age 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, November 2. 1982
Time for rehabilitation
The University of Kansas Medical Center's rehabilitation department is losing patients to other hospitals and having general morale problems as a result of old and shoddy facilities.
It has been 36 years since the last significant renovation, despite hospital administrators' repeated promises to do something about the department. Charles Hartman, vice chancellor for clinical affairs, has said that a projected $1 million redevelopment for the rehabilitation department was outside the Med Center's means for now.
But the department is not asking for $1 million, at least not now. All they want is enough to make the department's rehabilitation ward and treatment rooms livable — to spruce up surroundings and equipment that now make patients' families hesitant to leave them at the center, according to John Redford, department chairman.
The department is in the oldest building at the Med Center. The ward's
single shower room, painted a distinguishing pea green, is littered with equipment and not adequate for patients. Wheelchairs and time have worn paint from the sides of walls. Department windows offer a lovely view — for those who like brick walls.
Redford says the department could get by with about $200,000, a meager amount by construction standards. It makes little sense for hospital administrators to hold out for $1 million that may never come when $200,000 could turn the department around. The cost might even pay for itself if the department's new look and improved equipment meant more patients and less expenses for continual recruitment and training of new nurses.
In the meantime, the department chairman is learning the hard way that professors and administrators will have to become PR-men and recruit private contributions if they hope to save their departments from the effects of steadily declining budgets.
Tuition fees based on majors could swell existing hassles
"Next!"
"Uh, hi. I'm here to enroll."
"Pete Jones."
"Number of hours enrolling in?"
"Well, that's just it. You see, if the section of English 101 that I want is — "
"Number, fella. I need a number."
"Okay, well." 15.4
major.
"What?"
"Major. C'mon, you've already used up one of your six minutes on the computer."
"But I'm a freshman. I don't have a major.I
TRACEE HAMILTON
don't even have a purpose in life. I'm just here because it beats the Army."
"You don't understand. The University is experimenting with a new tuition scale. The cost of a major is now based on the cost of teaching classes in various fields or at different levels. If you're in an expensive major, you pay more than if you're in an inexpensive one."
"You've got to be joking. Isn't that a little unfair?"
"Look, kid, I just follow the rules. Now, what'll you have?"
"Well, gee, I don't know. I funked physics in high school, so I guess I can't be a nuclear educator."
"It is just as well; you probably couldn't afford it anyway. That kind of thing costs, oh, maybe $100."
"Just for tuition? You can't be serious."
"Do you know how much it costs to train a nuclear physicist? Disposing of the waste alone
"Doesn't that make it a little expensive for pre-med and pre-nursing students?" And they have to go on through more school after they graduate. "And the number of doctors, lab technicians..."
"My heart is bleeding. Listen, you've got five minutes. Use them well; if you screw up this time, you have to wait until drop-add week. Well, now, let's get you a major, OK? How do you feel when you're in the science is a growing field. Why, computer scientists can practically write their own ticket."
"Why are you so anxious for me to major in computer science? Do my ACT scores show I have attitude in that area?"
"It's aptitude, kid. And no, your ACT scores don't show attitude or aptitude in much of anything. However, if we can sign up 100 computer science majors today, the University will turn on the heat in Strong. The women in the twoing pool are putting a lot of pressure on us."
"Well, how much does it cost to major in computer science?"
"A mere $800. Shall I sign you up for CS 2007?"
"I don't think so. Look, do you have anything in it?"
Wait, the prompt says "Maintain original document structure." The image has a header and body text separated by vertical lines.
Let's re-examine the first line: "A mere $800. Shall I sign you up for CS 2007?"
Yes, that's correct.
The second line: "I don't think so. Look, do you have anything in it?"
Yes, that's correct.
Final check of the text:
"A mere $800. Shall I sign you up for CS 2007?"
"I don't think so. Look, do you have anything in it?"
Wait, is there a space between "and" and "you"?
No, there's no space between "and" and "you".
