4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
12
Wednesday, Feb. 19, 1986
Too much legislation Leave beer prices alone
Hard as they may try, our representatives in Topeka will never be able to legislate responsibility.
This session brings several bills before the Legislature that seek to further stiffen Kansas drinking laws. One such bill would prohibit private clubs from selling drinks for less than they cost to provide them.
Granted, most of the cheap drinking promotions are rather scurrilous business practices that did, indeed, come about after last year's legislation. Now we have such specials all day long.
The bill's obvious aim is to eliminate penny pitchers and dime draws and other creative methods of ducking a law passed last year that prohibits happy hours.
The new bill would force club owners to set prices on a weekly basis. Maybe we would have dime draws all week.
But, we live in a free enterprise system, and the Legislature has no right to control the price of the goods and services offered by businesses.
Some opponents of the bill have said drinking specials have no effect on the number of drunk drivers on the road. That probably is taking things a bit far.
No matter what the price of the drink, irresponsible human beings with too much alcohol in their systems will continue to get behind the wheel of automobiles and endanger the lives of others.
Alcohol education and tougher drunken driving laws are measures where political pull can and should make a difference.
A bartender's job is getting more difficult by the day.
Tending bar,not babies
Not only must a bartender serve drinks and collect cash, he must make sure the bar's patrons are old enough to drink in the first place, make sure they don't get too drunk and drive home. And now, he must make sure they don't play drinking games.
The operator of a Wichita tavern recently was charged under a new law that makes it illegal for operators of clubs or taverns "to encourage or permit any game or contest which involves drinking alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage."
This elevates bartenders to the status of babysitters.
Police watched four men and two women at a Wichita tavern
play "Sink It," a game that involves floating a glass in a pitcher of beer and taking turns pouring beer into the glass. The person to sink it has to drink the glass full of beer.
The law says that if tavern patrons play this or any other drinking game, the bartender should be punished.
Drinking games do encourage excessive alcohol consumption, but the law is punishing the wrong person. If the Legislature wants to ban drinking games, that's fine.
However, a tavern operator should not be held liable for the irresponsible behavior of others.
Drinkers ought to have enough sense not to play stupid games. When they don't, they should be the ones to pay.
Heavy hand on hazing
Hazing has long been prohibited by most organizations at most schools across the country.
But the practice still goes on, and every year another tragic story of a reckless accident resulting in a student's injury or death because of hazing is reported.
A bill before the Kansas Legislature would make any act of initiation that had a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm illegal. Period.
A hazing victim could take civil action against anyone who participated in the hazing, any local organization that authorized or tolerated the hazing or the director of the organization.
Fine.
The president of the KU Interfraternity Council has said the law is not needed. He said universities and national organizations control hazing and have disciplinary measures to handle infractions.
But the threat of court action and the weight of a state law banning hazing with a maximum fine of $2,500 and a jail sentence of one year surely would help to eliminate the degrading practice.
Last year, the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity was suspended by the University as an official registered campus organization for hazing violations. The fraternity's charter also was in jeopardy of being revoked. Instead, the national organization installed a supervisory alumni commission to monitor the house's activities.
Perhaps the victim or victims of the SAE hazing violations would have appreciated the option of civil court action to pursue their grievances.
But even more important, perhaps a state law banning the whole practice would have prevented any incidents from occurring in the first place.
Seat belt law takes away civil liberties
It has come to my attention that certain parties in the state government have decided that it would be in the people's best interest to implement a mandatory seat belt law.
Only a fool would argue with the fact that seat belts save lives. This is proven. But isn't it our choice to wear a seat belt? Doesn't that sound roughly like a civil liberty?
I don't wear my seat belt. Call me a fool, because I am. I should wear it, but I choose not to. It is my personal decision. Perhaps the government thinks it should save me from myself. Thanks guys, but no thanks. Enough people in this state need your help more than I do.
Go to the schools of Kansas City, Kan., and tell them that their books are falling apart and they don't have
Christopher Cunnygham
Council oversees
Guest columnist
money to buy new ones because their tax money is going to pay our legislators to make seat belt laws.
