| A Frog's Life
Howdy, y'all. Welcome to Family Weekend 1999. Yes, it's that time of the year again: The summer heat wave has given way to an autumn heat wave. The Main sets out its best chicken strips. The campus is especially clean and tidy. Administrators kiss babies. PC Family Weekend chairwoman Melanie Lewter, a junior religion major, said a panel discussion facilitated by TCU administrators at 10 a.m. was added to Saturday's agenda. It will be a chance for parents to find out what they want to know about TCU from a panel consisting of faculty, staff and students. Lewter said Family Weekend serves as an opportunity for family members to understand these activities and the rest of their students' lives at TCU. "It's a good way for the family to see what their kids do in college and see what college life is like," she said. So basically, the impression parents will get is that life at TCU includes a weekend filled with family activities, panel discussions, a football game and a brunch on Sunday morning. It's a slightly skewed impression perhaps, but fair nonetheless. Parents, we're glad you're here, and we encourage you to participate in as many of this weekend's activities as you can. The Programming Council has worked hard to turn us all into "National Frog Lovers" this weekend. Cheer on the Horned Frog football team Saturday as it faces the University of Tulsa. Take advantage of the time you have to spend here. And speaking of spending, take us shopping. Even a quick little trip to Albertson's could make our day. We cleaned our rooms ... just whatever you do, don't look under our beds.
D.C. is not a place for celebrities All's fair in love and war, and I suppose that pretty much goes for politics as well. So as nomination time draws near, I like to look less at the proverbial mudslinging between candidates and focus more on the general circus show that is unfolding across the nation. And believe me, people, the freaks entering the arena this time around are definitely the main attraction. I don't know if they are politicians pretending to be actors or actors pretending to be politicians or both, but the paradox so vexed me that I was forced to give my brain a rest and ponder easier questions like the doctrine of predestination. But whatever the case may be, one thing I'm sure of is that actors, like politicians, really don't, and really shouldn't, work. It's like Garth Brooks trying to be Chris Gaines or Garth Brooks trying to play baseball. You give him a half-smile and a pat on the head for trying, but in actuality you wish someone would just come out and say, "Stick to making country music." From Charles Barkley to Cybil Shepherd to Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is certainly an interesting bunch of candidates in this year's sideshow. I could write pages and pages about them all, but I am limited in both knowledge and space. So I could only pick out a few of my favorites and hope that people don't vote for them. Be forewarned. One of the first nominees up for failure is Jerry Springer. Springer has tinkered with the idea of running for senator. And while he does have the prior political experience, his résumé lately doesn't seem to go much beyond his show's material of "I'm having an affair with your sister." Again, being familiar with issues of lies, treachery and lewd sex might qualify for some experience in Washington these days, but I am just picturing a senate where Springer shrugs his shoulders as Barney Frank hits Dick Armey over the head with a chair. And smarmy final thoughts are not going to solve issues any bigger than "Transsexual porn stars reveal it all." Next there's Jesse Ventura, who is constantly proving how he is definitely more "Body" than he will ever be "Mind" after making his now infamous remarks about marijuana and prostitution legalization and how he'd like to be re-incarnated as a 38DD bra. Unfortunately, he's already in office, so ridiculing his asinine statements won't do any good. But I couldn't resist using him as an example of what happens when we elect ex-wrestlers (a.k.a. actors) to public office. I would like to say in Ventura's defense that if Hulk Hogan really runs for president (and I'm not making this up), that I would definitely be all for a "debate" hosted by WCW for $20 on pay-per-view. Actually, that's not a bad idea for any of the candidates. Who wouldn't love to see Al Gore and Bill Bradley go at it or George W. take on Elizabeth Dole? Springer, of course, would referee. Billionaire developer elite Donald Trump is also making a serious bid for the presidency, basing his candidacy on new concepts such as major tax cuts and tougher trade deals. Ventura is publicly backing Trump, something The Don might want to get rid of by throwing some of his money Ventura's way to shut him up. Just the fact that these guys support each other makes me shake my head for America's future. Trump also admits his one vice may be the opposite sex, saying, "I do go out with the most beautiful women in the world, and I do love women." Maybe he'd like to be a 38DD bra, too. But despite all the hype and idiocy surrounding possible nominees, it's frightening how blurred the line between Hollywood and Washington is becoming. Some people are politicians and some people are celebrities, but rarely are they both. I have no qualms about celebrities endorsing whatever they believe in. But once they start trying to take the reins themselves, America should be cautious. I can only think of two Hollywood personas who ever seriously pulled off political careers, albeit accompanied by a lot of gossip. And we all know Ronald Reagan and Sonny Bono are tough acts to follow.