Maybe it's just one sentence with spaces.
"And you have anything in it?"
Actually, looking at the image again, it's:
"A mere $800. Shall I sign you up for CS 2007?"
"I don't think so. Look, do you have anything in it?"
Let's look at the first word again. "A". It's bold.
The next word is also bold.
The third word is not bold.
One more check on the font. It looks like a standard serif font, but the text is split into two lines.
So the first line is "A mere $800. Shall I sign you up for CS 2007?"
The second line is "I don't think so. Look, do you have anything in it?"
I will output:
"A mere $800. Shall I sign you up for CS 2007?"
"I don't think so. Look, do you have anything in it?"
"I could help you better if I had an idea of what you were willing to spend."
"I was counting on tuition being about what it was last year, so I guess I could go as high as $500. But if I get a cheap major, I'd have enough money left over to . . ."
"Whoa, don't forget books. Just because the major is cheap doesn't mean the books are. Take English. Very esoteric. Cheap to teach. Tuition's about $200. But the books are a good lit class could run you $100 easy. But, listen, why don't 'you' sign up as an English major, pay the cut-rate tuition and then take whatever classes you want. Who's to know?"
"Well, what about a major with cheap tuition and cheap books?"
"Kid, the line is getting restless. Hey, what about HDFL?"
"What the hell is that?"
"What the hell is that?"
"You know, Human Development and Family Life. A bargain at $6. Just a couple of books."
"Let me just punch this in . . . oh no, bad news.
We're all out of HDFLs."
'How can you be out of a major?'
"Well, we have to limit the number of students in the less expensive fields; the University would lose a bundle if we had 26,000 HDFL majors. We should afford to water the law or print syllabuses."
"Listen, I just want to get a degree, graduate in four years, settle down and make lots of
houses."
"I'd suggest a business major, but you said vour math was witty weak."
"I'll buy a calculator. How much is a business major?"
"Are you interested in the luxury model or the compact?"
"If you want to be a managerial position, that'd be the luxury model, which runs about $60. If you want to be an accountant, that'd be the best business model, if you have it at the low价, for low price just $60."
"You mean it's on sale?"
"It's our blue light special this hour. Congratulations, you've made an excellent choice. Next!"
KANSAN
The University Daily
The University Daily Kanneu (USP-650) is published at the University of Kansas, 113 First Hall, Lawrence, Kann 65025, daily during the regular annual school and Monday and Thursday during the summer months. Subscribers are $19 for six months or $24 in Douglas County at Lawrence, Kann 65024. Subscriptions by mail are $19 for six months or $24 in Douglas County through the student activities fee *POSTMESSY*. Send address changes to the University Daily Kanneu.
Editor
Gene George
Managing Editor
Editorial Editor
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editors
Lewis Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Entertainment Editor
Production Manager
Wire Editors
Chief Photographer
Photographer
David Hornback, Ben Bigler, Buddy Magge
Don Delphin, Jim Evans
Head Copy Chief
Cupy Chefs
Artists
Retail Sales Manager
National Sales Manager
Campus Sales Manager
Classified Manager
Production Manager
Artist Production Manager
Teamsheets Manager
Ticket Boards Manager
Retail Sales Representatives
Gene George
Managing Editor
Editorial Editor
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editors
Lewis Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Entertainment Editor
Production Manager
Wire Editors
Chief Photographer
Photographer
David Hornback, Ben Bigler, Buddy Magge
Don Delphin, Jim Evans
Head Copy Chief
Cupy Chefs
Artists
Rosemary Hensman, Bill Wylie
Retail Sales Manager
National Sales Manager
Campus Sales Manager
Classified Manager
Production Manager
Artist Production Manager
Ticket Board
Digest cuts Bible down to the basics
The Gospel according to the Reader's Digest has come to Lawrence. And despite disparaging reviews from the likes of Time magazine and The New York Times, he made has made a relatively quiet appearance here.
