4
Thursday, November 16, 1989 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Death of wall could signal birth of a united Germany
"There was so much handwriting on the wall/That even the wall fell down."
Christopher Morley in "Around the Clock"
It seems that the handwriting was on the wall for the East German government. Massive protests in the East for political and economic reform as well as more personal freedom culminated last week with the opening of the border between East and West Germany for the first time in 28 years.
As new crossings were being punched in the wall and millions of Germans were celebrating the death of the scar that divided them, both politically and physically, officials in the West renewed their call for the reunification of Germany. A call that should be answered
A call that should be unseen
The reunification of the German states is called for in the West German constitution. East German officials say they will not discuss the issue. Little wonder. With thousands of citizens leaving the East since September, the Communist government of East Germany opened the border as a last ditch effort to salvage some sort of relationship with those it governs.
sound like typical paranoid. The reumification process will not happen overnight. There are many legal and political entanglements to be straightened, not the least of which concerns the Soviet view of all of this. But with a dialogue and some cooperation we may yet see what our parents thought impossible.
Many U.S. citizens are opposed to the reunification of the Germanies on the grounds that it would cost the taxpayer too much money. As it stands, the United States is the third largest contributor to the East German economy, at a fraction of what the Japanese and West German banks spend. With the frugal, stingy might be a better word, attitude of the Bush administration toward economic incentives for Eastern European reform, the taxpayer wouldn't have to worry about picking up this tab.
Some, mostly Western Europeans, are voicing concern that a reunited Germany would become a threat to peace in Europe. With a solid democratic basis in Germany and the coming integration of the European community, this argument tends to sound like typical paranoia.
From Settin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic the iron curtain is rising. Let the play of freedom begin.
brett Brenner for the editorial board
Council's reaffirmations on freedom quite untimely
A scant year and a half after the Ku Klux Klan turned the campus into a cauldron (at least for a few days) of questions about academic freedom and racism, the University Council has responded.
has responded.
And the answer was a resounding. "Just to repeat, maybe you ought not to invite these people to campus, but if you do, the University will support you."
in the history books for the echoes.
Better save space in the history books for the echoes. It's nice that we have this resolution on paper. The Council wanted to "reaffirm" that it was against racist acts and supported racial equality.
supported racial equality.
Granted that is important and good, but where does that get the University? We can't have gone back to square one,
because we never left it.
We are nowhere because the Council also reaffirmed "the following existing policies."
following existing policies included the rights o'. "faculty to assign reading that they believe to be in the educational best interests of their students and to invite any guest speakers to their class whose talks they believe to be in the educational best interest of their students," a "campus environment in which persons are allowed to express their views even though those views may be abhorrent to others," and "full support . . by the KU administration and governance — including the provision of security, if necessary," (as it was during the Klan visit) "and sanctions, if necessary, against suppression of free speech."
speech. Those sure are noble reaffirmations. And they were made in the face of the unplugged-pressure-cooker atmosphere now facing the University of Kansas.
facing the University. Perhaps the University Council could spend more time affirming original, timely ideas rather than reaffirming principles that were a bit more handy during the spring heat.
David Stewart for the editorial board
News staff
David Stewart...Editor
Ric Brack...Managing editor
Daniel Nieml...News editor
Candy Niemlany...Planning editor
Stan Dial...Editorial editor
Jennifer Corsez...Campus editor
Elaine Sung...Sports editor
Laura Husar...Photo editor
Christine Winner...Aras/Features editor
Eliana Egan...General manager, news advise
Business staff
Linda Prokop...Business manager
Debra Martin...Local advertising sales director
Jerre Medford...National/regional sales director
Jill Lowe...Marketing manager
Tami Rank...Production manager
Carrie Slankin...Assistant production manager
Margaret Townsend...Co-op manager
Jill Hughlett...Creative director
Christal Dooll...Classified manager
Jeff Meesey...Teacheress manager
Jeanne Hines...Sales and marketing adviser
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.
faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The text will be arranged.
writer will be photographed.
The Kansas senate reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons that are the mail or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stuffer-Flint Halt. Letters, columna and cartoons are the opinion of the writer or cartoonist and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansas. Editorials, which appear in the left-hand column, are the opinion of the Kansas editorial board.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-840) is published at the University of Kansas. 118 Stuart-First Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60454, daily during the regular school year, including Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in Lawrence, Kan. 60444. Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
subscriptions are 83 and address changes to the University Daily Kenan, 118
Steaffer-Flint Hint, Lawrence, KC 60045.
Military getting more respect
If a picture is worth a thousand words, there are times when a glance is probably worth a million words. When the glance is directed at a man or a woman in military uniform, you can't help but think about how many things have changed.
I've been noticing it for about a year now. Probably I was looking for it, it became involved in a reporting project about how badly many soldiers were treated when they returned from Vietnam, and as I worked on that project I found myself taking note of the way military men and women are treated in public places these days. Not to oversteatize it — and I'm sure some of you will have examples to the contrary — but just about every time I've seen a soldier or a sailor walk through a crowd of people, the people have looked at him or her with what can only be described as admiration and gratitude. Seldom is a word spoken, but the glance says it all. If a glance can say "thank you," that's what is being said.
Ironically, we are not a nation at war. It was when we were last at war that the glances were hostile and were often joined by awful words and actions. Today the United States is at peace, at least in the literal sense, yet the men and women who serve in the armed forces seem to be the objects of a respect and good feeling that might be expected during days of out-and-out warfare.
An advertisement promoting Army ROTC is running in national magazines. During Vietnam, ROTC, the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, was the target of protest and violence.
So the ROTC ad is instructional. It features two resumes, side-by-side. The headline is: "Which One Would You Rather Write?"
Under "Carreer Objective," the same phrase appears on both resumes. "An entry level position in an electrical engineering research or design firm." Under "Education," both resumes list bachelors degrees in electrical engineering, but the second resume also lists "U.S. Army Signal Corps — Officer Basic Course, September 1987."
Signal Corps - Officer Basic Course, Under
Under "Experience," the first resume lists "Summer
Bob Greene
Syndicated columnist
*Intership* "at a local business. The second resume lists "*Training and Operations Officer*, U.S. Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps. . . Planned, organized and executed training for battalion of 110 cadets; Communications Platoon Leader, Headquarters Troop, 1-17 Calvary, 22nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg. . . Responsible for the training, discipline and welfare of a 40-man platoon."
The resumes go on like that; the point the Army is trying to make, of course, is that a potential employer is likely to be more impressed by the job applicant with a military-trained background. And the interesting thing is, it does not come off like an exaggeration dreamed up by Pentagon advertising specialists.
Not long ago, a men's magazine, one of those magazines that feature fashion layouts with photographs of $800 Italian suits, devoted a fashion layout to all of the different uniforms, both dress and combat, available to U.S. Marines. It wasn't meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and despite the setting it didn't come off as descending. Certainly not many of the magazine's readers were going to be wearing Marine dress blues, but in another small way it was an example of a tribute to the new national attitude toward military men and women.
Dozens of other cases could readily be named. But most important is the emotional content of all those glances — the glances that are directed at men and women in uniform. Check it out yourself; next time you see a military person in a public place, check out the way that other people are looking at him or her. And while you're at it, check out the expressions in the eyes of the military men and women. They know.
Bob Greene is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune
Nicaragua shocks U.S. again
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle," — George Orwell
struggle: — George O'Neill
If Daniel Ortega's latest act of treachery doesn't tell us the kind of regime the world is dealing with in Managua, then nothing will.
Nothing probably will. The Stalinists now have broken the truce in Nicaragua along with their oh-so-solemn word. But, it's not as if this were the first time they have gone back on a promise. The Stalinists were going to establish democracy, remember? They were going to hold free elections and release all political prisoners and respect freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They were going to step aside and let the people decide their fate free of intimidation. Is there a single promise this putrid little regime has ever kept? Why would anyone be surprised when it breaks still another?
Yet our peerless leaders are.
Here is Lindsey Gruson of the New York Times reporting the U.S. reaction direct from the presidential summit in San Jose, Cost Rica; "Officials traveling with President Bush, who is attending the meeting here, appeared stunned by the report." Secretary of State Jim Baker, whose vaunted political savvy seems to stop at the water's edge, sounded hurt and surprised. "If he has made this decision," Baker said of Comrade Ortega, "it is a bit less than honest to sit through three hours of meetings with other heads of state and not mention it." Gee whiz, a Communist who's a bit less than honest. What's the world coming to? Secretary Baker sounded not unlike Dink Stoker suddenly out in the real world. "If indeed he goes forward with this," said the secretary, "it might be just as an excuse to deny his people a free and fair election." These Yangani catch on fast.
Was anything more predictable than the Stalinistas' opening fire once election day approached?
As for the Europeans, their talent for trusting dictators large and small has been impressive, at least since Munich. "It was an utter, unbelievable mistake," said a European diplomat in Managua on learning that the Stalinists had called off the truce right in the middle of that presidential lovefest in Costa Rica's capital. "To do this there, in this kind of forum, you have to wonder what they could have been thinking."
None of this should have surprised Washington. But of course it did. To quote the Time's Gruson: "White House officials seemed incredulous. 'Are you sure about this?' they asked repeatedly a reporter seeking White House reaction to the Ortega remarks." Nothing seems to astound Washington like the predictable.
Wonder no more. What they were thinking is transparent: *Perfidibus America* hasvirtually abandoned the contra; now is the time to annihilate them. And what better pretext than a renewal of the fighting for calling off the elections? Particularly if the opposition shows any signs of winning at the polls. At the least, freedom of assembly, of speech and of the press could be curtailed again. There's a war on, you know. If we win the vote under these conditions, so much the better. If we lose, needs to know? The results can be ignored — or denied a la Nortega. Washington isn't going to start
Paul Greenberg
Syndicated columnist
rearning the contras at this late date. Now is the time to crush them."
Even if the United States decided to beef up the contras once again, would the supplies arrive in time? How many times can aid be stopped and started without demoralizing an ally? Every time Congress cuts off military aid to the resistance, it undercuts any deterrent to the Stalinist's resuming the war. Various lawmakers on Capitol Hill, afloat in honoraria and PAC money themselves, can't see the need to provide even sufficient political aid for the cause of freedom in Nicaragua. Let alone military supplies.
