4A
Tuesday. December 5. 1995
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
THE ISSUE: ROCK CHALK REVUE
Rock Chalk spending needs cap
The Rock Chalk Revue advisory board needs to place a spending cap on the preparations and performances that accompany every Rock Chalk production. A spending cap is necessary because organizations involved in the variety show have been exhausting increasingly insane amounts of money, with one group spending $4,000 on its proposal this year.
The money Rock Chalk Revue contestants collectively spend on their productions is more than they donate to the United Way. Rock Chalk Revue is a charity benefit, and it is ridiculous that organizations are allowed to spend more than they contribute.The primary purpose of the show should be to maximize the cash distributed to the United Way. For that reason there should be a mandatory spending limit.
Rock Chalk Revue claims to be a campus-wide competition, but because of the huge sum of money consumed by production costs, members of the greek community are usually the only groups that can afford to be involved.
Organizations spend more money on productions than the fundraising event generates for the United Way.
Rock Chalk Revue has become exclusively a greek function, and that needs to be changed. If a spending cap were implemented, everyone would have the opportunity to be involved, and students would be able to concentrate on the goal of donating to the United Way.
TARA FITZPATRICK FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD.
It has become a charity benefit monopolized by fraternities and sororities. Residence halls and other campus organizations can no longer afford to be active in the production. A spending cap needs to be implemented so that any campus group can participate in the annual event.
The Revue is for a good cause, but outrageous spending has taken away from the real goal of the variety show — to raise money for the United Way. It should not be necessary to shell out large amounts of money to perform in the competition. There are ways to avoid spending thousands of dollars while still maintaining the quality of the performances.
THE ISSUE: JAN MEYERS
Jan Meyers won't be missed
Hallelujah. Meyers
announced that she will not seek another term in the House of Representatives, and now students can breathe a little easier.
As Republicans worked to balance the federal budget, they have made drastic cuts in education. Unfortunately, Meyers has supported these cuts in the financing of schools and student loans.
Maybe Meyers grew up in a time when getting a college degree was not as essential to success, or maybe she is partial to spending money on bombs instead of books. But no matter how you look at it, Meyers has not been a friend of students. Now her career is over, and KU students no longer will have to deal with her.
Representative's support of education cuts ignored the needs of students in Kansas.
Unless she runs for the Senate.
Sen. Nancy Kassebaum has announced that she will not run for re-election. Meyers said she might consider running. Let's hope that she chooses not to.
Bob Dole and other Republican education cutters love to push the values of family strength and morality, yet they don't seem to place a high value on educating people in the United States.
A new ally of the students of Kansas needs to fill the vacant Senate position not Jan Meyers, who consistently has been opposed to the needs of students at the University of Kansas and across the nation.
IAN RITTER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
COLLEEN MCCAIN
Editor
DAVID WILSON
Managing editor, news
ASHLEY MILLER
Managing editor, planning & design
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
News & Special Sections - Deedra Allison
Editorial - Heather Lawrence
Campus Editorial - Victoria Meng
Campus Campus - Virginia Meng
Associate Campus - Yereen Vezey
Associate Campus - Rachel Vezey
Sports - Jenni Carlson
Associate Sports - Tom Brileson
Photos - Paul Kelz
Motors - Melissa Mintzer
On-line coordinator - Tina Fassett
STEPHANIE UTLEY
Business manager
MATT SHAW
Retail sales manager
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Meredith Hanning
Regional mgr ... Tom Dalloy
Sales mgr ... Robert Tiffin
Special Sections mgr ... Heather Mahone
Production mgr ... Nancy Easton
Marketing director ... Kenan Niese
Public Relations director ... Both Gail
Manager of Communications
Classified mgr ... Neither Valerian
Internship/o-cc mgr ... Kelly Commy
Reinstatement of the draft would let poor men die heroes
Every time an American president sends troops to some foreign hot spot, Slats Grobnik shakes his head and says the same thing.
