4
Thursday, January 23, 1975
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers
opinions of the writers
Dry laws outdated
A resolution for the legalized sale of liquor-by-the-drink was introduced in the Kansas Legislature by 10 senators Monday. The last attempt to change Kansas' antiquated liquor laws was defeated in 1970. If 84 of the 125 House members and 27 of the 40 senators approve the resolution, it will be passed to Kansas voters at the next general election in 1976. It is time that the Kansas Legislature give the citizens of Kansas the opportunity to vote for a revision of the present decrepit state liquor laws.
This year's proposal has an option to allow a county to remain dry. Gov. Robert Bennett has given his support for such a law. A dominant supporter of the proposal is an organization called Kansans for Modern Alcoholic Beverage Control, Inc.
Leo B. Levitt, chairman of the organization, has claimed the support of Amtrak, the four airlines that originate flights in Kansas and four other groups aiming "to obtain some sort of realistic law governing the sale and dispensing of liquor." The organization, the Big Brew R-Toppea, will be the organization's principal lobbyist in the 1975 legislative session.
Kansas has a reputation for having the most ridiculous liquor regulations in the country. Our state was the comic relief of CBS Evening News when Walter Cronkite reported that Kansas won a United States Supreme Court battle that prevented airlines from serving liquor while flying over state territory. Vern Miller's bust of an Amtrak train suspected of illegally serving drinks also focused the attention of the nation on Kansas' archaic, repressive liquor laws.
The proposed resolution should be
Adults should have the right to determine for themselves what they consider to be a pleasure or entertainment. The American Christian Temperance Union can have the chance to protect me from the evils of alcohol, but there should be no state law that denies me the privilege of indulging in mixed drinks.
The liquor-by-the-drink resolution should be passed to allow Kansas adults the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to have modern liquor laws that have been long overdue. If the resolution is defeated, it is likely that present liquor laws are not going to be violated, that I'll never see my Harvey Wallbanger and that it will only be a matter of time before Kansas appears again as the butt of a humorous news item.
Steve Buser
supported by the state legislature not merely to save Kansas from further embarrassment but rather to allow all Kansas adults the right to enjoy liquor in a modern, realistic manner. By allowing the more conservative counties in the state to remain dry if they so desire, the proposed legislation will preserve temperance in communities that eschew liberal liquor laws. Such a reasonable liquor law would also eliminate the foolish and flaggerly violated requirements of the present state law concerning the sale of liquor in private clubs.
Because I would like to have a Harvey Wallbarger before a meal when eating at a restaurant does not mean that the Rev. Richard E. Taylor, a spokesman for the antiliquor cause, would be required to have a mixed drink. As long as I do not violate the rights of other citizens, I should be entitled to have my liquor-by-the-drink.
Ziegler a watchdog
Few people have a good word for Ronald Ziegler, Richard Nixon's former press secretary. Despite Ziegler's inability to create harmony between the former president and the public and his obvious lack of leadership, there is one commendable quality Ziegler does possess—loyalty.
As a result of this loyalty, Ziegler, who is now facing audiences on the college lecture circuit, has found himself in the position of watchdog, only concerning what he considers the unfair treatment of Nixon.
Much of the resentment toward Nixon is a result of the pardon given to him by President Ford. Nixon's absence never has been determined.
Many people insist that the pardon was unfair or illegal. Ziegler reminds them that President Ford was acting within the law when he gave the pardon to Nixon. As for the cries of unfairness, perhaps it is time that one questions whether forgiveness is unfair. Ziegler and a few old fashioned people still consider forgiveness a virtue.
According to Ziegler, Nixon is being treated as a second-class member of the federal bureaucracy have been refusing to forward
Nixon's mail and such personal property as political memorabilia and high school papers, despite five months of efforts to retrieve them.
Most recently the White House has announced that Nixon would be billed $8,400 for the portion of his flight from Washington to California in 1967. After the time his resignation from the presidency had taken effect.
These incidents appear to be petty, almost below serious consideration. However, Nixon may be forced to put up with them as long as he continues his seemingly perpetual silence.
Perhaps Ziegler should spend some of his time trying to convince Nixon that he would be better off if he told his side of the Watergate No harm could befall Nixon because he already has been pardoned.
In the meantime, Ziegler's comments in defense of Nixon shouldn't be ignored. Richard Nixon was pardoned and thus, should be treated like any other American citizen. This treatment should include a thorough investigation, warding his mail and personal belongings and carefully questioning any other political harassments that may arise.
—Kenn Louden
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays during the academic year except holidays and excursions. Registered at KANSAS LAWRENCE, Kan. 60035. Subscriptions for mail are $8. Subscription for online is $13. a $13. ameter paid through the student activity department.
Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised in the Kannan are offered regardless of whether they are for a student or not. They aren't necessarily those of the Student Senate, the School of Journalism or the University of Kannan.
Associate Editor Campus Editor
Craig Stock Dennis Elworth
Associate Campus Editor Carl Young
Assistant Campus Editors Alison Kleiner Ken Leunig
Chief Photographer Gilles Miller II Michael M. Miller Entertainment Editor Kathy Plebert Entertainment Sports Editor Anna Gardner, Tom Billman News Editors Linda Windsor Turner, Cup Chiefs Linda Windsor Turner, Bummy Miller Smith, Jack McNew Wire Editors Steve Fry, Tom Billmon Contributing Writers John Brooks, Stephen Bruce Photographers Rod Dennis, Pierre Schaffer Business Dave Reese Advertising Manager Assistant Business Manager Debrah Artonius Carolyn Howe
Letters Policy
Classified Advertising Manager Steve Brownbuck National Advertising Manager Gail Johnson National Advertising Assistant Classified Manager Dyla Laughan Promotional Manager Mike Holland
Business Adviser
Mel Adams
Letters to the editor should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 500 words. All letters are subject to editing and condensation, according to space limitations and the editor'a judgment. Students must provide their name, year in school and home town; faculty and staff must provide their name and position; others must provide their name and address.
The headlines about going to war against the oil-producing countries must have struck gladness in the hearts of every nut in American who believes that oil production must take whatever it needs.
Using force for oil wrong
The headlines said Henry Kissinger regarded the use of military force as an option to which the U.S. might have to resort in a worsening energy crisis.
"A very dangerous course," said Kissinger. "We should have learned from Vietnam that to战 a war than to get out of it."
at are some of the other things Kissinger said:
I might add that it's easier to start a war than to win one. This is because it tastes in flames around the pipes, pipelines sabotaged in a
And that interview is bound to
Is military action to reduce oil prices wise?
By Carl Rowan
pump hope into those idiotic people who have been arguing that if the oil producing countries won't voluntarily reduce oil demand, we think is fair, then we ought to the U.S. Marines on them.
Let me say at the outset that Kissinger's interview with Business Week on the possible resort to arms wasn't nearly as bad as the newspaper headlines suggested. He declined to rule out force, implying that it might be used 'where there's some actual strangulation of the human body' and that's what made headlines.
dozen countries—that is no cure for the energy crisis that afflicts the United States and Western Europe.
But what you had better look
Note also that Kissinger was asked: "Do you worry about what the Soviets would do in the Middle East if there were any military action against the (oil) cartel?"
and Imperials in record numbers, when we buy all the gasoline we want at 50-odd cents a gallon while people in other countries pay $1.40 and more, it can hardly be considered "the gravest emergency" that leads us to initiate war.
Kissinger replied: "Any President who would resort to military action in the Middle East without worrying about what the Soviets would do would have to be reckless . . . the use of force would be considered only in the gravest emergency."
When Americans are still buying Cadillacs, Continentals
Kissinger made a comment that won't command headlines, but it ought to be pondered by hawks and peace doves alike. But he said, "is that the whole Western world, with the exception perhaps of the United States, is suffering from malaise, from inner uncertain and lack of direction."
That "exception perhaps or the United States" was a polite and respectful sop to his commander-in-chief. The grim truth is this country has suffered from corrup, not corrupt, and low weak, not weak. Fifteen months have passed since we first heard that anguished, then brave, talk about a massive campaign to achieve "self-sufficiency" in energy. We were told that we would never so we could thumb our noses at the Arabs, the Shah of Iran, at Venezuela and even Canada.
Where are the atomic energy plants that we have begun to build toward that end? Why is it not available now? Is it really to take coal out of the ground, let alone turn it into substitutes for OPEC petroleum? Why is it that we have no real programs for the coal industry? How do demand geineal sacrifices from the American people?
Kissinger said: "The industrialized nations suffer in general from the illusion that the substitute for substance."
So true. And it describes us as much as the weakest country in Europe.
And when talk becomes the substitute, no talk goes down better than bluster and bravado about how if other countries don't let us have what we want, so we must determine, then we'll just go over and whip hell out of 'em.
Peace with honor.
Energy with honor?
Unbearable ads chopped down
Contributing Writer
By STEPHEN BUSER
Since I was a child I have thought that Smokey the Bear was a good guy. Now I am not so sure. Who would have thought that Smokey was created as a means to manipulate the American public into thinking that careless campers are the
major threat to our precious timberland instead of the clearcutting and indiscriminate wood products corporations?
Although such a statement about television's most popular bear is incorrect, if not absurdly nonetheless true, according to
Bruce Howard of the Washington Star-News.
