4 Wednesday, October 15, 1986 / University Daily Kansan THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Cesarian support A graduate student's life is not an easy one. Many of them come back to college several years after they have completed their undergraduate work, and find they must not only relearn all their old study habits, but also work a full course load around jobs and families. Others, fresh out of undergraduate school, find that the course work is a lot tougher, the competition for grades is keen and their professors expect brilliance as a matter of course. Often, they are confounded by undergraduates, ready to leave college, who simply cannot understand why anyone would want to go back for another degree. And looming before all these graduate students is the most daunting prospect of all: completing a thesis or dissertation and defending it. Joan Cesari knows the feeling well. Cesari, a KU assistant professor of counseling psychology, meets with a group of graduate students once a week to discuss the academic and emotional stress of finishing their thesis or dissertation. For some, the problem is getting organized, for others, getting beyond the organization to the actual writing. Some have faculty advisers who carefully set up schedules for the graduate student to follow; other advisers just tell their students to have at it. Some students in the group cited the ritual factor of graduate study: how the thesis becomes even more intimidating when one considers how many start a graduate program, but never finish. Cesari nicknamed her thesis paper "Hubert" and turned it into a friend as a way of coping, and now she helps other students cope with their papers by talking out obstacles and setting goals for themselves. Support groups like Cesari's could be set up in other departments. The support and encouragement to be gained from such groups could help many graduate students stay in their programs and finish their thesis or dissertation on time. Refusal and failure By failing to cash in what he has always called a "bargaining chip." President Reagan effectively squandered a chance to negotiate a genuine Soviet-U.S. arms agreement of monumental proportions. Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev were on the verge of agreeing to destroy all offensive nuclear weapons over the next 10 years, but our president's obsessive attachment to his Star Wars program brought the discussions in Reykjavik, Iceland, to a premature end. Reagan refused a Soviet request to limit Strategic Defensive Initiative testing to the laboratory. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., pointed out the tragic irony of Reagan's stance when he questioned why the president would turn down a chance to destroy a large portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal through arms control. "Instead," he said, "the administration insists on spending vaults sums of money on the development of untested, unproven defensive systems that are alleged to address the same objective - the destruction of offensive nuclear weapons." Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also said it well when he pointed out that Reagan had blown the chance to give up Star Wars "for the best deal the Russians have offered an American president since they sold us Alaska." Reagan is content, Markey said, to lay it all on the line for "the stardust and moonbeams of his Star Wars fantasies," a fantasy most reputable scientists say will never work. Reagan also would have us believe that Star Wars is right around the corner, when, in fact, it is still in its infancy. Gorbahev and Reagan both addressed their respective nations this week and left a glimmer of hope that someday, some kind of agreement may be reached. But neither leader gave any hint as to when or how such an agreement might come to pass, and it is sad and tragic to know how close the world came to having "someday" be now. Peaceful message No one can say they haven't tried. Despite the fact that probably no one out there is listening to them, the Lawrence Meeting for Peace has made a nice effort. Perseverance has been a key factor in the committee's crusade. The group has lobbied for a Lawrence summit meeting between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for three years. This year, the members have really given it the old college try. First, it was the postcard campaign in September. An 11-member delegation from Lawrence delivered 6.000 postcards to Washington, D.C., inviting the leaders to a summit in our lovely city. Last Friday, the ambitious group sent a telegram to Iceland, wishing them success in the meeting and asking them once again to have the summit here. This shows that the group is following through on their efforts. The members should be commended for their perseverance. Still, are they really making a difference? Maybe. Probably not, though News staff Lauretta McMillen Editor Kady McMaster Managing editor Tad Clarke News editor David Silverman Editorial editor John Hanna Campus editor Frank Hansel Sports editor Jack Kelly Photo editor Tom Eblen General manager, news adviser Business staff David Nixon Business manager Gregory Kaul Retail sales manager Denise Stephens Campus sales manager Sally Depew Classified manager Lisa Weingart Production manager Diana Callhoun National sales manager Beverly Kastens Traffic manager Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words and should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with a university, it should be typed as follows: Guest shots should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed. The Kansan reserves the right to relect or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. Opinions The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stlaifer-Fittl Hill, Lawn, Kan. 60454, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at the University of Kansas, by mail or facsimile, for delivery to students in Douglas County and $18 for six months and $35 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Staafler Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045 To be honest, I'm not a big fan of French films. I've only seen one that I liked — "The Grand Illusion." But Wednesday night I didn't have anything better to do so I thought I'd go see "Hail Mary," even though it was French. Watching film was penance enough Gil Chavez I almost didn't go when KJHK reported that a group of饶 Catholics would be at