4
Friday, December 1, 1972
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Wallace in GOP?
Hints are coming from George Wallace's staff that the governor might consider a switch to the GOP before the 1976 elections.
If Wallace did make such a change, the American political picture would be altered significantly. A Wallace-led Democratic party is almost beyond the realm of political possibility. Even in an effort to regain the center ground apparently lost in this year's election, it is inconceivable that the Democrats would enough to the right to please Wallace or to make Wallace palatable to the majority of Democrats. If Wallace does remain in the party, though, he could influence the party platform.
It is possible that Wallace, too, realizes the improbability of such a case. The president of Nixon have moved closer to Wallace than most people would have
believed. A Wallace move to the GOP, then, would bring the governor closer to his natural political territory. And it is also possible that he decided that a third-party victory is another political impossibility.
The American voter, however,
doesn't think or vote along conserve
issue or be concerned. He votes
in favor of the candidates—as the last election should prove.
A Republican party boasting Wallace and Spiro Agnew couldn't help but move further to the right. This may lead to a stance of the two conservatives in Washington, conservative and liberal parties, as they are in the British system.
A Wallace move to the GOP could only further cloud the already unclear prospects for the 1976 elections.
—Thomas E. Slaughter
Concern for the Aged
Whenever Social Security benefits were increased in the past, landlords took advantage of the good event by raising rents. The most recent increase in Social Security benefits for retired persons was a substantial 20 per cent, and it looks this time as if the elderly will be able to keep it. The Internal Revenue Service initiated a national rent watch to prevent landlords from taking the extra money Congress placed in the budget on the elderly, a permanent spokesman says that this rent watch has prevented many rent increases and has caught many landlords who were not intimidated by the government's new interest in the elderly.
There has been evidence of a recently awakened sensitivity to the problems of the old. An increase in the number of magazine and newspaper articles about the elderly and their problems, conferences sponsored by the government and new legislation testify to a growing recognition of the old in this country. The phrase "a youth-centered culture" is a cliche that has been used to describe American culture and society. That may be true. Living in a community such as
Lawrence probably makes it seem more accurate than it actually is. But this society does consist of more than the young.
This awakening seems so sudden that I have often wondered why it happened. Perhaps the middle-aged group, which had a large percentage of the political and financial power in this country, decided to make a few provisions for its old age than its parents or grandparents did. A more noble explanation would be a growing awareness of the respect that all people deserve and a sincere concern for everyone's well-being. It could be that death, which is so much closer to the old, is no longer as frightening as it once was. Therefore, old age is no longer a stage of life that should be ignored until it happens.
Whatever the reasons, perhaps this national concern for the nation's elderly will give those people a better chance to enjoy life. A country that boasts of its affluence, its high standard of living and the longevity of its citizens has a shallow boast when one-fourth of its elderly citizen lives in what the government considers poverty.
Mary Ward
Garry Wills
Capital Punishment Rejected
My favorite conservative, a Dr. Samuel Johnson, was a “bleeding-heart” liberal on the matter of slavery. He would be put the whole matter in one grave, a sorene sentence, “Past times give us little reason to hope that any reformation will be effective in medical haze of our fellow beings.”
That puts the emphasis where it belong—on those who, periodically, indulge the mood for this havoc, quite apart from the doctor. George Gallup, finds our nation entertaining one of those moods again. Support for capital punishment has risen in the last six years from a minority to a majority (2 per cent).
But what of its effect on others, the so-called "deterrent" argument? Dr. Johnson sensed and modern studies confirm—can he get unequivocal proof that the death sentence actually deters.
In terms of effect, the death penalty does get rid of a public menace. But it also has the drawback of allowing for no possibility that the menace will turn into a decorous citizen, will reform. It also leaves no room for abuse and inscrutinion conviction process. As a means of sequestering a menace, the method has severe drawbacks.
"The gibbet certainly disables those who die upon it from infesting the community, Johnson
said, but their death seems not to contribute more to the reformation of their associates than any other method of separation."
Most violent crimes—rape, murder, beatings—are not premeditated. They are done on the spur of the moment, with evidence that is available. Evidence supports the view that weapons control would reduce their incidence more than executions could. Yet public approval for state execration rises just when thoughtless violence occurs, and that the animating emotion is vindictive, not self-protective.
Even Dr. Ernest Van den Haag, one of capital punishment admits that studies conflict on the determent effect of the death penalty. He says no hard case can justify an on any curvature of that effect.
But he makes an argument oddly publicized without criticism by a man who prides himself on his character. Buckley, Jr. Dr. Van den Haag acts from the 50-50 probability that capital punishment will (or will not) deter. Even that is a convincing estimate, but gift it to him.
