UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of
Sometimes the rush and chaos surrounding legislative sessions leave the seemingly less important bills strutting without a fair hearing.
MARCH 19.1979
Trail bill needs push
That seems to be the case with a bill proposed in the Kansas Senate this session that would have enabled the state to build recreation trails on a tract of abandoned railroad land between Lawrence and Tonganoxie.
The bill, sponsored by State Sens. Arnold Berman, D-Lawrence, and John Simpson, R-Salina, was passed over by a Senate inundated with proposed legislation this year. The Senate's neglect is unfortunate, however, for the bill would have provided a much needed service to the public—just the thing that ideally should spark prompt legislative action.
UNDER THE proposal, the trail would be built along an 11-mile long, 100-foot wide abandoned Union Pacific railroad right of way. Supporters of the trail vow to try again during next year's session but are already looking for other alternatives.
One alternative might be to invoke
the railroad Revitalization Act of 1976 which allows land to be obtained for public use. But there are conflicting state and federal laws over the use of the land, and the final decision in the case would probably have to come from the courts if that strategy were used.
THE PROBLEM is that state law says once a railroad abandons its tracks the right of way reverts to the adjacent landowner, but federal law requires that abandoned railroad land be kept in the public domain.
Opponents of the trail are willing to go to court to settle the matter. Those opponents include landowners along the proposed trail.
A final solution that would allow construction of the trail would benefit all concerned. The Lawrence area is sorely lacking in nature trails, and the abandoned right of way would be an ideal setting.
Perhaps the Legislature can find more time in its hectic schedule to consider the bill the next time it comes around the legislative cycle.
Parents have been worried for years about what their teen-agers have been up to. After seeing the results of a recent Gallup teen-ager poll, they are no doubt still
Teen poll indicates TV's influence
In a poll asking teen-agers what man they most admire, teen-agers picked President Jimmy Carter by a 2-1 margin over Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt. Both men have been in the news, and we can understand the admiration they have drawn. But the list gets somewhat alarming as one skims past No. 3, former President Gerald Ford, and No. 4, former Benjamin Franklin, prime minister of Israel, to find the man in the No. 5 slot: Richard Nixon.
Television, it appears, was a major influence in many of the other choices. In the 1980s he made an effort to heavierweight boxer, whose antics before and after his boxing matches have enthralled fans.
PERHAPS MANY of the teens did not witness the unbelievable series of events that led to Nixon's fall from grace with the American people. Perhaps their only exposure to Nixon has been in recent television appearances. Those showed a smiling Nixon waving to audiences in the South and Nixon going to a rally with his teen-ageers may have not seen, or remembered, the Nixon that their parents and older brothers and sisters saw.
Nixon, the first U.S. president to resign, did a good job of discrediting the office. Now he suddenly pops up on the teen-agers' most admired list.
No. 7 was Jerry Lewis, who for three days over the Labor Day week each year monopolize one network's programming. Rounding up donations for muscular building is nothing to scarcit at that point up once again the influence of the TY set on young viewers.
Carter is up against a stacked deck
By REO M. CHRISTENSON
N. Y. Times Feature
OXFORD, Ohio—President Carter should announce forthwith that he will not run for re-election. He faces such a forbidding array of obstacles that it is foolish to suppose that he can surmount them. It s all a shame.
Currently, the president's approval ratings are abysmal low. They may fail even further, considering what faces him.
Although the Iranian revolution was in the cards, whoever the president might be, the fuel shortage and rising petroleum prices that grow out of it will be charged to Carter. When things like that to wrong, the public blames the president.
The current high rate of inflation either will not improve—thus dooming Carter's re-election chances—or it will improve at the same rate.
NO PRESIDENT can hope to be re-elected with inflation running at nearly 10 percent, or with a 7 to 8 percent inflation accompanied by recession. If his critics have a better antiterrorism than Carter's, they are hiding their light under a bushel.
Black voters saved Carter in 1976; they have since lost faith in him. No one has a credible program for improving the economic prospects for blacks or for restoring economic health to the inner city. No matter, Carter will be cared for not doing what he did.
There are numerous reasons why librarians should be content with the Carter leadership, the political climate being what it is, but they aren't. They decided some time ago that Carter was not interested, and nothing he could do now would alter that judgment.
