4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Wednesday, Sept. 18, 1985
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Honduras and Nicaragua
Honduras and Nicaragua escaled the undeclared war in Central America last week as soldiers from both countries were killed in heavy fighting on the border.
Border incidents haven't been rare on the nations' frontier. But border incidents backed by well trained reinforcements and hard-ball firepower have.
Is this the beginning of war between the two countries? Or is it just another part of a predetermined scheme by the Reagan Administration to force a war on Central Americans and U.S. citizens alike?
Congress tried to rein in the Administration in 1982 by limiting the number of U.S. military advisors in El Salvador to 55.
In 1981 the Reagan Administration "drew the line" on El Salvador. The Administration announced that it would no longer tolerate revolution against the brutal dictators that it had propped up in the region.
A 1982 Newsweek poll showed that 89 percent of the U.S. people opposed any U.S. intervention in Central America;
In 1983, the administration gave its OK for the CIA to begin escalating a covert war against Nicaragua — who, it said, was the root of all evil in
El Salvador.
Polls in 1983 showed that 84 percent of Americans said no to war in Central America.
The United States in 1983 began building air force bases and military training bases in Honduras. Creation of an elite force of combat-ready Hondurans began.
Private right-wing organizations in the United States — in the minority on the question of intervention but supported by the Administration — this year raised more than $25 million for the contras. That was more than enough to fill the void left by the forced CIA exit last year.
Congress voted last year to cut off military aid to contra fighting the Sandinistas and condemned the United States' mining of Nicaraguan harbors.
Several polls this summer indicated that 75 percent of American people said they were against a Central American war.
If the political condition in the region continues to deteriorate as it has the past five years — if the percentage of Americans against intervention continues to drop — if the President continues to push for confrontation — if negotiations aren't genuinely pursued — there will be war.
But whose war will it be?
United Nations funds
When the United Nations was created in the wake of World War II, the United States committed itself to providing 40 percent of the organization's budget.
Congress gradually reduced the nation's mandatory contribution to one fourth of the U.N. budget as other nations regained strength and our budget deficit soared.
Now, on the U.N.'s 40th anniversary, Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., is seeking a further pullback to half of the original financial support.
Kassebaum's amendment to the State Department authorization bill would limit contributions to 20 percent beginning in 1987 unless the U.N. agrees to give the U.S. a much greater voice in budget decisions.
Cutting U.S. contributions is傲udent, but using the threat of
reductions to demand more budgetary clout blatantly opposes the one nation-one vote principle on which the U.N. was founded.
Granted, the U.N. has a penchant for costly buildings, conferences and studies of dubious merit. Lavish pensions for U.N. diplomats exceed all other civil service benefits. Criticism of a system that encourages reckless budgets by delegates eager to spend U.S. taxpayers' money has some validity.
The U.N. should take measures to trim excesses, but none of these drawbacks justifies budgetary blackmail.
The United Nations is a rare example of true democracy and provides a forum in which other nations can take the super-powers to task.
This should not change
Hawks off to a good start
A conversation overheard on the Hill on Saturday afternoon:
"Shut up, will ya? And hand me those glasses."
"Look at that guy? Who is that? He's taking somebody's place, one of those guys who was ineligible. Can you believe that? Seven guys ineligible."
"Seven guys. Wow."
"Hey! Did you see that play Pless made? He pounded that Vanderbilt guy into the turf. They gotta punt now."
"Sorry, I missed it. I wonder what will happen to the eighth guy."
"Jeez, did you see that throw? That guy Norseth has some arm. More than 300 yards already. He must be
going to set some kind of record."
"I wonder what the athletic department is doing about its..."
"Shut up, will ya?"
"Think about that other stuff later. It's Saturday and the 'Hawks are on the field. And they're kicking the stuffing out of Vanderbilt. Two-and-oh. Bow! bound, if they keep it up this way. How about that? Hey! Orange Bowl! I wanna spend my Christmas in Miami!"
"Huh?"
Note: On Saturday, the 'Hawks got down to business, beating Vanderbilt 42:16. They are now 2-0 and off to a fine start.
