OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN Page 4
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 606-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Finst Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 606-640, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions, excluding Saturday. Students may be held on holidays or holidays in July; otherwise, on or before May 27, or on or after August 31, or on or after September 30, or on or after October 31, or on or after December 31, or on or after January 31, or on or after February 31, or on or after March 31, or on or after April 31, or on or after May 31, or on or after June 31, or on or after July 31, or on or after August 31, or on or after September 30
MARK ZIEMAN Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSICK
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
DON KNOX Campus Editor
DAVE WANAMAKER MARK MEARS
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager National Sales
LYNNE STARK
Campus Sales Manager
PAUL JESS General Manager and News Adviser
JOHN OBERZAN Advertising Adviser
The Kansas Integrated Personnel-Payroll System, or KIPPS, would better be called GYPS, and is one of the most deplorable and disastrous situations to hit employees of the University of Kansas in ages.
A financial disaster
Think about it. If you haven't been paid in two months, what hope do you have of enjoying the holiday season this year? Of buying presents for family or friends? Of paying gas bills or rent? Of paying off the bills you haven't paid since September, when you last were paid?
Yesterday, unbelievably, more than 100 people did not receive their paychecks. Some of those people were among the group of more than 300 who did not receive their paychecks last month.
So who's to blame, and when will the problem be solved?
Ultimately, the Board of Regents and state and University administrators are at fault for starting a program that was not guaranteed to work when it went on-line. Sure, all new computerized programs have some bugs, but in this case the stakes were too high for this type of error to occur. This computer foul-up is more than a minor inconvenience — it is affecting
people's livelihood, credit reputations and trust in the University.
But before wasting time on pinpointing the blame, two more important questions must be answered: When will this mess be cleared up, and when will these dismaved people be paid?
No one seems to know, and certainly no one has made any promises. We do know that Chancellor gene A. Budig and Sen. Wint Winter, R-Lawrence, are deeply concerned about the problem, as they should be. Doubtless they are working diligently to find the solution
But, at least for Chancellor Budig, this is not enough. People want answers, or at least somebody who will take charge of this problem and report to them daily of the progress toward a solution. As chancellor of this University, it falls to Budig to step into this mess and perform that task. Although Budig may indeed have been blameless for this situation, he must step forward now and get things done.
At this University, the buck stops with Budig — a phrase that unfortunately carries a different meaning for those people waiting for their paychecks.
Keep out of Nicaragua
If the Reagan administration is considering an invasion of Nicaragua, it had better reconsider. Its adventurism, so far, has met with popular support, but a battle in Nicaragua would likely be bloody and last considerably longer than the march across Grenada. Besides, an invasion of Nicaragua would violate the right of Nicaraguans to govern themselves.
The administration would prep the American public with a dose of propaganda as it did for the Grenada invasion, but that wouldn't hide the fact that it is meddling directly in the affairs of an independent government. And the administration has yet to provide the necessary justification for launching an invasion into Nicaragua — it hasn't proven that the Sandinistas are causing unrest in Central America, nor has it proven that the Nicaraguan people are suffering politically or economically under the Sandinistas.
The Sandinistas, though they are Marxist, certainly have not caused
as much unrest in the region as the United States. They have had enough trouble battling CIA-backed rebels and keeping their government from crumbling.
However, to bring true democracy to Nicaragua the Sandinista regime must hold national elections as soon as possible. Three of the leading rebel groups have agreed to quit fighting if the government holds elections.
That's a fair deal if the rebels keep to their word. But the motives behind calling for such elections may not be the purest. The CIA estimates that the U.S.-backed rebels cannot win a military victory against the Sandinistas. So the rebels see that the next best thing would be elections in which they may get some of their people in power.
the rebels certainly would welcome an invasion of U.S. forces. But Reagan must rule that as one option the United States must not take. It would just mean more senseless bloodshed.
Is it unhealthy or not?
Most American adults need one or two cups of java every morning just to get the eyes focused. So naturally there's a lot of interest in a question recently posed by the scientific community: Is coffee good for you or not?
But are the scientists answering the question? No way. The New England Journal of Medicine recently published five studies, and all they did was confuse the issue. Three found coffee imbibing OK.
But a fourth said it raises cholesterol levels in young people, while a fifth contended it's just women who get the cholesterol boost.
