4
Monday. March 24,1975
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Death law needed
Capital punishment again is under consideration in Kansas and Missouri. Several weeks ago the Missouri legislature granted a bill calling for the death penalty for all those convicted of premeditated murder.
The Kansas House rejected two weeks ago a bill to reinstate the automatic death penalty for specified murders such as the killing of a policeman or fireman in the line of duty. The vote was 71 to 48.
The Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee introduced a bill March 18 that would restore the death penalty for all first-degree murder conviction prisoners to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. That committee has killed several capital punishment bills introduced earlier.
Why has there been so much politicizing about such a serious subject? Why not submit this new bill to the committee of the whole? Perhaps in this way some action might be taken during the final three weeks of this session instead of allowing the bill to die in committee.
A similar bill to restore the death penalty failed March 14 in the Senate after six hours of debate when the senators absent and not voting.
It's not as if the death penalty is new to Kansas or, the legality.
Kansas has had death by hanging for murder for many years, but hasn't executed anyone since 1965. A man just lost his man to the gas chamber in 1965.
Is Kansas going to have capital punishment? The Supreme Court
decision that in effect called many capital punishment laws unconstitutional took issue with the way it was being applied, without definite standards.
Before the ruling, Kansas juries had the option to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment for Class A felonies, which include first degree murder, aggravated kidnaping and treason.
Yet the bill introduced Tuesday would take care of this uncertainty. The bill would reinstate capital punishment for all premeditated murders, redefining first degree murder, making it a Class AA felony and prescribing the death penalty for it.
I think it is time that Kansas had a defined role in making or limiting capital punishment.
I wholeheartedly support a bill making death mandatory and automatic for premeditated murder, not only because I think in eye-for-an eye terms but also because such a bill would be less effective many times aren't well versed in jurisprudence or prejudiced against minorities.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty shouldn't be administered arbitrarily, I think it is the states' duty to settle this problem. Many states have.
I would rather have the legislature, supposedly intelligent men decide to administer, than any 12 persons from the tax rolls.
Isn't it the legislature's job to make laws?
Tom Billam
Cats earn praise
This isn't easy to do, but I want to congratulate the Kansas State University basketball team for its victory in the NCAA basketball tournament.
After KU's unfortunate demise in the first round of the tournament, I didn't think I had much to cheer about. But K-State's victories over Penn and Boston College were worth cheering about.
After all, it gets tiring hearing and reading in the national media about the inferiority of teams from Kansas. You know what I mean, the sort of people who say, "Oh yes, Kansas, that's where Dorothy was从." Or worse, "Kansas? Where's Kansas?"
Donald F. Milligan, a 1947 KU graduate, sent a clipping to us from the Washington Post that he said had "irritated me to no end." The article slurred the 1974 KU team that finished in the Final Four of the NCAA tournament, saying that the easy Midwest regional had caused too many "weak" teams like Kansas to make the Final Four.
So K-State's first two victories in the East against "local" teams with bigger reputations were satisfying, even for a Jayhawk fan. After all, if you were a Jayhawk girl, again, those Eastern teams, just think what KU could have done.
Craig Stock
No, I didn't kill a nearly extinct whooping crane, or an aged person in a nursing home, or a celebrity . . .
or a member of a minority,
or a living fetus, or a cop,
or a union official, or
a leading politician . . .
I merely slabbed an average, middle-class taxpayer.
It's simply wonderful when you don't have to worry about pressure groups.
Name recognition needed
By KENN LOUDEN Contributing Writer
In early December Jimmy Carter, now the former governor of Georgia, became the second Democrat to announce his candidacy for the Hispaniola Hispanic caucus around great response.
After three months people are still asking "Who is Jimmy Carter?"
Answers range from the star of a soap opera to a Southern governor who refused to let blacks eat in his restaurant.
Jimmy Carter may be a bit of an actor but he has never owned a restaurant. In his own words he is "a South Georgia peanut farmer who wants to be president." He is much more.
The soft-spoken Carter, who destroys the myths about Southern governors, is a symbol of the progress toward racial equality that the South has made.
Carter first entered Georgia politics in 1962, as a state legislator. At first he seemed to be a conservative politician who had a special interest in education. Later, however, he made an impassioned speech against excluding blacks from church and state, beginning of a move toward racial equality in Georgia.
He first ran for the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 1966 only to be defeated by a frontrunner, later an inmate, prepared for the 1970 election. Although he had been identified as an integrationist in his first primary, Carter's contacts and connections helped him put together a smooth political machine.
poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job or simple justice.
To get elected he came out against busing, visited a private segregated academy and said he would welcome meetings with George Wallace. He won the 1970 election.
In his inaugural address Carter said, "I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Our people have already made this major and difficult decision. No
Given the opportunity to act,
Carter made a conscientious
effort to appoint blacks to all of
the state's policy-making
bodies, most of which had an
abridened history of being all-
He also was responsible for
Carter says that Georgia has the best race relations of any state in the South. He may be right; it must be black legislators of any state in
the South. Atlanta even has a black mayor.
