4 Wednesday, January 30, 1991 / University Daily Kansan Opinion THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Campus recycling Allen Field House needs additional containers for recycling aluminum, newspaper and plastic C rumpled newspapers fly between bleachers as KU basketball fans in Allen Field House cheer the Jayhawks. A variable feast for the recycling eye. Basketball fans and other visitors who want to throw away their leftover paper and plastic products in recycling bins in the field house must go to the north side of the building, only to find one recycling bin for newspapers. The field house has an average yearly attendance of 245,280 people and usually is at its capacity level of 16,000 people during each basketball game. Facilities operations officials could not estimate the amount of trash collected after every basketball game. One newspaper recycling bin, situated inside the building, is not adequate. Facilities operations should finance the cost of a newspaper recycling bin outside of the field house, where it would be easily seen and accessible to crowds leaving the field house after basketball games. Facilities operations officials said that there were few aluminum cans brought into the field house by fans and that most people kept the plastic cups beverages were served in. Even though the numbers of aluminum cans and plastic cups are small, a few strategically placed trash cans marked for aluminum cans and plastic cups would allow people to recycle these products with little effort. The responsibility for recycling belongs to every individual who enters the field house. People attending the next five home basketball games should think about this when they leave the task of recycling mounds of newspapers to facilities operations attendants who have to pick up trash after the games. Recycling newspapers, aluminium and plastic thrown away on campus should be the duty of every person that uses them. But facilities operations can make the process easier by adding a few more recycling bins in the field house. Carol Krekeler for the editorial board Saddam must pay Dumping oil in gulf is environmental terrorism Exxon's oil tanker blunder two years ago in Alaska's Prince William Sound caused anger at home and abroad. Exxon, acting so irresponsibly, treated 258,000 barrels of oil as if it were nothing more harmful than water. The Exxon disaster, it seemed, had united the United States against not only Exxon itself but also against the destruction of our environment. Iraki president Saddam Hussein began dumping crude oil into the Persian Gulf five days ago, and the same feelings of anger resurfaced. With similar irresponsibility, Saddam intentionally tried to wreak havoc on our environment. During the past five days, we have heard much of the same sentiment from President Bush and leaders from around the world. Intel the Exxon spill, Saddam's intent destruction in the Gulf seems to have united our nation as well as the international community against the man whose military tactics have become increasingly irrational. Oil experts and officials from the United States, allied countries and gulf countries have denounced Saddam's actions, saying he has committed an act of environmental terrorism by waging war on the wildlife and resources of the region. Such indiscriminate warfare, military officials say, will have little, if any, effect on allied efforts. The presence of the oil in the Gulf cannot stop U.S. Marine hovercraft — which float above almost any surface, including oil — from entering the region. Igniting the oil to produce a protective wall of flames is nearly impossible; the tactic has been tested and failed in previous spills. And Saudi government officials contend that their largest water desalination plants are well protected from the growing slick, and that others draw water from below the gulf's surface and the floating oil. What, then, is Saddam's intent by opening the valves on Kuwait's Sea Island Terminal and gushing about 10 million gallons of crude a day into the Gulf? At this point, no one knows. What has become clear to many, however, is that Saddam's destruction of gulf marine life, including at least two types of endangered species, is unacceptable. U.S. citizens, as well as those of allied and Gulf nations, have united themselves against Saddam and the destruction of our environment by condemning his actions and trying to prevent further destruction. Just as the U.S. community refused to stand for Exxon's irresponsible disaster, the international community should not let Saddam get away with an intentional disaster 12 times the size of Exxon's. Saddam should be made to pay for the environmental damage he has inflicted. Melanie Matthes for the editorial board Japanese student angry In response to the article "Japan gives $9 billion to allied forces": As I read the article, I began to feel sick. For a moment I thought that my number was up, and it took me a few hours to compose myself. I knew that the United States had been pressuring us (the Japanese) to contribute more to the forces in the Persian Gulf. The whole thing seemed blatantly absurd to me, basically for two reasons. First of all, I do not understand why the United States wants to stay on a pedestal and lord over other nations, despite the fact that they do not have the resources to keep messing around with Iraq. Second, we have our constitution that forbids us to resort to violence as the answer to settling problems. Obviously the United States has no respect whatsoever for us. It is true that the United States helped us rebuild our society after the war. Let's face it. Do we have to carry the burden of the war to the United States, I am certain that many of us do not like to be pushed around like that. I take it as an insult to the Japanese. There is one other point that I would like to make in passing, from a different perspective. Nine billion dollars is a tremendous amount. The money could be put to better use. Personal experience has killed for the stupid kind of game politicians play, and I hate to see our money being thrown away 'I do not understand why the United States wants to stay on a pedestal and lord over other nations.' like that. It has to be admitted that the United States has far more important domestic problems to deal with. I am sure many of you know what they are. If you do not, take a close, objective look at yourselves. Draft refusal unjust Jiro Kadono Osaka, Japan, graduate student I have several fundamental disagreements with the Black Men of Today concerning their decision to refuse the draft. One of the messages sent by this decision seems to be that the disproportionate number of Blacks in the armed services indicates racism. This, however, cannot be the case because our armed services are currently composed of volunteers who