4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
V1
Monday, Feb. 17, 1986
Wasted youth
"There's no place like home," unfortunately doesn't hold true for most of Kansas' brightest young men and women according to a newspaper study published last week.
The six-month study by the Wichita Eagle-Beacon indicated that more than half of the 1,359 Kansas high school students who were National Merit semifinalists in the 1970s have left the state.
Most of the students who left went elsewhere to pursue white-collar, high-technology jobs in big cities, the study said.
What a waste.
Not only is Kansas having trouble attracting talent and technology, we can't keep
what we have at home.
More than 25 percent of the finalists who left flocked to Texas and California.
Beaches and mountains would do a lot to keep our best and brightest here. But those options are not readily available to the Legislature.
Instead, the current push to catch Kansas up with the rest of the country in terms of moving from a primarily agricultural economy to a high-technology, postindustrial economy must continue.
Efforts to attract outsiders into the state are fine, but we need to focus on ways to keep our most intelligent natives on this side of the state line.
Professional problem
Obstetricians and orthopedic surgeons went on strike in Massachusetts recently protesting high medical malpractice insurance costs. The orthopedic surgeons have returned to work, but the obstetricians remain on strike.
This is not as bad as it sounds. With or without obstetricians, babies will be born. Birth is a natural process. For the majority of women the danger is overstated, especially by the medical community, which benefits by making the process seem a technological feat.
Once the province of general practitioners, obstetricians increasingly have been handling a large proportion of births that used to be considered low-risk. To put low-risk births back into the province of the general practitioner would actually be a step forward.
The medical community in Kansas is embroiled in the same debate and here too, obstetricians are vocal in their advocacy of a cap on medical malpractice suits.
Doctors have been arguing before the state Legislature
Partly as a result of this, the number of suits has climbed, as well as the amount of the judgments. Doctors blame the litigiousness of society or the greed of lawyers, both of which may well be factors.
But the overriding fact is that if some doctors did a better job of ensuring that mistakes did not happen and of taking appropriate action when they do, they probably wouldn't be in this boat today.
Presidential waffling
Losing touch with reality seems to be a regularity these days in the White House.
One U.S. legislator described President Reagan's waffled reaction to the Philippine election as an indication that someone was smoking drugs in the White House.
"They appear to have lost touch with reality."
that many of their colleagues are leaving the state rather than facing high insurance costs here. They also say that doctors are leaving fields like obstetrics, where the risk of law suits is higher than others. In other words, they're playing it safe.
Many went into fields like obstetrics because the financial rewards were great, but were burned when they made mistakes and were sued. Among obstetricians, as among other groups within the medical profession, there has been a strong tendency to protect each other and not to rid the profession of members whose methods were sloppy.
Before the Philippine election, which took place Feb. 7, Reagan had demanded that the election be free and fair or else.
"The suggestion that the opposition should accept with equanimity the fact that the election has been stolen constitutes prima facie evidence that they are smoking hashish in the White House," Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, R-N.Y., said recently.
The election took place. Filipinos voted. Some voted for President Ferdinand Marcos. Others voted for his opponent, Corazon Aquino. Violence, ballot-switching and widespread fraud plagued the election. No one has emerged
as a clear winner. But both have claimed victory.
The White House still is unsure of what happened, even after the U.S. envoy, who was sent to observe the election, reported that fraud was evident — maybe on both sides.
At Reagan's news conference Tuesday, he said the observers did not have hard evidence of fraud and the United States would take a "wait and see" approach.
"I said we're depending on the Filipino people to make this decision," Reagan said.
It seems Reagan is buying the argument that a tainted vote in the Philippines is better than no vote at all, a very weak attempt at proving Marcos' adherence to democracy.
The result of a corrupt Marcos winning a corrupt election and staying in power is bad enough.
But the outcome of the United States backing a dictator re-elected by fraud may be worse, in the form of a communist insurgency and a loss of vital U.S. strategic bases.
News staff
News staff
Michael Totty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editor
Lauretta McMillan . . . . . . . . . . . . Managing editor
Chris Barber . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editorial editor
Cindy McCurry . . . . . . . . . . Campus editor
David Giles . . . . . . . . . . . Sports editor
Brice Waddill . . . . . . . . . Photo editor
Susanne Shaw . . . General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Brett McCabe . . . . . . . . . . . . Business manager
David Nixon . . . . . . . . . . Retail sales manager
Jim Williamson . . . . . . . . . Campus manager
Lloyd Edart . . . . . . . . Classified manager
Caroline Innes . . . . . . Production manager
Pallen 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 Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 113 Stuaffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 60-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer-Fall HintL, Lawn, 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 at a warehouse or at a licensed bank is $2 a week in Kansan County and $18 for six months and $3 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118
Staufer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, K. 68045.
