Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Sept. 27, 1988, edition 1 / Page 8
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
8The Daily Tar Heel Tuesday, September 27, 1988 Readers9 Foriim 96 th year of editorial freedom Jean Lutes, Editor Karen Bell, News Editor MATT BlVENS, Associate Editor KlMBERLY EDENS, University Editor JON K. RUST, Managing Editor Will Lingo, aty Editor Kelly Rhodes, Arts Editor CATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor KAARIN TlSUE, News Editor LAURA PEARLMAN, Associate Editor KRISTEN GARDNER, University Editor SHARON KEBSCHUll, State and National Editor MIKE BERARDINO, Sports Editor LEIGH ANN McDONALD, features Editor KIM DONEHOWER, Design Editor DAVID MINTON, Photography Editor Not CTkvmo rw nnl lnnwlno? i i w i. i . hi i v-r vv ill Sunday night's debate between Michael Dukakis and George Bush signaled the beginning of campaign season in earnest. For the next month and a half, this nation will eat, breathe and sleep the presidential election. What is probably being lost in the shuffle are the student congressional campaigns which have just begun, as Student Congress tries to fill its seats with new representatives. Unfortu nately, these elections could hardly be called earnest. In last spring's student elections, with open seats in every district, 1,464 undergraduate students, or nearly six percent of the entire undergraduate population, voted for their congres sional representatives. These are woeful totals, to be sure, and inevitably they are attributed to student apathy and disinterest. Apathy' may not be the whole problem, however, and a look off campus may provide a better answer. While off-campus . students number slightly more than their on-campus peers, the four off-campus congres sional districts accounted for only 272 votes. This accounts for one-sixth the total votes cast in the congressional elections and one percent of the student population. Morever, off-campus seats are often uncontested and determined by write in campaigns; District 18 had three candidates deadlocked at two votes each. Apparently, the farther away one lives from campus, the less likely one is to run for office or to vote. To blame this on apathy suggests that living off campus is somehow conducive to disinterest. Of course, this isn't true. But it does imply that Student Con gress' meager efforts to inform stu dents about the campaign process don't reach off-campus students, and so are lost upon at least one-half the student population. The election process itself, with low campaign fund limits and single day elections, contributes to this lack of awareness, especially for off-campus candidates. Their districts, composed of several apartment complexes, make posters and other advertising ineffec tive and door-to-door campaigning nearly impossible. Also, many of their would-be supporters do not go to class every day of the week, and so miss the one-day elections. Eliminating this "disinterest" is simple. Students can't vote for some one they don't know; the spending cap on campaign funds should be raised for off-campus students, to allow them to campaign more effectively. If this is found to be unfair, student govern ment should sponsor forums at apart ment club houses. And vote totals would rise with two-day elections, guaranteeing that all students attend ing this University have an opportun ity to vote at their convenience. Thus, the decriers of apathy might find they have only confused "not caring" with not knowing. David Starnes Still no apple pie at Love Canal Love Canal was for many people a picture-perfect American commun ity, the type of place that conjured up images of apple pie, football and Oliver-North jingoism. That was until 10 years ago, when residents disco vered a smelly, black sludge oozing into basements and through backyards. Thus began one of the most tragic and sensationalized environmental disasters in our nation's history. The incident even spurred the creation of the Environmental Protection Agen cy's (EPA) Superfund, a fund reserved for cleaning up toxic wastes. But 10 years after the Love Canal catastrophe, nothing has been done to clean up the mess. The same steel barrels originally used by Occidental Chemical to store the wastes remain in a field at Love Canal, their tem porary home until officials decide how to dispose of them. There are many reasons for the delay, the primary one being cost. The cleanup at Love Canal has already cost the EPA $250 million, and the actual destruction of the wastes is an esti mated five to seven years away. Yet financial problems could delay work even more. A second problem is the notorious government bureaucracy. Even David Cohen, EPA press director, admits to the inefficiency of the Superfund. "The Superfund process can be very cum bersome and slow; it was set up to be that way." . Another factor is a lack of the technology needed to clean up most of these wastes. Even if such technol ogy existed, no uniform procedures exist to guide waste clean-up. New York authorities and federal officials not only can't decide whether to move all the waste or to leave an "acceptable" percentage in the ground; they also have no idea how to pursue either of these options. Yet, in spite of all of the known health risks, New