4
Friday, February 2, 1990 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Weak message
Bush's China policy is clear: Human rights take a back seat to pursuance of diplomacy
President Bush heard what Congress and the people of the United States thought about his China policy, but he didn't listen.
On Thursday, the Senate narrowly upheld Bush's veto of a bill that would have protected Chinese students in the United States. The vote came a day after the House voted 390-25 to override the veto.
In all, 427 members of the House and Senate voted to override the veto, but it wasn't enough for a two-thirds majority. That figure alone should be enough to worry Bush.
Just before the Senate vote, Bush renewed his promise that, "No student will be sent back as long as I'm president." He backed up his statement by reminding senators of an executive order, signed along with his Nov. 30 veto, that would prevent Chinese students from being sent back to China when their visas expired.
But the failure to override Bush's veto shouldn't be the key issue. The proposed bill and Bush's executive order were similar in terms of protection for Chinese students. What should be attacked is Bush's desire to reopen relations with China.
After the brutal massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in June, the idea of establishing normal relations with China's leaders is sickening. Bush appears to be offering one hand to China's leaders in friendship while pushing aside the student demonstrators with the other. He is prioritizing diplomacy ahead of human rights, against the opinions of Congress and the people of the United States.
Instead, Chinese leaders are satisfied; Bush is relieved to have survived his first battle in Congress this year; and Chinese students in the United States are unsure of their post-visa future.
Sixty-two members of Congress made the wrong decision. Instead of backing the Chinese students and those students who died last summer, they chose to back the president and normalize relations with China's murderous leaders.
A chance to send a tough message to China is gone and a new message went in its place. It's hard to hear though, because it's about as muted as Bush's initial response to the Tiananmen Square massacre in June.
Christopher Relston for the editorial board
Social Security cuts Deficit worries should override tax worries
If Social Security isn't broken, Congress should not try to fix it.
sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D.N.Y., proposed that the Jan. 1 Social Security tax increase be rolled back to curb its surplus, not because the surplus was too large, but because it was being used to finance the deficit.
Since Social Security tax changes went into effect in 1984, the program has been operating in the black with surplus levels estimated at more than $162 billion. The surpluses were intended to create funds for aging baby boomers. The program is working, and the aging society can rest at night knowing it will receive its checks and benefits will not be cut.
While the senator's idea is a bit drastic, it brings to the forefront the questionable budgetary practices used by the Bush administration with the hope of making the deficit and economic picture look better than it really is.
economic picture book better than it really is. Surpluses should not be misused to mask the true state of the government. By taking money from one fund and paying the debt, things may
look better, but they aren't.
The surplus fund should be idled and allowed to draw interest to cover Social Security payments. Otherwise, taxpayers' fears that the fund will be depleted when it is their turn to receive payments will come true.
Moreover, the government securities that are being used to finance the deficit should be of greater concern. The nation will face economic catastrophe when these securities reach maturity in the early 21st century and must be paid off. Every credit card has a spending limit.
the practice of financing today's deficit with the social security trust fund is only creating an increased deficit that future generations will be forced to pay. The government securities purchased with the trust fund will come due with interest. If the current state of economic affairs continues, that debt will be impossible to pay.
John P. Milburn for the editorial board
U.S. should ease its defenses
One of the favorite political buzz words this year is "peace dividend." This is
this year is "peace dividend." This idea being that with the crumbling of the Soviet war machine, the United States suddenly will be able to free up billions of dollars used by its war machine. And ever, is nowhere to be found in the budget before Congress. Why not?
The current belief in Washington is that prudence requires that we do not act hastily in dismantling our defenses in Western Europe. The Penatton has stated repeatedly that we need to wait for concrete demonstrations of change in the Soviet Union.
I wonder what they consider concrete. By the Pentagon's own estimate, the Soviet Union has decreased its readiness for war in Europe to the point where it would be an estimated 34 days warning before an attack could be launched. The Eastern Bloc has thrown off the Soviet guiding hand. In the Far East, the Soviets, for the first time, have indicated that they would be interested in talking with Japan about returning to them and reinforcing security at the exclusion of World War II. There are even murmurs of the Soviets' interest in negotiating away their naval base in 'Vietnam'. All this seems pretty indicative of positive change to me.
Perhaps one reason for the hesitancy of the United States to cash in on our peace dividend is that the military is more or less being allowed to determine how much money it needs. Having the military determine its budget is a lot like
Brandt Pasco
Staff columnist
letting children decide how much candy they want.
