4
Wednesday, November 10, 1976
University Daily Kansan
Comment
Opinions on this page reflect the view of only the writer.
The baptism of fire
The Rev. Clennon King, a black minister with a questionable background, again has gone a-tappin' on the door of the Plains, Baptist Church.
For the second Sunday in a row, he has been barred by the church, which has a policy of not admitting "Negroes and civil rights activists."
JIMMY CARTER, who voted against the policy excluding blacks in 1965, has said he would meet with the church's pastor and several members of the board of deacons to reconsider the church's segregationist policy.
Meanwhile the Rev. Mr. King, whose background includes failure to pay child support and other violations of the law, has said that he would stay away from the church next Sunday until Carter meets with the elders.
It is fortunate that a man like the Rev. Mr. King, a Republican who ran against Carter for the governorship of Georgia in 1970, was the one to make an issue of the church's white-only policy, whose character and motivation were often used when been refused admittance to the church, then the issue would be clearer.
BUT WHATEVER the Rev. Mr. King is, he made a point.
Jimmy Carter, who received about 80 per cent of the black vote, belongs to a minority group.
A church may limit its membership to whatever groups it likes, according to the law. I find the white-only policy of the Plains church to be immoral, but if that's the way they want it, it's their right.
CARTER'S affiliation with such a church is questionable, however.
Carter has a duty to the moral, as well as the executive leader of this county.
If the Plains Baptist Church sticks with its policy of barring blacks, and if Carter remains a member of the church, his back on the blacks that voted for him.
HE WILL be saying thanks to blacks—just stay outside. It would be another case of Carter's consistent inconsistency.
The best answer for the Plains church is to admit blacks. That would be a man who would reassure the American people that Jim Carter is a man of high principles.
By Carl Young
Contributing Writer
Letters
B1 bombers wasteful
To the Editor:
The clarification of the estimate of the B1 bomber by Col. Wondrack may possibly be correct, but I don't believe cost is the question. Is the B1 bomber necessary?
I believe the effectiveness of our military program is lacking, because of waste. Aircraft such as the B1 and other models I have seen are wasteful.
I have been in the Air Force. I have seen the way aircraft I have been missed, pilots crashing multimillion dollar aircraft that we, the taxpayers, must pay for.
B1 is unnecessary. I would like to see it stopped.
Norman Kinney
McLouth sophomor
The defense department now is getting about one third of our government's revenue. Agreeing with President-elect Carter, I believe the military and some rather large cubbacks, deficiency is the defense department's best talent.
What about our BS2 stratofortresses? Will these expensive planes be bunked? If so, is this not more wasteful? If not, why build the B1? Modify the BS2 is cheaper.
GM hears students To Carl Young, contributing writer:
The money being spent on the
General Motors was concerned by comments in your editorial "GM talked but didn't listen" (Kannan, November 3). Let us look at the responses. I talked, but listened and learned from our experiences at KU.
This was an experimental model—a first-time event—that we used to investigate communication between students and a major corporation. We do not and will not apologize for that attempt, which we sincerely regret.
As you point out, more than 1.00 students took time to visit the university's developments in automotive technology in Learned Hall (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is described as centrally located).
Of particular benefit to GM was the free and open exchange that took place in Hoch Auditorium. About 200 students took advantage of this opportunity to ask questions on
every subject. No questions were ducked and none were left purposely unanswered. You might be interested to know that the group distributing materials on South Africa was specially invited inside and declined the invitation.
We were prepared to discuss in detail questions on our South African position—thus the need for a fact book, because it is virtually impossible to obtain all details such as a complicated mindset. As we always strive to give accurate and honest answers, it isn't uncommon to bring reference materials. This is necessary in the event a statistic, emission standard or other pertinent matter about an organization as a General Motors slips the mind.
The entire session at Hoch was recorded and taken back to Detroit where it will be transcribed. The students will distribution in the organization. After years of hearing cries that American business hides under a "corporate umbrella," it will be reubenced for our candor.
James Hughes
Midwest Regional Manager GM Public Relations
In October the New York Times News Service reported that such a study had been conducted and that its findings diluted the claims alarmists had brought to light. The study, done by an international team of economists headed by Nobel
AT FIRST, we reacted to such reports with disbelief think only crackots could have concocted such science fiction. Then, we began to consider the validity of such predictions, and we realized that they shouldn't begin to prepare for vague, but imminent, danger. But because such preparation dumfounded us, we turned our backs to the predictions, forgot their gravity and began to look that would retake the fatalism expressed in initial reports.
Shades of past will color future
Man, that optimistic creature who too often believes there truly is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, may be naive enough to believe the world isn't for doom around the year 2000.
For years, we have heard that the world cannot continue to produce enough food or natural resources for burgeoning population. The 20th century has been one in which countless researchers have predicted ensuing disaster and the behavior of mankind worldwide.
prize winner Wassily Leifont for the United Nations, purported that world resources would be sufficient to support a growing population with higher living standards without inevitable environmental damage.
THE LIMITS to growth, so the study said, aren't physical.
BUT IS it possible that one study can totally refute the findings of so many that preceded it? I find it curious that many noted researchers, and especially the United Nations, would react with such optimism to one study. Is this a situation wherein one study has the empirical evidence to
Mary Ann Daugherty Contributing Writer
Rather, they are political and institutional, most evident in the disorder of developing institutions, institutional flaws, the study continued, can be smoothed out by reforming relations between developed and developing to encourage economic growth.
