Friday, October 19, 1973
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
KSU Humbled Twice
Few weeks bring two humilies to K-State. But last week did.
Indeed, it's a petty struggle but one that has excited aggie administrators' fire.
Of course, the purple pussycats were humbled in football by Kansas' Jayhawks. But something else caused more humiliation: enrollment. Official enrollment figures apparently will list K-State as the third largest university in Kansas. It had been second. Wichita State reportedly has passed K-State to become Kansas distant rival for the largest enrollment.
On a radio program Friday afternoon, an assistant to the president of K-State gave a stern—yes, angry—reprimand to those who would dare accuse K-State of lagging in enrollment. He demanded that no enrollment verdict be decried until full-time equivalent enrolment was computed. This figure, he said, would indicate the true number of people attending the state's schools.
attending the institution.
Quite the contrary, it would indicate nothing but the number of credit hours the institutions teach. K-State allows its students to enroll in more credit hours per semester than many other colleges. This would tend to inflate full-time
equivalents.
Why is K-State screaming?
Because funding for state schools is largely based on equivalent enrollment figures. If the funding formal were changed, as suggested by Cancellor Archie R. Dykes, to a head count rather than equivalent basis, K-State would lose money.
"Once you get out of the barnyard, the hayfield and the manure pile, KSU's curriculum takes a bite. Yale Daily News recently wrote.
Prestige and money ride with the enrollment figures. And to K-State, prestige is important.
Even K-State's official, legal name is an insult of sorts. Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science.
With that kind of image, being a large school at least offers some solace. But Wichita State is stealing K-State's small patch of sunshine and it's too much for the aggies to tolerate. They'll fight to the last pitchfork and broomhandle.
Come on, Wichita, have a heart. Give in. We've had to put up with K-State's minor insanity for several weeks. We should care for our brother.
Gimme Some Art
A home decorating guide suggests buying books at garage sales not for the wealth of their content but for the richness and expanse of an inexpensive room furnishing idea, but an obviously shallow use of literature.
Similarly, a painting hung merely to brighten a wall is an unfortunate neglect of one man's attempts to communicate with another. Such neglect was apparent in the actions of the viewers at the U.S. Penitentiary's Annual Fall Art Show in Leavenworth.
There, inmates had created a collection of several hundred paintings and scenes and scenes of wooded river banks, still-flies and wildfires.
Some were surprisingly good; others were understandably amateurish. Every now and then, the same scene would pop up, evidence that a print or magazine photograph had been passed from cell to cell. No matter. Each was an expression of individuality.
Other subjects were interspersed among the nature scenes, but the crowds steered clear of them. There were voluptuous nudes painted in exotic colors. There were portraits of gentle, girlish faces circled by auburn hair and blondes with seductive eyes.
The contrast between the silent messages of the paintings and the vocal concerns of the viewers was distressing.
A woman wondered whether the shade of green in a forest scene would match the living room chair. Another contemplated alone a pewter box that contained a third complained that there was nothing left for Susie's room.
No one talked of the nudes. No one wanted to see the anguished faces behind cell bars. They were all too busy searching for a "good one" left behind by an out-of-town dealer.
These people shouldn't be chastised for not buying the nudes or the reminders of prison life. Taste is an individual matter.
But they should have taken a moment out, during their collective search for "art," to notice a longing for the solitude of a wooded lake or the softness of a woman, or to ponder the expressions of despair. They should have thought, just for a moment, about the artists and wondered why they painted what they did.
Linda A. Hales
Ford to Pose No Threat to Nixon
by JULES WITCOVER
WASHINGTON - President Nixon, tree of the traditional pressures of ticket-balancing for voter support in the selection of a vice president, was perhaps uniquely positioned Friday night to act on the old political cliche that the Vice President ought to be the man best-qualified to take over from the president if necessary.
The Washington Post
instead, in house minority leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, he picked a man nobody had mentioned as presidential timber before last Friday, and whose greatest strength was regarded by many to be his party devotion.
racew win grave troubles in Congress ranging from a bogged-down legislative program to the specter of possible impeachment proceedings growing out of the House. The Senate has held White House tapes, Nixon chose a man who could do him some good on Capitol Hill.
THOUGH THE PRESIDENT spoke of the
need for a man strong in the areas of foreign policy and national defense, Ford in 25 years in the House has had little real foreign policy experience.
Though well-liked on Capitol Hill, he has never been rated a man with a national political future, and as vice president he is not likely to threaten the President's primacy in his last three years, even as a jame duck.
