4
Wednesday. February 17. 1993
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Legislature should look at more crucial issues
A month into the 1993 session, the Kansas Legislature has thus far managed to avoid tackling issues deemed most pressing. Crucial topics concerning appropriations bills, health care and workers' compensation have yet to receive any significant attention.
The most recent delay tactic has been a House resolution calling for a ban against the desecration of the U.S. flag. This subject has followed on the heels of other less pressing issues such as mattress tags and health clubs.
The 1988 presidential campaign exposed the delicate and controversial nature of the flag-burning issue. This same issue, however, has no place on the current legislative agenda.
The resolution recently passed the House by an 80-34 margin, and now is making its way to the Senate. If it passes the Senate, it then will be sent to Washington. Congress is then asked to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow states to enact laws against the desecration of the flag.
At work here is a time element. The process is obviously a long-range goal. Because of this, many political analysts believe it is a maneuver by the Republican Party to create an issue for 1994 election campaigns.
Whatever the particular motives are for this ill-timed resolution, it is clear the general welfare of Kansans is not among them. At this juncture, with so many other important issues pending, the subject of flag burning seems almost trivial. Kansas legislators, do yourselves and your constituents a favor: Leave your flags and your mattresses home. Address the issues of real and immediate impact.
KYLE KICKHAEFER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Both political parties to blame for stagnation
Critics of congressional leadership usually focus on Democrats because they are in the majority. But this doesn't mean minority GOP leaders can't be bullheaded and wrong.
These panels lack any authority to consider legislation. Each was established years ago to study issues for a limited time and then go out of business. Instead they became institutionalized, routinely refunded each new session, usually with larger staffs that chew up $45 million in taxpayer money. Their only purpose is to serve propaganda forums for swell-headed chairmen and their members to hold media extravaganza hearings. Nothing they do isn't done much better and more thoroughly by dozens of other committees that are empowered to act on legislation.
A recent example: Freshmen House Republicans surprised even themselves with their successful revolt against reauthorizing "select committees" on narcotics, hunger, aging and children.
The select committees' reputations are so bad that last fall even the Democratic Caucus discussed killing them. But the House leadership agreed to refinance this month when the committee chairs pleaded to be spared the ax.
The leadership, however, didn't
count on the GOP freshmen persuading 82 Democrats — many also newcomers — to vote on a motion not to fund one of the committees. The 237-18 vote, in effect, killed the narcotics' panel and left the remaining three vulnerable to a similar fate.
Democratic leaders still were reeling from the unprecedented defeat when, out of nowhere, came the minority leadership to throw them a lifeline. GOP leader Robert Michel, R-Illinois, and minority whitp Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., offered a plan to fund all four panels for one more year.
The GOP freshmen were thunderstruck and their hard-won Democratic allies confused. If these newcomers, working on a bipartisan basis, can't even get rid of one costly, pointless committee, think of how much more difficult it will be for them to bring more substantive reforms to the change-resistant institution they were just elected to...
What this proves, though, is that the main obstacle to meaningful congressional reforms is neither Democrat nor Republican. It's the stagnant "Repub-licrat" leadership of both parties.
Augusta Chronicle Augusta, Ga.
"90210" does not reflect real-life youth problems
I have just watched "Class of 96," and I can honestly say that it is one of the saddest programs that I have had the misfortune to watch. What is perhaps even more horrendous is that this show along with the many other tacky, glamour programs like "Key West" and "Beverly Hills 90210," will become one of the most popular programs on TV.
These shows are all basically the same. They perpetuate the perfection myth and try to excuse their existence by claiming to confront "typical" teenage problems.
If this is so, then why is "90210" set in Beverly Hills? This is a setting that I would not have thought was typical of the average student lifestyle. Admittedly I have never been to Beverly Hills but surely someone in the place must have pimples? Do you see Brenda with a crease, a crinkle or a pimple? No. Do you ever see Dillon with less than perfect hair or maybe a little dandruff on his shoulder. No. And do you ever see Kelly wear the same outfit twice? Of course not. It is all very sad. How can the producers argue that they are portraying typical teenage angst when the characters are nothing but Barbie dolls?
These programs are 100 percent escapism, but the producers earnestly try to convince us that those typical students out there will be able to identify with Brenda, Brandon and the rest of their toyland chums.
STAFF COLUMNIST
Brandon's continual whining about being hard up for money when he drives around in a fancy sports car just doesn't engage my sympathy. As for having to endure typical teenage problems in Beverly Hills, well, that
must be a nightmare. Living in a swanky house, driving around in a Lotus and carelessly spending daddy's billions must be sheer hell. Personally, I could think of worst places to endure teenage angst.
These glamour shows all run on the same formula. The more moralistic, the better. The show usually opens with a moral dilemma that, of course, would affect any normal teenager out there in la-la land. The angst-ridden character tackles the typical problem with typical responses and solutions. There is the obligatory quota of soul-searching, weighted remarks and meaningful speeches. The sickeningly supportive friend will then arrive on the scene, do a bit of moralizing and then the troubled teenie will see the light and the show will end with much back-slapping or hugging depending on the gender. Then everyone will head for the nearest "Peach Pit" for a Diet Coke. Millions of viewers worldwide will have been enlightened by these real-life traumas and the planet will be a happier and safer place. Hurrah!
The typical problems that these programs address are not even realistic. In "90210" one of the characters thought she was pregnant but luckily
it turned out to be just a scare. There was no real problem, and the character didn't have to make any real decisions. These so called problems are swiftly dealt with in 60 minutes, the traumas rarely linger on to the next week and everyone lives happily ever after.
None of the characters that I have seen in "00210" seem to have lives either. The fact that most of the cast are 30 years old or over and playing senior high school students doesn't exactly do much to make them anymore realistic. Kelly and Brenda do nothing but fawn and simper over Dylan. Their lives revolve around trying to win the affection of this complete jerk, whose favorite line inevitably is "would you like to spend the night with me?" And they still think that he is a nice guy! Brenda's mother doesn't have an original thought of her own either. She is quite content playing housewife, supporting her obnoxious husband's patriarchal rule and acting as an emotional sponge for her whining kids.
These sort of programs stereotype outrageously with their weak women and pseudo-macho men images. They portray nonrealistic aspects of student life and attempts to dictate what is desirable in contemporary society. These programs even try to typify a typical student's problems. Personally, if being a typical student means a vacuous idiot then I'm glad to be abnormal. But then again, what can you expect from the same director who brought us the classic "Charlie's Angels!"
Francesca Glyn Jones is a Ludlow, England junior maoralring in American studies.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Kansan columnist applauded for a courageous stance
Knowing that writers generally do not write their own headlines, I found the Kansan's February 8 "Clinton's Abortion Policy Turns Him into a Feminazi" headline a most revealing statement. Ann Jurczyk only raises the question and presents the issues surrounding Bill Clinton's alleged feminism. Who ever wrote the headline gave us the verdict. Clinton is not pro-choice. He clearly is pro-abortion. That, or someone else is running the White House.
I hope that you will continue with such straight-shooting and courageous pieces. My years of experience at KU taught me that academic freedom only goes as far as freedom to worship liberalism, secular
humanism and a particular oxymonic brand of feminism. Never mind that your article was on the mark, backed by sound thinking and statistics. Now wait for all the free thinkers to show how free thinking they really are—free enough to shun the truth and attack the messenger. Run for cover, Ann, but keep the good work coming.
Clark Bono
Topeka
Tobacco laws are justified despite gripes from smokers
A recent Kansan article reported on several pieces of legislation aimed at smokers, that is, new smoking bans in certain places.
A Hawk's Nest employee said she was sick of "the minute minority" telling her what she could do. She thought researchers for an EPA report that indicated second-hand smoke is carcinogenic simply wanted to receive more grants. According to her, they already do too many studies of things that interfere with people's freedom.
The Douglas County Commission passed a resolution last week that bans smoking in all county buildings and vehicles. And the KU Memorial Corporation adopted a policy that restricts smoking in the Kansas and Burge Unions to designated places.
I'm always surprised by attitudes like these.
