The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, September 20, 1991, Page 3, Image 3
'
Friday, September 20, 1991
Again?
' The United States i
going back
George Bush's decision not to t
back to haunt him. In February,
away from completely overthrowii
Hussein, Bush stopped the attack. F
der" Roosevelt is turning over in hi
Fast-forward seven months and
again contemplating sending forces
still there, and he has had time to 1
the drubbing we gave them earlier
that the Iraqi nuclear weapons progi
/ The spectre of Hussein with nu
more than enough reason to destrc
must go back, let's do it right this
beautifully. However, despite Busl
our troops (as was the case in Kore:
by politics.
Instead of crushing the last remr
allowed him to live and prosper. C*
is Hussein survived the most effect
history of the world only to come o
tion, the U.S. is now friends with
Syria (a man every bit as loathsome
4 sickening of all, Kuwait is nowhere
The president says Hussein "knc
United States of America." Let's h(
job done this time. No more hollow
Sl| ?i
I at ad&i
1GAME
News: 777-7726
chris slll
Editor in C
David Bowden
Managing Editor/Viewpoint Editor
Tige Watts
News Editor
Aaron Sheinin
- Sports Editor
Patrick Villegas " ?
Asst. News Editor
Tracey Davis
Asst. Carolina Life Editor
Virginia Marshall
Asst. Copy Desk Chief
Wayne Williams
Comics Editor
RenbE a. Gibson
Asst. Media Director/Advertising Man
Stacie Lewis
Asst. Advertising Manager
Erik Collins
Faculty Adviser , _
Lara Cha
Asst. Classified
Letters Policy: The Gamecock will try to print c
maximum. 250 to 300 words long. The writer mi
a USC employee or South Carolina resident, or
and phone number are required with all letters
to edit letters for style, possible libel or in case <
not withhold names under any circumstance.
1
*
seems to be
'i LtlJ VV Uf
ake the Iraqi capital is coming
with Allied troops only hours
tig the government of Saddam
7ranklin "Unconditional Surrens
grave.
guess what? The U.S. is once
to the Persian Gulf. Hussein is
3uild his military back up after
' this year. NBC News reports
ram is stronger than ever,
clear-tipped SCUD missiles is
iy him once and for all. If we
; time. Our military performed
i's statements to the contrary,
a and Vietnam) were held back
lanis 01 nussem s tyranny, we
ill him a madman, but the fact
ive bombing campaigns in the
ut politically stronger. In addithe
likes of Hafez Assad of
as Saddam) and, perhaps most
near democratic.
>ws better than to take on the
)pe so, but if not, let's get the
victories.
Is
y||
COCK
Advertising: 777-4249
festri
Ihief
Brant Long
Copy Desk Chief
Octavia Wright
Carolina Life Editor
Teddy Lepp
Photography Editor
Gordon Ma^Ler '
Asst. News Editor
Rich Taylor
Asst. Sports Editor
Greg Rickabaugh
Asst. Photography Editor
Eric Glenn
rw I. T- -i? - ?
uur Kt uum i eunmclan
Laura S.Day
ager Production Manager
Ray Burgos
Asst. Production Manager
Carolyn Griffin
Business Manager
pman
Manager
ill letters received. Letters should be, at
jst include full name, professional title if
year and major if a student. An address
sent. The Gamecock reserves the right
5f space limitations. The newspaper will
View:
KiAiMfi
V
A -A
ati guys u
Monday night, I attended Dr. Denn
speech here in the Russell House; his
the freedom of expression.
Barrie is director of the Contemp<
Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. You migh
was charged this past year with pan<
scenity and the illegal use of a minor
oriented material when he decided to
hibit by the late photographer Rot
plethorpe entitled The Perfect Momet
acquitted Barrie and the museum of s
(as well they should, I might add).
There is all sorts of meat here fo
about the freedom of expression, the p
hind the charges, the audacity of poli
, (int9 ^mpsppuq .its-tec
Carolina Senator (and fascist) Jesse I
hind the scenes involvement, etc. Si
(especially when you consider who
this), however, this column is abou
those things. It is in fact a criticism ai
sion of the pomposity and often corn)
attitude of the "intelligenstia" and the
types.
Though Barrie praised the jury thai
him, there seemed to also be a sense
ment that the jury, which he describe*
M basically (WltipffSM W non-cofiege
with Catholic backgrounds who liv
suburbs and seldom ^ came to thejgijy
^hadi^fbeeri to a museum since their
' * ^ * * > * P
'Pro-choice'
can be pro-life
To the editor:
This letter is concerning Brian
McCarter's column on Sept. 13.
Your otherwise tolerable column
contains at least one great error:
you assume "pro-choice" and "proabortion"
are the same concept.
While you may disdain the term
"pro-choice," that does not mean
that it is, as you suggest, a mere
artifice behind which abortionists
L! J.
IUUC.
Let me explain it to you; it's
simple enough. The two terms exist
because they are separate beliefs.
The label "pro-abortion"
probably applies to very few. It
implies a position that abortion is
the obvious and necessary answer
to any unwanted pregnancy.
