4
Tuesday, February 16, 1993
OPINION
UN I V E R S I T Y D A I L Y K A N S A N
IN OUR OPINION
KU hoops fans are busy not spoiled by success
Tomorrow night, the Oklahoma Sooners will roll into Allen Field House, hoping to knock off our conference leading Javhawk basketball team.
into Allen Field House, hoping to knock off our conference leading Jayhawk basketball team. As usual, they'll also meet up with some of the best fans in the nation, and most likely, the field house will be packed, as is traditionally the case. However, some believe that the KU fans are coming off a bad performance.
Last week, coach Roy Williams and some players were disappointed that the field house was occupied by about 300 fewer people than usual, with some fans leaving early as well. Coach Williams made the comment that he believes KU fans may be "spoiled" by the success of the team.
Although it may be possible that some fans are spoiled, a better explanation for the less than adequate crowd may be that students simply had too much to do. When a game is played on a weeknight during a week consisting of many tests, a student's schedule may not allow for attending a game.Add that the game was televised with midterms upcoming, and you're bound to have a few less regulars than usual.
Coach Williams did go on to say that KU fans are the most knowledgeable in the nation. He and the players realize how fortunate they are to have good crowds because it helps the team. However, a few less fans at one game shouldn't automatically qualify KU students as spoiled. For over 15,000 fans to attend a game is pretty good. Some programs such as volleyball, swimming, track and many others would love to see just 300 students at their competitions.
So it is hopeful that no coaches or players will think less of KU fans if the field house isn't totally packed tomorrow night. No matter how much you may love to watch the team, not many instructors give credit on that big exam for attending the game.
CHRIS RONAN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Child vaccination plan will save lives, money
The Clinton administration is considering a plan to make childhood vaccines available for free. It is an ambitious and expensive proposal.
Ensuring that all children receive protection against devastating diseases is an unarguable goal. Development of a government-pays-all vaccination plan should be a large part of the national health care proposal now being developed.
A Clinton plan for universal access and cost containment is due in May. There is no debate that immunizing children against diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps and other childhood diseases makes medical and economic sense. Lives are safeguarded; money is saved. Experts suggest that for every dollar spent on immunization, $10 is saved in later medical costs.
Despite state regulations mandating immunization and the rather widespread availability of free or low-cost immunizations, millions of children fail to get vaccinated. A problem is lack of knowledge. But fear also plays a part. Those without medical insurance believe they cannot afford to pay for shots, so they simply don't pursue the matter.
This Clinton plan would solve the cost problems associated with universal immunization. But an extensive education program would have to go hand-in-hand it with. It is it昊the that immunization is now a privilege, not a right. No child in the United States should go unprotected against childhood diseases.
The News Journal Wilmington, Del.
Kris Belden, Greg Farmer, Vered Hankin, Jeff Hays, Val Huber, Kyle Kickhaefer, Stephen Martino, Jolinda Mathews, Colleen McCain, Chris Moeser, Simon Naldoza, David Olson, Jeff Reynolds, Chris Ronan, and Michael Taylor.
Kansan Editorial Board:
KANSAN STAFF
STEVE PERRY
GREG FARMER
Editor
GAYLE OSTERBERG
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
STEVE PERRY
Business manager
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Editors Business Staff
Asst Managing Campus sales manager Bradron
News Justin Knupp Regional sales mgr Wade Baxter
News Montquit Gustain National sales mgr Jennifer Pierer
Editorial co-op sales mgr Ashley Hoseley
Editorial Stephen Martino Production mgr Amy Murphy
Campus KC Trauner Ashley Langford
Sports David Mitchell Marketing director Angela Cleverenger
Photo Mark Rowlands Creative director Holly Perry
Graphics Mark Lyman Art Director Dave Habler
Graphics Dan Shauler
**Letters should be typed, double spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Workers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and betimesh, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be. The Kansas reserves the right to reject edits, great column and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Sugar Flat Hall.**
She came home with an armload of packages. Then she made three trips to the car to bring in even more. I was filled with dread.
'Spend' not operative word in Clinton language
"How much did you spend?" I asked.
"I didn't spend," she said.
"What, have you taken up shopplining? Of course you spent. I see evidence in that large heap of consumer products."
She laughed and said: "You are so out of date."
"I was born out of date, but what
bear to do with foolhardy, extravagant,
and immature?"
She laughed again and said: "You keep using the word 'spend.'"
or course I do, because that is what we are talking about."
COLUMNIST
"It isn't? When did this happen?"
"Well, I watched Bill Clinton's big economic summit conference on TV. And it was fascinating, with all those business executives, economists and financiers discussing the economy and what we have to do to get this country going again. And do you know what?"
"I seldom know what. So, what?"
"I don't believe that I heard one of them use the word 'spend', unless especially commercial.
Especially Clinton."
"That is ridiculous. You cannot discuss the federal government's role in the economy, nor can you spend. What did Clinton say he's going to do, take up shoplifting, too?"
"No, it is called 'investing,' she said. "As I understand it, there will be no spending. There will be investing. Yes, as a nation, we are going to invest in the infrastructure, education, health, high technology, industry, productivity, research, the young, the socially deprived, oh, everything. Isn't that wonderful, all that investing?"
investing have to do with that heap of packages that is moving me closer to the server.
"That's what I've been trying to explain. I have been investing. And now I imagine how much better it feels than, what was that old word you used?"
"Yes, that was it," she said. "Spending. A very negative word. It always made me feel hesitant, even a bit guilty."
"Spend. Spending. Or squandering,
if you prefer."
