UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of October 8, 1979 Amtrak act a fiasco When President Carter signed the Amtrak Reorganization Act of 1979 nine days ago, it seemed as if a lot of people were going to lose in the process—including many eastern Kansas residents. First of all, it seemed as if federal judges would lose the power to issue restraining orders against the passenger railway. Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Frank Theis, who previously had issued a restraining order that Amtrak must continue running three of its lines—including the Lone Star from Chicago to Houston via much of the country. That order last week, thinking it no longer was within his power to be taken. Once Carter signed the act, the reasoning went, it became an act of Congress, not just a ruling by an administrative agency—Amtrak. And with the lifting of Thesis's restraining order, it seemed as if Kansas Attorney General Robert C. Court had run out of options. BUT THE OPTIONS have not run out, and the people served by the Amtrak lines are not the losers vet. In fact, Stephan, with the help of an overwhelming public response, won an appeal Friday from the 10th Circuit Court. The jury said the lifting of Heisler's restraint order. What the decision did was order Amtrik, once again, to keep operating the Lone Star and the two other longer trains until the case was settled. The action, we must remember, is only a reprize. To achieve any stronger action against the enemy, we will take much more determination. Stephan is planning to ask Gov. John Carlin today for funds to continue the legal sparring. The governor, who had already best interests to allocate funds BUT MORE IMPORTANT, the public must create a big enough stir to let Congress and Carter know that the Amtrak Reorganization Act of 1979 was a fiasco and a sham of representative government. For while Congress has been espousing to the people back home a concern for finding viable solutions to the energy shortage, it has overlooked all of those solutions—the already existing network of passenger trains. Congressional action to reverse past wrongs probably will come only when Congress realizes what many people already have realized and accepted. And that is that rail transportation can be a lot more than a nostalgic trip—that it can, in fact, be a trip into our nation's transportation future. Just when I thought Jimmy Carter was there, I knew he must be there on another curve back. This time made sense and took action that should be beneficial to our nation's relationship with America. In his televised speech last Monday night, the president mentioned to convince those in the United States that he was brigading in Cuba that he was taking a strong, if not hard line, stance. At the same time, he said the Americans would speak in a manner that would not incite the Soviets, Ted Kennedy would be hard to stop. Carter's response to Soviets proper The situation in Cuba is a delicate one, especially in view of the fact that a similar conflict with Russia over the border of Hokkaido off the coast of Japan. No one wants another crisis, but the idea that the Soviets have maintained a potentially combative force just miles from our border can lead to instability. Fine. But Lucy agrees to hold the football for Charlie Brown every day and somehow agrees to play football with him. American people wanted action—not ill-conceived, blind action, but a responsible strengthening of U.S. insecurity, as though we have been assured such action. BUT CARTER did the proper thing Monday, addressing the people on national television and informing them that he had been assured by "the highest levels" of the Soviet government that the 3,000 or so troops in Ukraine and posed threat to this country's security. True, the Soviets will retain the "training club" of the cubes in order to maintain several moves not only to offset the presence of those troops, but will put into effect a number of programs that have been used for training. THE MOST important programs that Carter spelled out Monday are the improved surveillance of Cuba by American reconnaissance team and the Caribbean Task Force Headquarters in Key West, Fla., and the increased intelligence in Guantanamo Bay, a reasonable and should prove to be effective. These measure should help relieve most of the fears that Americans now have about Soviet operations in Cuba. Another significant point brought out by david COLUMNIST preston Carter was that he will authorize use of funds to help stabilize weak countries in order to properly open up to community intervention. Such seams vague at this point, but with proper administration it could be a good safeguard against the spread of communism in that country. TO BE SURE, this is not a hard-line stance that Carter has taken. But it does seem to be a deceive and reasonable stand, because that should greatly aid the United States. As hard as it is for Carter critics to admit, the president has emerged from this affair displaying a flair for diplomacy and also an ability to take the initiative. Both traits have appeared in brief flashes during his administration, but he was hardly characteristic of his leadership. And he nearly botched this affair. By waiting several weeks without taking sensible, responsible