Page 6 — LION’SEYE — September 20, 1991 oP Editorial: Graffiti: A Losing Argument By Angela Deal I am not quite sure what issue to approach- the graffiti, the racism or the . plain fact that discrimination comes in many shapes and sizes. When I consider the issue of graffiti, the first thing that comes to mind is the spray painted “ HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON MR. BUSH?”, which was written outside of the upper library entrance last semester. I could understand that the war in the Middle East was upsetting, but what did defacing public property prove? It was not what was written that disturbed me, it was the fact that Mr. Bush, President Bush, to whom the questioned was addressed, would never see it! Nor would anyone else who was remotely involved in the Middle East crisis. Also the fact that two to three people had to clean it up made me mad! Write it in an anonymous letter to the president or Congress or something. Make the question useful; anticipate an answer! Not to say rhetorical questions are useless, mind you. Many times the best questions to ask are rhetorical. However, spray painting it on an entrance way to a commonwealth campus library, I'm afraid, is just ignorant! This is pretty much how I feel about the racist and sexist remarks graffitied around campus recently. I am not sure exactly what was written , but as my curiosity increases, I convince myself that it does not really matter WHAT was written, it is the mere fact that anything was written AT ALL. Maybe these people have their reasons as to why they feel the need to do these things, I just wish I could hear them. Maybe I am the one who is missing out, but somehow I doubt it. It was interesting at the campus meeting the other day to listen to one lady reflecting on the reasons, perhaps, why these persons, or this person, did what they did. She said something to the effect that perhaps this was an act, not of prejudice, necessarily, but an act to be heard. That maybe this person(s) felt that Something, needed to be done concerning these issues, racism and sexism. Although it was a very good point, my cynical attitude leads me to differ. Understand, however, it is not the point that Iam critizing, it is the Spy - with whom I have the problem. The whole idea of doing something this immature is a cop out, it is a cowardly act. Next time sign your name, see what kind of response that gets. THE LION’S EYE September 20, 1991 The Pennsylvania State University Vol. XXIII, No. 2 Delaware County Campus EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Angela Deal ASSOCIATE EDITOR David Rhoades ASSISTANT EDITOR Chuck Spector PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR Diana Miceri STAFF REPORTERS Peggie Cahall Eric Forte Liz Russo Frances Callahan Roger Lee Kemba Vick David Clements Robin Longaker Jamie Wismer Shawn Cullen David Miller Tracy Zikowitz Jim Doolittle Meg Muldoon Andre Smith ARTISTS Kaspar Strommg Jamie Wismer PHOTOGRAPHER Gina Lucchesi ADVISORS Barbara Daniel John Terrell The LION'S EYE is published Monthly during the academic year by the students of the Delaware County Campus. Submissions are welcome from all students, faculty and staff. Material must be typed, double spaced, and submitted in the LION'S EYE mailbox located in the Lion’s Den. : Letters, articles and cartoons represent only the views of their authors. Advertisements do not necessarily reflect editorial opinion. THE LION 'S EYE regrets it cannot guarantee the return of any material submitted. All submissions are subject to eliting: THE FRONT DESK by Ed Tomezsko : Nr Pal QUT ml Campus Executive Officer It’s difficult to try to write something on Friday, the thirteenth, but what the heck. We have heard a lot about the natural law this week, especially applied to the judicial decision process. This takes me back to my halcyon, undergraduate days at Villanova in the fifties when we discussed things like this. The eighties generation had the yuppies, the seventies had the “me” generation, the sixties generation was anti-war. The fifties were the talking generation. My minor was philosophy because it relieved the tedium of the physical sciences and mathematics, which by their very nature, had an exact answer for everything. Philosophy had no firm and specific answers to anything and thus it gave us mental exercise in between science exams. The natural law says that there is(are) the principle(s) which is(are) higher than laws of state and/or church. Notice how evasive the definitfn of the natural law is, it cannot even decide if there is one or more law(s). The natural law deals in absolutes, situations in which the same principle applies regardless of circumstances. = God is the easy absolute. How do you define God? God is ineffable. One of the interesting concepts which I learned about God was that it would be impossible to define God. If you defined God you would be putting boundaries on God, God would not be infinite within boundaries, and thus you have no definition. You are back to where you started. That would be the fun of discussion the absolute - we could shout and argue without ever drawing a ~ conclusion which had validity. In mathematics however, 2 + 2 = 4 everyday without argument, and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line everyday without argument. Not much fun in discussing these things. We also learned about the Principle of Double Effect. This principle states that for certain causes there would be two mutually exclusive effects and to arrive at the effect a choice had to be made. These situations were always extremes. For example, you are trapped in the wreckage of an automobile accident. Your body is partially hanging out of the steel, bleeding profusely, and the jaws of life cannot get you out. The paramedic comes along and tells _you (just like on TV you are always awake enough to hear because, if someone else were to make the necessary choice for you, either you or your heirs would sue your choice-maker) that either they remove your legs at the hips to get you out of the wreckage or you will be seriously brain-damaged in next five minutes but you will live to old age there after. The reader can have some fun coming to a unanimously acceptable solution to this cause and effect problem. The application of the natural law argument to the decision process of a nominee to the Supreme Court is equally complicated. The committee members can construct situations in the form of a question to the nominee and ask does the natural law apply? Now the nominee has five minutes to answer before he becomes brain-damaged or loses his legs. I doubt very much if any member of the committee would be willing to state their vote on an issue without facts at hand and which is yet to be debated. Here's the point. In making any judgements, it is necessary to gather all of the facts, not opinions, to draw the best possible, not the perfect, conclusion. We would like our Supreme Court to be perfect in the same way as we would like to be perfect. What impresses me most about this nominee is that he recognizes his imperfections and that he is willing to decide an issue when all, not some, of the facts are present. He seems to be fair and impartial. He is facing inordinate pressure to be partial to certain, special-interest groups. I also gather that he will change his mind when the situation requires it. I think that's a good way to be - open minded and fair. Maybe all of ¢ us should be more like that.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers