4
Tuesday, October 6, 1992
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Students can make their voices heard in election
Are you more than 18 years old? If so, Nov. 3 is the official day to cast your vote in the national election. Get out and exercise your right. Many people think that it is pointless to vote because their opinion doesn't matter. That is just not true. The United States does have an electoral college that votes based on the popular opinion, and although this is not direct, your vote still says something to the leaders elected into office. If no one voted, the United States might as well be a dictatorship. Your vote counts.
College students would gain more respect, and therefore benefits, if they would prove that they cared who set the standards. Politicians aim their concerns to those constituents who elect them into office. If we as college students want our voices heard by the policymakers, we must show that we care by voting.
Voting is easy, quick and painless, but you first must be registered. If you're not registered, there are simple ways to do so. Take advantage of the student groups who have organized voter-registration drives so we can prove to the nation that we care and want a say in the policy of our country.
The Associated Students of Kansas will be registering people to vote from 9:15 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. this week in front of Wescoe Hall. The Greek Political Advisory Committee will be registering people from 6 to 8 tonight at Sigma Chi, 1439 Tennessee St., and Delta Chi, 1245 W. Campus Road; from 6 to 8 p.m. tomorrow at Phi Kappa Theta, 1941 Stewart Ave.; and from 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday at Delta Upsilon, 1025 Emery. Hillel will be registering people from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday at the Kansas Union.
The county clerk's office, 11th and Massachusetts streets, will be registering people to vote from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday until October 19. Whether you vote in Douglas County or by absentee ballot in your hometown, make your voice heard.
DEBBIE BRODSKY FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Bush better than Clinton for U.S.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
In answer to Pamela Keller's letter about abortion, civil rights and the economy, I would like to point out a few misrepresentations about Republicans and what would happen if George Bush were re-elected.
Keller's argument also centers on what might happen to abortion if Bush is re-elected. Her argument barely represses since we have had Republicans administrations for the past 12 years. Yet, I have not heard of one back-alley abortion since then; although according to Keller's logic, there should have been many.
It is Governor Bill Clinton who has pledged to raise taxes, not George Bush. These taxes are not just taxes on the rich but also taxes on small businesses that file as individuals therefore classified as rich. I have heard it said that Clinton's taxes would apply not just to people who make more than $200,000, but even to individual taxable incomes of more than $90,000. A person who makes $90,000 is not a rich person.
Keller goes on to write about civil rights encroachments of the right. What civil rights encroachments?
What about those civil rights encroachments caused by quotas and affirmative action programs which in some rare instances can cause a less qualified employee to be hired? It is not the political right that is opposed to equal opportunity. If you want civil rights encroachment, look at what the Kansan did to an advertisement reading "Pro-Choice = Anti-Woman." Or, look what happens when the major media can reject advertisements that show aborted children? The only possible way to show such an ad is for a public official candidate to pay for it since the FCC requires stations to show advertisements for candidates. I ask you, which side is truly taking away freedoms and rights?
Tom Grelinger Lawrence
The only thing I ask of people is to think about the state our nation was in 12 years ago (double-digit inflation and high interest rates). Compare that to today's anemic economy, which is nothing to brag about, but at least inflation is running at 3.2 percent rather than 13 percent, and home mortgages can be obtained for less than 8 percent.
To me there is a difference between Bush and Clinton.
KANSAN STAFF
ERIC NELSON
GREG FARMER Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
Editor
Aast. Managing...Almee Brennard
News...Alexander Bloomhof
Editorial...Stephen Martino
Campus...Gayle Ostergård
Sports...Shelly Solon
Photo...Justin Kaupp
Features...Cody Holl
Graphics...Sean Texte
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Managing editor
Business manager
BILL LEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Campus sales mgr     Angela Clivever
Regional sales mgr    Mellea Tertalip
National sales mgr    Brian Wilkes
Co-op sales mgr    Amy Stump
Production mgrs    Brad Broren
Marketing director    Kim Claxton
Creative director    Valerie Spicher
Classified mgr    Judith Standley
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Staffer-Finl Hall.
**Letters** should be double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and home凋, or faculty or staff position.
**Guest columns** should be type, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be
photographed.
The photographer retains the right to select a different most accurate and accurate. These are
David Frankel's column Wednesday would be laughable if it weren't such a tragic example of how blind supporters of President Bush are toward environmental issues.
While it is true that enforcement actions and spending at the Environmental Protection Agency have increased in the past four years, President Bush cannot be given the credit. Congress strengthened the Clean Water Act in 1987 and the Clean Air Act in 1990, which necessarily resulted in increased enforcement activity as well as expenditures.
Bush deserves criticisms for environmental record
Another reason the EPA looks better now than it did four years ago is that the definition of what constitutes a cleanup has been changed. Actions such as fencing off a polluted area, moving people out of an area, or trucking in water so that people won't have to drink contaminated water are considered cleanups under the Bush administration.
Previously, an areaad to be virtually toxin free to be considered clean. This is the same Bush logic that allowed him to change the definition of wetland to include less area in order to keep his promise of no net loss of wetlands.
Furthermore, Frankel would have us compare the EPA's record under the Bush administration. You would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't look good under that standard.
