Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

•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.