OPINION
University Daily Kansan, July 17, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily
KANSAN
Published since 1899 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kaisan (USPS 650 640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 W. Main Street, Kansas City, KS 64103; and on the regular basis during Sunday, Sunday, holidays and periods, and during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 600 444. Subscriptions by mail must be $5 for six months or $72 in Douglas County, Kansas. Mail for less than six months or $72 in Douglas County, Kansas. Subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee POSTMASTER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kaisan, 118 Stuart-Flimt
News staff
Jeff Cravena
Winston Hills
Chris Lazzerino
Chris Lazzerino
Andrew Hartley
Lake Elk
Susanne Shaw
General Manager, News Advisor
Brett McCabe ... Business Manager
Mark Schick ... Retail Advertising Manager
Eric Scheck ... National/Campus Manager
John Oherzan ... Sales and Marketing Advisor
Needless deaths
The Blue Angels flirt with death every time they take to the air. The Navy's precision flying team regularly performs feats that defy all odds. The majestic A-4 jets scream alongside each other with their wings only inches apart. They scream past each other in dives and climbs, barely avoiding rubbing bellies.
The gravitational forces exerted on the pilots while they perform their loops, dives, turns and rolls would nearly crush most humans. These mid-air ballets are truly wonderful. But they are also truly deadly.
On Saturday, Navy LL Cmdr. Mike Gershon died while performing his duties as a Blue Angel at an air show at Niagara Falls, N.Y. His jet collided with the jet piloted by Lt. Andy Caputi. The planes collided while passing each other in a vertical stunt. As the planes passed each other, the noise of a collision could be heard. Flames flew as both aircraft became uncontrollable.
Caputi ejected from his aircraft and lived. Gerson did not eject and died. He became the 21st Blue Angel killed while performing in air shows or training since the group's formation in 1946.
The Navy stresses at air shows that the incredible stunts are actually perfected combat maneuvers, not just entertainment for the crowds below.
But if they are only perfected combat maneuvers and not just air-show entertainment, they should only be performed in training for combat. However much training is needed to keep the pilots in top condition for combat is exactly how much should be done. No more, no less.
People in this area can see the Blue Angels perform at air shows at Forbes Field in Topeka. The air shows feature vintage aircraft, as well as high-technology fighters.
You can also see Blue Angels come inches from a fiery death, performed for your entertainment. As with the Air Force's Thunderbirds, the Navy and its pilots pay the highest fee possible for public relations.
The lives of pilots are already put in danger in combat and combat training. It is time the Navy ends the practice of putting the lives of its best pilots on the line in the name of awesome air shows and enhanced public relations.
A life of its own
The recent furor over the changes in the Coca-Cola formula proves a point that was probably better left unproven.
Advertising in the United States is so powerful that we can be led to believe that a soft drink is truly an important part of our lives. Coca-Cola tells us that their product is the Real Thing and that it Adds Life.
It not only Adds Life, but it has a life of its own. When Coca-Cola mercilessly executed the old formula, it touched a sensitive nerve in the American people. The only crime the old formula committed was that it was not keeping up with the young whippersnappers of the soft-drink world.
Instead of holding its senior citizen in high esteem, Coca-Cola pulled the plug and left the secret formula to die a lonely death.
The change in the formula for Coca-Cola and the subsequent revival of the old formula has generated an estimated $200 million in free advertising for Coca-Cola.
But most importantly, Coca-Cola has proven to the world that Coke is a part of our lives that we don't want to give up. Pepsi may be the choice of a new generation, but Coke is an integral element of many generations.
Classic Coke is not, however. The drink itself was not what so many people held so dear to their hearts. What they cherished was the whole aura surrounding Coke. Making Classic Coke an integral part of generations to come is a task advertisers have yet to accomplish.
Famine fight needs commitment
To fight world hunger and starvation should, by any standard, be considered a noble cause. In this light, one should find nothing but praise for the efforts of more than 69 rock 'n' roll groups that appeared in Saturday's Live Aid concerts to raise money for the famine victims of Africa.
It was truly a spectacle of gigantic dimensions that made the legendary Woodstock festival look like a family get-together. The concerts in London and Philadelphia were broadcast live throughout the world over, the largest audience ever for any kind of musical performance.
However, it is easy to suspect that not all bands participated for totally altruistic reasons. The commercial value of performing in front of this crowd was considerable, and quite a few of these musicians to discover their charitable nature.
Apart from possible motivations behind the concert superlative, other factors taint the clean image of charity Concern about whether the donated money actually will reach the needy prompt, among others, rock star Huey Lewis to cancel his performance.
But even if virtually no money gets stuck in the sticky sump of organized charity, the food and other supplies it buys must reach those in
In the past, food has been left to rot in Ethiopian harbors because the Marxist government used trucks to transport troops to the border rather than food to the starving masses and also a manmade catastrophe.
Whether Live Aid can overcome these obstacles or not, one might say that the greatest benefit of the resulting media hype is to heighten the world's awareness of the problem of world hunger.
But the question is whether the organizers of the event really did the hungry of the world a favor by making this particular charity fundraiser fashionable it is, making it the number one of film and TV stars that invaded the stage.
But fashion's inevitably are sometimes in and sometimes out. A problem as pressing as world hunger is the need for a constant commitment to help.
It is hard to grasp that it is necessary to raise money to feed people that are starving while at the same time the European Common Market alone destroys millions of tons of food every year to ensure artificially high prices and proper pro fit margins for European farmers.
It is still true that the world's surplus food is more than sufficient to end hunger and starvation all over the world, even here. But, among other things, new distribution systems will be required for this surplus, unrestricted by international or national politics and greed.
Above all, a change in public attitude will be required, a willingness to share what we have with those that are in need, and the conviction that God Created World, but that we all are the Creator of the world, passengers on spacewalk.
To make this possible, everybody will have to contribute a share to change his or her own thinking and that of the world.
The musicians that performed for Live Aid represent the musical idols of two generations. With their music they could have touched the souls of their fans with their concern for world hunger, and not just their fans' credit cards, checks or money orders.
But they missed that chance. With very few exceptions, the musicians'
concerns for world hunger were not reflected in their songs, which could indicate that these concerns are only skin-deen.
Trying to raise public awareness of the problem and what can be done about it will take more than hymns such as "We Are The World." As with whom its words tend to become manseless with countless repetitions.
Singing "We Are The World" while thoughtlessly using and wasting a large proportion of the world's natural resources isn't a sign of understanding the meaning behind these words. And that goes on in the thread of who sang its song while frantically waving their national flags?
Whatever good will come from the certainly well-intended project, it can only be hoped that the musicians have not overexposed their good cause to the point where the public simply no longer is willing to buy another "tight hunger" album, see www.musicstandby.org. To donate another "tight hunger" dollar. Sooner or later the point of saturation will be reached.
The victims of hunger can only hope that the world still will remember them once their plight has disappeared from newspaper headlines and television newscasts.
Slowing down speeds up progress
They need us as we need them.
The really important news developments of our time often don't end up on Page One. Sometimes they don't make the paper at all.
So it is that an essential bit of Americana has changed. Speedometers in most cars no longer go to 100 miles an hour. This has to do with two things: the 55 mph speed limit that has become the national standard, and the emergence of a car where people buy a car, the speedometer may go only to 80 or 65 mph.
During the time when a lot of us were growing up, of course, this was not the case. Speedometers routinely went up to 120 or 140 mph and on some high-powered cars they went to 180 mph you were driven 600 km in one of those cars, the needle wasn't even halfway across the speedometer.
Now, you may be saying that this doesn't make any difference — since both the laws and the new cars mandate that people are driving slower now, why should the speedometers go up to those high speeds?
And the fact that the speedometers now stop at 80 or 85 prevents one of
Well, they shouldn't 't — I am one of the few people who heartily endorses the 55 mph speed limit, based on any belief that it truly saves lives.
the most frightening, yet unheralded,
aspects of teen-age life — making the
needle hit the 100 mark.
Back when the speedometers went to 140 and above, it was a rite of passage. First you took your written driving test; then you took the actual license test. And eventually you drove 100 mph.
It was against the law, but everyone with a car did it. There the "100" was on the speedometer, taunting you, teasing you. You might put it off as long as you could; but eventually you were going to hit that 100 and be able to talk about it in school on Monday.
I ought to make something clear right away — I am neither endorsing this nor remembering it with warm nostalgia. When I think back to it now, it was a stupid and terribly wrong decision. My friends lived were lost because of speeding — they still are, but at least there is no longer the custom of trying to hit that
100 mark. There are a lot of things to look back on with pleasure, but impressing one's friends by going 100 is not one of them. When I think about it, it's a wonder that any of us lived to be 21.
I can still remember the first time I did it. Out on a stretch of freeway, my foot on the pedal, the needle climbing, climbing, climbing – me not really wanting to be doing this, but knowing I had never done it before and that it had to be done. And then at last seeing the needle pass the 100 mark, and immediately lifting my foot, I was waiting for the car to slow down.
And I remember all of the times out with my friends — five or six of us in a car, at night, and someone saying to the driver, "Go for 100," and him doing it, the car hurting along some forgotten highway. Maybe it's just because I'm getting older, but I almost sluffer to think about it. Five or six families having all of their hopes and dreams riding in that car, and all of us careening forward due to some insane need to hit 100.
Again — the thing that amazes me now is that anyone managed to survive. I don't care how good a driver you are, you aren't prepared to control a car going 100 mph and better on a public throughway. And the fact is, most of us weren't very good drivers
at all; our eyesight may have been sharp and our reflexes may have been snappy, but we had had our licenses for only a year or two.
So say what you will about the temptations that are waiting to harm the teen-agers of today — drugs, alcohol and all the rest.
The fact is, their cars have speedometers that don't contain the numeral 100, and that's progress. If 20 years ago, you had asked people to guess what speedometers would look like if they were them. You have said that the numbers would go up to 200 mph and beyond. Progress, you know.
And they would be shocked to be told that the cars of the '80s actually would be designed to go slower, with speedometers to match. If you had told them that a car they would buy in 1985 would probably be faster, that went only to 80 or 85, they would have thought you were joking.
But that's the way it's turned out, and I consider that to be true progress. I don't think we're any the poorer for denying people the thrill of passing the 100 mark on the game. And the most important issue is one of the few true bits of national wisdom that I can think of from the past few decades.
403K 10K
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Alcohol answers
To the Editor
His "old enough to die," at 18, but not "to drink" is a sentimental ruse from the 60s, a rallying cry. Holedoel projects increased illegal alcohol trafficking to minors and subsequent abuse of alcohol, but his review of the old laws is a flup in remark about Darwin's survival of the fittest.
There is a glaring shortcoming in Juergen Heidel's July 3 Kusan column "Alcohol Laws Won't Fix Problem." In the headline, supported by statements within the column, Heidel accepts as a given that problems existed under the old laws with young people, drinking and driving. From there he proceeds to blast the new laws, citing them as addle-brained concessions to a conservative mafia federal mandate.
The problems and personal tragedies related to alcohol abuse under the old Kansas laws were intolerable and the conditions which allowed them to exist cannot be held. But Hochel makes some valid points.
First is the principle of knuckling under to federal financing pressure.
While this technique of "managing" state laws was put under public scrutiny with the 55 mph law, it has since been used frequently to keep the "locals" in line with everything from waste disposal to industrial emissions. I am usually sympathetic with the intent and results of this method but cannot morally support bribery and blackmail at any level. I have been called into court and elected federal representatives to beware that they don't act opposed to their constituents when faced with such high-handed mandates.
