OPINION
December 3, 1984 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kananus USPS 650-640 is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stairwater Fint Hall. Lawrence, Kananus 650-640, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays, final periods and late payage帖位 at Lawrence. Kananus 6044 Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $2 a year. Subscriptions by phone are $7 for six months. Student subscriptions are $1 and are paid through the student activity (see POSTMASTER). Social address changes to the University Daily Kananus 118 Stairwater Fint Hall. Lawrence, Kananus 6045
Sunshine
Go ahead, Board of Regents, step out into the sunshine Maybe it won't be as bad as you think.
That was the message from Attorney General Robert Stephan, who filed a civil lawsuit last week charging the board as a whole and 10 current or former regents with breaking the state open meetings law.
The suit said the Regents had conducted six private meetings between June 29 and Oct. 18 on budget cuts and declining enrollment at Emporia State University. Regent Wendell Lady of Overland Park has said the meetings were conducted because the Regents otherwise could not have made necessary decisions before a deadline from the state budget office.
But open meetings are still the law, deadline or no deadline. On Thursday, the Regents voted 5-2 to accept a consent judgment stating that they admitted violating the law but had not meant to do so.
Stephan cited "a pattern of conduct" in his suit, and said later he regretted that the law did not allow Stanley Koplik, Regents executive director, to be named in the suit. He called Koplik "outspoken in his misinterpretation of the open meetings law."
That "pattern of conduct" has included the restriction and ejection of reporters representing the Kansan and other news organizations from Regents subcommittee meetings. Those meetings have included discussion of such vital issues as program discontinuance, and decisions made during those meetings are often cited and rubber-stamped at meetings of committees and of the full board.
The attorney general's office had previously brought the complaints of reporters to the attention of the Regents staff. After two newspapers filed a formal complaint in October, the office filed a suit.
The winners in that suit are not the newspapers or the attorney general's office, but Kansans who are concerned about higher education. Meetings of the entire board and of standing committees were open before last week's ruling. But the judgment opens the subcommittee meetings, in which much of the real work of the Regents has been done.
Those stipulations, provided they are followed, should let a little sunshine in on what has sometimes been a smoke-filled room. The Regents may find their business a little less expeditious conducted in the open, but they will learn to work within the law, and Kansans will have a better opportunity to find out what the Regents are doing before the work is done.
Consumer society spurns simplicity
Blow up your television,throw away your papers.
Go into the country, build you q home.
Have a lot of children, eat a lot of peaches
Try to find Jesus on your own.
— from "Spanish Pipedream" by John Prine
by John Prine
Whatever happened to the back-to-nature movement of the late '60s and early '70s?
What became of the idea that the simple life was virtuous, that the treadmill of mainstream American society produced greed and corruption and antagonism among people?
Lichenbach's premise was that the "rosy picture of life given us in the fifties and sixties by magazines and newspapers and politicians is false." He described the state of the union in 1972 in miserable terms; rotting buildings; outbursts of anger, unsatisfaction health and education, despair poverty. He blamed these things on the failure of the traditional U.S. way of life.
If there was a redeeming characteristic born of the social upheaval of the late 60s, it was the notion that mainstream American culture was essentially trash and, therefore, should be disposed of properly.
Fast food, suburban tract housing, gas-guzzling cars, television — all popular U.S. phenomena in the affluent after World War II — who are a degenerate society to followers of the ant-establishment movement
It's hard to argue with that. No one wants to be uncomfortable. However, the truth is that there is a vast distance between the way most of us live and downright poverty. Most of us could live very comfortably with much less than we have, or think we need.
Callenbach announced the birth of a new philosophy of life "arising to challenge the old." The new philosophy was based on the idea that, in order to be free of the chains of the affluent society, a person had to be willing to be poor. This could mean, Callenbach said, scrounging, scavenging, do-it-yourself and part-time jobs.
In 1984, it is obvious that whatever popularity that movement had has vanished. Americans, unwilling to alter their spendthrift ways in the face of rising costs and diminishing resources, have rejected the simple fact that America returns to the affluent, omnipotent America of pre-Vietnam War days.
Whenever I feel myself being seduced by consumerism, I like to reread a book that I keep for such occasions. Its title is "Living Poor With Style," and it was written in 1972 by Ernest Callenbach.
“It’s not an easy life,” he wrote.
“But it can be a real and personal and satisfying life — fit for a man to live.”
The book is filled with ideas for alternative living and information on money, food, transportation, shelter, clothing, medicine, raising children and entertainment. Some of the content is dated. Much is timeless. Here are a few nuggets:
- "The Ten Commandments tell us that we are not to covet our neighbor's wife, or his goods. If we took this seriously, modern business would collapse in a day."
- "One of the bad things about a television set is that it can displace human relationships; it can become a 'person' in the household, and individuals can relate to it as much
as they do to other human beings. This isn't entirely or always a bad thing; as it happens, some human beings aren't as interesting, or as wholesome to be with, as the idiot box."
