Page 4 University Daily Kansan, September 20, 1982 Opinion Worried grad assistants beginning to pack bags In the wake of changes made in the contracts of graduate teaching and research assistants, some graduate students are deciding to seek employment and to finish their educations elsewhere. It is hard to say how many of the 4,500 to 5,000 graduate students at KU are thinking of leaving, but the prospects of losing even a small minority cannot bode well for the University. As the University continues to lose talented faculty to private enterprise, it now faces losing talented teaching and research assistants to other schools that the assistants think can offer more job security. And it is the most talented and experienced graduate assistants who will most easily find positions elsewhere. The change that jeopardizes graduate assistants' job security was made this summer, and the Graduate Student Council was not consulted. Their contracts now state that all appointments are contingent upon available funds and may be canceled upon 30 days notice. Although the University insists the contract change was made in "good faith," this 30-day clause forces students to check out other job opportunities immediately. Those graduate students who wait risk losing their employment in the middle of a semester, which may force them to drop out of school until new employment can be found. Graduate students have been questioning the administration since they learned about the changes at the start of school. So far, there have been no answers. According to David Cannatella, chairman of the Graduate Executive Committee, a list of guidelines for contract termination would be presented to the administration before the end of the semester. But if KU officials respond to that as slowly as they have to other concerns about the change, the University may already have lost many valuable graduate assistants. Requiring deposits in state could clean up trashy image Kansas is supposed to be the "Land of Abs," but an early Saturday morning drive through Lawrence can quickly change that definition to the "Land of Blabs." Empty beer cans and smashed bottles often litter the streets and front yards of Lawrence. The litter certainly detracts from the picture, which Dorothy conveyed in the Wizard of Oz. The slobs and drunks who manage to deposit refuse onto our parks, yards and streets should pay their fees. Kansas, if it intends to remain the Land of Ahs, meets to enact have that would make littering an problem. Having policemen on every street corner handing out littering citations is not the answer to the Saturday and Sunday morning beer can barrage. TOM HUTTON Instead, a state law requiring deposits on all beverage containers could keep the streets of Lawrence and the rest of the state much more attractive. Conservation of natural resources also would be accomplished because the returned bottles and cans would either be recycled or reused, both of which are cheap propositions to the manufacturers of new products that fill city dumps after only one use. Twelve states have either enacted, or are considering, deposit-only container laws — and the other states haven't. Vermont, Michigan, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon and Massachusetts already have laws requiring returnable bottles for certain products. And the topic is scheduled for fall elections in Washington, Colorado, California, Arizona and Iowa. The laws have been met with strong opposition from large-scale bottlers, which isn't a surprise. These bottlers, who so successfully implanted the "throw-away" generation in our lives, now face changing their plants back to the way they were 25 years ago. Such nostalgic items as returnable milk, soda and beer bottles are making reappearances in American lives. Or, if the person is very young, a new appearance. The bottlers are so upset that they have waged repeal campaigns against the laws in most of the states. The companies have found little success in their efforts. For example, anti-returnable container lobbying groups in Iowa have argued that the law would ruin the bottling industry and also grocers who handle the bottles. Neither has happened and lowans have strongly resisted the lobbying efforts, successfully killing any attempts to have the issue placed on the ballot again. In Maine, a group of late Republican members February 1978, voters ended all debate over the public's support of the law by passing it with an 84-percent majority. The critics don't argue the law's effect on roadside litter, possibly because the statistics are too low. A study conducted by the Maine Department of Conservation showed a 78 percent decline in bottles along roadsideis. Litter, in general, was reduced by 32 percent. Such enormous reductions enabled many Maine townships to reduce, or even eliminate, trash collectors along roadside. This means less governmental expense and happier taxpayers, The goal of the laws in states that depend on cleanliness to attract tourists is understandable. The cleaner the state, the more tourist dollars it attracts, and everyone profits. But Iowa is hardly considered a tourist attraction, leaning more toward corn production than tourism. So why not a mandatory bottle-return law in wheat-wrowing Kansas? Such a law could make Kansas a more enjoyable state to live in and make it more attractive for people. President Reagan recently proposed the relaxation of the Clean Water Act, and enforcement of clean air statutes has been lax since the cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency. It sounds as if it will be up to Kansans to keep Kansas beautiful. A returnable-bottle law could be the only chance for Kansans, or Americans everywhere, Arcade tax would burden business Video games recently have made incredible amounts of money providing miniature wars and hungry dots to entertain the public. Although the games have aroused much publicity because of their widespread use, the indisputable fact is that many people want a part of the action. And now the Lawrence City Commission also wants the city to get a piece of the video-game Unfortunately, the proposed tax on local owners and operators of video games clearly is The proposed ordinance, which the commission appears to support strongly, would require licensing of each "arcade" in the city. An arcade must be business operating one or more video games. Operators would pay $50 each year to get a license and another $50 for each game in their set. Those people owning, operating or managing those games would pay an additional $100 each year. That means that a business owner who owns one machine would pay a whopping $200 each year to the city for