At least three Lawrence bookstores are carrying the hardback, 799-page Bible that prompted the Christian Beacon to report that its pastor's Digest has done a good job for Satan.
Sales have been slow, store employees concurred. But they attributed that fact to the condensed Bible's recent appearance, rather than to the surrounding book in other parts of the country.
At the root of the hoopla is the absence of 40 percent, or 320,000 biblical words, that appear in the Protestant text of the Revised Standard Version, on which the condensed Bible is based. The Old Testament has been cut by half and the New Testament by one-fourth.
Uncalled-for jokes have stemmed from this product of the Reader's Digest characteristic condensing method. Time magazine, in a scathing editorial Oct. 4 that was palmed off as a news story, suggested that Psalms in the condensed version be named David's Greatest Hits. Half of the book of Psalms is gone in the Reader's Digest version.
The jokes, as Time put it, are inevitable. The Reader's Digest Bible features the Six Commandments; the 4.2 Days of Creation. The bars come easily — how Noah had room for only one book, the Ark and how Christ's followers have been edited to a paltry six. Less may not be more here.
1976 when Reader's Digest won the approval of the National Council of Churches. The Council holds the copyright to the Revised Standard
Version. The Digest recruited a qualified general editor — the Rev. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary, a distinguished Bible expert.
Metzger supervised the work of nine staff condensers, who put scissors to accounts they thought were parallel and redundant. For example, this passage from Isaiah, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for his transgressions," which describes the reporter's sentence and has been edited to just the first half of the verse. Redundancy, saith the editors.
LISA GUTIERREZ
Gone, also, are some of the dozens of stories concerning Jesus Christ's appearances, accounts that appeared in more than one of the four Gospels. Whole sentences have been eliminated. Matthew 4:25, "And great crowds followed (Jesus) from Galilee and the Decapolis and Galilean and Judaea and from beyond the Jordans." does not appear in the condensed Bible at all.
Old Testament family trees and lists of kings and much of the ritual law in Leviticus have been meticulously cut. Whole narrative passages have been minimized, words snipped from the end of verses. Prophets' prophecies have been pruned. Chanter and verse numbers are gone.
Did Reader's Digest editors think God’s
did readers’ writers were verbose? Not really.
I find them too much.
Metzger said he hoped the shorter version would attract people who had been put off by the length of the Bible. He hopes that after those people are attracted to his 60 percent rendition, "a sizable proportion who have never cracked the cover of a Bible will go on to read the whole thing."
The Digest has contended that the Bible is too little read. Never mind about yearly prints that consistently show the Bible to be one of the most popular books in the country.
Still, many have praised the Digest's efforts. Norman Vincent Peale, Oral Roberts, John Mostert, executive director of the conservative American Association of Bible Colleges, and Donald Shriver, president of New York City's liberal Union Theological Seminary, have all given their seals of approval. Pat Boone has called it an "authentic Bible feast."
Seemingly, the only ones who have voiced heartfelt disapproval of Metzger's editing have been those who believe the Bible should be taken verbatim. It's rather hard to do so when much of the verbatim has been tampered with, they claim.
The Reader's Digest undoubtedly took on an enormous task, editing the Word of God in a manner satisfactory to all. Stand-up comedians have been taking pot shots at the project. But Lawrence bookstores have yet to feel the thrust of controversy surrounding the condensed Bible.
The choice to criticize or praise the Reader's Digest Bible may not be of death concern for many. Those who are offended by the thought of a condensed Bible, however, should remember this — at least the Bible wasn't reduced to pocketbook size.
Or featured as a Reader's Digest Drama in Real Life.
Letters to the Editor
Religious groups not stereotyped monoliths
To the Editor:
I am a Christian and a member of a Christian living group here at KU. Not many days ago, our president received a phone call from a representative of a local group that advocates a nuclear freeze. Our president was asked to organize members of our living group for a demonstration to include skull-painted faces, placards, etc.