Kevin Dunleavy is a junior advertising/public relations major from Spring, Texas. He can be reached at (kduns80@airmail.net). Letters to the editor Intentions of BSM misunderstood, too quickly judged Our intentions and efforts as a ministry for Monday night were misunderstood and prematurely judged. Weeks prior to Monday, I initiated personal conversations with student leaders of Student Allies and the TCU Triangle inviting dialogue about their concerns. Not one individual raised concerns about our timing until the hour we began. The student president of Allies thought the timing would be helpful in promoting the issues and raising awareness. Our intention was to be relevant and effective, not hurtful. And how close to National Coming Out Day is too close? Can you truly say you welcome our voice while attempting to control its timing? The Baptist General Convention of Texas and the TCU BSM are not funded, or directed, by the Southern Baptist Convention. Therefore, to infer that our meeting Monday night and their printing schedule are behaviorally connected is an inaccurate stereotype of the Baptists and those in BSM. I would encourage you to do a story on our event, not just the protest of our event. Randy Thomas was clear, gentle and self-reflective. He not only allowed a question and answer period after his story but made himself available for another hour in the lounge for additional dialogue and discussion. It was all calm and respectful. Despite the rumors of what we intended for that night, I anticipated exactly what Thomas brought to TCU. That is why I invited him. Toney Upton director of TCU BSM
Baptist student upset about 'lack of tact' in Skiff editorial In Tuesday's Skiff, I was disappointed to see the lack of tact the editorial board had when it presented its views on the Baptist Student Ministry's guest speaker during National Coming Out Day. The Skiff took it upon itself to judge all Southern Baptists as having "arrogant views" and "lack of tact." This statement is a hasty generalization. As Southern Baptists, we are taught to refrain from judging people. The BSM did not judge homosexuals. It merely disagreed with their views. How can we say it is OK for one organization to speak its feelings without allowing another to do the same? Can we honestly say that if all of the Southern Baptists got together for "Protest Homosexuals Day," the TCU Triangle and the Allies would not get together to retaliate against them? Though we don't condone homosexuality, we are not in a position to judge them. We should, however, have the right to voice opinions without being slammed for being Southern Baptists. The BSM didn't take it into its own hands to defame or insult homosexuals. In fact, the Skiff took a more hateful approach by slandering (sic) Southern Baptists than the BSM took in opposing homosexuality. We all have the right to voice our opinions without violence or hate coming from them. We all need to quit throwing names and judgments on other organizations or religions. Stop slamming each other for beliefs, and maybe then we could "be free to learn in an environment open to divergent beliefs and opinions." Stacie Burns sophomore advertising/public relations major
Student newspaper needs to work on religious tolerance I don't understand how a college paper such as yourself can call itself fair and diverse. The Skiff may promote the freedom of speech, but it does not promote diversity. You write an editorial in Tuesday's paper saying that Southern Baptists need to discard their arrogant views, yet you don't discard yours toward Christians, especially Baptists. In case the Skiff is unaware, not all Baptists are a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I do agree that there are many ideas and actions that the Southern Baptists practice that are judgmental and wrong. To say that having a former homosexual speaker on the same day as the National Coming Out Day is bad timing though is not promoting diversity on this campus. Why is it wrong for Baptist Student Ministry to have this speaker on the same day as the National Coming Out Day? Do they not have the right to disagree with homosexual behavior? Were they harming the homosexuals? No! BSM did nothing wrong, plain and simple. If this campus or if this newspaper is trying to promote diversity, then it is going to have to try harder to accept Christians and give them the right to have their opinions. Christians are here to pray and stay, GET USED TO IT! Dionne Melton senior studio art major
Diversity for its own sake canbe inherently dangerous Though I admit a certain laxity in keeping up with campus news, I would have to be blind to miss TCU's emphasis on diversity. Though far from an isolationist, I would like to take a moment to draw attention to an inherent danger in a blanket call for diversity. Exposure to other cultures and ideas is indeed one of the very reasons why students are able to broaden their horizons at the university, but it does not follow that ideas should be indulged simply because they are different. The trouble with "modern diversity" lies in the philosophical underpinnings of postmodern relativism that usually accompany such calls. By maintaining that all views and practices have equal merit, the modern world attacks the idea of higher standards to which cultures and philosophies should be held. The result is that they open the floodgates for any view to attain truth status without question. This proves to be bothersome for relativists, as they are faced with the problem of having to either accept even the intrusions of groups or condemn them, showing the impossibility of living consistently with postmodern beliefs. A proper approach must involve a higher standard that transcends the cultures and can decide between them. If none is accepted, then the only consistent choices left are either arbitrary conclusions or forced wholesale acceptance of any belief that comes our way. For practical living, both options are useless. Brian Melton Graduate student |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |