Page 4 University Daily Kansan, September 22, 1981
Opinion
Solidarity brought home
When American workers start identifying—really identifying—with their counterparts in Poland, it's a good sign that something is amiss in this country.
Over the weekend, more than a quarter of a million people turned out for an organized labor march in Washington that protested the Reagan budget cuts and criticized the administration for being callous and indifferent.
The AFL-CIO, which was breaking its own traditions by sponsoring such a demonstration, borrowed from the Polish labor union movement and called its rank-and-file protest "Solidarity Day." Apparently, it hoped its participation in a mass protest would prove to Reagan and his congressional allies that opposition to their domestic policies runs deeper than they are willing to admit.
It is significant that the rally was a protest without politicians. Oh, several of them showed up at the rally or issued statements containing the usual rhetoric about how the powerful voice of labor couldn't be ignored, but none of them were invited to speak. This was a people's protest, and they made sure the administration heard them loud and clear.
Consider some of the leaders at the rally:
Lane Kirkland, AFL-CIO president;
Benjamin Hooks, executive director of the NAACP; Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization for Women; Jacob Clayman, president of the National Council of Senior Citizens.
These powerful figures are representatives for major sectors of society now squirring under the budget knife wielded by David Stockman and company. They have been individually protesting the administration's policies for months, but now they are banding together in a true showing of "solidarity." There is power, as well as safety, in numbers.
Although Reagan has defeated labor and its allies in every budget battle in Congress to date, Kirkland predicted that "the winter's chill is approaching and the bloom is fading from fall's mandates."
If he's right, Reagan had better start preparing for the day the snow begins to fly.
According to a White House spokesman, Reagan was pleased that the crowd was "warm, generally friendly and peaceful," and he considered the protest a healthy way for the laborers to express their opinions.
But he should also realize that the protesters are not children who are merely screaming to get attention and who will go away if ignored. They are concerned adults who are seriously opposed to the president's policies and are determined to initiate the erosion of his support unless their concerns are addressed. As the Communist Party in Poland has discovered, a groundswell of public disapproval can create a wave that is difficult to ride, especially if it has the advantage of being underestimated.
Handbook for 'today's Army simply ain't makin' the grade
First there was "The Preppy Handbook." This guide explained in detail how to dress, eat and behave.
Then, predictably, came 'The Freak Hand-book,' which explained in proper freak lingo the lengths to which some would go to distinguish themselves from preps.
And now, the latest edition in the handbook that has hit the streets of Fort Carson, Colo., that
This up-to-the-minute garm of a book comes courtesy of the U.S. government and is supposed to serve as a handbook for U.S. soldiers in West Germany.
The newer handbooks for prepuces, freaks and soldiers, however, are marked by their distinct features.
Handbooks, of course, are nothing new. Boy Scouts and Brownies have had them for quite some time. But, as I recall, these manuals were written in English.
REBECCA
CHANEY
Perhaps it is true that preppies do not and would not want to understand freak talk and vice versa. But in its catering to soldiers in war, the Army handbook outdoes both its predecessors.
The public affairs office at Fort Carson, which published the 40-page book, may call the contents of its manual colloquial; I call it clicher-ridden, condescending, absurd and just another indication of the state of the U.S. Armed Forces today.
Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, this book warns against 'getting grabby with frauels', "free-lance hunting or target practice with live furry targets", and 'violent stuff': rape, homicide and things that harm a German community, drug smuggling for one.
Now, I don't want to exaggerate. This book, written on a third-grade reading level, is not for Army officers. It is for approximately 7,000 foot soldiers, many of whom have not graduated from high school and who will be, according to the book, "making war, not love in Germany."
If the book had been written in true English, the average soldier would not have bothered to read it, and probably would not have understood it if he had. That is the证谋 of my husband, who is no expert, but who did spend three years (1977-80) on active duty, enlisted at Fort Riley.
And so the manual attempts to discourage its readers from thoughts of, "Whoopie, now I'm a teacher." (But Mr. McKean, now my teacher.)
over Germany" with the appropriate warning:
"You ain't on your own block."
For those who have never understood (or never heard of) the NATO alliance, there is this comprehensive explanation:
"In the last 30 years the Soviets have beaten the snot out of the satellite nations it controls or wants to control, whenever they take a liking to freedom.
"Now the world is watching the red bear waiting on the Polish borders, just itching to smack 'em into line if they try to pull away from big brother."
To prevent this, "fifteen nations, including us Yanks, ganged up to form" NATO.
Discussing thousands of dollars in damages to West German farms and roads, the book's authors assure, "We ain't talking chump change."
Undoubtedly, the Army thinks it's going to encourage its soldiers to read up on Army regulations by adopting "the lingo." Perhaps the soldier in "today's Army" will have a few laughs, but whether he will give the book any serious consideration is doubtful.
More likely, such "oilcolialisms" will garner about as much respect as a 50-year-old who tries to be sexually active.
To think that this publication came from a public relations office is mind-boggling. Statistics suggesting a decline in the caliber of volunteer Army troops abound. In the past, congressmen and presidents have argued about various solutions to the problems.
