OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
November 2.1983 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 60-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, KS 60043; the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions, Sunday, Sunday holidays, and second class periods. Second class periods are $15 each. Subscriptions by students are $15 each and $18 for six months or $4 for a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 semester paid through the student account (POSTMASTER). Send materials to USPS, PO Box 96287, Kansas City, KS 66106.
MARK ZIEMAN
Editor
Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSICK
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
DON KNON
Campus Editor
PAUL JESS
General Manager and News Adviser
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
DAVE WANMAKER
Retail Sales
Manager
MARK MEARS
National Sales
LYNNE STARK Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Advertising Adviser
A historic talk
Through a satellite link-up, U.S. and Soviet scientists held an historic phone conversation about the dangers of the world's growing nuclear arms stockpile. The discussion took place in a teleconference that was described as the first such meeting between scientists from the two superpowers.
Not surprisingly, the two sets of scientists agreed that nuclear weapons are a menace to the world as we know it today. Calling the weapons "cancerous growths," scientists from both sides of the ocean agreed with Soviet scientist Yuri Izrael's statement that "in a nuclear war, there can be no victor and no vanquished."
The U.S. scientists who discussed the arms race and nuclear war with their Soviet colleagues were attending a conference on what the world would be like after a nuclear war.
Carl Sagan, the planetary sciences specialist from Cornell University, and Paul Erlich, a biologist from Stanford University, said that expected damage from the aftermath of even a limited nuclear war was underestimated.
In their report of the post-nuclear war world, Sagan and Erlichesti-
mated that the world's agricultural output would be drastically affected by nuclear explosions that would send clouds and dust into the atmosphere. Mass starvation would be certain.
Soviet scientists added that if anyone managed to survive the aftermath, they would be genetically and behaviorally unsuited to living in the new environment. Reproduction would be questionable under such living conditions.
Both sets of scientists agreed that nuclear weapons should not be a tool of politicians — in either country.
The conference is heartening, especially as the December deployment date for the Pershing 2s in Europe draws closer. The Soviets have already said that with the additional U.S. missiles in Europe, they will switch their missiles to a split-second computer system that leaves little or no time for double-checking for false alarms.
Scientists in the United States have rallied against the arms race for some time now. That may be the case in the Soviet Union as well. For the health of the world, the superpower's political and military leaders be in such easy agreement about the arms race.
Federal labor proposal
More than 100 congressmen are sponsoring a bill that would restrict the federal government from doing business with companies or labor unions that have repeatedly violated federal law laws.
The bill was approved by the House Education and Labor Management Relations subcommittee Tuesday and a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Litton, which has $1.5 billion in government contracts mostly from the Defense Department, has been charged over the past 20 years with nearly 50 violations of the National
The chief sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Paul Simon, D-Ill., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., cited Litton Industries as a prime example of the kind of labor law violator the bill would bar from federal contracts.
Labor Relations Act. The company has been declared guilty of at least 24 of those violations by the NLRB or federal appeals courts.
Another company that could lose lucrative federal contracts if Simon's bill gets through Congress is the J.P. Stevens company. A textile company, it has been awarded over $100 million in contracts from the federal government despite a long history of labor violations and union busting efforts.
Although this bill covers labor unions as well, the subcommittee seemed more intent on curbing the labor violations of big businesses.
And in a time in which unions are being besieged by layoffs, plant closings and union busting tactics, Congress has extended a lifeline to them that may not solve their problems, but will certainly make their dealings with violator companies more equitable.
A Chicago patriarch
What do football greats Red Grange, Gale Sayers, Dick Butkus and Walter Payton have in common? They all played for the Chicago Bears under longtime owner George Halas, who died Monday at age 88.
Unlike today's brand of millionaires who own professional sports teams but have careers in other fields, Halas founded his football team in 1920 and was both a player and a coach on the professional level. Indeed, Halas was head coach of the Bears when the team won its most recent championship, 20 years ago.
Moreover, he was one of the prime shapers of professional football, which has become an important force in the nation's economy and leisure time.
Halas's interests, however, were not restricted to football; he played for the New York Yankees and came to be recognized as a civic leader in Chicago.
Yet his chief contributions were made in pro football. According to family and friends, Halas lived for his team; in the midst of the Bears' losing seasons of recent years, he awaited a return to the team's past excellence.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, 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 home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites individ-ual groups to submit guest columns. Columns and articles are brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Intervention necessary
The shock has worn off. Much of the emotion has subsided, and I can say from what we know so far that President Reagan did the right thing in ordering the Grenada invasion.
Yet the move into Grenada from what information we have available seems to be justified. In fact, there was little choice but to take a work, affirmative action, if we were to take any action at all.
