4A
Thursday, September 26, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
American public wants to see Perot in debates
As the Nov. 5 presidential election draws near, the American public again is hearing a giant sucking sound. No, it's not the sound of jobs being lost to a foreign power, it's the sound of air leaking out of the tires of the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Last week, in a move that sent the message that issues don't matter in American politics, the bipartisan panel decided to exclude billionaire Ross Perot from the presidential debates. Why? The commission decided that Perot is not a viable candidate based on his current standing. This is a silly standard. By the same reasoning, Bob Dole shouldn't be in the debates either.
Polls are only snapshots in time. To make such a decision based purely on this week's numbers is slipshod politics at best, blatant disregard for the public at worst. But the issues raised by this decision go deeper than mere polls.
The most important reason to let Perot in is that he is receiving about $29 million in federal matching funds. That's money that came from American pocketbooks. Shouldn't this country at least be allowed to see what it's buying?
That's the view that most Americans have. A CNN/USA Today poll last week found that 60 percent of those questioned want to see Perot in a debate with Clinton and Dole. At a bare minimum, this should at least make the commission think twice about its decision.
Perot is unpopular — so is Newt Gingrich. Does this preclude Perot from having a say in any public forum? Perot is a little quirky. He is more likely to drone on about how the CIA and the Republican Party wanted to crash his daughter's wedding more than talk about tax reform. But are not Dole and Clinton subject to fits of silliness as well? Maybe the commission felt somewhat embarrassed after the 1992 display of bad temper by Perot and almost total buffoonery by his running mate, James Stockdale?
"Participation is not extended to candidates because they might prove interesting or entertaining," said Paul Kirk, co-chairman of the commission.
While this may be the case, Perot is credited with raising issues of value to the average American family, such as job security. Yes, excitement is not an aspect of the process anymore, but at least the pugnacious Perot provided some relief from the endless monotone of Clinton and Bush.
This year disillusioned voters have turned away from major parties. Why? They are angry. They are disenchanted with both parties and view anyone connected with the political system somewhere between plaque and cholesterol. The body politic clearly is looking for alternatives. The commission has sent them a signal: Your vote will be wasted on the candidate of your choice and not our choosing.
Supposedly, it is unreasonable to ask a commission composed of five Democrats and five Republicans to allow those outside the mainstream into the political system. But is the goal of the debates to select a majorparty candidate or to select the candidate with the best ideas? Ignoring independent ideas is contrary to a principle this country has always supported: the free exchange of ideas. By excluding Perot from the debates, the commission also tells independent voters that their ideas aren't important; independents are outside the political mainstream, and therefore should not be given any national recognition.
Third parties do exist. Barring them from the discussion only confirms what they have said about the system for years. It's fixed. Does anyone think it is logical to have only the major parties represented on the debate commission? These are the people who stand to gain the most from no change at all.
Perot may not be the independent candidate who will sweep the nation by storm, but this decision sets a dangerous precedent for independents in the future.
ANN MARCHAND AND TOM MOORE 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
Campus ... Suannna Loe...
... Jason Strait
... Amy McVey
Editorial ... John Collar
Features ... Nicole Kennedy
Sports ... Adam Ward
Sports ... Bill Petulla
Associate sports .. Carlyn Foster
Online editor .. David L. Teksa
Photo .. Rich Devkni
Graphics .. Noah Musser
Andrew Rothbock
Special sections .. Amy McVey
Wire .. Debbie Staine
KAREN GERSCH
Business manager
HEALY SMART
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Mark Ozdemk
Regional mgr ... Neil Demptei
Assistant Retail mgr ... Dana Contento
National mgr ... Krista Nye
Management mgr ... Heath Kelley
Production mgr ... Dan Kopec
... Lisa Quebbman
Marketing director ... Eric Johnson
Finance manager ... Ben Janssen
Classified mgr ... Shelly Wachter
Shawn Trimble/KANSAN
Apathy gets things done often makes a statement
Some people call me apathetic. I prefer the term "selectively energetic."
The truth is, there isn't much out there to get passionate about lately. People ask why I don't use this space as many others do to get all hot n' heavy about political issues; I just don't believe in wasting time on pointless things. I realize that this is a college newspaper, and I'm 20 years old, not a political insider or a captain of industry. My views hold slightly less weight than Kate Moss in the rain.
Last week, someone wrote a letter to the editor calling another columnist a 'liar' no fewer than three times. The subject of his ire: her views on the Republican convention, a protest I found akin to provoking a fistfight with the commentator at the Westminster Dog Show.
I'm so tired of this world full of self-conscious intellectual masturbation, pointless noise and empty motion. Everyone constantly rehashes debates others already have had, failing to come to a conclusion — or at least some fresh thought.
This weekend, I waited on a couple on their first — and probably last — date. He spent the evening hevelently making all the same pro-euthanasia arguments. She spent the evening looking at the noodle on his chin. I got an 8 percent tip.
Too many people care about too much, whether they are affected personally or whether they know what they are talking about. The abortion issue. Gays in the military. Gays not in the military. Nonaborting nongays not in the military who
People invest a personal, emotional stake in everything, allowing their passion to blind them and make them ignorant and indecisive.
support the military look for prewinter.
they like to hear themselves talk.
And those who don't have a corresponding view: Ignorants! Cretins! What gives them the right?
Everybody has a God-given, end-all, be all, Armor-ion opinion, and
I think we need to learn not to care about certain issues. There is a difference between apathy (i.e., a year without a new Alicia Silverstone movie) and nihilism (e.g., a universe in which Alicia Silverstone does not exist).
Selective apathy allows plenty of time to view cosmically and personally unimportant issues for what they are and paves the way for an objective, productive approach.
Apathy has been condemned mistakenly as the ultimate in civic irresponsibility. Once again, the same drum is being beaten about the millions who won't vote, and millions are being spent trying to force them to do so. This bypasses effectively the problem by attempting to solve the solution.
People decline to vote not because they're lazy but because no candidates meet their needs — or a candidate who appears to meet their needs probably will change
that commitment if elected. Choosing not to choose is just as valid and active a choice. I'm not voting. I'll tell you that right now. I make this argument in the hope that millions of people also will stop voting, and then my vote actually will be worth something.
Bottom line: Apathy can get things done. For example, I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape about the Borders Book Shop issue. Here's a headline for you: 90 PERCENT OF US DON'T CARE. So why doesn't everybody just shut up, flip a coin, build a Borders or not build one and then go plant a tree?
The net result: a Borders store most of us can't afford to frequent or an old stable at which older people can point and say "Ooh." In either case, the miracle of photosynthesis will continue.
There you have it; ecological and civic responsibility in 30 seconds. Give me a rubber stamp; I'm ready to run this town. The time for active inaction is now. My first imperative: The interesting stuff, such as bribery and graft, will be carried out in the public forum, and zoning debates will be hammered out under tables and by dark piers in the middle of the night.
So go ahead and write letters telling me that I'm backward, misrepresentative of a generation and revivalist of a 30-year-old thought that didn't work the first time around.
Here's an anticlimax for you: I really don't care.
Mike Martin is a Lenoxa sophomore in English and theater and film.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Chalkboard message offensive to student
Tuesday I left my class in Wescoe Hall feeling up and excited about life. However, as I was leaving the fourth floor and descending the stairs I noticed some writing in Chinese on the chalkboard. I did not think anything of it until I noticed something else above the writing — "Aren't you a U.S. citizen?"
I would not go as far as to say that immigrants and foreign students should not attempt to learn the English language. In fact, most immigrants and non-English speakers do want to learn English. Furthermore, international students must not only pass the Test of English as a Foreign Language, but pass a tougher test administered by the Applied English Center.
As an American citizen and a student at KU, I would like to say this to the international students at the University. Please do not think that the ignorant attitudes of some students represent the larger student body.
By advocating a system of "English Only" we also are advocating forced assimilation. When the dominant culture forces assimilation on immigrants and other people of color, it is projecting an ethnocentric ideology. This ethnocentric ideology inherently alienates certain groups of people by saying that their culture is inferior to the dominant culture.
This University, along with hundreds of others, makes a tremendous amount of money off its international students. I would ask whoever wrote the offensive comment on the chalk board to reevaluate his or her position on international students. Diversity is a beautiful thing and should be cherished, not disrespected.
Rochelle Votaw Lawrence senior
I hate to say this, but Bob Dole has got it wrong on crime.
OUT FROM THE CRACKS
MAYBE IF I JUST WRITE SOME NOTES ON MY HAND, I COULD LOOK AT THEM DURING THE TEST!
Dole said that the nation's crime problems could be summed up with one word: criminals.
That's wrong. The crime problem can be summed up in three words: family and criminals.
Dole should incorporate family values in crime issue
Dole's stance on crime — that is, stopping crime by dealing harshly with criminals.
OH! AND MAYBE I SHOULD WRITE SOME EQUATIONS ON MY SHOES...THAT WOULD REALLY HELP!
STAFF COLUMNIST
— is a reactive response and bad government.
Reacting to a problem rather than stopping it before it happens makes as much sense as giving suntan lotion to someone who already has a burn.
The best way for a government to operate is to spend money to give the greatest return to the people. Fighting crime means doing whatever it takes to deter crime.
Dole has separated two campaign issues that belong together. He has taken a tough stance on crime and in his next breath, decried the breakdown of the family without tying the two issues together.
Along the same lines, Dole won't be able to stop half of American teen-agers from experimenting with drugs by telling them he is going to send them to prison. He has to address that problem at the core as well.
Financing Head Start centers now is better than building a prisons later.
Family and crime aren't separate issues. The buildup of family values and the attack on crime together are the first half of the assault the war on crime requires. The secondary focus should be dealing with criminals.
It's silly to wonder why kids raised by Beavis and Butthead rather than Mom and Dad use violence to resolve conflicts.
To borrow the Republican defense argument, the first step in creating peace is to prepare for war. Crime is no different; it's better to prevent crime than to try to reform criminals.
After all, children don't join gangs because they want to be criminals; they join gangs because they want to belong to something. Kids who have a good self-image don't steal so they can buy the latest athletic shoes and look cool.
Merely touting family values is meaningless, and trying to deal with crime reactively is backward. Dole's family values platform should be connected to his rhetoric on crime.
Dole favors restricting the liberties of those who infringe on the freedom of others. It's a good second-half answer to a two-part question. All he has to do to solve the first half of the crime problem is return to family values.
Yes, Dole knows how to handle criminals: Lock them up, and make them hate it so much they will want to move to one of Jack Kemp's enterprise zones, start a small business and commit white-collar crimes instead.
Just kidding.
Andy Obermuelmer is a Liberal, Kan...
Junior in Journalism.
By Jeremy Patnoi