Page 4
University Daily Kansan, October 29, 1981
Opinion
Darkest before dawn
"I have three tests this week, one midterm, two papers due, four projects to finish for computer science and a 750-page book to read for English. And I have no motivation to study. I mean, none!"
It's definitely mid-semester time at KU.
Students are playing the "can you top this?" game every chance they get, trying to convince themselves and anybody who will listen that they have the worst possible schedule, and the greatest potential for early death, of anyone on campus. Trouble is, it's usually not too hard to believe.
For most of us, there is no such thing as a light at the end of the tunnel right now. No light, no crack, no spark. Nothing. Just a growing feeling of panic to match the growing pile of homework.
Not only do we not know how we're going to get everything done, we no longer care. Or so we say.
Massive burnout sets in about now, too.
But we always find the will to keep struggling along, usually by setting our sights on a reprieve somewhere down the road.
For instance, we might live for the weekend—that's the short-term strategy. Or perhaps we are living for Thanksgiving vacation. Or if things look grim for the duration, we might be living for the end of the semester (only 24 more class days). And, of course, some of us are living for graduation, whether we're seniors or not.
In any case, things will probably get worse before they get better, which is either part of Murphy's Law, or should be. After that, however, there's no place to go but up.
Need for SALT negotiations as real today as in late '60s
By MORTON H. HALPERIN New York Times Special feature
WASHINGTON-As Congress begins to debate the wisdom of the administration's new strategic weapons package and continued reluctance to open SALT negotiations, it should recall why the Johnson and Nixon administrations decided to open a serious dialogue with Moscow about limiting such weapons. This dramatic departure—which was an enormous success—was based on three conclusions that are as valid in the early 1980s as they were in the late 1960s.
The first is that the days of U.S. nuclear superiority are over. Richard M. Nixon came into office committed to restoring the overwhelming superiority that America enjoyed in the Eisenhower era. To his credit, he was quickly convinced that there was no way, given the nuclear weapons and the destructive power of nuclear weapons, to regain a political edge.
This has led the administration into proposing a combination of offensive and defensive measures, along with command, control and communication facilities that would give America (on paper, in my view) a credible capability (inability and thus politically useful strategic superiority).
The Reagan defense team reportedly is still resisting that conclusion. They have, no doubt, discovered by now that the imminent Soviet superiority in strategic forces that they warned about in the election campaign is as non-existent as the "missile gap" was in 1960.
One does not have to be as suspicious of the Kremlin as the White House is to understand that Moscow will not permit that to happen. If the Russians need to spend more on strategic forces to avoid being put back into a position of inferiority, they will do so. The size and scope of their strategic weapons programs leave no doubt that they can.
The second assumption that led to initiation of the SALT process was the belief that both sides would find it easier to limit the deployments of their own weapons if they had some assurance about the future strategic weapons deployments of the other side.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, the father of SALT, came to believe that he could not prevent a large American anti-ballistic missile program unless he could demonstrate that the Soviet Union was not planning such a program. That was the initial
impetus for SALT and the results were spectacularly successful
The final conclusion starting SALT was that negotiated agreements could reduce the risk that both sides would stumble into a nuclear war. This would be done by reducing the strategic risk of an attack, and thereby eliminating the fear on each side that they might initiate a nuclear exchange in a crisis.
The main element of SALT I, the permanent treaty bering large ABM systems, ensured that the strategic forces that survived a first strike would be large enough to destroy the other country, thereby eliminating the fear and the effectiveness of a successful first strike.
Thus, the ABM treaty, which followed nature, would not lead to the aid to SALT, but rather the risk of nuclear war.
Certainly, the administration is entitled to examine all of the conclusions that produced SALT and the virtually unanimous support that the ABM treaty received in Washington. But it also has an obligation to share its tentative conclusions with Congress and the public and to listen to a full range of opinions before it abandons the SALT process.
The administration's strategic weapons package, with its focus on a choice of weapons.
