4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 1985
Senate and self-control
Sit down and shut up.
That seems to be the sentiment behind a bill that was to be presented to the Student Senate Rights Committee on Monday night.
The bill was on the committee's agenda, but no action was taken because the committee lost its quorum during the meeting.
Martie Aaron, social welfare senator and a sponsor of the bill, said the committee meeting was an example of the need for the bill. It is on the agenda of the committee's next meeting, Sept. 23.
The bill, if passed by the Senate, would limit the time each speaker would get at Senate meetings and make the meetings weekly rather than bi-weekly. Meetings would end at 9:30 p.m. unless two-thirds of those present voted otherwise.
All good ideas.
The University's student government often seems reluctant to get down to business — to take a simple vote and stop talking when people have already made up their minds.
People, not the Senate's structure, cause the problems, and the bill addresses those people. It is not so much an attempt at restructuring as an attempt at self control.
At first, the reforms may seem draconian; three minutes is not a lot of time. But length does not always signify depth, as any spectator who has stayed late at a Senate meeting can attest.
Having weekly meetings is not a bad idea. Concerns could be addressed more quickly than they are now, and the Senate might become more visible.
Senate committees also need to be stronger. If committee work is constantly rehashed by the Senate, the committees are a waste of time. Perhaps student senators should be made to serve on their committees, just as Kansas legislators do.
Checks on business
The bill is not a utopian cure-all, which is not needed. Self-control is necessary. If student senators can't learn it on their own, perhaps some new rules would help.
The excuses many Lawrence merchants use for not cashing foreign students' checks or admitting them to bars smack of laziness and border on discrimination.
In a college town that attracts a large number of foreign students, merchants cut their own throats by alienating a significant clientele. And they place unnecessary strain on foreign students.
One foreign student said she was unable to cash a check at Dillons supermarket even after presenting her KU I.D., a driver's license from her home country, an international I.D. and a passport.
Ask most Americans whether they can produce that much positive identification on short notice, and they will likely say no.
Ignorance is a poor excuse.
A reason some merchants offer for not accepting identification from outside the United States is that they have no idea what a passport or an international I.D. is supposed to look like.
Since merchants are so willing to accept cash from foreigners, they should learn what international identification looks like and cash these students' checks as well.
Fake I.D.s are a problem, merchants and police say.
This is true, but an unfamiliar I.D. isn't necessarily a fake.
Merchants who have been burnt by rubber checks have reason to be skeptical of college students' checks in general.
But it's not fair to punish foreign students for what is both a domestic and international problem in Lawrence.
Voting rights sabotage
The Justice Department last week continued its efforts to dismantle the civil rights program by attacking the Voting Rights Act.
The assault focuses on the Thornburg v. Gingles case now being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case represents the first important Supreme Court test of 1982 amendments to the voting rights bill that say state and local election laws can be found discriminatory if their result, and not simply their intent, penalizes minority voters.
In the case, a federal appeals court struck down North Carolina's system of electing several legislators from a single district, saying this practice diluted minority strength in some areas.
Attorney General Edwin Meese III, having failed three years ago to block the amendments legislatively, is now attempting to sabotage them through the Supreme Court. Meese contends that Congress never intended the law to apply to such cases.
However, Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., along with nine other Congressional members who drafted the 1982 amendments, submitted to the Supreme Court a friend-of-the-court brief that said the Reagan administration's position "blatantly misrepresents the purpose of the voting rights bill."
Sen. Dole, catching the spirit of the case, said, "I think too often we (Republicans) are on the periphery. We're never in there when black Americans need our help."
Blacks and the GOP make strange bedfellows. But North Carolina's new single member district law created not only majority black districts, but predominantly white suburban districts attractive to GOP candidates.
Regardless of the motives, the results of the voting rights amendments have been good. They have helped to protect minority voting rights.
The decision is now in the hands of the Supreme Court justices. And minorities in America need their help.
Rob Karwath
Editor
John Hauna Michael Totty
Managing editor Editorial editor
Duncan Calhoun Business manager
Lauretta McMillen Campus editor
General manager, news advisor
Susanne Shaw
Megan Burke National/Co-op sales John Ohrman
Megan Burke
Brett McCabe Sue Johnson
Retail sales Campus sales
John Oberzan
General Rules TO THE EDITOR should be typed, double-spaced and less than 300 words. Include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
GUEST SHOTS should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The
Sales and marketing adviser
writer. The Kansas reserve the right to edit or edit letters and guest photos. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 113 Stuffer-Fint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-840) is published at the University of Kansas, 11 Staffer-Fint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 6045, daily during the regular school year, except Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and final periods, and Wednesdays during the regular school year. Kan. 6044. In Dordrecht County, mail subscriptions cost $1 for six months and $2 a year. The cost $1 for six months and $2 a year. Student subscriptions are paid through the student activity fee.
