UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of the editors.
February 15,1980
Dole heads for a fall
Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kan, started to rub the sleep from his eyes this week before he could complete the training back into his political dream world.
While other Republican candidates were signing up right and right for the April 1 Kansas primary, Dole deliberately let the Tuesday noon deadline sail by unbeeded. Nineteen states entered the primary, the state's first.
Twelve are Republicans, including George Bush, John Connally and Ronald Reagan, who was the last to file. Among the Democrats are President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Dole kept his intentions to himself until the deadline had passed. He would not file, he announced—obviously. But those who were relieved that Dole did not file for the primary, those who are hoping the senator will start stumping for re-election to his Senate position and forget about the White House, must have been annoyed by his prepared statement.
"If I do well between now and April 1," Dole said, "I believe I can prevail
without being on the Kansas primary ballot."
Often, a man gains admiration from others for his faith in himself but not when that faith is unrealistic and potentially detrimental to them as well as to the man. Unfortunately, Dole can also be seen as gingerly execute the political gymnastic fast of keeping a foot in each of two campaels.
Dole is clumsy treading the line between admiration and ridicule from his constituents as he oscillates between another term as senator and a crumbling presidential campaign. If he stands on one foot in either campaign much longer, he is bound to take a serious tumble.
Although no other Republicans have announced publicly intentions of vying with Dole's soon-to-be-avaliable Senate Seat, in the United States Senate, John Simpson, a democrat and former Republican State Senator from Salina, has made it clear that he is going to put in a bid against Dole.
It does not happen often, Bob, but Democrats do win in Kansas. Ask former Gov. Robert Bennett.
UNIVERSITY DAILY letters KANSAN
'Joke' condemnation should be questioned
To the Editor:
I couldn't help but notice the sligh-*i*cascet overtows of the views expressed by Schnacke in the Tuesday, Feb. 12 Kansan article.
It is apparent that he doesn't give the student body, (which he desires to lead) enough confidence in his own decisions. This was evident in his statement concerning the opposing position, "I'm not going to legitimize it. I believe it is the individual who decides what is legitimate and what is not. Schmacke's statement seems indicative of his susceptibility to external pressure."
Schinneck also alluded to an all too obvious paradox about the "joke" cohitions in his statement, "I ... I feel threatened by the joke." And the fact that John is jumping on the "joke" coalition bandwagon.
This and a few previous articles concerning the student body contest have raised some questions that I feel should be answered:
1. Who started this "joke coalition"
phraseme in the first place?
3. Who are the "joke" and who are the "serious"? Someone please qualify these terms as applied to the campaign and justify your ability to do so.
Because this is also the year of a much larger political race, it seems fitting to remember that eight years ago the majority of the public thought McGovera was a 'joke' until they were forced to look at what he said. Who laughed last? Who laughed at all?
2. What is a "joke" coalition and a "serious" coalition?
As Marcel Ducamp said, "A serious person is a consistent person and consistency leads to fanatism ... and it is a kind of insignificance of passion; it is the fanatism of the
Inquisition that does not hesitate to impose its credo, it is the fanaticism of ... vigilantes who defend morality by lynchings."
Todd Talley
Lawrence Senior
Apathy, Bendover are within system
To the Editor:
It doesn't surprise me at all that Garel Schnacke, of the Coalition coilism, is upset by the amount of publicity granted the so-called "joke" coilons. After all, to have spent so much of your parents' money on snaggy graphics and blue ink, only to see their shift to people whose posters are xeroxed and no use a GPSat at all must be bailing.
Personally, I don't find Apathy's surrealistic disinterest or Bendover's perceptive suture half as offensive as the others. We are not only two hotshots on the Coalition positions, but alone the meaningless concentric circles on the Focus postions. How are we supposed to respond? We're supposed to have we have the opportunity to vote for from advertisements? (Not that anyone with as much intelligence as your average fern can get to guess the platforms of such groups.)
It comes down to blue letters versus orange circles; we certainly can't tell anything else from the text not substance—you can tell what the lady is saying. Shelley Senecal of Ficus (or whatever), who asked the "joke" coaltions to stop kidding and work within the system: they are working within the system. Running for office means that the system can't get. The people who aren't working withing the system are the 85 percent who didn't vote last time. And if it weren't for the interest stirred by the "joke" coaltions, you'd probably lose the other 15 percent.
Michael Gebert
Wichita freshman
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom--864-4810
Business Offee--864-4258
(9278-6444-5040) published at the University of Kamesa daily August through May and Monday and Thursday from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Saturday and Sunday only). *Revised pricing.* Kamesa本科：$650; Kamesa 专科：$750; Business本科：$1,100; Business专科：$1,450. Books are for $15 for six months or $4 in year-end deposits and for use in lieu of tuition fees. Mail orders by mail are for $16 for six months or $4 in year-end deposits and for use in lieu of tuition fees.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kannan, Flint Hall, The University of Kannan.
