4
Thursday, June 22, 1978
University Daily Kansan
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Comment
Unused editors represent the opinion of the Kannan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
A
Confusion caused by a lack of communication has put $12,000 of KU students' money in jeopardy.
On April 10, 1977, when $72,850 of Student Senate money was allocated to the University for the rehabilitation of seven playing fields at 23rd and Iowa streets, Max Lucas, University director of facilities planning, promised the Senate that the rehabilitation would be completed by fall 1977. Of that sum, $12,000 already has been invested.
invested.
Monday Mike Harper, student body president, threatened to withdraw funding of the project and forfeit the $12,000 because of delays in beginning construction of the project.
Lucas said that, because of a series of bureaucratic errors, construction would not be completed until spring 1979.
"It's been one thing after another," Harper said. "The whole thing has been a comedy of errors."
When the project was originally proposed, Gene Blitch, director of buildings and grounds until fall 1977, said his crews could handle the job.
Harper said the project was put off after Bitch's retirement.
Lucas said that the new director of Buildings and Grounds—now Facilities Operations—had simple decided to hire an outside firm, Al Thomas, University architect, was selected to plan the project. Thomas became tied up with other KU construction and could not do the planning., Lucas said.
The Senate then went to a private architect and paid $12,000 for plans.
Lucas now has said the construction faces another delay because the fields could not be seeded until this fall or next spring.
The Student Senate and the office of facilities planning have been crossing paths for 1/4 years for what should have been a minor construction project.
Harper finally said he would withdraw funding if a construction firm was not hired and work started immediately.
According to Lucas, Harper apparently did not know that a construction company had been hired more than a month ago and was awaiting final approval from the state to begin the work.
Harper apparently does not recognize that he is at least part of the communication problem. If he had ventured into Lucas' office, he would have known that construction was ready to begin.
However, Lucas said that Harper had never met with him to discuss the delays and that he had tried to keep Harper informed of the progress. Although, he said, keeping Harper informed was difficult.
By the time this comedy of errors is concluded, half the class who helped contribute to the original fund of $79,850 to rehabilitate the fields will have graduated and will never see the completed project.
Harper's job is to represent the students. However, he doesn't appear to be interested enough in the expenditures of student funds to keep informed of the project.
If Harper was serious about withdrawing the Senate's funding for the project, he should have done it before the funds were committed.
However, because of lack of communication. Harper did not know a company had been hired.
The lack of communication should not cost the students $12,000.
Seven years have passed since the U.S. government took over the movie theater industry through its agency CINEMAC.
it was in the late 1970s that audiences rose up against the intrusion of blatant advertising in indoor theatres. They remembered a time when advertisements were the big screen while they eagerly awaited the feature attractions.
There was a time, they said,
when 47 unattractions
did not precede the real
attraction.
nowever, when low-rent drive-in theater advertisements from automobile dealers began to appear before the movies, a rumble of disapproval issued from the audiences.
Until the 1970s, movie theaters had been places to escape the far-reaching effects of advertising. They were dark, and into which one could escape for a reasonable price, from reality.
At first, there was no violence. A few people complained to the theater managers.
The explanation was simple, the managers would say: They already were charging 300 percent more than retail prices for the food and drinks sold on the concession counter. People would not come to see the movies if the admission price exceeded $25 and cover increased costs. The easiest solution was to slide in a few semi-innocuous advertisements.
"These ads really bring in the megabucks," the managers would say "Besides the megabucks, you need a strict officer. My hands are tied."
Actually, their hands weren't tied at all. But their bank accounts were growing thicker.
The audience's patience was growing thinner.
"We want to see just movies when we go to the movies," they said.
Soviets' appeasement dangerous
By NORMAN PODHORETZ
Soviet Premier Leonid I. Brezhnev recently charged that certain circles in the West were trying to mar the process of detente and to return "if not and if not, then at least to a chill war."
In making this charge, o. course, Brezhnev's purpose is to turn the tables on President Jimmy Carter, whose warnings against Soviet Cuban activity in Africa, Brezhnev added, must be justified the intervention of NATO members in Zaire.
Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the alarms sounded by Carter and Soviet intentions in Africa and the world at large are rhetorically more dramatic than of the early 1970s.
Nor is this a matter of rhetoric alone. As Cuba, Zaire then the Congo and Shabu on everyone's lips today, so they all stood at the center of international attention in the early 1960s. The issue was whether China then was limiting nuclear testing, just as the issue now is limiting nuclear weapons. And when Vietnam began to drive everything else, China then nuclear weapons, into the
Ads during movies bring revolt
background, the questions that it raised were the same ones being asked of Zaire today. Was it a local or a world conflict? Was the current government any worse than the Communists? Could an alternative to both be found?
A change certainly seems to be taking place in the West, then. But it is no less certain that Breznev's description of a language is a cautionary language that can only serve to mislead.