Give us a break! It would be terrible to find out that coffee is bad stuff — maybe to give up our daily fix. But worse still is this steady stream of "It's unhealthy," "No it's not" reports. The uncertainty will kill us, even if the coffee does not.
—New York Daily News
The University Daily Kanan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-space 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 home town or faculty or staff position. The Kanan also invites individual applicants to an email question column. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kanau office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kanau reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Thanksgiving packet hard to swallow
The day after Thanksgiving is a time for resting and be thankful, or soropice afternoons and cold turkey sandwiches.
Chock-full of leftovers and brimming with brotherly love and peace
- appropriate Thanksgiving feelings
- I opened an envelope I had found in the mailbox.
Enclosed were a newsletter, an opinion survey and a postcard. This Thanksgiving packet was the gift of the Rev. Ron Marr, Christian Inquirer Family and Freedom Ministries. Niagara Falls, N.Y.
I should have stopped after seeing Kruhchev's "We will bury you" splashed in half-inch red letters across the top of the first page.
"Dear concerned American:" the letter read. "If you listen to the liberal news media, President Reagan's strong ANTI- COMMUNIST STAND is just a lot of political HOOPLA."
Marr then decried the *nuclear freeze* movement: "Oddly enough, much of the momentum for the SOVIET-INSPIRED CONSIPIRACY leading America down the path to coming from mainline church leaders — some from very acceptable 'EVANGELICALS!'"
This was shocking news, indeed. Imagine religious leaders, evangelists even, condemning nuclear proliferation, Hypocrisy!
"You see, even though the CHRISTIAN INQUIRER recognizes that President Reagan's stands are sometime weak and vascellating
(sic), he must know that you and I support him when he takes a tough anti-Communist stand.
staff Columnist
"So many Americans are BLIND to just how barbaric the Communists are! What else, with the liberal left, would have vindicated our propaganda (sie!)?"
Marr goes on to point out something I had never realized. "The CHRISTIAN INQUIRER has been for 12 years the ONLY Christian church that ever threatened Trudeau threat, and informing it's (sic) readers what they can do to
help turn things around.
"So you see, by supporting this ministry, you're also helping to protect the security of the United States." Ahat' Now I have seen the light. More precisely, I have smelled the buck.
"I know you want to see moral sanity prevail in America."
Now Marr gets to the good stuff, asking me to sign the postcard showing support for a tough anti-Communist stand, to mail it directly to the White House and to complete and return the questionnaire.
Last, but by no means least. "Send your gift of $25, or the very MAXIMUM amount you can send with your survey. I simply must have your financial support if I'm to continue to reach out and inform, "Christian said. "I am Christian, that (sic) are so misled by the liberal establishment
"Thank you in Jesus' name."
The most impressive question on the survey reads, "What other areas of the world do you feel are in grave danger?" The further Communist aggression"
The possible answers listed were the Philippines, South Africa, the Persian Gulf, Thailand, Scandinavia, Cyprus and other. Followed
by a blank line. On the blank line the obvious response was "Niagara Falls, N.Y."
The letter unsettled my stomach.
That is a dangerous thing so close to
Thanksgiving. Imagine my joy
when, returning to this hotbed of
liberalism, the University of
Kansas, I found posters taped up by
the Maranatha Campus. Marnied
warned me that patients, patient,
gradual ways the Communists are
understanding our American way of
life.
These subversions include doing away with loyalty oaths, gaining control of all student newspapers, encouraging promiscuity and easy divorce and promoting ugliness and repulsive, meaningless art.
The scariest point was the threat that the Soviets are trying to create U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to nuclear war.
it seems that coexistence would be preferable to any war. What kind of folk of the cloth promote war, and what is onward, Christian addicks?
Maybe it's time for a little immoral insanity in the United States.
Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas
Shamir fares well in talks with Reagan
And reporters are still trying to figure out what Reagan got in return.
WASHINGTON — "He gave away the farm" was the joking observation of reporters at the windup of President Reagan's two-day meeting with Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.
Clearly, the president has decided that the United States must bolster its military posture in the Middle East with a priority on diplomatic possibilities
The threat of Soviet military power and its backing of Syria with equipment and advisers was strongly emphasized as the motivating factor for the new, closer relationship with Israel.
Reagan and his aides are seeking ways that they can bring home the vulnerable Marine peace-keepers from turbulent Beirut. They are part of an effort to prepare before Reagan's expected re-election campaign gets rolling.
