UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kanans editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of the editors.
April 9,1980
Iran sanctions tardy
In Washington state, geologists watchfully wait for a volcano, Mount St. Helens, to erupt or to slip back into dermany. Powerless to influence the weather, they are content to carefully record the activities and subject of their vigil.
In Washington, D.C., President Jimmy Carter has for the last five months also kept a seemingly helpless vigil over a volcanic situation. Now, after having the latest breath of hope blow up in his face—the Ayatollah Ruhailh Khomein's ruling against the long-awaited transfer of the 50 American hostages from custody of the ruler Revolutionary Council—Cairo finally stopped behaving as if there isn't a damn thing he can do.
In response to Khomeini's ruling, Carter announced Monday afternoon new economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran. These include banning all American exports, except food and medicine, to Iran and forcing Iranian diplomats to leave the United States.
Although it's nice to see Carter put at least one foot down in an effort to deal with the Iran crisis, the timings of his actions are distressing and questionable. Why does he wait so
long? Why is he always one step behind?
Throughout this crisis Carter has taken no initiative in trying to resolve the plight of the hostages. Every action has been a reaction—made only when it was "safe" to do so, ostensibly to protect the lives of the hostages. But the delay of Carter's actions renders them ineffective.
To date, Iran has taken none of the previous sanctions serious enough to warrant concessions in or progress toward the release of the hostages. In light of the circumstances surrounding the new sanctions, why should the Iranians regard them any more seriously?
Carter has bumbled his way from proposal to proposal, from rejection to rejection for five months now, and the hostages still are imprisoned. The best and only real help the hostages have received came from Canadian diplomats, totally apart from Carter and his conciliatory crining.
While residents living at the foot of Mount St. Helens help their homes won't be washed away by a molten flow of lava, families of the hostages continue to search week after week for remains from the volcano that fell from Iran. And Carter continues to try capping the eruptive core of the crisis with undersized diplomatic corks.
Sacrifice not reality in consuming society
The president of the United States and pipe-dreaming politicians have lately been waving the insidious banner of "sacrifice" across this bountiful and vicious land of
What a wrong with these people? Are they w
The answer is probably that some of our politicians haven't been watching enough television lately.
Does John Anderson suffer from terminal jet lag? Or has a mental trip through the time tunnel left him stranded at the height of the Great Depression?
A simple flick of the TV switch would show any sensible person that the modern
COLUMNIST namnum
susana namnum
American identity and lifestyle have been shaped by the cultural traits its citizens from birth to be in a state of constant, insatiable desire—to want bigger things, better things, newer things.
THE SADDEST THING is that, unlike Jimmy Carter's capability, our consuming, irrational greed was not originally self-inflicted.
Only an act of Congress, a national lobotomy or the bombing of Dubuque, Iowa, might create American willingness to use the technology technological tools or the miracle of mobility.
Defenders of the infiltrators-the advertising people of Madison Avenue insist that to covet is human, to acquire. divine.
Granted, as infants we instinctively demand instant gratification. Thwart a baby's wish or delay his pleasure, and you're in for a tantrum. But the wear and tear on your hands can cause collisions with parents and peers soon to least a modicum of patience and self-denial.
But appealing to our most primitive and infantile urges, television—especially advertising—has stunted our social growth because we lack the verticitness pander to the greedy, lusty child in all of us. And the makers of these messages should be hauled into court and charged with having done severe—possibly grave—charge to our national consciousness.
THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY—one of the worst offenders—has performed a much more slack feature of engineering on its ads
than on its autos. Although federal regulations have finally forced Detroit's wheel-derather to phase out the oversized guzzler and puff the praises of fuel-efficiency, cars remain ironic national power, status, masculinity and independence.
Advertisements that picture slinky, golden goddesses lounging on bucket seats while running their sculptured fingers over futuristic dashboards and through the windows of their cars suggest self-ident. And, in the name of logic, does cleavage have to do with cars?
What do hang-gliding and the glory of morning in the mountains have to do with chewing gum?
