OPINION
July 20,1984 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan USP$ 695,640 is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Flint Hall, Flaunce, Kanon, 69065, daily during the regular schedule 1 year and Wednesday and Friday during the session: session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holiday, and final graduation. A monthly postage mail at Lawrence, Kanon, 60044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $77 for one month in each county. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester paid through the student activity fee POSTMASTER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Staffer Flint Hall, Flaunce, Kanon, 69065.
JAMES BOLE KAREN DAVIS Editor Business Manager
SHARON BODIN JILL GOLDBLATT Managing Editor Retail Sales Manager
JILL CASEY ROB LEONARD Campus Editor National Sales Manager
CHARLES HIMMELBERG KRISTINE MATT Editorial Editor Classified and Campus Sales Manager
MIKE KAUTSCH JOHIN OBERZAN News Adviser General Manager and Sales and Marketing Adviser
The last train
Once a novel and innovative mode of transport, trains changed the face of this nation, from a divided and unexplored wilderness to a network of modern-day metropolitan cities.
Today, one only occasionally hears the lonely whistle of a train in the darkness of the night, and in a small city such as Lawrence, remote from major travel routes, the train only stops twice in the early dawn.
It seems sad that the mode of transport responsible for paving the road to the West should be abandoned, and that those responsible for its demise could be some of its most faithful veterans.
After hitting a peak at the triumphant close of World War II, when thousands of veterans used the steam locomotives to return home, Americans have turned their backs on the faithful engines.
Today, the cost of the silver rails is not low enough to lure travelers from the faster but more impersonal air travel, and the number of train riders has declined in past decades. The railroad industry should improve existing services, streamline existing travel routes and make the product more palatable to travelers.
After all, trains are a part of our history, and part of how our nation became what it is today. We should not allow this once vital network to dry up into dust, but should realize it is worth the investment to maintain it.
Or the lonely whistle of the distant train will soon become no more than a faded memory.
Democratic unity
The Democratic Party has tried hard, without much success, to appear unified. Too deep is the gap between the factions currently led by Walter Mondale and Gary Hart.
It is ironic that though they are nearly the same age, one represents the "old" elements of the party while the other represents the "new." They are symbols for two fundamentally different approaches to the problems of modern society.
The members of one faction experienced the Great Depression, and having drawn their lesson from President Roosevelt's New Deal, believe in government as a solution.
The majority of the other faction has grown up and suffered through the Vietnam years. These people came out of that era with a deep distrust of government. They now think America must look forward and rely upon the creativity of the individual if it is to survive as a modern society.
Four years ago Ronald Reagan captured the imagination of this new voting block by proclaiming that "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."
Many of those who would vote for Gary Hart have already indicated that if it's not going to be Hart, their choice will be Reagan again.
The roots of this willingness to shift votes from one party to another so light-heartedly lies not so much in the voters' instability, but in the transformation of the American economy and mass media.
As America switches from an industrial to a service-oriented economy, and as TV replaces the political party as the primary source of information, the American voter is becoming more independent.
No longer is it party-loyalty that counts. Today it is much more the "vision," regardless of which party supports it.
New York Gov. Mario Cuomo is the first in the Democratic Party in some time with a forceful vision of the general direction America should be taking, rather than dealing with the particulars.
It might be too late for 1984, but in four years a transformed Democratic Party synthesizing Gary Hart's forward-looking optimism and Mario Cuomo's sense for traditional values could challenge the Republican Party successfully.
LETTERS POLICY
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten on two sheets of paper, double-spaced and should not exceed 400 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
Are runners more intelligent than most of us? Are runners better educated? Do they make more money?
Chicago joggers not too bright
these are questions I have never thought about.
But a writer for a New York sports magazine called and said he was the best player.
"I know about New York runners," he said, "but I don't know anything about Chicago runners, and I thought Chicago can be able to help. Are you a runner?"
Only when being chased.
It's impossible not to. They're everywhere, especially in and around Lincoln Park, which I live near.
"But you do know runners?"
"Well, the qualities of the companies that sponsor running events and advertise in running magazines are growing more intelligent, better educated and
MIKE
ROYKO
Syndicated
Syndicated Columnist
have more money. These are companies whose products are directed at those kind of people. And I wondered if that description would fit Chicago runners."
Not entirely. Chicago runners are definitely not very intelligent.
On a day like that, a truly intelligent person is calmly sitting, not running. We seek out a comfortable, shady, restful place, such as an air-conditioned tavern, where we can cool the inside as well as the outside of our bodies.
Because on the hottest, muggiest,
most miserable of days, I see borders
of runners in the park, gasping,
sweating, tongues lolling, eyes bulging.
That's not intelligent.
"What about education? Would you say that the average runner in Chicago is better educated than the average non-running person?"
"Why do you say that?"
Yes, that's probably true, since this nation foolishly believes in educating so many people beyond their intelligence.
"Well, why do educated people run?"
For one thing, the more formal education you have, the less work you do. That why so many people go to school and place — to avoid sweat and calluses.
So it's unlikely that a waitress would want to subject her feet to further torment after a day of work. Or that somebody who has been delivering beer cases or doing construction work for eight hours would think it was fun to go home and lope around the block in a funny T-shirt.
On the other hand, some young lawyer might run. After sitting behind a desk all day, creating new lies, it would give him exercise while preparing him for the day his car broke down while pursuing an ambulance.
"But isn't the fact that they are well-educated the reason they run? Because they are more aware of the cardio-vascular benefits of running, and they're more conscious of such things?"
I hope I don't offend anyone, but most runners run because they can't stop.
It's the American sports tradition to do something with a ball. Throw it, kick it, whack it with a bat or a ball. Give your hand your hand. Slam it through a hoop.
And when you run, the American way of sport is to chase or be chased by somebody or something. We run bases or run pass patterns, run the fast break or run for daylight. We don't run around the block or go run in the park with our girlfriends and call that a sport.
But because most male runners weren't good at any of the traditional
sports when they were younger, they now run. When somebody chose up sides, they were probably taking piano lessons. It is sad, but true.
“Aren't you dealing in broad, unprovable generalities of the worst kind?”
Of course.
That's my profession. But these are true, precise, exact unprovable generalities.
"But don't you concede that considerable athletic ability is required to run 26 miles in a marathon? Consider the training needed to run that far. Could you do it?"
I wouldn't try because it would be silly — especially in Chicago. Why learn to run 26 miles when the average mugger never chases you more than two blocks?
Court off course on recent rulings
The Burger Court's 1983-84 session ended on the 5th of July with a multitude of decisions.
The Supreme Court, the most influential court of law in the land, has just concluded another controversial year establishing legal boundaries beyond which no American citizen may tread (with impunity).
There are two decisions that find great support among members of the Reagan Administration to which I take rather strong exception. These rulings are alike in that both elicited shrill reactions from the dissenting justices and both grant the government and its agents nonsensical powers which seem unconstitutional.
The first case, Andredes Segura and Luz Marina Colino, petitioners v. United States, is one of several exclusionary rule decisions handed down by the Court during the 1983-84 term. The Supreme Court began to wrench the exclusionary rule from the Fourth Amendment in 1914. The rule is designed to protect an accused perpetrator from police wrongdoing by disallowing in trials evidence obtained illegally.
In the Segura case, the justices voted 5-4 that law enforcement officers may search a premises prior to being granted a warrant if they have a "good-faith" belief that a judge will issue a warrant at a later time.
partment in a pristine city with uncomplicated problems. In an actual scenario, however, this ruling will give police an excuse for violating the Fourth Amendment.
Surely they jett. A situation in line with what the justices imagine would only be believable if one were considering a model police de-
The Fourth Amendment protects the American citizen from unreasonable searches and seizures and that should be filled out. If one were to
MIKE
O'ROURKE
Guest Columnist
However, the court felt differently. Chief Justice Warren Burger, in the opinion of the court, wrote, "We hold, therefore, that securing a dwelling on the basis of probable cause, to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence while a search warrant is being sought is not itself an unreasonable seizure of either dwelling or its contents."
stick to the letter of the law, for a search to be reasonable, a warrant would be needed by the raiding party.
In this particular case, the justices are confident that there was enough probable cause for the seizure of property to be judged reasonable, but in a predicament, how large could the realm of probable cause become? There is no aloof judge present to
substantiate the police officer's claims in most situations. It makes me feel no safer knowing that my apartment could be searched on a judically unsubstantiated policeman's whim.
The second decision, Selective Service, et. al. v Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, et. al., is also troubling, although for different reasons. In this ruling, the Court determined that male students who have not registered for the draft can legally be denied federal college loans and grants.
Voting 62, the court ruled that students are not forced to incriminate themselves — a violation of the Fifth Amendment — by signing pledges stating that they have registered upon applying for financial aid. Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "A person who has not registered is clearly under no compulsion to seek financial aid; if he has not registered, he is simply ineligible for aid."
The court also questioned whether the law was a bill of attainment, which is prohibited by the Constitution. A bill of attainment is a law which punishes individuals without first trying them in a court of law. The justices decided that it was not. Chief Justice Burger, in summing up to court's decision, said that unregistered men can become eligible for aid "at any time simply by registering later and thus 'carry the keys of their prison in their own pocket.'"
In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said that the law "fails to pass constitutional muster on two counts" — by forcing the non-registrant to incriminate himself and by denying him equal protection of the law.
I have no qualms with the justice's decision that the law does not force self-incrimination, for no one is forced to apply for financial aid, but I do believe the law is a bill of attainder.
If the non-registrant failed to obey the law because of personal oversight, then this law will not affect him, for he will quickly remedy the situation. But this law punishes without trial the student with well-defined motives of conscience. This student has not been convicted of breaking any law, but because he believes strongly that registration is wrong, he is faced with a difficult and anxious decision — obey your conscience and work at any and all jobs in order to finance your schooling, or ignore your conscience and take the aid.
This sort of psychological abuse is punishment and transforms this student into a prisoner of conscience.
The Constitution is a document for which the word "stable" holds no meaning, and the changes brought about in it are intelligent and premeditated, although subjective, decisions made by the judicial arm of the government. If politics should stear clear of any branch, it should be the judicial branch. These decisions tell me that it has not.
Reagan still running against Washington
After almost four years in the White House, Ronald Reagan — the self-proclaimed outsider, leader of a conservative revolt against the trend of government over the last 40 years — is still running against Washington.
This is not 1980. But the passage of four yea. has done little to alter the Reagan campaign battle cry. He remains a self-described voice of rationality, pitted against the vested interests and veteran politicians of Washington.
His targets are still "the liberals" in Congress and Jimmy Carter, the latter presented in the form of Walter Mondale. It's an "us vs. them" theme that strikes at the Democrats, but hits Republicans as well.
Reagan lashes out at "those in Washington" who oppose his proposal for tuition tax credit, as if to
gaze at the political debate from afar and to see only Democrats on the opposite side. He belittles "those born-again budget balancers" in Congress, but neglects to mention Republican anxiety over the huge deficits that have accumulated during his first term.
Reagan, whose "Tefon-coated" image is a frustration to Democrats.
NORMAN SANDLER United Press International
society devoted to individual liberty.
is able to mock the political environment he has called home for the last 3 $ \frac{1}{2} $ years.
During a campaign trip to Iowa in February, he told a crowd of cheering supporters that coming to Des Moines from Washington was "a little like landing in the real world extended visit to the Twilight Zone."
In Texas, he attacked "the smart sayers and seers" and "grasping
For Reagan, this anti-Washington theme is one that plays well in the heartland.
politicians and indifferent bureaucrats" in Washington. Borrowing a phrase from George Wallace, he blamed years of "liberal lenency and pseudo-intellectual apologies" for a "crisis of crime in America."
No word on what would happen to the millions of people, in Alabama and elsewhere, whose livelihoods depend on government outlays for guns and butter.
At a Fourth of July celebration in Alabama, where he stirred passions by waxing patriotic about men and women in uniform and the struggle between totalitarianism and democracy, Reagan said he felt that "if we just slipped out — we in government — and closed the doors, turned the key and disappeared for a while, it would take you a long time to miss us."
The refrain is not a new one for Reagan, who for years has regarded government — especially the federal government — as the antithesis of a
society devoted to individual liberty. His view of official Washington and residents of its political fraternity is a throwback to the "time for choosing" speech he delivered in support of Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention, which completed his transition from show business to conservative politics.
"Two contrary philosophies divide us in this land of ours," Reagan said. "Either we believe in our traditional system of individual liberty, or we abandon the American revolution and confess that an intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."
And as he looks ahead to the possibility of four more years in that same "far distant capital," Reagan may be reminded of what he told a group of concrete industry representatives back in 1971, while still governor of California.
"I just returned from a trip to Washington, D.C." he said, "and have to say it's a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."
---