OPINION
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
www.kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
Watch debates, demand more from candidates
Tonight's first Presidential Debate will be watched intently for many reasons. Will Senator John Kerry present a warm, friendly persona, or will he be tagged as a distant academic type? Will President George W. Bush mispronounce any names, countries or types of weapons? Or will he continue to trounce his opponents by displaying himself as the kind of guy voters would want to have a beer with?
Why should either candidate take a chance on showing the intellectual capacity needed for the world's most powerful office, when the media and viewers might be more concerned with appearance?
With these questions to look forward to in a three-part presidential debate series questions of substance might be overlooked. After all, in a 2000 campaign that turned out to be much more important than most Americans and journalists believed at the time, the general discussion around the debates concerned the behavior and appearance of both candidates, and not so much what they said.
As long as they show up, stick their lines and look into the correct cameras, each side will call it a victory.
For all the emphasis, time and energy put into the debates (as the 32-page "memorandum of understanding" rules agreed to by both campaigns, makes painfully clear), lucid, logical answers seem not only unexpected tonight, but discouraged as well.
In other words, lowering expectations is the biggest and most important contest in this debate season.
After all, what is actually said in the debates is not even used; most of the focus on the part of the media will be on what happens in
the post-debate "spin rooms", in which surrogates from both campaigns will work furiously to work over the press in hopes of gaining favorable impressions for their guy.
In 2000, Gore appeared to "win" the first debate in the eyes of many journalists immediately after it finished. Yet, later that night, and for the rest of the week, the focus shifted to his "aggressiveness" and how he flubbed the name of a FEMA director.
George Bush, in comparison, benefited from the low expectations that had been established by his campaign, and was hailed as the more consistent performer in the debates.
So why even watch tonight? Because despite low expectations, vague platitudes, "spin rooms", hyper-caffeinated campaign staff, hyper-bored journalists and two candidates who may be getting on the nerves of more people than they would care to know, the debates represent an ideal for our Republic.
The prospect of the two nominees for president, engaging each other in formal debate over which one has the best vision and strategy for the nation, is one that we can all see a need for.
The three debates spread out over the next few weeks represent the only chances we will have to compare the two candidates side by side, even if we can only compare the way they perform and not what they say.
Admittedly, it's not much, but in a political climate that focuses more on not losing than anything else, it'll have to do.
Besides, the only way to raise expectations is to demand more from our candidates throughout the next month and beyond. How can we know what they are giving us now unless we watch tonight?
Call 864-0500
Free for All
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
standing out on the corner of 23rd and Iowa holding a banner for CICI's Pizza. You are the coolest banner holding guy ever. I'm gonna drink eight beers for you tonight because you're sweet, man, you have no shame and that's how you advertise. Keep up the good work.
图
Hey, this is to the guy in the red shirt at the corner of 23rd and Iowa from CiCi's Pizza: Come on, shake it! Shake it! Shake it like a Polaroid picture!
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
between the deserving and the undeserving and encourage self-sufficiency. Responsible charities shouldn't subsidize drug addicts by simply giving them free meals so they can spend the rest of their money on more drugs.
I just want to say thank you to the person who flashed their lights to me on Main Street at 5:30 on Friday. I'd have to say that you definitely saved me from getting a ticket
Hey, this one goes out to that guy who's
After getting turned away from the free burrito giveaway, I got the door shut in my face at Chipotle; missed it by a minute. I don't think they like me.
TALK TO US
Henry C. Jackson
editor
864-4810 or hjackson@kansan.com
Donovan Atkinson and Andrew Vaupel
managing editors
884-4810 or datakton@kanan.com and
avavelo@kanan.com
Anna Clovis and Samia Khan opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
STINSON'S VIEW
Juetin Roberts business manager 864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Stephanie Graham
retail sales manager
864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
854.7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Jenny Weaver sales and marketing adviser 884-7666 or jweaver@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Laura Rose Bar, Tyr Beaver, Ryan Good, Anna
Gregory, Jack Henry-Rhoads, Kelly Hollowell,
Nate Karlin, Jay Klimman, Stephanie Lovett,
Taylor Price, Noel Rasor, Ryan Scarrow, John
Tran, Anne Weltmer and Michelle Wood
The Kanan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions. Letters to the editor should be no longer than 200 words and guest columns should not exceed 650 words. To submit a letter to the editor or a column, e-mail the document to opinion@kanan.com with your name, hometown, year in school or position and phone number.
For any questions, call Anna Clous or Samia Khan at 864-4924 or e-mail at opinion@kansan.com. General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
The Kansan welcomes students to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
**Maximum Length:** 650 word limit
**Include:** Author's name
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
**Also:** The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist.
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length 200 word limit
200 word limit
**Include:** Author's name and telephone number
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
Mail:
opinion@kansan.com
Hard copy:
Kansan newsroom
111 Stauffer-Flint
Homeless need better solutions
"The homeless are just like everybody else." we're constantly told.
Well, in a sense, yes. They are human and they are carbon-based life-forms. No one is arguing that the homeless are space aliens or androids.