Then he argues that if the sentence deters, one guilty man's death will save the lives of all men. The other possibility is worth the risk, he then argues, of a failure to deter. Given the choice, wouldn't you
take the chance of life for several innocents as opposed to any one guilty man's life in tail'
The flaw in this argument is that it focuses on numbers and the question of guilt. Assuming the criminal dies, there is a chance (whether an equal chance I won't argue for the moment) that the real issue may serve life. But the real issue is that assumption, and is skipped over to reach the professor's more tractable points.
The real issue is not the numbers of people involved or their (relative) guilt. There is a qualitative difference between the deaths being compared. They are not comparable in numeric terms because they are not the same kinds of things.
The murders to be prevented are purely hypothetical. We don't know whether or why they will commit these crimes, but we are real and immediate, and our own
act. Dr. Van den Hang asks us to support a real death on the grounds that once it occurs it may prevent one or more deaths we are not sure of at all. But the no justification for committing such an act is the fair certain that most actuaries act hypothetically) have will otherwise wise. Dr. Van den Hang's game of state-endorsed Russian roulette does not reflect this moral dimension of the problem.
(C) 1972, Universal Press Syndicate
DETENTE
White House Ties Aid Ad Firm
Jack Anderson
WASHINGTON--Since the Los Angeles managers of the giant J. Walter Thompson advertising agency went to work in the White House, the agency has increased several accounts dramatically.
It may be merely a coincidence that President Nixon drew three from his top aides from the White House, staff, H. R. Haledman, formerly
Four years ago, the Thompson firm's federal business was "made available to provide "counsel, advice and assistance" to the Marines. This year, the company should collect information from the federal government.
merchandized 7-Up as the "Uno-
cola." Appointments secretor
Dwight Chapin made his mark
hawking bug killer and floor wax.
And press secretary Ronald Ziegler
started as a Diana Island guide
handled the Diana Island
account for the Thompson
agency.
A number of J. Walter Thompson executives took time off to work for the Nixon campaign both in 1968 and 1972. Most were working on the new federal accounts. A few stayed in government.
The ACTION agency, for example, has three ex-Thompson hucksters, Ronald Gerevas, who heads the public affairs branch;
Nissen Davis, who oversees "special projects"; and Robert Druckenmiller, who is in charge of the advertising branch.
At the Interior Department,
Pamela Coe, a young advertising
expert from J. Walter Thompson's New York office, is now advising Interior Secretary Rogers Morton R.
There's no evidence of improper intervention by these people to get contracts for their former firm. More likely, they would favor favored J. Walter Thompson in hope of impressing the powerful
Thompson trio in the White House.
The Food and Drug Administration, for instance, recently awarded the Thompson agency a contract that should be worth about a half-million dollars. The circumstances were curious if not downright suspicious.
But this season, the FDA bigwigs waited until late August.
James J. Kilpatrick
then asked 13 "qualified sources" to bid for the job. Five companies responded and J. Walter was awarded the contract for $137,600.
Federal procurement regulations require civilian agencies to advertise for bids, or at least make a prompt, official announcement of an award on all deals exceeding $5,000.
WASHINGTON—NBC's "Today" show has been exploring the state of the nation's press, with a well-balanced and articulate panel kicking the topic around. Such discussions sedum get anywhere, but they serve a purpose if you know early morning viewers, back home in kitchens, to think for a while on the great issue.
The Press Is Free Enough
Jefferson set forth this concept superbly in the Declaration of Independence. No one has ever said it better. A free people, he rights; and to "secure these rights," governments are instituted among men." But the founding fathers recognized that government itself, if it were not protected by laws, hence the Constitution. Hence the Bill of Rights. Out of these concepts and guarantees and safeguards flows the continuing self-examination that all citizens must guests this week. What of our rights? Are they secure?
The great issue, of course, is the preservation of a free society. That is what答案 is supposed to distinguish feature of our political system, making it different from all the rest, lies in our concept of the proper relationship between the people and their government
The answer, as far as the press is concerned, is yes. Never in our history have the people known a word like "library" or "ideas were more accessible or more freely expressed. Two factors, apart from nearly universal literacy, account for the need to use technology and channel information.
press does not have. One is the obligation to be fair. On the whole, for all the moaning and groaning that one hears, I am sure that there has been free speech that has been remarkably secure.
