Home   Comics   Inside TCS    Forum   Contact

TCS is a student-published newspaper based in Atlanta.

closed November 16, 2003, 6:45 pm

As the time from the last post indicates, this site is mercifully closed. Thanks to WebMate for the interface (highly recommended) and to all the staff writers for their invaluable contributions, and also to our readers. TCS may return in the future, but who knows what that holds?

Comments?

Logic a casualty in war of words April 13, 2003, 9:03 pm

by JC Boyle, Editor A war is a tragic time for a country. It is a moment when just about anyone can read the newspaper, watch TV, or listen to people causing traffic jams and immediately think, “Dear God. I’m ashamed of the people that agree with me.” From every side of the issue, stupidity prevails – the protesters chant non-sequiturs, the politicians take hypocrisy to new bounds, and the pundits sensationalize propaganda so transparent that Stalin would be proud. The anti-war demonstrators are the most painful to me, since I disagree with the motives behind the war myself. But any idiot can see that this is not a war for oil, or for “revenge since they tried to kill Dubya’s daddy,” and that it should not be opposed merely because of the fact that people will be killed. Unfortunately, the average protester is a lower grade of idiot than most. However, the politicians and proponents of the war have them beat by a margin of titanic proposals. A war is a strange thing to gloat about, but as soon as it started, gloat they did, and clichés began to fall like smart bombs. The opponents of the campaign were ordered to shut up and “support the troops,” to love America or leave it, and to burn Dixie Chicks merchandise. In the midst of a supposed liberation of a country and installation of democracy, our leaders attack any form of dissent as borderline treason. This is woefully hypocritical and undemocratic. Besides, what better time is there to protest a war than when it’s actually happening? The moment that inspired the most forehead slapping occurred last week, when Democratic senator and presidential hopeful John Kerry suggested that the U.S. itself needed a “regime change.” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay attacked him for saying such a terrible thing about “our Commander-in-Chief,” until Kerry reminded him that we still have free speech. This series of events led to this headline: Kerry says democracy gives him the right to assail Bush. How revolutionary. The media, especially television journalists (oxymoron), have been willing culprits in the whole charade. Eager to show off their new trappings as pseudo-soldiers embedded within the ranks of various combat divisions, they focus their efforts more on obtaining high-level sources instead of reporting honestly. CNN’s Baghdad chief Eason Jordan announced last week in a New York Times editorial that many gruesome stories were kept under wraps in order to preserve CNN’s existence inside the country. While many of the stories were self-censored in order to save lives, some things the network held back show that CNN dishonestly portrayed Iraqi life in order to preserve their Baghdad bureau. This kind of rampant selfishness has been all too prevalent during this season of war. The protesters care far too much about sound bites, the politicians are obsessed with an election 19 months away, and the media is hell-bent on getting access. War is hell.

Comments?

Affirmative action naughty, ungood April 13, 2003, 9:02 pm

“One Small Voice,” by Jimmy Yeh Affirmative action, created in John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, was originally intended to make sure federal contractors would “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This was issued in order to make certain that hiring practices did not discriminate against minorities after which the selection of such individuals did not pertain to a group membership. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shifted the phrase “affirmative action” from neutral hiring practices to more preferential treatment to minorities. This meant the hiring of less competent workers just because of their skin color. There is a compromise between racial diversity and job competency, and even diversity can prove negative. In fact, a recent study surveying 1,600 students and 2,400 faculty conducted by Stanley Rothman found that “[s]tudents, faculty members and administrators all responded to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers.” This backlash only ignites more racial hatred rather than bringing people together as intended. The biased system created by affirmative action not only hurts the qualified party shafted in favor of skin color, it even puts the recipient at a disadvantage. It is patently unfair to push minority candidates into positions that they are not ready or willing to do. In 1988, only 40% of Berkeley’s entering class was admitted solely on academic merit. Caucasians and Asian-Americans needed a 3.7 GPA to obtain admission while most minorities needed a much lower standard to be admitted. 66% of Caucasians or Asian-Americans graduate while only 27% of the other minorities graduate. Alan Bakke, a white medical student, applied in 1973 and 1974 to the University of California but was rejected twice, while students of lower intellectual caliber were admitted because of their minority status. The result of this was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which decided that racial quotas were unconstitutional but that racial preferences were legal. This lack of a bright line definition of the constitutionality of race-based admissions has lead to the recent University of Michigan fiasco. If the Supreme Court does not eliminate this frivolous policy called Affirmative action, some smart-aleck seniors are going to find the racial makeup of a college at princetonreview.com and mysteriously, we are going to see a disproportionate amount of new Native American/Eskimo students at our higher tiers of learning.

Comments?

