4
Thursday, January 31, 1991 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Ban irresponsible
Council should be more frugal before deciding to keep advertisements out of future timetables
T The University Council's decision to ban all advertising in the timetables is irresponsible to the University budget in the midst of mounting financial problems.
The absence of advertisements will leave a $24,000 to $25,000 financial hole each year that most likely will be siphoned out of students' pockets. With the decision to finance the final year of the Margin of Excellence still pending in the Legislature and with inevitable annual inflation, it seems the University should be stingier with its budget. The loss of $25,000 a year, which could easily be taken care of with advertising revenue, is not a step forward.
Advertising, which may be offensive to some people, has been reviewed and rejected in the past. The Spring 1991 timetable's barsoap on the back cover was viewed as sexist by a few people.
The person who initially objected to this particular ad has said the intention was not to ban advertising but to encourage the University to be more selective about what it
allowed.
The committee that reviews advertising has already approved material to be used in next fall's timetable, and the University has a contract with a printing company. If the Council's decision stands, the University will have to find another printer, another unnecessary burden caused by this decision.
The Council's decisions serve as recommendations to Chancellor Gene A. Budig and Interim Executive Vice Chancellor Del Shankel who make the final decisions
In these difficult financial times, the University should welcome a means of financing something as essential (and expensive) as the timetable. More than 200 universities use paid advertising to finance their timetables. The Council needs to remember KU's mission to catch up with its peer institutions financially. A $25,000-a-year burden placed on the University's already-insufficient funds is a step backward in that quest.
Soviet-U.S. relations
Juli Watkins for the editorial board
Two leaders should not have postponed summit
The world's attention is focused on the situation in the Persian Gulf, but that is not the only place where freedom is being repressed
President Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev should not have postponed the Feb. 11-13 summit in Moscow.
The focus of the summit was to be the strategic arms reduction treaty, or START. The agreement was designed to reduce the number of long-range nuclear weapons.
The Persian Gulf War and problems with the treaty between the two superpowers were given as the reasons for the postponement.
given to the reasons of the pamphlet. But Bush and Gorbachev should not cancel or postpone dealing with other pressing issues because of the war.
The point is not that the Persian Gulf War is unimportant but that relations with the Soviet Union are important and fundamental.
The U.S.-Soviet relationship is changing because of the situation in the Baltics.
While Gorbachev's handling of the Baltic situation was not cited as a reason for
caneeing the summit, the situation needs to be addressed.
Bush condemned the action of the Soviet military against Lithuania and Lativa, appealing to Gorbachev to halt the use of force. The summit should be used as a forum to address this situation.
The problems in the Soviet Union will not have gone away by the time Bush attends the postponed summit, but probably will have intensified.
The United States needs to face the possibility that Gorbachev may be overthrown or that civil war may erupt in the Soviet Union. The Soviet economy also is nearing a collapse.
It is extremely important to maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviets, especially those concerning nuclear arms limitations.
Bush should not have postponed this summit but should have taken the three days to try to achieve these goals.
Amy Zamierowski for the editorial board
American ignorance to vital issues will lead to the downfall of society
I saw an old friend the other day, and not having talked in some time, we decided to get some coffee and catch up. I was caught up in my past, in her's and in the stark picture of the life we lead made vividly clear by the passing of time.
After we reacquainted ourselves with the other's life, I asked her what she thought about the war.
"It's terrible," she said.
Silence.
That was it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have put their lives on hold to fight for oil and to "stopaked aggression," and she says this is "terrible," giving the word all the words she could would be she talking about football.
I asked her if she had any other opinion on this "terrible" war.
"Oh, yes," he exclaimed. "Saddam Hussein is a madman."
Erik Nelson Staff columnist
I believe the downfall of our country will come because we are too concerned about our comfort level to let reality play a leading role in our decisions. But when we almost exclusively of wealthy white males, truly know the concerns of our
And in that time I realized that she was not alone in such opinions. Not just about this war, but in the way we approach our lives.
I could see this was a well-developed opinion. Another moment of silence passed, this one to let the heavy comment sink in.