The suggestion that brought nearly worldwide acclaim and approval for the U.S. study was that mankind, by his very being, wasn't responsible for the lack of food and resources but that the way he lives, especially through his political and institutional structures, and institutional structures, to many, this was the raid of lightly-occupied those who believe man can make up for his inadequacies and blunders. Before, most reports grimly suggested man had little chance for survival beyond the year 2000.
years Unfortunately, the world's noted researchers have yet to discuss them in much detail. The study, which said we can correct our deficiencies through diligent struggles to overcome present life styles, has drawn many statements of hope for the future. But that's about all.
If the recent U.N. study is valid, it contains many crucial guidelines for structuring society during the next few
Few have stopped to consider how diligent those struggles must be. Granted, the report said we could find solutions, but it also said we must reform our current worldwide society. Nations must, among other things, reach zero population growth, conserve energy and share resources.
outweigh all others? Or is this a situation wherein man simply finds it less painful to subscribe to an optimistic rather than a pessimistic prediction regarding his survival?
PERHAPS nations could educate their populaces, overcome their longstanding
political prejudices and take on a humanitarian benevolence, which, for many nations, would be historically out of character, in order to thwart impending doom. But such changes would have to evolve during many years. In the world can, even now, move quickly enough to restructure society by the year 2000.
What is needed, then, are shades of the past. We need the sense of immediacy present in those days when everyone feared we wouldn't live out the century. But we need to go by beyond those days to a point where we can restructuring his world. No matter whose study is in vogue, the crux of the problem remains of deadly importance. The year 2000 isn't that far away.
Some hopeful and optimistic things can be said, and I mean to say them in a moment, but I don't want to have the first of all. We got clobbered. There is no point in attempting to paper over the damage. As the returns trickled in last week, Republican observers knew the anguish of MacDuff. Ford defeated, Buckey lost, Ford lost. They had pretty ones! All our pretty chickens at one fell swoop!
What happens now to the Republican party? What now becomes of the conservative cause?
Conservatism suffers when Democrats gain
IT WAS bloody carnage. To lose the White house is to lose the greatest prize of all, but loss of the presidency was merely the first and worst of the republican recesses. The president's house representatives will be felt almost as keenly. At this writing, it appears that the GOP made no net gain in the House whatever. The 43 seats that were lost in 1974, for the most part, were lost again a week ago. It is a freshman's first chance to win the term representatives have an easier time thereafter.
A few weeks will elapse before a comprehensive picture can be drawn of political changes at the state and local levels. Preliminary figures indicate that Republican Governors Conference could barely make up three tables of bridge; the Republicans held 13 governorships. Now the conference is taking shape, with three tables of bridge; the Republicans are down to 12.
ONE LOSS in particular will be grievous felt. In the defeat of New York's Senator James Buckley, conservatives lost their best and brightest prospect for 1980. In his first term, Buckley had won the Republican nomination with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He remains a man of high principle and great capacity for public service—but he is now a man without a forum. He got
licked. In this wound, the party suffers the unkindest cut of all.
And yet, and yet . . . Without playing Pollyma or sucking on sour grapes, it is possible to find a brighter side. No election that dumps Tunisia of California and Hartke of Indiana can be seen as wholly bad. The Senate that meets in January may even be a
James J. Kilpatrick
( c ) 1976 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
tad more conservative than the Senate of the past two years. The protection afforded the minority by the filibuster rule isn't likely to be further weakened.
THE REPUBLICAN party will survive, and in the absence of bold leadership under another label, it probably will survive. The defeat of Gerald Ford ought to put Watergate finally to rest. The ugliest spectres now have been exorcised. A new Republican generation will be president in Congress and in the states.
Because of the overwhelming Democratic majorities, liberal in both chambers, Carter presumably will get most of the bad bills he wants—bills that Ford had vetoed. During a year in which he likely to see a federal makework jobs bill, a bill to repeal the right-to-work authorization in Taft-Hartley, a consumer advocacy agency, and so on. But a Democratic president would like the role of the executive and legislative responsibility may suddenly discover some virtues in fiscal prudence.
Last week's returns can't rationally be read as a repudiation of conservatism for the reason race was too close to provide a liberal "mandate." Most of the House elections turned more on personalities and local issues than discussions of political philosophy.
And to wind up on a cheerful note: There is something pleasantly refreshing about the shedding of heavy responsibility. With Ford's defeat, Republicans lay their burden upon Mr. Trump and the Democratic party will have it all. If the Democrats' programs work—if their efforts produce peace, prosperity, public contentment, an end to inflation, greater personal freedom—the Democrats will be entitled to all the credit. If they don't, they can have all the blame.
L
Stud commi have t but the Nettle repres Nett subcob which most uninfo intim*)
But studenby
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Acce
each
require
memb
Published at the University of Kansas daily. A student who left campus on June 26, 2015 and June Jude except Saturday, Sunday and Holiday, is now a graduate of the University of Kansas. Subscriptions by mail to my email or $14.95 direct deposit to my email. A year outside the county. Student abstinence are required. A year outside the county. Student abstinence are required.
P ir
The varies govern for accthe Bi
Editor Debbie Curren
Managing Editor
Yan boohakah
Journal Editor
Editorial Editor
Vassai Boothakah
Campaign Editor
Stewart Brann
Associate Campus Editor
Bill Sniffen
Associate Campus Editors
Sheila Burke
Chuck Alexander
Date Editor
In th Huete mood,
"soft said meeti the or
Poet
gathe
aftern
Union.
rhythm
count
listen
In tl read summr Befor
Business Manager
Terry Hanson
Assistant Business Manager Carole Rosenkoster
Advertising Manager Janie Clementes
Assistant Advertising Manager Jude Jarilla
Assistant Sales Manager Kurt G. Schiff
Assistant Classified Manager