4A
Friday, January 27, 1995
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
THE ISSUE: PARKING COMMITTEE PROPOSALS
SenEx right to reject fee increase
The University Council needs to follow the lead of the University Senate Executive Committee in rejecting the parking committee proposals. More specifically, the Council needs to recommend that an alternative payment proposal for the Jayhawker Towers be devised, and part of that proposal should include the majority of the financing coming from the Towers directly.
Representatives from the University parking committee presented budget proposals for two new parking structures, one being the new garage for Jayhawker Towers. On Jan. 18, SenEx asked the parking committee how the Towers parking garage would be financed. The proposal calls for increases in all permits to finance the bonds needed to build the garage. The Towers would not donate a dime in the proposal. SenEx voted unanimously to reject the proposal.
There are 7,806 parking spaces available to students who park on campus: 5,181 yellow spaces and 2,625 residence hall spaces. The parking spaces at the Towers constitutes 527. That is a mere 6.8 percent. To suggest that the other 93.2 percent of students who park on campus, as well as faculty members,
The proposals would force the majority of the student body to pay for a small percentage of parking spaces.
share the majority of the financial burden for building a new parking structure for Jayhawker Towers is wrong and unjust. It is the Towers who should shoulder the majority of the burden.
Donna Hultine, assistant director of parking, had said that parking was a user-supported system and that all users supported the whole system. Taken as a whole, this statement is a fallacy. The fallacy lies in the simple fact that all users of the parking system would not be permitted access to this parking structure.
Hultine's comment does hold some merit. It is this equally funded support that the parking system uses to make improvements in all the lots. However, general maintenance and improvements is one thing. A complete new structure is something entirely different.
There is no debate that this parking garage is needed. The issue is who should pay for the majority of it. Clearly, it should be the Towers. The University Council should recommend that the proposals be rejected.
TIM MUIR FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
THE ISSUE: THE UMBRELLA TREE
Decision extends definition of art
This town sure does love its art. And now, like it or not, you don't have to go inside of a gallery to see it.
The decision by the Lawrence City Commission to protect K.T. Walsh and Jim Powers' yard art sets a curious precedent that may come back to haunt city leaders.
A tree outside the residence is decorated with opened umbrellas, televisions and computers. Other assorted household goodies decorate their yard. They say it is a collection of folk art they have been working on for years.
Gayle Weyland, the city's environmental inspector, called the display a blight last November.
But during the course of a few weeks, the city got behind the yard artists, and many residents put umbrellas in their trees in protest.
The Lawrence City Commission's decision to leave the umbrella tree alone sets a curious precedent that may come back to haunt it.
Then, about 100 supporters showed up at City Hall for the meeting where commissioners would decide whether the display was, in fact, a blight. The commission might have had ariot on its hands had it upheld the inspector's decision. Even Mayor Jo Andersen had a yellow umbrella in her hair.
What is art? About anything seems to qualify anymore.
And though the commissioners' decision was as much in favor of art as it was of moving on to other matters, they should hope they soon are not faced with a resident claiming that a vintage Cessna fuselage qualifies as kitsch.
MATT GOWEN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
STEPHEN MARTINO
Editor
DENISE NEIL
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
News...Carlos Tejada
Planning...Mark Martin
Editorial...Matt Gowen
Associate Editorial...Heather Lawrenz
Campus...David Wilson
Colleen McCain
Sports...Gerry Fey
Associate Sports...Ashley Miller
Photo...Jarrett Lane
Features...Nathan Glason
Design...Brian James
Freelance...Susan White
JENNIFER PERRIER
Business manager
MARK MASTRO
Retail sales manager
CATHERINE ELLSWORTH
Technology coordinator
Robert Tapley / KANSAN
Business Staff
Campus mgr ...Beth Pole
Regional mgr ...Chris Braman
National mgr ...Shelly Falevitz
Coop mgr ...Kelly Comessy
Special Sections mgr ...Brigg Bloomquist
Production mgrs ..JJ Cook
Khm Hyman
Marketing director ..Mindy Blum
Promotions director ..Justin Frosolone
Creative director ..Dian Gier
Classified mgr ..Liesa Kuseth
Giving Reagan something he could never give El Salvador
Ronald Reagan is suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. As each day passes, he loses a little more of himself. One day he'll forget some random act he implemented as president. Then he'll forget about his family and friends. When he finally dies, it will be in the company of people he doesn't remember.
Ten years ago, my uncles Martin and Francisco and my aunt Cecilia moved into our house. They were fleeing El Salvador, a nation where their lives were in constant danger because of their political beliefs. In theory, El Salvador was on "our" side. The Reagan Administration said that my aunt and uncles weren't suffering from political repression and couldn't be allowed into the country. We smuggled them across the Mexican border instead.
It's been 10 years since one-half of my family was uprooted by Reagan's policy. Since then, they've made a new home in this nation. But the fact remains that Reagan took from them a way of life. Through violence, he took a friend from me. I've learned with age to regard politicians as just different rather than right or wrong. I could never do that for Reagan. He has earned the candle of hatred I kept for him.
But two weeks ago I read in the Kansan that he was suffering from Alzheimer's. Of all the debilitating
STAFF COLUMNIST
diseases I've seen. Alzheimer's is the worst. Unlike cancer or AIDS or any other disease. Alzheimer's robs you of who you are.
Fifteen years and thousands of dead later, Reagan is ailing. I can't say I never hoped some form of cosmic justice would strike him. But now that I see it's happening, I've found I feel pity for the man. Robbing a person of his or her identity might be the cruelest fate the world can dish up. I have no desire for the man to die like that.
The news presented quite a quandary. What am I supposed to think? Am I supposed to celebrate? Feel relieved the has-
tard got his due? Grieve for the loss of a human being?