Congress does something right by banning partial-birth abortion April 13, 2003, 8:58 pm

by Tamara Huntley, Staff Writer Partial birth abortion – the process used when a mother and/or father decides in the third trimester, that due to risk of birth defects or risk to a mother's health, the pregnancy should be terminated. The most common method is one in which a baby is born feet first with the exception of the head and then the brain is sucked out, the head collapses, and the baby is removed easily from the mother. In New Jersey alone at least 1,000 of these terrifying procedures are performed each year. I am glad that Congress has finally outlawed such an awful practice. As baby is growing inside of a woman there is definitely a life to consider and to care about. Several partial birth abortions are preformed as a result of risk to a mother, and I believe that is OK. No woman should end her own life for child that will probably die shortly after birth. But in other cases where mothers are suicidal, depressed, or in cases where babies will be born with mental retardation, partial birth abortion should not be an option. If a person is not ready to bring a child into a world, why are they having sex? Sex can yield a child, that’s its purpose. Babies are sometimes born with problems, ones that responsible adults deal with. Babies have souls and every fetus deserves the chance to enjoy a life. Throwing away babies as if they were unwanted gifts is disgusting. How can someone be so heartless that they could end the life of a helpless child? If a child has mental illness or a mother is mentally unstable, the child can be given up for adoption, an alternative that would allow the child to have a more desirable life with a loving family, and the mother to avoid the psychological trauma that would inevitably follow an abortion. Ending a pregnancy because it doesn't fit into one's lifestyle is one of the most selfish and insensitive actions someone can do. At or around five months, when the procedure is usually preformed, is way too long to wait for an abortion. More than 90% of all terminated pregnancies occur during the first trimester, and waiting to the third trimester for any non-medical reason is ridiculous. After unprotected sex, get some birth control quick. The “morning after” pill was created for precisely this reason. Remaining pregnant for five months only to decide to not have the child is outrageous. An abortion can be performed in a less horrific way if the decision to abort is made early. If a mother and/or father are unsure about the future of their baby at five months, it makes more sense to follow through with the pregnancy and then make a more responsible decision afterwards. If you want to have sex, but don't want all the extra "crap" that comes along with grab an old fashioned sheep's bladder and then get it on.

Comments?

Space is a massive waste April 13, 2003, 8:57 pm

by Alan Geyer, Staff Writer The average readers of TCS are nerds, and therefore are tireless supporters of NASA. This obviously makes them brainless bigots of the most narrow, illogical and moronic type. This article, which is deeply offensive, justifies my claim that I am better than you. But this is just the underlying principle behind the argument that NASA can suck it! So, without further adieu, I give myself the pleasure of pissing off every pizza-faced loser that the aeronautics craze has to offer. Every year NASA spends over 15 billion dollars (little less than one percent of the national budget), of the taxpayer’s money toward the deployment of pea-brained-sit-on-their-asstronauts into space. And one billion of this annual allowance is yet to see the drawing board. Recently NASA expressed its hopes to continue with the completion of the International Space Station. The estimated investment of every taxpayer in the U.S. will total $334.00, which amounts to roughly 91 billion dollars. Holy living John Glenn on a shish kabob, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY! Did you know that the total amount of money spent on these wasteful endeavors reaches the amount needed to eliminate world hunger or environmental catastrophes? No, of course you weren’t aware of this. You were too busy cheering on the brave souls who risk their lives for such a noble cause. If the eventual rooting of a cactus on Mars isn't noble, I'm not sure what is! But before I lambaste this institution of such beneficial importance let us be fair and outline the pros of space travel. 1.We will eventually enjoy the broadcast of Russian monkeys hurtling through space. Damn! That's gotta be entertaining. 2.When the human race comes into contact with alien civilizations we get to kick their ass in an upheaval of universalism. 3.We can continue to examine the matter that form moon rocks; granite and some other Earth shit. I've never heard of, how you say?: Rocks that are surprisingly the same on Earth as they are anywhere else. 4.And finally, space travel will give us the benefit of the voice-controlled wheel chair, and Florida’s retirement communities will be densely populated with mindless Stephen Hawking look-alikes. To lend more support to my argument I quote a well-respected NASA engineer, who so eloquently stated, “I don't have a problem justifying the cost that we spend to do this. It all boils down to this: Is it exciting science? Yes!” Okay, you have a point, here’s $334.00 so your tits can perk, while you float around totally oblivious to your own stupidity. Have a nice trip and be sure to bring me back a souvenir of just one freakin' benefit! In regard to the claim that NASA improves international relations, I completely agree. Let's pack up the shuttle, build a fire, hold hands, and sing songs. Of course, a peaceful discussion on Earth is totally out of the question. This would require less expenses generating from the taxpayer’s dollar and not enough time looking like idiots. Thus far it seems that the priorities of NASA include: sipping on some Tang, looking at large pieces of granite, and supporting the imbecile Lance Bass on his journey into space. With the help of these truthful statistics, several NASA engineers, the idiocy of the institution where the taxpayer's money is carelessly thrown, and people who are all-knowing like myself, I am the proven victor in this argument, proving that I am so much better than you. This article is mainly for amusement purposes, but all facts cited are true. Email us for sources.

Comments?

Semi-wise statement of the month