4
Friday, October 28.1977
University Daily Kansan
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Comment
Opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Kansas or the School of Journalism
Those who waited in breathless anticipation for Wednesday night's Student Senate meeting were left to turn blue in the heat of the sun. The importance of the semester, never took place.
Thus, the most important legislation of the semester, Fall allocations for 30 student students, is
The reason: The Student Senate Record, a newsletter containing meeting agendas, proposed legislation and other Senate information, was late reaching the mail and, as a result, the Senate did not aggravate the problem, the Post Office took a holiday Monday for Veterans' Day.
This would not be so distressing except that, as of today, the Student Senate will not have met for a month. A meeting in late October was canceled for lack of legislation.
Given the situation, the Senate made the right decision Wednesday night. The legislation, precisely because of its importance, needed to be carefully considered,
and senators simply did not have the time to do it justice. Furthermore, the Senate would have had to vote down one of its own regulations, which requires that senators receive the record at least three working days before a meeting, to act on allocations.
Critics within the Senate have complained that the Senate has spent the last few months spinning its wheels. The critics now have more fuel for their arguments.
Wednesday's blunder was partially caused by a series of unfortunate circumstances, including the illness of secretaries and the vagaries of the Post Office. But it was also a result of poor planning by the Senate's leaders. They picked a bad time to let their planning go awry.
Time will show wisdom of allowing lawyer ads
But the wisdom of the Senate's decision Wednesday night does not make its continued inactivity any less disappointing. The Senate has been through trying times later, and Wednesday's non-meeting is just another blow to its credibility.
BY LAWRENCE X. CUSACK N.Y. Times Features
An incurable sentimentalist about the traditions of the law, I have not been finding it easy to adjust to the ramifications of the recent United States decision on lawyer advertising.
I came to the Bar believing what I and my colleagues, or most of them, had been told about the law being a noble profession, not a trade or business; a call to the bar, not a license to make as much money as we could.
When I first saw the lawyers' ads that started to appear in the press—so much for an uncontested divorce, so much for a name change, so much for a personal bankruptcy, with their implications of bargain-basement price cringed. I had to do something to be it before we read about "summer specials," "two codicils for the price of one," "money-back guarantees?"
MY ATTITUDE is probably wrong, seriously wrong. The more I think about lawyer advertising, the more I am afraid that properly done, its benefits to the public at large—and that should be the acid test—will far outweigh the fact that some traditions of the legal profession may come tumbling down.
Why should a potential client have to guess about the cost of a particular legal service? It might turn out to be a service he does not want because he does not want to spend what it would cost. Or there may be a competent lawyer in town who is willing to charge much less. Comparison wants to see the price taps.
And why should a client have to go blindly to a law office and take the chance that the lawyer
he has chosen to consult may not be experienced in the field of law that involves his problem? Is it not relevant to a prospective client about to purchase his first house that a particular lawyer has spent 20 years practicing real estate law? Or is it not relevant to a perspective client who has been permanently disabled in an accident, and another lawyer has confined his practice to the plaintiff's side of personal injury cases?
I DOUBT THAT it will really be in the public interest—or in the long-term interest of our profession—if lawyers and our professional associations were to drag our feet in the development of lawyer-trainers who make a full range of relevant facts available to all consumers. If we do, we will be battling the inevitable and in the process alienating the public, who will unoutdated misinterpret our reluctance as interested attempt to deny consumers vital information.
Permission to advertise does not mean an obligation to do so. Some lawyers and law firms may choose not to advertise for one reason or another. Some may, for example, regard it as not financially worthwhile. But permission to advertise does not be obstructed by audibly restrictive regulatory standards.
NOR IS ADVERTISING likely to be a cure-all. On both sides, the expectations may be unrealistic. The quotation of stated fees for routine services may provoke client complaints of bait advertising. It may attract those who are mainly consumers. It may bring in business that cannot be handled economically. But all this is speculation. Experience will
reveal the problems and perhaps supply the solutions.
The legal profession should pitch in wholeheartedly in drawing up workable rules for informing the public about the importance of quality of legal services in a manner that avoids the real risk of misleading the clients. If that means open competition among lawyers and law firms, so be it. The courts have a good tool and means depriving lawyers of what some call their mystique, it would not be a serious loss. There is no valid reason for this law to be a barrier to functions as an artificial barrier between lawyer and client.
LOSS OF professional dignity? Not because of lawyer advertising, unless it is done in an undignified manner. And a lawyer's kind of advertising will have to pay a penalty of his own making. Intelligent consumers will recognize that kind of self-promotion for what it is and for what employs about the advertiser.
