Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, October 27, 1982
Shankel to the rescue
Less than six months after becoming athletic director at the University of Kansas, Jim Lessig announced his resignation. He will leave KU next week to become commissioner of the Mid-American Athletic Conference.
In the meantime, the always dependable Del Shankel, professor of biochemistry, former acting chancelor before the arrival of Gene A. Budig and former acting athletic director before Lessig, will once again fill in.
Budig says Shankel understands the role of athletics at KU. And well he should — his previous interim position lasted from late January until April.
"He is known for his administrative competence and objectivity," Budig said. In fact, in every position Shankel has assumed, he has proved more than competent, more than objective. KU can only benefit from Shankel's term, however temporary, as acting athletic director.
But is the University using Shankel, knowing that his abilities enable him to carry schedules too full for most faculty and that his loyalty to KU may make him hesitant to say no?
The job of athletic director will not interfere with his teaching responsibilities, Shankel says, and it would be uncharacteristic of him to let it do so. Nevertheless, the addition of a full-time job on top of teaching cannot help but be a heavy burden, however willingly borne.
Del Shankel, perhaps better than any administrator in recent University history, has shown himself able to place learning, bureaucracy and such extracurricular interests as athletics into proper perspective.
The University should treasure such a precious resource. At this rate, it may succeed in burning him out.
Reaganomics' skeptics silent in face of GOP peer pressure
Sometimes, after reading the newspaper or watching the evening news, I think that no one in Washington neither knows nor cares about what he is doing.
With unemployment at its highest level since World War II, a recession that has trumped just about every aspect of the economy, and a vast number of businesses failing throughout the country, it would be nice to hear that the politician is not eager to do what is best for the country.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, the Reagan administration
TOM GRESS
and Congress seem to be more interested in keeping up appearances than in trying to fix the
An article in the Oct. 24 New York Times Magazine titled "Reaganism and the President's Men," by Steve R. Weisman, the New York Times White House correspondent, traced how supply-side economics, a theory considered to have been central to gamble, became policy. What he found is scary.
Scary could almost be defined by this statement about the 1981 tax cut by Sen. Paul Laxall, a Nevada Republican and one of President Reagan's closest friends: "If there were a secret ballot in the Senate last year, there would not have been more than 12 votes for the tax cut."
Laxalt said this, Weisman wrote, at a meeting called by the president to push for the tax increase that was passed about two months ago. So, it can be assumed from Laxalt's words, few believed in supply-side economics, the base of Reaganism, in the first place.
And here's more scary stuff: When the Reagan administration took office, it predicted an economic growth of more than 5 percent for the next two years even though economic growth had declined in 1980 and the Federal Reserve's interest rates were set for strangulation.
How did the administration get its percentage?
"We took a given high level of growth, and the lowest level of inflation we thought we could go away with, and we added the two together." a
White House official said in the article, "The issue didn't get settled. It just got added up."
That sounds like the way I balance my checkbook. And if anybody saw my checkbook, they wouldn't want the government doing anything that way. Add a few numbers here and there, make it look good, and what the hell's the difference?
Weisman had to promise confidentiality to White House sources.
What is even more bothersome about the administration and Congress is that although plenty of congressmen and administration officials had their doubts about the plan, none except David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, had the guts to speak up, and he did so through an article in the Atlantic Monthly.
For instance, Weisman writes about the doubles Martin Anderson, Reagan's domestic policy adviser, had about the economic plan: "But Mr. Anderson never told the president of his feelings — for a variety of reasons. As a veteran of the bitter arguments over the program during the campaign ... he shared with some other Reagan旧-timers a reluctance to reopen those wounds. He also believed in the customary procedures of the Reagan office whereby the staff reached a consensus on a management going to the president with it and that belief would prevail."
So, what happens is that instead of bringing up so much needed debate about the program, Anderson decides that antagonizing the president isn't worth it. Personally, I'd rather see the president antagonized and the economy in better shape.