The argument for the law contains such rhetoric as "the people pay for the loss of work-time while these people recuperate from the accidents." Not only is this a fairly callous attitude, but I think these people are forgetting the Deal.
The Deal is what our founding fathers made. Freedom is not cheap. We have to work for it; we have to pay for it. Nobody said it would be easy. It would be so much simpler to allow others to make the decisions for us, but we chose the other way.
This sort of involvement by the government is a step in the wrong direction. I don't live in a democratic society to be told what to do by my government, but rather to tell my government what to do.
Many people are undecided on this issue — apathetic ones who never voice their discontent or disagreement until it is too late. Or they shrug silently and follow orders. Okay, why not. The eventuality of this trend frightens me.
Perhaps I'm being reactionary.
Perhaps I'm overstating. People said
the same thing about Ben Hecht.
Hecht was a columnist and screenwriter in the '30s and '40s. He was the guy who ran around protesting the treatment of German Jews and appealing to the U.S. government and American Jews to do something while Hitler was still a loudmouthed fool, before he was a household name.
Perhaps I'm being reactionary. I hope so.
There is no completely right or wrong side in this issue. To give up the liberty of choice is much more costly than the alternative. To pay for the right to make personal decisions is a small price no matter what the cost. That is the Deal. We made it.
Though not wearing a seat belt is bad for your health, so is not eating three balanced meals a day. I'm sure more people die as a result of an unbalanced diet, through clogged arteries, heart disease and high blood pressure than from not wearing a seat belt.
A recent Canadian study indicates that beer drinkers are, on the average, healthier than non-drinkers or people who drink liquor. I could get behind a law about that, but only like the people behind the seat belt law: I think it would be good for the people.
This would be a good law. "Sorry buddy, but you didn't have a dairy product represented in your lunch. We're taking you downtown."
My opinion. I'm not running off to the Senate with it. I wish others would have the same respect for my personal choices.
The rest of the story
Credibility results distorted
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
Who said this? Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega or Mikhail Gorbachev?
While all five probably have said something similar to that, the quote is from former CBS News President Richard Salant.
Surprised? You should be if all your information comes from the large eastern media establishment.
The whole Times Mirror interpretation of the survey was wrong. Let's face it, they're not going to dish out a quarter of a million dollars to find out the media has a credibility problem.
The news you get is pre-digested in corporate newsrooms and then fed to you for consumption.
Last year, the press thought it was suffering from a credibility problem and it wanted to find out why.
The Times Mirror Co., which owns eight newspapers, five magazines, four television stations and 50 cable TV systems, spent $257,000 for Gallup Poll to conduct 3,000 interviews on the public opinion of the news media.
The result? According to Gallup, "There is no credibility crisis for the nation's news media."
But stand by, burning issue fans! If you, like most people, just glanced at the screaming headlines on page one, which seemed to vindicate the press, and then went on to the sports section, you missed the real truth which was buried in the survey.
Victor Goodpasture Staff columnist
So sit back, relax and read the rest of the story.
The whole Times Mirror interpretation of the survey was wrong. Let's face it, they're not going to dish out a quarter of a million dollars to find out the media has a credibility problem with the public.
They just interpreted the data wrong to fit the results they hoped to have.
Those polled were asked to rate prominent publications and journalists on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 meaning "you can believe all or most of what they say" and 1 meaning "you can believe almost nothing of what they say."
It wasn't said what 2 and 3 meant.
But when the results were written up,
3 was labeled as "believable." So
when 3 and 4 were added together,
most of the results were 80 percent-plus ratings.
But if only the "highly believable" or 4 rating is used, the results are very different.
Only one-third believed all or most of what they saw on network news and in Time and Newsweek. Only 25 percent believed all or most of what they read in nationally influenced newspapers, except for the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal scored higher than any other news source with 45 percent saying they believed all or most of what was printed. The MacNeil/Leher NewsHour on PBS received a 43 percent approval rating.
Network news anchor Dan Rather received a 44 percent rating, Peter Jennings 40 percent and Tom Brokaw 37 percent.
What all of this means is that more
man two-thirds of the public do not agree that the news media are highly believable. This is a far cry from the results that the media reported about themselves.
