C3
Friday, April 24, 1987 / University Daily Kansan
4
Opinions
'As the Senate Turns'
Hopes for a new and improved Student Senate already have been dashed by the high drama, or was it comedy, of the Election Review Board.
In the soap opera atmosphere of the Senate since the elections, students have been treated to name-calling, charges of election rule violations, fines and a question of favoritism by the review board.
As a sort of last grasp for power, the First Class coalition charged the Bottom Line with a number of campaign violations. The review board dismissed most of the charges but did find the Bottom Line coalition guilty of going over the campaign budget limit when a discount on poster printing was found to be unfair.
Under the indecipherable Senate rules, the board either "had to" take away seats won by the Bottom Line coalition or "could" take away the seats depending on which section was followed. They instead chose to fine the coalition's presidential and vice presidential candidates the amount they exceeded the budget limit by, plus an additional $150.
And now that this episode of "As the Senate Turns" ends, many questions remain: Will the Senate define the powers of the review board for future reference? Would the punishment have been harsher if the violations had been committed by a coalition with fewer ties to the members of the review board?
Missed the boat
Elliott Abrams came to the University of Kansas on Tuesday to talk about his belief in freedom and individual rights. He missed the boat, however, when he went further into his explanation for the Reagan administration's policy in Central America.
Abrams is the assistant U.S. secretary of state for inter-American affairs and one of Reagan's most trusted advisers on policy in Central America. More specifically, he is one of the main throttles which moves to pump U.S. funds into the contra rebellion in Nicaragua.
He is headstrong and strident in his commitment to restoring democracy in Nicaragua. His wish, as he says, is to dishage a government that derives military and economic support from the Soviet Union and which increasingly restrains the freedoms of the Nicaraguan people, people who he insists do not support the Sandinista regime.
These rational goals are
quite beautiful and flowery, particularly when they evolve from a cushiony chair in a spacious office a few blocks from the banks of the Potomac. His sail may well be guided, but his vision obviously is blackened to the real shores.
When probed, as he was Tuesday, Abrams seems to be promoting only his own individuality — one that prescribes to lofty ideals. He dismissed allegations of inhumane atrocities committed by his freedom-fighters as common war behavior. He scuffed at suggestions that he, "a 39-year-old man," should fight in the war himself and then suggested, himself, that the possibility of committing U.S. troops in combat never is dismissed — even if the young and strong U.S. men don't believe in his cause.
Happily, the turnout on Tuesday indicated that a large number of vocal U. S. citizens are not going to christen Abrams' boat.
Offer them immunity
What's the best way to get someone to open up? Offer them something they would like to have. What's the best way to get a government official involved in the Iran- contra affair to talk? Offer him limited immunity.
This is what the Senate panel investigating the Iran-contra affair voted to do this week. The Senate decided to grant Rear Adm. John M. Poindexter limited immunity, hoping to clear up some of the mystery surrounding the scandal. Limited immunity means that whatever Poindexter says right now cannot be used against him in later investigations. Poindexter is one of the key figures involved in the affair. He resigned as President Reagan's security adviser in November because of the events surrounding the Iran arms deal.
Poindexter is considered a
key witness because of the close working relationship he had with Reagan. It is hoped that his testimony will shed some light on "what the president may or may not have known of the apparent diversion of the money."
If this is what is needed to clear up the largest scandal to hit the Reagan administration since it first entered office, then the panel made the right decision by granting limited immunity.
Those key officials who participated in the affair should not be completely immune from punishment. However, the Reagan administration made a terrible mistake that has damaged this country's reputation abroad and destroyed our faith and trust in the government. They owe the citizens of the United States an explanation.
News staff
Frank Hansel...Editor
Jennifer Benjamin...Managing editor
Jill Warren...News editor
Brian Kaberline...Editorial editor
Sandra Engelland...Campus editor
Mark Siebert...Sports editor
Diane Dulmeet...Photo editor
Bill Skeet...Graphics editor
Tom Eblen...General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Lisa Weems...Business manager
Bonnie Hardy...Ad director
Denise Stephens...Retail sales manager
Kelly Scherer...Campus sales manager
Duncan Calhoun...Marketing manager
Lori Coppe...Classified
Jennifer Lumianski...Production manager
David Nixon...National sales manager
Jeanne Hines...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 writer will be photographed.
