•r
Quote, Unquote -
‘[A flu vaccination is] just one shot for man, one
giant leap for public health.'
Howard Koh,. Massachusetts public health commissioner
■ tk (BamccociT ? " : pa«s
%he (Samcock
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
Kiki McCormick • Editorial Contributor
Intra-campus mail
fees not acceptable
For most students, sending intra-campus mail is as easy as
dropping it into any “Campus Mail” slot. But for student or
ganizations, sending out mailings on campus comes at a steep
price.
Organizations sending out more than 25 pieces of campus mail
at one time must pay a $25 fee, and they must also get approval
from the Campus Activities Center and the USC post office.
For most organizations, from the largest clubs on campus to the
fledgling clubs with very small budgets, this can be not only a ma
jor inconvenience, but also in some cases, an impossibility. And
the money can add up quickly for those organizations that rely
heavily on sending mailings to their members to keep them updat
ed.
According to Ladonna Moss, USC Postal Services director, the
cost is used to help Postal Services offset the labor cost to distrib
ute the mail. But considering the extensive amount of mail that
on-campus students send and receive daily, why chaige organiza
tions to send out sporadic bulk mailings?
And while e-mail would be a cheaper way for a club to contact
its members, not everybody is fortunate enough to have an e-mail
account he can check on a consistent basis.
Postal Services and the Division of Student and Alumni Affairs
should re-evaluate the fairness of requiring organizations to go
through such a process to send bulk campus mail. After all, most
organizations can find a better, more productive way to spend $25
and their time.
Prayer before games
unconstitutional
Public prayer over the public-address system before a universi
ty sporting event has become an all-too-common practice at
USC. While some students might aigue that it’s the only
thing that can save USC’s football team right now, prayer has no
place in the stadiums and coliseums of a public institution.
In the first place, from a legal standpoint, prayer in these areas
violates the concept of separation of church and state.
While the general public might support the idea of an invoca
tion, if that invocation were represented by a Hebrew blessing or
Muslim prayer, chances are the prayer wouldn’t be as well-re
ceived.
But even on a more pragmatic level, it’s hard to believe that
anyone’s god could possibly invest very much interest in human
sporting events. Supreme Beings, whether they exist or not, should
have to worry about far too many other pressing issues, such as nu
clear meltdowns, devastating earthquakes and hurricane flooding,
to be concerned with the outcome of a college football game.
And assuming such a Supreme Being should somehow find the
time to watch SportsCenter, would he or she really choose sides?
If so, is God a Yankees or an Indians fan? Does he or she pull
for the Bulls or the Jazz?
And if you really want a someone to miss a free throw, should
n’t you pray to Satan instead of God?
Not only is prayer before public college athletic events uncon
stitutional, but it’s nonsensical.
A B O U T U s
The Gamecock is the student newspaper of The University of South Carolina and is published Monday, Wednesday and
Friday durir^ 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 stident 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 gcked@sc.edu 777-3914
News gcknews@sc.edu 777-7726
Viewpoints gckviews@sc.edu 777-7181
Etc. gcketc@sc.edu * 777-3913
Sports gcksports@sc.edu 777-7182
Online www.gamecock.sc.edu 777-2833
SUBM&SION 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 published. Photos are
(required for guest columnist and qan be provided by the
submitter. Call 777-7726 for more 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
Rachel Helwig
EtCetera Editor
Todd Money
Jared Kelowitz
Sports Editor
Kristin Freestate
Copy Desk Chief
Sean Rayford
Photo Editor
Rob Lindsey
Encore Editor
Student Media
Ellen Parsons
Director of
Student Media
Carolyn Griffin
Business Manager
Sherry Holmes
Classified Manager
Susan $ing
Creative. Director
Will Gillaspy *
Online Editor
Corey Ford
Asst. Viewpoints Editor
John Huiett
Asst. News Editor
Ann Marie Miani
Asst. EtCetera Editor
David Cloninger
Asst. Sports Editor
Greg Farley
Asst. Photo Editor
Casey Williams
Asst. Online Editor
Brad Walters
Graphics Editor,
Copy Editor,
Editorial Contributor
MacKenzie Craven
Charlie Wallace
Philip Burt
Senior Writers
Kris Black
Julia Burnett
Betsy Martin
Kathy Van Nostrand
Creative Services
Erik Collins
Faculty Adviser
Jonathan Dunagin
Graduate Assistant
College Press Exchange
^ jj ___— — - -■ — - ——————
National Issues
Atomic age brings responsibilities
Smart parent:
who have;
small chile
anel a gun in the
same house wil
take the time tc
make sure thai
chile! is trained ir
gun safety. But i
r'KJM ir ctill «
child, and even a
well-trained one will still be admonished
for playing with a gun.
The more information 1 hear about the
nuclear accident in Japan last week, the
more I can’t help but think about a child
waving a gun at his friend, not realizing it’s
loaded, about to pull the trigger jokingly
and shout “bang!”
Again, the world is watching a nuclear
disaster that could have easily been avert
ed.
The culprit this time, depending on
whom you ask, is either JCO Co. Ltd., the
operator of the Japanese uranium pro
cessing facility, or operator error. Or both.
JCO admitted Saturday that it ille
gally modified a government-approved
manual.
Included in the modification was a pro
vision to allow workers to omit key safe
ty steps, resulting in uranium being poured
directly into a safety basin.
Mark Piras
writes every other
Wednesday. He
can be reached
via The
Gamecock at
gckviews@sc.edu
Operator error factored in when the
workers mistakenly added nearly eight
times the maximum amount of 2.4 kilo
grams of uranium.
The resulting chain reaction forced
evacuation of a 350-meter radius sur
rounding the plant and caused a govern
ment official to remark: “We are seeing a
blue glow, which is something we have
never seen before.”
While Japan promises a “strict inves
tigation,” the entire globe scratches its col
lective head and wonders, “How could
someone be so lax about something so se
rious? Do they understand how important
this is?”
I can think of few things that are as po
tentially lethal to life on this planet as
the improper handling of radioactive ma
terials.
And this is not the first large-scale nu
clear accident. The United States suffered
its high-profile accident in March 1979,
when the Three Mile Island reactor teetered
on the brink of full-scale meltdown. In
April 1986, the Chernobyl reactor un
derwent a series of explosions during a test,
resulting in more than 75 million people
being exposed to dangerously high levels
of radiation.
In each case, misinterpretations, mis
understandings and slow emergency re
sponse to the situation expounded the prob
ems to catastrophic levels.
For their parts, both the United States
ind Russia have undertaken complete over
lauls of their respective nuclear programs
:o prevent similar accidents.
But the pattern here is unsettling. Must
lach nuclear-powered country have a se
■ious accident in order to understand the
seriousness of the technology they are
ittempting to harness?
Again, I am reminded of the child with
foe gun pointed at his friend, and the par
;nts who could prevent the disaster with
iducation and supervision.
Now there are three of us “parent coun
foes” who have all felt the pain of an un
fortunate accident. It is up to us to edu
ate and supervise these countries. We ain’t
simply give them a gun and a manual on
low to use it; we must oversee each facet
if the development of this still-new in
lustry in each country that wishes to use
t.
We have seen the havoc misuse can
vreak—in some parts of the world, chick
in Kiev can still be used as a nightlight.
Me must take this burden on our shoul
iers, even though it is yet another bur
ien we must bear, because this is an issue
if such importance.
The future of our race could depend
in it.
Letters
Senator opposes
Safe Ride proposal
To the Editor
I am a senator representing the law
school. Should legislation authorizing Safe
Ride come to the student senate floor,
I will vote against it. The reasons for my
decision are:
• Unnecessary liability: Simply stated,
I believe the university will expose itself
to a potentially large amount of tort lia
bility should it assume the responsibility
of carting around people in various states
of drunkenness. I believe my constituents
are already paying high enough tuition -
why make them pay more to subsidize the
judgments and settlements against the uni
versity that might ultimately come as a
product of this program?
•Safe Ride creates the impression that
the university condones underage drink
ing: Because Safe Ride shuttles are slat
ed to run from locations on campus to Five
Points, the folks who will more than like
ly be using the service will be on campus
students. I believe it is fair to say that (a)
the majority of students living on-cam
pus are under the age of 21, and (b) the
overwhelming majority of places operat
ing in Five Points at night are in the ex
clusive business of selling alcohol. Taking
these points together, I do not under
stand how the university can operate Safe
Ride without creating the impression
that it facilitates (i.e. supports) underage
drinking. I would prefer the university not
engage in crafting this message.
• Burdensome expense: When you con
sider the costs associated with operating
Safe Ride (e.g. employing drivers, insur
ance, gas, wear and tear on university ve
hicles), it seems ambitious of the program’s
advocates to say that Safe Ride can be
operated on only $200 a night. 1 believe
additional analysis will show the costs to
be greater. I can think many other ways
my constituents would like to see their stu
dent activities fees spent (i.e. more mon
ey for organizations like the Student Bar
Assocation, NAACP, fratemity/sorority
service projects, etc. and less money for
driving aroundO drunk).
I greatly respect the student leaders
who are developing solutions to combat
drinking and driving. Nevertheless, I be
lieve that Safe Ride is a program with neg
atives that far outweigh its positives. Ac
cordingly, I encourage my fellow senators
to abandon Safe Ride and work toward cre
ating feasible anti-drinking-and-driving
programs, as well as strengthening exist
ing efforts, such as GAMMA, to keep
the student body safe.
Christian Stegmaier
Third-year law student
Column distorts
Newsweek article
To the Editor.
I am writing to answer some of Emi
ly Streyer’s open-ended questions in her
column “Computers no substitute for
M.D.s” [Oct. 1]. Her first question was,
“A prognosis calculator?”
Yes, Emily, a prognosis calculator. Wfell,
not exactly. According to the Newsweek
article that you hastily misrepresented,
“The program doesn’t just enhance their
efficiency. As Slawson’s experience sug
gests, it can improve their decisions.”
InfoRetriever includes all of the latest
findings in many of the top medical jour
nals and digests, along with hundreds drawn
from other reliable sources, and the whole
program can be updated quarterly through
Internet downlqads. Sorry, Emily, it does
1’t pick your lotto numbers fox you; it’s
ot really a calculator.
Now-to the second question: “Have
liese doctors set up practice in a “Star
’rek” episode?” No, Emily, it is called get
ing the latest pertinent information to doc
ors quickly to save lives and lessen mis
ikes.
According to the Newsweek article,
Medicine has gotten too complex to prac
ice from a dog-eared textbook. Fortu
ately, there is now an alternative. In
oRetriever and other portable databases
von’t make doctors obsolete. But doctors
vho lack them may soon be just that.”
The other questions: “What are the
hances of an ‘otherwise healthy’ woman,
ri no immediate danger, dying anyway, ei
her at home or in a hospital? Is the mul
iplier 2.2 really a significant case?” Well,
o answer question A: no, a healthy woman
vould probably not be at the doctor’s of
ice, and there would not be the debate
o check her into the hospital.
As you failed to mention in your col
imn, the patient was suffering from pneu
nonia, and her regular doctor thought
:hecking her into a hospital, where germs
ire rampant, would be a bad idea for a
voman in her condition. Yes, if 1 was
old being somewhere would make me
nore than two times likely to die, I think
t would be significant enough for me to
;o somewhere else.
At no point was InfoRetriever used for
liagnosis in place of a doctor. In the fu
ure, when summarizing Newsweek arti
:les, please read them first.
*
John Mangine
■j/ Sociology Junior
State Issues
Vote Yes
%
proponents
pervert
poker issue
Video poker.
Two words
that seem to
appear together on
the editorial pages
of countless news
papers across South
Carolina every day.
The issues be
hind video poker
have been confused
so much that the av
erage South Car
olinian doesn’t
knowhow to think
about the issue or
how to vote Nov. 2.
The confusion
aam ar fram t Vi a
closest thing South Carolina has to an or
ganized mafia — the gambling “industry”
— and from politicians on both sides.
See, when we elected Gov. Jim “traf
fic jam” Hodges, we did so with the hope
that he would bring South Carolinians a
lottery so South Carolina’s best and bright
est could go to state-supported colleges and
universities for free.
Hodges won’t bring us a lottery during
his term, and chances are the nqxt gover
nor won’t, either.
It would require a constitutional amend
ment to legally have a lottery in this
state.
Do you know how long it will be be
fore we have enough bipartisan support for
a lottery in the House and Senate? Let’s
just say Satan will be wearing a scarf.
The issue that won Hodges the gover
norship — the lottery — has convenient
ly been put on the back burner in favor of
video poker.
Perhaps this is because Hodges wants
to downplay the lottery because he knows
it is impossible to gain the constitutional
. amendment necessary to implement it.
Or, perhaps it’s because he was never
in favor of it in the first place.
Truth is, organized gambling (video
poker included) is supposed to be illegal in
South Carolina The only reason video pok
er machines and “casinos” deface nearly
every exit on our interstates and nearly
every filling station from Charleston to
Spartanburg is a clandestine attachment
that slipped into a bill years ago. Pretty
slick, huh?
Now there are all the bright yellow
signs screaming “Vote yes!” that dot the
highways, claiming that if we vote to keep
video poker, car taxes will magically dis
appear, our children will magically be smart
and our freedom to put entire paychecks
into a machine programmed to make mon
ey for the gaming “industry” will be pro
tected.
Clayton Kale
is a guest colum
nist. He can be
reached via The
Gamecock at
gckviews@sc.edu
Since when has money from the video
poker industry gone to education? What
proof does the Vote Yes campaign have that
by keeping video poker, car taxes will be
slashed?
And then, there are those close to the
gaming “industry” who are fearful of the
people’s voice, and for good reason. A re
cent poll showed that 71 percent of
“likely voters” would vote to ban video
poker. Allen Mashbum, operations man
ager for Leisure Time Inc., a company that
distributes video poker machines, told a
colleague of mine something that goes
against what this country is founded on -
the citizens’ will.
“Wfe elected officials to make decisions,.
If they turn over every controversial vote
to the people, then we don’t need them,”
Mashbum said.
Now, if the politicians aren’t sure of
what their constituents want, I’d rather
they send the vote to the people than have
them make blind guesses or vote with the
opinion of the highest-paying lobby.
Earlier in conversation with my friend
andcollegue, Mashbum said: “People have
the right to choose.” The irony is so thick,
you can cut itwith a knife.
So keep in mind that if you are pro-lot
tery (like myself), voting no on Nov. 2 will
not affect the chances of getting a lottery
in South Carolina.
It’ll be awhile before we have one, any
way. s
Also, keep in mind that voting yes won’t
affect the progress on getting a lottery, ei
ther.
It will only bring more and more burnt
sienna buildings with purple neon signs say
ing “adult videogames” farther off the in
terstate and closer to your home.