PONTMASTER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kenann, 118
Sauffer Flat Hall, Lawrence, KA, 60045
Tvranny dominates southern Africa
Divestment!
So scream the bleeding hearts of this country who think they've got the easy answer to a most difficult problem.
Where is the cry for sanctions against the regime that invaded Afghanistan and continues to murder thousands of women and children there?
South Africa's apartheid is an evil system. No one doubts that. The clash occurs when no one can agree on the right course of action to take in dismantling South Africa's policy of racial segregation.
Instead of the cries to have Jewish dissident Sakharov released or at least able to communicate with his family, we get demands to have con-
If those who cry for sanctions against South Africa are really sincere, then why aren't they calling for sanctions against other brutal regimes?
Not only do they enslave their own people but they shoot down unarmed civilian jetliners who stray into their airspace.
For example, the Soviet Union is one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes that has ever existed. They have enslaved hundreds of millions of people behind what Winston Churchill poignantly called "the Iron Curtain."
Who speaks for those condemned to Siberian slave labor camps, who have done nothing more than say what they believe? Not the media, who find that condemning South Africa is much more fashionable and not college students who have made South African divestment the "fad of the 80's."
The mass starvation in Ethiopia is just one example of communism's inhumanity to man.
Why aren't the protesters and media condemning the atrocities in other parts of black Africa?
The Marxist regime in Ethiopia spent $200 million earlier this year to celebrate the 10th anniversary of that country's "glorious revolution." Meanwhile, millions of Ethiopians were starving...
Since 1977, Ethiopia has received more than $4 billion in military aid from the Soviet Union, yet the Soviets have done little to stop the deaths of starvation caused by the implementation of a failed economic policy — the same that exists in the Soviet Union today.
In the past two years, the United States has lead the way in relief aid to Ethiopia. Incredible as it may seem, the Marxist regime charges
Victor Goodpasture Staff columnist
$170 in taxes and fees for each ton of relief supplied.
Not only that, but tons of grain are rotting in Ethiopian ports because the Marxist regime decided that the trucks are better used, transporting soldiers than life-saving grain.
The U.S. media seems almost apologetic — as if it is Americas' fault that people are starving. The fact is the Soviet-backed regime prevents food from reaching the most desperate areas because it hopes to starve out opposition in those areas. So far they're doing a pretty good job.
While the U.S. media reminds us daily of the 600 blacks killed in the violence in South Africa over the past year, thousands of Ethiopians are dying daily. The media and other libermals are guilty of "bash America and her allies" hypocrisy.
Tyranny exists throughout Africa. Many African nations are ruled by harsh dictators, Zaire President Morubutu has stashed $5 billion in Swiss bank accounts. In Mauritania, the elite enjoy subsidized tap water
while the peasants pay 7 to 40 times more for water hauled in on donkey carts.
Brutality exists throughout Africa, not just South Africa. But the media has set different standards for each case. For example, when conflicts are between blacks, media reaction is nothing more than a yawn.
Until a standard is set that equally diappears of tyranny, the hypocrisy of singing out the only all the 11 S. has in southern Africa is wrong.
Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" must continue. As long as the United States maintains economic and diplomatic ties with South Africa, it can have some control in ending apartheid. But abandoning it now would just create more bloodhed.
It took blacks in this country over 100 years, after they were free from slavery, to get all the rights and freedoms we enjoy today.
Change will not occur overnight in South Africa. However, those emailed in communist countries have a far lesser chance to ever know freedom again.
The tyranny in the marxist countries of Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Angola is far worse than in South Africa, but the Dan Rathers' of the world don't think you need to know that.
Twisted chess-speak gets stale, mate
I overheard a couple of people gravely discussing the surprising use of the Nimzo-Indian defense. And once again I felt a sense of inferiority.
Who was Nimzo? I don't know. It sounds like the kind of a name some Chicago mug might have. Big Joe Nimzo. Lefty Nimzo. Marty "One-Eve" Nimzo.
And what kind of Inclans was Nimzo defending himself against? Apaches? Brahmins? I don't know that either.
But there 'are those who know. They are the world's chess players. And they are now reading with fascination the move-by-move account of the world championship match between two Russians named Karpov and Kasparov. I'm not sure which is which.
And the chess players understand it. They actually make sense out of paragraphs such as this in the New York Times:
"Karpov was disconcerted right from the outset by Karapov's choice of 3 N-QB3, allowing the Nimzo-Indian Defense with 3 B-N5. This defense has been accorded so much respect in recent years that the chief trend has been to avoid it with 3 N-KB3."
Mike Royko
Chicago Tribune
And this:
"After the departure of the black king bishop with 8 BxBch; 9 NxB, it was possible for black to play 9 N-B3, although 10 PxP, Q-PNQ1? 11 B-N2; 12 Q-B4, Qx BP; 13 P-QR3 slightly favored white in the Tukmakov-Hemlin game in the Soviet Union in 1977."