Lawrence, KS 60045
Editor
James Anthony Fitts
Management Editor
David M. Warner
Brendan Walker
Editorial Editor
Brendan Walker
Campus Editor
Cara Beirer
Assistant Campus Editors
Amy Holiday, Ellen Winkler
Director
Clayton Watson
Sports Editor
Mary Jeffery
Sports Manager
Mary Jeffery
Entertainment Editor
Caitlin Haldeman
Rhonda Holman, Bennett Winkler
Jeff Sperry, Leslie Winkerman
Food and Beverage Manager
Wendy White
Business Manager Vincent Coultis
Retail Sales Manager            Elaine Starrer
Campus Sales Manager           Dave Troxxel
Director/More Marketing       Mike Paulsen
Classified Representatives    Tammy Heim, Nataline Dane Juade
Classified Representatives    Pam Davis
Skill Photographer             Karen Gillen
Skill Artist                   Karan Hartley
Retail Manager                Karen Hartley
Grandmaster Associate        Jennifer Altman
Grandmaster Associate        Albertman
Sales Administrator          Kevin Koster, Candy Price, Mike Rosenthal, Paul Winer, David Koehler
Bright Light               Karen Harell, Hope Rhodabach, Sleddy Howell, Rosanne Harvage, Susan Barnet
General Manager              Adverwisng Manager
General Manager              Rock Keefer
In the 1980s, the "Wets" beat the "Dries"
the first major battle in the war of 3.2
million dollars with the war of 3.2 percent
beer as a cereal malt beverage. The
legal and legal age lasted the right to buy it.
The Dries have been sore ever since and, despite their lack of victory, have harried and hampered the Wets for more than 40 years.
Dries attempt to legislate morality
A series of convoluted and mine-fogging liqueurs have been passed primarily to placate the Dry forces. The complex private drenching station can be ban on open saloons and the Dries that Kansas would not have drunks reeling out of the Main Street Saloon to influence little kiddies. The Dries have successfully brought the system or bring booze into the open.
ACCORDING TO its sponsors, the bill is intended to save young people from traffic accidents and alcoholism by curtailing their consumption of beer. Making beer consumption illegal for those under 21 would save lives and preserve morals, the legislators seem to think, and it is their duty to ensure their concern for Kansas youth into life.
Now they're trying something new—attention-grabbing. House Democrats hold in House Household Insurance (Hos.) who goes before the Federal and State Affairs Committee to debate the proposed ban on beer by anyone under 21 years.
gutsy piece of legislation. No matter what happens to it—if it's defeated, passed or rejected, the Dries will be unhappy voters. The Dries are a significant part of the state; they represent a lot of votes. Students and liberals will have to fight against those organizations that the Dries can expect to battle.
You have to admit, the bill is a pretty
THE BILL'S opponents are arming themselves carefully and are developing
kate COLUMNIST pound
What the bill would do is cut into businesses that provide communities and the state with a big chunk of revenue. Tavern owners would lose up to 90 percent of their business.
ammunition that could shoot down the bill. Their arguments begin with the simple injustice of the bill.
officers and Alcoholic Beverage Control agents would be able to police every grocery store, residence hall, fraternity, home and car.
An 18-year-old is permitted to vote, marry and make credit purchases. An 18-year-old must pay taxes and may soon have to work in a state where the age-related to the state revenue and dies for the country but can't come home from work or war to guāf a cold beer. Makes sense, right? On the battle field, the gosha keep you safe from evil lour."
THE SUPPORTERS of the bill contend that it would save hundreds of lives each year. Yet legislators sponsoring the bill are likely to produce the statistics to prove their assertion.
A LOSS that big would force most of them to close. Communities would lose the taxes paid by tavern owners, as well as the economic benefits they provide. One local tavern pays more than $16,000 a year in payrolls payable ally. Multiplied by the tax, that's a lot of money. It's also a lot of job, needs by students and communities alike.
reduction of traffic fatalities involving young people. But the legislators did not approve a bill to increase financing the reduction, such as a general decrease in traffic fatalities due to reduced car ownership.
The bill's proponents are being idealistic in saying that a higher drinking age would significantly reduce traffic accidents involving young drivers. Raising the drinking age would decrease drinkings. The bill would send underaged drinkers onto the streets, driving in their cars.
THE PRESENT 18-year-old beer drinking age limit allows young people to gather in their own home or within walking distance of their homes. They can also drink at home to eliminate the risk of alcohol abuse.
