OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daykan Kami (USPS 605-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer-Final Hall, Lawrence, KS. Am 66045, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions. Subscribes are $15 for six months or $25 for a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester through the student activity book *POSTMASTER*. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $25 for a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester through the student activity book *POSTMASTER*.
MARK ZIEMAN Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSICK
Managing Editor Editorial Author
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
MICHAEL ROBINSON Campus Editor
PAUL JESS
General Manager and News Adviser
LYNNE STARK
Campus Sales Manager
DAVE WANAMAKER
Retail Sales
Manager
MARK MEARS
National Sales
JOHN OBERZAN Advertising Adviser
Economic chiller
In a recent speech to members of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, President Reagan warned that without increased financial assistance from the United States to these monetary organizations, the world would see a global "economic nightmare."
Reagan warned that if the United States did not increase its share of payments to the already ailing IMF, then other industrialized nations would not give their share.
"At the end of this road," he said, "could be a major disruption of the entire world trading and financial systems — an economic nightmare that could plague generations to come."
The economies of the world's nations are so tightly intertwined at this point that economic disasters in one nation can easily have an ominous impact on the rest of the world.
Mexico is a prime example. The drop in world oil prices combined with the country's terrible inflation
rate and extreme unemployment has devastated the Mexican economy so that it has had great difficulty in making its loan payments to the American banks.
Mexico is not the only country that has huge debts to U.S. banks. Numerous others are in the same position; some of those countries struggling to make their regular payments are living unhappily under the IMF's strict, barebones economic reorganization plans.
To make those payments, these nations must often sap their economies' frugal resources, and then their citizens suffer even more from the extreme cuts in government spending. Making those payments can be an extreme sacrifice for an economy that is struggling to stay afloat.
If they did not make their payments, though, the world economy might just stop, as Reagan warned in his speech. Outstanding loans uses up capital for other loans, trade between nations drops and the worldwide flow of capital ceases.
Heroes and presidents
Does John Glenn have "the right stuff" to be elected president?
Voters will soon have the opportunity to give their opinion on that question. That opinion, however, may be influenced by a new movie about the U.S. space program — and such an influence would add absurdity to the already confusing system of selecting a president.
Political writers for such papers as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have speculated that the movie might boost Glenn's campaign for president by portraying the candidate as a hero.
The movie, called "The Right Stuff," which was adapted from Tom Wolfe's book of the same title, is scheduled for release around Christmas. It depicts the origins of the U.S. space program, and one of the astronauts included in the story is the first American to orbit Earth — John Glenn.
Glenn's orbit undoubtedly was
historic, but an ability to handle spacecraft does not seem to equate with an ability to handle hostile nations or hard-dealing congressmen.
In addition, a campaign based on the extent of Glenn's "American spirit" may distract attention from more important issues, including the economy and international tensions in such places as Lebanon and El Salvador.
Heroes who were elected president in the past — ranging from Andrew Jackson to William Henry Harrison, from Ulysses S. Grant to Dwight D. Eisenhower — have varied greatly in the quality of their terms in the White House, showing that heroism is not necessarily a prerequisite to be president.
Besides, if a person is elected president because of a movie, what's next? Luke Skywalker as secretary of defense? Indiana Jones as secretary of state? E.T. as secretary of the interior?
The long goodbye
When ecstatic, triumphant Australians kissed the America's Cup trophy Tuesday at the New York Yacht Club, they also kissed goodbye to America's dominant role in the longest winning streak in sports history.
Well, so what. Although millions of Americans avidly read the daily reports of exotic tacking duels and timely-switched spinnakers, most likely not one in 1,000 knew what a spinnaker was, much less how to switch one. And those who did were in no position to help Liberty captain Dennis Conner defend the Cup.
a world where rapid change is taken for granted, it's reassuring to know that some things just don't change. For instance, the swallows will always come back to Capistrano, and the Rock of Gibraltar will always be the epitome of solid security.
