considerable holes in the logic Hill used in writing his letter. First of all, it appears that he misread the article, because Ball’sstatements of forgiveness were not intended for those who wrote thegraffiti, but rather directed to them in their thoughts about homosexuals. I also found myself chuckling at his allusion to a god who hates rape butloves rapists, a very clever attempt to play to our campus’ fears where rape has unfortunately come to the fore. What he doesn’t understand is that in God’s eyes, sin is sin, so that a rape is just as serious an offense as cussing, telling a white lie, or cheating on an exam.
Also, for someone who seems irate at the chastisement and belittling of homosexuals, Hill seems totally ready to "castigate homophobes" in a like manner. In closing, I have some questions specifically for Denver. In response to your question of how many wars has religion started, I can only answer that religion on earth is carried out by imperfect people who screw up. But I ask you, Jeremy, how many lives has Jesus Christ changed? Also since you believe that "the Bible is outdated," and are "sick of God as a solution for society’s problems," I am curious to see what answer you have for these problems. Judging from the anger and dissatisfaction in your letter, I don’t get the impression that your answer is working too well itself. I truly hope and pray that someday you find the true answer.
Ben Keisler
ASU Box 14286
[back]
[News] [Opinion] [Sports] [Etc...] [Announcements] [Online Extras]
 |
E-mail The Appalachian Online at theapp@conrad.appstate.edu |