Through their suggestive language, music and imagery, and by virtue of their sheer repetitiveness, ada训 us to make illogical associations with incongruous, highly intimate symbolism.
ADVERTISEMENTS MERCILESSLY pique our desire, baiting us with dangling concepts such as “more,” “twice as much,” “improved” and “unique.” Very rarely do Tide better than regular Tide. What was wrong with Tide in the first place?
Often advertisers show a lack of common, grammatical courtesy by neglecting to tell us what they are comparing their products to. Are they comparing them to what? Twice as many as which one.
Indeed one might argue that our national粮 is a direct result of the barrage of hollow, dangling comparatives that nightly batter our TV-saturated minds. We are typically associated with "floating" more with something inherently good and desirable.
Jummy Carter came down from Camp David to urge his people to tighten their belts and curb their consumption, and John Anderson preached a "new politics" where, spooked by a 50-cent tax that will put the screws to the poor and spare the rich, the national demand for instant gratification will magically fall by the wayside.
NOW OUR LEADERS are suddenly spouting out the rhetoric of "less"~of selflessness, delayed gratification and sacrifice.
Some see sacrifice by Americans as an essential ingredient of any antidote to inflation. These political peddlers of a national religious must recognize that the success of their venture hinges upon the ability of the public to afford goods and services; a war; or swift and total takeover of the airwaves by a group of revolutionary public television stations.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
USPS 564-644) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Thursday and June during July and August Saturday, Sunday and July二十四. Second-class postpaid mail as a Lawrence, Kansas 6665. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $2 a year in Douglass City and $4 for six months outstate the county. Subscriptions are $1 a semester, paid through the activity fee.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint H叭, The University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 60685
Editor
Managing Editor Dana Miller
Editorsal Editor Brenda Watson
Business Manager Vincent Coultis
General Manager Rick Musser
Advertising Manager Chuck Crowley
All it takes is a drive down the main street in Burlington, Kan., to see what happens when a small community is inundated with large companies that accompanies a huge construction project.
MX not worth construction's fallout
Sprouting at the fringes of town are creaky mobile home "estates," hastily thrown up to accommodate some of the 2,000 construction workers who have spent years piecing together the mammoth Wall Wolf nuclear power generating plant.
Downtown sports a new tavern or two, and some of the shops wear new signs and fresh costs of paint. Occupying a corner at the main intersection in town is a gleaming new bank that seems out of place amid the shamrock red brick boxes that surround it.
Before Wolf Creek, Burlington was a dying town littered with abandoned buildings and getting by with decrepitude. But after the Burlington got itself a spanking new bank
brenton r.
COLUMNIST schlender
building, some new curbs and gutters on its streets, a few new street lights and the mobile home suburbs. After Wolf Creek, Burlington will still have a new bank, but the sudden influx of new taxpayers that will invade as quickly as it came, and the community will again be left to wither away.
AND WHAT WILL happen to the mobile home parks that were uninsightly even when they were brand new? What about the property of prosperity before the town really filled?
Recent legislation has required that the federal government, or any other giant corporation, take environmental effects of a huge construction project. But how do the local social and economic consequences of construction affect the plant or a dam or a military installation?
THE SYSTEM COMPRISES 200 MX missiles—each weighing 95 tons and fitted with a turret for attack. The warheads capable of blowing the lid off the deepest Soviet missile silos. But there’s more to the task than that. Of the two 200MX missiles will have its own “race track” 15 miles long, with 23 separate launching points, and all of it will be built unburned.
Apparently only Burlington is just one mild example. But wait until the granddaddy of all construction projects gets populated Great Basin of Utah and Nevada.
the cost of the project is enormous—£33 billion by 1980 estimates, although some predict it could cost twice that much. But the most staggering character of the
It called the MX missile system, and according to some military experts, it amounts to the largest single construction project ever undertaken by man.
project is what it will do to the Great Basin and to the small communities already there
DEFENSE SPOKENEMAN it will take 30,000 workers (roughly one-half the region's present population) to build the roadways and underground fortresses that will use almost 9,000 square miles of land (an area equivalent to the state of Maryland)—land now used for grazing and other agricultural purposes of the miles of heavy roadway will cross the complex like a concrete lattice-work for the purpose of carrying heavy construction equipment from silo to silo. Plans call for 45,000 workers to be destroyed after the project is complete.
