University Dally Kansan, March 7, 1985
Page 4
OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansas, USPS 609-6400, is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuart Fint Hall Lawn, Kansas, Kan 6045, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final period. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan 6043 Subscriptions may be sent to 327 ater in Douglas County and must pass through the student activity by POSTMASTER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kansas, 118 Stuart Fint Hall Lawn, Kansas, Kan 6045
MATT DEGALAN Editor
DIANE LUBER SUSAN WORTMAN Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ROB KARWATH Campus Editor
LYNNE STARK Business Manager
SUSANNE SHAW
DUNCAN CALHOUN MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
SUSANNE SHAW General Manager and News Adviser
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
Once again the controversy over what role the United States should be playing in Central America, and especially Nicaragua, is heating up.
Losing friends
then again, is hearing up. While President Reagan escalated his attacks on the Sandinistas and called the anti-Sandinista guerrillas the "moral equals of our founding fathers," a potentially significant offer by the Nicaraguan government went practically unnoticed.
practically unnoticed. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega announced that his country would unilaterally declare a moratorium on new weapons systems and arrange for the departure of 100 Cuban advisers.
The offer, while perhaps not earthshaking, is a step in the right direction.
right direction. Although Secretary of State George Shultz agreed to meet with Ortega in Montevideo, Uruguay, he made it clear before the meeting that he had no intention of seeking serious dialogue on the proposal.
If the United States is seriously interested in stopping the bloodshed in Nicaragua and the rest of Central America, it cannot continue to shunt all initiatives that are not of its own making.
It should seriously pursue all offers and leads that could stop the killing of men, women and children in the region.
To declare a proposal dead before it is even presented is not the type of attitude needed to resolve the deep and complex problems plaguing relations between the two countries.
countries. The U.S. position is not going unnoticed in Latin America. Throughout the inauguration ceremonies of Uruguay's new civilian government, Ortega was constantly greeted by crowds and cheers while Shultz was virtually ignored.
wounds and cheers while Silent Shield was virtually dead. The Reagan administration, by its actions and deeds, risks not only losing the chance to start a meaningful dialogue with Nicaragua. It risks losing many Latin American friends as well.
A bayou tradition
"Louisiana politics is of an intensity and complexity that are matched, in my experience, only in the Republic of Lebanon." Although spoken more than a quarter of a century ago, A.J. Liebling's characterization of the Cajun state's political life remains true to form.
Who comes to mind at the mention of mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and bribery? Living near Kansas City we tend to think of the mob, bosses of large unions or politicians of an era gone by. In Louisiana, however, one thinks of Edwin Edwards, the state's popular Democratic governor.
Democratic governor.
Edwards is now in his third term, having been easily elected over the incumbent Republican. He also was governor from 1972 to 1980. He was prevented from serving a third consecutive term by the state constitution so he sat out the mandatory one term.
Edwards has been indicted on 51 counts involving various improprieties and indulgences of public office. At the core of the charges are allegations of racketeering in hospital business schemes in which Edwards is reputed to have made more than $2 million.
In any other state in the union, a governor so indicted after suffering almost 30 grand jury investigations would be politically dead, but not in Louisiana. It often is said that the only sin in Louisiana politics is dullness. Edwards is neither dull nor politically dead.
dull nor politically dead.
Other political leaders are popular, but on the whole most citizens hold politicians in low regard. Edwards, on the other hand, does not have more supporters — he has disciples.
People lining the streets to see him ride by during the 1983 gubernatorial campaign were not just thrilled to see him — they were hysterical. Few politicians in any state command such adulation.
It would be a shame to see such a man found guilty and thrown in the hoosegow, depriving the Louisiana electorate of the political entertainment it paid more than $20 million to watch during the last election.
But it would be a greater shame if Edwards managed to escape a guilty verdict because of his political power.
Lips a guilty verdict because Edward, however, has been lucky in politics. And those politics are not just any politics. They are Louisiana politics. Who knows? He may be lucky again.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten and double-spaced and should not exceed 300 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Military budget cuts trim heroism pay
We keep hearing about the huge defense budget, and all the waste in military spending. But we seldom hear about how the Pentagon tries to save money.
Well, they're trying to be frugal. And here's an example of how they're doing it.
they're doing.
