Wednesday, November 30.1977
University Daily Kansas
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Comment
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kanan editorial staff. Signed columns represent only the views of the writers.
Robert Bennett, the Republican lawyer from Overland Park, has decided to remain in Kansas and seek re-election next year as governor. He will not, he says, run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by the retiring James Pearson.
For Kansas Democrats, Bennett's decision is good news. They already have a strong Senate contender in Bill Roy of Topeka, the former U.S. congressman who almost unseated Sen. Robert Dole in 1974. Roy has all but said that he would try to succeed Pearson, and he is expected to officially announce his plans tomorrow.
the republicans, however, still have not found a viable Senate candidate. Bennett was considered Roy's logical opponent. But despite Bennett's assertions that he wants to remain governor so he can fight the federal bureaucracy from Kansas, Bennett obviously has realized that battling Roy might well have been a losing proposition.
THE STATE'S three Republican congressmen also have showed a disinclination to enter the Senate race. One of them, Rep. Joe Skubitz, is retiring from politics after serving in Congress for eight years. Winn and Keith Sebelius, say they would prefer to remain in the House.
State Sen. John Simpson, a relatively obscure lawyer from Salina, waited only hours after Bennett announced his decision before he floated a trial balloon saying that he was thinking of a U.S. Senate bid. Similar political opportunism is certain to surface in the days ahead, as Republicans test the political waters in Kansas by suddenly
holding press conferences, touring the state and consulting with party leaders.
Regardless of the outcome of future hoopla, the fact remains that with Bennett out of the Senate contest, Roy faces the pleasant prospect of only token opposition. If he wins the election, his victory will be the death knell for one-party politics in Kansas.
HISTORICALLY, winning a Republican primary in Kansas has been tantamount to winning the general election. But Democrats currently control the Kansas House as well as two congressional seats; Republicans can ill afford to lose a gubernatorial race as well. Sending an incumbent to office might have resulted in Republican double jeopardy—a certain loss of not only the statehouse, but also the Senate seat.
Competition makes for healthy politics. Republicans will have to prove they are capable of fielding a candidate who can match Roy's appeal among moderates of both parties, an appeal similar to that of the popular Pearson.
Meanwhile, Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls will have to demonstrate exactly why they are capable of replacing Bennett. For example, State Sen. Bert Chaney, the teacher from Hutchinson, will need to communicate his ideas to his personality to the voters.
In any event, whoever succeeds Pearson will have a difficult act to follow. The Republicans, even the arch-conservatives who have opposed Pearson in the past, probably miss him already.
Probably like many college students who went home for Thanksgiving break, I took those blessed five days off to inude in some of life's more pleasant vies. I partook of the traditional pastimes, chowing down immensely on turkey and leftovers until I developed a rash that smelled peculiarly like poultry.
TV's influence is irresistible
And naturally I tipped the brew here and there with my hometown friends as we discussed the merits of each of our brews, including a patriotic term unheard in these parts.
I do not consider eating (even excessively, as long as the two-handed-shovel method is not employed) and socializing to be vices. They are both productive to the spirit and conducive to good health. I did I allow myself the ability to observe bad habits that I may soon regret. While home I began watching television again.
IT WAS a routine I thought I had abandoned long ago. Television watching was a relic of high school when I was more worried about the pistons in my car than finding time to write a term paper. But it came back. My first job was a junior-high school yearbook or a long-and-best-forgotten girlfriend who pops up out of the blue.
Mea culpa, but gosh, it was so easy. I mean when you're surrounded by the
Dave Johnson
Editorial Writer
almost swarm of rug rats and yard frogs that appear every family holiday like a herd of cattle from the range—and they are locked into the Thanksgiving Day parade and the Pink Panther—well, shucks it was too difficult to resist.
MY LAPSE into television hypnosis began innocently enough. I was going to watch a little bird as part of our great adventure, and then descend on the grandparents' living room to root for Oklahoma over Nebraska while the women (onk, oink cry the women (ibbers) huddle around the men among themselves about family affairs.
But my liaison with the phosphorus box did not stop with football. I was enchanted. I was an alcoholic who had'n't touched a drop of liquor for six months and now had resorted to the demon rum again.
