4
Friday, February 9, 1990 / University Dally Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
No peace dividend
President Bush continues to finance military despite East Europe events, evidence of waste
It doesn't appear that there is a peace dividend in the budget for 1991. Despite talks of troop reductions and possible base closings, President Bush shows no signs of making wholesale cuts.
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney is trying to convince Congress that money spent on a few programs, such as the B-2, the Strategic Defense Initiative and mobile missile systems, will be the beginning of a new phase in defense. He termed it a building-down, or a restructuring of U.S. forces.
But waste still exists. It has been reported that the Department of Defense is requesting an additional $1.8 million in supply inventories for the coming year, despite having inventories worth $30 billion in spare parts, uniforms and other equipment that are not needed. The request comes against the advice of the DOD's auditors who say it should be withdrawn.
The true level of inventory is more than $100 billion, but officials said only $30 billion could be eliminated.
Some of the items on hand include specially designed women's shirts for the Army, 68 sizes, at a price of $3 million; and 150,000 pairs of pants from the Korean War era. There have been numerous cases of misplacing parts or inventories and ordering replacements, only to
find the originals at a later date
The entire mess leaves a person scratching his head wondering how anything is done or protected by the DOD when these practices occur. The military can never use all of these items and should either sell them to other nations or U.S. industries that can. Extra clothing could go to the homeless.
clowning could go wrong.
The bottom line is that the Pentagon is not willing to cut back. Talk that cuts would not be prudent at this juncture seem out of step with the events in Eastern Europe. Despite proposed cuts in active troops, no substantial cuts have been indicated for 1991. True, 20 conventional systems have been targeted, but with the Soviet threat lessening daily, it hardly seems appropriate to defend against weakening Eastern European forces.
Perhaps it is a bit much to ask for the DOD to make wholesale cuts in new programs, but increasing spending for existing projects such as the SDI, the B-2 and new single-warhead missiles is pointless. The way to lead the Soviets to making greater cuts in their defenses will be to initiate cuts at home. The United States may not see a peace dividend now, but perhaps in the next few years. Cuts can ensure that the nation is not spending for more bang than it needs.
John P. Milburn_for the editorial board
Briefly stated
It is absurd for U.S. citizens to assert that English is the only language for the United States. The nation has a reputation as a melting pot, a place where all nationalities come together, enjoy freedom and celebrate a specific lifestyle. Now states are trying to say "English only" for official business.
There is a big difference between a law recognizing English as the official language
and a law declaring English the only legal language. Telling immigrants they can not speak their native tongue is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
If this were Europe, citizens would be expected to speak an additional language; we must learn a second one in college. A multiple language society should not be discouraged but encouraged and possibly made mandatory.
No more excuses Use your condom
W without a doubt, an issue that has received inexcuably low attention and action from our government and media is AIDS. When the disease was first diagnosed, the media described it as "a monster," guosto, fanning the flames of hysteria and ignorance.
Now one would infer from the dwindling amount of news coverage and government attention that AIDS is no longer a problem. The only reminders of the disease for most are the hardcore health advocates who profite "safe sex."
At this point I'll anticipate just one argument. When I say "people" in this column, I speak of both men and women. Some might think this inappropriate because we all know (I hope) that only a man can wear a condom. Therefore, the responsibility should rest on his shoulders. Right? I think placing sole responsibility on either sex is equally ludicrous.
In all that I've seen concerning the use of condoms — from Ron Jr.'s demonstration with a banana to the soft-light commercials on television — the discussion always deals with the reasons someone should wear a condom. Attention has not been given to the reasons people don't wear condoms. Until now.
A variation on this excuse serves for those relationships falling between monogamy and polygamy. I call the limited exposure
So the question remains: Why would any sexually-active person aware of the risks of AIDS not want to wear a condom during sexual intercourse?
For starters, there's the monogamous relationship excuse. "I don't need to because Fresia and I love each other and have been faithful for umpleten years," says Paul/Paula.
