University of South Carolina Libraries
Quote, Unquote ‘Who wants to deal with the chaotic, back-stab i bing political game before they have to?’ I Malik Husser, SG President c the ©amccork . p«»9 Wk 0amcock Serving the Carolina Community since 1Q08 Editorial Board Sara Ladenheim • Editor in Chief Kenley Young • Managing Editor Emily Streyer • Viewpoints Editor Corey Ford • Assistant Viewpoints Editor Brad Walters • Editorial Contributor Geddings' move should benefit S.C. Kevin Geddings’ recent decision to run the campaign to cre ate a state-run lottery will serve South Carolina well. Ged dings, chief of staff for Gov. Jim Hodges, will resign later this month. Replacing Geddings is Republican Billy Boan, Hodges’ top legislative operative, whom both Republicans and Democrats admire. Boan brings essential qualities to the Hodges administration. A former Democratic representative, Boan holds the respect of many legislators simply because of his warm, charming charisma. He also has in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of state government, knowledge he gained from his days in the House. Geddings’ departure raises some questions, however. Republicans and other Hodges opponents chaige that Geddings pandered to the video poker industry because of the assumption that he corresponded through e-mail with one video poker opera tive. Yet this partisan charge does not match Geddings’ character. By leaving to produce a lottery, the fundamental issue of the gover nor’s 1998 campaign, Geddings totally dissolves any appearance of corruption in the already super-clean Hodges administration. Geddings, better suited for directing political campaigns, served as a key player in Hodges’ upset of incumbent Republican David Beasley. Head of Geddings Communications, he masterminded the tele vision spots for Hodges by inventing the classic political character “Bubba.” Geddings will undoubtedly labor to win the lottery referendum in 2000 so that South Carolina can continue revamping public edu cation. ' Darlington part of state heritage Darlington International Speedway celebrates its 50th an niversary this weekend as it began: as the only “major league” sporting venue in South Carolina. While NASCAR has gained popularity recently outside Darling ton and the former “Southern circuit,” other major league sports have been slow to expand to traditionally Southern markets. When sports expansionalists research a city to see whether the demographics are friendly for a team, South Carolina is almost al ways skipped. Sure, we have minor league teams, but in no place other than Darlington does a major league-caliber venue exist. Every Labor Day, South Carolinians are reminded that Darling ton is as much a part of our sporting heritage as the Yankees are to New York. Some fans watch as baseballs race past the hitter at 90 mph. We watch superior, high-quality automobiles race by at 190 mph. NASCAR is the only sport that can claim South Carolina as its home. So, as we celebrate Labor Day with a day off from work, let’s just watch for one minute as the Darlington International Speed way celebrates its 50th anniversary. Maybe one of our own will take the race and make this golden anniversary complete. About Us The Gamecock is the student newspaper of The University of South Carolina and is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the fall and spring semesters and nine times during the summer with the exception of university holidays and exam periods. Opinions expressed in The Gamecock are those of the editors or author and not those of The University of South Carolina. The Board of Student Publications and Communications is the publisher of The Gamecock. The Department of Student Media is the newspaper's parent organization. The Gamecock is supported in part by student activities fees. Address The Gamecock 1400 Greene Street Columbia. SC 29208 Offices on third floor of the Russell House. Student Media Area code 803 Advertising 777-3888 Classified 777-1184 Fax 777-6482 Office 777-3888 Gamecock Area code 803 Editor gcked0sc.edu 777-3914 News gcknews0sc.edu 777-7726 Viewpoints gckviews0sc.edu 777-7181 Etc. gcketc0sc.edu 777-3913 Sports gcksports0sc.edu 777-7182 Online www.gamecock.sc.edu 777-2833 SUBMBSION POUCY Letters to the editor or guest columns are welcome from all members of the Carolina community. Letters should be 250-300 words. Guest columns should be an opinion piece of about 600-700 words. Both must include name, phone number, profes sional title or year and major, if a student. Handwritten submissions must be personally delivered to Russell House room 333. E-mail submissions must include telephone number for confirmation. The Gamecock reserves the right to edit for libel, style and space. Anonymous letters will not be pub lished. Photos are required for guest columnist and can be provided by the submitter. Call 777-7726 fa mae information. The Gamecock Sara Ladenheim Editor in Chief Kenley Young Managing Editor Emily Streyer Viewpoints Editor Kevin Langston Brock Vergakis News Editors Clayton Kale Associate News Editor Kristin Freestate Copy Desk Chief Rachel Helwig EtCetera Editor Todd Money Sports Editor Sean Rayford Photo Editor Rob Lindsey Encore Editor John Hueitt City Desk Chief Student Media Ellen Parsons Director of Student Media Lee Phipps Advertising Manager Susan King Creative Services Director Betsy Martin Julie Burnett Chris Black Will Gillaspy Online Editor Corey Ford Asst. Viewpoints Editor Ann Marie Miani Asst. Etc. Editor Jared Kelowitz Asst. Sports Editor Casey Williams Asst.On-Line Editor Greg Farley Asst. Photo Editor Brad Walters Graphics Copy Editor, Editorial Contributor MacKenzie Craven David Clonninger Charlie Wallace Phillip Burt Senior Writers Kathy Van Nostrand Creative Services Sherry Holmes Classified Manager Carolyn Griffin Business Manager Erik Collins Faculty Advisor Jonathan Dunagin Graduate Assistant College Press Exchange (&W.BUSH DRUG FbUCr National Issues Iraq: the war that never ends 1 never '^regular ends.” On Aug. columnist. He 2, 1990, Iraqi can be reached forces stormed via The across the Gamecock at Kuwait border, gckviews@sc.edu In less than 24 ■PlfSyHSmH hours, Iraq had seized control of the country. “It just goes on and on, my friends.” In the late-night hours of Jan. 16,1991, the United States, along with a U.N. coali tion, launched the initial attacks against Iraq, just hours after a deadline imposed by the United Nations for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait had passed. The objective of the attack was to force Saddam Hussein to withdraw his forces from Kuwait. “Our country started fighting it, not knowing where it’d go.” On Feb. 27, 1991, Allied forces freed Kuwait City, expelling Iraqi troops. Less than a week later, Iraq accepted all terms in an agreement for a cease-fire. Gen. H. Norman Schwartzkopf said: “We have made a major step forward in the cause of peace.” “We’ll continue fighting it forever, don’t you know?” More than two years after the invasion of Kuwait, President Bush ordered a “no-fly” zone south of the 32nd parallel, claiming that Hussein had been using helicopters and planes to cause “harsh repression” against Shiite Muslims. Critics claimed that Bush was attempting to re-escalate tensions to offset his declinirtg popularity. Elections were just more than one month away. ‘“Cuz it’s the war that never ends.” On June 26,1993, U.S. ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the head quarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. President Clinton claimed the attack was in retaliation for an alleged plot to assas sinate Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Bush, reached for comment, responded tersely: “I’m not in the interview business, but thank you very much for calling.” “It just goes on and on my friends.” On Sept. 3, 1996, the United States fired 27 missiles at Iraqi air defense radars, surface-to-air missile installations and com mand centers. The next day, the United States fired 14 more missiles at the same targets. The attacks came mere days after an Iraqi offensive in northern Iraq spurred presidential candidate Robert Dole to crit icize Clinton’s foreign policy as “weak.” Again, elections were just more than one month away. “Our country started fighting it, not knowing where it’d go.” In November 1997, Iraq expelled six U.S. inspectors from a U.N. team. The United States re sponded with a military buildup in the Per sian Gulf. Iraq relented, allowing access to inspection teams. But Iraq continued to obstruct and delay other teams, threaten ing to escalate the crisis again. “We’ll continue fighting it forever, don’t you know?” Richard Butler, execu tive chairman of the U. N. Special Com mission, released a report Dec. 15,1998, claiming Iraq had failed to comply with U. N. inspectors, delaying inspectors while emptying the buildings intended for in spection: In late Dec. 1998, Iraq changed tactics by opening fire on British jets pa trolling the no-fly zones. It was the first such attack since 1996. Since then, and continuing today, any Iraqi military site using radar or weapons on Allied aircraft has been attacked, often drawing wide spread retaliation. Officially, the United States is not at war with Iraq, and yet these acts of war, instigated by both sides, con tinue unabated. Last Saturday, Iraq was again struck by U.S. missiles, and by the time this column is published, it’s likely that it will have hap pened again. The attacks have become so routine that they’ve fallen to the back pages of newspapers. In January 1991, there was a clear-cut goal behind the military action — to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Today, there is no clear-cut goal. One day, the goal is to force Iraq to succumb, to the inspections it agreed to after the Gulf War; the next, it is to stop Iraq from op pressing its own people, or in retaliation for attacks against Allied planes. The long-term goal is unspoken: to re move Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As long as these ambiguous and undefined missions continue, with no declaration of official war and with no clearly stated goal, you might as well sing along with me. ‘“Cuz it’s the war that never ends.” Letters Editorial angers honors students To the Editor I am writing in response to the article “Dorm rules should apply to all students.” I am a freshman honors student in Cap stone, and I have my window restrictors on, and, as all other residents in my build ing, I have to do community service to get them off. Not only do I have to perform community service, but my roommate, must agree to do community service, as well. The article says that wide resent ment has been created because I suppos edly have my window restrictors off and other residents in the building do not. 1 did not see any of this resentment until the ar ticle was published with these false rumors. As a matter of fact, I thought that die up perclassmen were treating the honors fresh men extremely well when I first moved in. Now I am experiencing that resentment you mentioned from other non-honors members of my dorm because they read your article, which falsely told them that my window restrictors were off. This re ally angers me, as well as the rest of my hall, and I wish you would do something to clear our name because of the mistake you made. I know that the article was com posed to lash out at the Housing adminis . tuition, but it has, in turn, made others lash out at us, and that is not fair. And isn’t that what your article was trying to accomplish — fairness? The last line of your article even states, “for fairness’ sake.” Joe Liedhegner Chemical Engineering Freshman ? As a freshman honors student, I be lieve I am speaking for the majority of my floor in Capstone when I say, “Stop the in sanity.” In a recent editorial written by the staff entitled “Dorm rules should apply to all students [Aug. 27],” I was offended by the authors’ unprofessional attitudes and inability to take responsibility for an editorial that was in no way based on fact. The fact is, honors students living in Capstone have window restrictions just like everyone else in the dorm, and believe me, I have to do the mandatory commu nity service just like any other resident be fore I can enjoy fresh air in my room. The rules do apply to all. However, even more upsetting than The Gamecock’s complete misrepresen tation of the facts was the behavior dis played when the Honors students living in Capstone simply asked that a retraction be printed. When a non-honors resident ad viser called The Gamecock, Viewpoints Editor Emily Streyer refused to consider printing the truth concerning the restric tions. The last time I checked, you can’t print a lie, even if it is an editorial. I would also be curious to find out ex actly who was questioned about these sup posed “honors privileges” for Capstone residents. We were told by The Gamecock that six whole people were asked about the window restrictors. Were they people from the Honors College? Were they even people who live in Capstone? They were obviously not residents on my floor. 1 hope, as the authors of this article fin ish their time here at USC, that they are able to acquire the basic journalistic skills that they apparently missed out on thus far. % Christina Durham Marine Science Freshman Editor’s note: The RA mentioned who did not identify herself, and the Viewpoints Editor did not discuss the possibility of a retraction. During the writing of the news article and the editorial, The Gamecock spoke with seven people, six of whom were honors or non-honors Capstone residents. Smokers not weak, nation not pathetic To the Editor: I approve your stand on smoking and can affirm its effects on the human body. I have a grandmother who is on a pacemaker and has smoked for 65 years. She, however, upon the arrival of her aneurism, quit cold turkey. She is the embodiment of the willpow er that you state that smokers lack. 1 agree with you so far, but 1 believe that you for got something when you uttered “...pa thetic country.” As a part-time journalist, I hope that you realize that the same principles that allow you to print your opinions without fear of retribution also allow people to smoke cigarettes. Derogatory comments concerning the government get people killed in other “pa thetic countries.” John Gowan Biology Freshman § National Issues Stubborn beliefs make ineffectual politicians rankly, I do not mind when people at tack my politi cal beliefs. In a demo cratic society like ours, the common citizen holds this right, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to dis claim my es teemed convic tions. I do, how ever, have a problem when people assert that my convictions flip-flop. I recently met someone who felt im pelled to interrogate me on why I adhered to Democratic ideals. Despite the confidence I had in my an swers, they did not satisfy her. She thinks that I have no beliefs at all and that I hold a promising future in the political arena. She, like most of the American pub lic, sees a difference between one who has a firm set of beliefs and one who follows a more practical route. The public often views practical, main stream candidates as lacking mettle on the issues. This view, however, supports a mis conception. Compromising beliefs in order to ben efit society as a whole certainly does not mean that you do not maintain a strong opinion on that subject. In “The Social Contract,” Jean Jacques Rousseau boldly states, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” He contends that the people themselves must make an agreement or sign a contract with the governing body in order to ensure political freedom. Failing to construct this contract will result in a government administered by tyrannous leaders aiming to fulfill their own self-interests. The U.S. model of government, a rep resentative democracy, serves as the most effective — albeit many times inef ficient —form in this world. Standing for the beliefs of the people, a representative democracy holds the peo ple in higher esteem than the politicians who represent them. If the leaders promote only their own convictions, the idealism of extremist groups could allow near- anarchism to flourish or a theocracy to evolve. Furthermore, uninformed citizens tend to display an alarming degree of emotion rather than logic in defending selective causes. Using normative judgment reduces pol itics and government to uneducated dem agoguery; thus, many candidates today dig up dirt on their opponents instead of pro moting a positive platform. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this act of arguing with emotion rather than log ic; the far right stirs up a fervor among Christians, while the far left panders to in crease government dependence. Having our policies guided by individ ual values and individual views on moral ity rather than practicality leads to futile decision-making conducted by irrational However courageous it might be for politicians to take a stand on a controver sial issue, idealistic charades, undoubted ly, can cause critical repercussions for them. Political leaders who promote their own personal agendas end up losing be cause of an angry outburst from voters who feel that their voices have been neglected. David Beasley, no longer a state em ployee, and Bob Inglis, no longer in Wash ington, learned this harsh lesson last No vember. The last line of Lincoln’s famous Get tysburg Address, which describes the gov ernment “of the people, by the people, for the people,” certainly provides the prop er setup for people to govern themselves. So, to my new freshman friend, I say that stubbornness does not yield produc tivity in government. Only through a pragmatic consensus do we alleviate the ills of our society.