There are enough examples of inepititude by the Reagan administration and the Congress to fill a couple of columns, and what Weisman writes about how the Defense Department budget has been decided could be the script of a horror movie.
What is most disturbing, as Weisman writes, is that this type of decision-making is built into the political system. Lawmakers, especially these days, are more concerned about what is politically popular than about what should be done.
Reaganism won't be the end of mankind. But the slapdash method in which it was put together, with congressmen checking the administration and officials checking the administrative window, has been examined and changed quickly. If it isn't, we find even bigger problems ahead of us.
Childhood tradition threatened
Halloween. Lotsa candy, lotsa scary people and lotsa fun.
Unfortunately, Halloween's also the time for lolza cries to come out of the woodwork.
Little ghosts and witches mooch treats every year in a time-honored tradition that in recent years has included weireds putting razor blades into items into the candy and treats the children get.
With the Tylolen scar and the subsequent poisoning of other products such as 7-Up, these strange people are likely to get even more ideas about potentially untraceable harm to the trick or treaters.
Parents across the nation have been warned against letting their children go out alone or eat candy before they get home. Some communities, including New York, have banned trick or treating altogether this year.
Police won't be patrolling the streets arresting witte witches and ghosts, but they are encountering
Restraining children from trick or treating this year is probably a good idea, but it is sad that little kids can't enjoy going out with their nifty costumes and begging for candy any more. All that is left is cutting pumpkins and maybe going to a party.
When I was 9 years old, I worried only about whether my mother would make me wear a coat over my new costume, and whether I could avoid it. My sister and his friends so that he wouldn't scare me.
One little boy in Dudley, Mass., one of the communities banning trick or treat, said, "In this day and age, you can't trust anybody, not since those poisoners."
The boy, William Borowski, was 9 years old. Either he has been well-indoctrinated by his parents or he is sadly wise beyond his years.
But what is really horrible is that very small children must now be taught to be suspicious. They must learn early that the world is a dangerous place.
I never dreamed that she would say I could not go out trick or treating at all.
That would have been a most extreme punishment, and I would have had a hard time viewing it as something she was doing for my own good.
When I was in high school — too old to go trick or
or treating, but not too old to enjoy the
honey.
CATHERINE BEHAN
and I built a haunted house in our home for the very young neighborhood children whose par-
It was a fun and safe alternative for parents who did not want to drag their children all over the house.
It was not so good for the 7- and 8-year-olds who were just barely too young to go out by themselves. To them, a short trip through a handful of good places was a wonderful kind of goodies, was not particularly exciting.
Mean, what fun would my brother have had if he could not have waited in batches to scare me? I could not have waited in batches to scare me!
The Kids in Dudley and other towns won't have much fun in a school gym with their parents.
They will miss more than one or two candy bars. They will miss the thrill of meeting that crochetie old man who looks more than a little older. And they will be the great story and has the best candy on the block.
They will miss the nervousness before going up to that scary-looking house to ask for candy for the first time and finding out that the owners are giving away homemade cake apples.
For those who do go out, *will* will be homemade goodies and probably none will be allowed to eat the candy that is not wrapped and homemade treats are too easy to tamper with.
Nevertheless, Halloween trick or treating does leave children open to mischief. If parents do let their children out this year, police have these pointers:
- Make sure children bring all candy and food to be checked by parents before the children leave.
- — Throw out all supricious food, such as candy worms or burnt wrappers, fruit with puncture marks or horns.
- If you suspect anything is wrong with candy, the police so the can check it and get an idea of what happened.
- — If children are young, send an adult with them.
- Have them carry flashlights.
- Have children wear light-colored costumes (perhaps ghosts?) so they are very visible to cars.
- Have them carry tasselnights.
- Paint children's faces with makeup rather than have them wear masks with small eyeboles.
- Have children go out in large groups.
- Have children go in large groups.
Halloween can still be a safe and fun holiday—even without banning trick or treating—if both parents and children are careful.