It has to do with a man named Kenneth Butterfield, who lives in Schaumburg, Ill.
Butterfield, 55, is a retired soldier. He enlisted when he was 17, in 1947, and spent 25 years in the Army.
He wasn't just a desk commando. Foot soldiering was his
MIKE
ROYKO
Syndicated Columnist
trade. And he did just about as much of it as anybody in his time.
he went to Korea in 1950 as a combat infantryman, but didn't get back until after the war ended in 1953.
That's because he was a prisoner of war.
After the Korean War, he stayed in the Army and worked at his craft, becoming one of the original Green Berets.
vietnam. He kept going over and coming back, going over and coming back. By the time it ended, he had spent four years there.
There was a Purple Heart, of course, and a Silver Star.
The Silver Star came when one of his men was wounded and pinned down under a personnel carrier by enemy fire.
Then there was the Soldier's Medal, which is the highest award given for valor in a non-combat situation.
He got that when a helicopter pilot botched a landing and crashed his copter into an Army truck.
The truck was loaded with troops, some dead, others injured. Butterfly rushed into the wreckage.
When he retired as a sergeant-
major in 1972, he received an extra
10 percent — about $100 — in his
pension as heroism pay because he
had won the Soldier's Medal.
age
"I just kept throwing them out." he said. "I don't know how many. People were yelling, 'It's going to blow. It's going to blow.' But I get them out."
But last week, Butterfield received a letter signed by some colonel, who is "director of retired pay operations."
The letter said, "I regret to inform you that our retired pay operations has been notified by the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center that your entitlement to an additional 10 percent in retired pay was erroneously awarded due to an error by the Army in determining entitlement for the pay or in notifying us of eligibility for it."
That's not all. The colonel's letter said that a review would be made to determine if Butterfield would have to repay all the heroism pay he had received since retiring in 1972.
But the colonel was generous enough to say, "Be assured that your award for heroism is not in question. The possible hardships that may be caused by this reduction are understood and regretted. However, the law leaves us no choice."
Butterfield responded. "You just don't get the Soldier's Medal because somebody feels like pinning it on you. It went before the valor bord at the division level. There had to be five witnesses.
"Now they tell me that my financial difficulty is understood and regretted. Hell, that's a classic understatement. You know something? I got a letter from the Army in April, told me I would be deprived until我 age 60. Well by God, if they want to take the money away from me, they might as well take the recall orders away, too."
I asked a press agent at the Pentagon about Butterfield's pension, and she said that he was one of 100 men who received heroism pay "due to an administrative error on the Army's part."
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't deserve the heroism pay. It means that somebody along the line didn't follow proper paperwork procedures in awarding it to him.
As the Army press agent put it,
"paperwork administrative errors"
could have occurred.
Strange, but the Army never asks a guy to fill out papers before he jumps into the wreckage of a helicopter.
So, don't let anybody tell you the Pentagon isn't trying to cut costs. We will soon be saving $100 a month out of Butterfield's pension. Why, after only six months, the Pentagon will save enough to buy one of those special toilet seats.
And if they can get that $15,000 back from Butterfield, they can buy a few screwdrivers.
say, I wonder if anybody at the Pentagon is checking to see if all those disabled veterans really need those wooden legs.
A new and improved political party
Realignment is to politics what the four-minute mile was to track and 61 homers was to baseball. If you want to make a political scientist's pulse race and heart pound, mention realignment.
Reallignment in American politics means dramatic basic change, sudden and fundamental relocation of the fixed stars by which those who chart the oceans of electoral behavior set their course.
When it occurs, visions of new monographs, research papers and textbooks dance in the heads of hundreds of professors, and the possibilities for innovative doctoral studies are zazzle thousands of graduate students.
The problem is that it doesn't happen that often. The last time was in 1832-1936, when the Democrats took over after more than half a century of Republican dominance.
A lot of political scientists expected the GOP to come back big after
World War II. That belief was bolstered by a congressional victory in 1946, but that was shattered by Harry Truman's 1948 victory over Thomas Dewey.
Realignment talk began again after Dwight Eisenhower became president in 1932, but subsided when
ARNOLD SAWISLAK
United Press International
he lost control of Congress in 1954 and was stilled by John Kennedy's victory in 1960 and Lyndon Johnson's victory in 1964. Some wondered if the GOP could even make it to 1968 after the drubbing LBJ gave Barry Gold-water.
