4
Thursday, September 4. 1986 / University Daily Kansan
President Reagan and Col. Moammar Gadhafi have once again resumed their exchange of verbal accusations and threats of violence. And once again, they're using the media as messengers.
Madman or madmen?
The White House claims to have evidence that Gadhafi has bought two French-made planes that can be converted into troop carriers. The planes have American-made electronic equipment and engines. A trade embargo, which took effect in January, restricts countries from selling American goods to Libya.
Needless to say, Reagan was infuriated that Gadhafi had acquired the planes. He has said that there was evidence that the Libyan leader was planning a terrorist attack on the United States. Furthermore, he threatened that military force would be used to stop him.
But Reagan isn't talking about what kind of evidence his experts have. In fact, U.S.
government officials could be simply baiting Gadhafi, as they have done so many times recently in the Gulf of Sidra, trying to get him to strike first. Perhaps the administration is attempting to feed the fire of political unrest that has started to spark in Libya and threatens the security of Gadhafi's job.
Why not forget about all the hot spots in the world that are begging for Reagan's attention, and just concentrate on getting Gadhafi to shut up and get out of office?
In the meantime, however, never mind the fact that seven American hostages remain captive in Lebanon. Please ignore the explosive political situations in the Middle East and South Africa.
Gadhiaha has caused great embarrassment for the president in the past. But Reagan should try to overlook personal vendettas and get down to the business of rationally running the country.
Not all the same
A U.S. Department of Justice study has come up with a paper-perfect idea to make sure young criminals are punished in a consistent way.
The plan recommends that state legislatures adopt a complicated point system to be used in sentencing juveniles. The system would use a mathematical formula that factors in the young criminal's age, previous convictions and present crime.
Those who drew up the study argue that it is a way to iron out inequalities that occur when different judges use their discretion while sentencing juveniles.
Lawmakers in California and Pennsylvania have expressed interest in the plan, and Washington state already has such a plan embedded in its laws.
The plan would eliminate much of a judge's discretion. It all looks so perfect on paper.
However, lives are not lived on paper, and crimes are not committed according to a set mathematical equation.
Thieves steal and murderers kill for different reasons. Two crimes are not exactly the same because the criminals' ages and records are the same.
A plan that ignores the reason a child commits a crime is destined to work badly. Judges are given discretion in sentencing juveniles for the same reason they are given discretion in sentencing for traffic offenses.
Each child, each situation, is different.
State lawmakers should not rush to put a bad system into effect simply because they are frustrated with the juvenile justice system.
When its 1987 session opens in January, the Kansas Legislature should leave the plan where it belongs — in a musty file for ideas that work well only on paper.
Carry a big stick
True to the University of Kansas' frontier heritage, KU's faculty have begun to circle the wagons and defend themselves.
They've decided to call it a "collective bargaining unit" but, semantics aside, it's a union.
After several years of frustratingly low salaries and insufficient benefits, the faculty have begun to talk about forming a union.
Aside from the inability to strike (it's prohibited by state law), the group would assume the same status, and be accorded the same bargaining privileges as any other union.
It's a well-known fact that KU professors' salaries are low compared with the
salaries of faculty at our peer schools.
The creation of the bargaining unit seems to be a good example of Theodore Roosevelt's "big stick" philosophy. The union, and the increased influence it would create for the faculty, should be used to give our representatives in Topeka a trump on the head.
adumpster. A union will do more than bring the faculty closer together and promote better understanding between the faculty and the administration. It will serve notice that it's time to deal—and deal fairly.
It's a sad fact that professors need to resort to unionization to make their wishes known. But faculty salaries must be raised, and it's time for KU professors to take the matter into their own hands.
News staff
News staff
Lauretta McMillen ... Editor
Kady McMaster ... Managing editor
Tad Crake ... News editor
David Silverman ... Editorial editor
John Hanna ... Campus editor
Frank Hansel ... Sports editor
Jacki Kelly ... Photo editor
Tom Eblen ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
David Nixon ... Business manager
Gregory Kaul ... Retail sales manager
Denise Stephens ... Campus sales manager
Sally Depew ... Classified manager
Luke Weemans ... Production manager
Duncan Calhoun ... National sales manager
Beverly Kastens ... Traffic manager
John Oberzan ... Sales and marketing adviser
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 hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest shots 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
writer will be responsible for reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 113 Stuart-Flint Hall.
