X
OPINION
The University Dairy KANSAN
April 6, 1984 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Day Klaman (USPS 60-644) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, KA 60045, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and final periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, KA 60045. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester paid through the student activity fee POSTMASTER. Send address changes to the county clerk.
DOUG CUNNINGHAM
DON KNOX
Managing Editor
SARA KEMPIN
Editorial Editor
JEFF TAYLOR ANDREW HARTLEY Campus Editor News Editor
DAVE WANAMAKER Business Manager
PAUL JESS
CORT GORMAN JILL MITCHELL
Retail Sales Manager National Sales Manager
General Manager and News Adviser
JANCE PHILLIES DUNCAN CALLOHU
Campus Sales Manager Classified Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
A suspicious act
The Lawrence City Commission chose a competent man this week to be mayor for the coming year when it picked Ernest Angino in a 4-1 vote.
Unfortunately, the commission passed over another person - Commissioner Nancy Shontz - who would have been equally competent, perhaps more so.
The dispute in the selection of the mayor involves a rotation system that was used until 1980 to pick Lawrence's leading official and ribbon-cutter.
The rotation ensured that top vote-getters would be mayor once in their term. The rotation system also removed the office of the mayor from the political in-fighting of the commissioners.
Certainly, the commissioners can choose any system they wish to pick the mayor, including an election among themselves. The post is mainly a ceremonial one, although the mayor is more visible in the
The concern here is not with the selection of Angino, who certainly is worthy of leading the city. Rather, some commissioners appear to have used the two systems — one of rotation and one of election — solely to see that Shontz won't be mayor. She no longer has the opportunity to be mayor before her term expires next year.
community than the rest of the commissioners.
In the past year, however, the office of the mayor has become more political, instead of strictly ceremonial. For example, the former mayor, David Longhurst, has used the post to invite world leaders to Lawrence to discuss peace and to lambast the governor of Michigan.
If these appearances are correct, whenever Shontz gets close to being mayor, then the commission finds a new way of selecting one. Appearances, in this case, may not be what they seem. But they sure look suspicious.
Making a bad decision
The Reagan administration said last month that it needed $92.5 million in immediate "emergency military assistance" for El Salvador.
At that time, the administration argued that the aid was "desperately needed." Reagan said that if the money was not allocated by the March 25 election in El Salvador the army there might not have been able to protect the electoral process or maintain its war effort.
Well, the elections have come and gone, and El Salvador has not fallen to the guerrillas. Four weeks have passed since Reagan first indicated money was in "desperate need," and it does not appear the Salvadoran army has had much trouble maintaining its normal range of military activities.
Debate in the Republic-
controlled U.S. Senate this week
centered on whether that country is worthy of a compromised $61.7 million in "emergency aid."
Some senators, reflecting public opinion, thought no more aid should have been given to El Salvador until it prosecuted those responsible for political murders in the country, "emergency" or not.
Some also thought that the aid should be contingent on certification by the president to Congress that the Salvadoran government was willing to enter into unconditional negotiations with the guerrillas, "emergency" or not.
However, those restrictions were turned down this week by the Senate, which seemed poised to go along with Reagan and agree to more unconditional U.S. aid.
We urge the House not to make the same mistake.
Jackson breaks the ice
Although many challenge the competence of presidential candidate Jesse Jackson, none can dispute the strides he has made in breaking the political ice in America.
For in crossing the all-white boundaries of presidential politics, Jackson has advanced the idea that blacks can be presidential contenders. This is a step toward showing America that blacks should have an equal place in presidential politics.
This week, Jackson grabbed 25 percent of the vote in New York's presidential primary, which put him in third place; just 2 percentage points behind Gary Hart.
And such a strong showing lends credence to the idea that a great
Jackson has no experience in a public office. He has an unrealistic approach to many of the nation's problems, and many black politicians have challenged his ability to lead the nation.
number of Americans think Jackson is capable of running the country despite his campaign's bleak outlook.
However, the figurehead is of little importance. What is important is that someone took the initiative to break the ice. And America is better off for it.
Jackson has won. As in many areas of our society, one black has had to prove that his race deserves a place beside whites. Jesse Jackson has proven the strength of his race in presidential politics.
The University Daily Kansan.welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten on one sheet of paper, double-spaced and should not exceed 200 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 location. The Kansan all indicates individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 11 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
1
I can sum up the thoughts of the press people in one question. What can be done about a president who smiles and jokes while restricting the flow of information to the people?
And I can sum up the response of the administration people in three short phrases: Reagan is not stupid; the people are finding out all they need to know; and Reagan is not stupid; maybe just not inspired."
At a recent roundtable discussion, I listened to six men debate about the problems, or according to some, the lack of them between the Reagan administration and the press.
President gags the press
It was a discussion about communication between communications people, and about whether the press would use it as the helpless victim of "bad press."
As a student journalist, the topics discussed, colorfully laden with accusations and criticisms, were interesting and important to me.
But more importantly, as a citizen, the subject was not only interesting but helpful to my understanding of government activities and my right to know about how I'm governed.
Sam Donaldson, ABC White House correspondent, affectionately known as the "bad boy of the White House," Jack Landau, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Washington clearhouse for press First Amendment issues and a Freedom of Information Service Center and Lou Cannon, a Washington Post political writer, defended the side of the nation's watchdogs the supposedly all-powerful Fourth Estate.
Behind the question of the journalists is a list of 31 ways the Reagan administration has stifled the press. Among them:
David Gergen, former director of the White House office of communication, Victor Lasky, author and commentator and Lyn Nozinger, political consultant, defended the side of the nation's administration — the supposedly all-knowing Reagan and Co.
'But administrators are getting greedy and selfish. They're hoarding even mundane information that in no way would threaten national security.'
*Beginning in January 1983, all interviews with White House staff on all topics had to be cleared before release — both for national security and to avoid embarrassment to the president.
- And finally, during the invasion of Grenada, the administration excluded American reporters from covering the invasion, but permitted foreign reporters to remain, brought in their own defense department news service to provide favorable coverage, and deployed three American reporters already on the island at the time of the invasion, and threatened to shoot at any reporters attempting to reach the island on their own.
- In October 1881, the administration supported a bill to suppress "competitive" information submitted to the government by any
regulated corporation. It would have suppressed, for example, information showing sex or race discrimination, consumer fraud, dangerous foods and drugs and more.
JENNIFER FINE
Washington
Columnist
- In December 1982, the Defense Department asked reporters to sign a secrecy pledge before given a briefing on USSR military buildup.
The list goes on and is sometimes frightening. The most frightening part is, if Americans accept and condone actions such as these now, what will we be willing to accept and condone 10 years from now through a slow, unrecognizable relenting to what the government tells us we ought to know.
Some people might say that, despite setbacks, there are reporters who will find out everything we need to know — that Woodward and Bernstein were not fictional characters and that there isn't any government information that won't be leaked to the press.
Restrictions such as establishing royalty fees for use of certain government information, another administration-supported bill, could build up to become huge hindrances to these news organizations getting accurate information quickly.
Well, maybe there are a handful of die-hard muckrakers in journalism, with the determination, time, money that sources to dig up just about anything.
But what about the reporter in Oksalaok, Iowa, and the other reporters on the 1,700 daily newspapers and 1,200 television stations that live there? Why rely on to tell us everything that's on, every single day?
But administrators are getting greedy and selfish. They're boarding even mundane information that away would threaten national security.
The administration will continue to say that they know what they're doing, and that to avoid security risks and keep the government running smoothly, the press must be ready to face any questions. Check this self-appointed watchdog?
The fact is, we can't have a true democracy without uninhibited news reporting
If we don't come to terms with this soon through trust of the press and realizing that irresponsible journalism is the exception, not the rule, and through our elected officials, we could view these days as good old days," and realize that we don't know could hurt us.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Naive statements
To the editor:
If Karen McCoy finds my letter about abortion "repugnant" (University Daily Kansan, April 2), I can only reply that I find hers naive and uninformed.
She takes exception to my suggestion that if a pregnant woman is denied an abortion, she must necessarily reproduce — "forced procreation," in that case, I had thought, was an elementary biological fact.
"Since when has procreation been forced?" she queries with rhetorical indignation. My answer is, in some cases, for far more years than we can possibly count: rape victims apart, there are those women who are in marital situations in which sex is not always by choice.
Referring to birth control, Ms. McCoy announces: "Women must take responsibility for their actions." She fails to recognize that no form of contraception is 100 percent effective.
Let us suppose that all the women at KU took the safest precaution, the Pill. It has a risk factor of approximately one pregnancy in 100 cases.
Of the 10,800 female students,
therefore, we can assume that,
according to the law of averages,
about 100 students would become
What would Ms. McCoy do? Smile,
wag her finger, and say: "You
should have said 'no,' 'dear?' Thank
you, Ms. McCoy, for your constructive advice and sympathetic understanding.
Carol Lucas England graduate student Article accurate
To the editor:
The faculty and students of the Mechanical Engineering Computer Aided Manufacturing Laboratory appreciate the fine coverage given to our work in robotics and the recent equipment donation by Didde Graphics Corporation (University Daily Kansas, March 28).
In these times of minimal state budgets for equipment and industrial gifts such as these are critical to our educational and research
Unfortunately, in discussing our work with your reporter I neglected to mention that the Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., has contributed nearly $150,000 of "state-of-the-art" equipment to our department for education and research over the past two years.
Computer-related laboratories in Mechanical Engineering have obtained approximately $300,000 worth of new equipment in the past two years — less than one-tenth of this has been provided through the state budget.
After reading Denitta D. Ascue's column in the March 28 issue of the University Daily Kansan, I am compelled to respond.
Her arguments, while well taken, show only one side of pornography on campus and in society in general.
Storv one-sided
B. G. Barr professor of mechanical engineering
To the editor:
I attended the midnight showing of "Emmanuelle." March 24. While I don't consider myself to be a perverted or immoral person, I do enjoy a good pornographic film every once in a while.
I, like many others, am not ashamed of the human body or sexuality. Pornography is a form of relaxation and enrichment for many. I have never thought of it as art, but it is entertaining.
I'm not claiming that rape is erotic or that the over-publicized rape scene in "Emmanuelle" was sexy. It wasn't. In fact, I found the entire film rather boring and tasteless. But I do think a good X-rated movie is worth showing.
As a member of the same society, however, I think that I have the right to participate in the viewing of any film, be it pornographic or otherwise. It is my choice.
It's not my place to criticize the protesters who showed up March 24. People certainly have the right to be free from the wrong they think is wrong in society.
Rex Parsons
Rex Parsons
Phoenix, Ariz.. freshman
The elderly angered by insensitivity
There's very little that Chicago politicians haven't been accused of Greediness, laziness, crookedness, nepismot, bigotry, lust for power and letting their ties fall into their soup. You name it, and you'll find somebody who fits it.
But one thing you'll seldom find is a Chicago politician guilty of flamboyant public stupidity.
Oh, we've had more than our share of politicians who have moved their lips while reading. But most have enough sense not to let anything that isn't innocuous escape their lips in public.
It may have been Mayor Richard J. Daley's long reign that taught
MIKE
ROYKO
them restraint. The first rule to be part of his machine was "shut up — I'll do the talking."
When Daley found himself holding an angry telegram from the governor of Puerto Rico, he called that alderman to his office and said something to the effect that if the alderman ever spoke in public again — even one whispered word — Daley would have his tongue torn out.
I remember asking one of Daley's alderman why Latinos in his ward were protesting poor street-cleaning service. I printed his response, which was: "It's dere own fault. Dey buy cracker Jack, eat duh cracker Jack, and trow duh box out dere window."
They're talking more these days.
But most of them still have enough sense to avoid saying anything that demands anyone except a rival politician.
Because of the Chicago tradition, I marvel at someone like Richard Lamm, the governor of Colorado. At least she's not elected, when
Gov. Lamm made a speech the other day that was unlike any speech I've ever heard a politician make.
He had apparently been pondering the rising cost of medical care in this country, especially as it applies to the elderly.
The governor said that if the nation is to avoid financial disaster, old folks who are terminally ill should die — and be quick about it. As he phrased it: "You have a duty to die and get out of the way. Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."
Naturally, the nation's elderly, who don't particularly like to be described as potential "humus," are outraged by Lamm's remarks.
Those whose lives are prolonged by life support systems are shirking their "duty" by wasting the nation's wealth. But those who do their "duty" — going quietly and inexpensively — "are like leaves, falling off a tree and forming humus for the other plants to grow."
And who can blame them? After a lifetime of work, who needs some 48-year-old politician pointing a finger at and saying. "C'mon. We need some humms out there. Fall off that tree of life, gramps, and do your duty. Make way for the kids!"
As one of many irate Chicagoans said to me, "Iey. I'll go when I'm ready to go, not when some bird-brain like him tells me when. My wife doesn't scraping by without somebody telling me it's my duty to die."
The problem with the aged in this country isn't that they don't die when it is time for them to die. Most of them do. It's that so many of them are written off as dead in one way or long before they run out of health.
They're dumped from jobs when they still have much to offer. They're dumped in second-rate nursing homes or cheap, dingy housing. They're dumped into an economic poverty level.
I remember an old lady who had read about a politician being sent to a federal prison and what life there would be like, telling me:
"The only difference between him and me is that he will have a much, much higher standard of living in prison than I did. I never dime from anyone."
Gov. Lamm is confused. It's not the "duty" of the aged, terminally ill or otherwise, to die. It might be someone's choice not to be rigged into a life-support system, but not a "duty." And most terminally ill people would probably make the choice if they could. But by the time they reach that point, somebody else is making it for them.