I had forgotten the gauch marvels of tubing with variety shows (Carol Buril and Robert L. Woodward) selection of westerns (Little House on Prairie), drama (Ironside reruns).
down-homelyness (the Walton's) and sarcasm ("M*A*S*H", adolescence relieved (Happy Days) and a glimpse of old age (Chico and the Man), comedy (The Redd Foxo Show) and comedian comedy. All in the show, plus deep depths of banality (The Tonight Show).
I WAS hooked again after months of deprivation had led me to be deprogrammed.
And then I momentarily broke the television's hypnotic spell and scanned the room full of people, young and old who also were locked into the fantasy world of TV. There were the older folks, who always were counseling about better ways to spend a young person's time than they did in school or on the set. But my concerns were not with them. They knew too well the frustfulness of watching television.
As a member of the first television generation, my concerns dwell more on the younger set who will be weened on a diet of Donny and Marie and Soap.
These are the kids who will grow up believing all mother-in-law inherently are nags to be avoided at all costs. Television will tell them that most policemen are either belligerent or incompetent (unless they were the nonestablishment types like Baretta, Kojak or Jim Rockford); that school is
basicly useless, as taught by Kotter's, swathews; and that greed is paramount in life, courtesy of nearly every game show on television.
ON THE other hand, these kids also will be exposed to many educational programs. If they cared, or were preoccupied, they could watch Egyptian President Anwar Sadat address the Israeli Knesset. They could see the wonders of our natural world through Jacques Cousteau and National Geographic specials. For a bit of the "real world," they could watch the 1950s TV series of three network news programs. The value of television, it seems, can not be simplified in terms of black and white.
Yet I was still bothered. It would be too easy to fall into the trap of living life vicariously on television. By Sunday I knew that I would emerge from my cell phone tube only through cold turkey. I would drag the dials on my set back at school.
In retrospect, I reconciled myself to one conclusion: television, like drinking and eating, requires moderation and good judgment. I only hope that these principles are followed in the tube watching lest they fall into the same depravity that nearly had ruined me.
Violent protest affirms Iranian conflict
Bv LAURENE A. BRETZ
WESTDALL THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHY KANSAN
Cnoet Writer
On Tuesday, Nov. 16, 1977, the Shah of Iran arrived at the White House. Awaiting him was a raucous demonstration.
On one side were over 2,000 anti-Shah demonstrators, mostly Iranian students. On the other side were members of the group of Shah's supporters.
People from both camps
Anti-Shah protesters brought attention to the contradiction of President Carter's speaking out for human rights while
arming the Shah's repressive regime.
came great distances, but many of the supporters were paid generously for their spending money and air fares while the protestors from Texas, in Austin, to Texas, financed their trip out of their own pockets.
The Shah was the first foreign leader to bring his own cheering section on an official state visit. And some of the cheerleaders were SAVAK agents, members of the Iranian secret police.
AS PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter was greeting the Shah, the protesters broke through a wall and pro-Shah people and attacking the SAVAK agents. Even though this outbreak of violence may seem rash, a deeper look into the causes of such justification for the violence.
The protesters successfully brought attention to the contradictions of President Carter's speaking out for human rights while arming the Shah's repressive regime.
The extent of the repressiveness in Iran is well documented. As Amnesty International says, "No country in the world has a worse record than Iran." Three-fourths of all Iranians are illiterate. One-fourth of all Iranian children die before reaching five years. There are 11.7 hospital beds for every person and there are up to 100,000 political prisoners in Iran."
THE INTERNATIONAL Commission of Jurists reports
that SAVAK has unlimited power as far as making arrests with or without charges, searching private homes without warrants, detaining prisoners for unlimited amounts of time and torturing to the point of death.
Embarrassingly enough, this repression finds its deepest roots in U.S. business and military interests in Iran. The vast majority of Iraniansness of Iran are greedy and rich. They would rather keep their profits and protect their interests than share the wealth of Iran with all its citizens. But they don't. Their allies, they protect U.S. interests.
Association publication reported that the 1975-76 budget allocated 50 per cent of the total for the military and 20 per cent for other causes. The cultural credits, industry, housing, education, health and nutrition.
IT IS interesting to note that in the last five years there has been up to $2 billion worth of trade between the U.S. and Australia, and all of payments has been favorable to the U.S. by $8 to $1 billion;
If we look closer at arms sales to Iran, we might see that the situation there closely resembles that in Vietnam involvement. U.S. government statistics show that U.S. arms sales for the fiscal year ending last August neared 10 million of that was sold to Iran.