LABOR'S HIGH command, represented by the arrogance, the insolence and the petulance of George Meany, will oppose Carter from here on. If Meany can't dominate the president, he is willing to wreck the president's future if he can.
The leaders of the feminist movement are disenchanted with Carter, despite his support of the Equal Rights Amendment, and have called for a rethinking of the issue.
Probably no president could satisfy their demands, it should be added: Feminist leaders are not easily pleased.
When Carter is attacked by his foes, almost daily, few members of his party rise to his defense. Except for members of his own administration, he does not put the partisan support that he has have counted on, and that even Richard M. Nixon received.
REPUBLICANS, smelling blood, will no longer give him the often crucial margin of foreign policy support that he received last year. If congressional republicans can undermine the resident from here on out, that is precisely what they will want to do.
MAGAZINE TEXUROLOGIE GLOBAL ORGANIZATION TRONE
The news media, except for a few weeks after Camp David, have been unremitting hostily to Carter. They will continue to be. In 40 years of close president-watching, I have never seen a president treated so unfairly.
UNLIKE MOST incumbent presidents, Carter will face the stiffest kind of renegotiation struggle. With members of both parties attacking him, the wounds incurred, even if he should survive, will severely damage his chances in November.
Carter has consistently supported international policies that are in the public interest. These include the Panama Canal treaties, his magnificent efforts at Camp David, the recognition of China, his stand on South Africa, his support for human rights issues, and his signature on a peace agreement.
Almost all of his domestic programs have been superior to those they sought to replace. They have been progressive although moderate in keeping with the national mood. His current vigorous efforts to fight inflation, reduce the budget deficit, improve the efficient and economical operation of the country, and improve the national defense are almost precisely what the public wants.
The year will be full of wrangling, frustration, deadlock and defeat and Carter will be charged with incapability to lead his own party successfully. That a chaotically decentralized Congress refuses to be led will be hard noted.
CARTER IS an exceptionally intelligent, courageous, unpretentious, honorable man who works very hard and keeps the national interest steadily in mind. In many respects, his presidential performance has improved. He presides over Cabinet appointees who, if not always distinguished, are generally competent and responsible people.
Carter deserves better from his country but he lacks personal magnetism and eloquence, he is often clumsy in handling foreign policy (even when his general policy is sound), his religion is offensive to many members of the press and the public will blame him for problems beyond his control. What his critics currently want, it seems, is a president who looks strong in the back. And Vietnam and China even though there is little he can really do. And there is little that those critics concretely recommend.
The past few weeks could be characterized as a time when Carter kept his head when all about him were losing thers.
If the Democrats, the liberals and the press end up with Ronald Reagan, they richly deserve him. Carter's political prospects could hardly look worse; they look almost as bad as Harry S. Trumans' was in 1948. But I49 comes only once this
Reo M. Christenson is professor of political science at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
POPE, JOHN PAUL II and Gov. Jerry Brown of California were an odd combination in a tie for eight. The pope, as the spiritual and moral leader of the Roman
Catholic Church, also has gained a great respect from millions of people in other religious groups. The selection of Brown is somewhat understandable, but it also implies that Proposition 13 will likely become a rallying cry for the next generation, too.
The tenth most admired man was John Travolta, a TV hero who has captured the hearts of millions with his role as a semi-illiterate on "Welcome Back, Kotter." He played a man who could movie "Saturday Night Fever." A funny man, yes. A good dancer, definitely. But
tenth most admired man in the world;
Preposterous—at least to those of us born
since 1786.
One notices that all 10 men have something in common: massive TV coverage. Obviously that has had an impact on today's teen-agers.
So, if parents are wondering what their teen-agers are up to, they probably will not have to look much beyond the family room. That is why many parents no doubt continue to worry about what their teens are doing—and worry they should.
Charges of division in Senate unfair
To the editor:
1, for one, am one of those senators elected from the Imagination coalition and have yet to find anything repulsive about what Margaret has said or done. In fact, when the proposal for the off-campus housing board comes to the Senate floor, I may vote for its
There are 35 senators elected from the Imagination coalition, yet to my knowledge, not a single reporter has approached a single one of these senators to sound them out on their views of Margaret's plans for an off-campus housing board.