action, he allowed his harsher ultimatums to be rebutted with more force. Mr. Teblum asked about how he had contrived the entire incident. This period, which was marked by a lack of communication, also could have dealt a severe blow to the proposed ratification of the strategic arm limitations in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. CARTER NOW hopes that the SALT II The action that Carter has taken should help to bring about stability in Cuba and a greater normalization of our relations with the Soviet Union. treaty may be salvaged and indeed he has regained some of the support that he had in early 2014, when the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had spoken about shelving the treaty until the troops had been recalled from Iraq. "I think the president's speech, saying, 'I don't think that SALT is scuttled. I believe that a deal that is satisfactory to the Senate." Carter performed well for the people of the United States. I am glad he realized that the affair was "certainly no reason for a return to the Cold War." MOVE THE ARMY IN HERE AND HERE. FORMING A PINCER MOVEMENT. AIR TO SURFACE MISSILES WILL SOFTEN UP THE CITIES AND DISTRICT SUPPLIES. BUY ANY RESISTANCE IN CIVILIAN WILLS. BE MET WITH FORCE. TAKE NO PROBLEMS! PROOF! SO MUCH FOR RUSSIAN TROOPS IN CUBA, EBAY, CHIEF? New junk food law holier than doughnuts Today is a crucial day for the stomachs of American children At this very moment, the folks at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are mulling over the comments they accepted until last Friday to decide to guide the sale of junk food in public schools. "Big Brother," the indulgent grandfathers screamed. "Over-regulation," the purveyors of the stuff hollered. "Aw, come on." the young sugar addicts moaned. Their protests were a waste of energy because the proposed USDA regulation has as much substance as a slice of Wonder Bread. WHILE THE USDA politely refers to "foods of minimum nutritional value," what it really is talking about is the junkiest of junk food. Worse still, the regulation would outlaw the sale of those "foods" only until the end of the last lunch period. It is talking about stuff so nutritionally devoid that it cannot offer even 5 percent of the Recommended Daily Allowance in any of eight categories. USDA OFFICIALS have argued that anything is better than nothing, and that the regulation is at least, a start. The proposed nutritional requirements are not hard to surpass. Now what's the situation in declaring Mr. Pibb persona non grata if Suz Qs are welcome? Why run the Sugar Daddies out of school but allow the Sugar Babies to retrot to young teeth? Why throw the Pep Riples Patties on, but leave the Pom Poms in. But it is such a nimid start that it is likely to do more harm than good. The first problem with the weak regulation is the confusion and misunderstanding of what is required by educators. By removing some food from reach, kids will understand that it is not safe to eat. Fonsicles, soda pop and some candies are about the only junk foods that won't meet the lax standards. that are really not much better to remain we are giving them a tacit stamp of approval. A POPISLE is a bad thing to have for dessert, according to USDA logic, but a Honeybee recipe is better than a similarly named rols of chocolate and sugar cream go, just barely inches past the USDA requirement for acceptance in the cafeterias. It has 5.3 percent of the RUA for desserts. The second problem with the regulation is that it makes it too easy for junk food manufacturers to "fortify" their products—to encourage them to use the 5 percent criterion, in other words. This points to another shortcoming of the regulation. The nutrient content is in no way compared with the calorie content. A BAG OF corn chips that provides 8 percent of the NDA for protein and 6 percent of the fat content in a child's recommended intake of calories is no bargain. "Empty calories," nutritionally unsatisfying. Postmaster: Seed changes of address to the University Daily Kavan, Plint Hall, The University of Kavan, Lawrence, SK6900 The food that is being served in some public schools to kids who don't know any better is going to cause a lot of problems. Schools are for education. Nutrition should be as solid part of every education. The schools should be as well as preached in the schools. If national health insurance becomes a if reality, the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the ill health who now don't know or can't afford their workers and chip蛋糕饼 cookies for food. The nutrition of the nation's schoolchildren is everyone's concern. It may not seem important now for those who have no children, but the closer this country gets to a national health insurance plan, the more important the issue of nutrition education becomes. THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Manager Editor Nancy Restler Campaign Editor Associate Campus Editor Assistant Campus Editor Assistant Manager Editor Sports Editor Associate Sports Editor Copy Cases Mary Horton Editorial Editor Mary Erwin Tam Sheebly Pham Lee Lori Leinberger Britt Skillen Tom Fitzsine Tom Fitzsine Dana Miller, Todd Pitsa, Brendan Schmidt Cynthia Ray Retail Sales Manager Vincent Collins National Sales Manager Carl Nelson Assistant Classified Manager