The Rice Thresher, Vol. 89, No. 9, Ed. 1 Friday, October 12, 2001 Page: 3 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12,2001
Quoth the philosopher, "A is A"
Government should not break Windows
Bill Gates inspired this column,
but not in a way he'd be proud of. For
the umpteenth time, I was trying to
meet a deadline while working on a
Windows computer and
got the famed "Blue
Screen of Death." This
time I lost no work, but it
reminded me why the
laptop I was using is the
last computer I'll ever own
that runs Windows. And
that reminded me that
while our government
may have committed itself
to a war on terrorism, it
remains equally commit-
ted to the attack on our
rights that is the Microsoft antitrust
case.
Part of the price I pay for the
reliability, flexibility and freedom
from viruses I enjoy by running
Linux on my main computer is that
I must constantly learn more about
Linux. In doing so, I follow a few e-
mail lists. One consequence is that I
see lots of anti-Microsoft vitriol on
the part of many Linux users. In
particular, I see lots of support for
the Justice Department's antitrust
action against the colossus from
Redmond.
To say I hate using Windows
would be an understatement. On an
emotional level, I can see why so
many knowledgeable computer us-
ers would like to see Microsoft run
out of business. But if Linux users
paid one tenth of the amount of at-
tention to the legal ramifications of
this action that they do to running
their computers, they'd jump off the
antitrust bandwagon.
The legal rationale for the
Steve
Miller
Microsoft case is antitrust law. For
example, there is the Sherman Anti-
trust Act, which is supposed to pre-
vent "restraint of trade." But what is
"restraint of trade"? This
kind of question forced
the Supreme Court to re-
interpret the law to pre-
vent "unreasonable" re-
straints of trade. The job
of defining "unreason-
able" was left up to the
government enforcers of
antitrust law.
The Federal Trade
Commission Act bans
"unfair" trade practices.
The FTC Act and the
Clayton Act both attempt to prevent
monopolies. "Monopoly" is based
on the notion of a company is having
"too much" market share. How much
is too much? As Alan Greenspan
once noted, "Antitrust law is a world
in which the law is so vague that
businessmen have no way of know-
ing whether specific actions will be
declared illegal until they hear the
judge's verdict — after the fact."
Antitrust laws, because of their
vagueness, are contrary to the
American notion of rule by law. They
should have been declared "void for
vagueness" long ago. Furthermore,
punishment ex post facto is barred by
our Constitution. Making antitrust
law an exception to this ban bodes ill
for all of us.
Aside from this case's reinforce-
ment of a very bad legal precedent,
it obscures the proper role of the
government: protecting our rights.
Consider the fact that anything pass-
ing through Microsoft's Passport
service becomes, ipso facto, copy-
righted by Microsoft. Didn't know
that? It's there for the world to see
on the web at the Microsoft Pass-
port Web Site Terms of Use and
Notices. Microsoft can use, alter, or
attribute to the author anything pass-
ing through that site, all without
having to pay compensation. Nei-
ther the states nor the DOJ have
filed a case against this blatant at-
tempt at stealing intellectual prop-
erty.
Or consider the fact that
Microsoft Word is the government
standard format for electronically
exchanging legal documents. It is
one thing for millions of customers
to choose Word on their own, but
the government, in this case, is at
least partially supporting Microsoft's
monopoly. 'Die government can, and
for this reason it should adopt a
standard for document exchange
that is in the public domain.
One author points out that the
vagueness of antitrust law grants
the government carte blanche to
attack politically unpopular or en-
vied targets, as Microsoft undoubt-
edly is. But as some Germans noted
with regard to the persecution of
Jews during World War II, un-
checked government power is dan-
gerous to everyone, not just the un-
popular. One might ask, "After Bill
Gates, who?" Turning a blind eye to
the violation of someone's rights, no
matter how unpopular he might be.
endangers your own and everyone
else's rights. Don't like the handi-
work of Bill Gates? Do what I did —
fire him. But respect his rights.
Steven Miller is a graduate student in
biochemistry and cell biology.
Screaming from a soapbox
Horrid reality of war deserves second look
In one way or another, we are all
pacifists. This revelation came to
me when my Sunday football view-
ing was interrupted with breaking
news: We had attacked Af-
ghanistan. My stomach t
churned with anxiety.
I was surprised by my
reaction. After weeks of
anticipation, the military
strikes should have been
a relief. .After all, part of
me greets the leveling of
terrorist training camps as
justice done.Yet there I
was. already stressed by
what's only the first stage
of our long crusade.
I don't think I'm alone.
