Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Jodie Chester, Editor Marc Harrell, Business manager Gerry Doyle, Managing editor Jamie Holman, Retail sales manager Ryan Koerner, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Tuesday, October 27,1998
Robert Novak / KANSAN
Editorial
New technology to ease research pains
Administrators for the University of Kansas Libraries deserve thanks from students for spending $1 million to make library research easier and less time-consuming.
The current online catalog at all KU Libraries is 15 years old, and students using it cannot search using basic keywords (much like an Internet search engine for example). Aside from this antiquated interface problem, the current catalogs customized features prevent it from being able to interact with other library systems, said Rob Melton, library publications coordinator. Students resources, then, are somewhat limited.
The new online catalog, Voyager, is scheduled to arrive at 12 University libraries on the Lawrence,
The University libraries spent $1 million to update online catalogs.
Wichita and Kansas City campuses
Wichita and Kansas City campuses. Voyager will be significantly more flexible with a more user-friendly search system, availability of data from other libraries in the nation, keyword searches, narrower searches by language, date and even type of publication. Users can decide how they want their search results displayed. They can even select the records they want and e-mail them.
Voyager will be part of a wider system for university libraries. KU Integrated Library Systems will include, in addition to the online catalog,
databases for circulation, ordering materials, serial number records and even accounting records. All of the information should be available from remote locations.
Malton said that anybody who was computer literate would appreciate the new system.
Any step in improving the outdated, limited library system already in place is a welcome one. As a prominent research institution, providing easier, quicker and wider access to information is vital to maintaining the caliber of University research.
Anybody who uses the libraries just about all students, faculty and researchers should be grateful that library officials are working to make their lives a little easier.
Chris Borniger for the editorial board
Feedback
Hate crime laws do not violate free speech
Andrew Marino said that laws against hate crimes violate free speech in his column Oct. 20. Would he say the same for extortion or terroristic threats? What about soliciting a hit man, colluding to restrain trade, or publishing a false advertisement?
In physical terms, these are speech acts and no more. Yet most civil libertarians agree these acts can be regulated because they not only inflict harm, but also go beyond mere speech.
Pure speech acts are constitutionally protected if they are mere selfexpression rather than action in the world. Protected speech can affect the world, but the intended
channel is persuading others to act. Threats do not persuade; rather, they impel compliance through fear. Solicitations do not merely persuade; in addition, they attempt to enter into a contract.
Regulating hate crimes is constitutionally permissible for two independent reasons.
1. The underlying crime is not a speech act at all; rather, it is a violent act such as assault, rape, or murder. The degree of punishment for a violent crime always hinges on the perpetrators' states of mind, such as motive, pre-meditation, self-defense, or sanity. It is quite reasonable to make bigoted violence an aggravating circumstance.
2. Both the specific intent and the effect of a hate crime is to terrorize a larger class of persons, not
merely the immediate victim, and to prevent them from fully enjoying their ordinary civil liberties. Hate crimes deserve heightened penalties precisely because they have even more serious consequences than ordinary violent crimes.
Those who oppose hate crime laws must logically oppose war crimes trials and international accords against genocide. Most civil libertarians, however, would welcome narrowly drafted laws that enhance protection of civil liberties for members of unpopular groups.
Research Economist Institute for Public Policy and Business Research
David Burress
Kansan staff
Ann Premer ... Editorial
Tim Harrington ... Associate Editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Gwen Olson ... News
Aaron Knopf ... Online
Matt Friedrichs ... Sports
Kevin Wilson ... Associate sports
Marc Sheforgen ... Campus
Laura Roddy ... Campus
Lindsey Henry ... Features
Bryan Volk ... Associate features
Roger Nomer ... Photo
Corie Waters ... Photo
Angie Kuhn ... Design, graphics
Melissa Ngo ... Wire
Sara Anderson ... Special sections
Laura Veazey ... news clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Stacia Williams . Assistant retail
Brandi Byram . Campus
Micah Kafitz . Regional
Ryan Farmer . National
Matt York . Marketing
Stephanie Krause . Production
Matt Thomas . Production
Tracie Meisenheimer . Creative
Tenley Lane . Classified
Sara Cropper . Zone
Nicole Farrell . Zone
Jon Schlitt . Zone
Shannon Curran . Zone
Matt Lopez . Zone
Brian Allers . PR/ Intern manager
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
— Abraham Lincoln
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
How to submit letters and guest columns
Guest columns: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The
writer must be willing to be photographed for
the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ann Premer (premer@kansan.com) or Tim Harrington (thirrington@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, email the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4810.
