 |
|
| April 18, 2000 |
|
In
our words...
Trey's views of the 2000 presidential race When does the Enlightenment begin Letters to the editor Why do we fail to punish White Collar Crimes ASU has drugs? I never knew You're going at it the wrong way In
Our Words...
Remember back in the elementary school, when your teacher made you go home with a slip of paper saying that your particular school had asbestos, and that if your parents signed off, the school would not be held liable for any damages to you as a person if you got cancer? Well, Appalachian State University has finally gotten into that mid-1980s trend when they introduced asbestos as a concern during the Board of Trustees meeting on March 24. Perhaps the Board of Trustees is tired of the more mundane issues on campus such as, say, parking or the lack thereof. It is perfectly feasible to believe they might have become bored with our tried and true standbys of parking, faculty pay and building a new library. In truth, the asbestos issue is not a crisis situation as many believe it to be. There is no reason for the university to unnecessarily allocate funds to take care of a problem that does not exist. “There are no instances of significant friable, loose asbestos in any space where people are exposed to it,” said Dr. Clyde Robbins, director of design and construction for Appalachian State University. Do you actually think that the school has the money to go into every building to rip out this supposed cancer causing device? No, and that’s just fine because there’s no need to do so as long as the asbestos remains intact and/or covered. Furthermore, as required by federal law, the university has an asbestos management plan that they implement whenever the need arises. Truth be known, most people are uneducated about asbestos. When the average individual hears the word asbestos, they immediately associate it with cancer and other serious diseases. While it is a settling thought to know that our Trustees are concerned about the presence of asbestos in a number of the older buildings on the Appalachian campus, there is no need to panic. So, let’s encourage the Board of
Trustees to stick with issues that are truly important such as providing
more competitive salaries that will keep our faculty members from being
lured elsewhere.
Trey's
views of the 2000 presidential race
The races for the presidential nominations in 2000, especially the Republican contest, were some of the most closely followed and hotly contested in recent memory. As GOP primaries took more precedence in newscasts and newspapers, most people (even those who don’t plan to vote Republican in November) chose a side in the Bush-McCain debate. What, then, was being debated? Even as their competition became increasingly bitter, the Republican’s contest served as a vivid illustration of a basic fact of American politics: races are decided first and foremost not by which candidate has better policy proposals, but by who runs better ads who is funnier on late night talk shows, and the ever-present “character” issue. Of course, the candidates would never admit this publicly. They may
stress the superficial matters in their ads and stump speeches, but when
put on the spot, they insist that voters have a crucial choice to make
between very different candidates. During a recent interview on CNN, George
W. Bush was asked to respond to the assertion by one of his top aides that
this year’s campaign is not issue-based. Bush disagreed, insisting that
important policies surely hung in the balance. Apparently no issue came
immediately to the governor’s mind, though, because he immediately launched
into a vague speech peppered with his familiar campaign rhetoric, i.e.
liberal use of the word “leader” and the phrases “compassionate conservative”
and “reformer with results.” You have to give Bush credit, though, because his strategy has at least succeeded in gaining him the Republican nomination. A Washington Post reporter who covered a Bush rally found that most of the supporters in attendance struggled to give their reasons for backing the governor, other than that they perceived him to be an honest man from a good family with a famous name. While Bush has been the most heavily criticized for using the low-substance campaign style, he is hardly its only proponent. His chief rival for the GOP nomination, John McCain, seemed to drift away from his signature issue of campaign finance reform as Bush pulled away from him in polls. McCain shifted his focus to attacking what he perceived as the negative campaign run by Bush, and to attacking Bush for his infamous visit to Bob Jones University. The Democratic contest was less competitive and drew less attention than its GOP counterpart. It also had more issue-related content, but certainly did not lack for posturing. Frontrunner Al Gore portrayed his opponent, Bill Bradley, as uncommitted, because he left the Senate instead of “fighting on.” For his part, Bradley accused Gore of being indecisive because of a 20-year-old vote against Medicaid funding for abortions, forcing Gore to repeatedly defend his pro-choice stance. Bradley also accused Gore of following his lead on numerous policy proposals, insinuating that the vice president lacks the imagination and initiative to be an effective president. In conclusion, allow me to make a request. It is important that the
American public votes, but it is more important that Americans first educate
themselves about the candidates. People who vote based on rhetoric, television
ads and catch phrases do their country a disservice. MTV helped make
voting politically correct, but also spawned a generation of voters who
are used to getting their political coverage in music video form. My request,
then, is this: inform yourself as a citizen, both about political candidates
and social issues. The alternative is to elect public officials based on
character, name recognition and rhetoric, and those are factors that are
much harder to evaluate (and are probably less significant) than voting
records and policy proposals.
