UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorslals
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan
writers. Signed columns represent the views of only the
writers.
March 31,1980
Lowering the boom
If parking proposals discussed in the Parking and Traffic Board's annual report receive final approval from the Kansas Board of Regents, drivers on the University of Kansas campus not only have limited time for parking illegally but also would have to pay more for parking legally.
The proposals include shortening the time limits for payment of parking fines from the current 14-day grace period to a seven-day period, unless the fines are appealed. Fines not paid after seven days would increase in varying amounts according to the parking violation. This regulation would apply to all University parking violations.
The time limit to appeal parking violations also would be cut from 14 to seven days under the proposals. The time limit might be extended, and if the other specific circumstances and if the amount of the fine was posted as bond.
Implementing these proposals probably would encourage drivers to pay fines more promptly, but not easily to promptly pay more fines.
A resoundingly discouraging note in the report of proposals is the possible increase of parking permit prices for 1981.423. The increases are ostensibly aimed at reducing people driving on campus because of the high cost of gasoline. The administration apparently seeks to add insult to injury by penalizing a second time those who do drive—once at the pump and once at the parking lot.
Even though none of these proposals is anything for drivers to cheer about, there is a hint of a proposal included in the report that is cause for rejoicing among student drivers. In response to this suggestion, and staff who had unpaid parking fines, the report said the traffic board was considering a proposal that would not allow faculty and staff members with unpaid fines to get parking permits or press assignments for 1980-81. Hurrah! Every student on campus will graduate the board with letters urging them to make just such a proposal.
Outstanding fines for years have caused many students to suffer grievous consequences for their delinquency while just as delinquent faculty and staff members have continued to enjoy parking privileges. The board should be commended for finally considering a punishment one that would have punished collectively the guilty and the innocent.
Feeding a meter or doling out dough for a parking permit or fine may not be enjoyable under any circumstances but it is more digestible and less galling when you know faculty and staff members are having to appease the same money-eating monster, with real fear of retribution.
Give credit to coffee for the Renaissance
New York Times Special Features
By GEOFFREY COLVIN
New York Times Special Features
*NEW YORK- NEW* It looks as though a "NEW YORK-Her" ittoubs as though all the talk about itt "mullifying" your B vitamins, the caffeine, and something about cancer. I'm not saying that's bad, but I just don't want to see it happen with a certain little-known fact or two about the Western civilization being made public.
As things stand today, what kind of choice as a thinking person face when it comes to coffee? On the minus side there is the acid, but on the plus side you cut out the b vitamins you probably have. The fact that it could help the formation in your stomach of nitrosamines, which cause cancer. On the plus side there is—what? The fact that it could help you heal. Tell that to your souvenir-eatings驴
And to the average person who reads the newspapers and cares nothing for art, he is a huge critic. That is where the argument ends. But it should be. There is something more that he wants.
**IMAGINE GETTING up in the morning after a busy night's sleep on a pile of straw, suddenly feeling a throb shoot through your temple, and thinking back on the night before. We see her with revelry and roasted hares and eels and sucking pigs and peacocks and galantines, and then whirling about in dances with the rest of the village, all the while lifting the chant pretty hard. And now what are you going to do with this quivering package of quiet agony?**
You could go outside for some water, which may or may not be ketel; you could have some more chenite (you shudder); you could have some meed; or you could have some meat; or you could have about eight proof by now. Some choice. But you need sure something and the mead actually might not be too bad, couldn't any harm. A tull, wakemafarm of meed, or like a ketchup or a mustard, would like just the thing. You pour one, drink it down—just the thing! —and pour another one.
NOW AT THIS point do you say to your self, "Time's a-wasin', I never get the chance to say I'm busy back down and start working!" Or do you take the flag of蒙古 back to your pile of straw, say, "My head feels like a bombstone, and fall into a soft heap?" You know the answer.
In Europe long ago there was an era during which this really happened all the time it lasted for hundreds of years. It was important that medieval men were considering, that medieval "artists" painted main stick figures in a few hackneyed poses; that medieval manuscripts were hard to do more than copy; that manuscripters; and that medieval "sculptors"; apparently in a certain condition those of their creations.
IT MUST NOT have been a happy time.
And, as we know, it came to an end. The question is, and has long been, why? I ask you to observe a few dates:
10th century A.D. -C. spreads from
ethiopia to the Arabian Peninsula and
the northwest coast of Africa in the
Middle East; and the Turks in particular
are enchanted by it and take it with them
1517–Kurtis intercept Italian trade routes; 1518–Titman paints "Assumption of the Lord" 1529–Suleiman the Magnificent the Magnificent 1530–Corregio, working a few leagues to the west in northern Italy paints "Aidation of the Sheepers"; 1518–Charles V returns from Algers, then held by Turks; is founded College, Cambridge, is inaugured.
THERE ARE LITERALLY dozens more of such examples, all pointing to the same conclusion. The evidence is clear, straightness and overwhelming. It proves that it is only one more confidently state in the simplest, strongest terms: Coffee caused the Renaissance.
But this is really one of those things that seems perfectly obvious once someone says, "I want to learn and demand or the universe being shaped like a saddle. Why do you suppose the universe was shaped like a saddle? Awakening in the first place!" It all seems right, it's strange no one made the con
The point being that there's more to this coffee matter than you might have thought. It's probably not in the coffee short. Without it we might still be worshipping comets and giving each other
Geoffrey Colvin is a reporter-researcher for Fortune magazine.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
11/08/2016 - Published at the University of Kansas Fall August through mid-August mom and son tour a new play by Joshua Bamberg. The play is about two brothers who were born in different states, one in Indiana for $450 and one in Kentucky for $500 each year outside the state. Samuel is also the author of the book.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, RS 6006
Managing Editor
Dana Miller
Editor
James Anthony Fitts
Editorial Editor
Brenda Watson
Business Manager
Vincent Coults
General Manager Rick Musser
Advertising Manager Chuck Chowins
Take Olympic protest to Soviets
By JEFF KENNEDY Guest Columnist
The national Olympic committee of 16 European nations unanimously rejected a boycott of the Moscow Games a week ago last Saturday. British Prime Minister David Cameron will committee for its vote and she would see that no English team went to Moscow.
Our European friends also stated that alternative games would never be acceptable to them and that their positions were broadly supported by their countrymen. So much for Western solidarity in support of Soviet expansionism in Afghanistan.
Perhaps President Carter's call for a boycott is an ill-conceived idea. Other measures to protest the Russian military intervention have been weakly enforced while our athletes are required to sacrifice training for the highest honor in sports.
Alternative games would be a poor substitute for the Olympics and the administration has offered no concrete plans for such events. As a further insult to our Olympians, administration budget cutters demand an annual million earmarked for amateur athletics.
THAT WOULD create an interesting situation in many of the events. American athletes are among the best in all summer sports, particularly swimming, gymnastics
THESE AHTLETES have refused to give up all of hope in participating in Moscow. A week ago Saturday, the Athletes Advisory Council to the U.S. Olympic Committee sent a letter to President Trump congratulating competition in the events with protests during key moments of the games. The council stated that they deplored the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and added that the United States will be the most visible, effective way to get the message to the Russian people and a worldwide television audience. Their proposal called for an American boycott of the closing ceremonies and refusal to participate in the medal presentation ceremonies.
and track and field. If a Russia gets a bronze medal and the other winners are absent from the award ceremonies, the press will have a difficult time explaining what example this form of protest does not violate International Olympic Committee rules.
This plan revives memories of the 1968 games in Mexico City. John Carlos and Tormie Smith raised their black-gloved hands in their heads during the award ceremonies and their disrespect during the national anthem outraged many Americans and the
photograph of their protest was one of the memorable pictures of the Sixties. Regardless of that, they knew of that it set there was little doubt they clearly made their point. Would anyone remember them if they had chosen to protest American racism by not going to the rally?
**THERE IS LITTLE doubt that a U.S. boycott of the Moscowumper would deal a real harm to Russia. It is also likely the Russians will use the boycott as a propaganda weapon saying we are against the Russian military.**
seems the council's protest plan would be a more effective demonstration and give our athletes the chance to prove their skills.
We have until May 24, the entry deadline, to persuade President Carter to allow our athletes to go to the games. His statement to him said, "It provides an extraordinary opportunity to stage a peaceful demonstration on Soyou side so that the entire country will Duke their play sense and trust the president will take a careful look at it.
Jeff Kennedy is a Pratt senior majoring in public relations journalism.
Anderson's stands, record conflict
Steve Martin, a comedian who sometimes rabbits earn cash for Anderson, a comedian who has been in a beeh Auditorium's biggest drawing cards in recent memory. The two men, who have been married,
Steve Martin, amusing as he can be sometimes, entertains millions by saying things anyone could say, while Anderson fools millions by doing the same thing. Steve's trademark is 'I'm a wild and crazy man' to give the American needle a new politics.
Both have white hair. Both are cut figures and have established a remarkable rapport with college students. Both appeal to the American public with their crowds-pleasing skirts. But when it comes to measurable success, the similarities between the two end.
Martin has been commercially successful. But so far, Anderson's bid for the head coach was unsuccessful. He beaten in his home state and has been beaten soundly in almost every primary. Nevertheless, Anderson continues to win the NCAA tournament extremely popular among college students.
KU WAS NO exception. The reaction to Anderson Wednesday was not earth shaking, but the students were certainly receptive. Anderson received three standing ovations and was interrupted three dozen times by applause.
Anderson's popularity among college students is not difficult to understand. Students simply do not want to support any
COLUMNIST david lewis
other candidate. Anderson is a fresh face,
but despite what many say to the contrary,
his political tactics are no more refreshing
than any other candidate's.
During a question-and-answer period after his speech, Anderson told KU students that the development of nuclear energy could be stopped until proper safety regulations could be adopted. This statement contradicts his actions in the House.
In fact, Anderson's stands often are laughable, considering his Congressional record. Anderson's stand on nuclear energy is perhaps the most questionable.
FIRST OF ALL, Anderson has been an avid provider of the Clinch River breeder reactor, an experimental breeder reactor in New Jersey. He worked against a bill that called for the evaluation
of safety standards of nuclear reactors in countries where the United States has helped finance or construct them. Anderson also voted to authorize the interim licensing of nuclear reactors that had not yet filled out environmental impact reports. These actions speak well for a man who is urging the tightening of nuclear safety standards.
Anderson also told KU students that the SALT II treaty should be ratified. But in Congress, Anderson developed the development the nautilus bomb and the B-1 bomber.
KU STUDENTS REACTED most favorably to Anderson's stand on abortion. Anderson's pro-abortion stand elicited thundering appause of approval. Anderson, an avowed Christian, said he did not really believe the right to state should not have the right to decide. This catch-all stands is probation, despite what Anderson contends. But Anderson's pro-abortion statements lose credence in light of the fact that in 1973 he voted for an amendment to forbid poor women to abortions if a hospital refused to perform them.
Anderson may be a fresh face, but he also is two-faced. He has a redeeming personality and his charisma has convinced students that a fresh face is better than a hard one.
tired one. But his beliefs are those of a typical presidential candidate.
ALTHOUGH ANDERSON'S opposition to the draft and the electoral college is appealing, students must realize that Anderson is not much different from any other candidate. His stands are not unique and his tactics resemble Juniny Carter's strategy for addition, every politician pledges to "shape a new public policy" in one way or another.
Anderson says his stands are based on what you think they need to hear and ought to hear. Anderson likes people who people want to hear. During his campaign, however, Anderson has not lived up to his philosophy. He has changed his stands to that of the president, which is the only way to win the nomination.
THAT NOMINATION will almost surely elude Anderson. Unfortunately, students get Anderson to say when Wednesday could not get Anderson to say when Wednesday could nomination from a third party if he did not win the Republic nomination. Anderson and Anderson, saying he had not given up on the Republican nomination, saying he had not given up on the Republican nomination.
To be sure, Anderson's presence in the presidential race has made the campaign more than a game. If he ever comes to KU again, students should bring lighters for encrustes, not firearms.
Law tuition ought to support school
In reviewing Jon Blosseman's story on the bill before the Kansas Senate Way and School Board, we discussed the school institution. I found that I have misunderstood am referring to Blosseman's report that I said, the fee (t.e., higher law school fee). The bill says not what it said. I mean not what I said. Blosseman asked me if the bill before the Ways and Means Committee wants a bill to allow the ultimate aim is to help the law school.
