4
Monday, September 22, 1986 / University Daily Kansan
Faithless candidacy
Pat Robertson, host of television's "700 Club" and would be presidential candidate, said last week he won't announce his candidate until three million Americans sign a petition supporting him.
This seems a bit strange coming from a man who claims that God has told him to run for president. If Robertson is God's pick for the 1988 term, why should Robertson need the approval of three million Americans?
Obviously he is no fool. By waiting until the last moment to announce his candidacy, Robertson can bow out gracefully if he doesn't get enough support. How on earth would he justify it if he ran for president, with God's blessing, and lost? He would probably think of some reason, but it is doubtful that even the most faithful viewers of the "700 Club" would support him or his ministry after that.
The show now provides him with a free, regular podium to present his platform and
criticize those who have declared their candidacy. But as a non-candidate, Robertson is under no obligation to provide equal time on the Christian Broadcast Network, home of the "700 Club," for those legitimate presidential candidates.
Even without it, the petition campaign and his other media releases will provide him with all the free publicity he needs to keep his name in the news.
Robertson's tactics are less about faith in God than they are about the latest techniques in media manipulation. Asking for three million signatures from the U.S. people softens his claim to a divine mandate. Claiming a divine mandate ensures steady press coverage without the risk of a declared candidacy.
If Robertson is going to campaign for the presidency, then he should take on the responsibilities of a declared candidacy. As it stands now, one can only say, "O ye of little faith."
Cosbv clones are drones
The new television season is again upon us, ladened as usual with contrived characters and implausible plotlines. No surprise here. Nor is it any shock that the networks, rarely ones for great originality, have taken the recipe for last season's megahits, "The Cosby Show" and "Family Ties," and come up with a new batch of family-oriented series.
Fourteen of the 23 new series feature cute, quirky characters who just happen to be related. The premise that worked so well for King Cosby has been expanded, expounded and generally driven into the ground.
This season's new fare features four generations living together in "The Ellen Burstyn Show," niece and uncle millionaires in "Easy Street," and even an extraterrestrial who moves in with an earth family in "Alf." Not exactly a vehicle for Michael J. Fox.
For viewers who favor the olden days of television, there's "Life with Lucy." This new series comes despite the fact that Lucille Ball ceased to be really funny about three decades ago.
What is it the networks hope to capture with this influx of familial sentiments? No doubt it is some of the tremendous ratings and awards corralled by Bill Cosby and Co. They could also be hoping to play on the emotions of an emotionally starved viewership.
Are those droves of faithful fans who turn in weekly to watch those happy, well-adjusted Cosby kids hoping to find in the fantasy land of television something missing from their own lives?
To serve and protect
It should come as no surprise that police officers face an inordinate amount of on-the-job stress and strain.
The 145-page report, "Coping with Police Stress," examined eight police departments that do run anti-stress programs, and made more than 40 recommendations about how such programs should be run.
A study recently released by the Department of Justice indicated that more police departments soon must devote more time and energy to help their workers deal with the rigors of their jobs.
But the fact that only 75 police departments in the entire country have anti-stress programs to help their officers cope is startling.
The physiological effects of stress are well-documented and the amount of stress facing police officers every day also is obvious. It only makes sense that the men and women
entrusted with protecting our lives and property should be in the best shape possible.
Just recently, two New York police officers took their own lives. One had been involved in an automobile accident that killed one person and injured another. The officer killed himself after drug tests revealed traces of cocaine and alcohol in his bloodstream. After a morning roll call at a New York police station, the second officer locked himself in a bathroom stall and simply shot himself in the head.
The New York cases highlight an ever-increasing problem in the Big Apple, but they also are evidence of a problem that has permeated the country.
Moves must be made now to bring other cities into step with the 75 that already have antistress programs.
Those we expect to take care of us must first be able to take care of themselves.