House Bill 2021 is an unrealistic, ultra-right attempt to legislate morality for the drivers who would be vulnerable. It would put more driving drivers at risk of being punished would be could be termed of business losses and in the added workload to law enforcement officials. But mostly, it would be less.
the drinking age would push those under 21 to raid the custody, illegal drinking, in cars and away from home. The bill won't cut consumption, it will only change its form.
Teenagers in Kansas always have been to get liquor. Fourteen-year-olds have been to the store since they were Older friends and siblings bay booze for underdranked students and they constrangers into making purchases. Determined to be like a little thing like House Bill 2013 stop them.
THE BILL won't not accomplish its goals, it simply could not. If the laws aren't enforced now, how could a bill that would force a law to be passed? There is no way that local law enforcement
If Dry forces and legislators are truly concerned about alcohol use among the young, it could better spend its money and time by improving funds for stricter enforcement of existing laws and for educational programs on alcohol abuse. They can do this through an ineffectual, illogical and unjust attempt to accomplish its sponsors' goals.
There it is . . . the hell-spawned demon that lures our young into its dens of iniquity,
consuming the moral fiber of our society.
New York Times Special Features
By GARRETT HARDIN
**MARK MARTIN** *Special Features*
SANTA BARBARA IS SHOULD-일 legally be counted in the court? For that matter, what's the good of counting people? Why take a cense? I mean, why
The issue came to the fore when a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Census Bureau from taking part in the 2010 census was filed in December by the Federation for American Immigration Reform and five states.
They believe that it would be unconstitutional to include illegals in the commission of congressional seats, which the bureau intends to do, arguing that such inclusion would violate the principle of one man one vote. And some officials were counted, the next repositionment would probably give New York, Texas and Florida more representation at the expense of other states; New Jersey, Illinois and Florida also would gain. The suit was filed today in federal District Court in Washington.
It seems odd to give representation in Congress to people not legally here.
THE CENSUS Bureau is upset. Years of planning have focused on April 1. No provision on census forms has been made and most residents — the bureau has taken the position that on census day it counts everybody in the United States except foreign tourists and diplomats. To revise the questionnaire is expensive, causing a delay of months.
So this is the time to ask: Why take a census anyway?
Census aren't cheap. The 170 census cost $268 million. It is estimated that this year's will cost a billion dollars.
What do we get for our money? First of all, a fairy tale figure. The bureau told us that 293,235 people were exactly 203,235,298 people. Later, highly sophisticated checking procedures showed that the official count missed some 3.3 percent people. -2.5 percent of the population.
WHERE WERE the uncounted? People on the move and alcoholics on skid row, we were told. But that's not all, as is known from personal experience. Five people who were born in California, their family was temporarily split between California and Illinois. Though we are far from illiterate we cannot unscramble the bureaucrasee that dealt with situations like ours. Each contangent assumed that the government out the forms. So we weren't counted.
A principle of almost ethical force in science is Never report non-significant results. It means the first two digits are significant. The last seven are straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales.
THERE Is no reason to think that the 1800 census will be any better. Everything that a census tells us can be learned more easily by "sampling" the population. A scientific sample can save us hundreds of millions of dollars and we can be predicted now: about 238 million people.
Taking a census may have been intelligent in 1790, when there were only 17 states and 3.3 million "Americans." (Indians, more American than all others, didn't count!) Today, a complete census has the normal appendix that the body's verniform appendix.
Illegal aliens are subjected to contradictory pressures. Some of their compatriots urge them to cooperate with the census-takers and be counted so that their group can gain in political power. Other voices tell them to lie low for the fear the information given to the Census Bureau will be turned over to other government agencies. The evidence doesn't won't be harassed—but who trusts government? Illegal are in a tough spot.
SAMPLING CAN bypass this difficulty. Though census forms call for the names of people, sampling has no need for names.
If we will stop striving for the spurious precision of a census, we may start to ask the "big questions" implied by the lawsuit
Of course it still would be difficult to get an honest answer to the question, "Did you know that I was an AI?" shows that anonymity encourages honesty. Skillful sampling can be more revealing.
We don't need a census to tuck these questions. Everything that an expensive census can tell us, a good sample can tell us. We ought to keep our eye on the ball.
of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which is a Washington-based organization that seeks to stem illegal immigration. Should illegals count toward congressional representation? Should we allow immigration causes unemployment? Do immigrants cause unemployment? Do they, on balance, add to the national wealth or subtract from it? Should "illegal immigrants" be called instead "undocumented visitors"? Should we have actually seized immigration and pay the poor of other countries to come join us?
Garrett Hardin, a biologist whose speciality is human ecology, is author of "Stalking the Wild Taloo," an anthropology of essays.
Letters Policy
1
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and include a name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include the writer's name, address and home town or faculty or staff position.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication. Letters can be sent to the Kansan newsroom, 121 Flint Hall