OPINION
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
PUBLISHED DAILY SINCE 1912
CRAIG LANG, Editor MARK OZMEK, Business manager SUSANNA LOOP, Managing editor DENNIS HAUPT, Retail sales manager KIMBELY CRATTREE, Editorial editor JUSTIN KNUP, Technology coordinator TOM EBLEN, General manager, news adviser JAY STEINER, Sales and marketing adviser
Monday, April 14, 1997
Tim McCabe / KANSAN
Editorials
Clinton's threat to reinstate ban of TV liquor ads is hypocritical
When President Clinton threatened the liquor industry early this month, he buried himself in hypocrisy. He requested that the industry reinstate its nearly 50-year-old voluntary ban on television advertising that was lifted in November. Then he threatened that if the industry does not reinstate the ban, the federal government would most likely take matters into its own hands.
Is this a good step toward Clinton's promise of ending the days of "big government?" Federal bans and restrictions are not the best way to accomplish smaller government. And how can Clinton qualify one vice as worthy of public knowledge and another vice as evil enough to be kept hidden?
Fred Meister, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, has publicly asked why Clinton was targeting liquor ads but not beer or wine commercials.
President Clinton says the ban was 'responsible,' but beer ads are just as bad.
Clinton's apparent reason for the threat is that the ads are dangerous to the nation's youth. He has even called for the Federal Communications Commission to examine what impact the advertising has on underage drinking. Clinton said that for 50 years the ban has been firm and that it was the "responsible thing to do."
The hard-liquor industry has been producing in silence for 50 years. Their
Although Clinton is probably correct in predicting that liquor ads will improve the popularity of hard liquor among children, the federal government should not infringe upon the rights of an industry to advertise legal products.
liquors as are potent as beer or wine, but now hard liquor has become a target for a government that sees alcohol advertising growing out of control.
Meister also points out that beer producers have been advertising to young people for years. Spuds McKenzie was obviously not directed at senior citizens.
Unfortunately, the only effect Clinton has had so far on this topic is to show how hypocritical he can be. By encouraging a ban on hard liquor but not on beer or wine advertising, the problem of targeting underage drinkers still exists. It is also possible that underage drinkers are more likely to buy beer because it is more readily available.
It is good to see Clinton concerned with the country's youth. However, if he really wants to make a difference, there are a few frogs and speedboats that need to leave the air first.
CODY SIMMS FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Not all shows can please everyone
As most of you probably know, Ellen Morgan, the character played by Ellen DeGeneres on the sitcom *Ellen* is coming out as a lesbian. Not surprisingly, Jerry Falwell and other right-wing religious fundamentalist groups are threatening to boycott any companies that advertise on *Ellen*.
These types of groups have a history of threatening boycotts because of gay-themed programming. In the '80s, several groups threatened boycotts when an episode of Thirtysomething showed two men in bed together. As a result, the episode was not played in summer runs.
The same situation occurred when, in a Rosanne episode, Rosanne Conner was to kiss another woman. ABC discussed cutting out the kiss, or not running the episode at all, but Rosanne won out.
In Britain, television shows have been portraying gay people matter-of-factly
Gay television characters bring diversity and reality to programs.
for 15 years. In this country, there seems to be a certain segment of the population that can't separate between showing that something exists and endorsing its existence. These people seem to think that if they don't approve of a topic, then it has no right to be on television.
Neither of them can reasonably expect that any show will appeal to everyone, and they should suggest that those who don't like a certain show are free to change the channel, or, as Oprah might suggest, read a book.
What the networks and advertisers need to realize is that the people who are making the threats aren't likely to watch the show in the first place.
Unfortunately, those who do like the
idea of a main character coming out as a lesbian are less likely to contact the network officials and let them know. This may give the powers-that-be a skewed view of the public's reaction. But there's little excuse for not making your opinions known. In this age of the Internet, giving your opinion is as easy as typing in www.abc.com/
Of course, Ellen's action has been accused of being nothing more than a publicity stunt, given the intense media attention surrounding it. Still, as citizens, we should be able to recognize that providing diversity on television only can enrich our culture, and that stifling that diversity creates a bad precedent that may someday be used against something we like.
Protecting freedom of speech often requires protecting the speech we hate. The networks and advertisers should have a backbone and let the ratings tell the tale.
