University of South Carolina Libraries
Quote, Unquote - ‘It’s the same old white people running this campus. It’s a new millennium, and the campus needs to reflect that.’ Doran Saunders, female impersonator Wat (Samccock 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 Proposed SG codes make for unjust trial v n Wednesday, Student Government is expected to vote on I 1 amendments to its legislative codes that will affect the process guiding the impeachment proceedings of treasurer Elizabeth Fordham. These amendments would lighten the prosecu tion’s burden of proof, deny senators the opportunity to debate the issue and allow the senators to act without accountability. The pro posed legislation is unconstitutional and unjust, and we expect bet ter conduct from our student representative body. “The findings of the senate members as to the guilt or inno cence of the accused shall be based on a preponderance of the evi dence and based only on the evidence presented to it by the par ties.” In laymen’s terms, the writers of the proposed legislation wish not that proof be established beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case for trials in this country according to the Constitution, but simply that some proof be presented, however tenuous. If this ' amendment were to pass, the senate “trial” would be limited to whatever evidence the court of impeachment wishes to present to them. That is, if the COI were to find the charges justifiable and Fordham’s guilt was evident, the senate would have no period to examine the other side of the issue to determine whether the opin ion of the COI was reached without bias. The senate, as a jury, would thus be easily manipulated by the COI — hardly a fair trial for Fordham. The amendment also proposes that the individual senators themselves will serve only as jurors, thus removing their opportu nity to voice individual opinions about the impeachment charges. The amendment proposed allows senators to ask questions only through a “Senate Foreman” who would be the current president pro tempore, Leigh-Ann Travers. While this clause is consistent with a jury’s operation during a trial, the clause denies the senators debate on the pending impeachment vote. In a trial of such impor tance as this one, that senators have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the fate of Fordham is imperative. Thic ctinnlatirm r*rmtriKntoc an annnt/mrtnc trial nrrw"»occ When an executive official has charges raised against him or her, the senators should have a period of debate so the constituents know their student representatives’ minds during the impeachment process. The procedure regarding questions certainly provides sen ators the luxury of being able to ask questions without having the entire court know who asked it. But senators, as student leaders, should be held completely accountable for the questions they ask in a trial, as they would in any other trial outside of the university. This bill serves to allow the senators to eschew their responsi bility and accountability to their constituents. The proposed legis lation is conducive to a trial conducted in secrecy and anonymity — hardly the fair and public trial guaranteed us by the Constitu ~ tion. Interested students may contact their senators before the senate meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday. i -)f|j | 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 Golumbia, 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 Submission Policy 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 yea and ma|or. 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 fa guest columnist and can be provided by the submitter. Call 777-7726 fa mare information. I HE UAMECOCK Sara Ladenheim Editor in Chief Ken ley 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 Stuoent Media Ellen Parsons Director of Student Media Susan King Creative Director Kris Black Julia Burnett Betsy Martin Kathy Van Nostrand Creative Services 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 Lee Phipps Advertising Manager Sheny Holmes Classified Manager Carolyn Griffin Business Manager Erik Collins Faculty Adviser Jonathan Dunagin Graduate Assistant College Press Exchange rjsyr * I’M €01WG TO ‘oTM \$mm. !-* I Social Issues Abortion on the military's turf Reader, now that you’re going to have to deal with me every week, I guess I’d better prepare you for it. I often find myself be tween a rock and a wide-open plain. ... ._, Unfortunately, this teg|gtg wide-open plain re- ||.... *'"**’'' * sounds with the so- writes a column cially unacceptable eacb Monday. He howl of my own can be reached hot air. I’ve done via The my best to chew Gamecock at: through the rock gckviews@sc.edu and avoid running amidst the unsavory landscape. Unfortu nately for the easily antagonized, this ends here. A fortnight ago, I happened upon the dead horse of abortion while chewing through the rock. I surely wasn’t going to chew through a dead horse, so I went around it. But alas, my gums grow weary, and I believe it’s time to pay some attention to the rotting equine. Don’t worry, I’m not going to lay a hand on that dead horse. Instead, I’ll prop it up and ride it across the unsavory plain and into the sunset! People are still bickering about this is sue, despite the Supreme Court decision in favor of abortion. They’re picketing, sign-making, killing, crying on TV—the standard actions of a people upset. It’s an overall waste of time. Their time, your time, my time and especially the time of our ethical and impartial journalists are wasted. I don’t worry about the legality of abor tion. Instead, I’m a bit