Abuses? Some are probably inevitable—human nature will not change. But if we lawyers do a good job of setting up clear boundaries, protecting themselves and policing them, the occasional abuse will be obvious, and the occasional mislead will be suitably dealt with. The public is not too high a price for us to pay for doing what is best for the public. That is where our clients come from. Our public lives are dedicated to promoting their best interests.
Lawrence K. Cusack is president of the New York County Lawyers' Association. This article appears in the Association's October newsletter.
Now that the political dogfight over the Concorde appears to be temporarily halted, it's time to see who the winners and the losers are.
Concorde has winners, losers
Prominent in the winner's circle are the French and British governments who had more riding on the Concorde's sweeping wingspan than national pride. The two governments had kicked in $3 billion to build 18 supersonic transports and were claiming that financial aid from the government was not opened. Thanks to a rewrite by Secretary of Transportation Brock Adams, the Concorde has begun regular service to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.
For the last 18 months, the Concorde had been dipping in and out of Washington's John Foster Dulles airport at the rate of a half dozen flights a week. Although test flights for JFK had been cleared by President Ford's Secretary of Transportation William Oleander, the aircraft had not been damaged but had prevented the Concorde from landing in New York until this month.
ALSO ON the winners' side of the tally sheet are the businessmen who now can expand their use of the Concorde for transatlantic trips. More than 80 per cent of them own the Concorde to Europe, and the flights between Dulles and London and Paris have been about 80 per cent full. Flying at an average speed of 1,350 miles an hour, the plane takes up time from eight to four hours. Supersonic travel is the way of the future for time-conscious businessmen who don't mind paying $440 for a one-way ticket, more than the cost of the average coach [are]
President Jimmy Carter has won, at most, a tie. While Carter was known to personally support an American Concord election in politically unfavorable geographical or ecological contexts the superscient jet. It is for this reason that until last week, when Carter made his final decision to allow the plane to land in New York, he had been considering every option, from banning the plane to allowing it to fly rights in as many as 13 American cities,
THE DECISION lifted Carter out of a sticky situation with the French and British governments. Now he doesn't have to answer French Prime Minister Raymond Barre's charges that continued U.S. denial of landing rights
The supersonic transport industry as a whole came out in somewhat better shape than it went into the struggle. The airplanes needed to market, the future of the supersonic airplanes would be confined to being an expensive frill for elite jetsetters. The industry at least gave a financial lift, if not a psychological shot in the arm, now that the Federal Aviation Administration concorde飞轨 to 13 American cities.
suits, picketed the airport terminals and initiated "drive and stalls" to the airport. Some of them discontent stemmed from the low-pitched rumble of the Concorde that had aroused sleeping dogs and rattled windows around Washington since the early 1980s.
NO DOUBT, the Concorde is louder than any other supersonic plane. But the noise from the engines and the noise levels of flights going in and out of Dulces. The findings so far show that the plane's noise level has almost doubled since 2013, the normal threshold of air pressure.
Although the anti-Concorde groups can continue to deliver loud Bronx cheers to the despised Concorde, the jet appears to be settling into a comfortable pattern in New York. After making six test landings and take offs from its base on October 1, the rigid noise requirements with flying colors. Without the noise pollution issue to ride on, the protestors don't have a prayer.
The losers? The anti-Concorde groups in New York City's middle class borough of Queens and neighboring Nassau County are still determined to keep the noise of the Concorde out of New York. The protesters have filed
Dave Johnson
Editorial Writer
It is evident that the battle of Concorde had its winners and its losers. But like many hotly-contested wars, the result is still somewhat meaningsless. The French would have added up the projected losses that the British government would suffer from the present fleet — as much as $40 million — government officials have said that no more Concorde would be able to be The French have said much the same.
would be inconsistent with the American values of free enterprise and rugged but fair competition.
So basically the decision to open the Concorde up to American airports merely pacified everyone except the anti-Concorde groups who fear the ecological impact of the jet. Since the Concorde is ticketed for obsolescence in 10 to 15 years and neither the French nor the British are planning to build any more the straight path they may have been on would be temporarily muzzled those who would cry hypocrisy to a continued ban on the Concorde while the U.S. ostensibly promotes the virtues of free enterprise.
Religious attack shows lack of tolerance
To the editor:
I would like to be one of the many who no doubt will acclaim her as a leading author on country's leading authorities on all contemporary religious movements — as well as an outspoken champion of
Her tolerance for radio and TV evangelists, charismatics, Christian Jews and Southern Baptists is exceeded only by her profound understanding of their inner motivations.
