4
小篆
Wednesday, August 26. 1992
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Coach Mason delivered 'Hawks from mediocrity
A profound gesture occurred last week with the signing of a contract extension by University of Kansas football coach Glen Mason. Last season, Mason guided the Jayhawks to their first winning season since 1981.
Mason inked a five-year deal. Though some schools have expressed interest in luring Mason away from KU, the contract provides a provision that would penalize the coach for leaving early.
The contract also marks the end of an era at KU. Mason will become the first football coach to stay at KU for more than four consecutive years since 1966. Since Jack Mitchell ended his nine-year stint in 1966, Kansas has seen seven coaching changes. Mason brings stability to a program that has lacked a cohesive approach in years.
When Mason became coach in 1988, he inherited a team that was rebounding from a 1-9-1 season. Last year the team was 6-5, and many felt Kansas was just one game away from being invited to a bowl game.
One reason for the remarkable turn around has been the recruiting ability of Mason and his staff. With a few more years of their recruiting efforts, the Jayhawks could be a notable force in the Big Eight Conference.
However, this year's team could be a force all of its own. Two Jayhawks, Dana Stubblefield and Dan Eichloff have earned preseason All-America honors. This year's Jayhawks have been picked fourth in the Big Eight preseason polls.
If Kansas lives up to its preseason billing, the Jayhawks could receive their first bowl bid since 1981. Good luck to the Jayhawks as they begin their 1992 season.
JEFF SHAW FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Liquor by the drink vote should win in November
One of the issues that Douglas County voters will address on the Nov. 3 ballot is a proposal to allow open saloons in the county. Currently
know open saloons in the county. Currently, establishments with a liquor license must either be private clubs that admit only members and guests of members or make at least 30 percent of their revenue from the sale of food. The proposal would eliminate the latter requirement and allow bars to serve liquor by the drink to anyone of legal age.
The idea makes sense. Private club owners will be spared the headache of pretending to check the memberships of everyone who comes in their establishments. Bar owners will avoid the hassle of making sure they sell enough food to keep their license. And the Alcoholic Beverage Commission will not have to spend their time giving random citations in a town where quite a few bars and private clubs violate the law every week.
The proposal would eliminate the pretense that you get when 100 people sign a sheet of paper at a club declaring that they are all guests and close personal friends of the bartender. The proposal would eliminate the paperwork that ABC does when it cites the same bar for 100 counts of "non-member access," since no bartender could possibly be that gregarious. And the proposal would eliminate membership charges for those of the bartender's new friends who now comply with the law and buy club memberships.
The liquor laws of Douglas County as they now stand are unnecessarily complex. Simplification can only benefit everyone.
MARK COATNEY FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Blind following of ideology does not make good policy
For example, a discussion on the National Endowment for the Arts went something like this:
I just flew back from Washington D.C. I was hoping to return to KU inspired to write a column about politics and November's election. Washington is always an inspiring place to me. It's exciting to wander around Capitol Hill, knowing that this country's political movers and shakers do their work right there.
College interns and recent graduates flock to Washington, and I met several people whose interest in and knowledge of politics were extensive. I spent several debate-filled evenings in Washington's coolest bars getting to know some of these people.
But when I got back to Lawrence, the people who were in the forefront of my mind weren't the intellectuals who fascinated me, but rather the rhetoric-rambling boneheads who inflicted their unfounded opinions on me regularly.
I'm generally at a tolerant person. And I freely admit that I'm certainly not an authority on political ideologies. But if I have to listen to one more person tell me that conservatives are great because they're conservative, I might get homicidal.
I met a girl who believed in everything commonly considered to be conservative, and thought everything associated with liberalism was blatantly wrong. And she couldn't get through a conversation without mentioning Jimmy Carter or Ted Kennedy.
Her: "The NEA is a waste of taxpay-
STAFF COLUMNIST
JULIE WASSON
er's money. They fund pornography, and that's wrong. Also, they have entirely too much office space."
Me: "Well, do you know how much of what they fund is actually considered controversial? And pornography to you might be artistic expression to someone else."
Her: "Yeah, to some liberal like Ted Kennedy. You know, that whole family is a bunch of rapists and murderers and adulterous pervers. All those liberals..."
One day a discussion on something as nonpartisan as Washington's architecture generated a 20-minute monologue on the stupidity of liberalism.
I was informed that Jimmy Carter was stupid because he gave the former Soviet Union a building that is at the highest point in Washington to use as their embassy. The Soviets were thereby able to monitor every phone in Washington, she said.
Without verifying this story, I will admit that this probably wasn't a really swift move, but I doubt it had a great deal to do with which party Carter represented.
To be fair, I will admit that some minerals also climb to rhetoric instead of thinking through the issues. Last year in one of my classes, we had to take a vote on some political issue. When one of my classmates was unexpectedly asked why she voted the way she did, she said, "Because I'm a liberal."