His pollsters have found that, despite the president's rising popularity, the tragedies involving the candidates holding point with many potential voters.
Reagan was not happy with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, particularly when Americans saw the bombardment of Beirut in the summer of 1982. A child in relations set in between the two countries, particularly when Menachem Begin was at the helm.
But all that seems by the board now.
During the talks, Reagan agreed
HELEN THOMAS
United Press International
to U.S. and Israeli joint political-military cooperation in the Middle East, pledged to ask Congress for increases in military aid for Israel and to write off some of the $850 million in loans into outright grants.
In addition, the president agreed to lift an embargo on the sale of cluster-bomb shells to Israel, to provide up to $300 million in U.S. aid for development of Iraq and to procure the United States and $250 million for procurement of Lavi parts.
In terms of economic assistance, the president said the United States and Israel would begin negotiations
shortly on a free trade agreement intended to help ease Israel's trade imbalance. Israeli firms also would be allowed to compete for contracts to participate in the production of U.S. weapons systems.
Other areas of cooperation spelled out by Reagan were: combined planning, joint exercises and positioning of U.S. military equipment in Israel, with an administration official saying the list of military concessions is "illustrative, but not exclusive."
Reagan said that the main focus of their meetings was "the agony of Lebanon and the threats to our common interests."
"Adequate security arrangements for Israel's northern border must be assigned the highest priority." Reagan declared.
But the problem is larger than that. There is the continuing factionalism in Lebanon, the Syrian occupation with no signs of an early withdrawal, and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza with Reagan indicating no new initiatives to break the stalemate, though he has branded it an "obstacle to peace".
Some Arab leaders are bound to wonder why Israel is receiving so much from the United States this Christmas.
James Zogby, director of the American-Arab anti-discrimination committee, said. "The United States will be seen as complacious in all Israel actions in Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian land.
"For all intents and purposes the Reagan administration has sealed the lid on any U.S. role as negotiator or neutral arbiter in the Middle East."
Reagan still hopes that the stalemated peace plan he offered Sept. 1, 1982, can be revived, though it has been rejected on all sides.
He said that the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel remained "the cornerstone of the peace process", along with the U.N. resolutions in the aftermath of the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israel wars.
Whether Reagan's decision for a closer military alliance with Israel will lead to enhanced peace in the Middle East, or draw the United States into the quagmire of long standing disputes remains to be seen.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Movie portrayed little human spirit
To the Editor:
I once heard a fable about a man who backed off a cliff to avoid a barking dog. I wonder if concern for the dog has become the dog of that fable.
The essence of being human lies more with our spirit and our minds than with our bodies. It is a measure of my opus that a movie like "The Day After," which portrays little of the human spirit, focusing instead on death and disfigurement, should have had the effect that it did.
I frequently talk with sincere, open, intelligent and likable students who are eager to see what they can make of their lives. Many have taken it upon themselves to effort in working toward their degrees. There is sometimes even
an infectious and inspiring enthusiasm in their approach to living. For me, knowledge that their spirits had been vanquished would be greater tragedy than knowing they had died in a nuclear holocaust.
As faculty and others in generations beyond these students, we have an obligation to acknowledge and respect their spirits — an obligation to create and protect a world in which they can utilize their training, pursue careers that challenge them and live reasonably free of excessive terrorism, fear and uncertainty.
These are not easy obligations to meet. Silent vigils cannot become a complete substitute for the plea of those from room liberalism will not erase the need for
Maynard W. Shelly Professor of psychology Paranoid patriots
compassion, and listening to articulate and committed speakers cannot become an alternative for sacrifice. If we permit ourselves to become too absorbed with a possible nuclear war, we may not only back off the cliff ourselves but pull a whole generation of students with
To the Editor:
As a person who has long espoused conservative ideals, I was quite pleased when the mood of Americans seemed to be shifting toward liberalism. The American people had elected the right man for president in 1980.
However, one unfortunate side effect of this change of national mood has been rather embarrassing. It seems as if every paramedian patrol" in the country has come out of hiding to wave the flag.
Today, to say that you are a conservative automatically causes people to associate you with Jerry Falwell, the Young Americans for Freedom and other similarly narrow-minded groups. I find it very unfortunate that these people, by their inarticulate demonstration of their extremism, will cause the intelligent people of America to turn from the progress made by this administration in the last three years, and vote Ronald Reagan out of office in 1984.
Russell D. Etzenhouser IV Leawood junior