4
Tuesday, July 3, 1990 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Empty debates
Congress needs to find something better to do than to debate the issue of obscenity in the arts
The debates in Congress lately sound more like TV talk shows than legis-
One is left to wonder if Congressmen have anything better to do with their time or if these topics of debate are chosen because they seem to be easy. Amidst the hubbub, one is left with the distinct impression that none of this matters . . . or does it?
More like TV talk shows than legislative debates. On one station it is "Do you have the right to burn the American flag? It is really an issue of freedom of speech or is it just unpatriotic tripe?" On the competing station, today's topic is the National Endowment for the Arts. "Is your tax money used to perpetuate obscurity? Who decides what's obscene? Is this an issue of freedom of speech or just tyranny of the minority?"
Let's take the National Endowment for the Arts debate. Money is set aside from taxes to endow ballets, symphonies and artists who might never get an audience without federal money. In walk the Fearlords claiming that
much of this art is obscene, disgusting to our sensibilities. The Fearlords are outraged that the good-hearted, god-fearing taxpayers are footing the bill for this rubbish.
An important question to be asked here is, Who decides what is obscene? Do you want someone deciding for you or would you like the right to choose? And speaking of obscene . . . isn't it obscene that governments spend billions of dollars to build weapons of death? Isn't it obscene that millions of Americans can't read? Isn't it obscense that hundreds of thousands of children die every year from curable illness only because their families can't afford health care? Isn't it obscene that people are homeless? Isn't it obscene that people don't have civil rights? And isn't it really obsene that we're having a debate about what is obsene in a country that was founded on the principle of free speech? Fear of ideas is the ultimate obscenity.
The editorial board
Signs warning wrong-doers welcome rather than deter
There's more to living in a glass house than just not throwing stones. Leaving a pile of rocks sitting outside the front door, for example, is a bad idea. It invites vandalism which might not have otherwise occurred. Other mistakes include paint slips in the yard warning potential evil doors away from the property.
Signs like those, regardless of the good intentions behind their erection, actually invite what they are meant to ward off. The very presence of the sign suggests that the owner of the property is not only worried that the house will be broken (just like the owner of a casino, 1 guess), but that he believes he can prevent it by asserting a foundation authority in the form of written word. The arrogant assumption immediately becomes a challenge to those passers-by who choose not to accept assertion as the truth, and a house which might have otherwise remained untouched to reduced to shards;
M. Bennett
Cohn
Guest
columnist
Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of the criminal mind doesn't end with written streetside warnings. The same flawed philosophy is seen in stickers proclaiming that the houses they are attached to are protected by electronic burglar alarms; more often than not they aren't. Even the door of the KU language lab professes a sticker suggesting the items of value inside (if in fact there are any such items) have been engraved with identifying numbers to ASSURE their recovery. Yeah, I am sure that will help a lot. You're not sure, though that despite all of my complaints, I really am grateful for the creation of neighborhood watch signs. I've got one hanging up in my room, and it goes so well with the wall-paper.
shattered investment.
This becomes undisputably obvious to me whenever, driving through some segment of that fragmented and yet united land which we call suburbia. I see a street in NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AREA. WE CALL THE POLICE.
Yes, there are a lot of stupid criminals, but few of them are stupid enough to think that the police will be called more frequently from the upper middle class areas which usually contain drug dealers. They are area where no street sign stays intact for more than one night, regardless of what it says. Signs like those are often seen as virtual
invitations to disrupt the neighborhood.
▶ M. Bennett Cohn is a Prairie Village sophomore with an unde-
cided major.
Other Voices
The Fourth Amendment protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures." But what about roadside checkpoints, which stop passing motorists in an effort to identify and apprehend the small minority who are driving under the influence of drugs, or those these reasonable police procedures?
A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that such checkpoints are legitimate. This was a sensible ruling. It finally cleared up a long-
disputed legal issue, and also provided one more weapon in the arsenal of those charged with limiting the highway mayhem caused by drunk drivers.
First, the problem being targeted is unquestionably important. . . .
Second, checkpoints constitute an effective mechanism for identifying potentially dangerous drunk drivers
From the Providence (R.I.) Journal Bulletin, June 23.
In other words, "It's bad, don't blame me."
George Bush thinks the savings and loan disaster is a bad thing. Some of the billions in failed loans, he says, showed excesses and were foolish and ill-advised. He does not, however, think the crazed deregulation masterminded by the Reagan and Bush administrations had anything
From the Philadelphia Daily News June 25.