No, I can't not a war monger. Nor can I give my endorsement to any future invasions without first looking at motives and outcomes.
The invasion was illegal from the standpoint of the Organization of American States charter. Under that charter the United States could have invaded only if it had approval from OAS members.
But the Reagan administration had a decision to make, either to let Grenada alone and abide by the charter, which could have had some extremely damaging consequences, or to move and risk national and international condemnation.
To get OAS approval, the United States would have had to prove that an invasion was justified by a threat to its territory — something some experts suggest could not have been possible.
Reagan needed to balance the effects of action and inaction. And since he saw a threat to American interests, the only alternative was to respond.
I must believe in the administration's motives because there is more proof in favor than to the contrary. I should decide based solely on emotion.
The effects of turning away from
Grenada and letting the Austin dictatorship take its course are now moot. Liberals say there was no present danger; conservatives say that a direct threat to the United States was imminent.
Neither side has won the argument. An arsenal was found, but the use of the weapons and ammunition could have been avoided. We will probably never know how the arsenal was to be used.
Liberals argue about a new "Reagan Doctrine" much like the one Brezhnev used to invade Ukraine. The same parallel cannot be drawn, because
NOTE: COFFEE MONO ©2015 THE THOMAS COMPANY
Staff Columnist
the U.S. troops are leaving, though not as soon as expected, and a democracy will be instituted.
MICHAEL BECK
In Czechoslovakia, the Soviets invaded at the request of other Soviet Bloc states only to restore the old regime. In Grenada, the Organization of East Caribbean States asked the United States to restore order and establish elections
The Grenada invasion also cannot be compared properly to Afghanistan because Soviet troops have taken control, obviously unimpressing the country.
The Grenadans applauded U.S. troops. And although the chaos before the invasion may not have
been as extreme as U.S. officials claimed, the support from Grenada reflects that they wanted no part of the Austin regime.
The long term effects of the invasion, as with the effects had the United States stayed out, are also speculative. Great Britain, France and West Germany objected to the invasion, yet with most things, people soon forget and other issues take precedence.
On the other hand, the Cubans may reinhalt their support of rebels in El Salvador, and the Soviet Union is also likely to act when we deem it necessary.
I reject notions that the United States was simply showing its strength to other nations; rather I was in part showing that I was in part showing what it will to act.
If the action was to show our military might, we didn't do a good job. We shot our own men, didn't know the terrain and our knowledge of Cuban strongholds wasn't correct.
The Grenada affair will help Reagan politically. Few will argue that it won't.
Yet with the public support and condemnation, we must weigh what information we have available. Americans were in Grenada during a dangerous period, the Soviets and Cubans had extensive influence and the government lacked popular support.
Given the circumstances and the Reagan ideology, the United States had no choice but to intervene. And as I want to avoid another Iranian crisis, don't like the Soviet Union. Don't be fooled by the people should have a choice about their government. I agree with the invasion of Grenada.
Invasion can't be justified
WASHINGTON — The cynical justification offered by President Reagan for the invasion of Grenada by United States forces and, the Pentagon says, military units from seven Caribbean nations, risks ushering in a dangerous situation elsewhere.
Especially troubling is Reagan's claim that this act of war was designed "to help in the restoration of democratic institutions" on the island.
It is his portrayal of his actions as the United States' defense of democracy in a foreign country that is by far the most disturbing element. In effect, he has proclaimed an entirely new United States doctrine in foreign affairs — he says it must serve a sanity American military action elsewhere in the world when he deems that democratic institutions — as he defines them — again must be saved.
It is plausible that the new airport built in Grenada with Cuban (and Western European) aid could be used by the Russians
against us in case of war. It is even understandable that Reagan and Caribbean leaders had become concerned over possible new revolutionary trends in the region for decades. The Boehner-Bishop three Cabinet ministers and others were slain by Grenadian army extremists.
None of this, however, justifies an invasion in the name of
democracy, especially when a double standard — hypocrisy, to call it by its right name — is applied. Though the administration argues that it launched the invasion at the request of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, its assertion that the non-intervention clauses of the United Nations and Organization of American States' charters are not violated is spurious.
TAD SZULC
Author
apparently accepted the view of Dominica's Prime Minister, Eugenia Charles, who stood next to Reagan when he announced the invasion. She said that Bishop "was on the way to having elections. That is a real vindication of a Marxist revolutionary who all along had been accused of refusing the democratic process.
The Reagan formulation has placed America in the immoral position of taking it upon itself to define democracy abroad — and to act on it if we wish. This is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Czechoslovakia, where the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact forces struck to impose "internal order," as it is of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the crackdown in Poland.