Hoedel's second point is no less than his opinion that the new alcohol law will not alleviate the problems at which they are directed. He is correct when pointing out that most alcohol abuse incidents leading to crime or injury occur among adults 21 and older. Nor will I unilaterally disagree with his assertion that the availability of alcohol to minors 18 to 29 will not significantly decrease and be countered by a corresponding increase of abuse due to the illegal nature of alcohol among teens, thereby leaving a net gain of nil over the old laws.
So what to do?
Hoodel inadvertantly dropped a clue when contrasting the minimum
drinking age to the minimum driving age. Other than the actual age difference, how else do these privileges contrast? To drive, you must attend classes that teach you a skill and familiarize you with state laws concerning drinking. You have lived a given number of years. Period. Why not license drinking?
A 30-year old twice convicted of DWI may have his driver's license revoked and spend some short period incarcerated, but he is free to continue to purchase and publicly consume and abuse alcohol. Nor is he no longer a menace just because he cannot drive. He can still own a handgun or stagger in front of a moving vehicle.
Is youth the root cause of alcohol abuse, or is it maturity? If it is the latter, then is age universally reliable. When you have a mature enough to drink? I say no.
An inexperienced 21-year old is no more familiar with the effects of alcohol on himself than an 18-year-old. Nor is he more familiar with state and local ordinances, or alternatives to driving drunk. Something must be done to address these failings in our public laws.
Educating, licensing, and fining and/or suspending privileges for improper use of alcohol are means to that end. Fees for licensing can help meet the cost of initiating such a program and advanced computer technology will hold down that cost.
I am not necessarily advocating selling 3.2 beer to 18, but I feel that licensing should be considered separately from that issue as a means to combat the problems of alcohol abuse. On behalf of 3.2 beer at 18, I will say this much, the buffer effect may not only have saved the lives of several of my high school classmates, but also established drinking patterns in later life of far lower alcohol content.
Further. I am a veteran of the United States Army and currently a member of the Kansas National Guard and I would never withhold the privilege of sharing a drink from one of my men, just because he was
To the Editor.
Rhetorical excess
Thomas S.G. Hunt
1201 Tennessee St.
It appears that Harry Shaffer has learned a lesson or two from the
Now my friends are sure to say to me, "be nice. Richard." To this I shall say, "No, let's not be nice." Prof. Shaffer's letter is one of the worst analyses of anything that I have ever encountered. It is a rather astonishing illustration of what terrorism is — or what Prof. Shaffer thinks it is. In his letter he commits petitio principii, a fallacy in reasoning due to his assumption of what he out to prove. That it is somehow all right to target and butter in cold blood a few unarmed and unsuspecting individuals who have in no manner offered violence or harm.
Why did he write such a letter? *By* his use of certain phrases and buzz words, Prof. Shaffer reveals, to all critics of the political system and favor of the political system that the
Soviets as he has studied them; namely, rhetorical excess and disinformation. I urge him to press on; he may someday match them in both style and audacity. Fifteen or 20 years ago, we might have thought his letter profound. Now it is easily recognized as misogynic blah. This is not a bad idea, since our higher education may yet survive infiltration by peddlers of cheap thought worthy of Komsomolskaya Pravda
terrorists stand for. In recent memory, no campaign of defamation and disinformation run by the American left has been as successful as that directed against El Salvador (except perhaps the Nicaraguan freedom fighters). The letter in question was just an attempt to discredit the struggle of El Salvador to rid itself of the cancer of communist insurgency. What galls the American left most is the fact that El Salvador appears to be winning. These murders may be the last gasp of a failed movement attempting to regain momentum Here's to El Salvador hunting down these mad dogs and giving them their quietus.
I think the question that should be asked is why do these people do this to us? The answer is obvious. Because they can. They have nothing to fear by way of intervention or retaliation and most likely will achieve their goals. Opinion polls revealed that more than 60 percent of Americans favored giving in to the demands of the hijackers of Flight 847. Furthermore, 50 percent were against any retaliation afterwards. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Richard P. White
Franklin Square, N.Y., senior