Typical issues debated in upcoming election
Perspective
As I wrote in my last column, this November's elections are about as interesting as a Sugar Ray CD in a recycled bin. Typical issues have shown up;
takes, education, crime,
blah, blah. I'd like to
think that this election is
important, and I wish the
candidates offered more
excitement, but pardon
me, (yawn).
Jonathan Huskey
opinion @ kansan.com
Anyway, here's the rundown on the democratic challengers to the incumbent House Republicans.
1st District: Jim Phillips. Umm, I haven't too much to say about this guy, besides that he's a Democrat from Moscow, Kan., where ever that is.
Basically, Phillips is a write-in candidate for the we're-gonna-lose anyway-democrats of the 1st district. They have pretty much conceded the race to Jerry Moran because Phillips has as much chance of winning as Candlebox taking home a Grammy. Maybe someone who is related to Mr. Phillips could give me a little insight into his politics, cause I ain't got nuthin'.
2nd District; Jim Clark. Clark is a sound alternative to the undeserving incumbent Jim Ryun. Clark is a fairly typical democrat. He opposes school vouchers, which could exacerbate inequality in education.
He favors job training and moderately progressive taxes, rather than slashing government spending and taxes that would do more for the portfolios of the richest Americans than the prospects of lower classes.
legally represented criminals. Maybe Vince is forgetting about a little clause in the Constitution called due process, whereby even "shady" characters get legal representation.
While Ryun favors its abolition, Clark would rather restructure the tax code to make it simpler. (He is skimpy on the details though.) Clark also favors some type of universal health insurance coverage. On campaign finance reform, Clark has stated that he would favor any effort that "restores fairness" to the political process. Once again, we don't exactly know what that means, but it's better than the Ryun option (universal disclosure of funding), which does nothing to reduce the influence of money on the political process.
The rest of the setup is familiar: a rich, white, suburban conservative Republican versus a rich, white, suburban, conservative Democrat.
Moore is against privatization of Social Security, a school voucher system, repeal of the Brady Bill, and a concealed weapon law. Beyond these negations, it's hard to pinpoint any policy stances. You could infer that Moore wants education to be sufficiently funded and locally controlled, crime to go down and people to have adequate health coverage, but so does his opponent. Both Moore and Snowbarger lack a semblance of strategy, outside of innovative ways to call someone a liar.
3rd District: Dennis Moore. If you vote in Lawrence, this is the race that is going to be on your ballot. Dennis Moore is a well-known former district attorney in Johnson County who has a real chance to beat Vince Snowbarger in the 3rd. This contest has been uglier than Nell Carter in a halter top. Moore has been characterized by his opponent as a felon-loving pinko who (gasp)
When you don't take a position, it's easy to misrepresent your opponent, and these two have exercised little restraint in name-calling. Don't get me wrong, I love a good personal attack, especially ones of the 30-second soundbite variety. This race would be more exciting if the candidates backed up their personal bouts with ideological ones. Dennis Moore is slightly less conservative and slightly thinner around the waist too.
4th District: Jim Lawing. A lawyer from Wichita, Lawing might be the most credible Democrat running. He offers a clear choice between himself and Republican Todd Tiahart. He has stated that he favors U.S. fulfillment of its debt to the United Nations. Lawing is against governmental subsidies for big business and for job training and creation for "struggling" sectors of our society. As a former head of the Kansas Civil Liberties Union, his position is the most substantive of any running for a Kansas House seat.
Lawing has an agenda that is in step with traditional democratic values. He believes in economic fairness for the disadvantaged and seeks to promote the general welfare of Americans through government programs, while his opponent believes a more market driven economy can fairly decide prosperity.
The election is November 3rd. Please vote. I know it might not seem to make much difference, and especially in this cycle that's probably true, but voting is the only clear political power many of us have, so use it.
Vote for yourself if you feel like it, but make sure you get out there on Election Day.
Huskey is a Salina senior in political science.
Democrat Moore courts Republican vote in race
Andrew Marino
opinion@kansan.com
mention of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and that feisty little donkey is many times absent from his literature and lips. Instead, Moore incessantly insists that he will be beholden to no party's agenda. It's a good thing, too. Advertising Democratic affiliation in this heavily Republican district would result in a Nov. 3 defeat.
Dennis Moore doesn't want the voters of Kansas' 3rd Congressional District to know something. Kept under close guard is the fact that Moore is — shh! Don't
By donning political camouflage, Moore's campaign has gained the support of the Republican country club set in Johnson County. More than 400 supporters, calling themselves Republicans for Moore, have signed up to support the Democrat's bid. Could it be? A Democrat backed by Johnson County's wealthy establishment? A cursory drive through Mission Hills and a closer look at the issues indicates an answer in the affirmative. Unfortunately, Moore has entered into the arrangement at the expense of a very large traditional constituency — the working class.
In the Oct. 18 debate with incumbent Vince Snowbarger at Johnson County Community College, Moore said Congress must stop playing "Santa Claus" with tax cuts. The metaphor was odd and actually quite inconsistent with my childhood experience. You see, Santa never took anything of mine, rewrapped it, and then gave it back. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they already own; they are a reduction in the amount of money government seizes — not a gift generously given. Moore contends that we should not let people keep more of what they earn before Social Security is saved. (A point so vaguely defined it probably means never.)
guard is the fact that we say it—the Democratic candidate for Congress
The average, working-class Kansan should question why, if Moore favors separating Social Security from the rest of the budget as he stated in the debate, he won't lower taxes that don't go to Social Security anyway? Furthermore, Kansans should challenge whether Social Security, as currently configured, is a program Congress should save in the first place. It's supported by a payroll tax that applies to the first $65,000 that a worker earns, making it a heavier burden on those with lower to middle incomes (ie: working students). Social Security benefits, however, are doled out to all older than 65, including even the wealthiest, to whom the check is mere pocket change.
Moore's rich "Republican" friends, of course, are not so desperately in need of official tax reduction and simplification. They can afford lawyers (not surprisingly another big constituency) to slide their fortunes through the outrageously complicated tax code relatively unscathed. For instance, Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch paid a 7.9 percent tax rate on his $1.3 billion in profits last year, the top rate is 40 percent. (CE: Is Rupert Murdoch Moore's friend? Is this true for taxpayers in Johnson County?)
As if Moore had not had enough of coercively taking from working Kansans, he also declared, referring to labor unions, that he was proud to have the support of working people. Substituting "money" for "support" would be more accurate. Quite literally everyone I talked to while working alongside Teamsters at UPS this summer was voting for Snowbarger. Union leaders, however, have endorsed Moore and spent union dues aiding his campaign.
During the tax-Social Security debate, Moore asked Snowbarger if he disagreed with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's recommendation that there be no tax cuts this year to preserve Social Security. Snowbarger answered that, yes, he did disagree with the venerated Chairman, but perhaps Snowbarger did not fully explain why a wealthy banker from New York married to a network news reporter could not possibly understand just why tax cuts are so important. Snowbarger, who consistently voted against giving away gold medals for the Medal of Honor because they each cost roughly as much as the average personal income in his district, clearly does. Third District Democrats have now formed a habit of courting the Country Club vote. If they're not careful, they could end up creating another coalition — Democrats for Snowbarger.
Marino is a Prairie Village sophomore in political science.