Bush shows that 'lapdog' fits him well
George Bush thinks he's going to become the next republican candidate for president, but I'll be surprised if he gets the nomination. And amazed if he's selected.
There was a time when I thought Bush had a fair chance. Although he sounds a little squeaky when making a speech, he has been vice president for two terms. That ought to be worth something, although I'm not sure what
Most of all, he looks so republican. At least he looks like what I have always thought a prominent republican should look like: all preppy and Ivy League. I have the feeling that if Bush removed his clothes, instead of underwear he'd be wearing perfectly cresSED tennis whites.
But something happened recently that was the beginning of the end of Bush's presidential aspirations.
George Will, the widely syndicated
columnist and TV pontificator, became disgusted at the way Bush had been currying the favor of conservatives, who had always suspected Bush of having closet liberal tendencies.
Mike Royko Chicago Tribune
Now, you might ask. "Who cares what some columnist says about Bush?" And if you were talking about 99.9 percent of our capital's syndicated pundits, you'd be right.
So, Will wrote a column dripping with contempt for Bush. And he summed up his feelings when he described Bush as a "lap dog."
But George Will is more than a columnist. He is the chief egghead of conservatism. He not only writes and pontificates, he has helped craft some of President Reagan's speeches and helped coach him for debates. He doesn't stand on the sidelines and watch. He bulls right into the middle of the cricket game.
So, when George Will says that George Bush is nothing more than a lap dog, many of the nation's republicans listen.
The significance of Will calling Bush a lap dog can be measured by the fact that the lap dog accession still was front page news in the New York Times many days after Will wrote it.
And that means it isn't going to go away. It will become an issue that will dog Bush throughout the coming months and years.
When conservatives look at Bush, they'll be thinking, "Yes, he does have the look about him of someone who might sit up and yip for a Dog Yummie."
If and when he debates his challengers, some of them are bound to say, "What this party doesn't need as its standard-bearer is an accused lap dog."
At press conferences, he will be asked: "Sir, do you feel you have been able to shed your dog lap dog image? And if so, do you now consider yourself a pure-bred show dog or a mixed breed?"
And the most terrible part of Bush's problem is that he, in effect, admits that Will's description of him is accurate.
How embarrassing. There he is, being called a lap dog, and what does he say? He says he respects the person who calls him a lap dog.
When he was asked about being called a lap dog, he meekly said, "Nobody likes being attacked in a very personal way — especially by someone he respects."
And that will be the turning point of Bush's aspirations. He had his chance and he blew it.
He could have said, "Say, what do I care what some simp who looks like an old maid schoolteacher says about me?"
In other words, even while Will is calling him a lap dog. Bush is trying to crawl up on Will's lap.
Or even, "Tell Will to meet me out back in the junkyard, and I'll let him know what kind of ol' dog I am. There won't be nothin' left of him but a tuft of hair."
Or, "Let Georgie say that to my face, if he can do it without his lips trembling."
It reminds me of a story that I've told before, but is worth repeating.
A boxer got into the ring with Archo Moore, a great fighter of a few champions.
In the first round, Moore hit him so hard that the guy was carried so his dressing room and didn't regain consciousness for half an hour.
But no, he gives his tail a lap dog wag.
When he finally came to, he staggered to his feet, made his way to Moore's dressing room and asked for an autograph.
I think it would be nice if Will sent Bush an autographed copy of the lap dog column.
I'm sure Bush keeps a scrapbook.
The extras are those programs which collectively aim at centralizing politically the economic procedures of the nation, an infringement on individual prosperity and choice.
Reagan, in his proposal, separated the necessary responsibilities of central government from the extras and decided where to cut spending based on that. Among the necessities are defense, space research, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome research and Social Security.
Some also were disquised by Reagan's plan to increase defense spending. Whether pacifism or
Many people have, however, become quite dependent on these programs and seeing spending cuts has upset them.
Second, the government has been planning too much and making decisions belonging to the private sector.
Principles are key to budget cuts
The president made a bold feat two weeks ago. He delivered a State of the Union address and budget proposal doomed to trigger displeasure and disapproval in Congress. His principles, however, were dominant enough to claim victory.
Although President Reagan suffocated many listeners, particularly liberal ones, with his melodramatic "family" stress, two messages came clear:
One, the deficit exists not because people are undertaked — hence, no tax increase — but because the federal government overspend.
Evan Walter Staff columnist
Defense and research are common, generic virtues of national interest not aimed at providing for any one or group of individuals. The same doesn't hold for many of the programs Reagan proposed spending cuts for.