Internationally, there are good reasons for reducing the U.S. presence in Europe. The most important is that Mikhail Gorbachev is in terrible trouble domestically. For the time being, it is very much in the interest of the United States to keep Gorbachev around. If Gorbachev wants to dismantle his military, we should certainly make it as politically easy for him as we can. Those in the U.S. military who prophesy that change in the Soviet Union is only ephemeral certainly will make that true if we do not reciprocate with military reductions of our own.
Don't misunderstand me. One cannot trust the Soviet Union as long as it claims Lenin's internationalist theories as its guiding light. The Soviets are just in a horrible predicament. Their country is much like a corporation reorganizing under bankruptcy. The company doesn't collapse, it just sells off some assets to get much needed cash flow. The Cold War isn't finished exactly, it is just entering a new phase.
If the United States is careful about handling the crisis in the Soviet Union, that is, if it does nothing but watch, we could find ourselves in a position unlike any since the close of World War II. Each month that
Gorbachev stays in power causes the Soviet Union to lose some of the hard won territory, influence, power and even national cohesiveness that it earned for itself during the years. Every bit that we can coax out of the Soviets sets them back, and in relative terms, increases the power of the United States. This is despite military spending cuts in the U.S. Armed Forces.
In the long run, slashing military spending will have a very positive effect on the U.S. economy. Most important, the United States might be able to get out of debt. It is scandalous for the nation with the largest economy to be as far in the hole as we are. Once that is taken care of, the middle class actually would be able to see a tax cut. Not so much, because of the nominal tax cut for the very rich, or the tax cut that means they don't increase the middle class' taxes as much as the Democrats want to, and an honest-to-God decrease in all government spending tax cut.
By cutting the military budget in Europe, we come up all aces. Communism continues to decline; the United States as a whole climbs in power and prestige; the economy gets a boost by not wasting so much energy and material on nonproductive goods (war material), and all this is achieved by not spending money. It is said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I'm not so sure anymore.
> Brandt Pasco is a Lawrence sophomore majoring in political science.
LETTERS to the EDITOR Cynicism hurtful
Thank you Mr. Kromm for your column of Jan. 26. "We may be throwing our environment away." It's about time someone pointed out the real reason we are coming to the end of our rope. It's about time someone mentioned that our divine mandate, as the archemy of nature, is a sham. Mr. Kromm is right, and I have nothing but praise for his intended message.
However, I hasten to point out that the lies and exploitation perpetuated by George Bush, McDonald's and Exxon, among others, are no grounds for passing off a book to a friend with a comparing interest in world ecology to a "quick fix." Mr. Kromm should keep his criticisms aimed
in the right direction instead of, by some somersault of bungled logic, at those who hold the small flame of hope left to us. Changes in laws and contributions to Greenpeace, while they may be only small efforts in and of themselves, are actually part of a larger social movement toward an imminent re-evaluation of man's part in nature.
While I certainly am not advocating putting trust in big business or hypocritical government, I think it is obvious that this is exactly where we need change right now to save this Mother of ours. We need the hearts and minds of these "trend" followers so we may avoid blind trust of those who would just as soon have our planet become a burning cinder in space.
Please, Mr. Kromm, don't "draw the curtain" prematurely on those of us who would stand with you in belief. Cynicism is a status quo philosophy.
Matthew D. Davis
Paola junior
News staff
Richard Brack ... Editor
Daniel Nieml ... Managing editor
Christopher R. Balston ... News editor
Lisa Moose ... Planning editor
John Milburn ... Editorial editor
Candy Niemm ... Campus editor
Mike Considine ... Sports editor
E. Joseph Zurgu ... Photo editor
Stephen Kilton ... Graphic editor
Kris Bergquist ... Art/Features editor
Tom Eblen ... General manager, news adviser
Margaret Townsend ... Business manager
Tami Rank ... Retail sales manager
Miesey Miller ... Campus sales manager
Kathy Rolloff ... Political sales manager
Mike Lehman ... National sales manager
Mindy Morris ... Co-op sales manager
Nate Stamos ... Production manager
Mindy Landau ... Assistant production manager
Carrie Skainke ... Marketing director
James Gianapp ... Creative director
Janet Rorholm ... Classified manager
Wendy Starzta ... Team sales manager
Jessica Hines ... Sales and market
Business staff
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 113 Staffler-Fall Halt. Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editors are the opinion of the Kansan 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
The Bradys: icon to children of 1970s
men and women who were children during the 1970s sometimes seem to have a sort of collective chip on their shoulders — and I must admit, they have some justification for this.
A lot of them think that the people who came before them — Americans who grew up during the '50s and '60s — are continually being catered to, with '50s and '60s nostalgia being dishepted at every turn. Indeed, this is true; there are times when it seems that culture revolves around the memories of life in the Eisenhower Era or the Kennedy Era. The children of the '70s often say that it seems their own youth never existed
Well, the children of the '70s are in luck. Today they can feel superior. One of their chief cultural icons keeps getting more and more popular — popping up in daily conversations, sharing lines by spoken words, identified as a benchmark for a certain period of time. And I am here to confess that I know absolutely nothing about these cultural icons of the '70s.
- at least judging by the predominant media images.
The Brady Bunch, it turns out, were several adults and a houseful of children who starred in a TV series known, appropriately enough, as "The Brady Bunch." The Brady
I refer to the Brady Bunch.
Bob Greene
Syndicated columnist
family seems to be as familiar to children of the '70s as the Beatles were to children of the '60s or as Lucy and Ricky were to children of the '50s. The Bradys, it is becoming increasingly clear, are a genuine touchstone for a whole generation.
Yet if the Brady Bunch — individually or as a family — were to walk into my office this minute, I would not recognize any of them.
I do know a few things about them.
As noted, I hear their names in random conversations almost every day.
I know they are planning some kind of a reunion series. I know that a TV special they did in 1988 — a reunion special called “A Very Brady Christmas” — was such a spectacular success that it was broadcast again this past Christmas, and even as a rerun was the highest-rated TV program in the country the night it aired. I know that one of the Brady children's name was Cindy; I know this because sometimes she is referred to in print as “Thindy,” which I assume is a comment on a problem she had with her speech patterns.
Also, I know that the theme song from "The Brady Bunch" has been memorized by an entire generation, and that it contains the word "curls."
And even knowing all this, I do not believe I ever saw a single episode of "The Brady Bunch." I think I was working that decade.
This is significant. It may mean that the children of the '70s may finally be getting ready to have their
'The Brady family seems to be as familiar to children of the '70s as the Beatles were to children of the '60s or as Lucy and Ricky were to children of the '50s. The Bradys...are a genuine touchstone for a whole generation.'
day in the sun. The situation comedies of the '50s and '60s — "Leave It To Beaver," "Father Knows Best," "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" and all the others — are fading into obscurity, "The Brady Bunch" — whoever they were — are taking over the hearts and memories of Americans who want to think back to the past with warm pleasure.
I looked up "The Brady Bunch" in a reference book. It seems that the
show aired on Friday nights on ABC from September 1969 to August 1974, which explains some things. Friday nights between 1969 and 1974 did not tend to be a time when a lot of my contemporaries were home before 2 a.m., never mind being home to watch TV. The reference book describes the show as being full of well-scrubbed children, trivial adventures, relentlessly middle-class parents and a nutty housekeeper, Alice, thrown in to act as a referee, Plus, of course, the man with a baggy dog Tiger. The actor who played Giggy was Gregg Wagner. Greg was someone named Barry Williams — I never saw him in my life — who according to the reference book, was such a teen-age idol that he received 6.500 fan letters a week
I'm not sure any of this needs further comment, except for two things: If "Brady Bunch Reunion" shears are popular today, try, if you will, to imprint a picture of a "Married". With Children' reunion show 20 years from now.
And you know the mothers in all the family comedies of the '50s and '60s were supposed to be bland and unsexy — sort of matronly and prim and dowdy? Most of them were. But—and I don't know how we missed it back then — did you ever take a real close look at Donna Ree? ▶ Bob Greene is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
CAMP UHNEELY
LISTEN UP. TEAM. WE'RE DOWN BY TOO MUCH TO THINK OF WINNING THIS ONE, So I WANT YOU GUYS TO INITIATE OPERATION SUMMEALL
IS THERE IS THERE A PROBLEM REASON WHY HE WITH ONE KEeps SPITTING OF MY BOYS; ON THE REF? OPPOSING TEAM?
BY SCOTT PATTY
I THINK MY AND HE WAS
BOY THOUGHT SLAPPING THE
THE OTHER PLAYER'S HEAD
BOY WUZ 'CAUSE HE WAS
ON FIRE. CHOKING, RIGHT?