The rest of Carter's administration was scandal-free but unspectacular. He was a budget-slasher and reform-minded. He consolidated 300 state agencies into a more manageable 22, creating a mammoth department of business that handles everything from start certification and mental health to vocational rehabilitation and disability insurance.
Carter also oversaw the passage of a sunshine law, which permits more public access to legislature.com and other government websites. He hopes to be able to bring these reforms to Washington.
A self-styled populist (a popular position to take these days), Carter says that he wants to talk to and for the poor and moneyless Americans. He insinuates, as he does, the incessance of the rich, he often fails to mention that he is a millionaire.
In addition to being a promoter of civil rights, he also favors passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. He should be required to amend statute should be more bureaucratic and more open to public scrutiny.
Although an incessant critic of the country's economic situation, Carter hasn't offered help. During his term as governor, he succeeded in cutting costs but he failed to initiate any programs that helped improve the economic condition of his country. At the time of living is still 20 per cent lower than the national average.
One of Carter's goals is to bring the South back into the folds of the Democratic party. He also a partisan politician, who is known for his support. Sen. George McGovern during the 1972 primaries but later supported him for the presidency. He constantly attends and once called him "the worst president in my lifetime."
In recent months Carter has stepped up attacks on President
Gerald R. Ford and the Republican party, taking every possible opportunity to brand it with a message of corruption or depression.
Carter has said that he isn't interested in being vice president, although a good chance exists that he could be put in charge of liberal ticket. What he wants to do is formulate party policy.
Carter's position on many issues is still unclear. He is evasive when asked about the environment and the energy crisis. He hasn't taken stands on the abortion and gun control issues. He hasn't taken sides in cases involving civil liberties. He has been a vocal supporter of Ford's foreign policy, he has come up with no alternatives.
"We're trying to put the party back together, so that in the future we'll have the young and old, the blacks, the women, the labor organizations, and those who've held the party together for years working in harmony, not based on false promises or misrepresentations, but deep attachment to the people themselves and a willingness to avoid any sort of exclusion or secrecy in government."
The Carter candidacy represents moderation. He is an impressive speaker and very likeable. His best platform covers honesty, equality, cross bureaucracy and open government.
"During his recent visit to the University, Carter said, "There are several things I wouldn't do to be president. I would not make a misleading statement or avoid a confrontation."
Judging by his record, his statement for the most part is true. Whether this honest moderate can win the presidency or another president is another matter. Before Carter can build up a big following, he may find that he needs to create more trust, make more specific statements and change the way he works. Until then it will be difficult to answer the question, "Who is Jimmy Carter?"
Readers respond
To the Editor:
Arrogant
Concerning the editorial that appeared in your paper on March 19, "I on 'Biblical baldard,'" I would like to express my disapproval of the conclusions reached by Steven McGregor in his book *The last person to argue with his opening paragraphs concerning the abuse that the Bible has suffered throughout the centuries by zealous, but unjustified interpreters of the good book*
Certainly no book (or for that matter, no diary) has ever been more often maligned by its readers, and it must drive the great Jehovah to tears. I concure with Mr. Lewis' premise that he was "the one who missed and taken out of context throughout our history.
Mr. Lewis suggests our foregoing the works of the great philosopher in favor of his dawning "age of scientific observations." How can we foreignize with which books we have been familiar? Where in the entire course of study at KU or at other institutions are we given even a basic understanding of
Yet I cannot agree with his conclusion that the Bible should be abandoned for "dozens of more useful books," as theologians have argued. There is a certain hint of arrogance on our part if we believe ourselves to be that much better, that much more knowledgeable, that much more useful, and so on; were they would have already solved the problems of our ancestors. Nevertheless, we are still plagued by war, by disease, by starvation and a lack of food. We have often visited our predecessors. True, we are making strides toward eliminating these evil, yet I cannot agree that only in my own answer will our problems.
Science aids best where science is involved; its format, its methodology and its attempts at achieving objectivity can all be useful in other disciplines, but power at any stage is also a necessity before precedence above all other areas of learning.
what these great philosophers believe in? One does not read Candide and fully understand the meaning of only excerpts and abridged versions of philosophers in one year of Western Civilization before we carelessly cast them as modern advocates to our modern society.
In both cases, with the fundamentalist interpreters of the Bible and with the scientific enthusiasts such as Mr. Lewis, we should indeed own our own opinions and judgments. We should, indeed we must, read the opinions of others, be they the great fathers of the church, the biblical scholars, or the philosophers of any age.
To renounce the great thoughts, ideals and observations of centuries is to renounce the richest legacy that is twentieth century man's to own; to sacrifice the Bible or Kant or Hegel on the altar of science is to tear away from mankind that piece of him that promised him what he truly is—a man.