When Richard Nixon won that year without bringing in a GOP Congress, little talk of realignment surfaced. After Watergate no reallignment talk was heard, especially when Jimmy
Carter brought the South back to the Democrats in 1976.
But Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory, which included the first Republican Senate in 25 years, started the realignment drumbeat again. The small 1982 Democratic resurgence cooled it off, but burrles resumed in 1984 when a big GOP victory seemed imminent.
imminent.
"Tis a puzzlement, as the King of Siam said. Here the Republicans have won four of the last five presidential elections without capturing both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships or state legislatures or any big city mayoral posts to speak of. One estimate has Democrats holding two-thirds or more of the elective offices in the country.
But now comes Everett C. Ladd, director of the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut, with an explanation.
In Public Opinion magazine, Ladd
suggests that political scientists have created a conceptual swamp for themselves by expecting realignment to come like a flash of lightning
- a sudden change of the sort ushered in by Franklin Roosevelt.
usherset in Dyke. He says, what may be happening is a creeping realignment, gradual erosion of the voter groups — Southerners, blue collar workers, ethnic groups — who were part of the Democratic coalition. Eventually, the GOP will become the majority party.
Padd introduces two other concepts: dealignment, which is the weakening of voters' loyalty to the political parties; and a split personality realignment, which leaves the Democrats in the lower offices while the Republicans take the White House.
All interesting ideas, sure to spark debate in coming months. Whether they hold water will be seen in the returns of coming elections.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Farrakhan - yes
To the editor:
TO THE BEST OF HONOUR
This letter is in reference to the public appearance of Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. I am glad that the Student Senate Finance Committee voted to give money for speakers in the Black Student Union Lecture Series for Alpha Week.
The selection of Farrakhan by the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity was a very good choice I have heard Farrakhan on several occasions. Also, I have cassettes of some of his speeches. He is a very dynamic and articulate speaker who is always willing to provide authority for any statements he makes.
Farrakhan's appearance definitely will be an enlightening and knowledgeable experience for the University of Kansas faculty, staff and students.
Therefore, without hesitation. I strongly support his appearance and will be looking forward to March 28.
Although I do not agree with everything Farrakhan says, I think
that he has a right to express his beliefs. The freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Paula Drungole
Starkville, Miss., law student
Responsible acts
To the editor:
the editor:
In response to Meg McWhinney of letter F. 28, I would like to point out that McWhinney falls into the same trap of stereotyping "profiliers" as she believes they have stereotyped those who are "pro choice."
choice.
Stereotyping is a means that we often take to avoid dealing with problematic issues and is an easy way out. If I say pro-lifers believe all women who have abortions are "mindless murderers who enjoy making the decision," then it becomes easy for me to discount them and to generalize their positions as uncaring, insensitive, fanatical, etc., without even first examining them
The point is that stereotypy obscures the real issues, and I think McWhinney has missed the real issue
responsibility. When a woman decides to become sexually active, she must accept the responsibility for her actions. No contraceptive method is 100 percent effective; there is always the risk of pregnancy. That is a given and must be recognized.
even if I believe all women who have abortions are "mindless murders," then it is easy for me to ignore their personal plight and make them objects of my disgust, rather than trying to understand their situation.
Summarize.
However, if the woman is not willing to take responsibility for her actions, then I believe the government must, in order to protect the innocent unborn infant, who is the victim of its mother's irresponsibility.
I am not naive enough to think that legislation prohibiting abortion will prevent abortions from taking place, but that is not the point of the legislation. If it were, then it would be best to legalize use of cocaine and heroin because it is being used illegally throughout the United States.
No, we want legislation against abortion because our society must accept responsibility for protecting the unborn infants who are the innocent victims.
indigenous women.
The decisions we make have consequences, some that are very difficult and may have been unfounded at the time. Regardless, we must accept responsibility for our pregnancy. Pregnancy is almost always a consequence of a decision that is made freely; thus responsibility, regardless of its inconvenience, must be accepted for the unborn child — if not by the woman, then by the government.
campus minister Campus Christians
4