V. MEREDITH TOENJES FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
LATINA SULLVAN ... Associate Editorial
KRISTIE BLAISH ... News
NOVELDA SOMMERS ... News
LESLIE TAYLOR ... News
AMANDA TRAUGHBER ... News
TARA TRENARY ... News
DAVID TESKA ... Online
SPENCER DUNCAN ... Sports
GINA THORNBURG ... Associate Sports
BRADLEY BROOKS ... Campus
LINDESE HENRY ... Campus
DAVE BIRETTENSTEIN ... Features
PAM DISHMAN ... Photo
TYLER WIRKEN ... Photo
BRYAN VOLK ... Design
ANDY ROHRBACK ... Graphics
ANDREA ALBRIGHT ... Wire
LIZ MUSSER ... Special sections
AERICA VEAZY ... News clerk
NEWS EDITORS
ADVERTISING MANAGERS
ADVERTISING MANAGERS
HEATHER VALLER . . . Assistant retail
JULIE PEDLAR . . . Campus
DANA CENTENO . . . Regional
ANNETTE HOover . . . National
BRIAN PAGEL . . . Marketing
SARAH SCHERWINSKI . . . Internet
DARCI MCLAIN . . Production
DENA PISCIOTTE . . Production
ALISON PIERCE . . Special sections
SARA ROSE . . . Creative
DANA LAUVETZ . Public relations
BRIAN LEPEVRE . . Classified
RACHEL RUBIN . Assistant classified
BRIDGET COLLYER . . Zone
JULIE DEWITT . . Zone
CHRIS HAGHIRIAN . . Zone
LIZ HESS . . Zone
ANTHONY MIGLIAZZO . . Zone
MARIA CRIST . . Senior account manager
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 hometown 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 letter and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Kimberly Crabtree (oplion@kansan.com) or LaTina Sullivan (sulillian@kansan.com) at 864-4810.
Columns
Students should choose where activity fees go
Walk across Wescoe Beach once or twice, attend a couple of Student Senate meetings or read an issue or two of the Kansan and you'll hear a lot of wild thinking. But you'll also hear a few good ideas.
One of those ideas is allowing students the freedom to choose where their activity-free money goes. Right now, our venerable Student Senators make all those decisions for us, allocating funds to groups such as Legal Services for Students and KU Gamers and Role Players. The value of dedicated lobbying and solid connections are clearly seen in Student Senate's financing practices — and you thought
such things only went on in Washington.
And so, along comes the proposal to allow students to choose exactly where their money goes. If a student doesn't want his or her money going to certain advocacy groups, he or she should be able to say so.
"But the advocacy groups will lose funding," some say. Funny how those opponents happen to be inextricably connected to the groups that stand to lose the most. My reply to these folks—which often falls on deaf ears, even though they're close enough to have their hands in my pocket—is simply, "that's democracy."
Change is definitely needed. An ideal plan would begin with identifying so-called "advocacy" groups. Any group that advances the agenda of its particular group, either through legislative or judicial representation, should be deemed an advocacy group.
All those groups would then be listed on an activity-fee-withholding form enclosed with a student's tuition bill. Students would be allowed to mark as many groups as they want to withhold their money from. The total amount of the student's activity fee would then be divided equally among all the groups left unmarked. This would prevent students from simply marking off groups to save money.
Besides, taking money from the University tarnishes the so-called "revolutionary" spirit of many of these groups. If you really believe in your cause, why do you take money from those who oppose you? That kind of stand reeks of hypocrisy.
But enabling students to "vote with their dollars" might even encourage some groups to ease their militant campaigns on campus. If I'm a little irritated at what I see on Wescoe Beach, it's sure to make a difference in where my money goes next semester.
This idea scares a lot of people. "The most unpopular voice is the one that must be preserved," they say. True enough, but I'm not censoring your ideas simply by sending my money where I think it will be best used.
This doesn't mean groups should compromise or back down on their issues, it simply means they wouldn't be able to throw meaningless marches and rallies where they hand out flyers with the logo: "Paid for by Student Senate."
So I put this idea forth as both a proposal and a challenge. Try it for one year, and see where the money goes. Then see how well the University's advocacy groups fare when they only make as much money as they're worth to students.
Andy Rohrback is an Andover junior in Journalism.
E-mail: arohrback@kansan.com
Colonel is rolling in grave about new chicken variety
My hometown of Floyds Knobs, Ind. is perched on a hill overlooking Louisville, Ken. As we all know, Kentucky is home to many American cultural icons: the Kentucky Derby, various brands of premium distilled spirits, Louisville Slugger baseball bats, and of course, Kentucky Fried Chicken. In fact, Colonel Harland Sanders himself is buried in Louisville, and on several occasions a good friend and I have procured a bucket of chicken and consumed it at his grave in a silent, greasy-fingered tribute to the master of the 11 herbs and spices.
I have always thought of the Colonel as somewhat of a benevolent figure — the goodwill ambassador of the fried-chicken world. Having seen his final resting place, I can say that I feel a certain kinship with him. OK, so maybe he wasn't a real Colonel, but I still respect the man and what he stood for.