I once tried to understand such things. Years ago, an owl-eyed guy who had the next bunk in our barracks tried to teach me chess. He was more than a mere amateur. He had some kind of expert ranking and could play three or four games at one time without getting a migraine or a nervous twitch.
So one night he set up a board and explained the basic moves, which seemed simple enough.
Then we set out to play a game, and nothing went right.
"You should move that pawn," he said
But if I do, you might take it.
"That's all right. You will have to
sacrifice pieces to get better position."
Right there, I knew I didn't like the game. He thought nothing of sacrificing a miserable pawn. Just killing the poor thing off without any qualms. Like generals and grunts, nobility and the serfs, big money and the workers. The little guy always gets the shaft.
And he warned me: "You must always portect the king."
"Like hell," I said. Let the fat, arrogant, pampered SOR protect himself. I'm not killing any more pawns in his behalf. I say, let him abdicate or off with his damned head."
Later he asked: Why did you make that last move?"
I said: "I don't know."
"You shouldn't make moves with out having a good reason."
Another violation of my personal code. Where is the adventure and fun in life if you can't do something without having a good reason for doing it? If everybody thought like that, there wouldn't be one tavern in America. And you can bet that Zorba, a real good-time Charlie if there ever was one, didn't play chess.
Finally, he said: "Your position hopeless. You should resign."
"What does that mean?
"Concede defeat."
"You mean quit?"
"You mean quit?
"Yes."
"Yes."
"I'm no quitter. Remember, it's never over until the last man is out, where there's life there's hope, we will fight on the beaches, we will give our last drop. . ."
“To be a chess player, you must learn to be realistic,” he said smugly, “and your position is hopeless.”
I blew some smoke in his eyes, then swatted his pieces off the board and onto the floor.
Grinding his king under my heel I said: "Now your position is hopeless."
"You will never be a chess player," he said.
He was right. But I don't care, I can sleep nights because I'm no callous pawn-killer.
And I hope that if those Indians caught up with Nimzo, they took off his scalp.
Protectionist policies
For America to sustain itself as the model of a free enterprise system, fair trade is essential. Fair trade demands an equal opportunity for all producers to distribute their products and either flourish or crumble, depending on the consumers' choice. The consumers and producers determine the market behaviors without government barriers for this system, "the system of perfect liberty" in the words of Adam Smith, to work.
Recently, members of Congress have scorned President Reagan for abiding by such principles. Both Republicans and Democrats insist that foreign imports are crippling the nation's industries, and therefore the U.S. should resort to protectionist policies of rebattal.
These policies, in the form of tariffs and quotas, would stand as sentries against foreign imports.
The setback of American exports and the high unemployment rate are the incentives for the protectionist desire. The lawmakers argue that the setback is caused by protectionism and unfair trading of other countries.
The U.S. should not fight these foreign practices with trade restrictions, though. Instead of restricting trade, the U.S. should expand trade. Reagan proposes to do this by pressuring other countries to cut down their restrictions.
endanger free trade
Reagan embraces the fair trade principle — the principle the U.S. has shown the world can work. The principle functions by asserting two freedoms — the freedom for companies to compete in the market and the freedom of choice given to the consumers.
Government restrictions, however
The consumers influence the competition by their appeals. The producers influence the consumers by their offers. Those who produce reasonable quality merchandise at reasonable prices have the greatest appeal to the consumers.
appear to be more useful. On an international scale, trade works the same way. If Italy can produce shoes more cheaply than shoes of the same quality that are made in the U.S., they sell more. In the fair trade world, the outcome is decided by the consumer's choice.
Evan Walter Staff columnist
Protectionist policies create an unfair trade system. Consumers don't benefit from it, and neither do industries.
Restrictive measures would decrease imports into the country.
The president said he planned to retaliate against countries that impose barriers on trade without resorting to similar measures. If Reagan did, he would be entering "trade war," in which maneuvers in the trade market would be government actions and not business actions.
disturb the balance between the consumers and producers. People suffer on both sides. Consumers end up paying higher prices and have fewer choices of what to buy. Product quality no longer determines manufacturer's success in the market. A free market no longer exists.
Instead, Reagan plans to increase exports. This is the most sensible solution. Restrictions work best as a last scuffle. The U.S. hasn't reached that crisis yet.
With 1986 elections in their minds, many congressmen are advocating protectionist measures. Despite their claims that in theory they agree with the president, in action, they are more worried about satisfying big business.
While the president stands for a principle, Congress is more concerned with appeasement. Despite the immediacy of their cause, they toy with ideas that will produce undesirable results in the long run.
Protectionism won't remedy an allying economy. In a fair trade economy, it only increases problems. Restrictions don't create new jobs. In theory, restrictions inspire Americans to purchase more American goods. In actuality, they frustrate other countries who retaliate with barriers against the U.S. The outcome is less trade.