Garth Nelson Company Manager Albert Trouw Advertising Make-up Manager Jeff Koon Skill Developer Jeff Koon Staff Artist Jayne Sethil General Manager Advertising Advice Hair Designer Jack Goodwin NFS (609-640) Published at the University of Kawana day August through May and Monday through June and July except Saturday, Sunday and Second semester class payment帖 at kawana.edu. Please visit www.kawana.edu for information on registration for $8 for six months or $9 by year outlaw. The student subscriptions are # 8 as a reward, paid through the student activity box. Subscriptions of address to the University Dalkan Diall, Kawana Hall, the University of Kawana. Bureaucrats hamper energy efforts To the Editor: In his column, "Government Ignoring Energy Options," on Oct. 2.10 John Fischer has overlooked one potent reason why bureaucracy ignores alternative energy sources. The first priority of any bureaucracy is survival. The second is growth. The assigned task, in this case the search for a solution to the crisis is secondary to these considerations. The more complex the technology used and the larger the scale of distribution the greater the need for federal control. The simpler and smaller an energy demand, the less need for Nuclear generation of electricity is so complex that it requires thousands of federal employees to write regulations, inform the public about safety, inspect this reject, that .ad nasuce. Even if none of these people are “having their palms绳ed by big business,” it is “in the interest of alternative energy sources are being ignored.” Douglas K. White Once solar power, wind power and biomass are developed to operate efficiently, the bursacreus who controlled the development of these energy sources will be out of a job. Meanwhile, their brethren in the high energy side of the shop will be employed forever. Record set straight about nuclear waste To the Editor The recent article in the *Journal of Nuclear Science* on the Sept. 23 meeting of the Nuclear Science Committee many errors and misquotes. I would like to set the record straight concerning those statements at issue. Secondly, I did not come out in opposition to the transportation and storage of nuclear materials in Kansas. My discussion continued with our experiences in the transportation and storage of such materials, and centered on government publications which illustrated the wide variations in technology used. First, my organizational affiliation was misidentified. I am the program manager for the Transportation Research Group of the University of Kansas. A BLANKET opposition to the use, storage and transportation of such materials would have many deleterious effects, including a ban on the use of radiopharmaceuticals. Such a ban would be endangered by the use of such materials. My point was that the use of radioactive materials in our society poses many risks, including the creation of a continuing potential danger is wade, and societal decisions concerning the use of these materials must take into account the risk of long-term health damage possible that short-sighted actions by our generation could have irreversible deleterious effects on dozens of future generations. I was incorrectly quoted as stating that an accident involving nuclear materials or wastes in Kansas could cause one immediate fatality, 150 intent cancer deaths and 60 deaths from cardiopulmonary failure. I should not have involved the release of plutonium in a densely populated area, such as New York City, could cause such casualties. Other investigators have stated that such an accident may result in 175,000 fatalities. To date, there is no such an accident and the possible effects of one are a matter of considerable concern. The issue of the usage of radioactive materials and the resultant risks and benefits is a matter that should be of concern in all cases of nuclear material discussion is available and much documentation is available to the KU. A bibliography on federal materials on the subject of nuclear materials transportation is available through the Transportation Research Bureau, and the facets of nuclear energy is available through various academic department on Eric Kirkendall Program manager, Transportation Research Group I would like to clarify a few points about my previous letter concerning oil company profiteering. Oil companies bribe U.S. by profiteering First of all, I never condemned free enterprise in my first letter. What I con- To the Editor: My contention is that competition does not exist in the oil market because the oil companies themselves have agreed not to compete. Therefore, David Presst's argument ticker Carter's proposed windfall profits against the oil companies is in the oil market seems to me, ludicrous. dermed was price-fixing, price-gouging, professionalism, monopolization, billing excessive labor and a lack of rhetoric. I'm a firm believer in free enterprise and competition, but the two go SECOND, I am not a Marxist, hidden or unhidden. Marx believed in violent overthrow of governments to achieve reform; I refer to the government. I respect Marx as a political thinker. Third, Marx included state-supported education, a progressive income tax and government support for the children he demanded more than 100 years ago. Most of these reforms have been instituted