6/editorial r;",rs., Nations whittle down number of warheads "Anything you can do I can do better" seems to be the theme of recent relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. A few weeks ago, President Bush "boldly" announced his plan to cut roughly 3,000 nuclear arms from the American stock of 22,000. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev responded by saying he would eliminate the number of weapons required by the START treaty they signed in July, AND throw in an additional 1,000 warheads. FINALLY! The big competition between the two super powers is over who can outdo who in efforts toward peace. It seems not too long ago we were trying to scare the hell out of each other with who had the "biggest gun." I prefer this game MUCH more, for everyone's a winner. Speaking of winners, is anyone else somewhat suspicious of Bush's decision to make these cuts just weeks before he started setting his sights on re-election? Between the Gulf War and these drastic arms reductions I think Bush has licked his image as a wimp. I wonder what's left for him to do as a campaign stunt...maybe he could try PASSING some bills instead of vetoing them. Last week, Bush shot down the $6.4 billion unemployment benefits bill (with his 23rd veto) which would have provided up to 20 more weeks of unemployment benefits. Bush said it violated the budget agreement made between lawmakers and the White House last year, because it does not include offsetting cutbacks to make up for the $6.4 billion price tag. Bush may have kicked the wimp complex, but he's going to have a hard time deflecting Democratic attacks that he is insensitive to the jobless. Bush also said the bill was unnecessary because the recession is nearly over. I wonder whose bank account he checked with...certainly not mine. A newspaper for the student body [ Capital Times ) Editor in Chief... Karen M. Putt News Editor ... T.J. Brightman Sports Editor ... Michael Givler Copy Editor ... Elin Marcel Photography/Graphics Editor ... John Rudy Staff Artist... Craig Smith Advertising Manager... Rodney May Adviser ... Dr. Peter Parisi Staff: Lee Ashton, Sharon Barris, Robert Caton, Celia Fox, Jeff Hildebrand, Ann Feeney-McGovern, Stacey Simmers, Nancy Strawhecker, Angela West, Andy Zee and Hilary Zeiders Capital Times is published by the students of Penn State Harrisburg. Concerns regarding the content of any issue should be directed to the editor in room W-341 of the Olmsted Building or by calling 944-4970. Opinions expressed are those of the author and are not representative of the College administration, faculty or student body. Capital Times welcomes signed letters from readers. Unsigned submissions cannot be printed; however, a writer's name may be withheld upon request. The Capital Times does not endorse its advertisers. Karen Tt. Putt Editor -in- chief V.V.V.* • • •■■. V Hearings produce no winners - only losers T.J. Brightman Capital Times Staff In Judge Clarence Thomas' opening statement on Friday, he made reference to a discussion he had with President Bush, the day he was invited to lunch in Kennebunkport, Maine and announced as U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Thomas spoke of the honor it was to be considered for such an illustrious position. The key thing he remembers the president telling him was, that up to that time, Thomas had received the nomination purely on his merit. During the months that followed, things have changed a bit. Now, his chances of making it to the Supreme Court are now resting on politics. How ironic, don't you think? This weekend’s antics in Washington were despicable and shameful, as we watched nothing more than countless hours of partisan ripping from both sides of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This event should have never been allowed to take place, and is a direct indication of another Washington screw up. Clarence Thomas was not supposed to be on trial this weekend. That's what everyone seems to be forgetting. The purpose, as the Judiciary Committee told us countless times, was to better understand what may or may not have happened ten years ago. And that is EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS ! Letters to the editor are always welcomed and encouraged. Submit your letter in Room W-341 or place it in our mailbox in Room 212. Typed submissions are preferred. Please include your name...we cannot print anonymous letters We reserve the right to edit all submissions. tf: ' >: V certainly understandable, but it should have been conducted behind closed doors, not for the entire country to decide in their living rooms over dinner. Whether or not Thomas or Anita Hill is telling the truth is not really the issue. The real truth is that every member of the U.S. Senate has already made their decision. If he is not qualified, fine. Don't confirm him. But the blatant act of deliberately looking for dirt, keeping it under wraps and then leaking it to the press two days before the confirmation day is totally wrong. And then, proceeding to publicly humiliate a man and his family on national television by talking about alleged stories of graphic sex and pubic hair on Coke cans. What purpose does it serve? None other than to assure that there are no winners; only losers. The only real issue is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is bad, and anyone guilty of it should be punished accordingly. If Thomas is guilty of the alleged charges, he obviously should not be the next Supreme Court Justice and shouldn't be allowed to practice law. Period. If he is not confirmed on Tuesday, it is the same as saying he is guilty, although he has not been found guilty in a court of law. Either way, the political process has been misused.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers