4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Thursday, Feb. 20, 1986
That's what Lady Macbeth cried when her hands were tainted with murderous blood.
The only question left is how far the United States should go in helping remove Marcos.
"Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Desert Humpty Dumpty
The United States should shout those same words at President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.
After a tainted Philippine election, full of bloodshed and fraud — mostly by Marcos supporters — U.S. officials have agreed that it would be in the best interest of the United States if Marcos stepped down from his dictatorial post.
The United States should go as far as cutting off all economic aid to the country that was once considered its blessed stepchild.
The longer Marcos stays in his illegitimate role as president, the more imminent is the danger to U.S. bases and the greater the chance of a rising Communist insurgency taking over.
The United States now pays $900 million in military and economic aid to the Philippines under a five-year agreement to maintain its two bases — Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base.
A plan to extend classified research from one to three years squeaked through a faculty vote recently, although the controversy probably is not over vet.
Despite Marcos's threat, bully that he is, the United States cannot afford to continue to hold Marcos' hand, for it is tainted with a 20-year-old dictatorial rule.
and government agencies often want to guard trade secrets or national security.
To allow a hope for democracy in the Philippines, the United States should call openly for Marcos to step down and push for a peaceful transition of office to his opponent, Corazon Aquino.
Industry secrets may pass Go and collect 200 researchers. University principles lose a turn.
The agreement expires in 1991. Marcos threatened Sunday that if the United States cut off aid, he would annul the treaty.
As Sen, David Boren, D-Okla., said, "There is no way we can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. This government is going to fall, so let's not tie ourselves to a sinking ship."
Score one for secrecy
The proposal, which even proponents of the extension called confusing and unclear, allows faculty to keep the results of some research secret for three years. It was argued that the previous limit of one year was too restrictive.
Proponents content that free and open exchange of information limits their academic freedom by preventing them from pursuing research with some industries. Corporations
With less government money available for research, alternate financing sources, especially private industry.
But any secrecy within the University must have a substantial cause.
are becoming more important.
It seems that too few industries want to finance research that would be made public in a year.
Classification of research results hampers the University's duty to its students by limiting what professors can teach. And the primary mission of the University should be to encourage open discussion and exchange of knowledge.
A compromise between the demands of industry and the principles of the University was possible under the one-year limit. The new plan leans too far in the direction of secrecy with a proposal that is too little understood.
Let's hope Sidney Shapiro, chairman of University Senate Executive Committee, was correct when he said the issue probably had not been resolved.
Separation of powers
The legislative and judicial branches of government are, by design, separate.
A bill now before the Kansas House committee on federal and state affairs is a prime example of the legislative branch attempting to mess with a vital aspect of the judicial branch: plea bargaining.
Our federal and state constitutions have set the two branches apart to check and balance each other. But each branch must be guarded against tampering with the basic components of the other branch.
The main emphasis of the bill is to toughen penalties for transporting open containers of alcohol.
To that extent, the bill falls well within the realm ofs
legislative prerogative. Stiffer open-container laws are fine and the bill's provision for alcohol and drug education is even better.
Plea bargaining is crucial to the judicial system. Throughout the country, a lot of time and money is saved by people being able to plead guilty to a lesser charge. It reduces the glut in the courts and, in the end, provides for a large number of convictions.
But the bill also says pleabargaining agreements cannot be approved by a judge. That is going too far.
News staff
Tougher laws are an area well within the reach of the legislature, but plea bargaining is a vital component of the judicial system that should be left alone.
News staff
Michael Totty ... Editor
Lauretta McMillen ... 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 Nikon ... Retail sales manager
Jim Williamson ... Campus manager
Lori Eckart ... 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 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, *118 Stairway Fitt-Hall Law*, Lawrence, Kan. 60045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at the Post Office in Kansas City, Missouri. Subscription 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 Strauter-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 68045.
Too soon to plan for citizen in space
The announcement last week by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to continue the Teacher-In-Space program is premature and evidence that the agency uses the program to play upon the emotions of the people of the nation.
The current state of NASA's affairs indicates the agency is in no position to send astronauts or civilians into space.
After the Challenger explosion that killed six astronauts and schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe, the agency is grounded in the middle of a presidential commission investigating the cause of the disaster.
As of late, the commission has determined possible flaws in NASA's Jan. 28 decision to launch Challenger. It even has requested that individuals involved in the decision-making process be removed from NASA's internal investigation.
Also, recent reports that NASA knew there was a potentially tragic problem with its solid rocket boosters as long ago as 1983 make one question the agency's ability to execute its objectives without substantial risk to its participants.
For the past three months, NASA has been operating under the guidance of an acting administrator.
Jennifer Roblez
Staff columnist
This is another indication of instability within the governing ranks.
In the days to come, it is quite likely that the presidential commission will focus more completely on the individuals in charge and the decisions they made as the final responsibility for the disaster becomes clearer.
Last week's announcement can best be seen as an advertising ploy, and a weak one at that. NASA is simply in no position to regain the public's trust without first giving the reason for the explosion and the blans to correct it.
For a nation still reeling from the shock of the death of the first "ordinary citizen" in space as well as the loss of six dedicated space professionals, solid answers offer more comfort than quick media schemes to continue a program that may be months if not years away from resumption.
There also is enough cause to
reconsider the decision and
civilians allowed, so go ahead.
The thinking behind this is more
practical than emotional. The shuttle program for 1986 is shattered, and the delay could turn out to be of significant duration.
After the 1867 fire that destroyed an Apollo spacecraft and killed three astronauts, NASA did not resume manned flights for 21 months.
NASA officials and scientists in the space community have suggested that the delay caused by Challenger may last as long as six years before returning to the kind of scheduling originally planned for 1986. At the very least, experts agree the shuttle program has suffered a two-year setback.
The repercussions of this delay are just beginning to be debated. It could be especially damaging to President Reagan's Star Wars program and a hurdle to his dreams of a manned space station.
Fewer satellites and space probes will be launched, including the possible scrubbing of four shuttle flights that were to be devoted to the military. Medical and other scientific experiments designed for use in the shuttle also will suffer.
Obviously NASA needs to devise a new agenda for the future. Compared to these needs, the Teacher-In-Space program seems like a low priority.
Certainly "ordinary citizens" do
have a place in space, but Challenger has forever changed the future. As a public relations tactic, it backfired, I'll be a long time before anyone takes a shuttle launch for granted.
In the meantime, NASA should straighten out its internal organization, learn the true cause of the blowup, correct the problems discovered and set revised goals for the future.
For now, the space program should be dedicated to those individuals who have devoted their lives, especially their schooling and prior work, to the space industry. They are the ones who have built the space program They are the ones who will rebuild it now.
It's not necessary for NASA to continue playing upon the sympathies of a nation by promising to put teachers in space. We need astronauts there first.
Our reach for the stars may have been overextended. If it's back to the drawing board for NASA, one of the first stops should be at its public relations office.
Ahead is a long and probably slow recovery. Life will never be the same for NASA or the United States. There's a new space to pioneer — but it isn't as friendly to teachers as it once was.
Resentment of U.S. is multifaceted
The American is going to hang.
Held hostage in a totalitarian Arab country, the downed air force pilot watches his gallows being built. Back in Washington, the military's hands are tied.
"Kill the American pig," grows the Khadafy-ish Arab ruler in his desert fort.
The solution is simple in the comicbook world of B-movies. The pilot's son borrows an F-16 fighter, shoots up the country and rescues his daddy.
Now that's the way to go, the audience of "Iron Eagle" cheers. Uncle Sam isn't going to take it anymore, and this resourceful high school kid finally is doing what should have been done a long time ago. No pussyfooting around.
Everywhere in the world, tiny countries are stumping all over the United States. Palestinians hijack American planes, U.S. military bases are bombed in West Germany and effigies of Uncle Sam are burned in the Philippines. What the heck is going on?
It's not easy to understand why some countries resent the United States. And besides, Americans don't want to hear about it anyway, I've been told. It's easier to get into the psychological F-16 and watch 100 minutes of red-blooded revenge.
especially in these days of Rambomania.
After talking to more than a dozen foreign students and political science professors, the love-hate relationship other countries have with the United States becomes clear.
