Page 4 University Daily Kansan, November 10, 1980
Opinion
Keep debate alive
A scheduled debate on South African divestiture turned into a debate on whether anti-divestiture forces were afraid to speak their minds.
Actually, last Thursday's Student Senate-sponsored debate was called off because Gurt Grovler, a South African diplomat who was to argue against divestiture, canceled only a day before.
Although the forum had been planned weeks in advance, Growler didn't have the courtesy to give the Senate much warning. Divestiture groups immediately accused Growler of ducking the debate.
Considering that Grovler has canceled other such debates, it appears the accusations have at least some merit. Unfortunately, that is not much of a consolation.
The forum was much needed by the students of this University. The divestiture issue has been important on this campus for a long time, but no adequate discussion has been held. To be sure, the Senate struggled to get the forum. It's unfortunate that plans were shattered at the last moment.
Although the folded plans are discouraging, the Senate should strive to organize another forum in the future. A debate is still needed.
Considerable hassle went into the planning of the forum, yet the Senate has shown an attempt to bring an issue to the students—and that's one of its most important jobs.
A lost speaker here or there shouldn't keep the Senate from doing its duty.
Nature of the presidency makes survival demanding
Explanation A: 'And on the fourth day,
and let there be Hollywood in
Washington.'
Explanation B: 'We, the people of the United States of America (actually, we comprise only 52 percent of the eligible electorate), in democratically casting our ballots, have elected by a majority the Republican nominee for President (actually, we voted against the deplorable Democratic alternative).
Whether the people or an act of divine providence must be President-elect Reagan must now
AMY HOLLOWELL
presidency. Looking at recent history, this survival is no easy task. Even an actor may have difficulty riding triumphantly into the sunset.
No longer are there graceful exits from the Oval Office. Every president since 1960 has met with both an untimely and undesirable end of their term in office.
Still, realistically, assassination is an occupational risk embedded in the presidency. Kennedy wasn't the first, and, undoubtedly, he won't be the last.
But what of those factors directly within a president's control? Richard Nixon is probably the only chief executive in recent times whose own actions led directly to his own fall, almost irrespective of outside forces.
John F. Kennedy's presidency was brought to a tragic and abrupt end by an assassin's bullet. A cause totally out of the president's control? Some say no. Kennedy was tough with the Soviets, and his assassin had ties to the U.S.S.R. (In fact, if recent speculation is true, his assassin was a Soviet agent.) Had he been a marshmallow at Khruschev's bargaining table, the young president might have been spared.
Controary to popular romantic belief, the Washington Post's dynamic duo, along with a core of other diligent reporters, simply uncovered and publicized Nixon's dastardly threat that the work of these journalists didn't border on genius, but face it, Nixid did it to himself.
While Nixon's actions were his decline, on
So Nixon toppled and left the White House in disgrace.
the contrary, Jimmy Carter's inaction led to his fall. His inception created an image in the public's eyes of an indiscreve, incompetent president who lacks a decisive rejection of Carter last week at the polls.
Once again, by his own doing, or rather by his lack of doing, a president bit the dust. And if Nixon was disgraced, then undoubtedly Carter was humiliated.
The nature of the times also plays a role in the final acts of presidents, in some more than in others. Gerald Ford, for example, stepped into a severely damaged office at a conference room where he was a Republican at a time when he might as well have been a member of the SLA.
Of course, tripping down airplane ramps and over trash cans didn't help his cause, but a different time might have treated Ford's car accident more adequately, an victim of forces not entirely his own.
Lyndon B. Johnson's situation is not totally unrelated to Ford's. Obviously, they both hopped on board ship at mid-stream, a definite disadvantage. Each had more federal legislative experience than any other president in recent times, which should have been useful. But each fell victim to the times, although LJI, more than Ford, had a hand in his own dome.
Given the Vietnam War unasked for, Johnson acted strongly, toughly and stubbornly in his standard Texan style. He read the war as wars had always been read in his books and on the television line. The problem was, a growing number of Americans weren't reading it like that.
So in 1968, despite his honorable efforts in domestic affairs, Johnson was forced to succumb to the failings of his foreign policy. He virtually abdicated, unconventionally pulling out of the race for his party's nomination. His was the exit of a battered, dishonored warrior, slain by his own fatal flaw.
What is it then, in retrospect, the men, the office, the times? Is this, perhaps the most powerful office in the Western world, plagued by a curse upon its holders? No more elder than an officer, with more dignity in holding this office and leaving it. And what is there then for Mr. Reagan?