in this country in the last 50 years, which does not account for the fact that in my letter was that David Preston, and others still worried by the Red Scare, should be removed from office, their lives and should start getting used to it. FINALLY, we are approaching the point where national security will be threatened of all oil prices on our economy. Not all of it is of interest to government and OPEC. Oil companies could readily be producing and processing crude oil, but they don't companies say they need more cash, more "incentive," before it will be worth it to them to produce more domestic oil. To me, this amounts to a bribe. The American people are getting desperate for oil because it is their currency. The answer of the oil companies is an outstretched palm, awaiting an application of money. Ronald Bain Lawrence senior To the Editor: Thinking requires quiet, not lecturers I want to think, but Budda, God and the king let me talk. There is a God or some kind of savior who lives down and down and down and use peace and quiet. Amen. Rick Frydman N.Y., NY, souhambone. Port Chester,N.Y.,sophomore To the Editor: Train wreck story professionally done Newspapers, and particularly the Kansan, do not get much response to a story that he writes. In this respect, the Kansan staff should be commended for its thorough coverage of the recent train wreck To get the news so quickly and accurately to Kansan readers shows professional news judgment and response. Kevin Ressati Larrys junior Approval voting helps majority Yet Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Sen. George McGovern in 1972 each won nomination for a fervent but narrow constituency and each not a predictable election at the polls. In fact, there were two presidential candidates—mincely minority—often a small minority of the total primary votes cast. This is an inevitable result of current election rules in all of America, so each vote to express a preference for only one of the candidates. ny SAMUEL MERRILL N.Y. Times Special Features WILKES-BARRE, Pa.-Each time the presidential primary season approaches, one—and sometimes both—of our national candidates go to the general election. The general election, the primary and convention process must select from the wide range of available candidates a single candidate for the presidential nomination. HAD DEMOCRATIC voters been able to express approval for several of the primary contenders in 1972, moderate candidates such as Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie would have fared much better. In fact, this idea is simple to implement as a formal method of voting, yet remarkable in its capacity to overcome many of the challenges that have been raised. The very same simply called approval voting. Under this method, each voter may vote for (that is, approve one, two, three, or any number—up to eleven) as many voters as Very recently an increasing volume of research, carried out by political scientists and mathematicians, suggests several major advantages of approval voting over the current system of simple plurality voting in multicandidate primaries: APPROVAL VOTING tends to lead to the selection of a candidate who enjoys approval by a large proportion of the electorate and who can, if elected, serve with a wider mandate. It benefits candidates who have demonstrated a strong opportunity to express their support for more extremal candidates. it mitigates the tendency for primary candidates with similar political philosophies to attack each other, since, under approval politics is not a social activity. Voting in a way that does not reflect one's true preferences is discouraged under approval voting. In contrast, in a simple plurality system, the voter must often resort to such a strategy when he deems his first choice has little chance to win. TOHAWE OPTIMAL influence in an approval-voting election, a voter should cast votes for those candidates whom he rates above average. In most cases this would involve voting for about half the candidates. Furthermore, approval voting would appear inappropriate for primaries involving multimember bodies such as legislatures, where minority representation and a variety of viewpoints are desirable. The advantages of approval voting must be weighted against the possibility that it may reward blindness or an unintended consequence. The alternative of following an election by a rufous between the top two contestants is more expensive than approval voting and may overlook a compromise candidate who stands third on the first ballot. AS A CASE in point, most observers believe that congressman Richard Bohling, a centrist who failed to make the runoff for House Democratic majority leader in 1976, could have defeated any of his opponents in a two-man race. providing voting is being considered in several states, including New Hampshire, for possible use in the 1800 primaries. It would be simple to implement or to using voting machines. Used in the past, this approach has been used in comings of simple plurality voting. Yet despite its simplicity, recent research suggests that it would be as effective as a number of more complicated alternatives. In this sense it seems to be the best option. Mamrill Murrell is associate professor of mathematics and computer science at Wilkes College.