OFFERS TO TRIple her
offers of $15.00 a show failed to
deter. The would-be actress
the globe-bound vanity
vanity and padding of her
As a Southern Baptist, I want to thank Mitchell for this important contribution to the church. We spent four and a half years in a Southern Baptist seminary and 25 years pastoring Southern church churches. We're not recognize any other." Isn't it
No wonder she's not worried.
She has signed with Fabere to endorse her own line of cosmetics for an undisclosed salary. Apparently, Fabere trusts her judgment enough to use them and in choosing fragrances and ingredients and even in selecting package designs—all for a price, of course.
In comparison, a far more enticing poster of Raquel Welch has sold only two million copies. A poster of the late Marilyn Monroe has attracted a mere 1.5 million buyers. And a poster of Farrah's husband, Lee Cunningham, is a Million Dollar Man," is far behind with sales of only 500,000.
Farrah thought enough of herself to leave ABC's hit show, "Charley's Angels," behind. However, the show's popularity has not diminished since her departure.
Her insights into the basic philosophy of these various groups indicate nothing less about the nature of her instance, she informs us that "Southern Baptists claim to have discovered the one true religion—a religion so profound that it cannot be recognized any other."
Rolling Stone has hired her to do a column. Everyone is jumping on the Farrah bandwagon. Sponsors are now paying $100,000 a minute for her.
pocketbook. Spelling-Goldberg productions, who churn out the weekly dosage of angelic pabulum, have filed suit against Farrah. It doesn't seem to bother her that she is barred from working on television or in movies until the suit is settled.
BESIDES THE FABERGE
Then came Rita Hayworth,
Ava Gardner, Lana Turner,
Betty Grable, Lauren Bacall
and Marilyn Monroe. All possessed an overt sexuality
and an appearance of wickedness. This attraction was geared to post-teens and adults.
Her goddess-able pretense goddess—a Barbie doll of lesser proportions and no talent. In fact, there is now a Farrah钻 on the market.
Farrab fad should fade
SHE IS TALL, skinny, tooy and most notable for her golden tresses. She bears hardy any resemblance to the traditional American sex symbol. The only thing skin to past stereotyping is a smile. And certainly she is one until she bears the sound of money.
Farrah Fawcett-Majors thinks she's sexy. And the poster-buyers of America think she's right. In fact, they seem to think she's sexier than Raquel Welch.
Letters
The now-famous poster of Farrah in a red bath suit has sold more than three million copies. Before the end of the year, sales are expected to exceed 10 million.
Mary Mitchell Editorial Writer
money and the money from poster sales, she collects on ads for Noxezza shave cream, Mercury Cougars, Wella Balsam shampoo and Vic Tanny health clubs.
At least in earlier decades, the public was attracted to real women. In the 1920s and 1930s, Marlene Dietrich, Gretar Garba and Hedy Lamarr were the favorite sex goddesses.
Farrah's face peers at you from at least a dozen popular magazines on newsstands. Her hairdo is the rage. But let us hope that this phase is transient, or at least a talented and more notable persons to be given this kind of attention.
Several weeks ago, it was announced that Farrah was swarmed by photographers in a room with an attractive older man, seated at the table with her, was ignored. He was Cary Grant, Fabergé executive and former president of the public forgets.
This "fallen Angel" had better enjoy the fame and money when it lasts before she becomes a forgotten fad. And that should not be too long away.
Ten years from now Farrah will be another question on the trivia list of has-beens. Perhaps the only good thing that can be said about her is that she had a marriage to Pamela Angels," the inane program whose ratings she helped increase.
amazing how a person can spend his life in a church, enjoying its fellowship, finding fulfillment in ministering to others, sharing spiritual needs, having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, discovering real purpose in living, establishing a church among people of our persuasions, and then find out in a college newspaper editorial that we are all "gilty of bigotry and woeful excesses." Not a few, not some, even a majority, but all of us.
I'm sure that all of us bigoted Southern Baptists and millions of others have been tried to Mitchell for setting us straight. As she says, we "should have learned their from the Nazi war crimes."
So three cheers for Mitchell and her crusade against us "narrow-minded, self-righteous zealots who call themselves Christians." With that kind of tolerance, who needs biotry?
Now, carefully removing tongue from cheek, Mary, I might add that if your editorial reflects your concept of responsible journalism, do not forbidding or tolerance. You are going to need a lot of it from your professors.
I'm just praying (but not too loud, so I won't "coerce" anybody) that when all that happens much for you, you will contact one of those so-called Jesus people who can introduce you to the one who can help you love these self-sufficient zealots like us.