We all know the staggering cost of
war, even if we haven't experienced
it firsthand. But astoundingly, war
continues to force itself upon us as a
viable means for solving conflict.
As we learned Monday, when
four U.N. aid workers were killed
by U.S. missiles, war inevitably kills
the innocent. Perhaps what upsets
me more is that this is only the first
attack, and retaliation and escala-
tion are certain. The not-so-distant
future will certainly find some of
America's bravest not returning
from their missions abroad. Clearly,
little redeems the horror of war. As
an institution it seems almost ab-
surd.
We have even constructed huge
organizations with the chief aim of
preventing war: the League of Na-
tions, the United Nations and NATO.
These groups only represent the
better-known of a cornucopia of in-
stitutions whose focus is the mainte-
nance of international security.
Our commitment to peace has
produced institutions that partially
mediate our tendencies toward war.
They increase interaction between
states and promote alternative solu-
tions to crises before military con-
flict occurs. It is still obvious, how-
ever, that war is familiar to too many
people. These peace institutions
could easily be strengthened in con-
crete ways to promote peace.
One might be inclined to think
Catherine
Adcock
that individual leaders are respon-
sible for leading us into war. Actu-
ally, it is often the leaders who least
favor military action, as they would
be directly responsible
for the ensuing death and
destruction. Forinstance,
former President
Woodrow Wilson, a paci-
fist at heart, was forced to
lead America into World
War I. At the same time,
while leaders may be ren-
dered powerless by indi-
vidual situations, they do
have the ability to change
the international system
they work in to better pre-
vent situations where war
is the only option in the effort to
defend the homeland.
Clearly, despite our institutions,
rules, justifications, individual lead-
ers and especially our abhorrence
of war, we often find ourselves with
no other option but to attack one
another to defend our interests. Like
the cockroach, war has persisted
through thousands of years of hu-
man civilization.
I think this means our ability to
approach war as a viable option is
due to an outdated system, not the
particular individuals involved.
Internationally, we have pro-
gressed to the point where war
seems inhumane and inherently
wrong; the international system we
operate with, founded in a different
time and a different world, where
governments battled for fundamen-
tal survival has not. While I grieve
for those who lost their lives Sept.
11,1 can take comfort in the fact that
tomorrow the U.S. government will
still exist. This wasn't the case 450
years ago when our international
system was forming and the fate of
governments was uncertain.
To some extent, I think we have
modified the way interstate relations
are carried out so that the possibility
of war no longer looms so large. The
creation of peace institutions and
the change in individual and soci-
etal attitudes regarding war has led
to new behavior among states. We
must recognize, though, that when
conflicts become unresolvable, our
leaders are still forced to lead us to
war.
In order to create a more secure
world, our leaders must take it upon
themselves to support institutions
and behaviors that promote peace.
They must collectively agree on
nonviolent ways to confront new and
dangerous problems to international
security, most recently represented
in terrorism. Everyone, from the
greatest leader to the youngest citi-
zen, can understand the value of
peace in real terms. Why, then,
should anything prevent us from
taking real and measurable steps
toward it?
Guest column
Catherine Adcock is a Martel College
junior and opinion editor.
Student Association actions
betray democratic ideals
I love the Student Association.
Despite its formalities and rules,
it is perhaps the organization with
the most influence on student life.
However, those for-
malities just hit the stu-
dent body hard.
This week's SA
meeting showed just
how formalities can
misrepresent the true
will of the people. In an
absurd turn of events,
the long-debated ques-
tion of having a single
president as opposed to
co-presidents was de-
cided solely by our cur-
rent SA co-presidents. The sen-
ate became deadlocked 11-11 on
whether to allow only one presi-
dent or co-presidents. The tie-
breaking vote in such a situation
is the president's, and in this case,
the co-presidents unsurprisingly
voted to allow co-presidents.
I can't conceive of anything
more ironic. The major argument
in favor of having co-presidents is
that students should be able to
decide on allowing co-presidents
with their votes, when two stu-
dents decide to run together for a
co-president position. If they don't
agree with the idea of having co-
presidents, they can vote for an
alternative candidate who is run-
ning alone.
This way, their choices aren't
dictated by a small body of stu-
dents (i.e., the SA Senate). This
stance purportedly supports the
"voice of democracy." Yet in this
recent scenario, the outcome was
dictated by a single co-presiden-
tial vote.
Such close senate votes almost
never happen, so when one does
occur a deeper look into the issue
is merited. Instead, the SA de-
cided beforehand to present all
constitutional changes together
at once to the student body in-
stead of singling out potentially
controversial line-item issues.