concerned about who’s doing it—doctors. Our physicians should be compassionate healers; they shouldn’t be killing people still in the midst of fundamental biological development. The Hippocratic oath binds them to the pursuit of the preservation of life and nul lification of pain. Conducting an abortion goes against this. I’m all for delegating the task of con ducting abortions to our armed services. They’re our nation’s sanctioned organiza tions of professional killers. It’s their job to go into areas that threaten our beloved nation and eliminate the source of the threat. Unwanted people are as big a threat to the U.S.A. as oil-glomming aggressors in the Middle East or guerrillas in South America threatening our sources of cheap produce. It would only be logical to have the armed services serve as our assassins of the prenatal. Some may object to this line of thought. I see where they’re coming from. Many would think that a physician with nearly a decade of medical education should car ry out abortion. It’s a valid gripe. But re ally, people, if our soldiers can get the hang of a multimillion-dollar jet or a tank worth more than most school districts, I’m sure they could figure out a pair of forteps and a vacuum tube. So that’s my wild romp through the unsavory plains while riding a rotting horse. Not once did I have to punch, kick, bite or in any other way harm the dead horse. I did, however, probably lose most of my readers. So to those faithful few readers who are still with me, I cast out my pur pose in writing this monstrosity in plain words, free of elaboration or obnoxious imagery. I believe that I am one of the first peo ple to ever bring both sides of a tenaciously disputed issue together. Rarely will you see nearly all the pro-choicers and pro-lif ers coming together in agreement on an abortion-related issue. I wager that most people on both sides of the abortion is sue will agree with this statement: “Mr. DiPresso’s ideas on abortion are whacked.” So there is my plainly stated pur pose. I must announce, however, that I still hold true my disfigured opinion. I stand by it just as a serial killer’s mother stands by her son: “He really is such a kind, gentle boy.. .really such a sweet boy.” Call me crazy, but I believe that we should leave the Healing to the healers, and the (sanc tioned) killing to the (sanctioned) killers. Letters Drug users deserve no warning before fund loss To the Editor Friday’s edition contains an article that calls for a warning to be given to students facing loss of funding because of drug con victions [editorial, “Warning necessary be fore loss of loans,” Oct. 29]. I find the ar ticle to be very contradictory and confusing, and ask for some clarification on a cou ple of your views. First of all, if it is appropriate for states to withhold educational funding from con victed drug offenders, why is it inappro priate for the federal government to do the same? You concede that the state is doing the right thing, looking out for its citi zens by not “giving money away to peo ple who don’t comply with its laws.” The state should not give money to crim inals! No problem. Yet when the federal government tries to use the same criteri on for allocation of student loans, it is seen as misguided, punishing a few unlucky in dividuals who “got caught.” I don’t un derstand this double standard being applied to the different funding agencies. As I see it, educational funds are limited and re ceiving them is a privilege that must be earned. Funding agencies have decided that proven drug use is a valid indication that an individual is not worthy of receiving this privilege, hi an era where so many people are attending college and competing for limited funding, isn’t it only fair that law abiding students have an advantage over criminals, on any level? Secondly, the editorial proposes that convicted drug users should get a warning before funding is withheld. Are you seri ous? If you are convicted of drug posses sion, your funding will be suspended. That is your warning. What more do you need? It appears there are two paths you can follow to avoid loss of your scholarships and loans: (1) don’t use drugs or (2) don’t get caught. And if you choose another path, don’t expect my tax dollars to fund it. James Krest Geology Graduate Student Editor’s Note: Friday’s editorial notes that the suspension of funds might lead to a stu dent ’s dropping out of school, which could worsen the drug problem, not only for the student, but for society as well. We End a warning — that is, prior to suspension of funds — to be appropriate on the Erst of fense. Interpretation of Bible does change over time To the Editor This is in response to Jason Autry’s let ter (“Christians should not tolerate gay lifestyle,” Oct. 25). Thankfully, there are many Christians who think otherwise. I do not wish to debate the interpretation of the biblical verses Mr. Autry has plucked out of the Bible to justify his position — such debate often leads more to heat than light, and strengthens the image that Chris tians excel better at acrimony than chari ty What I’d like to point out is that Chris tians have interpreted the Bible in a vari ety of ways throughout history, and in many cases, these interpretations have changed over the years. One concrete example that comes to mind is that of usury, the taking of any interest on a loan money. The bib lical condemnation of usury is far more frequent and common than the few pas sages that refer to homosexual activity. One might look up the following: Exod 22:25, Lev 25:36-37, Deut 23:19-20, Neh 5:7, Neh 5:10, Ps 15:5, Prov 28:8, Is 24:2, Jer 15:10 and Ezek 18:8,17,22:12. And not just the Scriptures, but the tradition of the Church (in several of the early ecu menical councils and in teaching of the ologians and popes of past centuries) has condemned the taking of any interest as a most un-Christian activity. And yet — where does one hear anything about usury these days? Any sermons preached about it? Are ballot initiatives started by con cerned Christians to prevent it? Are let ters to the editor dec tying it? And surely, it cannot be denied that our society is built upon the taking of interest. So what hap pened to this part of the Word of God? Ob viously, the interpretation of the words of the Bible has changed. This has hap pened in many other cases — the justifi cation of slavery, the treatment of Jews, racial segregation, the treatment of women, etc. Finally, regardless of what one thinks about homosexuality, or what one thinks the Bible says about it, as Christians, our conduct toward those of a homosexual ori entation obviously needs to be based in, and characterized by love. Of love, I found little in Mr. Autry’s vitriolic fulmination. Perhaps the words of our Lord may be help ful at this juncture: “Woe to you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!” (Matt 23:23 24) and “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matt 7:3) Perhaps it would be generally salutary for Christians to focus first on the very many logs in our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our homosexual neighbors’ eyes. Gaurav Shroff Religious Studies. Graduate Student I Social Issues Web site shouldn't sell looks Where is the Internet taking us? A new Web site (http://www.ron sangels.cem) is auc tioning models’eggs to people who want to increase their chances of having an attractive child. For $15,000 to $150,000, one can purchase the right to use an egg donat ed from a model. The Web site is the brainchild of Vogue photographer Ron Harris. He says that people hope for a beau tiful child as much as they hope for a healthy child. It blows my mind that someone can be so petty. If you ask any woman with child if she is hoping for a boy or a girl, chances are, she’ll tell you she just hopes it’s healthy. If you ask a pregnant woman if she hopes the child is beautiful, chances are, she’ll relieve you of some teeth Look at the implications of a Web site like this. It gives people the chance to skip over God’s work in the miracle of conception and birth. It gives people the chance to cheat Darwin and become, as Harris believes, fitter than a naturally con ceived child. Conventional fertility clinics are no ble. They give millions of women the chance to have a child naturally, even though it wouldn’t ordinarily be possible. This Web site, however, gives women who are per fectly capable of having a child without as sistance the chance to have a child that could vaguely resemble some model or ac tress. This Web site is reminiscent of the genetic experiments the Nazis did when they were trying to build the “perfect race.” Imagine the child that comes from one of these eggs. How could a mother tell her child that he or she has only half of the fam ily’s bloodline? There are no guarantees that the child will be beautiful anyway. The chances are practically the same if the child is conceived through the natural process. Think of the unpredictability of human genes. For example, my sister and I come from the same gene pool. Her vision is 20/20. My'eyesight is so bad I have to spe cial-order contact lenses. Just because a child comes from the gene pool of a “beau tiful” woman, he or she could still fall vic tim to a myriad of genetic disorders. I can only imagine the lawsuit that would result when a child of one of the donors is bom with a cleft palate. And then there is the potential dan ger to the models. All the models inter viewed for the USA Today article said they didn’t know about the potential hazards of egg donation. They didn’t seem particu larly interested, either. The donor must un dergo weeks of hormone treatments as well as surgery. Hormone treatments can cause some health problems and result in infer tility or even death. XT_ 1 _ I_I. ... . I_ __ 1 ^ VJ , 1VV O lUTkS, U IUUR Ul 111 V IUWIIVJ that is being thrown around here. If a per son bids $50,000 on a model’s egg, the mod el makes $50,000. Harris then chaiges an additional 20 percent handling fee. Harris said he expects to make upward of $400,000 in the next year. That’s about $2 million dollars worth of eggs sold over his Web site. And here’s another moneymaking plan: One must pay a fee of $24.95 in order to find out more about the model from her age right down to her measurements. A professor of health law at Boston University puts it succinctly: “What he’s really saying is: come to my site and buy a nice, beautiful child.” It disgusts me that we live in a soci ety so vain that one has the option to or der a beautiful child as we order a pizza. If lawmakers don’t find some loophole in the single existing law regulating fertil ity clinics that would render this Web site illegal, I pray for some sort of help. Per haps the Y2K bug would be a blessing in disguise. Not only would it send the Inter net crashing down upon itself (and www.ronsangels.com along with it), but it also would put things into perspective. Maybe I’m just angry at the absurdity of the idea. Maybe I’m just tired of people’s petty views of true beauty. In his interview with USA Today, Har ris said that it is beauty, not brains that are the key to success. “Beauty is more than skin-deep,” Harris says. “It shows health iness, and longevity and opportunity.” Mr. Harris, I beg to differ.