The MX will act as one huge Gattling gun playing Russian Roulette with Soviet anti-ballistic missiles. MX planners proudly
proclaim that, once the project is finished and the desert has grown back, most of the system will lurk underground, and only 25% of the restricted land will betray its existence.
But who will pay off the tax bonds when the gypsies leave?
WHO ARE THEY trying to kid? Such a grandiose project could leave permanent scars not only on the environment, but also on the people. The children who have spent all their lives in the Grange
When those entitlements fail to capture the locals, MX officials dangle their trump card—asking voters to make this one small sacrifice for the safety of the country. The swaggery style farmers are known for their swaggering style, but isn't this too much even of them?
Nobody associated with the project seems too concerned with what will happen to the area during those nine traumatic years of construction, when portable towns mysteriously rise and vanish amid the dust and earthquakes. MX proponents claim that the project is designed into the area will provide communities a local tax windfall to upgrade current services.
I REMEMDed of the little old lady who refuses to sell her life-long residence to make way for a highwayhigh. "What price progress?" she asks.
In her case, progress is measured by the benefits of streamlined transportation. Still, not everyone would agree that a highway represents human progress.
But in the case of the MX missile, we won't be paying for anything even remotely resembling progress. And oh, what a price.
To the Editor:
Guidelines prevent misuse of BGS
This letter is in reaction to David Lewis' column, "Officials open fire on B.G.S. degree." This column surely ranks with the most serious criticism as one of the poorest pieces of journalism that the University Daily Kansan has ever printed. Because others already have addressed the Anderson article very closely, I will address only the B.G.S. column.
When I read Lewis' column, I first wondered whether he knew that the College Assembly was made up of faculty and students, not University administrators. It is hard to know what degree requirements would be. Then I wondered whether he actually knew the reasons why these new requirements were added. Finally, I wondered whether he knew that the B.G.S. has always been a degree requirement, but no option at a majority of universities.
The B.G.S. came into existence by an act of the College Assembly around 1970. It was used to train students who were looking for a new and imaginative plan of undergraduate study. For instance, a student could take courses in physical education, chemistry, or he would have excellent preparation for work in the field of environmental sciences. The University also began a program beginning that some students were missing this degree option and therefore were not well prepared, a good, solid undergraduate education.
In order to alleviate the possibility of further misses of the degree, the College Assembly discussed what minimum skills a student should have after receiving a course. The course cannot officially speak for the entire assembly, I think I am in safe saying that the consensus was that a student should be able to write, read with comprehension, express himself orally, compute and reason logically, come to knowledge of the peoples of this world.
The courses the assembly decided would effectively teach these skills to B.G.S. students, and English course emphasizing composition algebra and either calculus or logic; a speech communication course, and four courses of work in the study of civilization.
After completing these courses and the "three by three" distribution requirements, a student would have taken 78 hours, leaving him a minimum of 67 hours to do whatever
he desires. I should also point out that in Liberal Arts, it only takes approximately 30 hours to complete a major. I would hardly be insensitive, an "insensitive," academic machine."
I would also like to point out to Lewis that even under the B.A., a liberal Arts student has more freedom than a student in J.-K. He can choose his own direction. Maybe he should try a liberal Arts degree to see how much freedom we, as Liberal Arts students, have. After all, "liberal" is often meaning "favoring individual freedom" or the cultivation of general knowledge."
Joseph E. Voelker
Webster Groves Mo. uni
Finally I would like to say that I, for one hope that "the University of Kansas Is more and more with everyone's academics and it is the University's responsibility to do so."
Joseph E. Voelker
Serviceman laments end of Joe's food
To the Editor:
Horror of horrors . . . JOE'S IS
CLOSING???