Resentment of the United States is worldwide, although it seldom deepens to hate. Admiration also is widespread but doesn't make the news as often. And understanding the admiration is easier.
The United States exports a way of life — a whole package of a consumer society. When American hamburgers, shopping malls and "Dallas" invade countries, they do so because the people there want them. They like them.
But natives also may resent that their own culture is pushed aside. A French woman told me with sadness how traditions such as French cuisine were changing. Now Frenchmen eat in a hurry, too.
Maybe it's not just the American society France is compelled to follow, but modernization itself, she said.
In many other parts of the world, modernization often means Westernization. When cultures clash, the United States catches most of the blame because it is the biggest Western country...
Bengt Ljung
Guest columnist
Accordingly, Muslim fundamentalists identify the United States with decadence and sparsely clad people and alcohol consumption.
But the worldwide resentment isn't generated by communists. Seen from other countries' perspectives, the U.S. world role sometimes is threatening.
Many countries think the United States pressures them culturally, politically and economically. For them, the United States also is an easy scapegoat for economic problems, just as Americans blame outside forces, such as Japan.
U. S. relations with its allies are tense at times because the United States tells them how to conduct their business — when and what to trade with the Soviet Union, for example, and being forced to conform to someone else's wishes isn't conducive to cordial relations.
The United States is bound to step on many toes when it plays power politics. Military interventions, CIA actions and support of controversial states and leaders, such as Israel, President Marcos and the Shah of
Iran, don't score high points in many quarters. The effect multiplies as dislike of American policies releases latent, pent-up resentment of the cultural invasion.
The United States can't disconnect itself from the political actors it supports. Even allied countries criticize U.S. support of South Africa and of Nicaraguan contras. Palestinians teach their children to fear Israeli raids with American-made Israeli iets.
In Europe and Asia, America's popularity is fading because the younger generations don't remember the American help after World War II. They only remember protesting nuclear weapons and the Vietnam War.
But where Soviet influence is the strongest — in Eastern Europe — American regard is the highest. Maybe this indicates that some resentment goes with being a dominant power.
Maybe the resentment is a price
the United States has to pay.
But anti-American sentiments are undoubtedly tied to American actions also. Understanding foreigners' uncomfortable views creates more hope for constructive action than loading the old machine gun and taking a defensive position.
And maybe Americans can learn bit about themselves.
Mailbox
3.2 beer not 'bogus'
I certainly agree with Jason Elder when he calls Kansas liquor laws "archaie" (Kansan, Feb. 12) and urges students to vote for liquor-by-the-drink. However, I must take exception to his description of 3.2 percent beer as "bogus." "weak" and "tasteless."
At the risk of exploding a popular myth, I must explain that 3.2 percent beer is measured as a percentage of alcohol by weight. So-called "strong" beer measured by the same standards weighs in at just 3.8 percent.
However, "strong" beer is usually measured in percentage of alcohol by volume (about 5 percent). 3.2 percent beer measured by this method has 4-percent alcohol.
Any difference perceived by the consumer in his rate of intoxication is largely psychological. As far as flavor is concerned, not even the brewmasters can taste the difference.
And anyone who thinks he can't get drunk on 3.2 percent beer may be surprised when he finds out that most private clubs serve only 3.2 percent beer. There goes another myth.
Liquor-by-the-drink, if approved by the voters, will be a step in the
So the penny, dime or quarter draws that many students enjoy at local clubs are filled with the same beer that fills the draws, schooners and pitchers at The Hawk, The Wheel and Louise's.
The reason clubs sell 3.2 percent beer is another "archaic" law. Clubs that want to sell "strong" beer must buy it from a liquor store and pick it up themselves, as they do with wines and spirits. However, clubs may buy 3.2 percent beer at wholesale cost and have it delivered to them.
right direction. But to get it on the ballot, our lawmakers sacrificed 18-year-old drinkers, happy hours, all-you-can-drink, two-for-ones, birthday beers, ladies' nights, progressive pitchers and most other promotions.
3. 2 percent beer is not "bogus," but the laws that regulate it and the lawmakers who voted for them have earned the title many times over.
"Count" Ken Wallace
Owner, Jayhawk Cafe
Chairman of the Board,
Kansas Club and Taverna Assn. Inc.