But that's not important, really. In
Yet there will come a day when the swallows get bored with Capistrano, and the Rock of Gibraltar will crumble into the sea and, now, the Australians will take away our America's Cup. Who's hurt by it? Nobody, really. But for some strange reason — call it romantic immaturity — it's rather sad.
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 Kanasan alw invites individuals to submit question columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansas office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kanasan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
A little compassion needed here
The reasons are different this time. The property value won't go down and it won't create a health hazard.
But some area residents are trying to preserve the sanctity of their neighborhood by keeping a surveillance agency from moving into the area.
The problems for the Indian Center started when it decided that
Seventy residents have gone to a district court judge asking that he keep a house in their neighborhood from being sold to the city for the Lawrence Indian Center. The Judge granted a restraining order last
One of the residents said of the proposed move, "You know, these kind of people are not very particular about where they throw their trash. They'll just make a big mess of the neighborhood."
One official who favors the move said, "I think the residents tend to think that there will be drunken drivers." That means that's just not how it's going to be."
The Indian Center, 2326 Lousiana St., was established in 1971 to aid Indians in their transition from the reservation to Lawrence. The Center now helps all races find housing, food and counseling.
it needed more space and privacy.
After about eight months of searching, it found a house that suited its needs.
A federal grant to pay rent for the Indian Center stipulates that the Center's office be located in a location deemed "unfavorable." E. Renshaw, fulfills that requirement.
But before the Lawrence City Commission agreed to buy the
MICHAEL BECK
$55,000 house and lease it to the
center, residents from the neighborhood approached the city plan
which offered the center housing that the Indian Center not move in.
Staff Columnist
Some of the 24 names on the petition were not notarized, though, and the city planner asked the residents to complete the process.
The residents, however, did not submit the petition again to the planner; rather they presented it to the legislature then voted 3-2 to buy the house.
At the following commission meeting, the number of names on the petition had grown to 70, and residents requested that commissioners would reconsider their decision. The commissioners refused.
The residents then went to court, claiming they had been unfairly treated in the petition process. They said that their petition been accepted, a majority, or four, of the commissioners would have been required to approve the city's purchase of the house.
The residents argue that if the Indian Center moves to the neighborhood, traffic and parking problems will result.
But officials from the Center and from the real-estate agency selling the house say that an average of three to four persons now use the Indian Center on any given day and that they have problems than that to create traffic problems.
Also, the residents argue that because of increased traffic, the Indian Center would have to build a parking lot. But officials say that any parking expansion would simply involve changing the current two-car driver to a four-car drive, which could hardly be classified as a parking lot.
Another argument is that the Center would put up a fence for privacy, destroying the neighbor's property and housing in the area have such fences.
Perhaps the crux of the argument is simply that residents four have people they don't understand, such as their grandparents, frequenting their neighborhood.
But the residents' complaints are unfounded. And if the judge allows the city to buy the house and the Indian Center moves in, the only change that will result will be in the residents' attitude.
Much the same thing that is happening with the Indian Center happened with Cottonwood Inc. when it tried to buy homes for the mentally handicapped in Lawrence residential areas this summer.
The proposed moves of Cottonwood drew highly emotional criticism from the neighborhoods. The program is partly complete, and the neighborhoods have been quiet and the program successful.
The Indian Center is not the culprit. The residents opposed to the Indian Center are creating their own problems. And it's time they learn to be objective by throwing away fear and bias.
Reagan's arms proposal off the mark
UNITED NATIONS — The arms proposals made Monday by President Reagan in the U.N. General Assembly failed to address the central issues that have dedecked Ukraine and have talked with the Soviets in Geneva.
The basic issue of contention in Geneva remains the disagreement about whether the United States or another Union has a military advantage.
The United States says the new family of Soviet weapons, especially the triple-warheaded mobile
The Soviets say their new family of medium-range missiles simply redress an existing imbalance.
JIM ANDERSON United Press International
In that sense, the American response, while it does not satisfy the Soviet demands, does put the burden on the Soviet Union to respond with some negotiating flexibility of their own.
SS-20s, has tilted the balance in favor of the Soviets, who have already begun to use that advantage to politically intimidate Europe.
