a
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Thursday, March 6, 1986
Working from within
Now that Student Senate has decided to maintain KU's membership in the Associated Students of Kansas, it can focus on improving the terms of the relationship.
An ad hoc committee recommended on Sunday that the University of Kansas remain, with some conditions, in ASK, the statewide student lobbying group. Last night the Senate agreed.
If met, the conditions would give KU more control over local ASK funds and would make the group's legislative assemblies more responsive to KU's needs.
This is a far better proposal than the plan to pull KU and its $25,000-a-year contribution from ASK. It recognizes that ASK has problems but that KU's lobbying efforts are
helped more by being a member of the group than by leaving it.
It is true that KU is now isolated within ASK. It is not able to move the group to address KU's interests and needs, such as campus lighting or opposition to admitting Washburn into the Board of Regents system.
But if the University is going to win those battles in the Statehouse, where they count, its student representatives must learn how to build coalitions and to accept compromises — such as ASK's no comment on Washburn — within the group.
Interschool rivalries may have their place in sports. But when it comes to prying money from the Legislature, all the state's students face the same obstacles.
Terminal illness
The Lawrence City Commission can move quickly, especially when it's trying to make up for previous mistakes.
Two years ago, the commission approved a new $667,000 terminal for the municipal airport. Now, because Lawrence has no commuter service, the terminal has become what Commissioner David Longhurst has called a "white elephant sitting in a field."
Unfortunately, what the city needed at the time was a new hangar. But the commission forgot about that in the rush to get a shiny new terminal. Even when the terminal was approved, some were saying the commission was acting too quickly.
Now, the commission has approved issuing $320,000 in temporary notes to construct the
building of a 10,000-square-foot hangar.
But some commissioners think the commission may have rushed into this decision, too.
Commissioners Longhurst and Howard Hill voted against the hangar at Tuesday's meeting, saying the commission had not given enough study to the proposal.
The commission should have built the hanger in the first place. But the commission's method of admitting when it's wrong is to do quickly what it should have done two years ago - build a new hanger.
Regardless of the need, the commission should have taken its time with this decision. Mistakes such as the one made two years ago could be prevented if the commission acted with less speed and a more caution.
Needless increase
Last week President Reagan appeared on national television to defend his massive $320 billion military spending request, a desperate act in the face of certain large cuts by Congress. He told viewers that any attempt by Congress to reduce his proposal would be irresponsible, dangerous and reckless.
Since then he has increased military expenditure to a level far beyond any ever known in peacetime. If his 12 percent increase is approved, the United States will be spending four times as much on the military by the end of the decade as the country spent in the height of the Vietnam War.
The amusing part of last week's charades was former President Carter's remarks that his own administration
It's the same argument he has trumped out before. He sees the United States as the ultimate protector in a dangerous world, the "sheltering arm of freedom." As he has done many times before, Reagan charged that the military was allowed to backslide under previous administrations and was in a state of neglect when he was elected six years ago.
was responsible for the spending splurge.
Carter is mad because he says Reagan continually misstates the record of military modernization programs. He says almost all U.S. strategic nuclear weapons programs were initiated either by his administration or by that of Presidents Ford and Nixon. Carter says his administration saw a steady increase in military spending.
His debating tactic is flawed. One would think he would want to distance his administration from Reagan's extravagance by arguing, as other Democrats are doing, that the country cannot sustain this level of military spending. The huge deficit, boosted by the multibillion dollar defense budget, is in itself a serious threat to national security because it weakens the economy.
Last week, we had the spectacle of two adversaries both vying for credit for the same disastrous policy. It was an amusing interlude in the countdown to congressional budgetary decision-making time, when Reagan's request is, when to be slashed.
News staff
News staff
Michael Totty ... Editor
Lauretta McMillan ... Managing editor
Chris Barber ... Editorial editor
Cindy McCurry ... Campus editor
David Giles ... Sports editor
Brice Waddill ... Photo editor
Susanne Shaw ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Brett McCabe ... Business manager
David Nixon ... Retail sales manager
Elen Williamson ... Company
Lori Eckert ... Classified manager
Caroline Innes ... Production manager
Pallen 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. The
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 659-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuffer FIlth Hall, Lawn, Kan. 60045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., at the Lawrence, Kan. 60044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $27 a year 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 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045.
Protect widow Johnson, not Marcos
Larry Speakes, the White House deputy press secretary, was talking about the president's decision to have Secret Service agents act as bodyguards for Ferdinand Marcos in Hawaii.
