4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Tuesday, April 29, 1986
The men met 41 years ago, a part of the effort to crush a menace to the world.
This week they were in Lawrence, commemorating their meeting, which marked the end of the Nazi Third Reich and of the war in Europe, on the banks of the Elbe River.
Their visit also serves as a reminder that the United States and the Soviets have not always been at odds, that the two nations have worked together in the past when it was necessary to remove an immediate danger.
It's an important reminder, particularly now that the people of both countries again face the threat from another menace — the vast nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers — and can benefit once again from cooperation.
The veterans of the Elbe meeting have an advantage
Three Soviet veterans of the Elbe meeting and three East Germans have joined their U.S. counterparts to travel and educate people about the horrors of war.
over the rest of us, particularly those who have no memory of the Allied efforts to halt the spread of Nazism.
The Soviet system in 1945 was no more tolerable to the U.S. people than it is today. Yet these veterans shared a common goal — the defeat of Hitler — and laid aside their differences to reach that goal.
But it would be equally naive to think that the desire for peace in the Soviet Union isn't sincere, or that this desire doesn't touch a responsive chord in this country.
The veterans understand, as a few of us can, that some threats make differences in political systems pale, however sharp those differences might be.
It would be naive to think that the visit by the Soviet veterans would be possible if it didn't coincide with present Soviet foreign policy.
President Reagan has made his first diplomatic gesture to the new president of the Philippines and at the same time snuffed out any hope for support that former president Ferdinand Marcos might be holding.
Certainly the menace is again there. Now if we can only benefit from the wisdom these veterans gained on the banks of the Elbe.
Reagan extended an invitation to President Corazon Aquino last week to visit the United States. He followed that call with one to Marcos telling him the Filipinos had clearly made their decision.
An invitation to visit
The call to Aquino was the first direct form of communication that Reagan has made to the Philippines since Marcos was deposed and Aquino took office.
willing to talk.
Aquino cordially accepted Reagan's invitation. However, she should wait some time before making any trip away from the Philippines. There is still some danger that Marcos' supporters could make waves and overthrow the government as soon as she's gone.
That call was an important step in re-establishing sound U.S.-Philippine relations. It shows that both parties are
Recently, Marcos told 12,000 followers in the Philippines that he still considered himself the legitimate president of the Philippines and told them to continue their protests against Aquino's government.
Considering Aquino's vulnerable situation, it might be a better idea if Reagan could stop over in the Philippines on his trip through Asia this week. It would bring reconstruction of U.S.-Philippine ties that much sooner.
Months of buildup and superhype caveed in on Geraldo Rivera last week as the walls of Al Capone's vault came down to reveal . . . nothing.
Capone gets last laugh
After playing host to two hours of digging and blasting and more digging, Rivera had nothing to show WGN and NBC viewers. He rather pathetically apologized, saying tests indicating there might have been anything of value must have been wrong.
While they dug, Rivera treated viewers to cliche-laden glimpsees of Capone's life, interviewing nearly every Chicagoan who had ever had a father's brother's friend's girlfriend who might have
Rivera had captured a live audience to watch as bulldozers and construction workers found one wall after another under the old Lexington Hotel in Chicago.
known Scarface Al.
The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times essentially ignored the event, except for a scathing interview published in the Sun-Times the day before the dig that focused on Rivera's failing career.
Rivera's prospects for future employment probably weren't bolstered by the Capone flasco.
It is perhaps easier to poke fun at Rivera and the "hidden treasures" he didn't uncover because thousands of people feel bitter that they wasted two hours watching the affair April 21.
Capone managed to escape the law for years as he ran Chicago during the prohibition era. His hidden riches certainly escaped Rivera's search and thousands of us watched it all live.
Scarface Al definitely had the last laugh.
News staff
Michael Totty ... Editor
Lauretta McMillen ... Managing editor
Chris Barber ... Editorial editor
Cindy McCurry ... Campus editor
David Giles ... Sports editor
Wilfred Lee ... Photo editor
Jim Hornsby ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Brett McCabe ... Business manager
David Nixon ... Retail sales manager
Jim Williamson ... Campus manager
Lori Eckart ... Outsellled manager
Carolina Hinneb ... Production manager
Pallin Lee ... National manager
John Oberzan ... Sales and marketing adviser
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 the University, include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest shots should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words.
w. They the Kansean reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansean newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Fint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 50-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuffer-Flint Halt, Lawrence, Kan. 66045, dailies during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and on Wednesday during the summer season. Dailies during the Lawrence county semester are $15 for six months or $27 a year in Dorchester County and $18 for six months and $35 a year outside the county. Studios subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Staufer, Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60405.