enlisted on their own volition. The military does not justifiably finger their fingers and accuse anybody for this disproportion, because nobody, except for the Black, has control over a Black's independent choice to enlist, including Gen. Colin Powell. The quotation from Darren Fulcher, "they will put us on the front lines, but they won't educate us," is also bristling with thorny implications. First, it implies that Blacks were rounded up summarily and force-marched into the Middle East. This is definitely not the case. Every dock soldier who is in the Middle East either enlisted in the service or volunteered through the reserves. The second implication of Fulcher's statement is that "they" (who are "they"? The government? European-Americans? Everybody?) refuse Blacks the opportunity to get an education. This is disproven simply by the presence of Fulcher and the Black Men of Today on the KU campus. If the purpose of the Black Men of Today is to combat racism and to integrate Blacks into society, then their decision to refuse the draft has retarded their progress toward the very goals for which they stand. How can society be expected to accept the Black Men of Today when they proclaim that they are exempt from society's laws? How can a minority group be integrated into society when it works so hard to separate itself from society? Wouldn't it serve their goals of racial harmony better if they shared the risk of being drafted with other patriotic U.S. citizens? Derek M. Shirk Jola freshman Yellow ribbon trivia Although I agree with Tim Winklebleck that yellow ribbons are worthy support symbols for our armed forces, overseas, his history can stand up to them. "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" is a traditional song dating back to 1838. It was revived in 1949 for the film of the same name starring John Wayne. I believe Richard Hageman was the composer who created the new version. Bob Lewis, Radio/TV producer University Relations Foreigners have place in U.S., Last week, as I watched World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I was puzzled by what I nings, I was puziced by what I saw and heard. In Bradenton, Fla., a business owned by a Palestinian-American had been burned. In Los Angeles a store, the property of an Arab-American, was vandalized. Here we have a personification of the crude reality of our world: xenophobia pampered by bigotry — overt at times, subtle at others. And its destructive nature has the effect of cancer; allowed to continue unchecked, it threatening spreads and consumes life. On Jan. 3, the Lawrence Journal- World published an editorial titled "Watered-down education." It argued that "education (in the United States), at all levels of our society, has been watered down to Ndomby Fhunsu Staff columnist the point it is nowhere nearly as effective as it once was . . . Our students have to learn, and learn right now, that it's the rest of the world, not just the United States, that they're competing with." The editorial recommended we "read the local honor rolls which appear several times each year to note the number of 'foreign' names on the roster, Lawrence, because of KU, has a larger population of such highly motivated people and they are clearly making their mark because they work and study harder and are, indeed, excelling." I do not know how watered-down education in the United States is, and I lack the authority to discuss the issue here. Moreover, I have no insight into the worldwide "competition" in the field of education, and therefore cannot give an informed opinion thereof. I do know, however, that Lawrence is vibrating with students who come from across the oceans. They are, indeed, keeping KU's standard high. I am personally acquainted with many of them. Do away with this population and you lacerate the University's nervous system. The question I have is, "What is a foreign name in the United States?" How can a person tell, by merely 'I intend to become a citizen of the United States and to help this country soar to higher levels.' glancing at a roster, if the people bearing the names Bush, Cherokee, Schmidt, Linan, Herdon, McGaha, Muhammad, Flunsu... are foreigners or Americans? Who in this country, other than the descendants of those who inhabited the land before the first settlers came to these shores, can honestly claim they don't have foreign names? The U.S. Constitution provides that people born in other lands may become citizens of this nation upon a natural birth or by marriage. This does not involve an Americani- zation of their names. Former president Reagan wrote in 1986, "When you become citizens of the United States," your liberty will be assured, and you will have the opportunity to go as far as your dreams and your dreams can carry you." I am a creative and diligent armor. I intend to become a citizen of the United States and to help this country soar to higher levels. But, I am wondering, will my zeal face challenging moments of physical and psychological violence because of my foreign name and origin? Should I have to intensify my practice of martial arts, in just case of ... ? Words, you see, have individualities of their own. They can be sweet, sour, discordant, musical. They can be friendly, tactful and cooperative, or competitive, divisive and surprisingly dangerous. I understand the Journal World's editorial was only lamenting the decay of the quality of education in the United States. However the word "foreign," when it puts on the garment of cross-cultural and international competition, as it does in the editorial, can cause feelings of xenophobia and bigotry. This is an undesirable side effect, particularly in these days of intercultural and international hostilities in economics, politics and the armed forces. Are there any desirable confrontations in education? Isn't cooperation more viable? Ndomby Fhunsu is a freshman in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. KANSAN STAFF CHRIS SIRON CHRIS SIRON Editor RICH CORNELL Managing editor TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser Editors Business staff News Melanie Matthes Campus sales mgr. Sophie Wehbe Editorial Tiffany Harness Regional sales mgr. Carmen Dresch Planning Holly M. Neuman National sales mgr. Jennifer Claxton Campus Jennifer Reynolds Co-op sales mgr. Christine Musser Pam Sollier Production mgrs. Rich Harsbarger Sports Ann Semmaterlah Kale Stader Photography Keith Thorpe Marketing director. Gail Einbinder Graphics Melissa Unterberg Creative director. Chrity Hhs Featurcs Jill Harming Classified manager. Kim Crowder By Tom Michaud Home Remedies Letters should be double, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed. The Kansas reserves the right to reject or editi letters, guest column and cartons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Staffer-Film Hall.