With the publication of this handbook, it appears the Army has given up hope for improvement. Not only has it approved the non-English of its uneducated soldiers (I don't know how to speak), but has made a public statement that such a lack of education is acceptable among American fighting forces.
In fact, public relations officers of the Army have even announced plans for a recruiting poster based on Columbia Picutres' movie "Stripes."
In the words of the new handbook: "Here's one last kernel of pure corn for this rah, rah, REFORGER pep talk to think about REFONGER (war games in Germany) is the tool that kinda stuff American soldiers are made of and that your suit isn't green 'cause it's moldy."
The poster would feature "Strips" star Bill Murray replacing Ucick Sam with the pointed finger and message, "I Want You." In the movie, which grossed nearly $72 million in less than 11 weeks, Murray plays an enlisted sonner who specializes in accosting female MPs.
KANSAN
In case you haven't guessed, this new app allows a boy opinion (foreign and domestic) of the Army.
Unfortunately, publication of this handbook leaves no doubt about the kind stuff some Armenians use.
The University Daily
USFS 585-644) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas USA; 30-digit number on $2 a year in Duggett county and six or six months or $8 a year outside the county. Student subscription fee is $190. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Klann, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Editor
Steve C. Faust
Managing Editor
Campus Editor
Editorial Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Retail Sales Manager
Campus Sales Manager
National Sales Manager
Classified Manager
Sales and Marketing Advisor
General Manager and News Advisor
Business Manager
Larry Leibengood
Robert Lekand
Tammy Turreney
Kathy Brunnel
Jay Fortmanke
Terry Knoebler
Judy Caldwell
Mike Lewis Knox
Laura Menness
John Oberras
Jake Martin
©1981 MIAMI JUNIOR
Watt's inflexibility his worst trait
By JEFF THOMAS
Guest Columnist
James Watt has discovered one great principle of problem-solving: conflicts can be resolved much more quickly if you don't look at someone else's point of view.
But with that step, he also scratches himself from the list of people qualified to hold his present position as secretary of the department of the Interior. Watt's exit is overdue.
As a public servant, James Gais Watt is an irresponsible thinker: he lacks the intellectual resilience to have analyze conflicts between valid competing interests without feeling that those who oppose his own policies are personally attacking him. In short, he makes no healthy distinction between his proposals and his total self.
Instead of judging situations as a compromising administrator, Watt rules as an unbending demagogue. His crime is not so much where his loyalties lie—with resource profiteers rather than resource preservers—as the absolute nature of his sympathies.
Watt evidently has one main belief about the critics he deals with: "These people are committed to destroying what I want to achieve, and that means destroying me."
Understandably, he responds to criticism of his policies with spontaneous emotion rather than being as critical as he seems.
Tom Garrett, a Wyoming conservationist close to Watt, explains the secretary this way, "One sure way of not changing him is to fight him. He reacts defensively."
In the first weeks after moving into his new
office, Watt held a meeting with several conservation groups, including the Audubon Society, so that the environmentalists and Watt could get to know each other and exchange general concerns. Soon after the meeting began, Watt's temper broke and he accused the shocked representatives of deliberately poisoning his reputation.
In another case, Watt refused to negotiate with the House Interior Committee on the issue of opening more public lands to development. The power struggle ended with the insisted committee voting to prohibit exploration in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in Montana, dealing a setback to Watt's development plans.
Rep. Morris Udall, committee chairman, said the confrontation with Watt could have been avoided if Watt "had come and talked to us. Ceil Andrus would call and ask what we thought. Not Watt. He would rather make loud protestations about how tough he is."
Of course, officials can't avoid having personal sentiments on the issues they deal with, and they should have the dedication to them into policy as objectively as possible.
But it is far different for a strong-minded official to blatantly insulate himself from the wrath of others.
Watt set his pattern of ideological entrenchment early. Within days of his confirmation as secretary of the Interior, he invited department employees on the opposite side of the economic growth-environmental conservation dilemma to "seek opportunities elsewhere." The next month he fired 51 Interior employees.
Likewise, government agencies that are a bit too vigorous in their concern for the environment, at least in Watt's eyes, may receive his best efforts to stifle them.
Just when Watt came to power, the conclusions of a special study, issued within the annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality, finally fitted into the popular press. The three-year study, the most ambitious effort by any government to assess long-term trends in world population growth, food supplies, and environmental conditions, concluded with recommendations for the United States to lead a new decade of heightened environmentalism around the world.
Watt's reaction to the report was to muzzle its authors. Under Watt's advice, and in large part on his own, President Reagan pared the assault on the third- and cut its staff from 50 to 16 members.
With the council gutted of funds and personnel, the next annual report might be "no more than a political document used to boost the economy" for Mr. Baldwin, acting CEQ chairman, has said.
At whatever the cost to the CEQ and other agencies in coming years, Watt seems to have established himself as the most recent and pure example of a certain type of decision-making model in action. Call it the paranonia paradigm. A sketch of the model would show the "input" from an "output" from a selected brotherhood system, from growth sympathies. The arrows showing pleas by all general interests of the public would only bounce off.