If I have mine, and you have yours, who cares about the American Indians who have never had theirs, or African-Americans who are still fighting for equality? What does it take for us to think? To think of others, to think for ourselves. In short, to separate that which we know as true from what we wish were true and stand for what we believe?
country? They say a good education is what it takes, but while I agree with that, I also say it takes the knowledge of someone empathetic with inner-city problems, with drug control, with the problems of the weakest educational system in the First World. The list could go on. Part of this problem derives from our short-term society — we look at the least amateur money we will have to take care of a problem for one year, without ever looking beyond that year at the “big picture.” This near-sighted demeanor is reflected in the attitudes present in America today.
The war with Iraq has made me realize my own apathy, and the
I see I have raced ahead of myself.
apathetic attitudes in our society. I am sorry that it takes the death of fellow citizens to learn what a life is worth.
As we realize that every day friends, family and loved ones lives" are at stake, let us think what it is we are fighting for. With responsible acts, we can let our leaders know what we think and take an active hand in shaping America's future, something we are only too willing to let others play with. Who knows, we may even get some of the cobwebbed incumbents out, and replace them with the labors of progressive thinking. We have the freedom to express our beliefs — a luxury unheard of in so many countries today. So let us do just that.
It seems ironic to me that in a country where we are blessed with so many freedoms, those of us who have the capacity to take full advantage of them, blissfully choose to ignore them. The keen insight of our forebears had not been necessary comfort. This country is great because of the many opinions that have been voiced for the greater good.
I think it is time we start thinking, painful as it may be, about what we are here for.
Erik Nelson is a Deerfield, Ill.. senior majoring in journalism.
Oil not worth dying for
Wake up, people! I hear all of this talk about the African-Americans who have died for this country and that I should do the same if called upon. I will not play the fool! If the security or freedom of this nation was at stake I would gladly fight, but for oil, I'm afraid not. Who is at blame for our depending on foreign oil? The Iraqis? The soldiers in the gulf? The innocent civilians in Kuwait, Iraq and Palestine? You? Me? No! Then why should we be required to pay with our blood for the neglect our government has shown concerning dependency on foreign oil? I'll be damned if I shall kill or be killed for such a reason.
Someone also wrote that if it were not for African-Americans who gave their lives on the battlefield Black Men of Today would not be where they are today. False. We (African-Americans) are very much aware and will never forget who gave their lives in service for this country.
However, one can never forget that the largest strides for the betterment of the African-American people were made off the battlefield. The work of Dr. Martin Luther King is valid evidence of this claim.
Furthermore, I find it very disheartening that the supposedly intellectuals writing in actually believe that precious human blood should be spilled for that black stuff. Then the fact that it's black people is people who share this belief that have this country in the predicament it is in today.
Jamil Rashad Houston senior
Oil outweighs freedom
I would like to make two points in response to Lori Sparkman's letter about the hypocrisy of anti-war activists. Sparkman said she would assume that the war was about oil and not the blood of human beings. She need make no such assumption. That the war is about oil is obvious. If the United States government is so corrupt, I wouldn't say nothing about the current sentencing of Chinese dissidents after sham trials? These people, who Bush sold out by secretly rushing an envoy to Peking after Tiananmen Square,
were imprisoned for the crime of demanding democracy. Is there no room for the Chinese in the New World Order? The Baltic republics are another case in point. If our government really cares about freedom, why has it done nothing to aid these democracies now being crushed? Although the summit with Gorbachev has been temporarily delayed, Secretary of State Baker, when asked point blank, refused to say whether the repression of the Baltics had anything to do with the delay. Is Lithuanian blood inferior to Kuwaiti blood? The United States isn't even fighting to restore a democracy in Kuwait, but a monarchy. Why? Because that monarchy has oil.
