UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
MARCH 6,1979
Power display needless
Poor Kansas. The rural, conservative plains state has long been the butt of jokes, many of which have been directed at its archaic liquor laws.
Action last week within the Kansas Senate, no doubt, will subject the state to further ridicule and add to the folly of limour sales in Kansas.
The Senate recently defeated a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed voters, on a county basis, to decide whether they wanted liquor by the drink in restaurants.
Just hours before the Senate vote, Attorney General Robert Stephan ruled that private clubs could serve liquor by the drink because they have membership requirements and cannot be considered public or "open" saloons, which are forbidden by the state constitution.
Stephan's ruling reaffirmed the Kansas laws that allow liquor by the drink in private clubs but not in restaurants. But the contradictions do not end there.
TWO DAYS after the restaurant resolution was defeated, the Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs committee introduced two proposed constitutional amendments. The first
resolution, which is similar to the one defeated earlier, would permit the sale of liquor by the drink in restaurants, or by the salesman, to the sale of cocktails in private clubs.
Ostensibly, the senate committee's action is designed to get both resolutions considered simultaneously by the Senate, thereby creating a difficult choice for liquor opponents: Pass the restaurant resolution allowing mixed drinks with meals or else outlaw the sale of mixed drinks in private clubs.
The legislation is an attempt to have liquor by the drink in clubs contingent on allowing restaurants the same option. This is nothing but a needless and coercive political tactic.
Members of the Senate should not be afraid to allow Kansans the choice of having liquor by the drink.
OBVIOUSLY, the Senate missed the opportunity to provide individuals with that choice when it defeated the first resolution.
The Senate would do well to pass a resolution similar to the initial resolution allowing an open vote on liquor by the drink in restaurants. It should do so with direct, definitive action, and without demonstrations in power politics.
There are already several candidates officially entered in the 1980 presidential race and dozens are preparing and working to make time to announce their entry to race official.
With the possibility of so many entrants, it has been tough to declare the favorite or to choose a winner.
And to make the situation more complicated, the Democratic team may have an unlikely entrant whose entry into the race could have interesting effects. Not the least of those effects would be injury to defending candidates, and not necessarily burting his chances for a second victory.
Stevenson may be spoiler in 1980
The unofficial entrant is Sen. Adal
Stevenson III of Illinois. The odd part of his entry is that he has, until recently, been one of Carter's biggest fans and supporters.
"IT'S GETTING more interesting." Stevenson said recently when reporters questioned him on the prospect of challenging Carter in the 1980 presidential
The first factor is Carter's performance. If Carter continues to display what he may consider his leadership he may mention a no agenda that says he 'going to make government run more smoothly'. Stevenson says. He attributes Carter's leadership vid to his own skills.
There are several factors that will contribute to Stevenson's deciding whether or not to enter the race, but Stevenson says he will have decided by late Anril.
A second factor affecting Stevenson's decision, he says, is whether the most unofficial of the unofficial candidates, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and the most official of the unofficial candidates, Gov. Mitt Romney, enter the primaries. If either decides to, Stevenson says, "it could turn me into an enthusiastic sponsor of Carter."
BUT BOTH BROWN and Kennedy appear likely to enter the race, although Kennedy may do it without even filling out the applications because of the prospects of a
Since the mid-1960s, the music industry has taken a terrific beating from those who have slanderized the mere existence of black musicians. For many minority leaders, flower children, hippies, etc., were all victims of maligning actions and statements from those who wished to destroy the many subcultures that have shaped their music to improve the people of our society as a whole.
To the editor:
Defaemation of any widespread and popular alteration in culture is not only an act of murder, but something entirely different from the norm of society is detrimental to the existence of our culture.
Music has fine entertainment quality, and it has a special place in society. It evolves as people learn new things and beings, can experience, then judge for ourselves. That judgment should not entail
Just because certain types of music, films, books and plays don't meet our entertainment qualifications, does not mean they aren't enjoyed and loved by others. Disco, funk, rock, rhythm and blues, jazz music all fill up the lives in music of lovers.