Surely Watt espouses a view that deserves to be considered in environmental and economic planning. But a paranoid absolutist in any school of thought is unfit for, and dangerous in, any cabin position. Undiluted by simple reason, Watt should leave.
(Jeff Thomas is a senior majoring in journalism.)
Letters to the Editor
Veto on S. Africa contradicts U.S. policy
To the Editor
The U.S. veto of economic sanctions against the South African apartheid government was not a surprise. The Reagan administration met secretly with the head of South Africa military intelligence earlier this year—defying U.S. policy toward South Africa. That policy had included a total ban on the sale of military equipment and a ban on official visits to the United States by top South African military personnel.
I do not intend to challenge the use of the veto. China, France, Britain and the Soviet Union also possess the power. On the issue of the South African invasion of Angola, the United States broke with her allies to cast the only negative vote at the U.N.'s Security Council meeting. West Germany and France supported the condemnation of South Africa; Britain abstained.
But the Reagan administration did not time the veto correctly.
First, South-West Africa (Namibia) is a territory administered by South Africa's white-minternity government. The administration of Namibia by Peter Botha under an old League of Nations mandate is in defiance of U.N. resolutions.
Both's refusal to grant independence to Namibia could be because an independent Namibia would stop the constant flow of 'cheap and minerals from Namibia to South Africa.
France and Britain, with their "contact group," Canada and West Germany, have been pressing South Africa to grant independence to Namibia, but Botsha has refused to do so.
Second, it has become a tradition of the Soviet Union to take sides with any nation that is not supported by the United States. Thus the U.S. action may have prompted the recent increase in the number of East German, Cuban and Soviet troops stationed in Angola.
Third, the South-West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) guerrillas may continue to turn to the Warsaw Pact for help and support to fight their cause. SWAPO has little chance of winning in the United States seems to support the South African invasion of SWAPO guerrilla camps in Angola.
This might also cause an increased Soviet presence in Africa.
Fourth, South Africa's white-minority government is the only government in the world that practices "apartheid," an official policy of segregation that promotes to promote and maintain white ascendancy.
We should watch apartheid policies closely. Apartheid is as dangerous as communism.
If the Reagan administration supports South Africa's indiscriminate raids on, and invasion of South Africa's neighbors, then it supports international terrorism. Yet it have been told that
Since taking command, the Reagan administration has been making hard-line speeches, warning the Cubans, Libyans and their father. Russia, to stop international terrorism.
The same administration has turned around to veto condemnation of South Africa's invasion of Angola—an act of terrorism. In the absence of any explanation, I would assume that the administration is leaining toward support for another kind of international terrorism.
To limit Soviet expansion in Africa, the Reagan administration should carefully consider its policies toward South Africa's white-minority government and other African states.
Apollo E. Dimbo
Apollo E. Dimbo Port Hercourt, Nigeria senior
Port Harcourt, Nigeria senior
I've conversed with two male students, each of whom is living with his "girl friend." Really "going all the way" is when a couple (man and woman) are willingly, completely, permanently married. We have included all others. It is the ultimate risk (no tumult, no bulding) for those who dare, and it is true beauty.
T
A young saleman friend of mine regards KU as one of the most morally liberal schools in the country. I'm glad presacher George "Jed" Smock was here, though I disagree with about 10 per cent of his remarks and methods. This campus is a remarkable awareness such as promoted by Brother Jed.
Spiritual awareness
To the Editor:
The big lie of cutting corners includes heavy
drinking, doing drugs and dabbling in witchcraft.
God loves misguided students. The completely
dont settle for less than Jesus Christ.
Don't settle for less than Jesus Christ.
By the way, Maranatha Ministries, under the local leadership of Bob Duvall (former football star) operates at the Kansas Union. Students, you won't be treated to treatment issues. You won't be bored. Ira Brow
Facilities Operations
KU supports concerts To the Editor:
The announcement of cancellation of the Sept. 25 Tubes concert in the Sept. 16 Kanzen quoted Duke Devine, student director of SUA Special Events, as saying, "The reason the promoter pulled out is because this bloody campus doesn't give a s—about concerts here or not."
Whether this opinion is that of Duke Devine or the promoter is unclear; regardless, it is wrong. The turnout for a previous SUA concert, "Peter Tosh, Wanted Dread and Alive," as well as other local concerts, is evidence enough. Students were responsive and active during the Tosh concert, and as for ticket sales, the house sold about 1,600 tickets by show time.
If Devine, the promoter, is arguing that turnout is poor for New Wave concerts, this is another matter, also dispatible. The success of the Sept. 14 "Go-Go's" concert at the Lawrence Opera House is evidence of this. The concert was sold out (80 tickets) by mid-afterword of the event, and people were still turned away. An Opéra de Paris could have easily sold another 200 tickets." Again, the audience actively participated and enjoyed the concert.
Let it not be said that "this campus doesn't give a s— about concerts." KU has a good proportion of students who appreciate live entertainment, good music and a good time. It is too bad that Lawrence has missed this concert, and that concert-goers will have to go somewhere else, in this case Kansas City, as is the case for most concerts.
Lynn Barnes Parsons junior