Fred S. Hollomon, pastor Faith Southern Baptist Church
Radical thought is not forgotten
To the editor:
It seems to me that there has been a large amount of nervous peering over our shoulders at the sixties and what they represented. With the resurfacing of radicals such as Mark Rudd there seems to be a renewed interest in the sixties.
Sentiments like I "tought those times were over and done with long ago" seem common. In the past, they were those days of bomb-flinging
To an extent, this is the philosophy that is bringing the life of Jesus together. We have all benefited from the sixties, but it is pointless to dwell upon them. We are still young and gone (but not forgotten).
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Of course, the days of "violent reform" ended about seven years ago and rightfully deserved to be considered thought deed with the last bomb implies a remarkable short-sightedness and lack of intelligence. The school of radical thought is no more dead now than it was around 1987 (that is not at all).
1970 brought most violence
violence are over, and so is the radical thought that went with them.
The emphasis now is revolution on a more personal level, which is as it should be. There are other challenges, the sixties, but it obvious that the theme of violent change so prevalent then will not work. Forcing other people to adopt violence is both stupid and unfair.
To the editor:
We realize this, and have taken a lesson from it. The only true revolution, it would seem, is revolution from within. After that, we can change the viewpoint of others or the viewpoint of oneself?
The Kanas' evocation of past years on Mount Oread in its homecoming edition was commendable, but, for the sake of the record, one article needs correction. Your writer errs slightly in her reconstruction of the days when "students veered into combat" during demonstrations against the Vietnam War prior to 1967; depending on definition, they were held as early as 1963.
Also, the article speaks of serious problems in 1967; but the specific incidents mentioned (the killing of two police officers apparently by police; the Kansas University fire) took place in 1970.
Tim Miller
1328 Vermont
Parks bring people, scars To the editor:
Save the Tallgrass Prairie, Inc. seems to have good intentions, but the whole idea on which they base their argument is on land proposed in the bill. Propose it in the Tallgrass Prairie National Park. Proponents of this bill say that this park is needed to “preserve” a section of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. What I like to know is that park him ever preserved anything.
The parade in this area and many other areas is much the same as it was 200 years ago. Ranchers have used the land the same way it was used 200 years ago. It hasn't changed and will not change left in the park. There are few roads, no lights at night and less than 10 people per square mile.
If a park is put there, the following come with it: roads, lights, dumping stations for campers, motels, vacation sites and car dealers, filling stations and most importantly, people. Is this preservation? Certainly not. Thus the whole idea backfires. It's natural now will be nothing but a commercialized mess.
In the Oct. 18 Kanan, the Save the Tallgrass Prairie, Inc. president's letter talks of fertility and success in planting the Farting Hills prairie. I have lived in the area all of my life, and I have never seen any fertilize the native grass. It is not nor will it ever become more fertile, and cannot be farmed because of numerous rocks and hills.
If people want to see the tall-
grass prairie, let them drive through and look. A park would only commercialize and therefore destroy the area. The present landowners have preserved grasslands it because, after all, it is the land off which they make their living.
Zack Reynolds Hamilton junior
We who are attending college now must realize that jobs are getting more and more scarce. We are on the wrong side of the "baby boom" that glinted the job market just ahead of us. We'd better at least learn how to operate a machine, because for many of us, the jobs simply won't be there when we get out.
To the editor:
Students must learn to cope
Pursuing an education was at one time an end in itself. Galliele and Newton studied the heavens even though there were no jobs waiting for them at Lockheed or NASA. Let's face it, if all you're asking for is a good job as well answering an ad from the back of a matchbook.
With Monday's editorial complaining about college "sales pitches," it has become obvious that some of the students we idea what universities are for. True, some college administrators are busy recruiting with their "hard-sell" tactics. They teach us that all students we seem to study of universities as nothing more than factories that churn out white-collar robots, robots in a some office-park in the suburbs.
Greg Funk
Topeka senior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Publicized at the University of Kansas daily August 21, 2015 at noon. Subscriptions to June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holiday, are $35. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15 Subscriptions by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail are a $3会员 or $15. Subscribers by mail is a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are a year outside the county.
Editor Jerry Seib
Managing Editor
Ebbbb Edith
Campus Editor
Bronze Boehr
Associate Campus Editor
Dan Bewerman
Aidient Campus Editor
Deena Kerbow
Business Manager
Judy Lohr
Assistant Business Manager Patricia Thornton
Advertising Manager Kaby Lang
Frontend Manager Ron Alman
Publicist Newer Sage
David Dary Rick曼林