Five years ago, in advance of the Republican National Convention that had begun on November 10, he wanted no "superstar" who might outshine him, as candidate or later as president. The man he picked, Gov. Sprowitt, was one of the three, then and, by all odds fits it now.
Nixon already faces the problem of diminishing influence between now and 1976, with the toll of Watergate and the political hourglass running out on his last
Selection of a man widely regarded to be
of presidential stature, like Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York or former Gov. John Connally of Texas, would have shaken the President's influence.
This would have been particularly true as the two of them, one of them as vice president and the other outgoing trying to save the company. The 1978 nomination, pockered for position.
ACCORDING TO WHITE HOUSE sources, the fact that Ford was not considered to be a 1976 prospect at the time he was chosen—though some say he may be now—was in his favor in the President's view.
The president's interest was in the preservation of Republican unity, these sources said. The name of either Connally or McCormick is unclear, but the other scrambling, dividing the party long before 1974. Ford, however, will not be allowed to participate in Connally or Rockefeller, they said.
Though no ticket-balancing was required here, in a sense the choice of Ford is like routine selections of running mates in the pado—a personal choice within the preface of the party heart that satisfies the need, or perceives them, more than the country's.
Presidential candidates, while paying lipstick to the idea that the vice-presidential nomination should go to the man best suited over if necessary, sediment have acted on it.
Rather, they have resorted nearly always to ticket-balancing by geography, ethnic background, and Military, who made a point in 1972 of saying he would not be bound by such conditions, in the end picked a Catholic from a church labor, Jacob Bacon教徒 of Missouri.
BUT PRESIDENT NIXON was not confronted in this instance with the need to balance any ticket, or to bring voting strength to his party for an approaching
election. More than any previous president, perhaps, he was faced with the opportunity to pick, in fact, a man with demonstrated presidential qualities.
Instead he settled, as most presidential candidates have, for a man with whom he can be comfortable and who will not overshadow him.
In 1988, after jolting the GOP convention by naming Agnew, Nixon held a press party at his key Biscayne hideaway, and he said of him:
"There is a mysticism about men. There is a quiet confidence. You look a man in the eye and you know he's got it—brains. This man does not he doesn't. Nixon has made a bum choice."
The judgment on that came on Oct. 10, when Nixon's first vice-presidential choice pleaded oil contender to one count of income tax evasion and resigned rather than face indictment on much broader criminal charges.
THE JUDGMENT ON HIS second choice lies ahead, with an opportunity for Gerald Ford, as alwes before him, to become a president. Will he succeed? How Ford fares in turn will determine whether this time Nixon has his confidence repaid and his ability as an assessor of men
Looming over the whole matter is Nixon's own future in the presidency, clouded by the impending constitutional crisis over release of the Watergate tapes. If a Supreme Court order to turn them over were followed by a presidential refusal, impeachment proceedings would become a somber possibility, if not a probability.
Then the matter of Nixon's choice would come into even sharper focus. It may be said by some, in fact, that selection of a man known primarily for his party service, rather than foreign-policy or administrative experience, could make it less likely for the House to institute impeachment proceedings against Nixon.
Readers Respond
Congress Must Make 'An Agonizing Choice'
To the Editor:
just like many other people, I was perplexed by Nixon's shafing of Agnew during his mounting troubles over alleged bribery. He wasn't being apprehended apparent in the last months, but a logical explanation for it escaped me. As I saw it, by letting Agnew be rent by the hounds, Nixon could only allow a dangerously bad deal on its surface to reach also the next bad apple in line.
The blasting realization of what might be the motives behind Nixon's facade shook me as I read the University Daily Kansas articles concerning the questions now being raised by the House under the 25th Amendment. One commentator, Patrik Owens of Newday, speculated that Nixon "seems curiously unmoved by Spiro Agnew's difficulties" and that Spiro's removal may have even been a successor to the Oval Theronoseum.
Agreed, it stinks of engineering, or at least illogical non-involvement on Nixon's part, but even as asvious as insuring a successor appears, was that his motive?
I say no! Re-examine Nixon's position. Many of us are convinced Nixon deserves impeachment, the sooner the better for this reason. We should have him in his position when Agnew, considered a well known quantity by the people, was there as a replacement. Sick of the corruption apparent in Nixon's administration, to them Agnew's seemingly unaware of what had happened unknowns in his stature as presidential material. Certainly even people who
It is my considered conviction that Nixon, realizing his vulnerability, has cold-bloodedly encouraged it not actually engineered Spiro's downfall, not with the goal of a successor, nor to remove him from both made Nixon's grasp on the Presidency most unstable.
disagree with many of his views admitted that, the potential was there.