The United States is not a military state but rather a country of the free and the skeptical, who argue against the Reagan principle: Keep America strong but don't let the central government play the role of the "invisible hand." The government builds a strong defense to protect the people in their pursuit of happiness, granted by their freedom.
idealism, it illustrates the popularity of the belief that the responsibility of government is to direct society, not to militarize it.
As far as militarizing goes, a superpower's work to maintain its status hardly justifies being referred to as a military state. The latter occurs in countries that decide to sacrifice the people's freedom and right to prosper so the government can build an offense to spread its claws and human rights violations, the main policy of Russia.
The "Great Society" welfare programs haven't been too successful, and they often challenge priorities with state and local organizations as well as with private individuals.
As Reagan described his proposal to Congress, "those things best done by government will be done by government; those things best done by the private sector will be directed by the marketplace."
Less interest in big government social programs doesn't mean we should forget social problems exist, which would only escalate the problems.
Social problems should instead be treated on a local level, not centrally and generically.
Enough theory said! In practicality, everyone agrees the deficit must be sliced and eliminated by 1991. And if it isn't done by a plan approved now, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, or Gramm-Rudman-Hollings will make its automatic along-the-board cuts to reduce the deficit below $144 billion.
Unlike the Reagan proposal Gramm-Rudman-Hollings wouldn't value priorities.
A popular suggestion is a tax increase which the president doesn't want. A tax increase would mean a spending decrease — back to a 2.2 percent gross national product.
The best option is to limit big government spending in programs that are "extras." Give the freedom of choice concerning the "extras" to people, not the House and Senate.
Mailbox
Problem not doctors
As it appears, Chris Bunker has jumped right on the bandwagon along with the many others who fail to see why health care is so costly in today's society (Kansan, Feb. 12).
Unfortunately, over the past decade, America's legal profession has fallen from the once reputable pedal on which it, as a profession, comfortably rested when it was a moral society. Thanks to a small minority of individuals who like to call themselves politicians, Kansas, as well as the rest of the country, has been thrown into a legal society, most of us with little legal background.
Bunker immediately takes his stab and directs it at doctors, whom he affectionately calls the "wrongdoers," citing their greed and incompetence as the evil that inflates America's ballooning health care costs. Sorry to burst Bunker's balloon, but the problem of high cost lies not in the medical community, but within the legal profession.
That's the catch. What has this done? Now everyone, not just physicians, has been earmarked as possible prey for the numerous wolves disguised in pinstripe suits with law degress behind their big desks.
America now abounds with "ambulance chasers" and that is what is driving our health care costs through the ceiling. We must realize that, win or lose, someone has to pay the cost of going to court and defending
Richard Roderick
Salina junior
When we realize this, how is it possible that Chris Bunker has either the knowledge or audacity to call doctors greedy? I only hope Bunker doesn't need medical treatment soon.
Double standard
That is reflected in the doctors' high insurance premiums, and conversely, our increased cost for treatment. A large number of malpractice cases involve patients who, to put it simply, are not designed to live to be 75 or 80 years old. Most lawyers would not think twice about taking these cases, with but the tempting possibility of a 40-percent cut of a multi-million dollar settlement, attorneys are running to get a glance at the obituaries in hope that their one big case awaits them.
The United States has long been a
oneself. With millions of suit-happy lawyers around, no one will win.
It appears that we are once again witnessing the double standard in international relations. Despite numerous reports of fraud, intimidation, violence and murder in the Philippines presidential election, the Reagan administration remains neutral and claims there is no firm evidence.
If such reports came from elections held by the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the administration immediately would call for massive financial and military aid for the contra rebels.
model of democracy and justice. However, this hypocritical stand will greatly diminish our credibility in the eyes of the world. Are we to support the democracy of Thomas Jefferson or the machinations of William M. "Boss" Tweed?
It is unlikely that the administration's hope of a coalition government will come to pass, because Corazon Aquino blames President Marcos for the murder of her husband.
One of the principal objectives of the Reagan administration is to stop the spread of communism. By failing to denounce the corruption of the Marcos regime, the administration will drive Aquino and her followers into the waiting arms of the communists. If justice prevails and Aquino is elected, the administration will find itself facing a hostile government that almost certainly will demand the evacuation of the Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base.
Stephen Smith Lawrence graduate student
Offensive cartoon
I was appalled by the lack of taste expressed in the cartoon from the Miami News which was printed on page 4 of the Kansan on Feb. 13.
I was also appalled by the lack of editorial discretion which allowed the cartoon to be printed. Whoever it was on the Karans staff who decided to run it made a bad decision.
Lori MacCurdy
Lawrence graduate student