*"In America, not having a car can make you feel kind of odd. People ask how you manage, as if you'd just shown them a wooden leg. Contemporary Americans seldom enjoy walking. They think of it only if all other means of getting somewhere have failed."
"A house full of anonymous, machine-made things may make you feel prosperous, but it can't make you feel satisfied. You will only be really happy with the things in your house if you love them, which you must purchase yourself, or found them after a search, or had them for a long time, or were given them by people you like."
- "The fact that American society produces immense quantities of garbage and junk is bemoaned by most people who understand ecology. Nevertheless, the unorthodox, free-living people are the ones to do something about it; namely to put some of this great excess to positive use."
Callenbach said that he had intended for the material in his book to have a limited useful life in a rapidly changing society.
The material is still useful. Only its popularity is limited.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Writer eats from hand of plenty and bites it
To the editor
It's been said that each of us may hear the same music, but we all march to a different drummer.
in reply to Kamala Platt's letter (Nov. 16, "Reagan victory gives cause for mourning for those who will suffer"), the first thought that came to my mind was how could anyone with any knowledge of the Constitution lay at the doorstep of the president these accusations.
What made the letter so ludicrous was that it just had accusations — nothing to substantiate, only rhetoric. There was not one word of fact of how people's basic rights were being sacrificed. There were no specific facts on how the people in Nicaragua or Central America were being tortured or how students' chances for higher education were being jeopardized. In what way are senior citizens being denied support? What artist is trying to paint a just and beautiful picture of the future? Does he lack imagination, or have they been so blinded by the poker of realism, that one is responsible for his own actions!
Why does Platt cry for the Soviet Union, is it because the Soviet leaders have proved over the years that they are liars and are not to be trusted, or does Platt mourn because U.S. leaders have finally realized that there must be verifiable checks and balances before this great nation can commit itself to agreements with those people of ill repute?
Platt speaks of starvation and intimates that the United States contributes not to alleviate world hunger, but she only displays her lack of knowledge, because the United States gives more not only as food but also as money to starving people in all parts of this world. America is second to none.
My opinion of Platt and others of her like is that first, they should study the Constitution, and second, they should realize that the bulk of all taxes collected is from the middle class. The rich constitute only about 2 percent of all taxpayers, the poor about 15 percent. There is more money being spent today on welfare than at any other period in U.S. history.
As a matter of fact, Social Security has become a welfare program and is funded by another tax, the bulk of which is collected from the middle class. An item that might interest Platt is that Social Security today is dealt out to many people who have never paid a dime into the program. Yes, there are people collecting the money in payment. Paid a math. There are college students who are being helped by Social Security who have never paid a dime into it, nor have their parents. Talk about largess.
No, Platt is doubly fortunate that she can eat from the hand of plenty and bite it at the same time, because she has the privilege of living in the greatest nation on earth. Yes, with all our faults, with all our shortcomings, all its fruits is far superior to any other nation; there are no words written that can describe how fortune it is to be an American.
In closing, I say this to Platt and others like her: I as an American apologize to no one for our nation's behavior, and I am sorry I don't possess the ability to depict people like you in your true light. In the end, controlling our own destiny is our individual responsibility. We must also remember that this is the land of opportunity, not the land of charity.
Kansas City, Mo., senior
Terrorism course
Mike Skinner
To the editor:
I would like to clarify my position regarding the controversial course "Violence, Aggression and Terrorism in the Modern World." I issued a poster regarding that course in an intensifying atmosphere of violence directed against the left and others in the United States. The leaflet might contain some errors or ambiguities, the questions raised were valid.
Some facts in the leaflet are beyond question. The statement, "We ought to light you on fire," was directed at an anarchist on election day and reported in the Kansas on Nov. 7. Professor Shelly personally conversed on Nov. 7. "You ought to be grateful for the CIA and KGB."
Inasmuch as the poster was meant to help discover the nature of the course as to express our concern about a growing trend toward violence from the right, it must be considered a success. The rumor about Moos is apparently a long-standing one, and our public error may help put it to rest. Still, this does not affect in the least the primary purpose of this question the activities of the course in a nation where political repression from the right is increasingly the order of the day.
An allegation that one of the professors in the course was a Nazi in the past was based upon the assertion of a student in the course. The student now says that this is only a rumor because Professor Moos is assumed to be the person to whom she should answer. On the basis of his clear denials that the allegation was false. We are sorry to have fallen for this error.
At no point did the leaflet assert
that Moos or Shelly were employees of the CIA. Indeed, even if I possessed proof that someone was a CIA operative, I would be prohibited by law from revealing it to the public. The manipulation of public opinion by clandestine government organizations is a form of terrorism of the U.S. and Soviet governments are primary concerns of mine.
Unfortunately, the wholesale terror of governments has apparently been left out of this course. Thus, the retail violence of small and oppressed groups seems to be labelled terroristic, while the far more prevalent violence of the superpowers is defined out of existence without convincing intellectual justification.