Letters to the Editor Letter about 'tissue' stark, unsettling
To the Editor
I want to thank Charles Hurley for his surs and provocative letter to the Kansan Oct. 20. Most of us who read the letter were unable to remain passive. Those who couldn't quite isolate what it was that made Hurley's comments so unsettling need only project into the near future where society's reasons concerning the status of unborn children must take us.
One clear role of government is to provide protection for its citizens. Whether one chooses
Unless we wake up to the tragic injustice we dealt to more than one-third of the nation's unborn population and reverse it, no one of us will be safe from its future repercussions, i.e., facing termination of life because of its possible inconvenience to another.
Randy Kitchens Lawrence sophomore
to call it a bone or "tissue," a fetus is not a cyst or wart or tumor. It is a living person with every right to continue living. Whether we recognize that will tremendously affect the future of our species.
Work phone off limits
To the Follower.
Anyone wishing information about either of these activist causes should contain his or her zeal until 5 p.m., when I'll be home, at 841-3577.
Stephen Robinson Wiehita senior
It was pointed out to me that such advertising "misse of state property" I apologize for any harm caused.
About a week ago I gave my work phone number on the KJHK radio talk show "Call Me Up" in connection with contacting the Kansas Natural Guard. I also gave out that number in connection with the Yellow Thunder support group in an article in the "Praxis" newsletter
Defense study needed
To the Editor:
First, Behan should have looked at current research projects the Soviet Union is undertaking, such as the high-energy particle beam that will be used to destroy incoming warheads before they explode. The Pentagon expects this to be completed by the Soviets in 1986. Or what
It seems the beliefs Catherine Behan takes are those that are shared by the Teds, James and the liberal left - beliefs such as that the United States is surrounded by countries that hold the same peacekeeping values. This letter is in opposition to Behan's Oct. 20 editorial on military research. Maybe Behan should have done some research before writing this editorial.
about Soviet research in space-related military projects such as killer satellites? The Defense Department predicts that these will be used to deploy drones and population centers such as power plants.
The United States is now confronted with problems in Western Europe. If the Soviets attack NATO troops, it will be by using chemical weapons on troops and to eliminate them with little bloodshed for the Soviet troops. The problem exists because U.S. troops are ill-equipped to deal with this situation. Should we adopt Banh's proposal? Can we justify this to the world and to future generations that will have to live with a Soviet threat? Can we tell the truth about what we must abolish military research, which at this time is trying to find a way to protect them from such an onslaught, so the students of our education system will not have to work?
These examples of Soviet military research did not come out of a science fiction "red scare" novel, but from realizing what the world consists of. How can the nuclear freeze movement mean anything in future years when the Soviet Union possesses the capability to destroy, no matter how many weapons we have or attack them with? What are the NATO forces worth if they are common enemies? Are technology technically/or? What would prevent the Soviets from extending its sphere of influence from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf? These questions cannot be answered by thinking that a race rid of cancer or one of supermind individuals can prevent a force from attacking it without the necessary technology to deal with it. That technology may exist today to ward off such a force, but will it be able to 20 years from now? Look at the significance of World War I and II. Can we, Catherine Behan and supporters of the liberal left, realistically stop military research?
Marc Kean
Lawrence sophomore
The University Daily
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily Kansas (USPS 00-6900) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Flint Street, Kansas City, KS 64103 and is available at the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions, excluding the spring semester. Contact Lawrence, Kaukaunia, Kanamatsu, Kamloops, and Kensington-Lawrence. Kaukaunia: kaukaunia.com for mail are $15 for six months or $2 per year in Douglas County. Kamloops: kamloops.edu/activities for mail are $25 per month through the student activity fee. FOSTMATEH: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansas.
Editor ... Business Manager
Gene George ... Susan Cooksey
Managing Editor ... Steve Robohan
Editorial Editor ... Rebecca Damage
Retail Sales Manager ... Barb Baum
National Sales Manager ... Jane Wendervort
General Manager and News Advisor ... Paul Jesse
General Manager and News Adviser Paul Jesen
Advertising Adviser John Oberman