4
Thursday, December 4, 1986 / University Daily Kansan
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
'Tis the season
It's that joyous time of year again, when our hearts are warmed by those glorious words that have inspired people for the last 2,000 years: go shopping.
Every year the commercialization of the holidays becomes more obnoxious. The harbinger of this phenomenon is what is known as the Christmas Creep: the extension of the holiday selling season far beyond the bounds of good taste.
The Creep is a close relative of the Grinch, who earned his reputation by stealing kid's toys on Christmas Eve. Similarly, the Creep steals, or at least diminishes, the appreciation of the holiday by making everyone weary of it before it has even begun.
When taken in moderation, many of the commercial embellishments of Christmas aren't disagreeable. An occasional Santa Claus can be fun.
But the signs of the holiday can't be fully enjoyed until they are accompanied by the spirit of the holiday. For most people, this spirit is impossible to attain until well after Thanksgiving.
The blatant profit-making approach to Christmas isn't the only irritant. Also serving to sap the meaning of the holiday are the gifts that television advertisements condition kids to want. Somehow, a GI Joe tactical nuclear action set (batteries not included, ballistic missiles sold separately) doesn't quite capture that peace-on-earth, good-will-to-men holiday spirit.
Of course, the spirit of giving is part of the holiday spirit. The merchandisers should get into the spirit of things and give us all something — a break. Next year, we please us from "Jingle Bells" in October.
Here we go again
Return to Go — do not collect $200.
After months and months of study and preparation, the Lawrence city commissioners in September declared their intent to establish a Business Improvement District, which would assess downtown businesses to pay for salaries, operating expenses and promotions coordinated by the district.
Now, because of a merchant association's mistake, the city is going to start the legal process all over again. The mistake was brought to the attention of the commission by a city resident who challenged the results of the downtown association's petition drive.
The drive showed that 57 percent of downtown businesses supported establishing a district. But the challenger said the board had contacted 346 businesses but
had left out more than 145 businesses from its list.
So now the city must hold another public hearing, notify businesses and have study sessions to start the process again.
The petition drive should have been handled much more thoroughly and professionally. The Business Improvement District has been a project marked by much controversy. Because of the merchant's split support of the district, administrators had to follow the letter of the law, thus causing the process to be bogged down. It is frustrating for both the city administrators and the downtown merchants to have to start over again.
The proposed BID will affect a group of people who are a necessary part of our city's prosperity. It is important that the approval process be fair and thorough. Let's just hope it doesn't take another year.
The lost crisis continues
Another way to deal with the farm crisis went into effect Thanksgiving Day, but the move probably will not be enough to bail out many U.S. farmers.
yard
With terrorism and disarmament as the buzzwords of the day, the farm crisis has become lost in the blur. With the 1988 elections drawing ever nearer, it will become increasingly important that we remember the pain and suffering going on in our own back
Many bankers, of course, are not overly pleased with the new proposal, but many also realize that it may be the only way to get any money out of some farmers in debt.
The new option is an addition to the Bankruptcy Code that will allow a farmer to ask a judge to reduce what he owes on his land to the value of the increase, eliminating interest and other charges. Creditors would then have a claim on the farmer's disposable income under a three-to-five year payment plan, but any unpaid amount at the end of that time would have to be absorbed by the lender.
In 1985, banks wrote off a record $1.4 billion in farm loans, hundreds of banks failed, and figures for this year are looking even worse.
The farm lender of last resort, the Farmers Home Administration, has seen its delinquent farm loans grow to $6.8 billion and is now considering changing its policy. Instead of lending to any and all farmers, the agency may begin to choose to lend to those who "show some potential for achieving economic viability."
Opinions
The Bankruptcy Code change is one step, but others must follow, and pressure must be put on current and future legislators to find more ways to deal with the problem.
News staff
News staff
Lauretta McMillen ... Editor
Kady McMaster ... Managing editor
Tad Clarke ... News editor
David Silverman ... Editorial editor
John Hanna ... Campus editor
Frank Hansel ... Sports editor
Jacki Kelly ... Photo editor
Tom Eblen ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
David Nixon ... Business manager
Gregory Kaul ... Retail sales manager
Denise Stephens ... Campus sales manager
Sally Depew ... Classified manager
Isla Weems ... Production manager
Duncan Calhoun ... National sales manager
Beverly Kastens ... Traffic manager
Jeanne Hines ... Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be type, 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 type, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The
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 (USP5 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer-Fittl Hall, 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; third-class payable in person in Douglas County and $1 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. 68045
When I saw my conservative friend Grump, I turned up my collar and pulled my hat over my face. But he spotted me anyway.