that game — initially installed to make extra money. Arcades that only provide these games for their profit will pay staggering amounts of money to the city each year, possibly cutting drastically into their profits. Aloy Lenn, management analyst with the city, surveyed several other cities to see how much money they had taxed video game owners, and found that the average fee was about $100 on the operator and $50 on each machine. On that basis, the commission last month decided the average was a fair tax. Unfortunately, the image of video game owners — and of their machines — seems to be almost as low as government officers. Video games steal children's money, corrupt their brains and lead them into passive roles in society. Game owners seem to be the ones promoting CATHERINE BEHAN this debauchery, and the general public, with money as tight as it is these days, does not like to see others make lots of money -- it makes the ones that do make money appear to be crooks. The City Commission has latched onto a money-making operation that will likely make for a loud meeting when it considers the tax at its meeting tomorrow. But although video games have their faults — 1 myself hate to lose to the machines — they should not be the object of an unfair tax simply because they make a lot of money for the owners. The reason video games do make a lot of money is because the games are fun. The challenge of eating dots before the monsters eat you, or shooting out meteors before they hit your space vehicle, is hard to resist for many people. And losing often makes the player take a few more tries — and pay a few more quarters for the chance to win. The Commission has said that the tax does single out video games, but, as Commissioner Nancy Shontz said, "that's in the nature of taxation." But video game owners already pay taxes for items that have been singled in the past. They pay property tax, sales tax, and state and federal income tax. They pay rent for the store and pay rent for the games. I do not think it is fair, then, to place another tax on the game owners seemingly just to get in touch. Arcade owners have formed a committee to fight the ordinance, proposed at a time when the economy is so shaky and small businesses across the country are folding daily. The committee says that it is paying enough taxes already and that the proposed tax could affect the jobs of a number of people employed by the business involved with the machines. Bob Schumm, a former City Commissioner who is a local businessman and member of the committee, said recently, "If you feel it's an opportunity for you to have up to speak, I believe you'll see a fight," Senate boasts conservatives of many colors By WESLEY G. PIPPERT United Press International WASHINGTON — Nowadays it is not enough merely to identify a senator as a conservative There are fiscal conservatives and there are social conservatives — and sometimes a senator Fiscal conservatives believe in cutting big government, especially welfare programs. It's generally a matter of political philosophy with them. social conservatives, often called the New Right, favorently oppose abortion, school busing for desegregation, but support school prayer. They tend to see the battle as a holy war. Sen. Barry M. Goldwater, R-Ariz, the recognized elder of fiscal conservatives since the one-time Phoenix department store owner came to the Senate, wrote "Conscience of a Conservative," and was the 1964 Republican nominee for president. Now serving up his last term, Goldwater has not been reticent in offering blunt views about the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Moral Majority, and he has asserted in plain language his opposition to the voluntary prayer and anti-abortion legislation. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., is the recognized dean of the social conservatives. He is fiscally conservative too but he gained her motority in 1970 and has maintained his voluntary prayer measures onto the floor. Freshman Sen. John P. East, also R-N-C, is perhaps the most conservative member of the Senate in every regard. East, a political scientist with a Ph.D., won early attention in 1981 by chairing length hearings on the anti-abortion defined human life as starting at conception. The freshman Republican class is far more doctrinaire than other groups, or even President Reagan. And several joined East in voting against the tax bill — and Reagan. On the other hand, Sen. Mark Haffield, R-Ore, presents an enigramic case. As an opponent of the Vietnam War and a staunch advocate of civil rights, Senator Bernie Sanders won a reputation as a liberal Republican. Now, as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and thus a key Republican player for the administration, Hatfield often calls for the administration and endorse social cuts he does not support. Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr., the last of a Virginia dynasty, is like, East A, a thorough conservative. But, like Haffield, he is enigmatic, too. He was elected originally as a Democrat, declared he is a Republican, still sits on the Democratic side of the Senate, but almost always votes with the Republicans. East was one of a handful of Republican senators who opposed the $88 billion tax bill that President Reagan wanted. You guessed it — Goldwater was another. The University Daily KANSAN (USFS 640-640) Published at the University of Kansas during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holiday and final periods. Second-class postpaid paid at Lawrence, Kansas 64045. Subscriptions by man are for six for the student and six for the county. Student subscriptions are $ a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Editor Business Manager Gene George Susan Cooksey Managing Editor Steve Rodratoh Editorial Editor Believea Changy Campaign Editor Mark Zellman Associate Campus Editor Brian Levinson Assistant Campus Editors Coleen Carp, Larry Hurley Sport Editor Gin Stripproff Associate Sports Editor Tom Cook Entertainment Editor Janet Wille Production Manager Lilian David Makeup Editors Becky Roberts, Jan Boutez, Barb Elli Wire Editors Jain Murge, Amy Calvich, Cary Behan Photographers Dan Hirschkopf Head Copier David Hirschkopf Copy Chief Trace Hamilton Stock Column Cathy Behan, Tom Green, Lisa Gutnerfer, Trace Hamilton Tom Hutton, Hal Klupper Hill Wille Retail Sales Manager Herb Baum National Sales Manager Jane Wendertz Campus Sales Manager Mattie Langham Chapelhead Manager Laurie Sammonhill Production Manager Ann Hardenberg Raft Contract/Production Manager Ann Hardenberg Tournament Manager Mike Bainberg General Manager and News Advisor Paul Rudnowsky Advertising Manager John Oberman