4
Thursday, September 1, 1988 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Menees' brand of humor was nothing to laugh at
So did his jokes
In a speech to about 2,000 students during the Traditions Night ceremony, Student Body President Brook Menees fell flat.
He labeled Johnson County the "Golden Ghetto" to take a joke mimicking the accent of aigrant from Chicago and said the only reason he was so interested in him was that
*Meneses* *attempts at humor were marred by offensive language* *accented on accents and an uncleas* *slam at Kansas State University*.
Singling out Johnson County and girls from Chicago and making light of them lacked tact, sensitivity and humor. The University is a place to broaden one's mind, not a place to constrict it with meaningless stereotypes.
Instead of trying to inspire harmony in the thousands of freshmen who listened to his speech, Menees only created a kind of separatism that is more acceptable in high school than in college, by virtue of immaturity.
Pointlessly bashing K-State wasn't necessary in what was supposed to be an orientation speech. It wasn't even that funny. Ever wonder why KU sometimes is dubbed "Snob Hill?" Menees promoted that image with his ill-chosen words
It's true that speaking to 2,000 people isn't easy, but the student body voted for Menees to speak for 23.9% Insensitivity.
The most mature thing Menees has done since his speech is to apologize, which shows he is willing to take responsibility for his actions.
Still, students do not need a nervous comedian. Instead, they need a leader who won't constrain them by narrow thoughts.
Christine Martin for the editorial board
Leading into 'Temptation'
Across the country, some Christians and religious leaders learn about the life of Jesus Christ with beggars and belligerents.
The film depicts 'Christ resisting his fate on the cross and falling to the temptations of lust and adultery. The movie, based on a novel that's been in the public realm for 33 years, unfolds from the traditionally accepted accounts of the story of Jesus.
However, it is also clear that through any means, from baycott to demonstrations, the critics' ultimate objective is to court those who
Since its opening in mid-August, adamant opponents have denounced the film as blasphemous, staged demonstrations, called for public boycott and formed a national campaign to oust the picture destroyed or withdrawn from movie theaters.
Their actions, designed to deter the public from viewing the movie, only have attracted attention to the film and lured the audience.
Locally, some churches in Eudora and Lawrence that oppose showing the movie persuaded the manager of Dickinson Presbyterian Church to release it.
Protesters say that they are offended by the content of the film and that the movie does not represent Christian doctrine.
But their actions against the movie, sort of a film version of book-burning, misrepresent Christianity as much as the movie itself. Their actions represent censorship and the notion that what is right for them is right for everyone else.
It's clear why the movie has stirred up so much anger in the hearts of some devout Christians. To them, the film insults the most sacred figure in history and deviates from what has been accepted as fact.
But regardless of how insulting the film may be, the same constitutional rights that protect those who object to the movie can also be used to insult others.
Every person should decide individually whether to see the film. The best strategy for the opponents' objective is to ignore the film and not to deprive the rights of others to make a free choice.
Tony Balandran for the editorial board
News staff
The editorial board consists of Michael Merschel, Mark Tilford, Todd Cohen, Michael Horak, Julie Adami, Tony Brennan. *Correspondence to:*
Todd Cohen ... Editor
Michael Horak ... Managing editor
Jule Assonato ... Associate editor
Stephen Wade ... News editor
Michael Merschel ... Editorial editor
Noel Gerdes ... Campus editor
Craig Aitken ... Sports editor
Dave Niebergall ... Photo editor
Dave Eames ... Graphics editor
Julie Jones ... Art/Feature editors
Tom Ebn ... General manager, news advisor
Business staff
Greg Knipp ... Business manager
Debra Cole ... Retail sales manager
Chris Cooper ... Campus sales manager
National Salesman
Kurt Messermitts ... Promotions manager
Sarah Higdon ... Marketing manager
Brad Lenhart ... Production manager
Michelle Garland ... Asst. production manager
Michelle Glaithner ... Sales manager
Jeanne Wines ... Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and over 200 words and must include a title and the name of the department. The student is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or email address.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reap or edit letters and guest columns. They can be mailed brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Fint Hall. Letters and columns are the writer's 6 opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of University Daily Kansan. Editorials are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
The University Daily Kanaka (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuffer-Fair Hall, Fulton, Kan. 66045, daily during the regular weekdays and Monday through Friday. The postage is paid Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in Lawrence, Kan. 66044 Annual subscription by mail are $50. Student subscriptions are free.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 11B
Staffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 68045.
Say 'no' to hair-restoring drugs
Millions of young men with thinning hair surely were feeling depressed after watching a network
Women disliking baldness should have their heads examined
The show was about a prescription drug that the federal government has approved for use as an antidepressant.
That might sound like good news, but it wasn't
For one thing, various experts said only a small percentage of balding men would be helped by the drug. And the twice-a-day dousing would be essential, doing as long as they needed to keep their hair.
Far worse than, was a series of brief brief interviews with young women at the beginning of
The women were asked what they thought of men who were bald or had thinning hair. Between giggles and considerable eye-rolling, they said, in effect. "Seek."
As I sat listening to these cruel creatures, I thought of the agony they were bringing to millions of young men. Men who might be worthy, admirable, even heroic. Men who, through some genetic glitch over which they had no control, were born to be bald.
And there were these young lovelies saying that despite whatever noble qualities a man might possess, he was not a great grounded that the foliage on the very top of his body did not compare favorably with that of some jungle men.
My motive has nothing to do with any personal baldness problem. As you can see from the picture in this column, I'm not bald. It's just that the top of my head is gone.
So I decided to write something to comfort these young men and offer them hope for the future.