He grew up in small towns and held a variety of jobs in his youth — farm hand, rail
a maneman and streetcar conductor, to name a few. When he was 40, he opened his home's dining room to travelers and earned a reputation as a poultry wizard.
In 1952, at the age of 62, he began driving across the country to peddle his chicken, and he sealed business deals with a handshake, not a signature. He was a man who believed in hard work, loyalty, and most of all, hearty cooking. With that said, I can say with conviction that the Colonel would hide his head in shame if he were to see how much his restaurant has changed in the 17 years since his death.
With some help from the KFC World Wide Web site (yes, that's right), I have gathered some facts and figures. Let me give you a little timeline here: In 1980, the Colonel passed away. Two years later, his restaurant chain became a subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds. In 1986, it was acquired by Pepsi. Everything was quiet for a few years.
Suddenly, beginning in 1991, we saw a string of drastic changes. The name "Kentucky Fried
Chicken" was trashed, giving way to KFC, which was supposed to "emphasize chicken variety," according to the web site. One by one, new chicken choices began appearing on the restaurant's menu: extra crispy, the colonel's crispy strips, and finally, in a painful blow to down-home cookin' enthusiasts everywhere, rotisserie chicken. Is nothing sacred?
This is a classic example of tradition giving way to big-time corporate needs. To meet the diverse, often health-conscious consumer demands of the '90s, KFC had to compromise its integrity as a fried chicken chain. Fortunately for the company, the Colonel was buried long before this debasement of the original restaurants began. KFC had to enter the '90s, and it did so without the Colonel. If he had been alive, would he have permitted his prized chain of restaurants to be transformed into health-food smorgasbords? Would he have been happy with the idea of his beloved Kentucky being ruthlessly stricken from the official name of the company? No and no.
In fact, he would have told the board of executives exactly what to do with their golden-roasted chickens. Fortunately for the corporate decision-makers, Mr. Tradition died several years before these changes began. They didn't need to get his seal of approval. Hmmm. Isn't that convenient? This begs the question: Was Colonel Sanders the victim of "fowl" play? Did someone, somewhere want him out of the way?
Unfortunately for my conspiracy theory, his death was anything but mysterious. He died of leukemia, and he was 90 years old. No, the corporate powers-that-be didn't put Colonel Sanders to his death. But I'd bet my biscuits that he is rolling around in his grave.
The next time you pull up to the KFC drive-through and are bombarded by chicken choices, tell them you want your chicken the way it was meant to be: just 11 herbs and spices, a half-gallon of grease and a big ol' bucket.
And tell them the Colonel sent you.
Eric Westander is a Floyds Knobs, Ind., sophomore in journalism.
Letter
Tanning feature story missed some research
Emily Vrabac's March 19 story about indoor tanning missed some important points:
Research has shown conclusively that the most deadly form of skin cancer is more common in people who do not receive regular sun exposure. Inside workers are more apt to contract malignant melanoma than those who work outside.
Indoor tanners are less likely to sunburn than non-tanners. Research has shown that indoor tanners are 57 percent less likely to sunburn once they begin tanning in a salon. That's because salons today are teaching people how to tan smart by teaching sunburn prevention indoors and outdoors.
*Calling a saintan "damage" to your skin is playing games with the truth. To say that tanning "damages" your skin is akin to saying that exercise damages your muscles. When you exercise, you actually tear
The study from Sweden you cited in your article has been dismissed by epidemiologist as being statistically insignificant. What's more, the numbers you cited were not accurate.
■ How interesting that nobody is reporting the volumes of research on how sun exposure may be preventing many kinds of cancer, including breast cancer, colon cancer and osteoporosis. Some studies have suggested that lack of regular sunlight may be leading to higher cancer death rates. Certainly, breast cancer is of prime concern to your readers, as it kills 65 times more women than skin cancer. What's more, breast cancer death rates are increasing — skin cancer death rates are declining, and skin cancer
muscles. Similarly, when you tan, you are activating your body's natural protection against sunburn and overexposure. Tanning is a natural bodily function. It is not a vice like cigarette smoking, which is unnatural.
need not claim anyone. It is completely curable if detected.
Confused? The truth about suntanning is that sunburn and fair-skinned heredity are your skin's enemies, but science has never linked moderate tanning as the cause of any kind of permanent skin damage. The dermatology industry and many multibillion-dollar "sun scare" advertisers have misrepresented this fact in promoting research out of context.
Many community dermatologists have simply never read actual research and do not see past the agenda of the "sun scare coalition." The indoor tanning industry, in the meantime, is promoting responsible behavior by teaching people to tan smart by avoiding sunburn at all costs. Take the sun like any of life's pleasures: in intelligent moderation.
Joseph Levy Executive Director, The International Smart Tank Network
.