Opinions
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer-Fint Flail Hall, Kansei, Kan6045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and on Wednesday, due to staffing restrictions. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $27 a year 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.
dent STAUPTSTASTER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kanus 66045
Open gun law worked, didn't it?
The mass shooting in an Oklahoma post office is just another example of why I have changed my mind about handgun laws and oppose any form of gun controls.
Oklahoma is one of the enlightened states that has virtually no gun laws. Anyone over 21 can walk into one of the many weapons stores, or a pawnshop, or even a hardware store, plunk down the money and walk out with a gun and ammunition. Or a whole arsenal.
No tedious bureaucratic registration is required, or frustrating waiting period while the registration is checked out. Cash on the barrel head and you've got a gun in your hand.
And that's a good thing, I say, because it's obvious that this availability of guns could easily help avert a tragedy.
so he walks in and opens fire. Defenseless people are falling dead all over the place.
Let's consider for a moment what could happen in a community where there are strict gun laws that discourage people from buying and owning the handgun of their choice.
A deranged postal worker might one day decide to go down to that community's post office and shoot everyone in sight.
And why are they defenseless? Obviously, because of gun controls that keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen, or at least make it difficult for him to buy them.
But in a state such as Oklahoma,
where a citizen can buy all the guns
post office. The deranged man, an avid gun lover and collector, happened to be the only person in the post office who had guns with him, so he was able to slaughter people at will.
Mike Royko
Chicago
Tribune
Oklahoma just made it easier for the deranged man to assemble an arsenal and kill all those people. And the availability of guns for purposes of self-defense didn't make them any safer.
The moment the first shot was fired by a deranged gunman, his intended victims could reach into their holsters, or their lunch bags, or purses or wherever they might keep their guns, and return the fire, stopping the madman dead in his tracks.
he wants as easily as buying a new tie, those innocent postal workers would be in a position to defend themselves.
But the point is that it could have happened the other way. Thanks to Oklahoma's enlightened and freedom-loving position on guns, everybody in that post office could have owned a gun.
The one exception is, of course, pornography. By banning pornography, we should instantly put and end to sexual child abuse, rape, sodomy, window peeping, backporch creeping, philandering, and public displays of leering, ogling, whistling and lip-smacking.
Because there are no foolish restrictions on the sale of guns in that state, they didn't have to be defenseless. It's not the same as in, say, Morton Grove, the Chicago suburb that passed an ordinance making it illegal even to have a gun. The gun-starved residents of Morton Grove wouldn't have had a chance against the madman.
against the imminent assault. As a matter of fact, the Oklahoma state legislature voted last year to prohibit cities in that state from passing any kind of gun laws. The legislators didn't want any weakened Morton Groves popping up in their state.
Now, I'm sure some of the anti-gun vocalists are going to be calling and writing to say that I'm wrong and that the absence of gun laws in
That's nonsense. We all know that, with one exception, passions laws doesn't discourage people from buying a dangerous product.
As the Rev, Hallelujah J. Sideburns likes to say: "Take away their porn, and the fiends will be reborn."
But guns are a different matter. As the National Rifle Association keeps reminding us, guns help make our lives safer. And the more available guns are, the safer we are.
And that's why the doomed people in that Oklahoma post office were a lot safer then they probably thought at the time. Although I'm not sure they'd agree today.
Reins on libertv tighter every day
To my knowledge, no one has ever extolled the virtue of freedom more than Ronald Reagan. Throughout his presidency he has persistently talked about the right to shape and control one's own destiny without government interference. He also speaks freely about the United States' responsibility to support a "free world."
However, Reagan's praise of freedom appears to be only lip service when you examine his record. His domestic and foreign policies have done nothing to expand, or buttress, the freedoms we already have. In fact, we have begun to retreat.
The grim reminders of our waning freedom are all around us. We are increasingly threatened at home, at work and at play: drug testing, sodomy laws, lie detector tests, seat belt laws, the rise in the legal drinking age, the anti-abortion movement, the Meese Commission on pornography and so on.
Perhaps the most "clear and present" danger to our freedom is Reagan's appointment of William
Rehnquist as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States. There is doubt as to whether he will uphold the Constitution.