In America, detente is generally understood as an accommodation between the United States and the Soviet Union in which neither side seeks unilateral advantages at the expense of the other six years since the document that embodied those words was signed. The Soviets have increased their advantage over us in conventional military capability, and they have been trying to achieve an advantage strategic nuclear force as well.
The "Basic Principles of Relations Between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico" are Republics" also included an agreement between the Americans and the Soviets "to do everything in their power to prevent arose not arise" in other parts of the
world that might draw the superpowers into a direct confrontation.
Yet fewer than two years after subscribing to that principle, the Russians helped to foment a way in the Middle East that led to just such an embankment on a series of provocative military adventures in Africa.
What the Russians mean by detente, in short, seems indistinguishable from what we mean by cold war. As to what we mean by cold war, according to "The Soviet Diplomatic Dictionary," the policy of the United States and the "imperialist military blocks toward the Soviet Union and the Second World War."
In other words, the cold war to the Russians is what the West calls containment—the effort to keep Russia from expanding beyond the boundaries established in Europe by World War II and to prevent the takeover of countries elsewhere with a military force or subversion.
It was the misconceived application of that effort to Vietnam that ultimately induced an American shift—from containment to the new policy of retrenchment and detente. But the only shift that detente brought on the Soviet side was a
smile on Brenneze's face, where before there had been a scowl. In exchange, he received American grain, American wheat and acquiescence in his drive toward nuclear "parity"—another term that to us meant exactly what it said but to the Russians means something else altogether—namely superiority.
That he should seek to head off a possible new wave of Western resistance to those aims by stigmatizing it as warfare. But there is no reason why anyone else should accept such a description. As the Chinese tell us, the most dangerous weapon today is the Soviet Union. And as they also warn, knowing their estranged Russia comrades only too well, it is apprehension of Moscow, not will bring us closer to war.
Therefore, when Breznev speaks of a return to the cold war, he is really saying that the relative freedom that the Russians have enjoyed in the past is now with them, that is carrying on the cold war unilaterally—may now be running out.
Norman Podhoretz is editor of Commentary magazine.
Disapproval of the movie house ads eventually brought about the formation of a group
bumper stickers that said,
"Clean up movie houses,"
began to appear.
called Totally Opposed to a Public TOAO launched a public awareness campaign. It seemed that some audiences had not noticed the ads appearing with their movies.
more people beg complaining to theater managers. The managers responded with a shrug of their shoulders.
Kevin Kious Editor
Anger among the audiences and apathy among the managers reached the peak of conflict.
The violence started in a 300-capacity theater in Albuquerque. During the showing of the sixth advertisement, a patron threw a $1 bucket of popcorn and a 65-cent Dr. Pepper at the screen. The chant encluded, "TOAD, TOAD."
The manager and projectionist were severely beaten and the theater was torn up.
The riot spread to the streets. Theater audiences throughout Albuquerque took similar action. In fact, TOAD had held a mock rally of thousands of audience protest in theaters all over New Mexico.
A state of emergency was declared. The governor called out the National Guard and the riot was soouled.
There were 1,315 arrests and 27 deaths, including nine policemen.
In following weeks, Congress appointed a joint select special
The Joint Committee on TOAED held public hearings. They didn't last long.
subcommittee to investigate the causes of the riot.
Representatives of the theater managers tried to explain why they had let the ads into their theaters, even though the audiences, obviously disapproved.
"Besides, we had ads at drive-ins for years before then."
"Do you really think people go to drive-in theaters for the same reasons they go to indoor spaces?" "one senator asked them.
they said. "We had a hell of a time after the popcorn blight of 1979. When we didn't have a teacher, we dropped dramatically. We needed a way to make more money without raising admission prices. The ad men loved it. They said something in a mindless captive audience.
That was all they had to say.
The theater people still had nothing to say.
"People don't mind ads in drive-ins because there is no illusion of fantasy—not when you see the windshield sideposts and hear cars being started and driven on gravel. Indoor theaters are the asylums of relaxation."
Through an act of Congress, CINEMAC was created to support and control the movie theater industry. Theaters became government-owned. Two screens, upcoming attractions were listed in the lobbies.
Free enterprise was sacrificed but peace and movie theater purge were restored.
Moving advice for you haulers
Save me from the rigors of moving.
Eight weeks ago I moved from a furnished apartment full of friendly cockroaches into my first real house. It was all in preparation for the new wife that I was bringing from New York.
The move was simple, a few miles—from northeast Lawrence to southeast Lawrence. A few loads of the station wagon and the horse cart were loaded onto anything except a lot of news reporters.
The move from New York was different.
I moved from New York was different.
Any reputable moving company will charge at least $1,000 to move a modest loft front or a large wrap. I decided to relocate the pioneer trunk to the great frontier and move myself with rented equipment.
Rydr Truck Rental wanted about $450 for their smallest truck. That wouldn't even take all the wedding presents. Hertz rentals have the nearest office was more than 80 miles away.