"We should never got rid of the draft."
And I tell him that he is wrong because an all-volunteer army is far more professional and efficient, costs less and has the public's approval.
And Slats always nods his head and says: "Right. That's why we shouldna never got rid of the draft."
"When you look at the TV, do you see any mothers crying and fathers looking gloomy and saying that they don't want their kids dying for Bosnia?"
Which doesn't make sense. But I no longer expect logic from his added brain, so I let him ramble on.
Of course not. Parents of professional soldiers know full well that danger is part of the job. The job of a soldier is war. And in war, people die. They know that.
Slats nodded happily and said:
"Absolutely. And you don't see no college students taking over the dean's office and chanting stuff like: 'President Willie, would your ma let you die for Bosnia?'
That's silly. Why would they do that?
"Right. They ain't go no reason to protest and holer. How come?"
Because they don't have to worry about the draft.
"I rest my case," said Slats.
"That's a pretty good guess. And how many sons of Cabinet members, governors and mayors?"
"Hey, how many sons of United States senators are gonna be in Bosnia?"
COLUMNIST
I don't know, but I would guess very few. Or none.
What case? You have no case
I assume that any prominent offspring are currently in the military, they are officers and gentlemen, gentlewoman, or gentlewhites.
"Yep. And how many are the sons or daughters of the big cheese dips who run the Fortune 500 compa-
Probably a total of zero. Why would any child of economic and social privilege choose a career in the military, unless they were offered a slot at West Point or one of the other elite academies?
many big time pro quarterbacks and linebackers you figure gonna be in Bosnia?"
nies?"
"That's what I say. So lemme ask you. how
What a stupid question. Mike McCaskey isn't threatening to move the Bears to Sarajevo, although it might be safer than Gary.
"Uh-huh. So how many quarterbacks or linebackers are joining the National Guard?"
"See? You ain't as stupid as you look."
Why would they do that?
Thank you. But what are you talking about?
"I'm talking about all the reasons why we should kent the draft."
You have not given me one good reason.
"Then you ain't been paying attention. See, what made the draft so wonderful was that when it was run on the leit — until the Vietnam War — it gave everybody the same opportunity."
"Hey, to die for your country? To get a free body bag, a casket, a headstone and a funeral, with an honor guard, and your wife or mother gets a flag folded up real neat? Any wife or mother would be proud, right?"
Not at all. Many would be seriously distressed.
What kind of opportunity is that?
What opportunity?
"To get killed."
"What, you saying there are decent Americans who wouldn't want their kids to get croaked for
good old Hersey Go Weenie and,
what's her name, Sara Yavoo? You mean to tell me that any red-blooded American ma or pa wouldn't feel proud if their kid got shot to pieces to bring peace to Bosnee?"
I'm sure they would be unhappy and confused.
I can't read minds, but that's not what I want for my children.
"So you're saying that the average American don't want to die for Bosnia? And they wouldn't want their kids to die for Bosnia?"
"But what if we had a draft and
what if your kids were gonna be
called and were gonna go to
Bosnia?"
Then I suppose I'd make sure that they had college deferments.
"Yeah, yeah. But what if they didn't?"
I would hope the National Guard was recruiting.
"What if it wasn't? Go on, say it, sait it."
What should I say? That I would send them to Canada or Sweden to dodge an unpopular draft, as was done during the Vietnam War? I won't say that.
"So, how come Clinton wasn't that worried about the innocent lives in Nam?"
"Would you do it?"
"You always say that."
I said I wouldn't say it, not that I wouldn't do it. Let us be realistic. There is no reason for the children of the privileged and able to be in harm's way.
"But wouldn't a draft make it fair?" No. The present system is fair because the all-voluntary military gives a working-class youngster an opportunity to die for his country. Why should children of the well-born hog the hero's graves?
"And, like President Clinton says, to save all those innocent lives in Bosnia."
Hush up.
Exactlv.
Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist with the Chicago Tribune.
As Rock Chalk spending increases, participants decrease
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I could not agree more with the suggestion of Tom Field (Kansan 11/30) that the Rock Chalk Revue advisory board establish a spending limit for show proposals next year. Two years ago, I was co-director of the scholarship hall's Rock Chalk effort.
We had a budget of $750 and it made me cringe to see other groups spending at least twice as much. (The Kansan article reports an average of $1,650 and a high of $4,000 this year.)
No matter how much is said about the judges considering only content and feasibility of a show, the fact remains that presentation will influence
their decisions somewhat, if only subconsciously. Anyone who has ever tried to sell something will affirm that presentation is everything.
With a spending cap in place, the quality of the shows would increase as groups would be forced to be more creative — to concentrate on ideas, not recording studios and professional drawings. The judges, too, could focus more on the ideas.
A spending cap would level the playing field for the less affluent groups, improve the shows, and allow everyone to remember the true purpose of Rock Chalk — to raise money for the United Way.
Mark C. Stover
Lawrence senior
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words.
Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
All letter and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan news room, 1.11 Stauffer Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or select all submissions. For any questions, call Heather Lewerw, editorial page editor, or Sarah Morrison, associate editorial editor, at 864-4810.
digital columns: Should be double spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The water must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
Republicans are givers; they just don't give what isn't theirs
There are a lot more Republicans out there then would like to admit it.
Expecting only derision for my own conservative leanings, I have been continually overwhelmed by the large number of
STAFF COLUMNIST
Here in the ac ad e m i c
Don't worry, I won't blow your cover.
positive reactions I have received when writing on how I see things through conservative eyes. There are a lot of closet conservatives out there agreeing with me.
world, it is a social must that a person be a raging liberal. If you feel any other way than left on the issues of the day, then surely you must be a brutish, Nanderthal ogre.
Republicans have been painted as villains over and over again, from TV to the comics. It frightens me that there are people who really believe the ridiculous propaganda about conservatives hating children, hating the poor and hating the elderly.
Sorry, but Republicans aren't a bunch of blood-hungry, cruel, money-grabbing tyrants — at least not any more than any other politicians.
The Republican party simply has a different belief about the role of government. One of the basic tenets of conservatism is self-sufficiency and independence. It is not the government's responsibility to create a euphoric state for all mankind. Instead, it is the government's role to create a safe, positive environment for people to pursue their own individual goals. Part of that is making riches a desirable goal, not a curse, and making it possible for business to thrive. Somebody has got to earn the money, even in a welfare state. There ought to be rewards for supporting all the loafers instead of derision.
If there are really as many caring, giving people as there are Democrats, then the poor will be fine without government support. My impression has often been, though, that Democrats are people who want to get something from the government, and Democratic politicians are those who prefer to give generously of other people's money.
At least in the circles I have moved in, conservatives are very generous, caring people. They just do it with their own money. In government planning, they would rather retain family-supporting jobs with a bloated defense budget than just hand it out on welfare.
This makes it real easy to paint Republicans as bad guys because they aren't acting like Santa Claus 365 days a year. Republicans are the tough love kind of parent.
This whole budget battle was very revealing. The huge deficit has often been laid at Reagan's door, but as this last month has proven, Congress ultimately controls the budget. Through the deficit's growth in the past 40 years, Democrats have controlled Congress. Now that the GOP has power, running the government like a financially solvent business finally has become a priority.
Right now, the U.S. spends more than one-fifth of the budget on paying off interest on the deficit, roughly $293 billion. Imagine for a moment, everybody, everybody, tightens their belt, the budget gets leveled off and the U.S. starts making a real dent in the deficit.
Then, those of us who really care about our children can leave them some surplus, instead of a big pile of bills and a bunch of dependents.
Jake Arnold in a Lawrence senior in journalism.