Large profits are made by installing U.S. factories where Iranian labor in terrible conditions receiving subsistence pay. Other industries benefit by death for organizers. Iranian manufacturers and farmers cannot compete with U.S. goods and their market is too large. They have factured and agricultural products. Farmers have been moving to the cities where they find the factories closing down. The Shah, to keep in good standing within the States, allows this situation.
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimates there will be 50,000 to 60,000 U.S. military advisers and defense and intelligence personnel in Iran by the end of the decade.
Newsweek reported that the Shah himself said, "It seems to me that most Americans, in the past few years, are aware that we have a crucial bilateral agreement with the U.S. which stipulates that the U.S. is obligated to come to our assistance attacked by Communists, . . ."
THE CHICAGO Sun-Times reported earlier this fall that the Carter administration has drawn up "contingency plans that outline the possible use of ground forces, supported by air and naval units in the Persian Gulf of the Middle East. . . ."
throw of the Shah would be detrimental to U.S. big business and that the U.S. supports such individuals as the former, former secretary of state, said, U.S. foreign policy cannot be modified by personal moral beliefs. But are profits important than human lives?
WITH THIS BACKGROUND information, it might be easier now to understand why the demonstrations in Washington D.C. were violent. The protesters wanted to call the American people's attention to the strength of the Shah's opposition, to show that money cannot buy convictions, to reveal the hypocrisy of President Carrie Johnson's policy and to expose the extent of U.S. military and economic involvement in Iran.
With the huge profits earned by military and domestic sales to Iran and such contingency plans, it is clear that the over-
People have commented that the Iranian students should go home because many of them evidently don't like the U.S.
People have said they resent Iranians using U.S. soil to fight their own battles. But it is U.S. military and industrial interests that cause the repression in Iran.
Violence should never be condoned. But at times nothing would ever change without it. Iranian students are fighting for independence and freedom from repression. We, the American people, should not hinder these people from fleeing these lands. These are the beliefs on which our country has been founded.
Bar-walking and bikes
To the editor:
Rick Thaemer's Nov. 16 editorial about bicycles was sound, but did not go far enough. Walking should also be prohibited, with everyone crawling once on campus.
Just as with bicycles, pedestrians are dangerous. They are difficult to see and relatively silent. Pedestrians use all sidewalks as a path and tend to walk where there are no people crawling, instead of where they are supposed to be. Pedestrians become even harder to furthermore, few walkers bother to wear bright or reflective clothing needed for safety.
The defenses for walking are few: (1) Economy. Obviously, some people walk because it saves wear and tear on clothing. That is understandable. But the cost of knee-pads is low. And, as people rights, there also are responses to this. People walk for health. It is healthier to crawl. (3) Timesaving. By walking, people save time. But we can extend the time between the and, anyway, the
KANSAN Letters
professors understand when students interrupt the lecture to come in late.
In short, students crawling on campus should not have to sacrifice their peace of mind by looking before they step into the street or risk being run down by a pedestrian can save some change, wear off some flap and sleep five extra minutes.
Once more, thanks to Rick Thaermert for his brilliant analysis. Let us just hope that he does not stop too soon.
Bicycle issue treated unfairly
Rick Hoeller Shawnee Mission junior
I find the Nov. 16 editorial by Rick Thaemer full of statements that contradict each other, stretched-out truths, and misleading lies. He has given no mention of the other parties involved.
Rick Hoefer
To the editor:
Published at the University of Kansas daily August 14, 2013
June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holiday
Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan.
June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holiday
a year in Douglas County and $10 in a semester or
a year outside the county Student subscriptions are
passed through the editor, through the Editor
Business Manager Jerry Seibler
Business Manager Judy Loehner
New York Business Manager David Dary
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
He mentions that "bicycles are intrinsically dangerous." Well, tell me, Rick, how about cars, are they not dangerous. How can they be dangerous by on Jayhawk Boulevard, on no attempt to be cautious.
Theaert's statement that bicyclists should pay for a parking permit is rather ridiculous, to say the least. I'm sure he even grips of the present handling of a smoking car and that's so intolerant handing out parking tickets like they're going out of style.