This seemed a very logical deci-
sion at the time, as many constitu-
tional changes are small, proce-
dural "housekeeping" issues.
Other major issues up for de-
bate were decided by a strong
majority, but a deciding prefer-
ence in the president vs. co-presi-
dent issue was still not apparent.
On this very important issue, the
decision should be made by the
student body, instead of being
wrapped up with other issues into
one big yes/no bundle.
Ben
Home
Final constitutional approval
(two-thirds of the votes needed)
rests with the student body in the
upcoming homecoming election,
so the issue is not yet
decided. A four-fifths
vote of the senate in
two weeks can decide
on a different way to
present the constitu-
tional change to the
student body — a way
that allows student sen-
timent to be heard.
If the senate refuses
to reexamine the way
constitutional changes
are currently up for ap-
proval, then I would encourage
everyone, regardless of his or her
sentiments on the president vs.
co-presidents issue, to vote
against the constitution.
While this seems like a vote
that blocks progress, in reality it
is a vote holding the senate ac-
countable to student opinion. The
senate can hold a special election
for the student body to vote again
if the current proposal fails to meet
student body approval. If only one-
third of students vote against the
constitution (which seems likely,
since the major change is the divi-
sive co-presidential issue), then
another election will have to be
held. This is a necessary step to
gauge true student opinion.
It's better to make changes
from the ground up rather than
going back later to fix things in a
second election, so the senate
should change the way the ballot
will appear, and present potential
changes fairly.
I am not sure where student
sentiment resides on the co-presi-
dential issue, and neither is the SA
senate. In the current ballot pro-
posal, accurate student opinion will
not be gauged. The senate needs
to think beyound procedure and
realize that what transpired was
an unfortunate error. If the consti-
tutional changes are approved as
is, the bottom line is that the issue
was decided by one vote.
If the senate fails to reconsider,
our current framework seems to
have succeeded in letters of pro-
cedure but has failed in true rep-
resentational spirit. And students
should voice their dissatisfaction
by voting against the constitu-
tional changes in the homecom-
ing elections.
Ben Home is a IViess College se-
nior.
the Rice Thresher
Leslie Liu, Robert Reichle
Editors in Chief
NEWS
CALENDAR
Olivia Allison, Editor
Ashley Friggel, Editor
Rachel Rustin, Editor
Mark Berenson, Ass/. Editor
PHOTOGRAPHY
Liora Danan, /Issf. Editor
Renata Escovar, Editor
Katie Streit, Editor
OPINION
Rob Gaddi, Interim Asst. Editor
Catherine Adcock, Editor
Carly Kocurek. Assf. Editor
COPY
Sarah Ainsworth, Editor
SPORTS
Melissa Bailey, /Ik/. Editor
Chris Larson, Editor
Jason Gershman, Asst. Editor
David Chien. Illustrator
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
Adam Lazowska, Online Editor
Dalton Tomlin, Editor
Angelo Zanola. /ts.s/. Editor
BUSINESS
Shannon Scott, Business Manager
LIFESTYLES
Robert Lee. Ads Manager
Corey L. Devine, Editor
Ethan Varela, Asst. Ads Manager
Lindsay Roemmich. Asst Business Manager
BACKPAGE
Polly D'Avignon, Classified Ads Manager
Joe Garland, Editor
Margaret Xu. Office Manager
Scott Selinger, Editor
Lindsay Sutton, Distribution Manager
The Rice Thresher, the official student
newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is
published each Friday during the school year,
except during examination periods and
holidays, by the students of Rice University.
Editorial and business offices are located
on the second floor of the Ley Student Center,
6100 Main St., MS-524, Houston, TX 77005-
1892. Phone (713) 348-4801. Fax (713) 348-
5238. E-mail: thresher@rice.edu. Web page:
http://www. ricethresher.org. Annual
subscription rate: $50 domestic. $105
international. Nonsubscription rate: first copy
free, second copy $5.
The Thresher reserves the right to refuse
any advertising for any reason. Additionally,
the Thresher does not take responsibility for
the factual content of any ad. Printing an
advertisement does not constitute an
endorsement by the Thresher.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority
opinion of the 77»rps/iereditorial staff. All other
opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of
the author.
The Thresher is a member of the Associated
Collegiate Press and the Society of Professional
Journalists. The Thresher is an ACP All-
American newspaper. Two-headed fascist
monster overthrows Student Assocation!
« COPYRIGHT 2001.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Liu, Leslie & Reichle, Robert. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 89, No. 9, Ed. 1 Friday, October 12, 2001, newspaper, October 12, 2001; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443042/m1/3/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.