It followed then, that Nixon would nominate, a controversial understudy as speculation went, but on the contrary a very unlikely presidential prospect.
Nixon has succeeded in solidifying his position to a shocking degree with the reappraisal of his own role. Rip, Gerald Ford. Congress now faces the勾劲ing choice between moral right or the continuation of Nixon's status quo, with a much scarier alternative linked with the war.
The implications of Nixon's behind the scene involvement are staggering. I can only hope for the sake of my country that Congress will not stab justice in the back for the sake of evil with which Congress feels it can live.
Glenn D. Cunningham Senior, Liberal Arts
Kansan Fussy
To the Editor:
Sonny and Cher should have the right to refuse to meet Kansan reporters without having to bear the sarcasm and insult of an editorial like Chuck Potter's. It's such a
little thing for the Kansan to cry about.
Not that this one particular editorial is so unjustified—it's simply the that Kansan has gotten a bad reputation for being fussy and sulled when it doesn't get its own way.
Overland Park senior
Greg Lynch
Chuck the Kansan
To the Editor:
I am sorry to see that the Kansan staff members were so dismayed that Sonny and Charle would not field their insure question. She is obviously very viriously it is important for cub reporters to find out if Charle really does wash her hair in clam broth or if Sonnya really did train with her.
Although I hold great contempt for Sonny and Cher and voted against having the concert, I can't believe the crybaby attitude Chuck Potter took when he was told that he would not be able to throw questions at the dynamic duo.
Perhaps this is what happened:
1. Sonny and Cher were sent a copy of the Kansan.
2. They took time to glance at it when they weren't counting money.
3. Found that it had no observable journalistic qualities.
Since Kanasa staffers affores Somy and her with "attention they normally require," she has to understand why poor Chuck took so much space to write about such an insignificant
Powers at Crossroads in Mideast
By DWIGHT JAMES SIMPSON
Second, the newly-built structure of East-West detente is in grave danger from the permanent instability and sporadic warfare in the Middle East, as well as pressures in the West, which have increased supplies to the warring sides now. In fact, President Nixon and Chairman Brezhnev, the two main architects of detente, could look ridiculous in the eyes of their people and of the whole world if they much-louder blaps come under the strain of its first test.
Considering the public commitments undertaken and the public expectations encouraged by Brezhnev and Nixon, it would be politically self-defeating for either side to maintain an advantage at great cost only to see it torn apart immediately on the Middle East battleground.
BY DWIGHT SAMES JAMES SIMS
*Smitheal to the Los Angeles Times*
The role of the great powers in the Middle East confrontation has become even more crucial with the renewed conflict between the Arabs and Israelis. Washington, Moscow, London, Paris and perhaps Peking have been unable to or ignore the unavoidable conclusions.
NIXON IS ESPECIALLY vulnerable. He has called denate the beginning of a "generation of peace" and has staked his place in history on his role as peacemaker. He is called a "chief historian." East war, however, future historians are likely sardonic to paraphrase Churchill:
First, this latest round in the 29-year-long Palestine war is only the prelude to yet another round unless Israel relinquishes its territory and the United States, Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the 1967 war.
The great powers must decide, therefore, if a permanent state of war in the Middle East is really in their interests or the interests of the world.
Arab disillusionment with the United
Since 1948, successive American administrations have centered U.S. policy in the Northeast on the premise that unwavering opposition to the proposed proposition. President Nixon has talked a great deal about "even-handedness," but his Middle East policy so far has been no match for Mr. Bush's policies.
AMERICA'S SINGLE-MINDED and massive support of Israel over the past 25 years has paid few dividends. Indeed, American political prestige and influence in the Middle East today are scarcely worth mentioning.
"Some generation! Some peace!"
The great powers must follow a new road. Washington, Moscow and the other major capitals must restrain client states, create the indispensable conditions in which genuine diplomatic negotiations can begin, and ensure that the negotiated territorial integrity of all states in the Middle East when the negotiated peace treaty is completed.
Third, the old pattern of great powerclient relationships in the Middle East has been overtaken by events. It clearly needs substantial change.
More importantly, Russian sponsorship of Moscow's two major Arab clients has always carried the risk of grave Russian terrorism and nerve-wracking and terribly dangerous course. Kremlin leadership surely is asking whether their support of warring Arab states has been worth it, and if continued Russian involvement in defending allies with the United States.