Tim Hamilton Staff columnis
excuse. "Baby, I've only slept with three other people besides you, and they were all virgins in my hometown of 478 people. And no one here was gay," says Paul/Paula. This may be an exaggeration, but this excuse is as credible as the first for many people, especially in the heat of the moment.
This raises the point of the circumstances that might lead to irrational or avoided decisions.
Often the case may be that two newly acquainted people avoid the issue due to embarrassment.
"Gee, I love to to, but I want to use a condom because I: a) don't trust where you've been, b) want to be safe, c) don't trust where I've been." It doesn't take much imagination, or recollection, to see how potentially embarrassing any of these endings might be.
Of course, these explanations are plausible. However, even those who have never had sex know that the number one reason people bag the device is because — well, how do I say — it's like a wet blanket at a beach party. (I hate the raincoat in the bathtub analogy.) To be more specific, it inhibits the sensitivity of the penis, which means it severely reduces the male's physical pleasure.
Call me naive; call me a reprobate; call me ungrateful. But I think that in this day of instant technology, someone somewhere could invent the device that would invalidate all of these reasons for "unsafe" sex.
> Tim Hamilton is a Wichita senior maloring in journalism.
News staff
Richard Brack ... Editor
Daniel Niemi ... Managing editor
Christopher R. Relston ... News editor
Lisa Meadow ... Planning editor
John Millburn ... Editorial editor
Candy Niemann ... Campus editor
Mia Groome ... Journal editor
E. Joseph Zurge ... Photo editor
Stephen Kline ... Graphics editor
Kris Bergquist ... Artificial Intelligence editor
Erin Eblin ... General manager, news adviser
Margaret Townsend...Business manager
Tami Rank...Retail sales manager
Misay Miller...Campus sales manager
Kathy Stoll...Regional sales manager
Mike Skellie...National sales manager
Mindy Morrie...Co-op sales manager
Nate Stamos...Production manager
Mindy Lui...Assistant production manager
Cory Linarke...Marketing director
James Glenann...Creative director
Janet Rorholm...Classified manager
Wendy Bertz...Portfolio manager
Jennifer Hoffman...Sales and marketing adviser
Business staff
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be maligned, or brought to the Kansan newsletter, 111 Staffer-Fall Hall, Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editorialists are the opinion of the Kansian editorial board.
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will
History cannot predict Soviet's future
As most of you are aware, the Communist Party meeting in Moscow this week adopted General Secretary Mihail Gorbachev's recommendation to drop Article 6 of the Soviet constitution. If this change in their constitution produces real concrete change in the Soviet system, as I believe it probably will, we should expect some pretty funda-
Article 6 grants control of government to the Communist Party. Dropping this article is the first step toward something nobody thought possible in this century — a demoptic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
There are many changes which could well come about if this happens. Most of which, one might say, are beneficial to the United States. In no particular order, here are a few:
■ The Warsaw Pact dissolves
Cuba, Syria and a host of others get cut off from foreign aid. Castro is currently raking in a cool $5 million a day from the Soviets.
We don't have to keep spending so many of our tax dollars on defense. I personally can think of things that I am proud of, and my money on than the military.
- The chance of Eastern Europe returning to communism is virtually
eliminated.
Brandt
Pasco
Staff columnist
- The infrastructure in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is in bad condition. Chances are that U.S. corporations could get lucrative
condition. Chances are that U.S. corporations could get lucrative contracts building roads, railroads and factories. This is a chance for a second Marshall Plan — a big shot in the arm for the U.S. economy.
■ Germany easily could get the OK from Moscow for reunification, a prerequisite for reunification. This potentially could result in the indefinite postponing of the European Common Community. Reunification would give Germany the third largest economy in the world. The rest of Europe would, I imagine, be somewhat less than anxious to be dominated completely by Germany. If the ECC does not go through, the United States can continue to expand into European markets.
■ Concrete moves toward democracy in the Soviet Union may triger
new rounds of demonstrations in the people's Republic of China. With the democratization of the Soviet Union, China will be the last of the Communist countries in the United Nations Security Council.
