Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Feb. 28, 1962
The Farm Problem
The European Common Market is continuing to develop and one of the developments that it has as a goal will affect America's farmers, including those in Kansas.
That development is the unified market for agricultural products that will develop as the Common Market nations continue to integrate their economies. This will result in a uniform tariff that discriminates against agricultural products from nations outside the Common Market.
AMERICAN FARMERS are presently producing far more agricultural products than the United States can use. Part of the surplus is exported and part of it goes into storage. The exports that go to the Common Market nations at present total between $1 and $2 billion, a sizable amount.
This is just one development that complicates the present farm problem. The problem itself can be stated simply: it is one of too many farmers producing too much. The solution lies in reducing the number of farmers.
THIS IS THE only reasonable solution. Carrying it out would be difficult and it would have
to be a gradual thing, but the present situation is the result of an evasion of a simple fact that should be faced. President Kennedy has pointed out that 87 per cent of the total agricultural production comes from one and one-half of our three and one-half million farmers. That one and one-half million of the total farmers are capable of producing the other 13 per cent of U.S. farm production with no difficulty.
This is a hard thing for farmers to accept. Yet eventually it must be accepted. The present surplus production of farm products is a drain on the national budget and may well become even more so when the Common Market nations and other areas achieve increased agricultural production or reach distribution agreements that exclude the United States.
The number of farmers that need to be absorbed in other types of employment—two million—could be absorbed over a period of years. It would take time, and it would require cooperation from the farmers, but it could be done. Such a solution is better than allowing the present problem to fester.
—William H. Mullins
Reaction to a Description
Editor:
It is somewhat alarming to read on the front page of the Daily Kansan the charge that former President Eisenhower "... was a nice stupid old guy." At first glance, one might conclude that the statement had been made by a rather rude sixth-grader. On closer inspection, it is revealed that the speaker is Mr. Klaus Pringsheim, an instructor in the political science department.
IT IS especially noteworthy that Mr. Pringsheim chose to exhibit such bad taste, because it has been only a week since he felt compelled to lecture local conservatives for their irresponsible attacks on various persons. Even less than a week age, this same instructor was indignantly threatening a lawsuit (much to the enjoyment of the crowd) against a man who had merely hinted that Mr. Pringsheim's political status might be far-left.
Evidently the instructor has changed his mind about slander and has decided to indulge in it himself. Not to be outdone by anybody, even the radical right, he has not confined himself to an attack on policies or political beliefs, but instead prefers to launch an offensive against a man's character. Is it possible that Mr. Pringsheim doesn't practice what he preaches?
WHETHER OR not President Eisenhower acted wisely is certainly not the question. In fact, in my opinion he did not act wisely in this particular situation (the U-2 incident). However, not having the audacity or flair for publicity that Mr. Pringsheim possesses, I cannot bring myself to call our former President a "stupid old guy." I can only hope that Mr. Pringsheim will answer me by saying that he was grossly misquoted. If not, I will be forced to accept the fact that at least one professor at KU has not the slightest idea of the meaning of the words "responsibility" and "good taste," preferring instead to engage in juvenile name-calling.
Mike Bainum
Lawrence freshman
Comments From Myers
Editor:
I express my thanks for the opportunity to participate in a campus discussion program. Some of the questions presented were of the $64 variety and would merit hours of discussion.
IN THEIR drive to abolish governmental committee investigations of their subversive activities, the Communists and those who help them in this objective have a real gimmick. This gimmick is to equate freedom from investigation with the survival and maintenance of all other freedoms. Actually, the investigation of subversive activities is intended to protect all other freedoms through knowledge of the methods, etc., of the apparatus engaged in subverting freedom.
The Reds claim that if you investigate them — you are taking away the very freedoms which they themselves are pledged to destroy. This is about like saying that, if you investigate known and suspected robbers, you are imperiling the freedom of the very public whom the robbers rob.
... Letters . . .
POLICE OFTEN investigate the whereabouts, associations and crime patterns of known and suspected criminals. This enables the police to keep "tab," and to request changes in the laws which may be required to meet changing crime patterns. The mission of governmental committees investigating subversion is similar.
The Communist apparatus is not just "another political party"; its operatives are the dedicated agents of a foreign directed conspiracy—just as declared in the Internal Security Act of 1950. This Act has been upheld by Supreme Court decision. In his special report dealing with the 17th National Convention of the Communist Party U.S.A., at which time Gus Hall took the reins, J. Edgar Hoover said: "The party will remain—as it has been in the past—an obedient slave of Moscow."
Kenneth L. Myers
WHETHER Khrushchev ever really intended to go through with a summit meeting or not, is not something I would pretend to know. Khrushchev may have been under considerable pressure from both the Chinese and Stalinist elements in the Soviet Union to wreck the summit under any pretext.
Pringsheim on His Speech Editor;
Eisenhower should therefore not be blamed for anything more than giving the Russians a good pretext which they may have been looking for anyhow. Immediately after the U-2 incident Khrushchev stated that the summit meeting would not be affected by it, citing that Eisenhower had apparently not been personally responsible for the flight. I said these things in my talk, but your story unfortunately makes it appear that I shifted all the blame on President Eisenhower.
In view of the way in which you have reported my talk on the U-2 incident and the spy-swan, I must come to the defense of President Eisenhower. It is unfair to say that Eisenhower ruined the summit, and my contention was merely that Eisenhower's action in taking blame for the U-2 incident left Khrushchev little choice but to permit the summit to collapse.
IN REGARD to the question as to whether Eisenhower's confession of responsibility for the incident was politically motivated (to help elect Richard Nixon), I stated that I felt this to be a far more serious necessation than what I had said, for in my opinion Eisenhower's action was unwise rather than dictated by petty political motives.
One might add that it is easy now for us to sit in judgment when
the events are long since past. I sincerely believe that Eisenhower meant well, but that his decision to break long-standing precedent in acknowledging Presidential responsibility for an act of espionage was extremely ill-advised.
**A Reply to Hamilton**
Editor:
Klaus H. Pringsheim instructor of political science
A letter to Mr. Hamilton, whatever his name may really be:
Sir, it would appear from your recent letter that you, not I, have a preoccupation with communism. Though you are obviously adverse to dealing with facts I would appreciate your delving into public records and reporting the number of times I have mentioned communism in them. I think you will find one reference to the subject—that in a satirical letter to the Kansan criticizing an editorial by Fred Zimmerman.
I DO HATE to further belabor you with facts Mr. H., but the record will also show that I have NOT stated that "there aren't any conservatives in the Political Science and Economics Departments..."
Your praise for our choice of Portugal in the model U.N. is appreciated. However, sir, it was not a result of sympathy for the country's government. We selected Portugal because we wished to bring up the issue of India's invasion of Goa.
THOUGH ONE can spend one's life shooting myths, it is not a very profitable (note that dirty word) occupation, and I will do it no more. Anyone wishing to know what the ideals of YAF are can easily learn by reading one of the brochures on the organization, which any member will gleefully supply, or they can read the new KU-ARF newspapers, the STAND-ARD. I trust, Mr. Hamilton, that you will refrain from any such enlightening activities.
P. S.: Rest assured that I do not think you a communist. Whitaker Chambers, in his book "Witness," states that because of their own mania it is impossible for liberals to recognize communists. I concur, and, therefore, think you only blind.
Conservatively, Marick Payton
Dailu Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1880, became biweekly 1904,
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VKiring 3-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East St., New York, United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during weekdays and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
By Martha Eissenstat Assistant Instructor of English
PORTRAIT OF A MARRIAGE, by Pearl S. Buck. Cardinal Edition New York. 1961, 35 cents.
"Portrait of a Marriage" is an innocuous book, of the sort of harmless fiction which appears monthly in the popular women's magazines. In fact it originally appeared in a shorter form as a serial in "Redbook" under the title "A Man's Daily Bread." It has no great defects; neither has it any great virtues, unless lack of any serious faults can be considered a virtue.
MISS BUCK chronicles the marriage of an artist with a farm girl through three generations. William Barton comes from a wealthy family of a high social class; Ruth Harnsbarger comes from a Pennsylvania farm. William is expected to marry a girl of his own class. Ruth the boy on the next farm. William stumbles upon a farm by accident while wandering through the woods painting, stops and asks for food, meets Ruth, is struck by her simple wholesome beauty, asks her to pose for him, and so on.
The story is a very everyday story. It is free from melodramatic overtones and artificially constructed plot motivations. Perhaps that in itself is enough to make it worth reading for relaxation.
Miss Buck's style, as usual, is smooth and almost flawless. The most effective aspect of this chronicle is the way in which she manages to portray two different attitudes toward living. Ruth's day is taken up with making butter and bread and all the general things that keep a farm going. This completely satisfies her. William's day is spent in painting and in thought. Occasionally he goes back to his own world for conversation. Yet the two people are absolutely dependent upon each other for happiness.
RUTH'S WORLD is more clearly portrayed than William's because Miss Buck never makes clear what it is that William must think or converse about. Ruth's thoughts and actions are quite vividly portrayed. The story is also moving in its presentation of the heritage which the parents pass on to their children through heredity, e.g. One child has William's restlessness combined with Ruth's simplicity—and the combination is not always good.
At the Movies
By Murrel Bland
"One, Two, Three"; produced by Billy Wilder; At the Granada.
Billy Wilder. At the Granada.
"One, Two, Three" combines humor with satire to tell the story of a West Berlin branch manager of a soft drink company who wants to sell Coke to the Russians. The manager, C. R. McNamara, played by James Cagney, believes this would be the greatest thing that happened to Coke since the six pack.
HIS CAMPAIGN to sell Coke to the Russians becomes the subplot when the general manager's daughter shows up in Berlin. McNamara has orders from the boss to look after the girl.
The main plot concerns the general manager's daughter, Scarlet (played by Pamela Tiffin), and her romance with an east Berlin Communist. McNamara becomes quite disturbed when he learns that Scarlet has been glipping
across the border to the east sector to see her boy friend Otto, played by Horst Buchholz.
THE MOVIE TAKES a poke at U.S.-Soviet relations. At a conference, McNamara tells three Soviet trade consuls that the Russians will never steal the secret formula for Coke. One of the three consuls offers McNamara a cigar. McNamara looks at the label and then remarks that "it was made in Havana."
The movie would be a good satire if it did not lower its standards to a slapstick level. Unfortunately, there are too many old jokes, sexy secretaries and wild car chases.
If you want a good belly laugh (and can put up with a 90 minute commercial for Coco-Cola) go see "One, Two, Three." If you get tired of laughing at the slapstick routines, maybe you can laugh at the satire.