The articles written by Buchanan, Hitchcock, Helmell and him on "discomania" have been this type of libel. I agree with Kathleen Conkey on a few points, but her article, as well as those that followed, were misleading and defeated their own purposes. Conkey's statements on the subject were not in line with their establishments as being sexually, gayly and narcotically abusing to the public are utterly disgusting.
Byron M. Howard East St. Louis, Ill. junior
We all have our own opinions on controversial topics, but we should not run this debate because it is wrong.
UNIVERSITY DAILY letters KANSAN
These statements are closed-minded, saying that what's right for me is right for you; there is no reason not to fail. Failing Coneky for saying, "You can't beat the disco beat. Why not dance to it?" But that phrase elicits only fear from those followers of non-disco music.
Buchanan continued his 'onslaught on disco' by ending his article with the words 'Disco is cheap beer, obnovous music and dark smoke-filled rooms. Disco is boring.' He is stooping to the opinionated, information that he chastised Conkey for.
Buchanan attacked the disco argument by slyly stabbing Conkey in the back for the grammatical misuse of two words. She called Conkey's attack on the provoke more anger from those who enjoy dancing and listening to disco music. If he feels that disco is mindless, dehumanizing, and offensive, she rejects and verbss that the followers of disco can use to describe other forms of music. But engaging in an endless battle of the form is not the way one should handle the argument.
Disco debate lacks logic and objectivity.
To the editor:
I love disco, (major premise), therefore disco is good, (conclusion). I hate disco, (major premise), therefore disco sucks, (conclusion). Primary fallacy—no minor premise. Secondary fallacy—possible minor premise. I love disco, what I love is good, (minor premise), therefore disco is good. I hate disco, what I hate sucks, (minor premise), therefore disco sucks. Other fallacies: the sylastic structure is good, the sylvatic structure is good, and sucks are vague and abstract.
The structure is weak and the terms are vague because they express opinions and little fact. The recently recognized articles questioned whether a questionable composite of objectivity and subjectivity. It is the little supported objectivity and exaggerated subjectivity that questions the credibility of angered responses. Disco is obviously an issue that craves discussion, but the real issue at stake in most of the articles that reach the paper is the slander that is tossed aside.
He even briefly recognizes disco's excellent danceability. Why must he then shake up the party, and have him disco sucks and employing a tone that provokes further angered discussion. Why don't he simply say that his opinion differs from them than employing such a derogatory phrase.
Acceptable objectivity is welcome. Mark Buchanan effectively refutes Kathleen Conkey in his paragraph describing how she was insulted by the misperfections. He continues in fine fashion by recognizing that her conclusion was written in poor tone. He then, however, defeats his own cause by responding to her “it’s the wrong way to do it,” a brand of mud throwing. “Disco is boring.”
Unfortunately, anger consistently sets logic aside in editorsors in the Kansen, Yan. it's true that part of the purpose of editorsors is to show their anger. But at KU, simple issues that could be
The only answer must be that he wants to set his validity aside and engage in nothing more than bandying. Irvocable logic and institute a far better argument than slander.
Similarly, Doug Hitchcock employs substantial objectivity in his statements about the music industry upon studio mixing and overdubbing. And he is supported by fact when he says "The formula melodies, absurd lyrics and impersonal rhythms are impersonal." . . .
discussed on a professional level are continually blown out of proportion by uncontrolled disgust. And the advocates of this practice allow tread water to urge the issue drowned.
Rick Hellman limits his disgust to satir a subtlety. His article is concise and accurate. And he begins his concluding paragraph with a true and effective comparison of the two cultures, but then he likens disco-manias—no intended slander—to the army and the Moonies. This satire is clever and even enjoyable to some, but carries the potential to provoke more responses from disco mediums or simply some from the army and the Moonies.
1, like so many others, do not appreciate disco. I do, however, recognize and enjoy its舞姿ability and will not condemn others for doing so. Even the environment can be acceptable when people enter it unmasked by personas that hide their true selves.
All discussions have pros and cons, and all sides have advantages and disadvantages. Can we editorialize these without personal slander? Can we, as intelligent people, resort to logic rather than primal aggressive ventions?