A House committee was asked last week to endorse a bill that would ban smoking from all Kansas public places and meetings. Another bill would ban tobacco use from Kansas school properties in unified school districts. Another bit of legislation would ban smoking from the State house.
Reaction to these policies, especially from smokers, was to be expected. One sophomore complained that he was "chased outside." He said he felt as though his "rights" were being violated.
Smokers' rights? Excuse me? Well, yes, we do have rights to waste our money, stink up our clothes and run our health, if that's what we choose to do. But since when were these rights more valid than the rights of those who don't want to smell bad and cough all the time?
As for those greedy researchers who just want money so they can interfere with people's freedom, I swear that I don't know what the world is coming to. We sure got smookered by those who warned us about stuff like DDT, radiation and asbestos. Now we find out it was only grants they were interested in.
Now, here's a puzzle: How can a "minute minority" conjure up enough votes to pass legislation? I always thought it took a majority to do that. And it seems to me, by purely unscientific personal observation, that smokers are hardly in the majority. Most students I know not only don't smoke, but think it's a pretty disgusting habit.
Psychiatrists (another bunch of greedy researchers?) have studied self-destructive behavior for years. They don't know for sure why some people smoke and destroy their lungs or why others drink alcohol and mess up their brains. Some people do both.
There are theories about adductive personalities, chemical imbalances and just plain rebelliousness, but no one is certain. It would be great if a test was developed someday that could predict whether newborns would be inclined to engage in these practices. Until then, however, preventative education and legal restrictions are the best we can do.
Those of us who wrestle with personal demons will just have to continue doing so until we win or lose. But I sure won't push mine off on anyone else. They've probably got some of their own that I wouldn't want.
Cecile Julian is a Leawood senior majoring in journalism.
KANSAN STAFF
STAFF COLUMNIST
GREG FARMER
Editor
GAYLE OSTERBERG
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Editors
Aset. Managing ... Justin Krupp
Nowe ... Monique Gautain
Campus ... David Mitchell
Editorial ... Stephen Mattolo
Campus ... KG Traver
Sports ... David Mitchell
Photo ... Mark Roylandis
Features ... Lynne McKenna
Graphics ... Don Schauer
Wire ... Tiffany Lasha Hurt
Assoc. Editorial ... Chris Moezer
Assoc. Campus ... Joe Handler
Ass. Campus ... Christian Hammond
Stacy Morford
Assoc. Sports ... David Bartkowski
Reporters
Vichi Bode ... Mark Burton
Jess Delefauzen ... David Dorey
Dan Doyle ... Ranggala
Ben Grove ... Mark Klefer
Will Lawr� ... Frank Cleary
Brett McConnick
Jim Reece . . . . .
STEVE PERRY
Business manager
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
BILLI THOMAS
BILL THOMAS Production
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ... Brad Breon
Regional Sales mgr ... Wade Baxter
National sales mgr ... Jennifer Perter
Co-op sales mgr ... Ashley Hesalat
Production mgr ... Amy Stumbo
Marketing director ... Anita Cleverman
Creative director ... Holly Perry
Art Director ... Dave Habler
Classified mgr ... Jill Turney
Social Business ... Brian Keith
Promotions ... Mark Dombrel
Classified Assistant ... Laura Guth
Zone Managers
Jennifer Blowey Kim Brown
John Cottont Amy Casey
Just Casey
Retail Account Executives
Linda Boedeker ... Tricia Bumpus
Kate Burgess ... Ken Cole
Jason Eberly ... Jennifer Evenson
Justin Garberg ... Stephane Greenwood
Josh Hahn ... Tammie Johnson
Allison Kaplan ... Sue Kratky
Robin King ... Jessica Lenard
Shelley McConnell ... Chris Morrissey
Mike Murray ... Karl Rabbun
Ed Schager ... Janet Sears
Judith Standley ... Gretchen Van Hoost
Campus Account Executives
Rebecca Borsow Kristy Elenow
Mellissa Jackson Laura Manka
Rennie Borsow
Regional Account Executive
Nicole Abbott ... Jennifer Laird
Cathy McWilliams ... Troy Tarwater
Intern
Mandi Stauffer