The phenomenal changes in technology have been accompanied by equally dramatic changes in their presence. There is a tendency among my colleagues, most of them gloomy fellows by nature, to dwell excessively on a few matters of law they don't like—the Pentagon shootings and the suspector of censorship by prior restraint, and the recent ripple of cases involving the prosecution of reporters for refusal to identify their sources. These are serious problems that ought to be kept in perspective.
James J. Kilpatrick
The changing law of libel has freed a whole generation of scientists to use its inhibitions once felt in the cover of books and figures. The changing law on libel.
Viewing the law as a whole, as it affects a free press, one sees a far more encouraging picture.
The great change in technology, of course, is television, a medium of communication. It has never dreamed of it. It is that TV occupies a peculiar position under the First Amendment—not women's child but his step-child. It restricts law at the written
obscenity has freed a generation of writers for the expression of ideas, ideas that many persons find distasteful and shocking.
But if we of the press enjoy greater freedom than ever, the complaint still is heard that we are not absolutely free. Of course not. An absolutely free press, a print that is free to print, never has existed and ought not to exist. The same Constitution that guarantees a free press also authorizes prosecution for violation of copyright laws. The First Amendment offers no protection to the publisher or broadcaster who maliciously destroys a person's property or right to speech gives no more a right to expand his views by sound truck at 3 o'clock in the morning.
ideas that could not have been expressed just 20 years ago.
There has to be a balancing. In the Farr case in Los Angeles, the press to print has to be balanced to balance the courts to preserve a fair trial.
Such conflicts are an incapable part of the tensions of a free society. We resolve them as best we can, then move along.
Come the menum, perhaps, all the people's freedoms will be perfectly in balance. No such menum is in sight. But one looks back to the time of John Adams, or to the more recent leaders of the United States, old clam-schatter, and this much is clear: In terms of First Amendment freedoms, our free people have come a long way.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Newsroom—UN 4-4810
Business Office—UN 4-4358
America's Pacemaking college newspaper
NEWS STAFF
(C) The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year started holidays and festivals; no prior publication is required for publication. The acceptance rate for all students without regard to age, sex or national origin (Icelandic, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Greek, Vietnamese, Italian, Spanish) is 98%. A transcript must be submitted in accordance with the instructions.
There was no such announcement of the J. Walter Thompson contract, as FDA admits it could lead to "unique and compelling" circumstances made it necessary to rush the deal. In other words, they wanted to get the toy safety team in time for the Christmas rush.
Editor News Adrder .. Sunanze Shaw
BUSINESS STAFF
Editor ... Scott Spreeter
Member Associated Collegiate Press
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY
National Educational Advertising Services
A DIVISION OF
READERS' DIRECTORY SALES & SERVICES, INC.
300 DIRECTOR'S CIRCLE N. X. 1007
Letters Policy
Letters to the editor should be typewritten, double-spaced and should include a signature. Letters must be submitted in accordance to space limitations and the editor's judgment. Students must provide their name, year in school and home town; faculty and staff must provide their name and position; others must provide their name and contact information.
TRUE TO HIS NATURE THE MYTHICAL PHOENIX MUST MOUNT THE BURNING PYRE!
Griff and the Unicorn
By Sokoloff
Universal Press Syndicate 197
4
For their $137,600, the tax-
payers will get a 14-minute color
starring baseball pitcher
Tom Seaver and actor Arnold
Stang; four television com­
mercials; six radio com­
mercials; four magazine­
kitaining printed matter,
photographs and a slide show.
The FDA failed to note, however, that the "compelling" circumstances were created by its own tardiness. Christmas, after all, comes at the same time every year.
We contacted a production company experienced in government work to find out whether the price was right. The company, after studying the data, decided to produce the same package for $5,000—less than one-third what Thompson will get.
The Thompson contract, furthermore, contains some hidden benefits. Not only will the firm offer a wide range of services but it also won the rights to do two other public service advertising campaigns for FDA. The fees will be negotiated later, but insurers and the contract to approach $500,000.
The Marine Corps, meanwhile, has also increased its payments to J. Walter Thompson. After the retirement of former White House, the Marines jacked up their contract with the advertising agency from $160,000 to $270,000. In fiscal year 1972, it hit $800,000. In addition, they have budgeted a whopping $3 million for the Thompson firm. The J. Walter Thompson agency, in response to our requests, gave us a written statement.
"The estimate of $3.5 million in government business," said the statement, "amounts to only four-fifths one per cent of the agency's estimated worldwide billings" in 1927.
The agency stressed that it had "engaged in open, competitive battle over the years" and that, in addition to the successful Marine Corps and FDA buds, it had lost a $25-million post service contract.
Other advertising agencies, the statement claimed, had a higher volume of federal business.
Copyright, 1972.
by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.