U.S. media messenger blasted again
"Trying to hide, you despicable cur?" he said.
"I don't blame you. If I had as much to feel guilty about as you, I'd crawl into a hole."
Something like that
I've been thinking about that.
"Then I assume you have seen the words of your Commander in Chief?" I was just reading them.
'You know, then, that he has found
Mike Royko
Chicago Tribune
the culprit in this terrible mess? That he has placed the blame where it belongs?"
Yes. It says right here that it's the fault of the press. He says that his secret Iran deal was doing fine until the press opened its big mouth.
"That's right. So how do you feel about your seed profession causing the problem?"
Terrible. But I'm also confused.
"About what? You and your ilk are guilty. It's as simple as that. The whole pack of you should be tried for treason."
But shouldn't we be given a little credit for trying to do diecile lap dogs? After all, during most of the Reagan administration, the press has groveled in awe of his popularity.
Of course. And when he said this country wouldn't negotiate with terrorists, did anybody argue?
And I feel terrible about it. Except we didn't blow the whistle. The Iranians did. Some of them obviously
"What was there to argue about?" Nothing. We all agreed that we had to be tough on terrorists and those who support them.
"What was there to argue about?"
wanted to make Reagan look stupid for trusting them.
"I would hope so."
So how were we supposed to know that it was our policy not to negotiate with terrorists or those who support terrorists except when the President decided that he wanted to negotiate with them?
"That was supposed to be a secret.
Until you fools blew the whistle."
If we didn't, the rest of the world's press would have anyway.
"But did you have to report it?"
"That's no excuse."
It's the only one I can think of.
"Well, as the President says, the fate of the hostages is on your conscience."
I know, and we feel remorse because the President had such a good thing going. He'd ship some military hardware to Iran, Iran would get a hostage released, the President would go on TV and grin at the released hostage, then they'd kidnap another hostage, and we'll ship them some more military hardware, and they'd release another hostage, and he'd go on TV, and they'd kidnap another hostage. . . .
Not at all. It was excellent foreign policy. The steady turnover of hostages stimulated the trade between our nations and assured us of having a healthy Iranian cash flow to our friends the contras. The only problem I can see is that eventually we'd run out of Americans who were available for hostage duty. But I suppose we could have asked for volunteers.
"You're being a wiseguy."
"I'm glad you recognize the wisdom of his actions."
Of course I do. But wouldn't it have been simpler if he had just announced that we were going to sell arms to Iran to make them friendlier and get a few hostages released?
"Don't be ridiculous. That would have been a sign of weakness. He would have looked like a bigger wimp than Jimmy Carter."
But that's what he did.
"Ah, but he did it secretly. If you do
secretly, it means you are subtle
and secrecy."
Of course. But now he's in trouble for lying.
"He did not lie. He just didn't tell us what he was up to. There's a big difference."
I suppose so. But by failing to tell Congress and the American people what was going on, he can also be in trouble.
"Not if he didn't know what was going on. Remember, those subordinates of his may have been doing all sorts of things that he didn't know about, so how can he be held responsible?"
That's true. But he could also be in trouble for not knowing what his own subordinates were doing in his name, couldn't he?
"Not if people realize what the facts are."
Well, what are the facts?
"That nobody would have known what he was doing even if he didn't know what he was doing himself if the press had just kept quiet about what he may or may not have been doing without his knowing what they were doing."
But if he really didn't know what was going on, didn't the press do him a favor by letting him know what his subordinates were doing?
"Of course not. If what they did was what he wanted done, even if he didn't know he wanted it or that it was being done, then why bother letting him know?"
You make it all so clear. So the en trure scandal is the fault of the press.
"What's that?"
Then I have one question.
Can I get a piece of that secret Swiss bank account?
Reagan kills SALT II for 'safer world'
In Vienna in 1979, President Carter and Soviet leader Leond Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II amid palatal surroundings and high hopes.
The ailing Brezhnev, now dead, warned in a speech that "mankind will never forgive us" if the superpowers did not stop the nuclear arms race.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a concerted drive by conservatives to block Senate
Helen Thomas
UPI Notes from
Washington
ratification of the treaty put it on the shelf. In 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned against SALT 2 as "fatally flawed" on grounds that there was not sufficient verification and that it did not reduce superpower arsenals.
But eventually, Reagan got around to what every president usually had viewed as his foremost priority: to stop the arms race and to curb the possibility of a nuclear war.