James R. Mullen Lawrence Graduate Student
Amazing
James R. Mullen
To the Editor
Just as one of his previous chefs'd oeuvre 'layers' Fees," Dec. 2, Kan. *keven Lewis* most recent master-stroke, "Biblical badderash," did I mention the sustained tolerance by the editorial staff of his puille grandloucence.
While it is beyond my competence to appraise the merits, or demurts, of political bibliology in this country, I may be allowed a word about Mr. Lewis' critical "method."
Philosophical blackletterism of any variety, unhelpful as it is to many, is an answer to human problems, can for this very reason, never be singled out as the most beautiful representation of what doctrine do.
Consequently, condemnation of fundamentalist simplities reaches only as far as these homepsun versions of a given belief do themselves. Thus, a "critic" who boldly tears to shreds the Bible, lock, stock and barrel, and it needs the
basis of all Christian belief, on the rickety ground of having refuted (if that) some of this defenseless book's less enlightened expositors, betrays some ignorance about the proper meaning of praying in the context of modern Christian faith.
Leaving biblical hecatombs behind us, Mr. Lewis bids us Godspeed into "the age of scientific observation" and into his private library of "dozens of more useful (than the books we read in our day)" We may rest assured that no volume by any serious contemporary scientist is sitting on Mr. Lewis' shelves; Heaven forbid (if recourse to such putrid metaphysics be excused) that your writer's slide-rule philosophers ever came upon us.
At least the Book makes fascinating reading; your columnist's pseudo-positivistic erutations don't.
Wonggang Kresser
Kiel, West Germany Graduate
Student
★★
Near-sighted
To the Editor:
To the gentleman who wrote the article entitled, "Biblical balderdash," point one: You said, "Many still think Bible study is the cure for depression." I got the impression you would have us substitute science in its place. Science has many good points, but it is not the cure-all for the moral integrity of the individual. In any study you find what you look for and answer to a question whether it be inconsistencies or weapons to be used in arguments.
There are several quite different approaches to Bible study. First, one can read lightly, find what at first glance appear to be inconsistencies and give up Second, one can read dogmatically, seeking to support his specific prejudice, in which case he will misinterpret, misapply and abuse its message. Third, one can sincerely seek truth with an open mind and understand and a basic moral structure. It is my sincere contention that the first leads to development of the
tendency to condemn the Bible for its inconsistency, the second to harmful "social effects", and lots of fuel for anti-Bible critics and the third to happy, socially-concerned citizens.
Four two: You state, "Now that we are entering the age of scientific observations, the Bible and the great philosophers are of very little sophistication. So we need without accompanying moral guidelines leads to the most severe attacks on humanity conceivable. If we have no more moral integrity than our Hombies, I shudder to think of the consequences. I get the feeling that achievements in the learning field he is just a bit lacking.
Point three: To those who don't like to hear the Bible quoted, you've certainly got the freedom of speech to quote from it. If I admit, indiscriminate quoting is burdensome, but I put up with cigarette smoke being blown in my face, so can't you please refuse there? Believe me, it doesn't contribute to lung cancer.
Dean Reeves Paola Senior
Irritating
To the Editor:
Regarding Steven Lewis' plague of editorials . . .
"The thing that is irritating about that guy (Steven Lewis) is that he is in a certain position of importance, being an
editorialist for the Kansan. If you were to meet him at a street corner you would just pass him off as a fool."
So said my friend, and I agree. Steven Lewis is irritating, not merely because of the shallow heresies that he presents each week with a dulling regularity, but particularly because he states them so poorly. His reasoning is faulty at every stage than a grain of common sense (that sense that is held in common) he cannot compensate for the defect.
Never does he properly support his heresies with anything that might appear to be insulting. He endlessly does he raise some question and then answer it with supporting evidence so garbled and perverted that all are left out. But who did they tell the bell this fellow is.
But a mere denouncement of Steven Lewis is cruel. His situation is one that asks for the best he can do, and Steven's goal is to become an editorialist, and that end demands practice. The Karsan team must develop skills necessary for his aimed-at end. So to him be kind. Until he graduates he will be with us,
"Cudgel thy brains no more about it, for your dull ass will not mend his pace with heating."
Richard Mathes Kinsley junior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom--864-4810
Advertising--864-4358
Circulation--864-3048
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays during the academic year except holidays and excursions. Lawrence, Kans. 60453. Subscriptions for all mall are $8. Subscription to the Lawrence School of Law is $1.35 a semester, paid through the student activity
Accommodations, goods, services and employment
are provided in accordance with the needs of our
affordable national airline. Shannon Services,
a regional airline based in New York City, is
aircraft based on a modern fleet.
Editor
John Pike
Associate Editor
Craig Stock
Campus Editor
Dennis Eilworth
Business Manager
Dave Reeve
Advertising Manager
Associate in Business Manager
Deborah Arborsin
Carolian Howe