When
does the Enlightenment begin
They say the Internet is the wave
of the future and I can’t really refute that. However, while the Internet
may change the economy, the media and many other things; it really hasn’t
brought the human race to a new consciousness like they pretend it will
on TV.
A month back, I bought a new video game for my PC called “The Sims.” In this game, you create houses for a neighborhood and you also create the inhabitants of the neighborhood and help guide them through life. You guide them through their relationships, their jobs and recreational activities. It’s essentially a simulation of everyday life and you play God with several digital lives. One of the perks to this game is that you can personalize the game. You can create your Sims in any way that you see fit, give them their own personalities and create outfits for them called “skins” (be afraid). Another perk is that you can upload your created families and their homes to the game’s website, thesims.com, for other gamers to download. There is also a bulletin board system on the site that allows the creators of the game to get feedback and ideas from gamers so they can provide downloads that can enhance and improve the experience of the game. However, while the game has seen massive critical acclaim from gamers nationwide, there is a group of people with a slew of complaints. Some feel the game isn’t enough like real life, that certain elements were left out that should been included. The following things left out were: full nudity and sex. Now, while it is rather cheesy that after a few passionate kisses, male and female Sims can magically have a baby appear out of thin air, I didn’t really see the need for sex in the video game. And even if sex was included, since a minute to the Sims is a second to the player, the deed would be done all too quickly. The few fleeting moments that your Sims disrobe to bathe, their bodies are covered in a densely pixelated haze, so you miss out on the nudity. Now, this a huge thorn in the side for many lonely, pathetic, horny losers. If you were to read the site’s BBS, you’ll see tons of posts for naked sims and sex. It’s not bad enough that most chat rooms online are just a place to (hold on, I’m searching “There’s Something About Mary” for an adequate metaphor... ) clean the pipes to some stranger’s text, let’s throw some sex into a video game simulation! Well, so much for the enlightening revolution, I guess the Internet hasn’t moved us to a new intellectual plateau after all. Of course, I didn’t even need a video game to tell me that, there are enough porn sites and websites dedicated to the denial of the Holocaust to tell me that a good portion of our society is intellectually stumped. I’m sure that like “The Sims,” the Internet was created with the purest intentions. “The Sims” was made to entertain and perhaps make to people analyze their own lives a bit (and make money). The Internet was created to make communication more accessible, benefit economies and help people meet new people with similar interests. Of course, when you go into a chat room to express your interest in music, you are met with deep statements like “U2 sux,” “Backstreet Boys RULE” and “28/M/TX looking for a F for cyber, IM me.” It is undeniable that the Internet
is the future. Radio, television, video games and print news will all be
sucked into the Internet eventually. The Internet will continue to
evolve and will be an essential part of our lives, but when does the enlightenment
begin?
Letters
to the Editor
Why do we fail to punish White Collar Crimes To The Editor: When most Americans think of crime they often think of street crimes. Murders, rapes, and drug violence are spotlighted on the nightly news. Let’s focus on the topic of murder. Newspapers and news television shows often tell of men and women who have been sentenced to death for the murder of one person, perhaps even more. Now think specifically about white collar crimes. What comes to mind? Embezzlement? Perhaps money laundering Why doesn’t murder come to mind? Large corporations have killed many people. To be perfectly honest these are mass murderers. Don’t believe me? Let’s take into account a major car company such as Ford. Wait, Ford couldn’t kill people could they? That’s not possible. WRONG! Why isn’t former president of Ford, Lee Iacocca, in prison on death row? Well, you are probably wondering why Iacocca should be on death row. Remember the Ford Pinto? In the Ford Pinto there was a defect in the gas feeder tube in the trunk, which often led to the car bursting into flames in the event of a rear end collision. More than 500 people lost their lives. The fact that so many lost their lives is horrible, but it’s not the worst part: Their deaths’ could easily have been prevented. Ford documents showed that modifications to the gas tank would have added about $11.00 to the cost of producing the car. Ford, however, decided there was no financial benefit for them to include the alteration -instead they knowingly let hundreds of people burn to death. Had Ford made the alteration it would have saved about 180 people a year. Instead of being in prison Lee Iacocca is happily retired. What about Valuejet? They were warned by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make specific adjustments to their planes. They ignored the warning and weeks later 110 people lost their lives when Valuejet plunged down in the Florida Everglades. What did Valuejet do? Well, they settled and changed their name to Airtran. Not one executive is in jail for the death of those people. Why isn’t white collar crime not properly punished? Why do they settle out of court and get a slap on the wrist? Why is it that hundreds of people are murdered by corporations and no person(s) is brought to justice? Amy Frazier