Duncan Calhoun Business manager
Rob Karwath
Editor
John Hanna Michael Tolty
Managing editor Editorial editor
Lauretta McMillen
Campus editor
Susanne Shaw
General manager, news adviser
Brett McCabe Sue Johnson
Retail sales Campus sales
Megan Burke
National/Co-op sales
John Oberzan
Sales and marketing adviser
**LETTERS TO THE EDITOR** should be typed, double-spaced and less than 300 words. Include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
**GUEST SHOTS** should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The
writer will be photographed, the right to edit or edit letters and guest shots. They can be made or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuifer-Fint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 60-840) is published at the University of Kansas, 11 Stuart FIlnt Hall, Lawrence, Kan., 60454, daily during the regular school year, except Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and finals periods, and Wednesdays during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan., 60444. In Douglass County, mini subscriptions cost $1 for an month plus $20 year. Elsewhere, mail paid by the student year. Student subscriptions are mailed through the student activity fee.
course:
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118
Staffer Fint Hall, Lawrence, KC, 60045
DAMM delivers misguided message
Acronyms have become widespread today as a way to shorten and simplify our thoughts. They have become so ubiquitous that little thought is often given to the actual meaning for which they stand.
MADD and SADD are acronyms for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Students Against Drunk Driving. These groups have brought attention to themselves through their worthwhile efforts to discourage drunken driving. Another group of concerned citizens also recently joined forces to further this cause: BADD — Bartenders Against Drunk Driving.
This third group is lesser known but its efforts should have just as great an effect, if not more, than the other two. However, one other group has formed with which the public may not be familiar: DAMM — Drunks Against Madd Mothers.
a local frozen yogurt shop behind several young women. While idly chatting with my friends, I noticed the message on the back of one of the women's T-shirts; Drunks Against Madd Mothers.
Like many people, I was unaware of this latter group. I became enlightened recently while taking a study break. I was standing in line at
The young woman in the shirt happily accepted her dish of yogurt and walked to a table. Her casual manner gave no indication that she had ever given a second thought to the message on her shirt. Her friends, too, seemed unaware that DAMM was anything more than a humorous acronym against authority. They joked and giggled among themselves as they consumed their desserts.
As I left the store, the words on the T-shirt stayed with me. I wondered if
Gina Kellogg
Staff Columnist
the woman had ever been stopped while driving under the influence. I wondered if she had ever had a friend who had been injured or killed by a drunken driver. I wondered if she would have been wearing that shirt if she had
To that young woman, as to so many young people today, groups such as SADD, MADD and BADD represent an authority against which they feel a need to rebel. They
'I wondered if the woman had ever been stopped while driving under the influence. I wondered if she had ever had a friend who had been injured or killed by a drunken driver. I wondered if she would have been wearing that shirt if she had.'
mistakenly believe that these groups promote alcohol as wrong and harmful. They instead interpret these groups as SAD, MAD and BAD— Students, Mothers and Bartenders Against Drinking. They miss the distinction between two d's and one.
However, that distinction is important. MADD, like the other two groups, is not working toward abstinence or prohibition.
Instead, these groups are attempting to bring the public to a realization that a dangerous difference exists between a few drinks and a few drinks too many.
Though the T-shirt may have seemed humorous to the person who designed it and, to the others who wear it, a little more mature thought should have been given to what the shirt was saying. Questioning authority and proclaiming one's own free will is one thing. Promoting death and injury is another.
Perhaps a better acronym for these people would have been DUMM — Drunks Under Misguided Mores.
Literature classes graded objectively
How could Dylan Thomas know these words would become applicable to students of poetry someday?
"You can tear apart a poem to see what makes it technically tick. You're back with the mystery of having been moved by words."
Literature classes stress poetry appreciation, but appreciation seems more like dissection sometimes.
Consider the questions, "What did Frost actually mean in line 13? Was he trying to convey a sense of optimism, or was it meant sarcastically?"
First impressions make a poem. If one wants to dig until all meaning has vanished, so be it. But do poets intend their works to be subjected to yawns and frustration?
Frost said, "A poem...begins as a lump in the throat, a sense of wrong, a homesickness, a loveliness..."
I don't think so. As a "would-be poet," I find security in defending the poet.
Did Poe think his words would become a matter of debate? As a poet, it isn't foremost in my mind to burden readers with hypotheses. Not unless I maintain a sadistic attitude with pen in hand.
Kimberly Hurley
Staff columnist
Most poems weren't written primarily for literary criticism. Certainly, many are criticized, but by the poet's choice?
People gawk at paintings they do not understand, but do they stand and ask, "Why this line? Why this arc?" They may identify the painter, the era and texture, but, even in their confusion, they appreciate it simply because it exists.
Why is there poetry? Simply because there are creative ideas and emotions which could not be expressed aloud.