York authorities are considering reopening the town for habitation. Unfortunately, the officials will make the decision without the benefit of any substantive scientific data. Amazingly, given the importance of this issue, no studies have been conducted on the health of current or past residents in nine years. In addi tion, of the estimated 200 toxic chemicals found in the town, only seven have been monitored by state authorities. Thus, any number of carcinogens may be leaking from the drums without the state's knowledge. Needless to say, officials need more information before permitting people to return to Love Canal. The potential for a future calamity is too great to allow the town to "unghost." Dave Hall The Daily Tar Heel Editorial Writers: Louis Bissette, Sandy Dimsdale, Dave Hall and David Starnes. Assistant Editors: Jenny Cloninger and Justin McGuire, university. Staci Cox, stale and national. Felisa Neuringer and Clay Thorp, managing. Dave Glenn, Andrew Podolsky and Chris Spencer, sports. News: Lynn Ainsworth, Kari Barlow, Jeanna Baxter, Crystal Bell, James Benton, Tammy Black ard, Charles Brittain, Brenda Campbell, Julie Campbell, Lacy Churchill. Daniel Conover, L.D. Curie, Karen Dunn, Laura Francis, Lynn Goswick, Eric Gribbin, Susan Holdsclaw, Kyle Hudson, Helen Jones, Chris Landgraff, Jessica Lanning, Bethany Litton, Brian McCollum, Helle Nielsen, Glen O'Neal, Beth Rhea, Thom Solomon, Michael Spinas, Larry Stone, William Taggart, Laura Taylor, Katheryne Tovo, Amy Weisner and Amy Winslow. Elizabeth Bass, Laura Hough, Dorothy Hutson and Peter Lineberry, wire typists. Sports: Neil Amato, Mark Anderson, Robert D'Arruda, John Bland, Dave Glenn, Doug Hoovervorst, Bethany Litton, Brendan Mathews, Jay Reed, Jamie Rosenberg, Natalie Sekicky, Dave Surowiecki, Lisa Swicegood, Eric Wagnon and Langston Wertz. Features: David Abcrnathy, Cheryl Allen, Craig Allen, Jo Lee Credle, Jackie Douglas, Mary Jo Dunnington, Hart Miles, Myrna Miller, Kathy Peters, Cheryl Pond, Leigh Pressley and Ellen Thornton. Arts: Randy Basinger, Clark Benbow, Cara Bonnett, Beth Buffington, Ashley Campbell, Elizabeth Ellen, Andrew Lawler, Julie Olson, Joseph Rhea, Nancy Szakacs and Jessica Yates, . Photography: Brian Foley, David Foster, Tony Mansfield, Belinda Morris and Dave Surowiecki. Copy Editors: Cara Bonnett, Michelle Casale, Yvette Cook, Julia Coon, Whitney Cork, Joy Golden, Bert Hackney, Susan Holdsclaw, Anne Isenhower, Gary Johnson, Angelia Poteat and Steve Wilson. Cartoonists: Jeff Christian, Adam Cohen, Pete Corson, Trey Entwistle, Luis Hernandez and Greg Humphreys. Business and Advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Joan Worth, advertising coordinator; Chrissy Mennitt, advertising manager; Sheila Baker, business manager; Michelle Harris, Sarah Hoskins, Amy McGuirt, Maureen Mclntyre, Denise Neely, Tina Perry, Lesley Renwrick, Amanda Tilley and Joye Wiley, display advertising representatives; Leisa Hawley, creative director; Dan Raasch, marketing director; Diane Quatrecasas, sales assistant; Diane Cheek and Stephanie Chesson classified advertising representatives; and Jeff Carlson, secretary. Subscriptions: Cody McKinney, manager. Distribution: David Econopouly, manager; Cindy Cowan, assistant. Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn, coordinators. Anita Bentley, Leslie Humphrey, Stephanie Locklear and Leslie Sapp, assistants. Printing: The Village Companies. Tearing butterfly wings and other cruelties am not writing to express a strong political opinion, nor is my intention J-Lto castigate one of our campus's many organizations. My major concern and preoccupation is with the treatment of animals, which are very dear to me. Over the years I have seen some horrendous acts perpetrated upon God's less fortunate creatures, from the beating of horses to the plucking of butterfly wings (the latter barbarity committed by a six-year-old child). This is my sentimental letter addressed to the students of Carolina in hopes that it will bring more awareness of the abuse animals receive. I don't know how many of you have witnessed cruelty. It comes in many forms; let me enlighten you. Whaling. When a mother and a calf humpback are discovered by whaling ships, the baby is speared first to lure the mother closer where she, too, is then harpooned. Have you ever heard a humpback sing? Or cry when the blue ocean turns red with her baby's blood? How many of you are familiar with the dolphin dilemma? Dolphins run together in large schools and a certain kind of tuna (pardon my not knowing the name, but it's on the shelves of your grocery store) runs with the dolphins. Tuna fishermen track the dolphins to find the tuna. Men in small speedboats surround the dolphins with a net, thus capturing the fish. The tragedy occurs when the net is pulled closed. Its weight bears the air-breathing Regina Sutphin Guest Writer mammals underwater, where they drown. Some survivors become entangled in the net and are hauled out of the ocean completely. And some become crushed alive in the net's pulley system. I watched all of this on a Greenpeace live-coverage tape. I saw the dolphins bobbing up against the net, fighting to gain air but quickly succumbing to exhaustion. I watched as the fishermen shook the corpses out of the