The Central American militaries would then have a strong pretext to overthrow their countries in the face of the weakness of the civilian governments. This would again strengthen the communist resolve and the pendulum of extremism would again start to swing, cutting down the hopes and aspirations of the Central American peoples for freedom and democracy.
The Kansan reserves the right 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 Stauffer-Finn Hall, Lawton, Kan. 66045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid in Canadian dollars is mailed by mail are $40 per year in Douglas County and $50 per 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, Lawen. Kanen, 66045.
While a direct U.S. military presence is not the preferred option for the United States to defend its legitimate interests in the region, Abrams was correct to state that "we must never, under any circumstances, rule out the military possibilities."
Should the United States be limited in its options in Central America as the protesters seek, events might occur that necessitate a direct U.S. military intervention, either by President Reagan or his successor.
If the opinions of the vocal protesters at the recent speech given by Elliott Abrams, assistant U.S. secretary of state for inter-American affairs, are any indication, opponents of the Reagan administration's policies in Nicaragua appear most intent on encouraging the very events that will precipitate either direct U.S. military intervention or take-over bids by the national militaries.
Protesters misguided on Nicaraguan policy
Paul Campbell Columnist
One truly wonders whether their intentions actually are to help the people in Nicaragua or to rekindle the fire of the Vietnam years.
Their primary goal is expressed briefly by one of their favored chants, "no more contra aid," which was bleached monotonously at various times before and during the speech. The congressional battle for contra aid has become an annual event that is approached wearily by supporters of the Nicaraguan resistance.
Members of the audience who disrupted Abrams presentation took it upon themselves to interfere with his right to freedom of speech. Possibly because they felt that the unswaved were unable to make up their own minds or that Abrams was correct. They have every right to express their opinions, but none to interfere with the expressions that they find disagreeable.
A cut off of aid would signal to our democratic allies in Central America that the United States is an unreliable ally, whose capricious support changes with the winds of scandal.
Congressional resolve for freedom in Nicaragua will be tested soon. It is hoped that Congress will affirm its support for the success of Reagan's foreign policy. Not to do so would jeopardize the
future of Central America on account of a domestic scandal. But then, Congress has not always risen above such things in the past.
One unnerving question repeatedly asked of administration proponents is, "What if the contrains can't win?" This type of question betrays a telling ignorance of guerrilla movements which do not actually win the wars, but destroy the people's confidence in the government. This is the contra's long-term mission, which necessitates a long-term commitment by the United States.
The effectiveness of the contra struggle, when is a guerrilla struggle as opposed to a military struggle, also would be hindered greatly by a cutoff of aid.
support of communist movements in other nations of the Central American isthmus.
One common myth held by some is that it was the Viet Cong, the communist guerrilla movement in Vietnam, that won the war against the conventional U.S. Army. Former Vietnamese officials who have defected to the West attest that while the Viet Cong succeeded in preventing a U.S. victory, it could not have won the war alone.
After the U.S. pullout, the North Vietnamese army made quick work of the struggling South Vietnamese government, which could not count on any support from the United States.
The struggle of the Viet Cong was a long one. Likewise, the struggle of the contras must be long. Unfortunately, the U.S. mentality prefers things to be over with quickly.
Should the United States abandon the Nicaraguan resistance, whose strength is now estimated at about 20,000 volunteers, the Sandinistas would extend their totalitarian control over the entire country. They would be able to increase their
If they had pulled similar stunts — interfering with a government official or even just marching in the streets — in Nicaragua to protest Sandinista policies, they would not be around the next day to read about their antics. The Sandinistas, well versed at denying free speech, should be pleased with their North American contemporaries.
Mailbox
Election worthless
Once again, a band of the Liar's apprentices and epigones has contrived to exercise the last shred of legitimacy from the Student Senate elections. For the second time in four academic years, the very questionable "will of the students" has been thwarted by various means.
During the 1983 fall election, the results were found to have been miscalculated, and a new election was called. I was a freshman when I voted for the Costume Party in the first election. Only later did I find out that my ballot probably never was counted and more likely went blowing down the gutters of Oread Avenue. After that, I decided to boycott elections of these resume-building, promise everything, do nothing, conniving little varlets.
Sources like the Kansan decry the meager turnout at elections while I applaud this trend. It is a testimony to the finer instincts of the non-voting majority that they shun this ritual bugging of democracy.
The recent "horrible scandal" involving discount printing and the Bottom Line coalition only affirms the vernal and bickering nature of the elections and the Senate. This "treachery" reinforces my decision to abstain from voting and encourage others to do so as well. I further advocate the termination of the ineffectual Student Senate with the money saved going to deserving charities.
Doug Huppe Roeland Park senior
In others' defense
Paul Campbell, in his excellent column condemning Gary Hart's call for a new draft in the April 17 issue, made the primary argument against conscription, or compulsory "national service," that it violates the right to individual liberty. I would add, however, that more than 2 million men and women in uniform are not required to defend the United States.
Both draft opponents and advocates accept today's foreign policy paradigm which prescribes the stationing of hundreds of thousand of U.S. troops overseas and the expenditure of some 70 percent of the defense budget for the defense of other countries.
Other bases, such as those in Japan and Europe, are ludicrous in light of the wealth and potential self-defense capabilities of these countries who thoroughly have recovered from their post World War II poverty. Yet,
U. S. bases in Asia and the Middle East are tripwires for more Vietnams or worse.
the draft debate often narrowly centers on whether the All Volunteer Force can provide sufficient manpower to maintain these overseas committments.
Conscription and its civilian counterpart, "national service," are not the answer. We need a new foreign policy — one that defends our country and the ideals of minimal government and individual liberty.
Jay Hilgartner Lawrence senior
Fact versus opinion
This letter is written in response to Greg Gideon's criticism of the St. Lawrence Catholic Center's construction achievements. Gideon has a point.
The church did spend a lot of money on the construction, and some people might argue that they might have gone a little overboard — that's a matter of opinion. As opposed to opinion, the fact is there are many community services available that I didn't even know about; I seriously doubt Gideon was even faintly aware of any, except for the occasional Sunday mass he might have attended.
A few to mention are the badly needed marriage preparation sessions, weekly invitation scripture study groups, evening retreats, science-law-education groups that meet to discuss how their studies fit in with their beliefs, and even a few social events such as the Friday Socialis (T.G.I.F.'s), Sunday suppers, Friday movies and e舞ances.
Don't you think more things would be accomplished in the world if we educate people (which costs money) to do things for themselves, as opposed to blaming the church for being negligent without reason.
The question still remains on whether the construction was a good investment or not. This can only be answered by asking, what are YOU going to do about it?
It is very easy to criticize something from afar, but you really haven't a case unless you get involved.
Rash statements
Jaime Prieto Jr.
Overland Park junior
I was surprised by the attacks made against my paper and myself by Jon DeVore. He made several rash statements with no substantiation. Name-calling isn't a substitute for facts.
DeVore made no attacks on the
content of the Stalwart. I wonder if this isn't silent congratulations to our writers and editors.
DeVore also said that the rights of religious minorities had been violated. Is this a sign of support for the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell? Or maybe even an indictment against the way the press reported on sex-starved Jim Bakker, his multimillion dollar estates and his wife's single-handed monopoly on the cosmetics industry?
Finally, he mentioned Oliver North. If Col. North broke the law, then he should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Or has the Left made changes in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Instead, he chose to attack the way the paper looked, the military and Oliver North. My staff is still trying to figure out what all that has to do with radicals stealing the Stalwart
Victor Goodpasture
Topeka senior
Few U.S. institutions have shown greater indifference towards intellectual achievements than unions, making the unionization of University faculty as absurd as, given its mission, the pacification of the Marine Corps.
Maynard Shelly professor of psychology
Unions indifferent
Ridiculous idea
Christian Colbert's recommendation that Kansas pull out of its compact with four other states to store low-level radioactive waste is as myopic as the policies that have put us in this nuclear mess to begin with.
Colbert seems to believe that the only equitable compact is a compact where Kansas isn't stuck with the disposal site. Even more ridiculous is his notion that Kansas should "go it alone" and dispose of only its own waste in its own disposal site. One easily can imagine other states adopting this mentality. Instead of several regional waste disposal sites, we would have 50.
Kansas should work toward positively address nuclear waste management. It is the mismanagement of that technology that causes problems. I mean specifically those political decisions that don't take responsibility, don't implement a workable set of regulations, or don't commit to the enforcement of those regulations.
A responsible nuclear waste management program would prove to be a wise investment. It would keep Kansans safe from radioactive contamination, set a precedent for others to follow, and could be profitful. The other states were charged for the privilege of using our disposal site.
Steven Kidwell Leawood graduate student
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breathed