When he became president, Reagan said the United States would abide by the treaty as long as the Kremlin reciprocated. For his first couple of years in office, arms control was the last item on Reagan's agenda. He was preoccupied with domestic affairs, except for the buildup in Central America to halt the spread of Castro-style communism.
Reagan made proposals for deep arms cuts, dispatching negotiators to Geneva for talks with the Soviets. He is convinced that his decision to move ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative, the ultimate space shield against nuclear weapons he dreams will be created, brought the Russians to the table for serious talks.
Reagan, egged on by advisers, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, announced in May that unless the Soviets stopped violating SALT II, he would scrap the treaty. Supporters of SALT II insisted that violations did not warrant breaking it and leaving the superpowers without any agreement.
Reagan said that if Moskow changed its ways he might reconsider. Then came the summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland, where the two leaders went to the brink in reaching a historic agreement that would wipe out nuclear missiles in 10 years.
But the Soviets insisted that Reagan would have to retreat on Star Wars and limit testing to the laboratory. The president, who believes the United States will have its ultimate protection with a space shield, said no soap, and both leaders went
home to nurse their wounds.
In some ways, the Pentagon, the allies and others breathed a sigh of relief. The idea of a world without nuclear weapons, particularly without ironclad guarantees of on-site verification and all the other safeguardes, was too far fetched. They were much more content to roll along with the time-tested balance of nuclear terror.
In late November, although weakened severely by the Iran-contra aid scandal and a major credibility gap in his administration, Reagan forged ahead to break out of the arms treaty.
On Tuesday, after sacking national security affairs adviser and his deputy, Lt. Col. Oliver North, in the spreading crisis, Reagan won unanimous support from his advisers to tear up SALT II.
The United States broke its pledge to abide by the treaty when it armed the 131st B-52 bomber with a cruise missile, exceeding the limits of the agreement. The allies were upset. Gorbachev called it a mistake that would have its repercussions, and several lawmakers deplored the move.
A few days after the president had torn up the treaty, a senior administration official was asked whether the world was safer now. His reply was, "Yes."
As a wounded lame duck, observers think it will take a miracle for Reagan to bring about any new arms agreement with the Soviets during the remainder of his presidency.
Some quiet words on publicizing secrets
Throughout history, nearly every president of whatever political persuasion became convinced that he
Dick West
UPI Commentary
could conduct the public's business better in private.
This is not usually a campaign promise but something a chief executive understands.
Against that background, I was not greatly surprised to read that President Reagan blamed the U.S. press and "that rag in Beirut" for the
Which figures. The "rag" he referred to first published reports of clandestine U.S. arms shipments to Iran.
In case you missed that issue, Reagan opined in a Time magazine interview that his policy "wasn't a failure until the press got a tip from that rag in Beirut and began to play it up."
covert operations of his administration in the Middle East and Central America.
I don't doubt that all the U.S. hostages held in Lebanon would have been freed had the policy of secrecy, including forwarding profits from the
If Reagan truly believed in the correctness of the policy, he should have continued it. But no. He apparently found it easier, as did most of his predecessors in the White House, to fault the news media
arms sale to contra forces in Nicaragua, remained in operation.
"I told them that publicity could destroy this, that it could get people killed," he said, obviously alluding to reporters. "They then went right on."
I deem it instructive that publicity, rather than the weapons themselves, caused the casualties.
Everyone knows that printer's ink can be fatal. However, it took someone with the cander of a great company to tell that the matter in proper perspective.
What White House aides did was take secrecy too far, keeping the president himself in the dark.
Secrecy itself can save lives. That truism became apparent during the recent flap over a disinformation campaign in the White House.
As to how he can share information he doesn't have is not something the president touched on.
I always say that if you can't trust a leak, what can you trust? A leak.
Just this week, the president vowed that the U.S. public would be permitted to share the information gleaned from investigations of clandestine activities.
Everyone knows that printer's ink can be fatal. However, it took someone with the candor of a great communicator to put the matter in proper perspective.
As Reagan lamented in the aforementioned interview, "My only criticism is that I wasn't told everything."
He expressed confidence that "as the truth comes out," the U.S. people, who, after all, are financing the whole operation, secret or not, "will see what we were trying to do is right."
Maybe so. When the public invests in Wall Street, does it demand to know what stocks the broker is investing?
As for trading arms for hostages, Vice President Bush had said Beagan "is absolutely, totally convictive, mind that that isn't what happened."
I'm not suggesting Bush isn't right. Hereafter, maybe the press can help by keeping secret the release of any hostages.