Savings and loan crisis could become 1990 election warfare
Since politicians in both parties aided and abetted the savings and loan scandal, it takes some rewriting of history to make the mess into a 1980 congressional campaign for either Republicans or Democrats.
Both sides are trying, in a dispute that has them shooting about blame but saying little about solutions to the problem of the biggest bounce in U.S. history.
After his spokesman waded into the SL&l dispute, President Bush endorsed the counterattack, but claimed the high road. "I think more important than continuing to pour fuel on that spark is continuing to work with the Congress in trying to mess solved," he said last week.
In fact, Republicans collaborated on the measure, which had a GOP co-author and overwhelming support in both parties, it passed the House to override. But the Senate voted against it. The Senate approved it without a roll call vote.
When President Jimmy Carter signed it March 31, 1980, he called it a bipartisan, landmark reform. An era of great progress and a boon to small savers.
The White House already had provided a text for Republican revisionists by claiming that in the dead of night a decade ago, Democrats pushed through legislation to sharply increase the ceiling on deposit insurance and ease restrictions on savings and loan lending practices.
Walter R.
Mears
Syndicated
columnist
Democrats prefer to start the crisis clock running a bit later, after Ronald Reagan took office, putting the blame on his administration and his vice president, George Bush, for lax regulation of savings and loans.
When Reagan signed a bill in 1982 permitting S&Ls to make commercial loans and increase consumer lending — leeway that licensed riskier ventures with federally insured deposits — he said it was a long-term solution to industry problems.
"All in all, I think we hit the jackpot," he said.
shall happen.
That bill, it should be noted, had Democratic sponsorship and support.
Ner do Democratz talk much about the way House Democratic leaders stalled and sliced measures to start dealing with industry problems sooner, at costs that now look like a bargain. Former House Speaker Jim Wright had a hand in that; his party held interests and his intervention with regulators were factors in his downfall.
"There's plenty of blame to go around," said Sen. Bob Dole. "In the final analysis, it lies everywhere."
Four of the five senators involved in the most celebrated of the savings and loan cases are Democrats. The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating their intercession with federal regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr. and his now bankrupt Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, after he gave them campaign contributions.
So some Democrats have taken to arguing that the savings and loan crisis should be viewed in two installments, before Bush and after Bush. They argue that the Bush administration has mishandled the bailout, miscalculated the cost, and done too little to prosecute $L& wrongdoers and reclaim their take. Bush says his goal is to protect depositors and bring the guilty to justice, and that he's doing both.
But almost across the board, both parties have their problems.
That's because of the attributes that have made savings and loan
interests so powerful politically and in lobbying for their aims. There's a branch in almost every town, a bloc, in every congressional district, with money to spend on campaign contributions.
That has led members of both parties to say, write and do things they may now regret. The standard explanation is that the letter, or phone call, or visit was in behalf of a constituent.
"There's enough — a lot of responsibility for every place, but I see some disturbing signs of Democrats' wanting to make this political to Republicans, and I just want to put them on notice that this plays both ways and we're ready to play." White House Press Secretary Marlin, Fitzwater in his surprise attack Tuesday.
"A big part of the problem here is that in the dead of night a few years, ago, the Democrat pushed through $100,000 per person," he said.
"I am sure the president is concerned about this becoming a campaign issue in 1992," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb, a critic of the bailout is being managed, and a target of the Fitzwater attack.
New York Gov. Mario Cuomo says the S&L crisis will be a heavyweight issue for Democrats in the 1992 presidential campaign. Cuomo, who could be the Democratic challenger next time, is making it one of his issues now. He has been a proud owner of the bankers "stole everything in sight. They fouled up everything in sight and now you are naving."
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who wants Bush to set up an independent commission to investigate the $&L situation, said "the real danger with this terrible crisis is that it will deteriorate into partisan warfare."
It is.
Walter R. Meara is a vice president and columnist for the Associated Press.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
I am most excited by the recent interest Scott Morgan, a Republican candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, expressed in the issue of Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions.
Jim Slatter has become a master at accepting out-of-state PAC money, and this certainly does not benefit the 2nd District of Pennsylvania on the Energy and Commerce Committees makes him a target of many PAC
groups. Slattery's response to this criticism is to say that these contributions are made by individuals. Technically this is true. However, only a fool would believe that out-of-state corporations and unions who decide that Slatterty should get this money are not expecting something in return from the Kansas congressman.
In the last campaign cycle, Slattery received about 90 percent of his PAC money from non-Kansas special interests.
I think Republican candidate Scott Morgan should be commended for his recent declaration of refusing this corporate and union PAC money in his congressional bid.
Adrian Rioa Sylmar, Calif., senior
News staff
Lie Husenbø ... Editor
Kate Lacey ... Manager/editor
Drew Westfield ... Planning/Campus editor
Chris Silven ... Associate campus/Rocket actress
Tomma Stargardier ... Assistant manager
Jason ... General manager, news adviser
Michael Lehman ...Business manager
Audra Langford ...Director of client services
Susan Gardner ...Director of project
David Price ...Production manager
Lalgh Taylor ...Managed management
James Tucker ...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kannan, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 113 Stairfather Hall, Littles, columns and cartoons are the option of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editorials are the opinion of the Kansian editorial board.
When I grow up, I want to be. .50?
Age discrimination prevents fulfilling fantasy of joining the ranks of AARP
As you go through life, you find yourself wanting to be a member of various organizations. When you're a kid, maybe you want to be a member of the New York Yankees. When you're a teen-ager, maybe you want to be a member of a touring rock band. When you go out into the working world, maybe you want to be a member of the Fortune 500.
Lately, though, my fantasy has shifted. Suddenly all of those dreams — baseball star, rock idol, captain of industry — have begun to grow. The organization that is starting to seem more and more fantasizing
"I'm sorry, sir," said the voice on the other end. "You're not eligible."
So I made a long-distance phone call and asked for an application form.
"What do you mean, not elig-ble?" I asked.
"I'm very sorry, sir," the voice said. "You don't meet our age requirements."
Dr. Turned down for membership in the American Association of Retired Persons.
The American Association of Retired Persons, AARP for short, has done such a good job at revisi-
Bob Greene
Syndicated columnist
ing the national image of retired people that, suddenly, being a card-carrying member of the organization seems like something worth striving for. It used to be that retired people were thought of as society's third generation, work anymore, people whose usefulness ended, people who just sat around listening to the clock tick.
Now, largely because of the promotional efforts of the AARP, when a lot of us think of retired people we envision happy, lively men and women fishing in the sun, playing tennis while the rest of the world toils in dreary offices, rolling with grandchildren and having leisurely dinners before going on carefree, mollit walks. This image may, in many cases, be as false as the old used-up fading-to-obscurity image, but it certainly is effective.
The AARP, with more than 31 million members, is the largest non-profit, non-partisan membership organization in the world. Its
official magazine, Modern Maturity, has 21 million subscribers. It was no surprise to me when Jimmy Stewart's book of poetry became an immediate best seller. Jimmy Stewart — old, cheery, kindly and wise — might as well be the AARP's poster boy.
Wrong.
So I decided to apply for membership, Granted, I am not retired, but when I think of all those AARP images of retired people, relaxed and mellow and having the time of their lives, it makes me want to join up. Just for the symbolism. I figured they'd be glad to take my membership money.
but you do have to be at least 50 years of age," DeFillippo said.
He said many AARP members were, indeed, still working and merely contemplating retirement.
Wrong.
"You do not have to be retired to be a member," said Robert DeFillippo, an AARP spokesman.
It still sounded illegal to me. I wanted to pursue this. However, Steven Zaleznick, legal counsel to the AARP, provided no help.
We've never really heard that before," DeFallipso said. "We're an association of older Americans. That defines who we are."
That sounded unfair to me. Even illegal. Denying a person the right to join an organization merely on the basis of age? Not allowing me to speak, but not yet 50? It seemed like a clear case of age discrimination.
Zalnick may have a point, I suppose. If a 40-year-old man wanted to join, say, the Cub Scouts, he could probably legally become an AARP member makes sense that the AARP can turn down people under 50.
"The organization was designed to benefit older Americans," Zalceznik said. "It would be very hard to draw lines if you did not use age. I don't see it as discrimination."
"I'm partial to the organization," Zaleznick said. "But I am not a member." Zaleznick is 35.
A, well. I never played second base for the Yankees. I never sang lead vocals for the Rolling Stones. I never made a company that made the Fortune 500.
At least there's hope that some day the AARP will accept me. They even said so.
"Please call back when you're 50," the voice on the phone said.
Yeah. Right. By that time they probably will have upped the mirabium age. Just my luck.
> Bob Greene is a Chicago Tribune columnist.