Our nation should instantly prosecibe the new "Reagan Doctrine."
Suddenly, the administration, which had virtually shunned Bishop for three years, now
Copyright 1983 the New York Times. Tod Szulc writes on foreign affairs.
Poverty myths
ALBANY — Not much is ever said about the poor that is accurate or clear. The Reagan administration does not say much about the poor at all. So when it provides useful statistics, they ought to be examined.
In August, a federal census report contained data that amounted to this. One American had fallen below one special poverty line every 12 seconds.
Far from being a huge, burdensome program, welfare is dwarfed by other federal government activities. It looms far larger in controversy and myth than in reality, and no program — no group of people — is so badly understood as welfare and those who receive it.
But the poverty report did not point out that in the same 12 seconds, the government spent $72,000 more on defense programs than on Aid to Families with Children. Supplemental Security Income stamps, the work incentives program and the Job Corps combined.
The Reagan administration, with its talk about the "needy" and "the safety net," has not contributed to an understanding of the problem.
CESAR A. PERALES
Commissioner
Thus, the myths persist, programs are cut or crippled, the number of poor people grows, and very few police officers are safe; the safety net is suddenly so full.
Here are some of the myths.
People get on welfare and never get off.
The most persistent fallacy is that there are two classes of poor people the "working poor" and the "welfare poor". Actually the so-called welfare poor are simply the working poor who have fallen on hard times.
Several studies show that most A.F.D.C. cases are open for just two years, or less. These usually come about because of some major interruption of income; illness of the wage-earner; exhaustion of employment benefits, desertion by a high-risk job; and A.F.D.C. families, the adults move between low-wage seasonal labor and the welfare rolls.
Welfare destroys the incentive to work.
Statistics show that this isn't so. The number of New York state residents living below the poverty line increased by an estimated 22 percent between 1959 and 1982, but dropped in roseidous load rose by less than 1 percent.
This means that in most instances, families held on to low wage jobs or borrowed from friends and family, turning to public assistance only as a last resort. This is confirmed by a department of Social Services study involving 3,507 extremely low wage families that had been receiving public assistance along with Medicaid and food stamps.
They were denied benefits as a result of federal cutbacks beginning in January 1982, and it was widely forecast that a significant majority would abandon work and return to the welfare rolls. As of last March, 77 percent had never returned to public assistance, despite a deep recession and high unemployment; of the remaining 23 percent, about half returned briefly, then left the welfare rolls.
Under the Reagan administration, many people have learned simply to expect this. And in 12 seconds, the problem will get worse.
What is decidedly not mythical is that these myths tend to guide national policy in conservative times. Moreover, a growing body of evidence points to the appearance of a small but permanent cast at the center of the economic ladder for whom there is no opportunity and no hope.
Copyright 1983 the New York Times.
Cesar A. Penales in Commissioner of
the New York State Department of
Social Services.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Shut-off policy won't solve problem
To the Editor:
There are some grave misstatements in the Kansan editorial of Oct. 19 regarding the Kansas Corporation Commission's cold weather rule. It was stated that utilities cannot shut off service on delinquent customers from Nov. 15 to March 30. This is not true. Customers behind on their bills can be affected, as as the temperature is not predicted in fall below 32 degrees for the next 24-hour period.
Also, it was stated that customers can be reconnected if they make a "good faith" effort to pay. The correct figures for that good faith
effort are 25 percent or $4, whichever is greater, of the past month's bill, plus one-twelfth of the total back bill. Also, the customer must enter a level payment plan, paying the of expected bil for the year.
The program the Kansas editorial says will insure heat to low-income Kansans does no such thing. The size of the monthly payments normally is much larger than a low-income family can afford. In it is figured that the average annual twelfth of the expected bill for the next year, plus the initial 25 percent or $4 to get on the plan. Outstanding balances for many families are $600
to $700, and the payment plan can call for as much as $100 to $200 a month.
Families on fixed or low incomes are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the huge monthly payments demanded. For families on various low-income assistance programs this can easily lead to them losing half their income, in some cases exceeding their monthly income.
Although I think it is good that the Kansan devoted an editorial to this important, life-threatening issue, it would seem just as important to look beyond the initial "oh good, the KCC has a plan" to the real ramifications
and questionable effectiveness of it.
amplequest.
My feeling is that a decision must be made whether heat is a luxury or a necessity. And if it is a necessity, then the availability of the product cannot be dependent on income. It is true that utilities are businesses, but they are carrying a product that is necessary for many to be able to live in cold weather. They should be regulated carefully to make sure their profit-motive does not exceed their concern with maintaining utility service to residential households.
Patti Hackney Lawrence law student