Of course, this all could fall apart. The Soviets might not get a democratic system. Although I don't think it likely, changes in the Soviet Union could even lead to a civil war. After all, I sure didn't think that any of the events presently going on in Europe would happen either, at least not for quite some time.
Germany could reuile and have the ECC go through anyway, making an economic super giant and further adding to the growing economic problems in the United States.
All has not gone smoothly in Eastern Europe. In Romania, attempts were made to return control of the government to the Communists in the name of reform. In the German Democratic Republic, attempts were made to keep the much-hated secret police as a tool of control. Seemingly the Communists in the East bloc have lost the main battle but not the war.
Even if everything goes more or
less as I would like, all the military equipment retired by NATO and the Warsaw Pact will probably be sold to other nations. This could fuel a new round of violence in the developing world south of the equator. There are far too many small governments wanting to become big ones.
On the whole, I feel optimistic that the future is bright. We would do well, however, to keep our eyes wide open. Rapid change is highly destabilizing. If our luck holds, we will be entering a new era of peace and prosperity. On the other hand, things could get completely out of control. We need to be involved in helping those fledgling democracies that request our help and in maintaining stability. Unfortunately, nobody knows how to handle today's events. Nothing in the history books even gives us a clue about what to do.
If you have ideas about what should be done, write your senators and representatives. If you don't know their names or addresses, contact University Information Center. This is one situation that requires all of our input.
▶ Brandt Pasco is a Lawrence sophomore majoring in political science.
Menu may turn into 36-page magazine
David Ammons, the man who is responsible for the fact that the menus you are handed in restaurants may soon include paid advertisements, and that the waiters and waitresses may be endorsing commercial products, doesn't see what all the fuss is about.
Ammons, 46, is vice president for marketing with the Riese Organization, which owns or operates more than 500 restaurants, 350 of them in New York. The Riese Organization has announced plans to replace traditional menus with menus featuring ads for various companies and consumer products. If diners accept this concept, the company has plans to expand the idea of advertising in restaurants.
Bob Greene
Syndicated columnist
"There's nothing new here," Ammons said. "There has been advertising inside restaurants since Day One. When you walk into a restaurant, you see signs for Budweiser and Miller Lite behind the bar. In the early days of Coca-Cola,
Mr. Coca-Cola would drive up to Flo and Eb's Diner and say, 'We'll paint you a nice sign with the name of your diner on it. We'll do it for free. Just let us mention Coca-Cola on the sign.'
what the Riese Organization has in mind, though, is somewhat more ambitious than beverage signs. Beginning in the next few months, the company's restaurants will replace their menus with 36-page magazines.
"The name of the magazine will be Knife & Fork," Ammons said. "It will be a very nice general-interest magazine, with advertisements for all kinds of products." The centerfold
will be the restaurant's menu. While you're waiting for your meal, you can read the articles and look at the ads. It's something to do while you wait. What else do you do in a restaurant — twiddle your thumbs or tear up your dinner roll?"
Well, you could talk to the person at the table with you.
Ammons paused. "I guess you could do that, yeah," he said. "You could talk. But what if you're out to meet with your wife? Then what do you do?"
He said that diners would be invited to take the magazines-that have-themen-in-the-middle home with them. And if, as expected, diners do not object to being presented with ads while they're having dinner, the Riese Organization is prepared to go further.
"For instance, instead of your waiter saying to you, 'Would you like a bagel?' your waiter might say, 'Would you like a bagel with Philadelphia Cream Cheese?' "
"The waiters and waitresses could tell you what brand of pants and skirts and shirts they are wearing," Ammons said. "They could tell you that if you like their clothes, they are available at such-and-such a store."
"The waiters and waitresses could wear product logos on their shirts."
Like those tennis players or race car drivers we see on TV — athletes whose clothes are covered with patches advertising everything from shoes to automobiles?
"Yes," Ammons said.
Yes, Amhils said.
Ammons said that if customers objected to all of this, the project would be abandoned.
And does he feel that there is any chance that Americans will, indeed, object to all this uninvited advertising?
"Not really," he said. "They're used to it."
Bob Greene is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
CAMP UHNEELY
BY SCOTT PATTY
1