Kevan Myers
Ravtown, Mo. sophomore
Sharks are terrible creatures. They bite, maill, kill and prey on poor, helpless, weak, unhealthy, or injured creatures. The fact that by eating those poor, helpless, weak and injured creatures they help keep the oceans free of epidemic diseases and making as garbage disposals is unimportant. Sharks are mean and should be destroyed.
My point is that whether or not we nonhunters like the sport, it is a fact that if deer hunting were illegalized, the number of animals that would slowly starve to death each winter, and the numbers that would die off from disease, would outnumber the yearly take of the hunters. The sport of hunting provides a service to the forest that nature now has difficulty providing, due to the imbalance created by man's presence. Kennedy will never convince informed readers that a dislike for deer is a legitimate reason for gun control.
Hunter, like shark beneficial to nature
To the editor:
I found Kevin Kennedy's letter of Feb. 28 interesting with its reference to sharks. "His work was not only a great achievement, but
Stevenson must realize that both Brown and Kennedy are going to be there in the primaries, yet he still acts as if he also will be an entrant no matter who else runs.
Stevenson's ability to gain wider support nationwide is a third factor in his decision. He is considering television appearances, but the calm nature he inherited from his father seems to make his appearance on TV less than impressive. He is counting on
Unfortunately though, there are "hunters" who tramp into the forest shootings at everything in sight. There are also laws to punish those people when they are caught. Committees have been formed to commit crimes. And again, there are laws to punish those people. Apparently, an increasingly large number of people are choosing to disobey those laws. So should we alleviate the problem by taking away the freedom of the person which is guaranteed in the Second Amendment?
(USPS 600-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and June. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence; Kansas 6049. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for money or $27 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $3 a year county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the activity fee.
THE UNIVERSITY BAY KANSAN
Send changes of address to the University Daily Kanaan, Flint Hall. The University of Kanaan, Lawrence, KS 60453
Editor Barry Massey
Business Manager Karen Wenderott
massive New Hampshire write-in campaign.
Winning may not be important to Stevenson, but there is some doubt as to whether his desire to provide an alternative strategy is more crucial than his desire to win the nomination.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
However, long shots have a tendency to play an unusual role in many races—the spoiler. Indeed, the emergence of Stevenson as a presidential hopeful raised quite a few eyebrows—and quite a few questions for the rest of the field.
General Manager Rick Musser
INDEED, HE SAYS that "winning is not important. What is important is that the people who made it are good. And Stevenson has toyed with the idea of offering the American people an even larger alternative in 1984 if he goes ahead with his idea of running on a third party ticket that is more professional."
Although he chastises his old ally, Carter, for undefined agendas for the nation, Stevenson has not provided much of an agenda either. His proposals seem to lack the originality that he seeks, and they often can be as vague as Carter's. However, he is quick to reply that he will soon have a plan, or at least not have it. He said if he can bring "enlightened" to the American people with it, he will seek the presidency.
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins
As with most late-comers and semi-
unknowners, Stevenson is unlikely to wit the
dialect.
Although these factors may spur Stevenson to join the race for the Democratic nomination, his odds are still low. The best one can do is label a turn insensitive.
No. In this country we like to think that a person buying a gun will not put it on an evil use. Perhaps the idea of assumed innocence until guilt is proven will ring a bell with that sound, and it's this far. I wouldn't apply that idea to business, but people with it's a pretty sound concept.
people being ready, he says, to accept him his common sense ideas, not his TV appearance.
Michael R. McDermott Leavenworth sophomore
Quebec independence far from fact
N. Y. Times Feature
By RICHARD HAMILTON
MONTREAL. The government of Quebec has expended much effort to convince people of the inevitability of Quebec's independence. More precisely, the government says that Quebec will be politically independent and will link links to a stronger federal association.
When Premier Reine Leveque and his ministers travel throughout Canada and the United States, their message is one of
The Parti Quebecois, founded in October 1968, made its first electoral bid in 1970 and took 23 percent of the popular vote. In 1973 it took 30 percent, and in November 1976 it received 41 percent and became the provincial government. Given these figures, it is evident that the party is "on the move" and that it is only a question of time before it gains an absolute majority.