Still, Sparkman criticizes anti-war activists for using petroleum-based products, claiming people who use oil have no right to protest a war over oil. This claim might make sense if Iraq and Kuwait were the only sources of oil in the world, but they are not. Of course, if we had taken the time to let sanctions work, the loss of supplies from Iraq and Kuwait may have meant higher oil prices. Anti-war protesters wouldn't mind sacrificing money to save lives. Sparkman, on the other hand, apparently doesn't mind seeing thousands die, if it saves her some cash. Furthermore the United States could help make up for lost supplies by reducing oil consumption.
We anti-war protesters may be hypocrites, but I'd rather be that than bloodthirsty.
Michael Campbell Lawrence graduate student
Michael Campbell
Bush is effective leader
In 1988 I made the decision to vote for Michael Dukakis, thinking that a vote for George Bush would help put an indecise puppet in the captain's chair. But as the gulf crisis widened and the president began speaking of his now-famous New World Order, I found myself enchanted by the profound vision produced by the man I once considered a wimp.
Presidential terms are often compacted into simple slogans such as the "Fair Deal" or the "Great Society." I believe that the years 1989 to 1997 will someday be remembered as the "New World Order." My conversion over the past several months has led me to believe that George Bush would most likely implement Woodrow Wilson's ambitious vision of a world order that is safe for democracy. Bush, in contrast to previous presidents, believes in the United Nations and will focus much of his attention on it.
When this war is over and we have reclaimed Kuwait, we will face the most opportune moment of the past several decades to try and solve the multifaceted problems in the Middle East and beyond. With the Soviet Union now a diminished threat, we can begin to rely on the United Nations to advance the goals of the New World Order.
In the Jan. 28 issue of Newsweek, Henry Kringer agreed when he said, "Peace can be maintained in only one of two ways: by domination or by equilibrium." The former obviously won't be tolerated. Therefore, the latter becomes the most logical choice.
Although I don't expect Bush to abandon our foreign policy for the sake of "equilibrium," I do believe recent actions indicate that the presidency has failed to realize ideal world vision of collective security than we have ever been before.
Jeff Napshin Prairie Village junior
Japan not burdened
Kadono's initial contention in his Jan. 30 letter states that the United States is pressuring Japan to contribute the "absurd" sum of $9 billion to the allied effort in the Persian Gulf lacks reasonableness, but displays
disregard for geopolitical facts. The Japanese government offered to pay the sum, which by no means is unreasonable, considering that more than 90 percent of their petroleum resources come from the glauge region.
Kadono's second contention, that "the United States wants to stay on a pedestal and lord over nations," is equally fallacious. The presence of allied forces in the gulf is indicative of the general belief in the sovereignty of all nations, in this case Kuwait, and not an attempt to impose its ideals in the region. Moreover, the allied forces are there in response to requests by several nations in the gulf.
Regardless of your opinion concerning U.S. involvement in the gulf, Kadono's argument that Japan is "carrying the cross" is negated both by the scope of international involvement and the monetary commitment of the United States and its allies. Providing monetary support for 10 to 12 combat days worth of operations, with no tangible aid such as troops, could hardly be considered burdensome to Japan.
Chris Pace Salina junior
KANSAN STAFF
CHRIS SIRON
Editor
Jeff Webb Salina sophomore
Editor
RICH CORNELL
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
News  Marianne Matthews
Editorial  Tiffany Harness
Planning  Holly M. Nouman
Campus  Jennifer Reynolds,
Pam Solner
Sports  Annie Commorant
Photography  Keith Thomas
Graphics  Melissa Unterberg
Features  Jill Harrington
By David Rosenfield
AUDRA LANGFORD
Business manager
MINDI LUND
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing advise
Campus sales mgr...Carmen Shehbe
Regional sales mgr...Garmin Dresch
National sales mgr...Jennifer Claxton
Co-op sales mgr...Christine Musser
Production mgrs...Rich Harshbarger,
Kaater Stade
Marketing director...Grace Chah
Creative director...Chrity Hals
Classified manager...Kim Grower
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's name, date of birth, title and affiliation with the University of Kansas must include class and background, or faculty or staff position.
Great columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kauan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kauan newroom, 111 Staffer Flint Hall.
Sketch