OPINION
University Daily Kansan, February 7, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Dalkan, Kannan (USPS 605-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60415, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 60044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $2 per year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $2 a year outside the county. Student postages may be paid directly to the address addressed changes to the University Dalkan, Kannan. 118 Stauffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60045
MATT DEGALAN Editor
DIANE LUBER SUSAN WORTMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ROB KARWATH Campus Editor
LYNNE STARK Business Manager
DUNCAN CALHOUN MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
SUSANNE SHAW
General Manager and News Adviser
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
Sharing the load
President Reagan, as every president, has the duty and obligation to present to the American people a budget that outlines his priorities for the coming year.
The priority this year obviously is defense spending. The president proposes slashing $38.8 billion from domestic spending. However, he wants to add $31.2 billion to the Pentagon's budget. The net savings aren't much.
While leaders of both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, agree that lowering the national deficit is the single biggest issue to be tackled this year, the president does not seem to agree.
It is one thing to call for sacrifices from all segments of society to combat the deficit that threatens to weaken the economic recovery.
It is another to cut programs that have helped people through the years and simply shuffle the money to defense.
The administration proposes cutting nutrition programs by $700 million; education, training and social services by $2 billion; housing assistance by $1.7 billion; and transportation assistance by $2.1 billion.
These are not, as some are asserting, programs that benefit only the middle class. In many cases they will affect those in society least able to bear the burden.
There is no question that programs need to be re-evaluated, and sometimes cut and re-focused
But it is neither right nor fair to exempt the military budget, which will total $277.5 billion if the president has his way, from the same rigorous examination that other departments are forced to undergo.
We have had ample evidence that the military, as well as domestic programs, is subject to waste, fraud and human error. The military should be forced to live with less and set priorities, just like everybody else.
There is another side of the budget-cutting process that needs to be examined.
No one is arguing that a strong military is not desirable or essential. But there are other elements to national defense. Cutting education funds means we will have fewer people with the education to keep this country competitive in a rapidly changing world.
Cutting support for mass transit means this country will become more dependent on foreign oil. Nutrition programs for children are an investment in their future and the future of the country.
We need to bring down the deficit because someday the bill surely will come due. Simply switching money from one area of the budget to another is not the answer.
And we need to be fair, making sure every segment contributes its fair share, and thus ensuring the continued prosperity of this country.
Splitting the costs
The Board of Regents has decided that next fall all students will split the special fees now paid only by students enrolled in specific classes.
The idea does not sit well.
Under this proposal, students who do little more than sit in a classroom with desks and a chalkboard while the professor lectures will be expected to help pick up the tab for those who use laboratory equipment, art supplies and other materials in a given field of study.
Now, although some students studying art or biology have to come up with extra money to pay for the special materials needed for that subject, the money spent ties in directly with what they are studying.
For some reason, the Board of Regents decided that this seemingly fair and equitable plan could be handled by a fairer method, so the members decided to change it.
Even students who now pay these special fees, and who will reap the benefits when fellow students begin sharing the burden, recognize the inequities in the system.
The Regent's decision could produce far more problems than any good that may have been intended.
Since the amount of money collected for special fees will not increase, departments can't be sure they will receive the money that they need for next semester, especially if the cost of equipment goes un.
And under the proposal, professors will not be able to ask students for additional money, thus giving them little choice but to make do with the amount they are allocated.
Every student spends extra money on classes, whether through lab fees or buying supplies. For some, it's costly law books, for others, it's the leatards for a dance class.
Thus, to be really fair, some of the money should go to pay for tennis racquets for those taking a tennis class, sheet music for those studying music or film for those studying photography.
After all, if the Board of Regents wants everyone's fees to be equally distributed, they should let all students submit their bills for extra equipment.
It may be an absurd idea, but then so is the one that the Board of Regents has proposed.
AIDS not exclusive disease anymore
There's really no need for everyone to spend all of this time worrying about the arms race and racial strife and crime on the nation's streets. We're all going to die of AIDS anyway.
That's not an attempt to be cute. Every time I hear more news about the AIDS epidemic, things seem to be getting worse. And every time I read what the experts have to say about AIDS, one thing becomes clear: Those of us who thought that the disease would always limit itself to homosexuals and other high-risk groups were fooling ourselves in the most pathetic way.