News staff
Lauretta McMillen ... Editor
Kady McMaster ... Managing editor
Tad Clarke ... News editor
David Silverman ... Editorial editor
John Hanna ... Campus editor
Chrank Hanseel ... Sports editor
Jacki Kelly ... Photo editor
Tom Ebien ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
David Nixon ... Business manager
Gregory Kaul ... Retail sales manager
Dense Stephens ... Campus sales manager
Chastie DePenne ... Classified sales manager
Lisa Weems ... Production manager
Duncan Calhoun ... National sales manager
Beverly Kastens ... Traffic manager
News staff
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words and should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and homework, or faculty or staff position. Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The
Guest shots should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reedit or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsletter, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stairfer-Flint Hall, Lawn, Kanese, 66045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at the University Mail Office. Postage for mailing in Douglas County and $18 for six months and $35 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
Can anyone find fault in such an attitude? Of course, but I'm sure that many of us have felt the same way, including those in Washington. However, it would be absurd to think that foreign policy could be structured around a personal vendetta. Or could it? Don't tell me that President Reagan didn't giggle uncontrollably at the thought of Gadhaf playing "Rat Patrol" in the Libyan desert after his house was destroyed.
showing them how it feels to be thoroughly trounced.
Opinions
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045.
Let's blow Libya to pieces, right?
"If you don't desist, we're going to pound the hell out of you." An American official made that statement to a Libyan official regarding rumors that Moammar Gadhafi was planning a return to terrorist acts against the United States and Western Europe. The message was passed along to the Libyan leader, but he is once again in the news. The war of words between Gadhafi and Reagan has resumed.
A unique opportunity has presented itself to the Reagan administration. How often do you get to teach a man the same lesson twice? If all goes well, hard evidence of Libyan-sponsored terrorism again will be found. The United States may have another opportunity to either kill Gadhafi, or create so much chaos and bloodshed that the Libyan people, or the military, may see fit to do it themselves.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that evidence may have been found that linked Gadhafi to the planning of more terrorist strikes against Americans. Though the Reagan administration said that the story was overblow, the U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier Forrestal made an unscheduled visit to the Libyan coast and, according to the Journal, the pentagon is completing plans for a
new and larger bombing of Libya in case the president orders it.
All joking aside, If President Reagan is intent on rolling back the radical regimes that plague our globe, it will require the use of the military, and in some cases, the extensive use of the military. The United States is locked in a militaristic policy toward Libya, and a moderation of this policy would be viewed as a failure. This policy will not be carried out without the loss of American lives. Are Americans willing to pay such a price, knowing full well that the intention is not to free the world from terrorism, but to stomp a politically weak, isolated, and outwardly anti-American nation? It seems that we are and will, at least until the loss of lives outweigh our feelings of patriotism.
Intelligence officials insist that Gadhafi is afraid to resume such activities because of the devastation of the last attack and the possibility of a coup. Come on, are we talking about
Jon
Gregor
Columnist
the same madman? Gadhafi is bound to screw up at least one more time, and when the opportunity presents itself, the United States intends to totally devastate the Libyan people.
One might argue that U.S. strikes against Libya have in no way decreased the amount of terrorism in the world. However, the reluctance of Western Europe to use such force, and their work through diplomatic and economic channels has not reduced the share of terrorism that plagues them.
While Libya is not the only nation sponsoring terrorism, it is the only nation that Reagan can touch. It is a rare opportunity for the United States, to possibly overthrow a radical regime by direct force without rousing negative world opinion, as would be the case in Nicaragua.
Heavy bombardment of targets deemed vital to the Libyan economy and military will help end Gadhafi's reign. We must also remember his address and hope that he's home when we ring his bell. Though a very heavy strike against Libya would quite likely result in many civilian deaths, it's not as though the Libyan populous has taken to the streets of Tripoli chanting "long live America, we love our neighbors in the West." They hate us. Now we can give them a reason to.
The United States would be foolish to let an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone pass us by. The downfall of Gadhafi will rid the world of one insane individual, while at the same time, nothing gets those patriotic feelings flowing better than a good devastating show of American force on an antagonistic, anti-American nation. President Reagan is aware of this and has used it to his advantage.
When, not if, Gadhafi sends us an invitation in the form of more dead Americans, Reagan will respond by lighting up the skies of Libya and
Criticism now a way of life
This month marks the beginning of my 18th year of going to the movies almost every day of the week. During this time I've seen more than 4,000 first-run feature films.
I have often wondered what effect this may have had upon my brain, upon the way I view the
Gene Siskel
Chicago Tribune
world. A corporate lawyer may look at contracts most of the day; in my typical day I see a car chase, a slimy monster, a bunch of horny teenagers or a mad slasher. And they have left their impact.
For example, debates have raged about whether viewing violent films causes moviegoers to commit violent acts. Well, I figure I've seen at least a dozen filmed murders each week for the last 886 weeks. I was only 23 years old when the body count began.