"Anybody's entitled to some sort of protection if his life is in danger," Speakes said.
I guess that's true in theory. But, unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that people in danger get protection.
At any given moment in Chicago, New York, Detroit or any other big city, a large number of lives are in danger.
Walking down a dark street can be a fatal act. So can riding an elevator in a public housing project. Or leaving your bedroom window open, clerking in an all-night grocery store, driving a cab, tending bar or giving the wrong hand signal to a street gang.
In Chicago, for example, there are about 12,000 cups for 3 million of us. That's one cup for every 250 citizens.
The cops would like to protect everybody, but they can't. There are just too many potential victims and not enough cops.
But that's misleading. With three shifts, weekends, vacations, holidays and the flu, there's no more than one cop on duty for 1,000 people.
The poor put extra locks on the door and develop street smarts.
So the citizens do the best they can to look out for themselves.
The middle-class keep a pistol in the dresser, a dog in the house and maybe a burglar alarm on the windows.
The rich are the most efficient at self-protection because they can afford it. They live in buildings with doormen and electronic security systems. Or in closed suburban enclaves with hired guards at the gates.
But no matter what people do, a certain number of them wind up in the morgue with a homicide tag on their big toe.
There would be fewer victims, of course, if we could spend more money on eliminating ignorance and poverty, providing better education and jobs for ghetto youths. And hiring more cops.
But the money isn't there. Expecially since the current White House occupants decided that the big cities, where the dangers are greatest, should get less in federal funds.
So Reagan's man Speakes wasn't really talking about anybody being entitled to protection.
He was talking about Reagan's old friend, Marcos.
But it seems to me that the least he can do for himself is what most people do for themselves — provide their own protection.
I can't deny that Marcos needs protection. He spent two decades bullying his countrymen. His henchmen used murder, torture and terror to keep him in power. So a lot of people have ample cause to knock bim off.
Marcos' wealth, stashed outside of the Philippines, is estimated by the CIA to be as much as $3 billion.
We're already being generous in allowing him to settle in Hawaii, which is a nice place for a retired tyrant to live out his twilight years. Half the people in Chicago — most of whom have never murdered anybody or looted a national treasury — would be delighted to move to Hawaii if they could afford it.
Mike Royko Chicago Tribune
With that kind of money, Marcos could create his own private army of bodyguards. He could employ 300 hired guns at $50,000 a year and still have $55 million a year left over for his mortgage, groceries, bullet-proof underwear and walking-around money.
So, why should President Reagan be assigning tax-supported Secret Service agents to protect Marcos'
miserable hide?
The widow Johnson trembles when she has to leave her flat to get groceries, because somebody might conk her gray hair with a brick. Old Man Kraus, living on his veteran's pension, puts boards across his windows to keep the thieves from his throat. Mrs. Lopez meets her son at the school gate every evening to keep the gangs from shooting him.
So, I have a suggestion for President Reagan.
Where's the protection that Speakes in the White House says they're entitled to?
If he has any spare Secret Service agents, let them walk the widow Johnson to the grocery store. She never had a political opponent bumped off.
1980s emerging as decade of reruns
Esquire's most recent issue contains an essay on it. ABC's "20/20" has done two stories on it. What is it? The Re Decade. That's re, as in done again.
Ever wonder why we can't characterize the 1960s like we can the '50s, '60s, or even the '70s? It's because we aren't living in an original decade. We are living in a rerun — little bits and pieces of earlier decades all thrown together to make up the '60s.
Perhaps we are beginning to believe that everything that can be written, invented, discovered or explored, has been.
Perhaps we think there is no adventure left in the world and we must return to previous times to find it. Old television formulas are the essence of modern time-travel.
Look at current television fare: "Honeymooners" reruns, "Lucy" reruns and "Gilligan's island" reruns. How about those recently discovered episodes of "My Three Sons" — all 3,000 of them? If you have cable, you can catch "Flipper."
Derek Jackson
Guest columnis
"Father Knows Best" and every movie ever made.
There's even been a recent outbreak of television movies based on old series: "I Dream of Jeanie — 15 Years Later," "Still the Beaver" and "Perry Mason Returns." Now, "Return to Mayberry" is in the works.
The remake trend exists in movies and music, too. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have made millions copying the movies they saw as children. Star Trek has returned for three movies and the fourth is coming soon. Superman IV is due next summer.
Phil Collisn' video for "Don't Lose My Number" has him wading through old videos, and Madonna's "Material Girl" is a blatant copy of
"Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend," a la Marilyn Monroe. Radio stations are filling the air with Oldies Weekends, Electric Lunches and Prime Cuts Weekends.
But back to television. There are those who would argue that "Miami Vice" is a fresh and original approach to TV. Sure it is — Hill and Renko with an MTV soundtrack; it's already being copied. The Equalizer and Hunter are MTV cops with Eastwood-type clones in the lead roles.
"Moonlighting" recently took a giant step forward into the Re Decade by taking a giant step back. They filmed a monophonic, black and white episode with dialogue like, "She was the kind of dame that makes a man glad he's a man." Revolutionary and innovative?
Apparently nothing is exempt. Alfred Hitchcock addresses us in living color — living, computer-enhanced color — and the "Twilight Zone" has returned to television. If they color in the "Three Stooges," I'll scream. But they probably already
have. This may be the Re Decade, but the Pepsi Generation wants the past repackaged in bright wrappers.
Television seems to be the key to the Re Decade and the video cassette system.
With this little gem, we can watch old television over and over and completely change the station schedules. We can watch David Letterman over breakfast, catch that Magnum or Cosby we missed while taking a test and see Bryant Gumbel in Rio over our TV dinners.
I can only wonder what is happening to us as a culture when **h**, **oh**, no **neither**
Note: One of Derek Jackson's videotapes apparently has broken, resulting in the loss of 14 prime episodes of the "Beverly Hillbillies." We regret that his hysterical sobbing and violent reaction to the crisis prevents the continuation of this column.
Derek Jackson is a Kansas City, Kan., freshman majoring in political science and history.
Mailbox
Editorial missed point
We are responding to a disappointing editorial in the March 4 issue of the Kansan. The writers of the editorial seem to have missed the whole point of the Jayhawk Defense Initiative.
The Jayhawk Defense Initiative is not a sick joke. We are very serious about our goals and actions and have been a registered KU organization for more than a year.
The editorial does not represent an informed opinion, and we would like to correct a few points.
Neither is JDI a publicity stunt. We do want to bring attention to the issues of nuclear war, but this is only the first step leading to action.
JDI does not cultivate the media. We have contacted the press for a story only once. The other television and radio stations, and the newspapers that have covered us have done so on their own initiative. Only the Kansan has misrepresented the purpose of JDI.
JDI's purpose is to push for a halt to the arms race and to reduce the threat of nuclear war. A fallout shelter is a last resort.
Development of nuclear weapons in the United States shows no signs of abating. Vast sums of money are spent on efforts to have the capacity to "win" a nuclear war. Even the U.S. Postal Service has a change of address form that one can fill out in case of a nuclear war.
There were 400 false alarms last year in the early warning system on the American side, which indicates an increase in the chance of an accidental nuclear war. According to Paul Ehrlich, in his speech last Friday, Armageddon is only five minutes away.
At his presentation, JDI questioned Ehrlich about student efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear war. He responded with suggestions that are JDI's primary goal—get the support of other KU students and then put pressure on those in power.
Later, JDI's secretary and vice president spoke with him, and he understood and supported JDI's fallout shelter plan.
Finally, JDI is more than the symbolic action the Kansan editorial labeled it. The writers made a hasty judgment. Had they paid more attention to JDU's earlier statements, they would have realized that the attention brought to the issue of civil defense is part of an effort to inform and mobilize KU students to action.
Eric Matheis
vice president of JDI
Morrie O'Neil
treasurer
Charles Manson
referendum coordinator
It is ironic that the editorial should have mentioned "The Day After" and "Testament." These films did not bring home the message. Pcls taken some time after their airing indicated no appreciable rise in the public's fear of a nuclear war.
As Ehrlich said, "We're having way too much fun to have a nuclear war."
Better use for money
Where is education headed without teachers? If we don't have any money to pay teachers good salaries, why are we spending $6.5 million on phase one of the Kansas Union renovation?
What's wrong with you people?
Have you forgotten what college is all about?
The Union looks fine to me. And others might argue that changing its looks would be an attempt to change its history.
Asbestos removal is a necessity, but if we don't have the money to pay the main workforce of the University, why is the Union being renovated?
If the University were to take care of asbestos removal, it would get federal money to help pay the costs. Keith Nitcher, director of business affairs, said so himself. Maybe he doesn't realize that too many faculty members are leaving because of non-competitive wages.
I hope the University won't let this institution suffer because of money mismanagement.
What will happen to next?
What will phase two cost'
Jaime Prieto Jr.
Overland Park junior