the Kansas Union. Still, a $2 movie is hard to pass up. When I arrived, the protesters were praying, while the television cameras were rolling. Inside, the Union was a full house. Apparently there were many who, acting in counter-protest, came to see the film. I asked for a flier to find out why some of these people had come to discourage me from seeing the film. Then I hurried upstairs and took a seat in the back. Next to me was a man who appeared to be talking to the palm of his hand. I was worried until I saw that he was speaking into a 2-way radio. He was working security and was eying a fellow who'd come in with a large briefcase. A television cameraman came in to get a shot of the audience and I heard someone say, "Okay, everybody act radical." That's modern theater — the audience is the performance. Just my luck, I pick the one movie in town that had the potential for live action. I searched for a safe place to dive for cover just in case. The evening took a definite turn for the worse when the movie began. It started slow and got slower. The controversy surrounding it is much more interesting than the movie, which is loaded with lingering Director Jean Luc Godard seems to see some connection between being pregnant and playing basketball. Someone should tell him that sometimes a basketball is just a basketball. shots supposedly full of symbolism the moon, water, taxi cabs and basketball games. It is a wonder that anyone stayed awake long enough to find out whether the movie was blasphemous. And if it was, sitting through it was enough penance. When the film ended, I was positive the movie had lasted longer than three hours, although the clock behind the concession counter indicated only two hours had passed. found a quiet place to ponder the evening. I could understand why the protesters did not want to see the movie, but I hoped they could understand why it wasn't blasphemy to me. On my way out I heard several people muttering that they couldn't see what all the fuss was about. Outside, the protest had lost some of its momentum, but continued to roll. A group of four people were arguing whether religion had a place in politics. I sidestepped the fray and Too often we forget that what is blasphemy to one isn't to another. And too often Christianity is all that is considered where religious freedom is concerned; ignored are the religions of the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and Jew. Few religions have been as consistently ignored in religious freedom issues as those of the Native American. What is also overlooked is that religious freedom includes the atheist's right of freedom from religion. Religious freedom in the United States has survived 200 years but it cannot survive without tolerance. And tolerance. I've noticed, appears to be gravely ill. Holmes would find it rather elementary It was precisely the sort of mystery that would have intrigued Sherlock Holmes. While reading the morning paper, Dr. Watson would have said, "Mmmm. Strange business here, Holmes. That TV chap, Dan Rather Walking home last night in Manhattan. Pummeled about the head and face by a couple of strangers. Kept calling him Kenneth." Holmes would have snatched the morning paper from Watson and his eyes would have gleamed as he read, "As they struck Rather, the two well-dressed assailants kept repeating, 'What is the frequency, Kenneth?'..." "Come, Watson," Holmes would have cried. "The game is afoot." Unfortunately, we have no Sherlock Holmes. All we have is the jaded New York cops, who shrug and say that this is just routine in the Big Apple — probably a case of mistaken identity. Mistaken identity? A likely story. And even if it was mistaken identity, does it make it any less intriguing a mystery? "Kenneth," they said as they punched Rather, "what is the frequency?" Mike Royko There must be some meaning to it. So I'm calling upon America's armchair detectives to provide the answer. That question keeps running through my mind. Here, amateur sleuths, are the bare facts, as the news accounts have presented them. Rather had been with some friends at their Park Avenue apartment. He left his apartment and was walking on the sidewalk on that posh, Manhattan street. It was about 10:45 p.m. on a Sunday night. He was wearing casual, weekend clothes: jeans, a striped shirt, and aviator-style glasses. Suddenly, two well-dressed men, who appeared to be in their 30s, approached him on the street. One said, "What is the frequency, Kenneth?" Rather said something like, "I think you have the wrong guy." One of the men punched him to the ground. Rather scrambled to his feet and ran to the lobby of a nearby apartment building. They chased him inside and continued the assault him inside and continued the assault. As they punched and kicked him, they repeated, "What is the frequency, Kenneth?" Were they talking about radio frequency? If so, who uses radio frequencies? Ahah! Spies, maybe, seeking seeking the secret frequency used by a double-agent named Kemneth? For example, how frequently one might lavish romantic attentions on someone else's sweetie. Such as the girlfriend of an aging mafioso. Hmmm. Thugs hired to discourage a foolish loverboy named Kenneth, maybe? Or could they have been talking about some other kind of frequency — such as how frequently somebody might do something. Myths surround U.S. aid program Absolutely wrong. The world's population hit 5 billion this spring, and one quarter of that population will face hunger in the coming year. Our government would have us believe that the cause of hunger is rampant population growth and "unden development." Obviously, there just isn't enough food in the world to feed all those people. Right? Absolutely wrong. The United States alone grows enough food every year to feed all the world's people. Does that mean that we are morally obliged to feed the whole world? Not necessarily. But we are obliged not to prevent the rest of the world from feeding itself. And that is what the U.S. government is doing. It is no coincidence that all Third World nations have a history of colonization, and that most of the land in these countries is concentrated in the hands of a rich and powerful few. Colonization turned self-sufficient countries into nations of slaves, robbing the people of their farming skills, their internal markets and their land. Most people believe that overpopulation is the cause of hunger. Wrong again. Poor people have large