But the new American proposals nibble at the edge of that disagreement and begin to address some of the specific questions raised by the Soviet Union at the conference table.
—By using a "global approach" to the numbers of medium-range missiles on both sides, he opened the door for a possible compromise. As explained it, the two sides might agree on a total of 300 weapons each.
Three points were addressed by Reagan:
But the Soviets have insisted that the 182 nuclear arms in the British and French arsenals be included in that count. The United States has refused, saying they are a different kind of weapon which should be dealt with in the strategic arms talks, eventually.
The U.S. "global" proposal, if accepted by the Soviets, would elude that issue by an informal deal.
Under the new U.S. idea, the United States would informally agree to station only some of the
agreed upon total of missiles in Western Europe. For example, if the agreed level were 300, only 200 actually be put in place, actually be put in place in Europe.
The United States would reserve
Disarmament double talk
WASHINGTON — Speculation is rife over what new instructions President Reagan may have given U.S. disarmament negotiators at the START talks in Geneva.
But you don't need a highly placed leak to be in on the know.
Start with the latest buzz phrase in American disarmament circles "build-down." The United States paraphrasing this correctly, it would oblige the United States and Russia to dismantle an
DICK WEST United Press International
existing missile for every new one they put on the firing line.
At last count, we were up to "double build-down." And climbing.
I look for someone to advocate a "triple build-down," followed by a "quadruple build-down"
This additional subtraction, or workaround, would continue until the talks were back to "zero option."
magnitude, must be accompanied by a freeze-thaw.
At that point, perhaps the build-down could be tied in with a "freeze-thaw."
If, for example, the next treaty called for a double freeze-thaw, that would mean two old missiles that were fired at every one that is newly frozen
As it now stands, the freeze proposal would hold the number of nuclear weapons at current levels, and that would be that. To make disarmament acceptable to the Soviets, I'm convinced that the build-down, whether in duplicate, triplicate or at whatever
An argument could be made that a double freeze-thaw would not be as meaningful as a "double speed-up delay" insofar as the December deployment of the new standard in Western Europe is concerned.
Under a double speed-up delay, the schedule would be revised as follows:
What Reagan does is speed up the target date for beginning the deployment but delay the target date, finishing the deployment.
Some of the missiles would be deployed as early as November; but for every missile whose deployment is speeded up, the others will be delayed until January. February, June or July.
If that means moving closer to a policy of accidental premeditation, so be it. I say let us back into the world and learn what we achieved descending escalation.
Reagan can never persuade the Soviets to agree to a new treaty until they are convinced that his presidential war promote the cause of peace.
the theoretical right to station the other 100 missiles elsewhere in the world, in Asia or in Alaska, but not actually build or deploy them.
To some arms control hardliners, the speed-up delay concept might seem comparable to an advanced retreat. Let me remind you that disarmament is a two-way street.
—The United States accepts the Soviet insistence that medium-range aircraft capable of carrying bombs be included in the negotiations.
There would be paper equality between the two sides, but the Soviets would maintain a numerical edge in medium-range weapons.
The kind of aircraft is not specified, but the Soviets presumably want the United States to include its F-4 fighter-bombers and Germany and aboard carriers of the dth Fleet in the Mediterranean.
—The United States would be prepared to talk about a guarantee that any cuts on the Western side would include the planned Pershing-2 missiles as well as the ground-launched cruise missiles.
The present Western plan is based on 108 Pershings 2s to be based in West Germany and 464 cruise missiles stationed in West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain and Italy.
If there was agreement with the Soviets at Geneva, the United States would guarantee that any cuts would involve some of the 108 Pershings and would not take just from the 464 cruise missiles.
The Soviets have made it clear, that they fear the Persis because of its short flight time — around to minutes — from launch to target.
A senior U.S. official indicated the United States does not expect that any agreement will be reached in time to head off the planned deployment of the Western weapons, dedicated to begin the end of this year.
But the official said the United States would be willing to dismantle those weapons already deployed if they are to be reached later with the Soviets.
.
---