"A poem should not mean, but be." Archibald MacLeish wrote.
How should instructors of various art teach appreciation?
art teach appreciation;
Let me ask this: How do parents teach their children appreciation for the world? They encourage experiencing, feeling and questioning.
Caring parents don't say, 'Son, there is only one way you can see this world, only one way you can see
people and the things which surround you." That would be preposterous.
But that is essentially what some teachers say:
"Okay, we have a poetry test today, and if you pick (a), and I say (c), is the right answer, then you are wrong, for I am the teacher, and you are the student."
Even a poet does not know what he has written until he finishes and rereads. And even then, as Browning once revealed, he may never know what it means.
Is there a possible solution? Yes. A subjectively structured grading system, based on essays which concentrate on the students' interpretation, insights and ideas, and not the instructors'.
Joseph Stalin, by no means a well-known poet, but indeed a forceful figure, once said, "Poetry is poetry, and one's objective as a poet is to achieve poetry precisely as one's objective in music is to achieve music."
My intention is that each poem should mean something different to each reader. Unrestricted, it usually does. Therein lies the beauty.
Do you pick apart a jazz solo, and ask why the trombonist decided to go up on this line and hold this note for an extra beat?
Most people listen for beauty realizing its spontaneity, just as they do with a poem.
I appreciate the fact that teaching styles have changed with time; they should continue to do so.
Teachers may ask, "Then how will my students understand?"
T. S. Eliot said, "Genuine poetry can communicate before it is understood." Maybe it's not the understanding that is important, rather, the feeling communicated.
Teach an increased sensitivity.
Provide background and let students draw their own conclusions. Guide them, encourage them, but please,
please do not insist on one interpretation or they soon will struggle with each line; insecure with their own interpretation.
The greatest compliment any person can pay to a poet is simply by picking up one of his poems and reading it for sheer pleasure.
Farmers in quasi-tribes fight big business
One of the central issues of the Civil War — the agrarian economy versus industrialization — survives today and gains relevance in light of the American farmer's plight.
The pessimism found in rural America has not dimmed the optimistic, idealistic plans of Wes Jackson, co-director of the Land Institute, Salina, Jackson, an innovative agrarian author and thinker, addressed about 50 people last week on Grande South Park Recreation Center.
The Land Institute devotes its educational-research resources to finding sustainable alternatives for agriculture, energy, shelter and waste management, Jackson said.
Jackson's plans call for a new economic order. This new order would abolish centralized organization and require localized self-sufficiency. The economic order would be based on a new system that would not need capitalism or Marxism.
The market forces are not dictated by necessity. Jackson said, but by the
collective values of the people. Change the values and the system will charge.
Jackson said capitalistic industrialized agriculture and the Marxist immutable-market-laws theory must be repudiated.
Yes, Jackson condemned both of the major economic theories practiced today.
The ideal scenario for Jackson would be farming by quasi-tribes rather than individualistic tribes. These quasi-tribes would be responsible for a given amount of land and would replace family and corporate farms.
However, Jackson made some good points.
It is unlikely that the quasi-tribes will provide immediate help to indebted farmers.
He said people were shaves of the market, not masters. We do not control the market for necessities of the people he said, but we let the market control us so we can extract a necessity called money. The bondage
Dwight Hunter Staff columnist
Good point.
of the "extractable society" must go before people are freed.
Jackson calls freeing people from the extractable society the "real American way." Ponald Reagan is no American, he said.
Good plan:
1. Popular American, people should not look for laissez-faire opportunities that destroy nature, and therefore, ecosystems.
Jackson and the Land Institute should be commended for their goals to offer an alternative, sustainable lifestyle. However, there seems to be a hint of naivety.
centralized if agriculture was de centralized.
The most blatant chink in Jackson's armor is the feasibility of converting a centralized, industrialized economy back to a localized, agrarian climate. Obviously, the American economy would have to be the
The international consequences are endless. The whole world isn't going to sit still as we decentralize our economy and currency.
The most practical application of Jackson's plan is on the local isolated level.
In rural America, 2.37 million farmers need help. Interest on total farm liability alone totals more than $21 billion a year. The total farm income in the last two years has averaged in the $23 billion a year.
Farmers must band together -- forming Jackson's "quasi-tribes" in order to survive.
Idealistic schemes calling for a new economic order will not provide the necessary help, short term or long term. Perhaps when fossil fuels have been exhausted, Jackson's plans will be viable.
For now, the world is centralized and industrialized. There is no turning back.