This happened when I applied for my first job as a columnist. An editor said I should have my head examined. I took his advice and asked a doctor to examine my head, which he did, but he forgot to
Mike
Royko
Syndicated columnis
The women were asked what they thought of men who were bald or had thinning hair. Between giggles and considerable eye-rolling, they said, in effect "Feek."
put the top back on.
But that's another story. We're talking about baldness. And, as I do with many complex subjects, I sought the expertise of the prominent psychiatrist Dr J M Knokie
I asked him why these young women reacted so negatively to the very mention of baldness or hair loss.
"You want me to explain their reaction in clinical terms?"
"OK. They reacted the way they did because they are nipples."
could you explain that in simpler layman's terms?
"Yes. The intelligence of a female can be measured in inverse proportion to her reaction to the sight of a man's naked scalp and to put it into context, for example, how much a hairy guy has a hair, the lower her IQ is."
*that is a remarkable science.* "Don't worry, it's true. Only a niny worries about head hair. Do they care about how much hair can on his has on肌s? Of course not. So why do
If true, that is a remarkable scientific finding.
they care about how much he has on his head?"
I hadn't thought of it that way.
"And what good is it anyway? You take a young guy with lots of hair. He probably spends 10 minutes every morning with a hair dryer and brush his hair, and he doesn't spend another year, he's spent more than two whole days on his hair. In 10 years, that's 20 days of his life gone, just blowing hot air on his head. And that doesn't count the time he spends getting it styled or combing it every time he goes in the john. A bald girl doesn't have to do that. So even if they live to the same age, they'll go to living longer because of the time he saves."
So you're saying that the more intelligent women are not concerned about male hair growth?
"That's right. An intelligent woman thinks about other qualities that are a lot more important than the ones she knows."
Monev?
"No, I me
Mmmm?
You mean it wit, humor, gentleness, and whether a man is trustworthy, reliable, good and true?
"Sure. You ever notice something about real rich guys? They can be bald as an egg and have a face like a newborn bird, but they aren't lonely. You don't know them. They get old. But money gets younger. ECD will give you 10 percent over five years. Those ninies on that TV show, they think a CD is some kind of music."
But what about balding young men who aren't rich? What are they susposed to do?
"It should be an incentive to them. They should learn how to do something useful, like insider trading. Now I got to go pick something up at the cleaners."
"A suit."
"No my spare hairpiece."
Ethics
Mike Ribbon is a syndicated columnist who writes for the Chicago Tribune.
Both parties could use ethics lessons
Raising the standards won't help unless current rules are obeyed
Paul Greenberg
Syndicated columnist
George Bush, trying to set his party's house in order as he takes the helm, says he's going to propose a new code of ethics that contains "high standards" for federal officials.
Even notice that one of the first reactions to an ethical scandal is not an insistence that stan-
ders should be able to ignore it. If folks didn't do what was right before, what makes the reformer think they obey even
Bush is a common reaction, and it's based on the unspoken (and probably unconsidered) assumption that ethics is a formal code rather than an approach to life. Just plug the loopholes, it's assumed, just anticipate and outlaw the country and the country will have ethical government.
Any such assumption underestimates human ingenuity. If the past is any guide (and it is), there always will be those who find new loopholes and devise new manipulations. Ethical codes are generally good things, but they are more guides for the ethical than a bar to the law, who may treat them as challenges to be overcome. Looks, as they are, for honest people.
THIS MEETING OF THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
WILL NOW COME TO ORDER
The higher test of ethics is not whether some code is followed but whether the unethical conduct not covered in the code is condoned. A lawmaker's book deal was being prepared by an official investigation that may solemnly conclude that his sordid little book deal was well within the rules and regulations. If so, that says more about the inadequacy of the code than about the adequacy of the Speaker's ethics.
Ethics may receive the attention they merit when George Bush denounces the conduct of Ed Meece, rather than just breathing a sigh of relief because it causes to embarrass by his presence in the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I received a letter from the speaker the other day with statements attached to it.
Ethics will receive the attention they merit when Michael Dukakis denounces Jim Wright's letter to the Senate.
E.
Ethical codes are generally good things, but they are more guides for the ethical than a bar to the unethical, who may treat them as challenges to be overcome. Locks, as they say, are for honest people.'
puntishers to pay the kind of royalty fees they collected. My first reaction was: Who is he trying to kid? This seems to be the only book his mother has read. The slim volume, which might be mistaken for a pamphlet, was put together by a member of the Speaker's staff. Most of the copies were purchased in bulk by political activists, labor unions and other special interests.
Said one friend of the Speaker's, who bought $6,000 worth of the books at $5.95 each, "I was just trying to make a contribution to the church, and I got an amount any money. There are rules against that. So I bought his book." To quote another, who bought $1,000 worth of the books at $2.99 each, the already had given the Speaker's campaign
fund: “There’s no big money here. Just friendship. It’s a little $1,000 contribution.”
One can understand, without approving, the hesitation of both presidential candidates to speak out about scandals in their own parties. George Bush and Ed Melee served in the same administration. Jim Wright charmed the convention that nominated Michael Dukakis for president.
To depict this deal as an ordinary venture by a small publisher is to overestimate the gullibility of even the U.S. public. Although I'm grateful to Wright for responding to an earlier column about his ethical standards, I present his thinking I could be so easily taken in.
Ethics will be taken seriously when Republican congressmen are lining up against Ed Meese and Democratic congressmen are asking them to step down as Speaker of the House.
So long as a standard of ethics is a partisan matter, no number of formal codes, however elevated, may bring ethical government. But there are important sense, ethics begin with the codes.
Paul Greenberg is a syndicated columnist who writes for the Pine Blow, Ark. . Gazeet.
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breathed