To The Editor: After looking at the “ASU: highest in drug violations” article in the Tuesday April 4, 2000 paper, I was struck with an immediate reaction. While the statistics were appalling, they were surprisingly unrelated to my reaction. Instead my reaction harks back to my Criminal Justice class, Injustice in America, and our “war on drugs” debate. I would like to take this time to offer some interesting details and views about the “war on drugs” of which many students might be unaware. Are you aware that last year the Federal Government spent 18 billion dollars on the “war on drugs?” Are you also aware that 65% of inmates are drug offenders? These numbers are staggering and when you recognize that it cost somewhere around $30,000 for the criminal justice system to maintain one inmate for one year, the costs are outrageous. It seems only logical that one would ask, “Should we have a war on drugs?” Many individuals do not even consider this question, and with so much of our money paying for the “war,” should we not consider this question? To end the “war” we must legalize or decriminalize drugs; we should take many factors into consideration when debating this step of legalization or decriminalization. First, the war on drugs has not reduced drug use or abuse. The Tuesday article pointed out just how prevalent marijuana is, even though it is illegal. Also, the “war on drugs” is costly: financially and socially. Financially costly, in that we spend 18 billion for the war, as well as pay for the “prisoners of war.” It is socially costly because the offenders who are caught are imprisoned; leaving single parent families with no financial support behind. Another, and very important factor, is that the “war” is rooted in politics and not evidence. No evidence shows that the “war on drugs” is working or that our money is well spent. We must also consider the fact that if we do legalize drugs, then drug abuse is not likely to increase. Drug use might go up immediately following legalization, but this will most likely reduce after legalization has “cooled down” or been in effect for awhile. A very important point for us tax payers is that legalization will take drug abuse out of the Criminal Justice System and put it in the medical field and private sector. Another consideration is that the illegal status of drugs creates a “black market.” This “black market” creates crime because dealers cannot go to the police to settle disputes, so they handle them with their own means. This creation of crime causes more unnecessary spending because it must be maintained. We must also look at the fact that drug use would be safer because the drugs would be regulated, possibly by the government. This would lower the cost of drugs, maintain safe levels of active ingredients, and might even make the government money. Finally, the “war on drugs” is hypocritical; it is mostly political. For example, being caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine can result in a five year sentence. Being caught with 5 grams of crack cocaine can also result in a five year sentence and everyone knows that crack comes from powder which is “cut” with a lot of other ingredients. Logically it should be a more severe punishment for powder than for crack; however, the poor use crack and the wealthy use powder, and we all know who makes the laws. After looking at all of these considerations it is obvious that there
is a question at hand. It may not be an easy one to answer, because we
are not fully aware of the repercussions of our decision. However, with
so much at stake, it is at least worth a thought. Hopefully, this gave
a thought to all of those students who were unaware of the question, “should
we legalize it?” Sophomore, Josh Treece (All information came from Dr.
Matt Robinson, CJ3534-101 Injustice in America) (The editor has the right
to make any grammatical or minor changes if needed)
You're going at it the wrong way To The Editor: Its Wednesday, just before noon, and I’m sitting in front of the cafeteria waiting on some friends to join me for lunch. In front of me are these two guys yelling out scripture to everyone that passes by. As I observe them, I can only wonder what message they’re trying to convey. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I am Christian, and believe in witnessing to others and sharing God’s word; but what I don’t understand is why people continually come to campus and feel the need to force it into the public’s face. Maybe its just me, but the only message that’s being conveyed is one of hostility. Either people just walk right by and completely ignore what ius being said, or they stop to argue because it has caused some offense. This is what makes me think, “Why don’t they get the picture and see that this isn’t the right approach?” Now, I know and I agree, that these people have every right to stand out there and preach--but if what you are trying to get across is executed in such a way that generates contempt, then what exactly do they are accomplishing? I say that in order to reach many, you have to begin on a personal level. In my opinion, their message would be better explained, understood, and accepted if, instead of yelling Bible verses on the mall to passing strangers, they ask people personally to discuss the word of God and share what they have witnessed. No one is going to ever really hear the message if it is being forced upon them. You’ve got the right intentions, guys, but try a new approach--the yelling just doesn’t work. Deirdre Hambrick
|