Congress should ferret them out. It needs to ask whether the decision to proceed with the MX missiles and the B-1 bomber, while also improving command and control, is designed to give the United States a credible first-strike force and enable us to fight a limited nuclear war. Congress needs to ask whether it makes sense to purchase the MX before Congress knows whether it will be able to examine whether it is possible to make the MX invulnerable except with an ABM system, and should anticipate pressure from the administration to build such a system.
Among the casualties of such an effort would certainly be the ABM treaty. If, on the other hand, this radical change in course is rejected, the treaty can become what it was always meant to be. It allows the strategic set of strategic limitations designed to control the arms race and reduce the risk of war.
(Morton H. Halperin is a member of the Committee for National Security, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that studies national security issues. In the Johnson administration, he assists secretary of defense, he was responsible for arms-control planning from 1967 to 1989.)
Postal anarchy frustrates Americans
There used to be a time in this country when years would go by—even decades—and postal rates would stay the same. The old Post Office Department was the model of consistency, if not efficiency. For a quarter of a century, the 3-cent stamp reigned supreme.
Then things began to change. Rates jumped to 4 cents, then 5 cents, then 6, 8 and 10. But, still, there were several years between most of those increases, which helped cushion the blow. And besides, going from 3 cents to 4 cents after 25 years seemed reasonable.
Then postal rates began taking kangaroo steps. The 10-cent rate went to 13, which went to 15, which went to 18. It was all because of inflation, we were told.
And that brings us to 1981, when postal rates change by the month instead of by the decade. Sunday, for the second time this year, postal rates are going up—a first-class stamp will cost a full one-third more than it did in January.
Postal anarchy, long in the making, has finally arrived.
These days, the Postal Service can't even print stamps with a denomination on them without fear of the rates changing before the stamps are distributed. That's why letters of the alphabet, instead of numbers, have been selected to serve as denominations on stamps issued for rate-charge emergencies. You surely remember the famous "A" stamp.
Just a couple of weeks old is the "C" stamp, which is to postage what letters of the 19th century were sent.
But scarcely was the "C" stamp distributed—with the imaginary denomination of 20 cents—before the "D" stamps were being readied. Maybe the USPS would be wise to print up the "X," "Y" and "Z" stamps now to avoid the rush later. And after all the letters of the alphabet are used up-say, by February—then Chinese characters can be used. That ought to last a while.
Now, the Postal Service's problems are understandable, given the tremendous job it has to do. It moves an astronomical amount of mail, most of it reasonably efficient, and yet it suffers from not enough volume. It mechanized its distribution and cut back its personnel and added block after block onto the routes of mail carriers.
And it kept raising rates, so that Sunday the rate will be twice what it was in 1973.
Still, the postal system's woes grow worse and worse.
Most of the problem is not inflation, but rather the idea behind the U.S. Postal Service, created 10 years ago with the intention of removing mail delivery from the politics of government. The concept was to have a semi-independent postal system that would operate as a break-even proposition—no profits, but no deficits, either. It looked good on paper.
DON
MUNDAY
But as the years went by and the annual deficits bloated into the hundreds of millions of dollars, the Postal Service saw rate increases as the panacea to the problem. But each time rates are raised, people send fewer Christmas cards and businesses find alternate methods of delivering junk mail. Magazines have even started their own delivery services rather than strangle on increasing postal rates.
After 10 years, the Postal Service has discovered the secret of pricing its own customers, the American people, right out of the market.
It made its problem worse this year when it
got only part of the 20-cent rate it wanted. But 18 cents was made the rate, and millions of stamps were printed, presumably to last at the end through the end of the year. No such luck.
Postmaster General William Bolger said the 18-cent rate was only temporary. Earlier this month, he noted that the buck stopped with him, not with the president, because his agency was "autonomous from the administration in matters such as rates." And now the postal czar finally has his wish—the 20-cent rate.
Once upon a time, the American people had a say in postal rates because Congress set those rates. But that's not the case under the Postal Service, which, under government sanction, has the power of imposing its will upon the nation. Congressmen sit by, shake their heads and say, "It's bad, but there's nothing we can do about it."