Our president informed the man that there was not a consensus of opinion in our living group concerning the nuclear freeze idea, and that she, as president, could not act as an agent for another group in soliciting participants. The representative was shocked and retorted with something like "I thought all Christians felt the same way about the freeze." The connotation was that all Christians should automatically feel the same way his group feels about the freeze.
The fact is (i.e. reality) that Christians, like non-Christians, can usually be found in any camp for any particular issue at any given time. There are Christians who support a nuclear agreement, also Christians who do not. There are pro-life Christians, and, yes, even pro-choice Christians.
There are Christians in the ACLU and Christians in the Pentagon. There are Christians who vote Democrat and those who vote Republican. There are even some Christians who don't vote all. There are conservative Christians and liberal Christians, black Christians and white Christians, Jerry Falwells and John Pauls. We have Cindy Lassler and Billy Grahams in our numbers. Our ranks include doctors, lawyers, artists, plumbers, clerks and feminists, and we also have content homemakers and African-Caribbean pacifists, Christian militants, Christian activists and Christian selective. Some Christians are bearded; some are bald. Some wear Polo shirts and Topspins; some wish they could afford them. And on and on and on.
Randy Oswald Olathe senior
In view of the obvious pluralism that exists within that class of people called Christians, I
am surprised to find that there are still some who believe that Christianity is some stereotypical entity, ready-made for labels and propaganda, full of imbeciles who have sacrificed their reason to modern sacred cows. And when the cow worshipers find that some Christians are not inclined to jump on the band wagon, the legitimacy of those Christians' intentions came into question. But somehow, I think God will make His evaluation using some other criteria. History tends to show that He doesn't go in for sacred cows either.
News judgement poor
What are they teaching you people over there in Flint Hall? It seems that every time I open up the Kansas, there are numerous examples of your lack of journalistic judgment and expertise, from misspelled words (even the headlines are not spared) to sentences that make no sense. It makes me wonder whether the stuff is even edited before it goes to camera.
To the Editor:
Usually I ignore these irritations included in the Kansas; it's hard to justify taking time away from study to voice my opinion. But a story that ran on the front page of Monday's paper was just
The story makes us look like a bunch of jerks, seeing an ugly event with obviously myopic vision. From the headline, one would assume that a KU student was injured in an attack by K-State students. But that's not what happened at all, if we can trust the facts as revealed in the
story. Somebody yanked the hat off a KU student, and in her pursuit of that individual, she tripped and injured her ankle. From this event is derived Monday's distorted headline.
Who is responsible for the choice example of yellow journalism titled "Bowdy Wildcat fists pounce on KU band, injure member"? I guess the writer just couldn't resist the urge to libel the rival state university, even at the expense of a few facts.
Why couldn't the event simply have been covered as any other news story, objectively and accurately? If the writer can't avoid bending the facts to satisfy his personal need to throw stones, he should be delivering papers, not producing them.
While we're on the subject of misguided journalistic judgment, I might as well query as to the purpose of the mindless piece on shaving written by Hal Klopper that appeared on my blog yesterday. I read the reader to "backtrack with me to my 618th birthday, when I received my first electric shaver."
Apparently something happened at the K-State game that was worthy of a news story. K-State fans seem to have gotten carried away and are now worrying about their newsworthy without distorting the facts?
What enthralling reading! I don't know about you, but I couldn't put it down! Who is this character who thinks anyone is even remotely interested in the history behind his shaving career? Is there nothing on in the world more worthy of comment than his facial hair?
I understand that the shaving piece was intended as humor, but it failed so miserably that I wonder where the editor was when it was stuck down on the layout page.
I can just hear people screaming that I should be helping in the production of the paper instead of just complaining about it. Well, that makes a little sense (if you squint). Unfortunately, not all of us are so academically capable as to be able to devote time to producing a school paper and to an education as well. Hence, the job is left to the journalism students. I don't begrudge them a few mistakes. But daily, and in so great an abundance?
Keith Sessions Lawrence junior