His 14-year record as an associate justice exemplifies his
Christian Colbert Columnist
fundamental disagreement with what the court, in the 20th century, has upheld as the essential purpose of the Constitution.
Since joining the court, Rehnquist has voted for government control of free expression, limits on the press, anti-abortion laws, public financing of private schools that racially discriminate, government restrictions on pornography, freeing police from strictly obeying court-imposed restrictions, the death penalty, publicly funded religious displays and so on.
Reh鹏s interpretation of the Constitution takes little note of individual liberties and instead favors maximum governmental authority.
With Rehqust at the helm we are sure to get an overbearing, possibly even tyrannical, form of government.
Reagan's disregard for liberty is not limited to his domestic policies. It is reflected in his foreign policy decisions as well.
His lack of teeth in dealing with South Africa translates into implicit support for apartheid — a regime that ranks right up there with the Nazis.
In Central America, Reagan is supporting a proxy war against the legitimate government of Nicaragua which has nothing to do with democracy or freedom Reagan's ultimate goal is the subversion of the Sandinistas and the pursuant rise of another ruthless and oppressive Somozalike dictator who supports U.S. military and business interests.
Those who think Reagan is sincere in his concern for a democratic government in Nicaragua, just remember that he
supported the Somoza regime before he became president. Also, consider that most of the contra leaders are former officials in Somoza's government — people who fought against freedom all their lives.
The Reagan doctrine is not intended to expand freedom around the world. It is a doctrine that will settle for anything so long as it spews out anti-communist rhetoric. It is a doctrine that makes the United States equally as ruthless and oppressive as Soviet Union.
I'm troubled by the direction that Reagan is leading us. I'm troubled by Reagan's double-talk about his commitment to the ideals of freedom. I'm troubled by his brilliant use of symbols that create the illusion of freedom. I'm troubled by the state of regression that freedom is in.
It's ironic, but, our freedom today is more threatened by domestic forces than by the Soviet Union.
New chemical bombs are overdue
Your nose starts to run . . . you have a sudden headache . . . your muscles start to twitch violently . . . you have severe stomach cramps and you feel nauseous.
You have just become the victim of a nerve agent.
Thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents are produced each year by the Soviet Union. The United States stopped such production in 1969, yet Soviet production of these terrible weapons has continued to increase.
After examining samples of vegetation from Thailand, the Canadian Defense Research Establishment in Ottawa issued a report last May stating that the land contained traces of the killing element in yellow rain. The toxins were reportedly dropped from unmarked planes belonging to the Vietnamese.
The Soviets have used chemical weapons in Afghanistan and in Southeast Asia.
Two-thirds of the villagers in Ban Sa Tong became ill after one raid. It was one of the sites from which the Canadian samples were taken. Other villages were much harder hit.
The Canadian report said. 'The symptoms included rapid death (15)
Victor Goodpasture
Columnist
Although chemical attacks in Southeast Asia have decreased, the Soviets are still pursuing a chemical genocide in Afghanistan. Those at-
minutes to an hour), bleeding and loss of body fluids. Casualty rates were reported to be high, virtually 100 percent of the population of target areas."
tacks have elicited little international protest.
Chemical agents are horrible weapons, but the Soviets will use them. The United States must be prepared to do the same.
In 1972, the United States, Soviet Union, and more than 100 other countries signed the Biological and Toxin Weapon Convention, which prohibits "development, production, stockpiling, or to otherwise retain" biological or toxin weapons.
Chemical arms talks between the United States and the Soviet Union will start soon, but already it is apparent that we can't trust the Soviets to uphold their part of any arms agreement.
The Pentagon reported last month that the Soviets have violated this agreement. In its report to the House Intelligence Committee, the Pentagon said that the Soviet scientific developments have made it possible for biological weapons to be made in
small, self-cleaning laboratories Such research was banned under the 1972 treaty.
According to an article in the Washington Times, "a full 12 chemical, biological, and toxin agent factories turn out 10,000 tons of lethal substances a year."
So much for unilateral disarmament.
If the Soviets won't comply with something as simple as halting biological weapons production, then how can we expect them to comply with something as complex as nuclear arms control?
But finally, the United States has said, enough is enough. On Oct 1, the United States will resume limited chemical weapons production
The United States has shown that unilateral disarmament is met with increased Soviet weapons production.
Let's not make the same mistake twice.