Nothing, indeed! Congress created the United States Postal Service, and Congress can abolish it, bringing mail delivery back to the people in government—and the people—where it belongs.
As for the problem deficits, for the price of one B-1 bomber, the Postal Service could be kept quite solvent this year and through much of next year, too. Congress should admit that the grand postal experiment failed and that it would prompt a breakeven proposition. By using general revenue to offset deficits, postal rates could even drop, to 18 or even 15 cents.
After all, is the Department of Defense expected to break even? How about the food stamp program? Why does Congress assume other functions of government aren't break-even businesses, when the Postal Service is supposed to be?
Besides, if Congress insists on subsidizing tobacco growers, you'd think it could subsidize the governmental service most used by the American public—the mail system.
Letters to the Editor
Tolerance, freedom essential to U.S. educational system
To the Editor:
I cannot accept Kevin Helliker's Oct. 21
announcement that he should deepen
his work on the project.
Despite all the abuse we have been subjected to in recent years, the United States is still considered by most of the world to be a land of opportunity and freedom and is recognized as the world center of technology. This is a reputation I believe we should live up to.
Education is probably the best form of foreign aid. Foreign students at KU learn useful skills that they can use to improve conditions in their home countries. A responsible, humanitarian aid provider must be an active participant in all nations, friendly or otherwise, in the interest of reducing human suffering everywhere.
Forcing a foreign student to sign an oath of allegiance to the U.S. government could put him in a dangerous predicament. If an Iranian student makes known publicly that he is opposed to Khomeini, he may as well give up any plans of going to Syria while the Khomeini government is still in power.
The free flow of knowledge and culture should also lead to an increased feeling of tolerance, though there will be foolies like the Iranian who will continue to resort to bigotry and violence.
More importantly, this could set a dangerous precedent. If education may be withheld from foreign students because of political belief, what would happen if the students were domestic students as well? Students could be denied admission to college because they have beliefs that are, in someone's perception, unAmerican. Favoring abortion or ERA or opposing prayer in the schools could be grounds for
KU could refuse to educate Joe Bartos for being unfriendly to the military-industrial
complex, Don Munday for favoring a "worldwide communal revolution," or Coral Beach for
Bob Armstrong Leawood sophomore
Let us not lower ourselves to the level of authoritarian government or political basing.
Famous words twisted
Putting opposing editorials on the same page in the Oct. 21 Kansan was a nice touch. Are we being led to believe that we can expect more of the same in the future?
Ben Jones' editorial, on the other hand, came right out of the "ought to be" school, a place where people believe that what is "good" in theory can be correlated with real world events.
To the Editor:
The very fact that we can, with a stretch of the literary imagination, remove the thoughts of these great men from the context in which those thoughts were framed, and in so doing, deceive the unread into believing that these men supported this position or that, does not give us a license to employ this technique. In my own case, then, I simply retuase to be canned that easily.
Thus, where the question of Iranian education is concerned, we are made to think that Thomas Jefferson and even Jesus Christ are against us if we advocate divorce. Isn't this a new twist to the question?
I personally found Kevin Helliker's opinion more appealing because it was not as concerned with the topic.
Where the Iranian deportation question is concerned, I believe a policy of "suspicious and insulting" relations with Iran will be beneficial.
means basically anything you want it to mean—does not, in my opinion, give the Iranians a license to propagate the immoral fanaticism of Khomeini's particular brand of Moslem Nazism.
If they want to believe that the Ayatollah is something that he is not, namely a sane man, fine. But here in America, where Allah's influence does not extend, these people should, at least, learn to embrace themselves. And if they can't do this one simple thing, let them be heroes back in Iran.
Randy Oswald Olathe senior
To the Editor:
Oh. you've seen him, frozen in some jauity stance in front of Strong Hall, or grinning like an imbecile from the cover of a notebook during a shower, or走动, or marching clone-like across a car window
The Kansas Jayhawk. Have you ever wondered just what this creature is that represents our school and the state of Kansas in the eyes of those who strange creature really a reflection of us?