In the aftermath of World War II, when the Communist parties waxed strong on the European continent, the United States channelled massive amounts of money to the democratic parties. If it hadn't, the Communist candidates, who enjoyed ample support from Moscow, could have swept into power, and Stalin wouldn't have had to threaten Europe militarily; it would have been his without a struggle. Now the U.S. Senate debates whether $9 million or $3 million is enough to assure free elections in Nicaragua and to offset the billions that the Soviets have invested there.
Victoria de Chamorro — a gallant lady who has fought both Somoza's dictatorship and Ortega's little red junta — may be robbed of her victory at the ballot box in any case. But if there is no money for poll watchers and voter registrars and independent voices like La Prensa and Radio Catolica to point out the regime's tricks, how free can this election be, if it is allowed at all?
Washington's response to this latest betrayal by the Stalinists is typical. The House of Representatives passed a resolution against the Stalinista's resumption of the war — by a vote of 379-29. And a spokesman for the State Department, Richard Boucher, was quoted as saying: "We believe that the process of elections cannot be helped by these kinds of attacks." In short, more mush from the wimps.
from the whisper.
It's a familiar story. The list of those who believed in America, who assumed U.S. support was reliable, is long and dreadful. The premature Hungarians in 1956, the Ohlans at the Bay of Pigs, the Kurds and Laotians and Vietnamese and Cambodians . . . and now the contras. Even if Washington had the time and means to support them adequately, is it willing to do so? At this point, the essence of this country's foreign policy in Central America has been reduced to acting shocked and surprised.
**Paul Greenberg is editorial page editor for the Pine Bluff**
(Ark.) Commercial.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Rally coverage biased
Your article, titled "Abortion activists clash in protest," was highly misleading. There was no clash. I should know. I was there.
The caption under the lead picture read: "More than 5,000 pro-choice and pro-life groups gather . . ." A vast majority of us were pro-choice. I hardly think that 250 or fewer anti abortionists constitute enough of a threat to cause a clash or to be considered in your article. Please be more definite when giving such statistics.
This was a pro-choice rally, and yet the enlarged and bold-face quote given on page one was from an anti-abortionist. The article, continuing to page nine, showed a picture of an 8-year-old, claiming that she was anti-abortion. Do you really think that she knows what the concept means or that she knows the complexity of the issue? I think not.
The Kanan editors failed; the article failed. Anyone involved with this article failed to do their job as journalists: to report the facts all of them, with clarity) and to remain unbiased. If you wish to express an opinion, as you obviously did, write a letter to the editor.
Tricia Pfeifer
Olathe sophomore
Kansan coverage off base
As a pro-choice activist who attended the Topeka march Sunday, I am disturbed by the Nov. 13 Kansan coverage of the event. Granted, there was a definite difference of opinion between the pro-choice and anti-choice factions. However, the anti-choice numbers were far too miniscule and their words far too irrational to constitute what was described as a "clash." If anything, the presence of the anti-choiceers was seen by many as a triumph of small-minded ignorance.
Lastly, the photograph of the child of anti-choice demonstrators was media hype reliant on the same shock value that the anti-choice movement thrives on. If the Kansan took an accurate cross section of the march, the photograph definitely would have been of a pro-choice advocate.
Furthermore, the Kansan chose an anti-choice quotation to stand apart from, and therefore dominate, the article. This could lead the casual reader to believe that this is a summary of the general tone of the march. It was a pro-caucus march, NOT an anti-choice one, so the selection of the quote is both undermining and misleading.
I'm not asking the media to deny what occurred. On the contrary, I want an accurate account of the event.
Marla Rose Wilmette, Ill., senior
Wage editorial unrealistic
It was refreshing to read how little Stan Diel knows about social programs in his recent editorial condaining the minimum wage increase. His ignorance and lack of compassion pervade the editorial.
First, he said that many of the people who earn minimum wage would lose their jobs because employers couldn't afford *l* keep them. I am also concerned about those workers standing around, doing nothing, who would *lose* their jobs with this raise. Get real. Employers in this country hire as few workers as they need to get the job done.
job duties.
However, I must agree with Mr. Diel when he pointed out that the subminimum training wage might cause some employers to fire older workers to cut costs. This portion of the bill was not included in the version that President Bush vetoed but was written in to please the Republicans.
On the other hand, I have to disagree with Mr. Diel's implication that the raise is too insignificant to bother with — obviously, Mr. Diel has never had to live off $3.35 an hour. Well, I have had to live off that amount and, believe me, any increase can go a long way in putting food on the table. In any case, an extra $9.00 an hour in the bank is much more concrete than what you have to offer.
In conclusion, Mr. Diel never directly came out and wrote what's on his mind, which is that any increase in the minimum wage will cause inflation. That may be the case, but following that line of logic, let's never raise the minimum wage. Or we could refuse to give journalists a pay hike; just think of how much a paper might cost if we didn't.
Wayne Pickrell
Lawrence resident