I wanted to ask her what, exactly, that meant. Did it mean she agreed with the liberal view toward the issue? Or did it mean that she had no idea what the liberal view was, but because she aligned herself with that group, she therefore automatically supported their view?
There is nothing more annoying than a person who holds beliefs solely because those beliefs are associated with a certain party.
You can't attack that person's reasoning, because she's not using any. And you can't argue with her, because doing so is as productive as banging your head against a wall.
Worse than that, blind faith in any person or party can lead to tragedy. Think Ku Klux Klan. Think Nazi Germany.
An election year is the perfect time to evaluate your beliefs. Why do you support the positions you do? Stop and evaluate the reasoning behind your beliefs. Chances are, your party affiliation won't change. But maybe you'll better understand yourself.
Julie Wasson is a Springfield, M. senior major in Journalism and political science.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Bush avoids "buck" for higher taxes
When our children were young, a neighborhood boy took a stick and deliberately broke the lights in their bicycle. When asked why he did it, he said, "The devil made me do it."
dent Truman who said.
"The buck stops here." (Bush removed Truman's sign from the Oval Office desk in the White House.)
KANSANSTAFF
Marie Peterson Monument
When George Bush is asked why he broke his "Read my lips" promise not to raise taxes in his acceptance speech four years ago, he says, "The Congress made me do it."
What an outrage to think that this man is trying to parade as former Presi-
ERIC NELSON
Editor
GREG FARMER
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
SCOTTIHANNA
Business manager
BILLLEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Asst. Managing .. Almee Brainard
News .. Alexander Bloemhoft
Editorial .. Stephen Martino
Campus .. Gayle Oxtonger
Sports .. Shelly Solon
Photo .. Justin Knupp
Features .. Cody Holt
Graphics .. Sean Tevls / Michael Riles
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr  Angelca Clevergain
Regional sales mgr  Melissa Tseri
National sales mgr  Amy Stumbo
Co-op sales mgr  Amy Stumbo
Production mgr  Brad Bron
Kim Claxton
Marketing director  Ashley Lengford
Creative director  Andrew Classified mgr  Judith Standley
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Saufer-Fint Hall.
Guest column should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
Letters should be typed, double spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the University of Kansas rank and class and homework, or faculty or staff affiliated with the University of Kansas rank and class and homework.
Loco Locals
CISTEN KIRS, PEOPLE
AROUND HERE ARE AS TIGHT
AS GEORGE BUHS LIPS
WHEN HE TRANS ABOUT
DEMOCRATS. AND I.
ASSOC. EDITORIAL
DAVID MITCHELL
Activist actors should stick to flicks and stay out of politics
A few weeks ago my political allegiance was unclear. I was baffled by the political process.
Yes, from that moment on I knew.
Who was the best choice to lead our nation in the next four years? Whose wife baked the best cookies? I was positively perplexed. Then the skies cleared. Through the fog of candidate confusion I saw the light.
Chuck Norris endorsed President George Bush and presented him an honorary black belt. Personally, when I evaluate a presidential candidate I ask myself, "Does he have a feasible economic plan?" And more importantly, can he chop through wood with his bare hand?"
However, we know where Chuck stands on foreign affairs, abortion rights or taxes? I don't. And even if I did, I seriously doubt the power of persuasion he could have on swinging my vote.
Oh, let's get real. Come on, Chuck,
stick to making B movies and deodor-
ant commercials, because quite
frankly, your political opinion just
doesn't mean jack. I'll admit it, when
it comes to kicking the crap out of
cinema criminals, Chuck's up there at
the top of the list.
This is not an attack on Mr. Norris.
But I am sick of Hollywood celebrities thinking they are the answer to America's ills.
Just what do these entertainers think they have to offer to the general public? What good is their opinion?
Most curious was NBC's coverage of the Republican National Convention. There was Arnold Schwarzenegger sitting in the mudstid of the GOP. And who was covering the event for the network? Maria Shriver, Arnold's wife. Just as conflicting, Shriver is a product of the most famous of democrat clans — the Kennedys, NBC, what were you thinking?
Just because Barbara Streisand was outstanding in "Prince of Tides" does not mean I am going to run out and vote for Bill Clinton.
Even more disappointing was Dennis Miller, who has been one of the leading political satirists in recent years. But there was Dennis, endorsing Ross Perot. Curiously, I knew more about Miller's politics than Perot's.
The sad thing is, Americans have become so swept up in *Pep magazine* and their worship that when entertainers say a side, it actually makes the news.
Don't get me wrong. Political activism is not a bad thing. More people should take time to know the issues and the candidates.
Fortunately, these outspoken spokespersons have little impact beyond photo opportunities. In 1988, hordes of young actors came out in support of Gov. Michael Whatishisame. But Bush still wear Bukalis like the LAPD. Rob Lowe's time would have been better spent in the studio.
However, the average John and Jane America should base their votes on how the candidates represent their values, goals and needs — not on who their favorite martial arts star stands next to at a news conference.
David Mitchell is a DeSoto senior majoring in journalism.
By Tom Michaud