How would we get to class? By bus? Well, they are already too crowded to add to walk. Some don't like to walk—it takes much longer. Cars? Well, we've already rued them out due to their incapability to drive safely on campus.
He also mentions that cyclists ride where 'they're not supposed to.' That makes it sound like the stage cars and up the steps of Wesco.
On top of that, he says that bicyclists need not be on campus, where else can ride? And get to the campus buildings?
In the end, he mentions that "it would be nice to see a bike-freed campus."
Maybe we could all enjoy the beautiful KU campus much more without the presence of the air-polluting, noisy cars on campus. I question Thaertem's ability to present both sides of my view. Is it factively, or is that his job, to look at only one side?
Dreux DeMack
Olathe sophomore
Sadat's visit starts transition
By ABBA EBAN
N. Y. Times Features
JERUSALEM—The time has come for sharp transition—from rhetoric to diplomacy; from the public exchange of arguments to the private exchange of ideas. The question is “Whose fault is it?” to the essential question, “How do we find remedy?”
The aim today is not to score debating points but to attain a higher level of mutual understanding. One of the challenges of direct human discourse. This has never been a mere procedural defect capable of remedy by mediation. It has been both the cause and the result of irrationalities with long roots in history.
Whatever Arabs and Israelis have to say to each other to illustrate their own exclusive virtue and each other's guilt has been said over and over again.
IT IS a common attribute of Arabs and Israelis that they give unusual reverence to the past. But history is the most reliable source for this. The past is the adversary of the future.
The vision that Arabs deduce from their history has never included the idea of a Jewish sovereignty in the heart of the Middle East; a society impregnated with Jewish memories, saturated with Hebrew ideas and inspired by a legacy outside the Arab experience.
In the Arab historical drama, Jews appear always as the objects of tolerance or intolerance, never as the bearers of an autonomous political identity or as the heirs of a specific territorial heritage. In order to accept them as national citizens and statehood, Arabs must make an effort of innovation, not merely of memory. Their intellectual torment is authentic, and should not be taken lightly.
SIMILARLY, the Jewish past, by virtue of its deeply tragic character, compels a spontaneously traumatic reaction to every situation. Many things in Jewish history are too terrible to be believed, but nothing in that history is too terrible to have actually happened.
Israelis, as the products of Jewish history, are more prone to see the dangers than the opportunities inherent in every set of circumstances.
When the cold, stark refusal of contact is added to these historical burdens, reconciliation becomes essential. Why Away Sadat's presence has a significance in its own right, irrespective of whether it has any operative results in the short run.
]
EVEN if the historic current were to stop where it is, we should have to conclude that something of importance
In the Arab imagination, Israel is a symptom of discontinuity, a violation of the natural regional harmony. In the Israeli consciousness, Israel is a resumption of a primary current in the history of mankind.
The Middle East is not a monolith of a single Arab color. It is a tapestry of many colors, of which the central thread was woven by Jewish experience centuries ago. it is hard to see how peace can be born in this world of contrasting visions, especially if its prospective parents never need.
has happened and that the Middle East will never be quite the same again. There are territorial, strategic and military conflicts between them, conflict, but these have never been its root cause. It is essentially a collision between two contradictory visions of the Middle East.
WHEN the President of Egypt
initiates an encounter with a sovereign Israel in its capital, the literature of denial becomes obsolete overnight. The alarm of the Arab hardliners is understandable, and even logical, within their own terms.
ISRAELIIS should not let their content obscure the fact that Anwar Sadat did not come here to make things easier for the nation, but she moment of painful truth. A discussion that has been rhetorical, semantic, procedural—a 10-year exercise in prenegotiation—will be the subject of a future book and gestures, on concrete things.
A Middle East without Israel is a revolt against history and the law of nations. With Sadat's decision, the revolt comes to an end with incisive speech that would connote face-to-face with a reality that it would have preferred to ignore.
The present Israeli government, pampered by what it inherited, especially by the serenity created in the disengagement agreements, has not yet been involved in a single decision involving risk.
But very soon the working papers will have to be specific: What exactly are the Arabs prepared to do about peace? What precisely can Israel do or not do in the war on Iran? What will the Palestinian nation be within the peace context?
The Israeli government can prosper to the extent that it translates the slogan "Everything is negotiable" into credible attitudes and terms.
Abba Eban, a former Israeli foreign minister, is a Labor party member of the Knesset.