Take the Soviet-Arab relationship: Since 1955, when the Russians lefrogged over the Dulles-built Baghdad pact and landed in Cairo, the Soviet Union has acquired two major Middle East clients—Egypt, and then Syria.
UNLESS MIDDLE EAST CONDITIONS are fundamentally changed to promote permanent peace, this dismal outcome is a relief that will allow the person will be left to explain the resulting transportation snarls, unheated homes and faltering economy to a people who may well feel that the sky is dark with the chickens of urban life in the Middle East coming home to roost.
I wonder if you could have done better than David Brenner? And, if so, why don't you audition? Although I doubt you'd get the job, I don't doubt that David would at least have the courtesy to give you some credit for upgrading you as thoroughly as you did him.
Moscow's results from its heavy Arab involvement have been wildly disproportionate to the expenditure of Soviet effort and money.
Washington's experience with its Middle East client state has been remarkably similar, with an added and growing dimension—oil.
There is great danger, and great opportunity, ahead. The great powers are at a crossroads. The old road of backing and arming civil nationts who will fight periodic wars with each other its both futile and harmful. The great direct involvement by the great powers.
States has grown over the years as Arabs realized that American support of Israel is uniform and constant. Since 1967, the disillusionment has spread even to the so-called Arabic states. The Arabia and Kuwait, which own perhaps 40 per cent of the world's known oil supply.
These goals are in the true interests of the
(Dwight Simpson, chairman of the Department of International Relations at California State University, San Francisco, who experience and residence in the Middle East.
The American economy, is now in the first stages of a serious and growing oil shortage and the outline of a similar oil shortage is expected to accelerate. The oil-producing Arab states move to suspend or substantially curtail their oil exports at this time when the industrialized nations face an oil shortage, the American economy will be grave, perhaps catastrophic.
great powers and of the nations of the Mideast all time in which they can be achieved in whuch.
As for your other cutting and very crude remarks in reference to Sonny and Cher;
The Daily Kansas welcomes letters to the editor, but asks that letters be typewritten, double-spaced and no longer than 500 words. All letters are subject to editing for spelling limitations and the editor's judgment, and must be signed. KU students must provide their name, year in school and hometown; faculty must provide their name and position; must provide their name address.
However, if 15,000 people fork over their money to hear Cher tell Sonny he's a failure as a sex object, that's their problem. And If sonny and Cher don't want to be bored by would-be journalists, then who cares?
But I suppose that we will have to be content with a newspaper that is more concerned with the war than its own ego than with the war. The plains face only the affliction that the Kansan faces.
Jim Milio
SUA Film Board
Surely you've watched their show on television, and you therefore knew how their act went. If you were so horrified by it, why did you even bother to go to the conference?
True, some of their cuts could be replaced by something showing a little love, but even that does not deserve your uncutthroat degrading.
Reviewer Cutting
To the Editor:
Regarding Diane Yeamans' review of the somy and Cher Cirecant, which I thought to be the most poignant piece.
I hope that your review of the show is only your opinion, because if everyone in the world was as down on life as your review showed you to be, this world would be a very dreary place to live. Have you ever thought of being an optimist instead of a pessimist?
Cecilia Dettweiler
T
And, as for putting down the show including Sonny and Cher's performance, because of the time you've heard of "show business"; show people have to go along with many things that other people control in their shows. So you really can't totally blame Sonny and Cher.
Give somebody a break—you may wish
to give you one you someday.
Disappointed.
New
Kansse
decid
consu
assoc
Lawr
Cla meete Comr sumer sumer becon
C.
prof
finan
about
impc
Review 'Retaliation'
To the Editor:
I am surprised that I didn't pern hasn't gone facecased from his reviews. Mark Mitchell
In response, rebuttal and retaliation to the "review" that Bill Weber gave to the Rolling Stones' album "Goats Head Soup." I will say simply that his cheap fault findings are not only unwarranted but also an attempt to discredit one of the Stones' greatest albums. Their progressive newness Weber's words to progressive New Yorkers listen to the album while reading his third-rate copy of Jon Landau's criticism.
Salina. Junior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily on Friday, June 15, 2008 for examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $8 per examination period. Mail subscription rate at Lawrence, Kan. 60045. Student subscription rate: $1.50 a semester paid in student activity fee. Admitted students may be advertised offered to all students without regard to their prior enrollment status. Admitted are not necessarily those of the University.
NEWS STAFF
News editor .. Bunnie Shaw
Editor
BUSINESS STAFF
Bob Simison
Business Advisor . . . Mel Adams
Business Manager
Steven Liggott
Griff and the Unicorn
by Sokoloff
1