To decide, I had to go over in my head exactly what the Reagan name means to me. Reagan became president shortly after President Jimmy Carter suspended all aid to El Salvador. The suspension came after four American nuns were murdered by a government-sponsored "death squad." Such death squads roamed the countryside murdering civilians, hoping they could scare the insurgency into putting down their arms. One of their favorite acts was to cut off their male victims' testicles and shove them into their mouths.
I'm giving Reagan something he never gave El Salvador. Compassion.
The insurgency was an economic-based one. Fourteen families in El Salvador controlled 95 percent of the wealth, leaving the vast majority of
Reagan backed the government when he came to power. He believed the insurgents were communists because they opposed the government, which ran industry and was friendly to U.S. business interests.
Salvadors in poverty. These insurgents initially were advocates of reform. But rigged elections kept an upper-class, military government in power.
In Reagan's eyes, that meant the insurgents were communists, a common phantom in the Reagan White House. Regardless of the terror and corruption of the Salvadoran regime, he pumped $1 million a day into the government.
Without U.S. funds, the government couldn't wage war against its own people. Under Carter, it was forced to reconsider its actions. Under Reagan, it could afford to kill.
Carlos Tejada is a Lawrence senior in journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Simply Equal could take away choice
I am writing in response to Chris Hampton's column in the Jan. 25 Kansan.
While she is right about the generally goofy nature of such beliefs as homosexuals liking to roll around in their own excrement, she makes a mistake in assuming that this is the only reason one might oppose "Simply Equal." Do you have to believe that gays are the scourge of the earth or like to play with their feces? Absolutely not. Those views have less taste than most of the things read in a bathroom stall.
The question that the bill asks is not about homosexuality or tolerance. The question is about the Lawrence City Commission's power over a business. Whether
that power is to force employers to hire guys or play Debbie Gibson in the office doesn't matter. One of the most basic rights we have is to associate, and with that comes the freedom not to associate. If a business owner decides they do not wish to hire homosexuals, men or people with green hair, that should be their own decision; their reasons shouldn't matter.
The same rights apply to customers as well. If you don't want to support a business that discriminates against people, you don't have to patronize it. The passage of Simply Equal has nothing to do with sexual orientation; it has everything to do with state power. And in the event it does pass you can get your copy of "Electric Youth" from me.
Chris Wiswell Overland Park sophomore
Orgasm-related story seen as inappropriate
I was disappointed to see your lead story in the Kansan on Tuesday headlined, "Orgasm, get off on defining it." Where are you coming from? On a day heralded as "the news day of the year," with the president's State of the Union address and the opening statements in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, your choice for a lead story was certainly an exercise in poor judgment.
Are you attempting to sink to new lows and compete with the tabuloids? If you insist on continuing with vocabulary lessons, how about considering the definitions for chastity, morality or dignity? Leave the smut to *Playboy* and *Cosmonolitan*.
David Barry Shawnee graduate student
O.J. Simpson trial becomes obsession for couch potato
I am hooked like a trout with a white jig in my mouth.
I've been sucked in by the whole ordeal.
After months of insisting that I would have absolutely nothing to do with the O.J. Simpson case, I have been drawn in by the hype. I swore to myself and
ASSOC. EDIT.
would not be a "Hard Copy" watchin', trailer park livin', Pabst Blue Ribbon drinkin', Simpson case watchin' fool. But I, like much of the United States, have been drawn in by some eerie force, some medieval desire to have the channel tuned in.
It all started
tuesday. I was recovering from a bad bout of the stomach flu and found myself stuck to the couch wearing my sweats like a uniform. (I realize that might be too much information for some of you.) I figured I would spend the day debating whether it was a good idea to try some soup and catch up on the latest with Billie and Bo. Much to my dismay, "Days of Our Lives" had been replaced by "As the Courtroom Turns." I thought to myself, all right then, we'll just find something else to watch. Wrong!
Every channel had Judge Ito past all over it. I was disconcerted. I went to MTV in hopes of catching a censored Tom Petty video. No luck, just John Sencio saying something about Kennedy being naked on a mule.
I decided to give the case a chance. I'll watch a little of it, until I fall asleep. After about two minutes I was mesmerized. I wanted Marcia Clark to tell me more.
I was attracted by all of the courtroom nuances. I watched Simpson's artful note taking, his leaning over to talk to Robert Shapiro and the slight grin pasted to his face. I watched Marcia as she tried to read the jury while her colleague opened for the prosecution.
I pieced together their case, which seemed largely centered around Kato, Nicole Brown Simpson's dog, who will apparently be the prosecution's top witness.
When my roommates got home, I was excited about filling them in on everything that happened. They patted me on the head and asked if I still had a fever.
I sukled off to my room and mulled about what would happen if cameras were banned from the courtroom. No CNN. Gee, I'd actually have to read about what happened.
I will admit that I was rather concerned about the state of the trial when I woke up the next day. Even if the cameras are on, how can I get to watch the trial? Well, I managed to get into the newsroom early enough to commandeer the television for my own personal enjoyment. At first I was a little ashamed about my addiction, but slowly others were drawn toward the television. (In a way their behavior is a lot like people watching a pornographic movie. They don't know whether to blatantly gawk or to avoid it and just sneak peaks.)
Obviously, I'm a gawker.
In a way all the hype shows how little we've progressed since the Middle Ages. The trial seems to have a lot in common with a public stoning conducted in the center of a village in the 1600s.
It also has a lot in common with an accident on the highway.
And now I, like most of United States,
am even more likely to look at a wreck
if one of the cars happens to be a white
Ford Bronco.
Heather Lawrenz is a Wollsville senior in Journalism.
HUBIE
By Greg Hardin