However, this poll does have similar results to one done last year by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, which disclosed that fewer than one-third of those polled rated the media high in credibility. So it really wasn't surprising when the media ignored those results.
The Gallup Poll did reveal some in teresting results that couldn't be glossed over by the media. Among them:
Only 52 percent said the media stand up for America. Only 55 percent said the media get the facts straight.
45 percent said the media was politically biased. 53 percent said the media tended to favor one side on political and social issues.
- $3 percent said the media were often influenced by the powerful.
73 percent said the media invad other people's privacy.
Do these figures suggest that there is a growing credibility of the new media?
Finally, the Gallup survey concluded that the people who were the most critical of the media were the best formed and the heaviest consumers of news.
The Gallup survey said, "In the public at large, those who know more about the press like it least . . . The truth is, the best informed are the least impressed."
All of these results are exactly opposite of what the newspapers blazed in their headlines. No wonder only 13 percent believe all or most of what they read in the New York Times and Washington Post.
Benjamin Disraeli, the late British prime minister, was right. He said "There are three types of lies — lies
News staff
Michael Totty ... Editor
Laurette McMillen ... Managing editor
Chris Barber ... Editorial editor
Cindy McCurry ... Campus editor
David Gillard ... Sport director
Brice Waddell ... Photo editor
Susanne Shaw ... General manager, news adviser
... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Business staff
Brett McCabe . Business manager
David Nixon . Retail sales manager
Jim Williamson . Campus manager
Lori Eckart . Classified manager
Emma Jones . Production manager
Pullen Lee . National manager
John Oberzan . Sales and marketing adviser
**Letters** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words and should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
**Guest shots** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The
"The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall."
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $27 a year. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118
Strauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan, 66045.
Mailbox
Series important issue
The lack of a lecture series on this campus that would compete with the Landon lectures is a subject that deserves a much more thorough examination than the hurried story on the front page of the Kansan (Feb. 13).
It was suggested that the reporter talk to James Scaly, assistant to the chancellor, as perhaps the most knowledgeable person on campus concerning some of the problems connected with a "world class" series.
He could have provided information on the James Pearson series, its administration and limitations, as well as supplemented the brief references in the story to the Vickers, Hallmark and University Lecture Series.
It was also suggested that she contact Youssef El-Shoubary, president of International Club, who recently
showed how one person with drive and imagination could bring into being an effective sponsoring group and obtain funds to finance the visit of Jihan Sadat.
However, neither of these rich sources of information were contacted because a deadline would not permit it. Since this was neither hard news nor a fast-breaking story, it is hard to understand why a deadline prevented what could have been a story that might rekindle wide interest and support for improving the lecture presentations on our campus.
The scheduling of Julian Bond on a Saturday night in hoc Auditorium last week for an audience of about 200 people is a good example of why more thought, effort and organization need to be given to the subject. I look forward to such a story.
Clifford P. Ketzel
Cilford P. Kretz professor of political science
Band judging biased
The judging procedure was very unprofessional. The band that won was uncourteous of the 25-minute time limit, which was an important rule to follow.
I attended the Battle of the Bands on Feb. 14 at the Kansas Union in which six bands competed and the winner received free video and studio time at TV30.
In my mind, there was no question that two of the judges were acquaintances of the winners.
Even though the contest was a fund-raiser that was supposed to be an evening of entertainment, it was a competition and something was gained by winning.
Sherry Roth Shawnee sophomore
Children understand
In response to Susan Leininge (Kansan, Jan 28):
I would like to introduce myself to the little girl who asked you to sign my anti-abortion petition on Jan. 22.
I would like to express my testing about the babies who are being killed because they are suffering. The babies cannot fight for themselves so we get to fight for them.
in the letter you wrote, you said did not know what abortion is. Abortion is the killing of babies while the are still in their mothers' wombi (which used to be the safest place for them).
While viewing the movie "The Silent Scream," I learned what abortion is. It was a very strong movie.
Catharine Ryu
Cair Parzel, Topeka, fifth grade
daughter of Kansus For Life
president