Also, please be careful of the words chosen for such a potentially harmful editorial as one entitled "Senators play games" happens to be. Tempelton did not say the Senate is a "divided" two-party organization. The Senate has had one meeting during which the Senate as a whole chose five members for the committee on committees, during which the Senate as a whole moved to motion suspend the rules, during which the Senate as a whole heard and felt the need to work as a cohesive unit.
Your editorial dated March 1, 1979, came as a disappointment and an unwelcome departure from some of the high qualities the Kansan has tried to achieve.
Senators elected in the February elections had their first meeting Feb. 28, the day before your editorial. At the meeting as we entered the floor, one pointed out, no legislation was or even could have been introduced. Therefore, neither a resolution nor a bill was introduced on the Senate floor to stymie in any way Margaret Kennedy's efforts to establish an off-campus boarding house.
There are also serious innuendoes from your office that there are some "playschool politicians," alluding to people associated with the Imagination coalition, engaged in some imaginary power play that is already dividing the Senate and has both past and present members. These people form the student body who these "playschool politicians" really are.
I must therefore ask where your information in your editorial came from. Where did you receive information that the new Student Senate was already having problems with the information that Imagination candidates who were elected to the Senate were banding together to fight Margaret Berlin? Is your source of information Craig Tempelton? If so, are you sure you have not taken notice of that incident? I know that Tempelton is not a senator and therefore cannot vote on the Senate floor? Apparently you did not know, because you had already come to the erroneous conclusion that, "Tempelton and other student senators," . . . are allied against Margaret Lincoln because she ran with another coalition.
UNIVERSITY DAILY letters KANSAN
Rex Gardner Lawrence senior
adoption. But I'll decide that on the Senate floor and not from insurers and false insurance companies.
Student Senate unity could defeat purpose To the editn:
The Student Senate is not the place for unity. If it were united, the purpose would be defeated. If all senators thought the same, they would vote against the Senate; one person would suffice for such dues.
The Senate should have people and groups with differing ideas to keep a check on the activities of those who would call for unity, in other words, preventing them from gaining complete control. It is one thing to call for assistance and cooperation, but quite another to sacrifice one's conscience or duty to one's constituents for an idealisticity?
Conflicting ideas and debate of these ideas is the basis of the democratic-republican system. What we see in the new Senate administration's plea for unity is the fear that it will not have control, a fear of losing its recently gained power. The Senate and its
majority are to have the power, and that is how it should be, not a rubber stamp mechanism as I perceive the New Senate administration would have it.
If a group has power in the Senate, it is not its duty to conform to the ideals of the adjective "powerful," but to act in the way it wishes. Senators were elected because of what they believed. Turn back on these beliefs now would be a violation of their own faith, who elected them because of those beliefs.
Edwin Cooley
Wichita freshman
'Whom' is not used by some who should To the editor.
David Radavich
Generally speaking, the use of the English language in Kansan editorials has improved over the past 30 years. But however, it seems that several of our editorial writers are unaware of the word "whom" and its many uses. I suggest they spend a considerable member of the English department a visit.
Assistant instructor of English
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
(15SP $60-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday through Thursday during June and July except Saturday, and Sunday and holiday weekend. Members receive a $15 monthly fee or $15 for six months or $27 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $3 per county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the activity month.
Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint Hall. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 60045
Editorial Editor
John Whiteside
Managing Editor
Direct Seelim
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Assistant Campus Editor
Business Manager
Karen Wenderott
Retail Sales Manager          Ron Altman
Advertising Advertiser Manager   Bill Muller
Classified Advertising Manager  Kitty McMahale
Assistant Classified Advertising Manager Duncan Butte
Advertising Advertiser Makeup Manage    Dalihu Cavanzo
Staff Artist               Dahlia Mara
Staff Photographer         Grant Ring
Marketing Manager           Jane Knoten
Sales Representatives        Allen Blair, Paula Kooll, Jane Knoten,
Brenda Prena, Cindy Ray, Alex Martinez
General Manager
Rick Muster
STATE U.
BY T. M. ASLA