To the Editor:
The extra fee paid by law students, as it now stands, bothers law students because we pay more tuition than any other school on campus, and get less back per student. We will assume that the University except the School of Law in this inequality can be solved in one of three ways: law school tuition can be cut, everyone else's tuition can be raised, or the tuition can remain where it is and the extra fee can be rechanneled into the law school. It is assumed that we would be accomplished by Senate Bill 837 and I would be quite satisfied with that result.
Prairie Village second year law student
Rosie O'Leary
Women in combat would weaken U.S.
To the Editor
Things have changed since World War II when women in the armed forces were restricted to non-combat positions such as stenographers, clerks and air traffic controllers. Now we have those in and outside of them who want to drill women, supposedly for non-combat roles, but the evidence indicates that they will face combat.
The Carter Administration has stated its intention to keep women out of combat. Looking closely, however, we find such a
If these women were to make up a significant percentage of our armed forces, they would be obvious. The gal who can drive the truck, can hardly be relied upon to change its tire or to unload heavy ammunition is not likely to want desperately to carry half the stretcher
proclamation declaiming at best. Under administration prodding, the definition of "combat" is being continually narrowed, so that, currently, low-altitude air defense is "combat," but high-altitude is not, and combat is only when you look through the skin of the enemy. The war, thus, all forms of indirect fire, delivered and received, are not "combat."
Call it what you will, women are being trained for close interaction with the enemy. The U.S. Navy. The Army has been directed to load combat support and combat support service units with large percentage of female personnel in the engage in combat. Female West-Pointer
boxing and use the lightweight M-16 rifles not the M-14s. The Marine Corps Parris Island boot camp exempts women from the obstacle courses and rugged infantry training that are required for men. The Air Force Academy has had to allow one full year of training to complete a two mile run in order to keep flunking 80 percent of them.
Christianity changes lives; Bible proves To the Editor:
UNIVERSITY DAILY letters KANSAN
scheduled to graduate in June, have requested and received assignments in such specialties as artillery and helicopter aviation. Thus, for the administration say that women won't be put in combat is as campaign promise to balance the federal budget.
There is good reason for keeping women out of combat. First, women are at a considerable disadvantage physically. The Defense Department, after years of study, has shown that only 3 percent of the muscle strength and 67 percent of the endurance of men. Men generally have much greater upper-body strength than women and have far more muscular endurance. Because of this the service academies, having been ordered to admit women cadets, had to institute separate (and lower) physical standards for women. At least 40 percent of women cadets are required to dexperm arm hangs—not chimpms, train in karate—not
Rob Munvan
In response to the letter to the editor on March 24, I certainly agree that it's better to read the Bible than to rely on what man says. I also believe that God should have advised. Had he really all of chapter three of the Gospel of John, he would have clearly seen that Christ didn't give the Pharisees authority over Jewish law (which the Pharisees believed in anyway—Acts 26:1-10). But repeatedly told Nicodemus to believe in Him, that is, not that Jesus was obvious, but "entrust his life to Jesus."
Kim Mukaiyu Overland Park graduate student
to help a buddy, but if he is a 200-pounder,
forget it!
In light of the intentions and approval of the Carter Administration to involve our women in combat, our Armed Forces will be trained and equipped if we allow women to be drafted.
Inclusion in the services of women who are, on the average, weaker, shorter, lighter and slower than men leads us to another conclusion: women must be more temperate. It is that caused by men's immate tendency to protect the physically weaker sex. They found that using women in combat, whether in all-women or mixed units, was distractive for women and prompted psychological pressures under these conditions of stress, the male troops concentrated on protecting the women instead of on their military objective. As a result, casualties were sustained by the men.
I agree that there's no mention of a "mystical" personality change in that chapter of John. However, other parts of the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) as well as the example of every person in the Bible who committed his life to Christ make no one can ask the living God to be Lord and Savior of his life and remain unchanged.
Randy Makin Lawrence graduate student
Letters Policy
The University Daily. Kanesan welcomes letters to the editor and guest opinions that present different points of view on campus matters must be typed, double-spaced and no longer than 500 words. The Kanesan reserves the right to edit all letters and comments, and may also must include the writer's address and phone number if the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include a date and home and office or faculty staff position.
1