People complain about a lack of school spirit,
but why should a football fan get excited about it?
A teacher said that the students did.
The time has come for the Jayhawk to go the way of the dodo bird. KU should have a new mascot more worthy of the dignity and pride of Kansas.
"Now the old order would respond indignantly, 'Change the school mascot? Why, that files in my computer.'"
It's true, the Jayhawk does have tradition, but it can't even fly. Contrary to popular opinion, the Jayhawk can fly.
contest in 1874, but rather a reminder of a violent time.
When the state of Kansas was born, "Jayhawkers" was the name given free-state men in their battles with Missourians over slavery. The Jayhawkers wore red leggings to distinguish themselves from their foes, hence the red socks on our present mascot.
In today's world, the Jayhawk is not a symbol of mystery, but a bizarre embarrassment that only inhibits the real.
No doubt the Jahayhwak was a symbol of a valid cause rightly won by Kanaas man, but the past has been an insignificant one.
Why not change our mascot to simply the Hawk?
The Kansas Hawks has a noble ring. True to the spirit of the state and its people, the hawks soars above and beyond the prairie, cutting circles in the sky. The graceful bird would no doubt inspire students to work hard or give spirit to their defensive football team on their own line up.
Brown and gold, like wheat, would be more appropriate colors than crimson and blue.
"Ad astra per aspera" is a good goal for a hawk. To get to the stars you need to go near, but that's pretty hard to do with wings that don't flare. In long jayhawk. Your day in the sun is passing.
Bonar Menninger
Topeka junior
As for tradition, the hawk goes back further than any rabble of jawhacking alumni. The hawk was here when the land was virgin. Native Americans, themselves no strangers to Kansas, worshipped and admired the hawk long before the white man came. In the best sense, the hawk represents the tradition of the land, the wind and freedom, which is, after all, what Kansas is.
The University Daily
KANSAN
Kansas Telephone Numbers
Business Office - 864-4358
USPS $85 (46%) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except on Friday and Saturday. Mail to USPS at 141 Lone Star, Commerce, 60649. Subscriptions by mail are a$13 for six months or $27 a year in Douglas County and a$1 for six months or $24 a semester. Payments are a$4 fee. passages are a$4 fee.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University
Duly Kassan, Flint Hall. The University of Kansas,
Kansas City, KS.
Editor Business Manager
Coffret Head Larry Leibengood
Campus Editor Robert J. Schaud
Editorial Editor Kidney Balsam
Campus Editorial Kidney Balsam
Assistant Campus Editors Kate Pound, Gene George
Assignment Editor Cynthia L. Currier
Head Copy Chief Don Munday
Wire Editors Pam Howard, Vanessa Herton
Sports Editor Trace Hamilton
Sports Editor Trace Hamilton
Makeup Editor Cindy Campbell, Anna Cullin
Copy Chief Jenny Bryuk, Kady Maig
Shift Photographers Bob Grobman, Keith Klaney,
Staff Artist Karl Richardson
Editorial Columnists Kerr Beach,童培萍
Columnist Chaney K楚湘,童培萍
Dun Munday,David Henry,K Brian Levinson,
 Kevin Helmiller,Kian Kase, Brad Starr
Editorial Cartoonist Sei Satuo
Retail Sales Manager Terry Knoebler
Campus Sales Manager Judy Caldwell
Chaise Manager Kevin Levinson
Classified Manager Laura Menezes
Retail Sales Representatives John Kelly McCarthy, Beth Seltle
Lille John, Yehne Youre, Susan Cooke
Daniel John, Howard Shankaway, Perry Beal, Brad Howard
Saron Beldin
Campus Sales Representatives Li McKenna, Trace Campbell,
Burnnerman, Charlie Curren
Sales and Marketing Adviser Rick Musker
General Manager and News Advisor