When I come back to the United States this December, where will I go when I get the midnight munches?
I spent a year in the Aleutian Islands, courtesy of the U.S. Navy. One of the things that kept me going was an occasional "Care package" containing, of course, good old Jehovah's doughnuts—somewhat stale, yet a laughable link with the world I left behind.
Alas, I guess all good things must come to an end. . . so goodbye Joe's doughnuts and goodbye Joe's sandwiches, but before you go, how about a do to?
Jim Harring
Despite the hoopla,
Anderson no savior
To the Editor:
Now that the Kansas primary elections are over, it seems a bit late to be commenting on the presidential contest. We all know that Mr. Anderson's commotion created by John Anderson's visit to KU, I must write to express my continuing amazement that so many liberal, idealistic adults are adopting Anderson as the candidate and bandwagon is a noisy and crowded place on
1) His 18 percent congressional voting record. How progressive and "concerned with the issues" does that sound?
2) The League of Conservation Voters labeled Anderson "the most effective and skillful proponent of nuclear power in the House of Representatives."
campuses these days, with KU being no exception. Because memories are so short, perhaps it would be good to examine the candidate of candidah Anderson. Consider.
3) In 1978, Anderson voted against Ralph Nader's proposed Consumer Protection Agency.
4) The "fresh face for 1800" supported the Vietnam War throughout the '60s and early '70s.
Concerning current issues:
1) Although it is disguised by his opposition to draft registration, and contrary to information provided by the Kanan, he would give a $12 billion increase in military spending.
2) Anderson supports the introduction of a 50-cent gasoline tax and a 50 percent cut in Social Security taxes. You are the 50-50 proposal going to hurt must-must—the Eldorado blue the color蓝 workers and college students who can barely make ends meet as it is!
3) As for his positions on some crucial issues (rampt inflation, the energy crisis, and urban problems), Anderson does not differ much from the other candidates.
Granted, Anderson is an盟护支持er of the Equal Rights Amendment, as are Bush, Carter, Kennedy and Brown, in but light of all the other facts, how is it that Anderson and Bush agreed to minded, liberal thinkers? Perhaps it is because Doonesbury has glamorized him as the chic candidate for 1980. May it be all those catchy campaign slogans. Or Annie Benson, who was a manner. Or his reputation for being controversial. What the reason, isn't it
4) The friend of women, minorities and environmentalists, Anderson is an avowed supporter of gay people who abused minority of all. He supports the continued murdering of more than one hundred people in his city.
incredible that the candidate who is drawing the most support from people who are the most concerned with the issues is being scrutinized the least?
Anderson's views on abortion, his laughable support of SALT II, his challenging view of the rights of his other positions have prompted me to view him as a totally unacceptable candidate. The true purpose of this letter, he says, is to explain that not the man everyone seems to think he is. I am surprised that a political chameleon like Anderson has become a retain and credibility with the public. He is running a "campaign of men" Well, MY idea for campaign #0 is: "Xn On assassination."
Joe Vusich
Joe Vusich Fairway sophomore
Displaying banner abused free speech
To the Editor:
The people who had their banner continued at the lecture given by John Anderson. Mr. Anderson thought that their right to freedom of speech was violated. This may be the case, but it was not.
In a letter to the editor (April 4), they wrote that our right to free speech be "blamed on the abuse of that freedom was suppressed. What is the appropriate use of their freedom of speech? Is it going to listen to a talk and attack someone? Are we supposed to ask a question?" Or do these people think that displaying an emotionally barbed, attacking message in public may be more appropriate use of free speech?
To the me action of putting up the banner with the message it contained was as an answer to his request to help heckler. Just as Anderson was applauded when he alicensed the hockey player during his talk, he also responded.
It's too bad that once given freedoms, people have to act as if they know nothing of the situation. If we think that these people should stop and consider their right of speech, and decide whether it should be used to attack others' rights, we might be wrong at a better perspective on different viewpoints.
Steve Pierce
Wichita senior
Wichita senior