4A
Friday, September 27,1996
OPINION
UN I V E R S I T Y D A I L Y K A N S A N
VIEWPOINT
Trafficway plan will not lessen wetlands damage
The struggle concerning the fate of the South Lawrence Trafficway has escalated with Douglas County Commissioner Jim Chappell's pro-
las County Commissioner Jill Chappers's proposal to build the final stretch of the trafficway on 35th Street. The trafficway would link Kansas Highway 10 to the West Lawrence Trafficway near U.S. 59.
Chappell has proposed that about one mile of the 5.6 mile trafficway be built on piers over the Baker Wetlands to reduce the trafficway's harm to wildlife. Additionally, Chappell proposes that the county purchase 3,000 acres of farmland to the east of the Baker Wetlands. The farmland would be flooded to create a new wetland.
Despite Chappell's attempt to reach a compromise, his plan would destroy the wetlands and the wildlife living there and ultimately ruin its educational and aesthetic benefits. The proposal would destroy the wetlands' stature as "an area of repose and rejuvenation and would greatly diminish its use as an outdoor classroom," said Beverly Worster, 3rd District candidate for county commissioner.
The Federal Highway Administration concluded that the construction of the 35th Street alternative not only would eliminate wetlands in the roadway right-of-way but also would damage the remaining wetlands. Chappell's proposal also neglects the opposition to a 35th Street alignment from Baker University, which owns and manages the wetlands.
Although Chappell is attempting to resolve the trafficway dilemma creatively, his proposal does not compensate for the destruction of the wetlands, and he is flagrantly ignoring both the opinions of Baker and a federal agency. Chappell must realize that our community desires nothing less than complete protection of the wetlands, and therefore he must wake up to the futility of aligning the trafficway through the wetlands.
JEREMY LIND FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Data service invades privacy posts personal information
Freedom of information recently took a wicked turn. Lexis-Nexis, a news and legal information provider, began a service called P-Trak that gives subscribers access to a person's name, phone number, mother's maiden name, address, previous addresses and even aliases. At one time, the service included Social Security numbers, which were removed in June after many people voiced disapproval.
This information was intended as a resource for legal professionals to locate witnesses and suspects. However, its purpose and its possible abuses are different things. This information always was available to anyone who requested it. By filling out governmental forms declaring, among other things, that the applicant had no criminal record, one could get information about any U.S. citizen.
In reality, P-Trak makes it much easier for criminals, junk mail clearing houses, telemarketing firms and everyone else to infiltrate people's lives. While the government could pass laws to police this information, citizens in general do not want more government in their lives.
So it falls to each of us to protect ourselves. If we allow people to tread on our rights, we will begin losing them. In the case of P-Trak, contact them and ask them to remove your information from this database:
Telephone: 1-800-543-6862
E-mail: send your full name to P-Trak @prod.lexisnexis.com
On the web: fill out the form at the Lexis-Nexis site, http://www.lexis-nexis.com/
By mail: P-TRAK, P.O. Box 933, Dayton, Ohio 45401
H. MARQ CONNER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
AMANDA TRAUGHBER
Editor
CRAIG LANG
Managing editor
MATT HOOD
Associate managing editor for design
KIMBERLY CRABTREE
CHARITY JEFFRIES
News editors
DARCI L. McLAIN
SARA ROSE
Public relations directors
Business manager HEALY SMART Retail sales manager TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser JAY STEINER Sales and marketing adviser JUSTIN KNUPP Technology coordinator
Campus ... Suanna Lóðí
... Jason Strait
... Amy MeyVé
Editorial ... John Collier
... Nicole Kennedy
Features ... Matt Wise
Sports ... Bill Petulla
Associate sports ... Carlyn Foster
On-line editor ... David L Teasko
Photo ... Rich Devinki
Graphics ... Noch Musser
Artist Rothenbacher
Special sections ... Amy MeyVé
Wire ... Debbie Stalne
Shawn Trimble/KANSAN
Business Staff
Campus mgr .. Mark Ozdemk
Regional mgr .. Dennis Haupt
Assistant Retail mgr .. Dana Gentso
Marketing mgr .. Linda Becker
Special Sales mgr .. Heather Vallier
Production mgr .. Dan Kopec
Marketing director .. Lisa Quebbeman
Marketing manager .. Seamond Lavelle
Classified mgr .. Shelly Wachter
Everyone should respect not tolerate, each other
What self-respecting college student doesn't remember Dr. Seus? Arguably, no children's author was more influential in shaping the views of our generation. One of my favorite Seus stories involves certain star-bellied Sneetches.
You remember the story. Some of the Sneetches had "stars upon th'ars," and some didn't. And the ones with stars fought all the time with the starless Sneetches. Until, one fateful day, along came Sylvester McMonkey McBean, who could make them all look just alike with his special machine. It worked, all too well, and the story enues with the rival Sneetch factions becoming even more angry when they all look alike, and the confusion causes them all to lose their identity.
It seems today that old Sylvester McMonkey McBean is at it again. The politicians and cultural elites now try to convince us that we are all the same, that I just shouldn't disagree with you about anything, or that if I do, I should keep it to myself. They call it "tolerance."
I heard State Rep. Phill Kline, R-Shawnee, talk about tolerance recently. "You tolerate warts," he said. "You don't tolerate people. You respect people."
He's got a point. When I say I'm tolerating something, it means that
I don't like it, but I grit my teeth and bear it, hating it all the while. It seems incredibly cruel to do that to a person. If your roommate is tolerating you, it makes it very difficult to live with him or her, doesn't it?
STAFF COLUMNIST
do, as Kline said, is respect people. That means being grown-up enough to say, "I disagree." It doesn't mean throwing around childish insults; it does mean having a rational discussion.
What we should
But society these days just isn't up for a rational discussion. We would rather wrap ourselves in the language of hate and fear without giving each other the respect we deserve. There is value in every point of view — not necessarily truth, but at least value. That value is wasted when we launch personal attacks on someone. It is maximized when we point out the truth or error in that person's argument.
Different people act differently, think differently and believe differently. Often, we decide to put those
The people who get remembered are the people who take a stand. Keeping your views and dissents to yourself never gets you anywhere. Progress occurs, and heroes are made when someone has the courage to stand up and say, "This is wrong," or "This is right." That's how slavery was eliminated. That's how the Boston Tea Party happened. That's how the silliness of the Sneetches on the beaches got stopped.
beliefs that make us who we are aside in the name of tolerance. That's dangerous because, just as the Sneetches, we forget "which one was what one, or what one was who." There is something to be said for taking a stand. You can't let that stand keep you from communicating and functioning in society, but you also can't let society separate you from your beliefs.
That doesn't mean we should go around looking for a fight. The people who find their identity in how far they are from the norm are more conformist than anyone else. We should live at peace when we can, understanding that people are different. But we shouldn't spout insults and anger just to offend people. That's how you convince others not to listen to you.
Andy Rohrback is an Andover sophomore in Journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Smokers shouldn't use campus as an ashtray
Knowing that tobacco is highly addictive, and smoking is difficult to quit, I wonder whether the undocumented side effects include a tendency to litter and to be insensitive to others' sensibilities.
How else might one explain the crass remarks of the smokers quoted in the Kansan? I hope those students are not indicative of smokers on campus, but the amount of smoking-related trash on Wescos Beach
The necessary evil of Hoch Auditorium aside, the University is a beautiful campus and a lot of money is spent to maintain it. But students, faculty and staff also have an obligation to help maintain the cleanliness of campus.
suggests otherwise.
Trash disposal is not a large obligation, but it is a necessary one. Cigarette butts are still trash, despite their size and the ease with which they can be flung away.
The next phrase has fallen out of fashion, but it is applicable to this ongoing debate: "Your rights end where my nose begins."
The tobacco industry wants us
to believe that smoking is a right. If this is true, then its corollaries would include the right to litter and the right to subtly poison other people.
David-Michael Allen Lawrence graduate student
HUBIE
LONG HAIR
STAR WARS T-SHIRT
BACKWARDS HAT
BAGGY SHORTS
AIRWALKS
DISAPPEARED LOOK
...GREW UP WITH BILL AND TED,
WAIME AND GARTH, BEANIS AND
BUTHEAD, DITCHED GLAM METAL
WHEN NIRRANA ARRIVED. PREPRES
PAC MAN TO MORTAL KOMBAT.
FIRST LIST OBJECT WAS CHRISTIE
BRINKLEY. REMEMBERS WHEN
KNIGHT RIDER WAS THE COOLEST
SHOW ON TV. REALIZED THAT THE
MACARGNA WAS OVER WHEN
HILARY CLUNTON DID IT AT THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
Among other things, the commission cited Perot's low showing in the
FATHER SKIPPED TOWN WHEN A TEENAGER. DISTRICTS AUTHORITY AND PEOPLE IN GENERAL. HATES ADVERTISEMENTS. RESENTS MANIPULATION. NEP. A CLASSIC CASE OF GENERATION X.
The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates announced its decision last week to exclude Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot from the fall debates. The commission used 11 criteria to weed out candidates who seemingly have no chance of winning the election.
Ross Perot, as court jesters of old, gives vital opinions
The exclusion of Perot represents maintaining the political status quo of allowing only career politicians a forum to rehash fired promises and plans. Little harm would be done by allowing Perot in the debates. If nothing else, he could provide comic relief to the often dry and sarcastic bars disguised as discourse. He is the political equivalent of the court jesters of old. Elections are serious business, but allowing Perot to take on Clinton and Dole would help remind us that humor can be found in even the most complex situations.
Shannon Tauscher is a Lawrence senator in social welfare.
It could be argued that many voters pick the candidate of their choice long before the debates. The sanitized and made-for-television conventions of the two major parties earlier this year probably only reaffirmed this decision for those voters. But the debates could provide a glimpse of the candidates under pressure without the benefit of their spin doctors.
pons. Depending on the source,
Perot commands about 5 to 7 percent of the vote.
If we recall the 1992 election, we know this very well could change. Prior to the debates that year, Perot had a 9 percent support rating that jumped to 19 percent after the debates.
According to a poll reported in The Kansas City Star, 60 percent of those questioned support allowing Perot to participate in the debates. They don't want to vote for him, but they do want to hear what he has to say. Most people, myself included, see him as a quirkish and distasteful option for our nation's highest office. Nothing he could say in a debate would change my opinion, but I believe that he does have the right to state his vision for the United States. Apparently, a majority of Americans concur.
History tells us
History tends to stranger things have happened. Anyone who has taken a history class can recall the image of Harry S. Truman holding up the prematurely printed newspaper with the headline declaring "Dewey Defeats Truman." Although I doubt this election will hold any such surprises, history has a tendency of repeating itself.
During his 1992 bid for the presidency, Perot brought issues of great significance to the public arena. Armed with his colorful charts and irritatingly nasal voice, he convinced Americans that the federal debt was an issue whose time had come. If you doubt the extent to which his candidacy influenced public policy, consider the events of the past year. We have seen several government shutdowns and greater attention to federal spending, which Perot was instrumental in fueling and articulating.
Perot may not have a snowball's chance in hell of carrying any state, let alone the entire election, but he is on the ballot in all 50 states. He has qualified for $29 million in federal matching funds. Democratic and Republican wishes aside, Perot is not going away.
.
By Greg Hardin
OH YEAH . .. KAWS DEEP
DOWN THAT VAN HALEN WAS
COOL WITH BOTH DAVE AND
SAMMY.