OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Thursday, August 22, 1996
5A
The making of the president'96
Bigot vs. hypocrite is choice
I was dancing with the devil the other night in my living room, trying to decide if condemning my soul to eternal torment would be an acceptable exchange for getting the Republican Pony Show out of the news.
It was a close call, and when he mentioned axing the upcoming Democratic convention as well, I almost took the deal. But then he posed this interesting conundrum: if I had to pick between two candidates — one a hypocrite, the other a bigot — whom would I choose?
Golly gge, I thought, what an appropriate question considering the choices for president this year.
"Maybe if I could talk with them, Satan," I suggested. "Then I could see what they had to say, and I could answer your question."
And with a flick of his forked tail, there they were in my living room.
Clinton looked a little confused at first, so I got him a Snickers from the refrigerator and followed that with a question about homosexuality and the government. He told me that he wholeheartedly supports equal rights and protections for gays and lesbians, and he has even done some things that support his claim.
He has included homosexuals in civil rights legislation, ordered the government and military not to discriminate based on sexual orientation and come out in opposition to the Victorian/Klan mentality of such states as Colorado, where citizens are trying to write intolerance into their state constitution.
"Nicely done, Mr President," I said. "Now tell me, why can't those in the military mention their spouses or talk about their families?
"Oh, wait. My mistake. That is only homosexual members of the military who can't speak of their families. Heterosexuals can talk about whatever they want. They can put up pictures of their wedding, their 2.3 kids, and last year's vacation to Bermuda. They can even complain aloud that their spouse kept them up all night obsessing over Bob Dole's infatuation with Reaganomics. It is only homosexuals who are discriminated against I see.
"And then — tell me if this is right, Mr. President — you say that the government can't discriminate against homosexuals, but you also support a ban on homosexual marriage. Well, I see no contradiction there. As usual, your position
on this matter is crystal clear. Thank you for your time. Give me back the candy bar."
My conversation with Dole mercifully went much quicker. After he turned green and mildly apoplectic at the thought of consummated gay love, he belted out, "No quotas! Affirmative action is a sign of the Antichrist!"
While wondering what this had to do with the topic at hand — which I usually do while Dole is speaking — I turned to Satan to see if this were true. He gave nothing away, however. Not even a twinkling in his cute little Stygian eyes.
So I reached a decision and held on to my soul for now. The course of a nation cannot be decided in my living room over a Snickers bar.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to endure the weeklong party love-fests and the corresponding repetitive, biased news articles to gain a clearer picture of the candidates. Picking between hypocrites and bigots is a messy, time-consuming process. At least I can be thankful that the Perot Party didn't make it to prime time. Eternal torment would be cake compared to that.
Todd Hiatt is a Lyndon senior in social welfare.
I watched some of the Republican National Convention last week in a somewhat misguided attempt to stay politically informed. Being blessedly independent in my political views, I was amazed by the spectacle. I found it interesting that the organizers went to such great lengths to stage a huge party for citizen Bob Dole to accomplish one goal — to woo women. At least, women voters.
Not all women won by speech
The entire week, wherever I turned, be it to Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings or The Kansas City Star, discussion of the so-called gender gap ran rampant. According to political analysts, women everywhere, including Republican women, are growing disillusioned with the Republican party.
It seems that they were successful, at least in numbers. In the latest polls, Dole and President Clinton are virtually even.
Therefore, it became Dole's campaign goal to use the convention to speak out to women everywhere. Come see the softer side of Dole, they screamed.
That means an almost 20-point jump in the polls for Dole, so it would seem that the attempt to show Dole as a man for all people, including women, was successful. However, it was not. And the obvious question here is, why?
STAFF COLUMNIST
The answer is that Dole did not reach me; therefore, he did not reach all women voters. He failed to woo fairly moderate female voters.
In fact, after watching bits and pieces of the convention,
I have a lower opinion of Dole than I had
before it. That alone is a feat greater than his jump in the polls. I really did not think that my opinion of him could get much worse.
Dole's problem is that throughout the convention, many people said many good things in an attempt to bring women and minorities into the Republican Party. And while I did not see all of the convention, what I did see made me sick to my stomach.
Everything seemed, at best, staged, and at worst, insincere. The party tried to reach out to every group in an attempt to prove that anyone can be and should be a Republican. What they ended up doing was excluding anyone who just wanted honesty.
Furthermore, Dole's jump in the polls will not last. First of all, the convention is now finished, and
he cannot ride on that apparent success for the remainder of the campaign. The American people have a fairly short attention span, and many people will forget. Some people already have.
Second, we still have the spectacle of the Democratic National Convention to change our minds. Clinton is a more gifted speaker than Dole and has the edge for two reasons: He already holds the office, and he is a mere 50 years old. Everyone who jumped on the Dole bandwagon at the Convention will jump off when the Democrats get their turn.
While they too will be horribly fake and somewhat insincere, they will have the benefit of the last laugh.
Women voters cannot be wooed merely by the insincere words of a party that has been the good-ol'boys' club for generations. It takes actions that recognize women as both half of this planet and as other human beings to do what Dole hopes his words will accomplish.
Until the Republican Party recognizes this, the so-called gender gap will continue to haunt Dole in the polls and will be the deciding factor in the November election.
Stacy Nagy is a Topena junior in Russian and women's studies.
Professor rejects use of Jon's Notes in classes
As a professor in one of the larger courses on campus, Biology 104. I have been approached repeatedly about permitting a professional notetaking service, Jon's Notes, to operate in my class.
Liking service. Moreover, several students in the class when I last taught it also asked my reasons and suggested that I was irresponsible, selfish or overly hard on my students for refusing to participate. Because I will be teaching two large classes this semester, I feel that it is the time to state my opinions more publicly, in the hope that the students and professors of KU can arrive at a better understanding of the implications of a commercial, for-profit note-taking service.
Jon's Notes has sent me several packets of information regarding its operations.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
operations.
I quote, "Jon's Notes is to help good students become great students
by providing them with detailed, accurate notes of your lecture material.
"We agree that students should take their own notes; that note-taking is an important part of the learning process. However, students do not have equal note-taking abilities."
All this rhetoric sounds quite positive and well-intentioned, and a good number of my colleagues have agreed to participate in the program.
Enthusiasm for a commercial note-taking enterprise at KU, however, is not universal. Several professors insist that note-taking, and reliance on the quality of those notes, is a critical phase of the learning process. Others worry that attendance will decline when students know that quality notes will be available regardless.
KU's administration has pointed out the basis in University regulations for refusal of such a commercial venture, founded on the property rights of the lecturer. My complaint, however, is much more basic.
Because Jon's Notes is a commercial venture, its actions are designed around turning a profit; thus, they charge for access to the lecture notes. My lectures are made available to students regardless of income or economic ability, so also should be all matters related to the class.
Jon's Notes has offered me "scholarships," free notes that I could use to allow access to students with no possibility of purchasing notes, but that is only a Band-Aid approach. The point is that some students can easily afford to purchase notes, whereas others may have to choose between purchasing notes and, say, buying a new shirt, eating a dinner out or obtaining some necessity.
The case is therefore one of differential access to class materials based on economic situation; this arrangement is unacceptable to me.
A. Townsend Peterson
Assistant professor, systematics and ecology