families because working children generate more income than they use up, and because people depend on their children to care for them in their old age. Family is the only form of social security these people have. Today the land is still controlled by a tiny percentage of the population — the local elite who profited by collaborating with colonial powers. The land is used not to grow food for the peasants who live on it, but to grow crops for export: coffee and sugar for your breakfast, carnations for your girlfriend. Columnist It is not true that the world's most densely populated regions are the poorest. For example, France has about the same number of people per cultivated acre as India. But France has a much more equitable distribution of wealth. Jan Underwood Every country in the world has the capacity to feed all its people. Starvation is not a matter of overpopulation. It is a matter of politics. The U.S. government makes a profit on poverty. Food and economic aid programs are aimed not at feeding the hungry but at feeding U.S. foreign policy and business interests. Half of the U.S. "aid" programs are actually loans that keep Third World nations continuously in debt to the United States. When we send food, it is put into commercial markets and is then sold to peasants on credit at high interest rates. In times of agricultural crisis, the poor have no way to repay these debts. Often they sell what land they have—and thus their only means of self-determination—to repay loans. In this way, "aid" programs keep the poor under thumb. Bertolt Brecht puts it more bluntly: "Families do not occur, they are organized by the grain trade." One member of the National Security Council said, "To give food aid to countries just because people are starving would be a pretty weak reason." America has cornered the world food market; the CIA says with pride that grain shortages could give Washington "virtual life and death power over the fate of the multitude of the needy." Our government also uses food as a military tool. Sometimes it gives interest-free loans to governments who agree to use the proceeds to buy weapons. Anti-communist governments are the first to receive food aid; during the Vietnam War, nearly half of all U.S. food aid went to South Vietnam and Cambodia, while Bangladesh and all of Africa split less than four percent of the aid. As long as the Third World is dependent on the West, it will not be allowed to feed itself. When the poor have their own land and their own resources, they will eat. Our government provides sophisticated equipment, thus assuring the foreign country's dependence on imported fuel and parts, and making it necessary for the country to grow export crops to pay for the machines. Countries that do not have labor unions and minimum wages are especially advantageous to U.S. corporations who say they want to help out by "modernizing" agriculture. These theories assume, of course, that it was a case of mistaken identity. But we don't really know that, do we? In many countries, food is used to bribe or blackmail the governments into supporting U.S. foreign policy. The United States has given grain to France and Italy to keep the impoverished working class from voting socialist; in 1974, the State Department cut off aid to famine-stricken Bangladesh until it stopped exporting gunny sacks to Cuba. The need for agricultural development is another government-propagated myth. "Development" consists of the United States' funding farms controlled by members of the upper class in the Third World. Subsistence farming — in which small landholders use traditional methods to grow food they will eat themselves — offers U.S. corporations no way to make a profit. But the U.S. government does not want that to happen. Self-sufficient people do not need the United States. They do not buy U.S. products and they do not make payments on U.S. loans. They do not provide slave labor for U.S. corporations. Therefore, our government has every reason to keep the Third World dependent — and hungry. We do know that the networks are in a feverish ratings battle, with corporate fortunes in the balance. Anyone who saw the true-to-life movie "Network," in which the executives had their anchor bumped off on camera in the studio, knows what networks are capable of doing. So is it not possible that when the one man punched Rather and said, "What is the frequency" "he was referring to supremacy in the ratings?" And when he said "...Kenneth," he was talking to his accomplice, a thug named Kenneth, and urging him to join in the punches and kicks? My efforts at solving this are fee- ble, at best. I'm more of a bumbling Watson than a cerebral Holmes. But I'm sure there are keen minds out there that can provide something more plausible. So if you think you have the key to "The Secret Frequency," send it to me at the Chicago Tribune, 435 N Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. For all we know, the solution might be kind of elementary. Come on Watson, the game is afoot WASHINGTON - President Reagan says he doesn't just tell his collection of stories, many dating back to his Hollywood days, to U.S. audiences. He also tells them to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and probably saved up a few for the Iceland summit. Helen Thomas President's tales from dark side Helen Thomas UPI Commentary Any story the president, whose anti-communism credentials are impeccable, would tell about the Soviets would hardly be flattering. But in jest, he feels he can make his point. He told a gathering of businessmen a few days ago that he has "taken to collecting stories that I can tell that show the cynicism of some of the people in the totalitarian states for their government. Stories that I can confirm are actually told by those people to each other. So I'm going to share the last one with you. "Evening, or darkness in the Soviet Union. A citizen walking along' the street. A soldier yells. 'Hall.' He starts to run. the soldier shoots him. "Another citizen says, 'Why did you do that?' And the soldier says, 'Curfew.' 'But,' he said, 'it isn't curfew time yet.' The soldier said, I know. He's a friend of mine. I know where he lives. He couldn't have made it." "You know something?" In the sum- mit meetings I tell some of those stories to the other side." Reagan told an appreciative audience. He gave no indication that Gor bachev also indulges in Soviet-style humor during summit meetings.