Thus, the leaflet asks, "Is terrorism being promoted under the guse of combating terrorism?" Raising this question with regard to peculiar homework assignments and course methodology in the context of clear legal constraints is not the same as promoting the meant of fact. Journalists and the liberally educated should be able to discern the difference.
No assertion has been made that students in Anthropology 571 have actually committed or threatened to commit acts of violence. I have asserted that violence and threats of violence against the left and others have increased in 1984 The notorious "Fagbusters" T-shirts are just one example. Then an opponent of climate change was hit by a KAIDO supporter. Does anyone deny that a certain atmosphere of violence has been promoted by diverse right-wing political and religious groups as of late?
David Huet-Vaughn Leawood senior
Farmer loses in battle with uninvited hunters
When the hunting season arrives, farmers all over the country face the danger of their cows, sheep, tractors being mistaken for deer or pheasant.
They post "no trespassing" signs, but that doesn't always do the job — especially on big wooded farms in remote rural areas.
So, occasionally a farmer gets fed up at hunters coming down from some city, stomping on his land and filling the air with lead.
One such trate farmer was George Yant, who lives near Black Duck, Minn. If you haven't been to Black Duck, it's about 20 miles from Bemdiji, and Bemdiji, well, it's up vouder somewhere.
Anyway, Yant, 54, is said to be the sort of farmer who minds his own business and likes to be left alone. But they are when you live around Black Duck
He also doesn't care for "red shirts," his name for hunters. That doesn't mean all hunters, because he's an expert shot himself, but those who show up uninvited on his farm and look for a deer to slay.
Early one fogy morning, two such men showed up in the heavy woods on Yan's farm. They were seeking hunters. The hunters lost hunters. That's part of the sport.
Oh, did they find excitement. One of them, Richard Schaefer, 34, described his thrilling experience.
"My partner, Mark Wolf, had just fired at the deer and went after it, I had set up a portable stand in a tree and was sitting on it.
"Then, through the fog, I saw a man walking toward us. He had a rifle so I thought he was another officer. Then, then, but it was Vant, the farmer
"When he got about 10 yards away, he raised the riffle, pointed it at me, and started screaming. He ordered me out of the tree. He kicked me in the rear and said, 'I've killed before and I'll kill again.'
"My friend Mark came back and when he saw the guy, he dropped his gun. Then he told us to start walking, and then we used with that rattle pointing at us.
"We kind of walked around the farm for about an hour. He was ranting and raving, calling us names, cursing us.
"At one point, he yelled, 'Two thousand red shirts isn't worth one dollar.'"
Then they heard the roar of a truck motor. They peeped out of the ditch and saw Yant driving away.
Finally, they reached a dirt road and Yant marched them down the hill.
"We dove into a ditch. We were hysterical. We thought he was trying to kill us and was coming after us. I took him off the ground, but we have to shoot him before he shoot us."
After a while, they couldn't bear Yan's footsteps, so they stopped and turned around. He was about 300 yards away, when they stopped, he tired two shots.
They said they'd gladly testify,
They did. Yant was arrested and
for having threatened them with a
gun — was charged with assault.
They ran to their car, drove into town and went to see the game warden. The warren told them that Yant had been doing that for years -- scaring hunters. Nobody, however, had been willing to testify.
That might sound strange, but Minnesota law says that a farmer can ask a hunter to get off his land, but he can't threaten them with a
In a courtroom crowded with his fellow farmers, all of whom were sympathetic. Yant stood trial.
The two men told their story. They said they hadn't realized that they
MIKE ROYKO
Syndicated Columnist
were on Yant's farm. They said Yant had shot at them.
Yant said he hadn't tried to shoot them, but had just fired into the air to frighten them.
When he said that, the other farmers nodded. As one of them said after the trial, "If George had aimed at me, I'd have been killed." And he did, they'd be living in that road," he said.
The judge thought otherwise. He found Yant guilty as charged.
Now, before I finish this story, I ask you to make a guess as to what the punishment of farmer Yant was. Don't peek at the bottom.
If you're from Chicago, you probably think something like this. "Well, around here, if you aim a gun at someone, the judge will probably send you to driver's training school. If you shoot at someone and miss, he might congratulate you for not causing serious problems. If you wound somebody you might get a year in jail, but would be paroled after the first hour. So that farmer probably got a $50 fine."
Not quite. The judge sentenced Yant to five years in prison. I'm not kidding. He got five years in prison, for having chased away a couple of guys who were firing guns on his property.
It's being appealed, of course
Hundreds of farmers in northern
Minnesota are outraged and are
raising funds for Van's legal fees.
In sentencing Yant, the judge said he had never before agonized so much over one case. He said he had failed to remember able to sleep for the past two days.
Next time, the judge should take a few sleeping pills and get some sleep. Then maybe his brain won't be so addled.
4