U.S. economic fate lies in foreign markets
From the start of Reagan's first term in office, controversy erupted over forecasts of the economic outlook of his presidency.
On one hand, many people, such as Arthur Laffer, have said the sun couldn't shine any brighter.
On the other hand, many, such as John Kenneth Galmire, have said, the United States would be doomed for disaster. (Although what Galbraith sees as disastrous might be something worth consideration.)
Lucky for Reagan's opposition, Galbraith wasn't the only one gain-saying the administration's outlook of a stronger America in the making.
The administration recently has been congratulating itself for championing economic growth, yet many top private analysts aren't smiling. For the first quarter of 1986, the gross national product grew 4 percent and admirists are expecting 4 percent by the end of the year — and inflation sank.
So what's the problem? Jerry Jasinowski, economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said, "I don't think very many people are going to read strength in these numbers."
The problem many private analysts see isn't in the figure itself
Evan Walter
Staff columnist
as much as in the structure supporting it. The 3.2 percent is perceived as an overstatement of economic strength because consumption rose as a consequence of falling oil prices rather than flourishing businesses
If prudence is caution, then the concern about the trade deficit and declining export rates — which, according to the trade data, made a surprisingly abrupt improvement this quarter — requires search for other means of growth, such as stimulated foreign economies.
Remember, the price of oil doesn't work like Nigara Falls, which may continue falling for the next 10,000 miles. But I add, I demand the supply of oil itself.
Economists usually have a habit of attaining pessimistic perspectives, such as "view everything as limited or scarce," so as not to disappoint anyone. Political figures, however,
Rather, they want to know. "Is it 'good news' or 'bad news'?" And politicians know which answer is the most popular.
tend to recognize that most people aren't concerned about politics, economic matters, and other issues of national interest.
The general public tends to hold its ears closer to the politicians than economists because politicians are more "understandable."
In any case, pessimistic analysts have a point. Besides, the businesses and venture capitalists — prime controllers of investment — listen to them.
The times presently look good and any trade problems curable. Proper advice for the administration should be Machiavelli's principle, in times of great think of war, only changed to read: in times of prosperity think ahead.
The first quarter of 1986 was one of growth in consumption (as well as a decrease in government spending) and net exports of goods and services. This decline in anticipate improvement in the trade deficit. Others, however, skeptically
await to see more figures before such anticipations.
Concerned about the deficit,
Treasury Secretary James A. Baker spoke to countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development asking countries such as Germany to stimulate their economies as protectionist sentiment was far from dead in the United States.
The goal of more stimulated economies would be to increase exports from the United States to these countries. The strategies recommended were to loosen monetary policy and expand fiscal policy through tax cuts or increased government spending.
Whether one is pessimistic or optimistic, increasing international trade helps production more than a protectionist policy would. Protectionism damages trade, lessens consumer choices, and raises prices because of the lessened competition. Times of economic growth don't need the risk of protectionist policies to aid a trade deficit, but rather the government should focus on foreign markets.
Diplomats must balance lies with truth
The last few weeks have given us some remarkable illustrations of Sir Henry Wotton's 17th century definition of a diplomat: "An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the commonwealth."
Sir Henry's reflection on the requirements of diplomacy came to mind with reports that:
France actually favored a much heavier U.S. attack that had ended Col. Moammar Khadafy's reign. On the record, France wouldn't let U.S. planes fly over its territory on the way to Tripoli.
Some Arab nation representatives told U.S. diplomats privately that they were happy U.S. planes bombed Libya to retaliate against state-sponsored terrorism. Publicly, the Arabs lambasted the U.S. action.
The European Community nations could do nothing about Libyan-backed terrorism the day before the U.S. attack. After the air strike, the suddenly discovered Libyans involve in terrorism in their territories.
Arnold Sawislak United Press International
How does this apply to the question of whether the U.S. attack on Libya was the right way to combat terror that has been killing U.S. citizens?
This may be somewhat simplified, but in view of disclosures that at least two European countries once had private deals with Khadifa that gave terrorists immunity if they didn't blow up anything where they were stationed, one has to wonder just how some of the critics of the United States in this sorry situation can justify their flights of moral outrage.
No civilized country should use deadly force to achieve its goals if alternatives are available. The United States tried some of those alternatives. It asked countries whose people also were being blown
Khadafy. The answer was "no" and the reason, unstated but clear, was that they didn't want to lose the
It should be remembered that the United States cut off grain sales to the Soviet Union to protest the invasion of Afghanistan and watched while many of its friends happily sold the Russians the wheat they needed. The United States was made to look foolish and its farmers paid the price.
The United States also tried the time-honored "show of force" gambit, sending the Navy to the Gulf of Sidra and demonstrating in a small way U.S. military capability. The reply was the bombing, linkage with forces of a German disoutee that killed two people, one an American.
where terrorism is a threat. Others say anything short of a settlement of the Israel-Arab conflict will be treating symptoms instead of causes.
What else should the United States have done before resorting to force? Some say it could have increased security measures in vulnerable areas and perhaps tried to keep U.S. citizens from traveling to countries
The second idea might indeed do much to reduce terrorism, but it calls for changes in policies and attitudes so profound by nations and people that it has frustrated the efforts of statesmen for half of this century. A solution is not about to happen overnight.
The first idea might help, but at what point does prison-like security or restrictions on freedom of movement constitute victory for terrorism?
What the United States did has been praised by a few, damned by many. The irony is that if the U.S. action, right or wrong, did anything to stem terrorism, it would help the critical many as much, if not more, than the sympathetic few. Sir Henry would have appreciated that.
Texas is winner in sweetest onion war
"The war is over and we have won!" proclaimed a media advisory appearing in the congressional press galleries.
Or maybe it sounds more like something former President Lyndon Johnson might have uttered with respect to the Vietnam conflict.
If that sounds like Libya's Col. Moammar Khadafy commenting on the most recent American raid, the similarity is purely coincidental.
in any case, this advisory was prepared by the House Agriculture Committee and pertains to onions.
Yes, friends and fellow onion-addicts, according to Committee Chairman Kika de la Garza, Texas Republican, who announced the world's sweetest onion
But, contrary to what one might think, the question wasn't settled at the Alamo.
De la Garza doesn't even hail from San Antonio. The Texas Democrat was born in Mercedes and now lives
Dick West
United Press International
in Mission. And although Texas is observing the 150th anniversary of its war of independence, the sweetest challenge didn't come from Mexico.
"Suffice to say," de la Garza suffices to say, "none could compare" with the Texas entry, "which was named the sweetest raw onion in the nation" in El Centro, Calif., last year.
In fact, some of the phrases used in the media advisory sound suspiciously like they might have been lifted because of some inspirational O'Daniel ditty.
It is good that Texans have something new to brag about. Although I might be a Lone Star expatriate, I am by no means an ex-convict. We don't need credentials it's too bad the late Sen W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel, D Texas, isn't still alive. He might have written a song about the onion.
Anyway, when de la Garza invited the Capitol press corps to sample the sweetest sweet onion one's ever tasted, I was there.
I hasten to add, however, that I am married to a Georgia girl who grew up eating sweet onions from Vidalia. Therefore, any comparison might not only be odious, but also grounds for divorce.
It was. That, as the de la Garza put it,
is "the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth." (O'Daniel, by
the way, didn't coin that phrase,
although it does sound hauntingly
familiar.)
speaking of odious, I'm not sure what effect the Texas onion, known
as the "1015 supersweet," has on the breath. But I was assured it contains very little of the chemical compound savings tears to the eyes of the slicer.
Sure enough, not a tear was being shed during the time I watched onions being distributed from a well-decorated truck by representatives of the Texas Citrus and Vegetable Association.
The association, incidentally, is headquartered in Harlingen, a border town that President Reagan denied as being close to Nicaragua.
Do sweet onions give Central American communists yet another reason for overrunning Harlingen?
I can't speak for Daniel Ortega but I sleep better at night knowing the onion fields are being tended by what de la Garza calls a brave band of Texans.
---