"Pro-choice" is not a pleasantry,
and it is not a euphemism. I am
pro-choice, but I am not proabortion.
Pro-choice encompasses
a woman's right to make any decisions
about what to do with her
body .. . even pro-life decisions.
To say that the right of choice
means she will automatically
choose abortion just because she
has a choice is ludicrous.
nnin> tVllt ttlA
1 UUI puilll lliai VUU1VV
movement should own up >to their
"real" god ? practicality ? would
be an excellent one IF pro-choicers
thought legal abortion is needed
because it is expedient. They do
not. You've misrepresented the
point, the point being a woman's
sovereignty over her own body. By
branding women as pro-abortion,
you're chipping away at that sovereignty.
You know this.
I have a problem with any man
taking a militant stance on abortion.
Yes, men help create the situation,
but it's ultimately not their
dilemma. Women don't legislatively
meddle with men's bodies.
We deserve the same noninterference
(but I begin to preach to the '
saved).
All this may seem to you to be
the epitome of "appalling ideologi
cal uniformity." But I would sug- r
gest to you that you've assumed a
movement is of one mind when it 1
is not. You've slapped your "ideologically
uniform" label on some- i
thing comprised of scores of (
opinions. i
POINT
COCK
teed to reac
is Barrie's I
iop.c was DENNIS
arary Arts SHI
t recall he
iering obin
nudity
run an ex>ert
Map- field trip, could have ui
nt. A jury enough to deliver the verd
ill charges imagine that, the low bro\
getting their brows togethe
r columns see eye to eye.
lolitics be- I realize most of the p
ce march- night would disagree with
UMi, North?-no'j piaiscfor tHe^Bry, bt
lelms' be- but feel it was sort of bac
lrprisingly art world claims to be libe
's writing part is) and are probabb
t none of when a layman praises its
[id confes- the art world would like
lescending rights to judging what is 1
ise "artsy" and what isn't. Beauty anc
-t?*- the eyes 'uPlffc beholder 2
: acquitted has exclusive rights,
of amaze- Sure the general public
1 as being photographs of homoeroti
graduates doesn't mean they can't a]
ed in the of the art or the freedom o
and, ihimTrlf, if
7th grade on their living room wall.
* h '
LETTERS TO
You were very careful (in the i
manner of Clarence Thomas per- r
haps) to attack only the philosophi- f
cal and semantic facts of the pro- r
choice movement, and on the se- s
mantic facts at least, you did not >
convince me. How capricious of
you to write such a column. n
Heather Lowe ^
Broadcast journalism junior 1(
h
Suggestions >
given to party j
n
To the editor:
A few ideas on the Democrats' i
very embarrassing problem of not y
having a contender to challenge h
Bush in '92: fi
First of all ? get rid of Demo- (
cratic Party Chairman Ron Brown. c
You really have to question some- $
one who, on national television, a
says Ted Kennedy is one of the \
finest members of the United
States Congress. Oh, I know that Si
my attitude towards Ron Brown is
because I am insensitive to minori- j,
ties; in fact, I'm on my way to a b
sensitivity seminar ? right. tl
Second idea ? get rid of the ii
loony party ideology that the
Democrats seem to stand for, i.e. j
"we support homosexuals, pacifists $
and every other flaky group." B
Third idea ? refrain from en- j
dorsing candidates like Tedd(y,
Ifvcsp. nnH flp.ralHinp as nntpntial /
? , ^
prospects. I know, I m not being u
politically correct by displaying a a,
socio-economic bias against Ken- V]
nedy, a racial bias against Jackson q
and a sex bias against Ferraro -p ^
the ultimate sin. S(
These are merely suggestions ? ^
any other ideas sihould be forwarded
to the Kennedy Estate, al- 01
though attractive females are in- f(
vited to stay for a few drinks and
maybe a late night road trip. aj
Stephen Edwards fL
History junior jc
tc
God sensitive ?
to the G-word
ro the editor
This is in response to Mr. Jamie
Williams' letter on Sept. 16. t
Mr. Williams is obviously mis- *
nformed to basic Christian theology.
When someone uses God's T
name in vain ? i.e. "G.D." ? he
1
:h the comi
essence of tl
view of thos
It is abso
EALY be pretty ani
"beautiful" i
eyes, out tne
images on tl
coffee tables
nderstood the issue the deeper m
ict that they did. Just sides, the pe
v and the high brow a few public
r just long enough to much on the
phy by any
eople there Monday the public.
me because of Bar- a
it I just couldn't help ,
k-handed praise. The thpriaht m
ral (and for the most
... . call to get m
f genuinely pleased eallerie? wi
wo* bu. I think that
j to have exclusive . .
. . field tnp visi
beautiful, what is art
1 art, however, are in And in the
md of which no one few over-opi
ners and aire
prefers duck art to tent of an e:
c sex acts, but that where out tl
ppreciate the concept who sees a ]
f the artist to express says to him<
they wouldn't put it look good o
This, I think, is the those damn d
rHE EDITOR "
s not condemned to Hell. The
lame of God is holy and it hurts
lim when it is used in vain. He is
lot a great voodoo doctor in the
ky who is there to place curses at
'our beckon call.