It is premature, perhaps, to speculate on the departure of a president just barely arrived. Yet, one can't help but think that the new president has visions of white hats and fade-out sunsets come 1894. One also can't help but think—in keeping with the past—that curtain calls and applause for the presidential Bonzo will be few.
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS 686-649) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas or $25 a year in Douglas County or $35 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $27 to the student activity Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kanaka, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas,
Editor Carol Berg Wolf Business经理 Elaine Strahler
Managing Editor Editorial Editor Cydi Hughes David Lewis Campus Editor David Lewis Judy Woodburn Associate Campus Editor Judy Woodburn Assistant Campus Editors Mark Spencer, Don Munday, Cindy Whittle Sports Editor Patrell Amoud Associate Sports Editor Gene Myers Entertainment Editor Kevin Mills Marketing Editors Eilen Iwamoto, Leslie Fanger, Rob Schuland Wire Editors Wole Winkelman, Tom Tedeschi Copy Design Ellen Iwamoto, Gail Eigener, Tammy Tierney Staff Photographers Ben Bigler, Ken Combs, Scott Hooker, Dave Kraus, Drew Teresa Columnists Amy Hollowell, Ted Licksteig, Bill Menezes, Brett Collett, Fred Markham Susan Schoenmaker Blake Gupthew Editorial Cartoonist John Battos Staff Artists John Battos Advertising Photographer Jane Wenderson Staff Artist Judy Ledger Staff Photographer Brian Watkins Teamwork Manager Brian Watkins Sales Representatives Rick Binkley, Anne Conner, Terri Fry, Bill Levinson Larry Leibengood, Paul O'Connor, Paula Schueller, Bill Roberts Thaine Shetter, Anthony Tilson, Kaye Wisecup, Susan Birchmeyer General Manager and News Adviser Brian Schwartz
General Manager and News Adviser ... Rick Munzer
Kansas Adviser ... Chuck Chowins
It's useless to cry about Reagan
The ballists have been cast, the votes have been counted and a new president has been chosen.
And there is plenty of crying.
It's not the kind that usually appears at election time, either. It's not sorrow at the loss of a hard-fought campaign or at the defeat of a popular, noble man.
It's the kind of crying that appears when people who have enjoyed basking in the sunlight of their own little, opinionated worlds are awakened by a sharp slap in the face.
Ronald Reagan asked the presidency of the United States Tuesday. But what has set off the crying that is not he only won, but also won quite bandily. States such as New York, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin—states with strong Democratic populations—gave him their support.
Reagan's electoral vote victory margin was one of the largest in the nation's history. In addition, his winning margin in the popular vote was five times what Carter's was when he defeated Gerald Ford in 1976. And the people around this campus just can't seem to accept it.
They can't seem to accept that there is another world outside of their own existence in Lawrence. They can't seem to accept that people live in cities, but they say about who runs the country as they do to
Many KU students also can't seem to accept the fact that most of the country is telling them that what students want is not even close to what nearly everyone else wants.
If they had any degree of class, they would, to quote Dear Abby, wake up and smell the coffee.
Some readers may be interested to know that back when I was a young conservative in high school, I did not rent my garments or throw them on the floor. Carter came out of Georgia to win the presidency.
At first, the idea of a Washington outsider—a man who had been alienating his party even before he was elected.
BILL
MENEZES
worried me. That, plus his virtual ignorance of foreign policy matters. He hadn't given much indication in his campaign that he was a man empire to inspire the confidence of the country's allies, either.
Yet Carter had been chosen by the people of this country over a man who had been given a two-year head start, and who had considerable influence among the entrenched Washington political might. So I figured, what the hell, let's at least give the guy a chance. May he CAN convince the Soviets that love is the answer, and CAN run the nation on faith.
And I gave him the benefit of the doubt for two years, which turned out to be two years longer
than I should have. But I gave him a chance and looked at him with an open mind.
If the people around here could only do the same for Reagan.
As it turned out, Carter was a royal flop. Although many of the nation's problems are more far-reaching than he had the power or the material to deal with, a good deal of our current problems stem from the same freshness that got him elected. What has been called his "Easter Bunny approach" to foreign affairs, does not work when dealing with people living in the real world. Somehow, Carter never quite accepted the fact that the Soviet Union sees its survival as a matter of strength, not a matter of a happy-go-lucky partnership with the rest of the world.
The Soviets, the Iranians and most of the other nations that can be counted as America's adversaries, have traditions of harsh existences and despotic governments. Under conditions like those in the face of one's opponents is more of a virtuous appellation. As such, it is understood and respected.
That is, by everyone but Jimmy Carter. And the same was true for his performance in other areas. too. He was good at passing around his friend and people like his brother and his fishing buddies.
