UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of
February 13, 1979
State needs railroads
The battle taking place this week before the Kansas House Judiciary committee is between familiar rivals: New transportation technology versus the aged railroad.
For the fifth consecutive year, members of the coal industry will try to convince legislators that 300 miles of a 1,400 mile, five-state coal slurry pipeline should run through central Kansas.
The first step to meet that goal, pipeline proponents say, is the passage of a limited eminent domain bill that would give pipeline builders the right to build on property already designated as eminent domain, such as property owned by utilities and railroads.
HOWEVER, to pass such legislation, Kansas railroad officials content, would severely hamper the railroad industry in Kansas and would pass along costs to other industries.
An official from the Kansas Railroad Association said that the hauling of coal in Kansas was "by far the largest, single source of traffic and income" for the state's eight railroads.
The immediate result of the pipeline would be cutbacks in the number of employees working on the railroads. Employees in the 14,000 railroad emloyers in Kansas.
Additional taxes would be levied on other cargo transported by the railroads. This means more taxes for wheat farmers, who depend heavily on
the railroad for transportation of their crops during harvest.
WHILE THERE seems to be evidence that Kansas stands to lose a great deal by approving construction of a coal pipeline, there is little evidence suggesting that Kansas will gain huge benefits.
PROPONENTS maintain that the railroads will not be able to handle the expected increases in the coal supply, but a study by the state Office of Technology Assessment has found that railroads could handle any expected increase in coal.
Proponents state that the pipeline would be more efficient, but one wonders about the eventual cost of transporting the 25 million tons of coal annually. To date there are no agreements with power plants along the proposed pipeline route for delivery of the coal, and transport rates for the coal cannot be determined without knowing the exact number of destination points.
One wonders whether construction of the coal pipeline in Kansas is in the best interest of the state and its citizens. The Legislature must decide whether a new technology is worth the losses inflicted on an industry that has an annual payroll of about $240 million in Kansas and has long been a major coog in this state's transportation system.
The answer should be a resounding "no."
Taiwanese government distorted by columnist
To the editor:
Reading the article, "Taiwan Ruled by Security Forces," Kansan, Feb. 7, I cannot but believe that Edward Friedman associated himself with a handful of persons who proclaimed anti-Taiwan government as a threat to the nation, predominated in the article, it seems to be difficult for readers not to view the Taiwan government as a party of terrorists.
It is not worthwhile to refute each accusation that was so limited to his radical point of view. It is, however, absurd to read, "They (Koumintang) were frightened. They refused to accept the reality and sad fate of Cambodian people and the refugees from Vietnam." Absurd, because he tried to convince and impress the public with a view that the Koumintang took advantage of the so-called 'propaganda' to carry out a coup over the Taiwanese in a threatening way.
The image of the government has been so distorted that no person, except those sophisticated readers, can detect his subservience. It is that readers by deliberately ignoring the effort and the achievement already made by our government. To our disappointment and amusement, Friedman, a specialist in science, has missed our readers thus far.
Rather than a historian, Friedman was totally ignorant of the cruel fact that Cambodians and Vietnamese were the victims of the genocide. Many people have been killed in the last 30 years.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is after graduation, you should include the writer's class and home or town faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
in mainland China. Is this not the biggest tragedy ever seen in the world?
Letters Policy
Friedman's absurdity,wholly based upon a presumption that the Kuomintang and the Taiwanese or even many mainlanders are two distinct entities,i.e.the ruler and the king, had never been expressed in the impression of the Taiwanese attitude towards US-Sino normalization. Again,它 is absurd to read,"what Taiwanese picture was not a horror but liberation from a hated oppressor,"because all people in Taiwan were victims of the implementation of communism there.
Friedman, for some reason or the other, has entitled himself to draw an arbitrary line between the Kuomintang and the Taiwanese government. Kuomintang is the ruling party composed exclusively of mainlanders and therefore ideologically opposed to the Taiwanese. If advised, however, that the Taiwanese and mainlanders have been in great numbers on the island, Mr. Lin, Vice President Shieh and many counselors in the United States are Taiwanese, Friedman would have given our readers quite a different story instead of just, "the Taiwanese are virtually all Taiwanese and even many mainlanders residing in Taiwan."
A little knowledge is dangerous. Nothing less dangerous would be the naive thinking held by Friedman in saying, "Many (Taiwanese) increasingly have concluded that it is possible for Taiwan's people without closer economic and cultural association with Peking." This, to our best knowledge, is nothing but a theory of his own making. It is, however, a reality that people in Taiwan never get a golden egg by killing a chicken.