Exodus 20:7 warns: "You shall
lot take the name of the Lord your
}od in vain, for the Lord will not
eave him unpunished who takes
lis name in vain." This includes
lot onlv "G.D." but also coarse
;sting about God and Christ and
ven claiming to be a Christian but
ot following the "greatest comlandments:"
loving God and your
eighbors (Matt 22: 37-39).
As for "getting in tight with
leelzebub," all he wants is to keep
ou from God. The only way to
ang with him is by rejecting the
ree gift of God and not accepting
Christ's work of redemption on the
ross (Romans 6:23; 5:8). Jesus
ied so that you and I could live
bundantly and eternally (John
0:10; 3:16).
Your idea of Christianity is
adly distorted. I say this not to
ldge you, for that is not up to me.
ssus Christ "is the one who has
een appointed by God as judge of
le living and the dead" (Acts
0:42). That means you,'me, all of
fSC and all who have ever lived,
simply wish to share with you
le truth set forth by God in the 1
ible. namelv Jesus Christ (John
: 14; 14:6).
You call yourself "an agnostic
hristian." This is plainly a con- i
adiction of terms. An agnostic, I
:cording to Webster, "holds the I
iew that any ultimate reality (as !
lod) is unknown and probably un- i
nowable," while a Christian is i
>meone who has a personal relaonship
with Jesus Christ, who,
iving all the diety of God, took
n human form to pave the way
>r us to heaven.
Therefore you are either simply
gnostic, or an atheist, or a con- 1
ised individual. I nrav fhar fh*?
_ r--; ??- ?~
>ve of God through Christ will
>uch your heart and that I may
tie day see you in heaven, beluse
the Kingdom of God is an (
ernal party! I
John Marus <
Sociology sophomore 1
Department >
lot repressive ;
o the editor:
Mr. Papleacos' letter in the Sept.
J_
Distributed by Tnbun. Media Ser.cs
mnn mor*
LllUll lilOJLl
ie art world's sometimes downward
e not in the art world,
lutely true that art doesn't have to
i that often the most revealing and
mages are the ones harshest on the
: average person doesn't want these
heir walls or in the books on their
That doesn't mean they can't see
leaning within the images. And beople
who complain the most about
ly funded testicle shots are just as
Cringe as those who say pomogradefinition
should be accessible to
orld should take the decision that
heart not just as a confirmation of
a freedom of expression, but as a
lore people into their museums and
th a little effort maybe more people
for more than just the 7th grade
t.
i future the police won't listen to a
nionated moral majority campaig>st
a museum director for the conxhibiL
Who knows, maybe somelere
there's a guy named Bubba
picture, say by Mapplethorpe, and
>elf, "You know, that sure would
n m\r u;ot1 13r?ciHoc T' m tiraH
ii inj niui, a/voiuvo, j. ill uivu v/l
lucks."
' v % >?' S/.'V . iy >Mjj - +. X?SOO<^j ,\fc
9 issue of 77ze Gamecock raises a
number of important issues we feel
compelled to address.
The most disturbing of the writer's
many inaccuracies is his tendency
to view members of the En- "
glish Department as a monolithic
group suffering, from in his words,
"homogenized thinking." In our
experiences as graduate students in
this department, rarely have we encounted
the sort of 4 ideological
repression" Mr. Paplcacos describes.
If anything, faculty in this
department evince the broadest diversity
of approaches to tire examination
and teaching of both writing ;
and literature. Between the two of *
us, we have taken courses from
some two dozen or so English pro- ?
fessors, none of whom have ever
displayed the sort of "theoretical *
monopolization" the writer mista- *
kenly assumes as being the norm
in this department.
Regarding comprehensive ex- t
aminations, Mr. Papleacos would
be well served to look more care- ;
fully at the examination processes ?
in less forgiving programs at other
universities (Duke University is
perhaps a model example in this
rAOr\Artf\ WKiIa nA^AeeoriUr ri/T/xr
I VJ|/W k J . T T IlliV I1WVJJU111J ll^Ul"
us, our examination process is in
many ways far more humane and
open-minded than the writer would
lead others to believe. We are but
two of many individuals who have
successfully completed this pro-,
cess, and have found the graders,
based on their written comments,
to be largely fair and considerate,
showing little signs of the "bullying
and cronyism" Mr. Paoleacos
alleges.
In short, though our opinions
and approaches have often differed
from various members of the English
faculty, those opinions and approaches
(when informed and
communicated clearly) have always
been respected, appreciated
and, indeed, encouraged as contributing
to "the spirit of pluralism"
Mr. Papleacos so strongly advocates.
Perhaps he would be wise to
need the words of Aristotle
'known to have written a word or
wo of literary theory himself):
'Whether our argument concerns
Dublic affairs or some other subect,
we must know some, if not
ill, of the facts" (Rhetoric 1396a
1-5).
James Allen
Guy Litton
English doctoral candidates