trap back into the sea, the lifeless forms floating where moments before they had been so vibrant and alive. It tore me apart. Is it really so much more economical to waste millions of dolphin lives rather than seek out tuna using other means? I could go on forever with these examples of abuse At some horse shows, riders drive nails into the bottom of horses' feet to make them step livelier. The Black Rhino is endangered for the want of its worthless horn, which is coveted by some people for special ceremonies. Calves are locked in stalls so tiny they cannot move enough to swat flies away. They stand in their own feces day after day until killing time. And some of the things done in the name of research make my skin crawl. I have read articles about chickens being spun at amazing speeds just to study the effects of centrifugal force. The catch: this experiment has been performed many times before. Why do an experiment repeatedly when the results are already in and conclusions made? I'm sure all of us have a horror story we could recite if we thought a minute. No, I am hot anti-social, and I don't hate humanity. I am all for helping our fellow man, but I realize that humans are not God's only creatures. Animals can love. And they can feel pain. Someone once suggested to me a very simple kind of logic: God's omnipotence over us is much like Man's authority over the animal kingdom. Just as a child has the power to pluck the wings from a butterfly, God has the power to tear the wings from humanity. Maybe part of God's judgment of us depends on our judgment when we hold something's life in our own hands. If any of this has affected you at all, do something to help. There are several organizations, on campus and off, that work toward improving the lives of our animals. Regina Sutphin is a sophomore with an undecided major from Robbins. Editor's note: Brian McCuskey's column, "In the Funhouse," will reappear next week. - Big spending conservatives To the editor: For years, conservatives have stigmatized their oppo nents as "big spending liberals." With George Bush attempting to place this label on Michael Dukakis, a look at history may be surprising. Since 1940, Republicans and Democrats have each con trolled the White House for 24 years. Over this time, the Democratic presidents added $398 billion to the public debt while the Republicans added $1,337 billion, or 3.4 times as much as the "big spending Democrats." The only presi dent over the same period who did not add to the debt was a Democrat, Harry Truman. Even if the deficit for each year is tabulated as a percen tage of the gross national product, so that inflation and other biases are discounted, the Republicans still added to the federal debt at more than twice the rate of the Democrats. In all fairness, the Republicans did raise taxes less and also had to contend with Congresses con trolled by the Democrats. However, in light of these deficit figures, a more approp riate label is "big spending conservatives." MICHAEL BOYLES Graduate Dentistry Smokers aren't persecuted To the editor: ' , Although Randall McBride's piece on the perse cution of smokers ("Cigarette smokers are persecuted minor ity," Sept. 22) did not inspire me to buy Ritz Crackers, I was struck by several statements which warrant rebuttal. At one point, McBride states that efforts to eliminate smok ing are unjustified because " . . . many greater risks (exist) out there." I wonder to which risks he refers. An American Cancer Society article recently labeled cigarette smoking "... the largest single preventable PMfP' 'tiktN TWH1' Qmyie-bashing? Pm -JVST mr -Ws0$S -xn fact, 1 (YOU'D XPECT WsSWk?S I I'M ylLMOsr I ( FROM A BUNCH ) W THmKma of 4 'mtm? a3XAL, J W P Writing a M 'vLf- Cow?- ifx"fGw cause of premature death and disability ... in the United States." In addition, the article attributes 30 percent of annual cancer deaths to cigarette smoking. With the exception of nuclear war, what else poses this serious a risk? McBride then attempts to justify smoking by pointing out the many economic advantages North Carolinians enjoy because of the tobacco indus try. Granted, the philanthropy of certain tobacco companies is commendable, but what other . examples of such a system exist? Take, for example, South American drug lords. They keep the locals employed, sup port the area economy and may even contribute to noble social institutions at home. Mean while, they peddle addictive drugs to countless people. By McBride's .reasoning, are not both acceptable? Carrying his economic argu ments further, McBride bemoans cigarette taxes paid by smokers. He also ignores many costs related to smoking. A report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assess ment estimated that every pack of cigarettes costs our nation $2.17 in health care and lost productivity. That added up to $65 billion in 1985. This figure did not include tobacco price support programs. Is a cigarette tax too much to ask in return? Finally, I find fault with McBride's concept of courtesy. He feels that non-smokers should have to ask smokers to extinguish their cigarettes. In the. interest of courtesy, shouldn't the smoker, the indi vidual engaging in the poten tially offensive behavior, ask before lighting up? WILLIAM CRONE School