The Taiwanese would never gain any benefit from a government that has been forced to disarm its militiamun to the core that they would rather die than "be red." Thinking that reliability is expressed numerically, we suggest that a candidate of the Taiwanese attitude toward Communists.
Taiwan graduate student
Tai Chin-Chun
Perhaps the most pressing issue that confronts the Carter administration this year is the completion of a second treaty limitation treaty with the Soviet Union.
SALT treaty necessary for stability
Negotiations between the two powers stalled in December when the Soviets refused to agree on the opinion on some of the fine points of the treaty. Although no date for signing the treaty has been set, an agreement is expected to be completed in the first half of 2015.
Much of the debate will focus on the ability of the United States to maintain equality with Soviet nuclear power and to hold Russian compliance with treaty provisions.
But that agreement will have some rough going in Congress.
Hard-liners in Congress are quick to note that under the proposed treaty, increases in missile-launch silos, or underground tunnels for nuclear weapons would limit the put Soviet Union in a superior strategic position, for by the time the treaties expire in 1985 the Soviets will have the capacity to destroy the more than 10 Minuteman missiles housed in silos.
Phillip Garcia
MILITARY EXPERTS say this potential advantage could be balanced by increasing the number of silos in use. With the addition of a new game" whereby the Minuteur missiles would rotate among silos, leaving some with a single cat and mouse with Soviet strategists.
Treaty opponents also note that the new treaty would limit the development of the cruise-missile, which many believe is needed to counter the increased number of Russian missiles deployed by the Soviets since the SALT I limitations were imposed in 1972.
Of course, there is also the problem of verification, making sure the Soviets do not increase their nuclear arsenal beyond treaty limits. Part of the verification problem is the Soviet tactic of coding information from missile tests. Critics note that SALT II provides no provision against coding.
BUT VERIFICATION may not be feasible. Political and social instability in countries such as Iran, where the U.S. employs monitoring equipment, could cause disruptions in the monitoring network. Furthermore, increased sophistication of new weapon systems could make current monitoring techniques obsolete.
But this concern for equality and verification may not be legitimate SALT1.
Under the proposed treaty, a ceiling of 2,250 strategic missiles would be imposed. In addition, there would be limits on the number of missiles containing multiple warheads. That limitation would be advantageous to the United States, since the number of warheads according to estimates, about 700 fewer strategic missiles than the Soviet Union.
But while the Soviet Union has more warplanes, tanks and nuclear submarines, the U.S. has about twice as many nuclear weapons than Russia, and the awesome Poseidon submarine missile.
EACH POSEIDON missile carries 14 warheads, each with an explosive energy equal to 40,000 to 50,000 tons of TNT, or twice the amount of power used to bomb
Hiroshima. And each warhead has the chilling capacity to destroy everything within a 28 square mile area. Military experts say it would require only two Poseidon submarines to destroy every major urban center in Russia.
So what is to be gained from a treaty that provides parity but does not prohibit improvement of existing arms or ban new systems?
On the surface, it will be gained toward the actual elimination of nuclear arms. But a SALT II agreement, however, would allow either an immediate and intensive intensification of nuclear arms. Moreover, a treaty would provide stability to U.S.-Soviet relations, which have become strained by the U.S. attack on Syria and by Russia's spreading influence in Africa.
Opponents of a SALT II agreement, in trying to meet the best interests of the United States, must not forget the interests of the international community.
Any agreement that limits nuclear arms is a responsible act in the interest of each country. And any obstacles to a SALT II agreement should be weighed against the ideal goal: world stability and peaceful interaction.
American leadership elitist, amoral
By JOHN LEBOUTILLIER
N V. Times Feature
NEW YORK—The Westinghouse Electric Corporation recently pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the bribery of a former deputy prime minister of Egypt in return for contracts worth millions of dollars.
In announcing the penalty in the case, U.S. District Judge Barrington Parker criticized earlier attempts by the federal prosecutors and the corporation to keep secret the identity of the parties involved. The judge also frowned on claims in contemporary American leadership; an elitist disdain for the public and an amoral disrespect for the law.
These two characteristics are not confined to that incident nor to one political party. Indeed, these attitudes permeate our society and the culture we have repeatedly seen these two principles become a part of the thinking of some of America's future leaders both as an undergraduate at Harvard College and now under my studies at Harvard Business School.