But that's all over. Now it's Reagan's turn. And although it's quite trenthy to walk around saying things such as "Oh, I don't want to go to Paris." But instead, it'll also a sign of ignorance and intolerance.
Give the man his chance. The rest of the country has.
Letters to the Editor
Some views of Libertarianism warped
To the editor:
Professor Harry G. Shaffer demonstrated outstanding reflexes in his knee jerk liberal response to Kevin Helliker's guest column on Libertarianism. Bruce Lee could not have delivered a more deft shift. If Shaffer had given himself the chance, however, I'm sure he would have come up with a carefully considered answer. I don't think he with Libertarianism, and believe me, there is one.
Liberty in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing. Like pure oxygen, it is liable to have a debilitating effect on many human beings who receive it, especially those who already have it in their supply. I would submit to you that the vast majority of Americans fall into this catastrophe.
And ironically, the segment of our society that in the end might pay the dearest price for their new found "liberation" would be the well off, not the poor, though Shafer's quick reflexes might prevent him from seeing this. Wealth and the kinds of freedom that come with it, when augmented by still more freedom, often spell only boredom, frustration, and complacency (or worse yet, throwing away one's life in the absurd pursuit of still more wealth).
On the plus side of Libertarianism, its espousers argue quite rightly that man's lot in life is rarely improved by the government handout. I realize that this will be another switch that undoubtedly led a kung-fu yelp from Shaffer, but did it ever occur to him that the true beneficiaries of minimal government just suffer so much for themselves suffering the worst consequences of it and that standing on one's own two feet might actually be an edifying experience?
In any event, Libertarianism is a serious philosophy that raises the most basic questions about man and society, and needs to be examined as such. Shaffer dismissed it as he would any other political movement. Klan. If it merits criticism, and it does, the blows should be delivered to its head—that is, the
Even these results wouldn't be so bad, except that for many past societies (and already our own to a certain extent), have in turn spelled the disintegration of morals and even of society itself. In other words, those most likely to drown in their newfound freedoms may end up pulling them off or from them—assuming, of course, that we ourselves are them, and that may be too much to assume.
Topeka sophomore
major premise concerning liberty from which its arguments stem—and not below the belt.
Column sexist
To the editor:
There were three opinions on Oct. 24's page.
One was worth reading. Thank you Amy Hollowell for an interesting comparison of the state of the women's movement in the United States and France. No thanks go to whomever wrote the headline. "More successful than the other women," she said, successful man in France." O.K., so there was you to "in France." Well, maybe you should have asked Hollowell to rewrite her article so that you wouldn't have to rewrite the head.
"Opinion" is what it says at the top of the page, and so an opinion it is. In this case it’s mine.
Let me state that I do not own a pair of Calvin Klein, Glander Vanderlief or Sergio Valenti jeans because I cannot afford them. I don't have the hips for them and I dislike the trendy image they carry with that out of the way, let me add that I like to be wandered, contradictory and confusing.
Since I'm sure that the Kanass will be deluged with letters on the subject of liberation, role-changing and funning such poorly written articles and flaunting wishy-washiness as opinion worthy
Everytime I look at the cartoon, I think "Jesus Christ but that is a stupid drawing, and I'm glad it isn't my name spelled in the bottom right-hand corner." The last time I saw women tight jeans, Dankins and Candies was when Qilin Newton-John and "Grease" were high style.
F
of being published and read deserves whatever it gets.
Leslie Rose
Leslie Rose
Leslie Rose Lawrence senior
TV views defended
To the editor:
In his letter of Oct. 22, Paul Dorrell challenged me to reveal my position on the issue of the effects of television. I will not make a stand quietly; I will tell the truth. The challenge was an inappropriate response to my letter.
My letter was neither a defense nor a criticism of television; it was a response to the poor quality of Ted Lickeig's Oct. 2 editorial on the harmful effects of television and to the low editorial standards that permitted its depiction of aggression from the theme of editorial quality in television would have been beside the point and would have weakened my argument considerably.
I need not apologize for the theme of my letter. Dorrell may feel that I wrote a letter on the wrong subject. I do not. The quality of writing in print media is a lexitical issue.
James T. Todd Lawrence senior
Beauty and brains
To the editor:
In response to Bill Menezes so-called Oct. 24 editorial on the "patterns of paradise" created by Calvin Klein, et al, I would simply like to quote Woody Allen: "The reason men prefer beauty to brains is that they can see better than they can think."
Pat Cayton Kehde
Acting director, KU information center
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the Kansan, the letter should include the writer's name and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.