Howard has written a cogent expose on the entity responsible for the use of firearms in real intent of Smokey the Bear as well as numerous other advertising campaigns conducted "in the public interest" by the company.
I, Ron Ziegler, am happy to be here on campus to talk with you young people. Remember when we at the White House called you college kids a bunch of bums!
Well, times change and so do people. We must all be thankful for that because it gives us all a new lease on life . . .
A new outlook, a new dialogue, a new perspective, a new vision, a new respect for others, and most important, a new chance!
And this is obviously my new chance . . . because the class with all those bums in if graduated!
Council—a nonprofit corporation of big business that he says has duped America since the council's inception in 1941.
Howard reveals that the Advertising Council has unfairly used its budget of half a billion dollars a year of free research concerns of its board of directors rather than to serve the public interest. Headed by the nation's leading corp, the Advertising Council has monopolized more than 80 per cent of the scarce public service time on network television to make it easier to the "Captains of Industry" than to the American public.
The Smokey the Bear commercial, for example, is coordinated by James M. Montgomery of the Cushman Bros. industrial Howard reports that when the Sierra Club requested a broadcaster to show the environmentalists' idea of protecting timberland they were told "Oh, forests, we need more trees." And the Bear," Careless people destroy forests, not careless industries.
A more interesting account of deceptive advertising is the council's $40 million a year campaign for Keep America Alive. KAB is directed and funded by the American Can Company and other manufacturers of cans, bottles, soft drinks, beer, ice cream, and other big businesses concerned America's litterbags.
It is ironic that this public-minded organization has continually opposed, however, the only proven curb of litter—beverage container refund-deposit systems. Since Oregon passed its "bottle bill" in 1971 there has been a reported 80 percent decline in the number of bottles in the bottle legislation is not only an effective curb against litter but also saves energy and valuable resources and reduces prices for the customer. A KAB officer publicly opposed a refund-deposit system in
testimony before the California State Legislature. As a result of KAB's opposition to bottle legislation in that state, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walzel Lawton Foundation and other environmental groups resigned from the KAB advisory council.
Another deceptive practice of the Advertising Council is its partisan support of the President's anti-inflation measures. Although the council by-laws state that it will "accept no subsidy from Government" and will remain dependent of it and will remain nonpartisan and nonpolitical," the council apparently has had no guilt feelings about supporting the WIN program and other popular government projects.
Howard reports that Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal, D-N.Y., plans to petition the Federal Communications Commission to create an online service system with special attention given to the role of the ad council. Rosenthal stated, "The ad council is a propagandist for business and public services, and an activist staggering control of the media, it not only makes its own side of the story is told, but that the other side isn't. . . We're not disputing industry right to profit from it, but its mode of the meant for the people."
Howard's charges against the council should be given serious scrutiny. It is necessary that the Federal Communications Commission or some other government body take into account the role of the ad council in public service programming. It is dishearning to think that the commercial portraying an Indian chief who sheds a tear at the enemy, is nothing more than KAB's effort to divert our attention from the real polluters of society.
Smokey will never be the same bear he be was until his name can be cleared of the ad alleged deceitful actions.
U.S. ideals must bow to facts
By STEVEN LEWIS Contributing Writer
There recently been much talk revolving around the great American principle, "The government that governs best, not the one that is worst," such, can be convenient shortcuts to decision-making. But principles that serve as substitutes for an objective searching out of the facts can foster and even tragic decisions.
The "least government" principle probably made a lot of sense in pioneer America, but in sense
technological America the "least government" principle has far less meaning, if any.
Nevertheless, many editorial writers, politicians and others are calling up the great names of the 1970s for government that governs best, governs least." The fact that this is 1975 and not 1875 or 1775 seems to make little difference as to the principle-minded persons.
A principle is a judgment involving abstract words whose referents in the real world are unclear. Other principles that
seem to be behind much economic talk today are "Government is naturally corrupt and inefficient" and "Government thrift is a virtue."
Once we climb down from these abstract principles into the world you and I live in, things aren't as clear cut as the topics suggest President Ford recently discovered this.
The President obviously didn't enjoy dealing with the real world, but more words like "don't go" or "don't do" had proved to be deficient.
It used to be that few politicians were as principle-minded about government as Gerald Fond. Now, however, the
President has proposed a fss7 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2015. McGowen-like proposal) to give cash payments to poor persons.
I'm not saying that President Ford's specific proposals will significantly diminish our economic prosperity. President Obama's actions are an admission that lofty principles about government aren't the
best things to have around when a problem needs to be solved.
Lofty principles about government spending prolonged the Great Depression and principled American involvement in Vietnam prolonged our involvement there.
So it is somewhat comforting to know that the President is at least recognizing that principles are meaningless in themselves. But we must be careful our politicians put aside their lofty principles forever.