When reports of AIDS first began to appear in the news, many of us were silently relieved that it seemed to be a narrowly defined group. That's an awful thing to say; one should never feel relief at a fatal disease's targeting any group of people, regardless of the fact that it seems to spare us. But because those early reports indicated that if you weren't homosexual, then you were safe, many of us didn't overly concern ourselves with the new epidemic.
Now, as reports of developments in the AIDS story continue to surface, it appears that matters are far more grave than anyone had previously imagined — and suddenly the non-homosexual population is beginning to realize that it had better be
Kotulak reported that the AIDS epidemic "appears to be growing out of control" and that some health experts predict that there may be
concerned about this disease. The latest bad news came last week, in a Chicago Tribune by science writer Ron Kotulak.
BOB
GREENE
Syndicated
Columnist
more than 200,000 new cases by the end of 1988. Of people who were diagnosed as having AIDS two years ago or longer, most have died.
Kotulak quoted Merle Sande, chief of a statewide AIDS research task force in California:
"We are clearly in the midst of a major medical catastrophe, the potential impact of which is now only beginning to be realized and the eventual magnitude of which could be absolutely enormous. There is nothing comparable to this in our time.
corner. If we put all of the facts together, the picture for the near future and even for the extended future is bleak."
As to the question of whether people other than homosexuals need fear AIDS, this is what Sande said:
"I think it is highly likely that the disease will spread into the heterosexual population. That warning should be sounded. If we don't point out that possibility, I don't think that we in the medical community are fulfilling our responsibility to society."
The number of AIDS cases has been doubling every six to 12 months since 1980. According to researchers, already there have been cases of AIDS in this country in which the virus appears to have been transmitted from men to women through intercourse.
Harold Jaffe, chief of epidemiology of the federal Centers for Disease Control's section on AIDS activity, told Kotulak:
"The general public hasn't been very interested in AIDS because they thought it was a problem of gays, addicts and Haitians. People who have been working on AIDS have felt all along that it's a very scary thing and that it's a terrible health problem."
So why scare people?
If every national resource isn't
brought into use for AIDS research, we just might be on the verge of a tragedy too dark even to imagine. Government support is needed, and financing is needed, and more of the best scientific minds are needed.
For the brunt of the population to ignore the AIDS epidemic is just not realistic any longer. Thomas C. Quinn of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has reported: "With a mortality rate that exceeds 10 per cent, this illiteracy ranks as one of the most serious epidemics confronting man in modern times."
Vocal members of the homosexual community bitterly predicted at the beginning of the AIDS outbreak that no real general national concern about AIDS would develop until the disease started affecting heterosexuals. Their message was that the impact of AIDS on the control of AIDS until we were convinced that it wasn't just homosexuals who were at risk.
Well, I don't know how loud the warnings have to become before we understand just how bad this thing is getting. If the cases of AIDS are allowed to multiply at their current rate, with no cure or vaccine in sight, funds for this country may be terrible - almost beyond comprehension
If you never gave AIDS a second thought before, it's time to start thinking.
c1985MAIMINSW
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Majority rule
To the editor:
In a recent poll that CBS Evening News reported concerning the abortion issue, more than half of the respondents said that abortion should remain legal.
I think that in this country the majority rules. So, if a law is passed prohibiting abortion, that would make a minority rule — a minority rule by a selfish-minded minority. The minority will not look at both sides of the issue.
Also, how did such a closed-minded man as President Reagan get into office? What is the government coming to? A government that tells human beings what they can do and cannot do with their own bodies can only lead to worse things — a more powerful government that takes advantage of the majority of the citizens.
Guilty feelings
James R. Farrell St. Louis freshmar
This letter is in response to the letter by Pam Richardson that appeared in the University Daily Kansan on Jan. 29. It appears, from the tone of the remarks made about Richard and Jan Mauk, that Richardson is dealing with feelings of bitterness stemming from guilt — something we all deal with as humans. There is a way to be free from guilt and bitterness, but it's extremely unfair to lash out at someone whose moral convictions support life.
To the editor:
Jan Mauk is not suicidal or a deserter. She was the most unselfish and loving person I have known. She loved her children and gave them something they cherish beyond words — one of the highest examples of loving others more than self and the value of life. Praise the Lord!