STATE U. BY T.M. ASLA
ALTHOUGH these flaws are not restricted to those on the Cambridge, Mass., campus, Harvard is a symbol for leaders in America, a class of people who today are fraught with elitism and dripping with amorality.
The Harvard of yesterday seems far different. Harvard has produced some of
It is inevitable. You can't stop it. At last we will be able to run the country the right way." The other students nodded their heads in affirmation.
america's greatest leaders: five U.S. presidents, Nobel Prize winners, legal scholars, pioneering business executives and thousands of outstanding members of local communities. These men and women were uniquely representative of America's leaders, and they held both a belief in our people and a respect for our laws.
I EXPECTED my peers to have those qualities that signify leadership potential: strength, security, an understanding of public service, and most of all, a sense of public service.
This tradition and sense of history are not lost on impressionable 18-year-old freshmen who are excited to step into the freshman imagery that he is surrounded by independently minded classmates and teachers—men and women capable of challenging, inspiring and inspiring on a wide number of issues.
I was tremendously disappointed. During a class discussion in my sophomore year, I heard a comment that
When I inquired about the "we", the instructor smiled. He said, "The educated elite will run the government because we know that it is possible to determine the state's priorities."
I argued against this elitist notion of leadership, the idea that Harvard people were "better" than other people and thus were better equipped to determine how other people should live their lives. I was soon pleased "the only conservative at war."
WHEN I decided to go to Harvard Business School I again believed that I would be surrounded by men and women who were eager to appreciate the responsibilities that would accompany their future positions as managers of America's leading private and public institutions. Instead, I became as a student as I was with many of the undergraduates.
One day my class section was confronted with a business problem that involved conforming with state-regulated building. Some quick mathematical figuring indicated that the requirements would cost $25,000. This would mean decreased profits.
At that point in the discussion, a member
I CHALLENDED this so-called logic, that I can't be serious. I mean that's breaking the law."
of the class offered an "alternate solution." He routinely explained how much simpler and "cost effective" it would be to pay the company $15,000 per year preserving at least $15,000 in profit.
I was greeted with snickers, derisive laughter and a patronizing lecture: "Obviously you haven't been out in the real world because if you had you'd know that if our competitors do it then we have to do it too."
For continuing to challenge this logic, I was labeled "the bleeding-heart liberal of the 1960s."
The moral decay exhibited both by an elitist notion of inbred superiority and by an easy acceptance of law-breaking to solve business problems is not confined to a race. In fact, this lack of morality among America's leaders is indicative of a larger trend.
THROUGHOUT our society, those in leadership positions are increasingly divorced from those they are supposed to lead. When you see gigantic corporations
knowingly produce and market unsafe products, union leaders robbing their members' pension funds, doctors performing unnecessary surgery and, most of all, publicly elected officials voting themselves huge pay increases and then disguising that vote to escape the wrath of a thrift-minded organization, this trivial becomes one of many. Many of them also seem to have nothing but contempt for the American people and for the law.
For America to survive, our leaders will have to respect their special responsibility and remember that they hold their positions of leadership not to rule but to serve.
By combining their elitist disdain for the American people and an amoral disdain for the law this leadership class exposes itself to a new kind of social injustice who hate America. These erstwhile leaders know that as they rise in American society their privileges increase, but they forget that their responsibilities increase as well. They are more love privilege but abuse responsibility.
John BoLeut堡, a second-year student at the Harvard Business School, is author of The Global Reality of Work.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
(USPS 650-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday through Thursday during June and July except Saturday, and Sunday and holiday weekdays. $15 for a student subscription or $35 for $15 for each month or $2 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through activity free.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
1000 changes of address to the University Daily Kansan; Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 60045
Editor
Barry Massey
Managing Editor Direk Stejmei
Direk Steinel John Whiteside
Campus Editor Associate Campus Editor Pam Mannon Assistant Campus Editors Carol Hunter, David Link Graphics Editor Randy Doren Dillon Poster
Editorial Editor
John Whitesides
Business Manager
Karen Wenderott
Retail Sales Manager
National Advertising Manager
Sales Representative Manager
Assistant Classified Advertising Manager
Director of Marketing Manager
Staff Artist
Bon Altman
Bret Miller
Kitty McMahon
Duncan Butts
Dalia Cavazos
Grant Ringel
General Manager Rick Musser
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins