OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
September 23,1983 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kannan (USPS 606-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer-First Hall, Lawrence, KS, 606-645, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions. Subscribes are $15 for six months or $27 a year in Deuglen County and $18 for six months or $35 for a year outside the county. Student subscribes are $3 per semester through the student activity for POSTMASTER. Subscribes are $49 for six months or $69 a year outside the county.
MARK ZIEMAN Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSICK
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
MICHAEL ROBINSON
Campus Editor
PAUL JESS
General Manager and News Adviser
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
LYNNE STARK
Campus Sales Manager
JOIN OBERZAN
Advertising Adviser
DAVE WANMAKER
Petal Salary
Mark MEARS
National Sales员
Heat task force
The Natural Gas Task Force is back, again.
The group seems incapable of dying - for a good reason. Some people in Lawrence do not have enough money to pay for heat.
The Lawrence City Commission re-established the task force during its meeting Tuesday evening. The commission also set Dec. 1 as the deadline for the group to devise an emergency fuel-payment plan.
The deadline is symptomatic of what has been wrong with the city's handling of the entire matter over the past year.
The task force should accomplish its goal soon, one would think.
However noble the goal of helping people pay their heating bills, the city has yet to find a way to help those who desperately need money to help pay for heat.
Moreover, this discussion and analysis of how to provide such help has continued among city officials,
local social service agencies and the city attorney for nearly a year.
But that's all right. No one froze to death last winter.
Maybe this will be a warm winter. Maybe it won't snow until January. Maybe some munificent soul will donate $10 million or so to the cause. Tax write-off, you know.
The likelihood of such things happening is mighty slim.
Because it will snow. And the weather will be cold. And the "Lawrence Warm Hearts" campaign, or something similar, is a stopgap measure at best.
The task force, if it accomplishes any good at all, will find a way to help needy people pay their heating bills. And it will do so quickly.
Such fast action will be unusual for the task force, considering its past record. Legal problems also have delayed action. But the cold is going to sweep in. And maybe this year Lawrence won't be so lucky, and someone will die from the cold. And we'll wonder why.
Foot in mouth, again
James Watt is insensitive. President Reagan should fire him.
In other words, he's bungled it again. He told a tasteless joke, and nobody is laughing.
That American version of Iago, that villain of the Reagan administration, that betrayer of the public trust, has again embarrassed his boss. And he has reinforced the idea that the administration really is removed from minorities in this country.
For a few chuckles from a group of businessmen, he uttered the joke at a meeting of U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials. He said members of a new panel to study co-learning practices included a "a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple." Those Chamber guys thought it was really funny. But Watt obviously wasn't in such a
humorous mood later in the day when he apologized for the gaffe.
His apology makes little difference, though. He's made stupid comments in public many times before. Yet Reagan hangs on to him.
The joke also wasn't too amusing to a couple of members of the committee. Richard Gordon, who is a panel member and has a paralyzed right arm, said he was "disturbed" by it. Julia Walsh, the woman on the panel, said, "I resent it being implied that I am the token woman."
Watt's defense: "If you can't joke about things, you shouldn't be in Washington."
But maybe the joke is on Watt. This may be the time Reagan gives him the boot. Politically, it would be wise — it would bring smiles to the faces of many Americans.
Is there any hope?
KU professors should be greatly insulted by today's announcement of the HOPE award semi-finalists. The seniors of the University have done them a grave injustice.
Eleven professors were named as semi-finalists for the annual award, given by the senior class to an outstanding educator. Doubtless, the 11 professors deserve such recognition, and are to be heartily congratulated. In fact, all 271 nominees should be praised — for their nomination means they are thought of highly by at least one student, probably many more.
The injustice does not lie with the professors, however. Only 267, or about 7 percent, of a possible 4,043 seniors bothered to vote during the last two days, although several ballot areas were stationed across campus.
What does this mean? Does it mean that 93 percent of KU seniors don't believe any professor is
What it means is that the vast majority of KU seniors are lazy, ungrateful bores who don't have the courtesy to take 60 seconds — 60 seconds! — to honor their professors in a way that perhaps means more to them than any other.
outstanding? Surely not. Does it mean, then, that 93 percent of KU seniors were so dismayed at having to narrow their selections to three a piece that they found it impossible to vote? Hardy.
Selecting a HOPE award nominee does not take time, does not cost money and does not generate embarrassment or hardship of any kind. All it takes is gratitude.
Seniors, you blew it this week.
Make it a point to find out more about the 11 candidates, and participate in the two elections remaining.
It won't help the professors you didn't vote for this week, but it will mean a lot to those who are left.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 300 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 Kansas albo invites individuals to submit plenary columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansas office, 111 Staffier-Finn Hall. The Kansas reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
A black woman became Miss America last weekend, and suddenly beauty pageants were legitimate again.
Beauty pageant still demeaning
Strangely absent just after the pageant were the usual complaints from those who consider pageants degrading to women. Instead, news articles cheerly proclaimed, often on the front page, that America was well-adjusted enough to give the crown to a black woman.
The message of the "good news" stories seemed to be that we should be impressed with ourselves. "Inherent racism in America must be swept away," said Shirley Chisholm, one of the first black women to be elected to Congress.
Benjamin Hooks, executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, compared the victory at the pageant to that of Jackie Robinson, who opened major league baseball to blacks when he joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947.
LETTERS POLICY
blacks was an important victory, but Books is mistaken if he thinks that the winning of the pageant by a black woman is as worthwhile.
Opening the professional sport to
He thinks the victory will "wake up America to the tragedy of excluding blacks from the competitive arenas of life, like law, medicine, physics."
DEBORAH BAER
Staff Columnist
It is heartening that Americans, who previously barred blacks from entering the Miss America pageant, this time considered a black the most qualified contestant. Perhaps a few drowsy heads will back into consciousness, as Hooks suggests.
She has only signalled to the world that she accepts the American institution that treats women as if they were horses or cattle in a state fair breeding contest to be judged by the fullness of their breasts, the line of their legs, the sheen of their hair and the condition of their teeth.
Vanessa Williams, the New Yorker who received the honor of being the first black to win the Miss America pageant, has won for her a star. For a larger group to which she belongs, women she has won no doubt.
The victory, however, won't help blacks into medical school.
To be fair, it must be recognized that the pageant does not judge women solely by the kind of qualification an agricultural expert possesses. A pageant, in trace, the pageant would start and end with the swimsuit competition.
But it judges women on feminine virtues beyond having a beautiful body. It judges them on their ability
to choose and wear pleasing clothing, to appear slightly knowledgeable, to achieve the right balance of formality and genuinely demureness, and to entertain.
Those criteria, unfortunately, are remarkably similar to the virtues of a good dog — both must be attractive, amusing, pleasant, sometimes playful and always obedient to a just master.
That is the honor that Williams has won, that black leaders are happy about and that President Reagan said was "a wonderful thing to our nation." She has won the tonight's views women as less than people.
But the more continuation of the beauty pageant is for Williams, for other black women, and for all women only a setback.
Surely it will help her personally in tangible ways. She will receive a $25,000 scholarship, earn $100,000 in appearances as Miss America and may get the exposure she needs to help her to a Broadway state.
Guns and the light of truth
Charles Orasin's column in the Sept. 14 Kansas has reminded those of us who value the right to keep and educate the public on gun control.
In 1982, after extensive research, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution found that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee an absolute right to individuals. Eight briefs were submitted to the subcommittee and five took the anti-gun position. The
JOHN B.
BARRETT
Guest Columnist
The Biaggi bill to ban bullets capable of penetrating soft body
research for the anti-gun briefs was shoddy and incomplete. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns even quoted dicta from a dissenting opinion as the opinion from the Supreme Court. This was typical of the mistakes contained in the anti-gun briefs. The pro-gun briefs were also often used in professional examination in examining the legal development of the Second Amendment, the intentions of the framers and the relevant case law.
The subcommittee report went on to note the multitude of abuses that have occurred under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Volkmer-McClure bill, which has been introduced in Congress the past four years, is designed to prevent such abuses. It would not repeal the 1968 act.
armor is opposed by the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Treasury Department as well as the National Rifle Association. They point out that after 14 years of production, the armor bill is aimed have never been used to kill a law enforcement officer and that the bill is an administrative
GUEST COLUMN
nightmare. As it is written, the bill would ban all ammunition in some calibers.
Only eight studies have used approved statistical methods in researching the relationship between firearms or handguns and crime. Seven of them found either no correlation or no significant correlation (more guns, less crime).
The effect of existing gun laws have ranged from negligible to disastrous.
The Harvard Law School's Center for Criminal Justice found that Massachusetts' strict gun law only caused a shift from guns to knives in communities. The frequency and severity of attacks remained constant.
Washington, D.C., provides an excellent example of the effects of gun laws. Between 1974 and 1976, murder, aggravated assault and robbery each dropped about 30 percent, according to FBI uniform crime reports. In 1976, Washington enacted a "model" gun law. Crime rose steadily after the number of murders rose 31 percent, aggravated assault 42 percent, robbery 62 percent and overall gun-related violent crime 88 percent, according to FBI reports. By comparing only 1974 and 1978, anti-gun forces distorted this to declare the law a success.
Since Morton Grove, III., enacted its handgun ban, violent crime has increased dramatically. Aggravated assault has increased 29 percent, according to police statistics.
Chicago's gun law has not had a chance to influence that city's crime rate. Although the law was enacted April 9, 1982, by April 1993, it had affected only police officers and security guards. Several of Chicago's gun law administrators have expressed agreement with the only in-depth study of Britain's gun laws. That study found that gun laws served only to "divert a vast amount of police time and effort."
In 1982, Kenesaw, Ga., enacted a firearm ownership requirement All classes of crime dropped Overall, serious crime has dropped 87 percent, following a 16 percent increase in 1981, according to police statistics.
Anti-gun forces continue to quote a study which found handguns in homes to be six times as likely to accidentally kill a family member or friend as an intruder. Unfortunately, handgun suicides, which outnumber fatal handgun accidents 55 to one, were classified as accidents. Even Frank Zimring, the former president of gun control, found no correlation between gun ownership and suicide.
Where we have informed the public with facts such as these, it has overwhelmingly rejected stricter gun control. We must continue to educate the public. The anti-gun law simply cannot stand the light of truth.
John B. Barrett, 25, is a third-year law student from Clearwater and a member of the National Rifle Association.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Iraq should withdraw from Iran
To the Editor:
It is a classic pattern that whenever a war breaks out between two sides, each side claims that it loves peace and that the other side is opposing it. Which is the state of affairs between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Only a thorough examination of facts can help the observer make a sound judgment. The following came as some of the direct consequences of the Islamic revolution: the price of oil doubled; the export of natural gas from Iran to Russia was raised; and the U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf were endangered; and communist Russia, with 70 million Muslim
citizens, considered the revolution a nearby potential threat.
Moreover, the revival of Islam in the region would soon pave the way for the downfall of the puppet rulers of the Islamic countries. Saddam Hussein, a former head of the Ba'ath party, was automatically a potential target.
Hence, on Sept. 22, 1980, Iraq launched a massive military offensive against the Islamic Republic, clearly violating the air and territorial integrity of a sovereign nation.
Masses of Iranian Muslims were soon mobilized to defend Islam. Despite aid from U.S. Air Force bases in Iraq and Syria, the Americans in Arabia and billions of dollars from
Soheyla Nasseri Iran graduate student
The Iranian Muslims, however, love peace; their position has been very clear right from the outset. They have announced the following as conditions for honorable peace: withdrawal of the remaining Iraqi forces from within Iran's international borders, reparation for war damage, and repatriation of all Iraqi refugees back to Iraq.
Saudi Arabia to Iraq, the sudden victories of the Islamic Republic shocked the Western world. Since then, the aggressor Saddam has won the battle again in favor of peace while he has continued to shell the Iranian towns.
Criticism of deficits is a sham
WASHINGTON — A number of intelligent people have observed that America has been living with what once were considered intolerable budget deficits and that lightning has not struck — not yet, at least. They are not saying that the emperor, the balanced budget, has no clothes, but that it is unclear what clothes he is wearing.
For this, they will be called Keynesians, irresponsible or worse. But they are right to ask what difference budget deficits make, and raising the question is the first step toward economic improvement in economic policy
For at least 50 years, politicians and others have complained about budget deficits, and still the deficits get bigger and bigger. A year ago, President Reagan called for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. He has not publicly mentioned the amendment in 1983, and his own budget proposal would leave large deficits for years. The public has been offered various arguments against deficits — that they were immoral, that they caused national bankruptcy, that they caused inflation, that they would prevent recovery and that they would "abort" the recovery once it began.
That was all wrong. Much of the talk has been a sham — an attempt
Member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board
HERBERT STEIN
to advance particular interests by exploiting what was believed to be a popular aversion to deficits. For a long time, the chief enemies of deficits were businessmen, Republicans and other self-styled conservatives. They used the deficit argument to resist government spending in these defenders of fiscal virtue would always support tax reduction.
Now, the Democrats and so-called liberals are against deficits. For them, it is a way to be against the Reagan defense program. More generally, it is a way to be against Reagan.
Although budget balancing is not the golden rule of fiscal policy, and although deficits don't matter in the way they usually are said to matter, fiscal policy and deficits do matter. And we need rules of fiscal policy.
The pretension that we do have a rule of fiscal policy — a balanced expenditure plan — is relevant, constructive rule. We know we are not going to balance the budget, but we don't know what we will or should do instead.
The significant effect of budget deficits is the government's absorption of private saving and the consequent crowding out of private investment. This slows down the rate of growth of capital stock and of output per workers and reduces the level of output that will be reached when the economy is operating at high employment.
Some economists disagree with this. They think that if deficits are bigger, will savings also be bigger, so that there will be no crowding out of private investment. But questions still remain. We are quite uncertain about the quantities involved. How much will long-run growth be slowed down if, say, deficits in the next decade are 4 percent of the gross national product rather than 2 percent?
Raising questions about budget balancing is useful, but it should be a prelude to developing a more realistic, constructive policy — one that leaves behind the empty shibboleth of the balanced budget but rescues us from our present anarchy.
Copyright 1983 the New York Times
1
/