Thus, if violent films can affect us, I should be as dangerous as Jason in "Friday the 13th."
But take it from me – and you can because I'm a 200-pound weakling – the mental state of the moviegoer is more important than
the movies.
But that's in the long run. In the minutes immediately after some thoughtful violent films — "Taxi Driver" comes to mind — I did find myself driving away from the theater in a fury, well over the speed limit.
With films containing mindless violence — "I Spit on Your Grave" still haunts me — at first I'm repulsed, then numbed, and then saddened at the perverse use of the magic of film.
But if violent films haven't made me more violent. I do believe they have made me more wary, coloring my perception of the world as a more violent place than it really is.
What about that other staple of moviegoing, sex pictures? Having never seen a stag film as a kid, I must admit I was surprised along with a lot of other people when in 1971 I reviewed "Man and Wife," the first big, explicit porn picture to play Chicago.
Masquerading as a marital aide to comply with the Supreme Court's then-prevailing "socially redeeming value" guideline, "Man and Wife" featured a pip-smoking professor in front of a fireplace who introduced couples who demonstrated various
lovemaking positions
To be honest, I learned a few things.
things enough. Hollywood films during the last 17 years have taught me little about love.
So where have the lasting pleasures come from? Typically from walking into a movie without stars or a big publicity campaign and being dazzled.
I saw "My Dinner with Andre" in which two bright guys simply talk with each other during dinner for two hours, all alone in a screening room. The film still touches me, reminding me of the glorious pleasure of simple conversation.
I'm a terror when I visit a restaurant or a store for the first time, immediately commenting on the service and products, constantly suggesting ways to improve the operation. Ultimately the job of being a critic for a long time creates a critical mind, if you didn't have one in the first place. I can't stop it. It's out of control.
The greatest effect of criticizing films for all of my adult life has been to turn me into an instant critic of everything.
Hey, you, reading this column. Your clothes don't match.
Drug war needs time
Congress of late has been getting high on drugs. Not from sniffing, injecting or swallowing illegal substances, but from acting as the lawmakers finally are going to do something about the problem of drug abuse in this country.
This euphoria has been seen as both Senate and House members appointed task forces, held news conferences, introduced bills and began voting on proposals for a crackdown on the drug trade, aiming at everyone from producers to consumers.
Robert
Shepard
UPI Commentary
Unfortunately there are skeptics, including a few members of Congress, who question whether this high will last much beyond Nov. 4. Election Day.
The problem of drug abuse has been around for a long time, but it was only this summer that Congress saw the light and decided it might be time to act. The inspiration for this was pollss and other constituent soundings that indicated Americans consider drug abuse to be a significant problem, possibly the No.1 problem facing this country.
Like the good politicians they are, the lawmakers are responding.
In the House, the leadership gathered an assortment of bills that had been languishing in several different committees and produced an omnibus anti-drug bill that was passed overwhelmingly after an excess of speech-making.
In some ways, that was the easy part. The hard part will come in trying to pass bills to pay for the $3 billion effort proposed in the House bill. Also difficult will be sticking with the issue and making sure the program is working.
Rep. Leon Panetta, D-Calif., one of the calmer members of the House, pointed out the pitfalls in the way Congress often approaches such high visibility problems as drug abuse.
"It disturbs me that we are treating the drug issue as we do so many issues, an event triggers nationwide concern about a problem, three weeks of media coverage and magazine covers follow, quick drafting of legislation occurs followed by passage by the Congress and signature by the president, and then we forget the issue as we move on to another crisis." Panetta said.
Panetta argued such a quick fix approach "actually works against solving the problem. People see extensive coverage in the media, frenzied action by Congress, then assume that everything has been taken care of and the problem cured."
"The drug problem is obviously not something we can solve in three weeks or even three years. It will take years of consistent hard work to educate Americans on the evils of drug abuse," he said.
The House bill "must not be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a media circus," he said.
Perhaps the skeptics are being too hard on Congress. Perhaps the senators and representatives should be given credit for actually trying, in late summer of 1986, to do something about the drug problem.
But the voters back home should not be distracted by all the self-congratulatory hoopla that is accompanying the current anti-drug push. Instead, the voters have every right to ask why Congress did not deal with the drug problem long before now, and whether the current effort will produce real results five, 10 or 20 years down the road.