The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

PAGE 6 â€" WATERLOO CHRONICLE, WEDNESDAY APRIL 12, 1989 Opinion â€"â€" > It seems ridiculous to even have to say it, but isn‘t that sex drive the power that makes the world go round? I mean if the complaining student‘s father hadn‘t leered at her mother just a little, at some point, would she even be here to lodge a complaint? By extension, would any of us be here? For the sexual harassment committee to give credibility to legitimate feminist cause by light years. "All you libidinous and lustful males arm youselves with the odor of sanctity, cast your eyes downward, swim in packs; protect yourselves. The female of the species, spear in hand, is about to nail your lecherous fervor," Laura wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. If people don‘t want to be looked at by members of the opposite sex, then they should stay out of coâ€"ed swimming pools, or at least wear a bathing suit styled for the 1920‘s. But to go out and about scantily clad, and then to accuse someone who leers at you of sexual harassment,is the heighth of stupidity. "The body beautiful is a ‘thing of beauty and a joy forever,‘ especially clad in the scantiest of bathing attire. Should these beautiful female bodies, scantily dressed, be charged with inciting to leer? His sentence: He‘s barred from Hart House and its pool for five years. And get this, he is to get counselling for his disease. Yes, counselling. The sexual harassment committee that made the ruling wasn‘t clear on where the poor professor was to turn for help to cure his leering, however. Do social workers deal with such a problem? Or doctors? Perhaps a clergyman (or is it now clergyperson) would be the one to see. In case both my faithful readers should question my motives in this, let me quote from Laura Sabia, a columnist for the Toronto Sun. But nowhere has the trend to overkill been more clear than in the recent sexual harassment case at the University of Toronto. It seems one Richard Hummel, a 60â€"yearâ€"old professor, has been accused, tried and convicted of "leering" at a female student in the Hart House swimming pool. Byv Jim Mertiam t‘s human nature to carry crusades too far and never I has that been more evident that in our soâ€"called enlightened age of the ‘80s. The trend is seeneveryâ€" where, from the zealots who harass women legally entering abortion clinics, to the nutcases who actually grab cigarettes out of smokers‘ mouths Under modern feminist influence, some women have come to believe that if they want something they should just go ahead and do it, then present the bill to someone else. Harassment case is all wet nonsense, George Jonas Wrong. We owe much of it to foreigners. In 1988, Canadian governments and businesses owed to foreigners a total of about $222 billion. If Canada‘s foreign indebtedness continues to grow at the same pace, foreign lenders could soon demand drastic measures by the federal government to put our federal government house in order. Here are some of the mo#e popular of these arguments and responses to them: The debt doesn‘t matter because we owe it to ourselves. Unfortunately, the debate on this subject has been muddied by those who argue that this massive debt is not a serious problem. Letters Fallacies about the national debt One of the most critical challenges which Canaâ€" dians will face in the next decade will be the size and cost of Canada‘s burgeoning federal governâ€" ment debt. This debt is the sum of the federal government‘s deficits. Deficits are created when the government spends more than it raises in taxes. As of March 31, 1989 the federal government debt totalled about $321 billion and it will grow by about $30 billion in the coming year. The debt threatens our sovereignty, the financial security of our families and the health of our national economy. Wrong. The government doesn‘t have any money it spending by the government creates The growing federal government debt poses a serious threat to Canada‘s future. The healthy, long term solution is for the government to cut spending and to balance its budget. The sooner Canadians face up to this challenge, the sooner it can be met. David Somerville, President Wrong. Higher personal income taxes will dis courage work and creativity and encourage a "brain drain." That would result in fewer jobs for Canaâ€" dians. Taxes on businesses make up much of the selling price of goods and services. Higher business taxes would mean higher prices and that would make our products less competitive here with imports and less competitive abroad. Higher taxes would also discourage investment dollars. Wrong. We‘re telling future generations of taxâ€" payers "You will be forced through taxes to pay for the social spending that we‘re consuming today." Barring a national emergency, that‘s unethical. It‘s also unwise. The growing share of tax dollars that we must pay in interest on the government‘s debt puts increasing pressure on the funding of social programs for the needy. Raising taxes will solve the debt problem. of its own. It gets money either through taxes or borrowing. That money could be spent instead by citizens on goods and services, savings or invest: ments, Who can better create jobs: politicians and bureaucrats or the free enterprise sector? Borrowing money to spend on social programs is ethical. National Citizems Coalition reuge c rmenietih s o ©j.&$» 8.