of Medicine Towing needs consistency To the editor: I am a supporter of the increasing dialogue between students and the Department of Transportation and Parking Services. Moreover, I attended the traffic forum in the Mor rison Rec Room last Thursday night. However, a lack of communication regarding areas subject to towing during home football games needs to be improved. Last Friday night, I parked in one of the L lot spaces along Ridge Road (next to Chase Hall). This lot was formerly, a part of the S-5, or Ramshead, parking lot. The latter area is subject to towing and is desig nated by a sign at the lot pntranrp Nn kJcttis inrWratintr towing enforcement were around the tl" lot." which includes areas adjacent to Morrison and Craige residence halls. Nevertheless, my car was towed when I arrived at my initial parking space. Am I to assume that all areas along T? iH erf T? rrxA rrrarHlAcc rf rt designation, are reserved dur ing home football games? I am aware that all parking permits are technically for "Monday through Friday" use. I am also aware that cars towed will merely be placed in the S 6 lot, next to North Carolina Memorial Hospital, at no expense to the owner. (By the way, last year's policy placed cars in the F lot. Where was the publicity regarding the change?) Nevertheless, the Depart ment ' of Transportation and Parking Services should exer cise consistency in the areas that are towable, as well as publicize them more visibly. I am almost certain that others who parked in a resident lot but had their cars towed were as infuriated as I was. WALTER MURRAY Senior Biology Legislating drug morals doesn't work To the editor: In his less than competent letter against the legalization of drugs ("Just say no to legalization," Sept. 23), Scott Logan makes several errors. People have abused narcot ics for centuries, and will continue to do so, no matter how many laws are passed to stop them. By making the sale and use of drugs illegal, you at best impose a restriction on the supply of drugs, not the demand. The result is higher prices and bigger bank accounts for those who sell drugs, whether it be the corner pusher or the Reagan administration. The majority of violent crimes associated with drugs occur precisely because drugs are illegal. Every day we hear about gang wars for control of the streets in large cities. Do you think these gangs are fighting because they want to play stickball on the streets they control? They are fighting to corner the drug trade on those streets, and no matter how many you arrest, there will always be more to take their place, because the trade is too profitable to pass up. If cigarettes and alcohol were illegal, you would see the same gangs shooting it out for the right to sell these items.. Indeed, those most opposed to drug legalization are the dealers and traffickers themselves because they have the most to lose from the drop in drug prices that would inevitably accompany legalization. One may argue that preventing people from using drugs prevents them from committing crimes under the influence; but such an argument is irrational for two reasons. First, you have no way of knowing that someone who commits a crime while on drugs would not do the same thing otherwise. Second, you can't justify the restriction of a person's liberty for what they might do. If one believes such action is justified on those grounds, then one can make an argument for the imprisonment of all poor, unemployed, young black males, because they have a high crime rate. The reasoning in both cases is the same. What Logan claims to be his biggest argument is really no argument at all. He claims that legalizing drugs would amount to "giving up." My question is, what is being given up, and by whom? If Logan means that the government is giving up its power to legislate morality, then I am all for "giving up," because such power cannot be justified. The fundamental issue at stake is one of individual liberty, a principle that this country was ostensibly founded upon. It seems curious that Logan, who is ready to suppress the will of hundreds of thousands of people, compares this violation of individual liberty to the gaining of independence from the British. He wants to educate our children and "show them strength through example," yet the only example he sets is that might makes right, and that those who are in power can set the moral rules for the rest of us. Morality does not emerge from coercion. Finally, I wish to take issue with Logan's quote of John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The quote would be more appropriate in Logan's letter if we substitute the "government" for "country." How can someone who advo cates denial of individual liberties do. so in the name of the country? The country is nothing more than the people who live there, and if Logan wants to grant the government the right to tell these people how to live, he certainly can't logically do so in their name. I agree that drug usage is bad, but I certainly have no right to make others live the way I feel they should, nor does Logan, nor does the Congress itself. ANTHONY WOODLIEF Junior Political Science
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 27, 1988, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75