If the Bush administration has done anything, it was the appointment of Bill Reilly to head the agency. It should be noted that Reilly had had to fight the president and cabinet members constantly to achieve the progress he has made.
GUEST COLUMNIST
In addition, Mr. Reilly has expressed his extreme displeasure with the uncooperative position the administration took at the Rio Summit in June.
RANDALL PATTERSON
administration's deplorable behavior at Rio; emission standards are not inversely proportional to economic efficiency. If that were the case, the United States would be one of the two most economically efficient, seeing that we are one of only two without stabilized carbon monoxide emission regulations.
Which brings us to the international environmental issues Frankel mentioned. Forget for a moment the Bush
By the way, Mr. Frankel, most of the worldwide concern is over carbon dioxide emissions. I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand the difference.
And criticism of the Bush administration's national forest policy goes far beyond the Northern Spotted Owl and Pacific Yew controversies. The fact is, the Forest Service sells timber well below market value and for less than half of what it costs the service to prepare a timber sale. Couple that with the Interior Department's selling of oil reserves at bargain-basement prices (never mind the president's willingness to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve), and it is obvious that the administration supports subsides for oil and timber industries. This is not out of concern for oil and timber workers, but in order to make greater profits for corporations which would be profitable anyway.
The president has also failed to adopt an energy policy, other than war, which would reduce our need to destroy the environment in a perpetual search for cheap fossil fuels.
Ultimately, Frankel must fall back on the same Bush demagoguery all true environmentalists have come to know and despise. The rhetoric of
"saving animals and saving jobs" is ridiculous for two reasons. First, what's the point of having economic security if we destroy our environment, and ultimately ourselves, in the process? More important, the concept that environmental and economic security are mutually exclusive is just plain false. I suggest that Frankel read Barry Commoner's "Making Peace with the Planet." It can easily be read in one sitting, and is far better researched than either the Republican Party Platform or any of the president's speeches. It's also non-biased and non-partisan.
It is interesting to note that there are three well-reasoned responses to Frankel's last two columns. If the Kansan really needs to publish the opinions of a Bush apologist, perhaps it could find someone better than David Frankel. Probably not.
To claim that Bush is the Environmental President is as indefensible as claiming that Bush is the Education President, another thing he promised to be four years ago.
Don't get me started on education.
Finally, to say that Bill Clinton has not offered a solution is not only an incorrect, it misses the point. The point is that George Bush has had four years (the Republicans, twelve) and has failed miserably in both the environmental and economic arenas. For a good idea of how Clinton and Al Gore would handle the relationship between the two, read Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit." I realize I am asking a lot of Frankel, but most columnists familiarize themselves with the issues before they start typing.
But as long as someone does continue in that role, I can only suggest that they steer clear of attempts to defend the President's environmental record.
"Who you gonna trust?"
STAFF COLUMNIST
KEVIN BARTELS
Randall Patterson is a Wichita law school student.
KEVIN BARTELS Lies, lies, lies: Bush claims no part in Contra-affair
— George Herbert Walker Bush.
"Ive leveled with the American people."
That all depends on what you're asking.
— George Herbert Walker Bush. Lies, lies, lies. There has been an unceasing amount of deception coming out of Washington, but at least some of it retains a small entertainment value.
Whether Bill Clinton inhaled 20 years ago makes little difference in 1992. But what Bush knew and when he knew it as vice president and president certainly is a criterion for his re-election.
Just at the moment when George Bush is trying to regain momentum in a campaign he never thought he might have number of justice has fallen once again.
New evidence has been uncovered that links Bush with the brainless decision to send arms-for-hostages in 1986. The revelations have left Bush and his aides inventing denials by the second and whining about secret Democratic plots to undermine their election efforts.
The Iran-Contra affair, a scandal every bit as corrupt as Watergate, has arisen from obscurity like a vengeful wrath bent on revenge. Bush has been alternately scrambling for a place to hide or viciously attacking his accusers.
It is perhaps typical from the corrupt old hack, but it is hardly becoming at a time when Bush fervently is seeking a public mandate to continue the outrage in the Oval Office for another four years.
Much has been made of Bill Clinton's draft status during the Vietnam War in this Year of the Swine, but polls taken by Newsweek and others reveal a deeper concern among voters about what Bush knew at the time of the Iran-Conta affair and when he knew it. The question of Clinton's alleged favoritism in avoiding the draft dales beside Bush's weasel-like evations of his role in trading arms for hostages.
Through sneaky and devious half-truths, omissions and even outright lies, Bush has managed to dodge the question of his role in the Iran-Contra affair for another four years. Sadly, none of Bush's accusers have come up with any real evidence that would instantly cause the voters to drum the silly old fool out of office.
What strikes me as possibly the sadest element of Bush's "Not Me" strategy lies in his basic inability to tell the truth when confronted with a crisis situation. Evidence that the administration ignored intelligence reports saying that money loaned to Iraq for agricultural purposes was being diverted for arms development only underlines Bush's fundamental dishonesty.
Thanks to the human and mechanized paper shredding capabilities of the Bush administration, the evidence is no doubt being used to absorb some of Millie's more serious "accidents."
In any case, there may still be skeletons in the presidential closet, but that appears unlikely at this late date in the campaign.
Grace
Kevin Bartels le a Louisville, Ky., graduates student malarning in English.
By David Rosenfield