We decided to U-Haul it.
I went to the neighborhood H-Uaul senorazarb. A man shuffled up to me.
"Need something?" he muttered tersely.
I explained my problem and he asked me
what I wanted.
Trucks were too expensive. I asked about
them for a settlement on a pair of 5-by-4-foot
"covered wagon" trucks.
He started to look in the rate book under 'Canada,' laboriously tracing his finger up. "I just tried to get out," he said.
"Where are you going?" he asked
"Lawrence, Kansas."
After a few minutes, he found the United States listing and looked for Kansas just after "Alabama." Finally he found it. It was home of the city again. After a moment he announced that
Lawrence wasn't listed. Where else would I like to go?
So for $303 we got the trailers, hitches,
and a lift out of the contract and put down a depot.
I almost said Kansas City before I realized he'd have to find another state. "Topeka," I found it by reading updown across the counter long before he saw it.
Then I found out that Kansas is considered to be crowded with U-Haul equipment and
Jerry Sass Editorial writer
that it would cost me an additional $230 if I returned the trailers to Lawrence because they then would have to be sent somewhere else. The nearest cheap return would be
I agreed to drop the trailers in Iowa.
"Make sure to call before you pick the trailers up next week," he said as I left. Why? "Because we have already rented everything we have here. We may not have any trailers, we should have something in from somewhere else by then."
A week later we drove in to pick up our trailers. The same guy had us back up to the trailers and then announced that he would hook up the trailers while we paid and picked up our copies of the contracts in the office.
When we came out 15 minutes later, he had hooked up one trailer without any trouble and was working on my station wagon.
"Can't reach the light harnesses," he
mattered darkly "Have to sell you some special bulbs. Don't worry, 'll put them in."
While we inspected the other trailer, he managed to strip all the screws on my tail lights. I came back just in time and drove across a four-lane highway in disband and then assist his assistant to start tearing out the car's interior panels so he could get to the tail lights.
I irrantly searched the contract, found that I still owned my car and suggested that he drill the lights out. He was surprised that it worked so easily.
He also had managed to break my taillights and sit on my tailgate and push a huge dent into it with the trailer hitch. U-Haul is not responsible for trailer-induced damage to ears, he said. Another U-Haul driver was injured, that I was sent to some satisfaction.
"Go back and punch the guy out," he said.
"I could not complain. We were still getting off
with it."
but there were a few incidental expenses,
such as shocks for both cars. That
to came about to $1500.
There were other problems, such as the trailer that had a defective tail light or the one that had about three inches of ground clearance.
And my car ran so hot that I had to drive the distance with my heater on and the car temperature gauge hovering near 245 degrees.
But we made it, returned the trailers to Iowa and drove back to Lawrence at a light-hearted 70 mph, getting better gas mileage than we had with the trailers.
I figure the trailers, car repairs, gasoline,
boat fuel and car depreciation cost me
$260 a week.
The pioneers had it easy.
Nazis don't deserve right to assemble
To the editor:
I 'm responding to Lori Bergmann's editorial in the June 14 Kan森 concerning the planned Nazi march in Skokie.
"All the Nazis are asking for is the right to present their viewpoint," but they are foiled in this attempt by Jewish militants, who are "eager to suppress others." Bergmann
The article came dangerously close to placing the American Nazi Party in the role of repressed minority.
As I see it, two principles are in freedom—citation of assembly vs. denial of that freedom, which is legal only when a "clear and present danger" is perceived.
To the citizens of Skokie, and to Jews throughout the world.
Ace Allen
Tonaka special student
any upswelling of Nazism is a clear, present and visceral danger.
Ace Aneu
Topeka special student
Rabin protest
Americans who call themselves Nazis are directly guilty of sedition, threatening other citizens and indecent exposure in the most profound sense. To accuse someone of being Bergmann does, in vowing to protect themselves is unfeeling and ludicrous.
was censorship To the editor:
The following is an open letter to Shawkat Hammoudeh, who
Dear Mr. Hammoudeh
was quoted in a Page One story in the June 14 Kansan.
Your comments reveal (a) your total ignorance of the democratic system and (b) your total disregard for people who happen to disagree with you or are neutral on your chosen issue.
In the story you said, "I don't think we committed a crime against anyone. Rabin had a right to talk and we had a right to infringe on that right," infringe on the Constitutional rights of anyone in this country is considered a crime—a rash of prosecutions in recent years proves that. And, as a citizen of this country, I have a duty to Mr. Rabin. You and your confederates infringe upon that right. You practice censorship just as surely as if the doors to Hoch had been locked.
Judith Polson
Lawrence senior
Letters Policy
The Kanasw welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten and addressed by phone and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include a home or faculty or a hometown or faculty or staff position. Letters are not to exceed 500 words in length. Letters must serve the right to edit all letters for publication.