FRESH ARRAH
But most of us have a place to live, and most of us don't have serious drug or mental-health problems as 86 percent of homeless adults do, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
I used to offer to buy homeless people meals whenever they asked me for money. In Boulder, Colo., I ate with a doubtful character who said he preferred alcohol to food and that he'd been hit by a car. Having witnessed him wandering obliviously through traffic, I didn't find it hard to believe.
My last homeless dinner date was an amiable fellow who appeared to have gotten high and never came down and seemed unaware that the Vietnam War was over. He told me he was a hippie and that his job was "to make people smile."
I walked away from this encounter feeling like a chump for subsidizing his degenerate hippie lifestyle. My money could have been more constructively spent on a donation to an organization that helps the homeless become self-sufficient.
Some of the most well-intentioned efforts to help the homeless are counterproductive.
ARRAH NIELSEN
opinion@kansan.com
No-strings-attached charities like Jubilee Cafe encourage a culture of dependency because they don't require recipients to search for work or receive drug treatment or job skills training. Responsible charities differentiate
In New York City, the Times Square Business Improvement District (BID) offered government-subsidized housing to a total of 206 individuals. Of the 37 individuals who even visited the BID respite center, which offered free food, clothing and shelter, only 15 agreed to stay overnight. After spending $700,000 and a year in homeless outreach, the BID managed to give away only two apartments. The solution to homelessness, it seems, isn't housing. Nor is it handouts.
In San Francisco, the homeless actually receive a monthly stipend. Not surprisingly, the homeless population has mushroomed. It isn't a coincidence that "progressive" communities such as Lawrence, New York and San Francisco have burgeoning homeless populations.
Progressive policies aren't just unhelpful. They're actually responsible for landing many homeless on the streets in the first place. The progressive notion that institutionalization is cruel and that it is better for the mentally-ill
to be "in the community" led many mental hospitals to close and forced them to release their patients. Deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill, who are no better equipped to take care of themselves than a minor, isn't compassionate, it's neglectful.
The most effective method for getting the homeless off the streets is to enforce existing laws against panhandling and street living. Able-bodied homeless should be required to live in shelters, work and undergo drug treatment, if necessary. Disbanded mental institutions should be recommissioned to institutionalize mentally-ill homeless.
If this approach seems too harsh to you, simply put out a sign that reads "Homeless live here," and turn your yard into a hobo encampment. But don't camp out on my curb unless you want to be chased away with a leaf blower.
The primary cause of homelessness is drug and alcohol abuse, chronic irresponsibility, anti-social behavior, poor mental health or some combination thereof. For that reason treatment, not housing is the solution. As Scott Shuger wrote in The Washington Monthly, "There can be all the low cost housing in the world and an untreated paranoid won't set foot in it and an untreated schizophrenic might burn it down ... And a drug addict will spend the rent money on crack."
The homeless are emphatically not "just like everybody else." To pretend otherwise is to overlook the solutions that hold the promise to help them.
Nielsen is an Andover senior in anthropology and history.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The column incorrectly stated that Section 215 of the Patriot Act gives the government the right to ban any writings it deems dangerous or threatenng. This allegation is not only incorrect; it is so wide of the actual text as to be unrecognizable.
In no way does Section 215 of the Patriot Act, or any other provision of the Patriot Act, or any other provision of federal law, authorize the government to ban any writings. In fact, Section 215 specifically prohibits any use of its authorization, which would contravene the First Amendment protections.
As the highest-ranking member of the United States Department of Justice in Kansas, and as the head of the office in Kansas that would be
I am writing in response to Ryan Good's guest column that appeared in Tuesday's edition of The University Daily Kansan, "Banning books threatens society."
authorized to use any authorities granted under the Patriot Act, I am familiar with its provisions. I have also had the opportunity to debate the Patriot Act on numerous occasions. I have discovered that Section 215 is perhaps the most misunderstood provision of that Act.
Columnist misrepresented Patriot Act's powers
Dear editors,
Gay, les celebra
THURS
Section 215 applies only to investigations against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. It only authorizes application to a federal court for an order requiring the production of items relevant to such an investigation. Nothing is required unless and until the court approves the application.
I would encourage your readers to educate themselves about the Patriot Act by visiting http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/, a Web site established by
The fact is that Section 215 is one of the narrowest provisions of the Patriot Act.
Finally, Section 215 specifically provides that it may not be used in any investigation solely upon the basis of activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WICHI
lished th
Press, th
publicati
lesbian,
month.
KO
At on sell her
the U.S. Department of Justice to help dispel myths about the Patriot Act.
Parktion, adc can't be still goir
to s
CONTINUE
educati
and the
law pr
consti
was me
of stud
Ste
Eric Molgron United States Attorney District of Kansas
Josh and vi College though to und
"The have mind of pe made agains have campo probal servat
The Kansan welcomes teachers to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kanan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions. Letters to the editor should be no longer than 200 words and guest columns should not exceed 550 words. To submit a letter to the editor or a column, e-mail the document to opinion@kanan.com with your name, hometown, year in school or position and phone number.
For any questions, call Anna Clovis or Samia Khan at 864-4924 or e-mail at o议@kansan.com. General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
E-mail:
opinion@kansan.com
SUBMIT TO
Hard copy:
Kansan newroom
111 Stauffer-Flint