THERE IS ALSO an age factor. One recent study found 69 percent of young French Canadians supporting the Parti Francois, compared with a mere 11 percent among those 65 and over. For the party's ardent supporters, it follows that the "future is ours." These arguments sound so compelling that the only reasonable course appears to be acceptance of the forthcoming fact.
NOT ALL WHO voted for the party were voting for independence, the party's "social democratic" program no doubt attracting some voters. In 1978, moreover, the party played down its own theme; that, it said, would be decided in a general referendum.
But public opinion polls conducted over the last 15 years tell a different story. Of course, one can never be sure that experience will predict the future. The recently published report of the Task Force on federal budget consolidation and centralization of federal powers, could have some effect on outlooks.
A forthcoming national election, which could topple the Trudeau government, might change things significantly. But Quebec opinion has been rather immune to the major events of recent Canadian history, suggesting that it is based on a different perspective.
Instead, it campaigned on the issue of "good government," its point being that the reigning仁官 had offered little but scandal and mismanagement of provincial affairs. With independence and self-governance, it became a party either for its other offspring or as a law to punish the liberals.
Since 1962 about 20 published polls have asked about independence. They have shown a very slow change, with independence sentiment going from 8 percent in 1962 to just under 20 percent in 1977. The results of 14 published polls from 1977 to 1979 showed that opposition that independence sentiment has stopped growing, that opposition has increased somewhat and that indecision has declined.
THE PARTY program, to be sure, calls for sovereignty association—that is, for political independence together with maintenance of present economic ties. Twelve studies in the public domain have asked for opinions on sovereignty association. While this possibility gains greater support than the opposition, there are instances of plurality for the proposal (Gallup's, in January, based on some 300 respondents). Some of the larger 1978 studies suggest a decline in support for this possibility.
A LARGE PART of the minority favoring sovereignty association is only weakly committed to it. Many initial supporters say that if, at the time of a referendum on that question, economic association appears to be in doubt, they will not vote for
Many people fear the economic effects of independence, feeling that Quebec would be lost if left to fend for itself. The association option, which suggests the continued economic advantages of the province, is a sensible option. It allows the assurance that allows the anxious to approve this alternative.
Some recent polls have asked whether people would give the government a "mandate to negotiate" sovereignty association.
In other words, a significant part of the current support for sovereignity association is vulnerable.
These give the Parti Quebecois its best showing yet, with slight majorities favoring that possibility. Not too surprising, the party's leaders declare that they will be asking for just a mandate. These results, however, are undercut by the responses to other questions, some of them in the very same students, they believe, to show only minority support for sovereignty association.
SOME PEOPLE, it appears, are saying that they oppose the option, but rather generously would allow negotiation of the question. The party's leaders, nevertheless, have declared that a majority on the mandate question would be taken as authorizing realization of the option, not just its discussion. It seems likely that voters who expressly will disappear when the meaning of those votes becomes clear.
Independence for Quebec, in short, does not appear to be "in the cards" or "just around the corner." Majority sentiment in Quebec is very much opposed to independence, to dissolution of the Canadian union. Even the somewhat more appealing something that has gained just another self-additional bit, to date, apart from the recent Gallup study, has also fallen short of a plurality.
HOW CAN ONE account for the widespread sense that independence is practically accomplished, as opposed to the majority opposition delinqued here? Part of the answer stems from the character of the movement itself. The party's activists
Among the teachers and professionals, among the journalists, writers, television commentators, artists, support for the Parti Quebecus runs between 80 and 160 percent, nearly a half-third of all students in the province, and independence is very high, and their "voices" are heard every day in the street, in the classrooms and through the news media. And their voices are the voices of journalists and commentators, by coming from outside Quebec.
The available opinion polls, however, indicate that in-
ference for Quebec is by no means as certain as their con-
fident and objective.
Richard Hamilton is professor of sociology at McGill University, Montreal. He and a colleague, Maurice Pinceau, have done a study on the gender pay gap.
STATE U.
BY T. M. ASLA