"Good, nothing like a touch of guilt to help conserve assets."
"But investing is a better concept. It makes me feel prudent, businesslike, even shrewd. I could go from store to store, aisle to aisle, counter to counter. Oh, I made some fine investments. I think I'll go try some of them on."
I'm all for investing. But what does
"Wait a moment. I am not an economist, but even I know that when you invest in something, the return of sort of return on your investment."
She nodded. "And we will, I have stimulated the economy. I have helped create."
So I went to see Dr. L.M. Kookie, the renowned author on lots of stuff, and asked him if he had heard about "spend" falling into disrepute.
"What about my economy?" I muttered, but she was gone with her in the car.
Yes, she is right. Dr. Kookie said. It beamed during Clinton's campaign
Everybody remembers the sign in his campaign headquarters that said: "It's the economy, stupid." But few people know there was another sign that said: "Anybody who uses the word 'girl' will get his tongue ripped out."
"But 'spend' is a precise word. You
may something, you pay for it, you are
paying for it."
"Ah, but that's the trouble. It is too precise. Voters hear the word 'spend', and they gnash their teeth, unless the spending is to benefit them. But 'invest' makes voters think they're talking about buying a streetcar. That way, your president isn't perceived as some guy who is going to spend your money, even though that's what he's going to do."
"So, all they're doing is spending it, right?"
"Well, I suppose that's one way to do it."
"What other way is there to look at it?"
"I don't know. But using the word invest' makes people feel better. And lon' you want your fellow Americans better? Don't you want to be better?"
"Yes, I suppose so. But when they invest and they run out of money to invest and they are going deeper into debt, then they'll raise taxes, right?"
"Another outdated phrase. You mean 'revenue enhancement.'"
"The difference. Say it to yourself. Revenue enhancement. Doesn't it sound more comforting?"
"And don't you feel better thinking of it that way?"
"As a matter of fact, I do.
"Good. You can pay my receptionist as you leave."
Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist with the Chicago Tribune.
"You're calling me for bars.
"Just think of it as an investment."
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The first argument may prove due—tolerance often can bring additional tolerance. But this argument legalizes wrong and moral wrong is occurring, (discrimination is illegal), the possible long-term repercussions of removing that wrong are still not a valid reason for leaving it in place.
The first argument may pro'
The second argument harkens back ominously to arguments 45 years ago against allowing African Americans in the military. Soldiers, it was said, couldn't rely in battle on
Gay ban is as bad as the racial ban
When you hear a comment against gays in the military, substitute "Black" for "gay", and you will hear the echo of a 45-year old injustice.
men of a different color. Today we regard this as ridiculous. Others are concerned about seeing gay couples together, but interracial couples bothered many people in the past (and unfortunately still bother some).
Pamela Keller
KUstaff member
BRETT GROENE Conservation worries start with age, not with idealism
GUEST COLUMNIST
I am stunned by the percentage of U.S. citizens who are reported to support maintaining the ban on gas in the military. Two of the arguments for the support are as follows: 1) lifting the ban will lead to further acceptance of gays in our society, and 2) it will be too difficult to incorporate gays without a decrease in military efficiency.
The other night he had one more fight with my stepson, Ashley, about the thermostat. In a pattern that no doubt dates back to when our ancestors lived in caves, we were arguing about how many logs to throw into the fire. I caught him trying to throw in a couple more sticks than I thought necessary.
I tried to explain why his mother and I did not agree with him that people are "supposed to be able to walk around the house in a T-shirt and shorts" in the winter and expect to be warm. Not surprisingly, Ashley was not particularly impressed with the argument that we need to conserve fuel for the future.
For Ashley and a lot of other people, the future is either sometime tomorrow afternoon or too far away to be worried about.
Also, it seems the biggest promoters of recycling are members of the packaging industry, who would prefer that people recycle rather than demand that breakfast cereal not come in bomb-proof wrappings.
During our discussion my own doubts about conservation logic surface. I recalled that author Edward Abbey once remarked in an interview that we might as well use up all the fossil fuels now and be done with them. People won't change their habits unless they have to.
Ashley, sensing my hesitation,
zoomed in for the kill; "You're just
cheap." Forced into a material corner,
I answered with the only weapon
left. I sent him to bed.
My parents always kept the thermostat down, long before energy-use concerns became fashionable. I am sure they did not think it was necessary to wander about the house in summer garb when the temperature was 47 degrees. Farm kids reared during the Depression and World War II just do not seem to think that way.
Later I had to ask myself if I was being fair. Was I forcing him to suffer because I was recreating my childhood, but this time I was in control?
Was I being cheap? Not that we have an excess of money, but I always find cash for my coffee and tobacco, which others in the house have made clear that only enjoy.
Was I being a cad and a miser'
After much pondering it finally came to me that my justification could not be explained in strictly material terms. It had to do with my relationship to the Earth-a topic not endearing to a boy raised in the MTV world.
I needed to explain to Ashley that wearing shorts in the house on a cold day was not merely wasting energy and money, but ignoring that winter exists in the world in which we have to live. It ignored the changing seasons, alienating us from the very forces that allow life to exist.
How can I explain this to a boy who thinks that it's winter because the soccer league has moved indoors?
It ignored the reality that we live in a world with only one channel and no matter how many times we push the buttons on the remote control, we
I don't know. Maybe I'll build a snowman in his bedroom tonight. It shouldn't melt for weeks.
Brett Groene is a Lawrence graduate student majoring in history.
Mystery Strip
By David Rosenfield