Barbara Mauk
Lawrence resident
The Soviet government is afraid of the Strategic Initiative Program because it renders all of their first-strike and global domination intentions obsolete.
Blank cartoonist
The drawing of Cherrenko holding in his hand a dove with an olive branch and smiling is something one could only find on the pages of Pravda in the U.S.S.R. I find this quite amusing since this is the same nation that tried to assassinate the pope, that shot down a civilian jetliner, and that enslaves its own population under a failed doctrine, among some of their innumerable atrocities.
The cartoon on the opinion page of the Jan. 31 issue of the Kansan has no reference to its artist. I can understand why. Who would want to claim to be the author of a false and misleading editorial cartoon?
I completely understand that opinions of any caliber are protected under the First Amendment. However, the cartoonist has apparently been gravely misinformed about the overall situation concerning the Soviets and the United States Strategic Initiative Program, dubbed by the liberal press with the negative connotation of "Star Wars."
For the editor
Mr. Unknown Cartoonist, why don't you ask an Afghan about Soviet neagae - if you can find one alive.
This system is years away from
Is it considered aggressive and warlike to have a defensive, nonnuclear, space-based system that can knock out Soviet offensive nuclear warheads which would be destined to kill millions of people? Certainly not.
It is this space-based system that brought the Soviets back to the negatating table, not some yearning for world peace. If the Soviets had this technology today, they would most certainly deploy it, without reservation.
deployment so the United States has plenty of time to seek and negotiate a realistic and verifiable arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union.
When the Soviets walked out of the arms talks, they swore that they would not return unless the deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe was halted. NATO resolve stood firm and the deployment continued. The bleeding-heart liberals in Washington said that the only way to get the Soviets to start negotiations again was to give in to their demands.
Well, the Soviets are back to the bargaining table, and the missile deployment is continuing.
The moral of the story: Only a strong and a determined U.S. foreign policy that stands up to the Soviet Union's aggressive and expansionist policies will ever achieve stability and freedom in the world.
Victor Goodpasture
chairman of Young Americans for Freedom Fiallos supported
To the editor:
We, the undersigned students in Mariano Fiallo' class, wish to take exception to the misinformed letter by David Graham, a KU law student, which appeared in the University Daily Kanan on Jan. 24.
Fiallo is an eminent scholar and educator, and his credentials speak for themselves. He has a doctorate in political science from the University of Kansas and is a former rector (chancellor) of the national university in Nicaragua, as well as the University of Georgia's Supreme Electoral Council.
Furthermore, the implication in the letter that Fialios is attempting to indoctrinate us with some alien philosophy is an insult not only to Fialios but to us and the University as well.
Contrary to the law student's charge, the University is to be commended for bringing Faills here and for aid and support from him. Knowledge and experience.
We find Fiallo to be a careful and meticulous teacher, with a deep knowledge not only of his country but of the rest of Latin America as well.
Perhaps our deepest dismay is for the law student himself whose arrogance is matched only by his bigry. We do not know what kind of education he has had, but he hardly does credit to the profession he wants to enter and certainly not to KU's School of Law.
To the editor:
Rhonda Neugebauret class auditor
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter was signed by 34 other students in Fiallos class.
Abortion realities
As a Christian firmly opposed to abortion, I feel compelled to reply to the bitter letter titled "Freedom to choose" by Pam Richardson (Jan. 25 Kansan).
"Pro-choice" advocates seem to regard any symbol that brings home the reality of abortion as a cheap trick. Jan Mauk's son, Patrick, was a direct result of her decision not to have an abortion and so highlights the often-forgotten fact that abortion kills innocent babies. I suggest the evidence that "pro-choice" advocates to the pictures of aborted babies is due to their desire to avoid reality and suppress any feelings of guilt they have.
Only a small fraction of the 1.5 million abortions carried out annually in the United States are because of rape or medical reasons. In the vast majority of cases, the decision to have an abortion is based on selfish reasons or a perverse sense of duty to the unborn child, while there are many couples who would love to adopt that child. $ \textcircled{4} $
I ask all Christians on campus to join the growing numbers of concerned people who are fighting for the abolition of abortion. It is time to stop this tragic waste of human life,
United Kingdom junior
.