Encore; Various News Segments

[DAVID NAYLOR]: This is continuing coverage of the war in the Gulf. I'm David Naylor. It's been said that next to marriage, war is the most effective means of bringing individuals together. Today here in Kansas, public opinion seems to bear out most of that thought, as most of the people we've talked to say they support what's going on in the Gulf. [FEMALE SPEAKER 1]: I have a cousin over there. I'm just glad that we finally did this, and I'm behind the president 100 percent. I think he knows what he's doing, so I'm going to leave my trust in him. I think our freedom's very important, and I think our trust in the government's very important, and I think we need to be behind him. [MALE SPEAKER 2]: I think he's doing just exactly what he needs to be doing. I see no reason why there should be any doubt in any American's mind about how things are going right now. He's got plenty of experts -- they know what they're doing. And as long as there are our countrymen over there, we need to back them up. [DAVID NAYLOR]: What about our countrymen that are still over there that are stuck in Baghdad or stuck in Iraq or the soldiers that we know that are in danger? Does that change your feeling at all? [MALE SPEAKER 2]: Not at all. No, they knew what they were doing when we go in there, so

it's just one of those risks. [DAVID NAYLOR]: You're feeling both ways? [MALE SPEAKER 3]: Well, it's unfortunate we had to go to war. And it's unfortunate anybody has to get killed, because it's not God's meaning for people to kill other people. But this time if we go in, we need to go in with the correct amount of force, do what needs to be done, withdraw our people, come home, and try to live at peace. The next step probably should be -- it's really unfortunate for one Christian to say -- but I think Saddam needs to be eliminated so that they will not have somebody to lead in this direction again. [DAVID NAYLOR]: You expect that Saddam Hussein will surrender and give up and try to salvage what is left of Iraq? [MALE SPEAKER 3]: I don't think he can. I think he believes that his God's on his side, and I believe he'll go until he can't go any further. And that's probably his elimination. [DAVID NAYLOR]: How far do you think the U.S. will go to achieve that end? [MALE SPEAKER 3]: I hope it stays conventional, and I pray it stays conventional, because the other

weapons we have are too devastating. So let's pray that it just stays conventional. [DAVID NAYLOR]: What was your reaction when you first heard about the attack and you realized your son was going to be involved? [MALE SPEAKER 4]: I was pretty cool, I was sitting at home by myself. I wasn't surprised, because I was in hopes they would do it and get it over with. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Are you worried about your son? [MALE SPEAKER 4]: Well, yeah, I do. It isn't safe. He's in the armored, he has a tank -- he's a tank commander. I know what they could do to tanks, but he's driving some of the finest tanks there is in the world. [DAVID NAYLOR]: A son and a brother overseas -- what's going through your mind this morning? [FEMALE SPEAKER 5]: Oh, I'm just hoping that everything is resolved, and we can get our servicemen back home where they belong. I think that what Bush has done, I'm all for. I'm glad that he strikes now instead of waiting. [DAVID NAYLOR]: I've talked to several people who have family members over there, and they all seem just as resolved that they don't regret at all this action having taken place. What's brought on this certainty in those people's minds, where

they might have been afraid before and now they're -- like you -- feeling better about it? [FEMALE SPEAKER 6]: Well, I mean, the waiting has been hell for everyone, you know. Just waiting to see what was going to happen next. I'm glad that we went in and did what we did. And I'm going to stand behind Bush all the way and keep my family together -- and yellow ribbons on my house. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Comments from Kansans on this, the first full day of war in the Persian Gulf. I'm David Naylor. ***** [SILENCE] [DAVID NAYLOR]: You're listening to continuous coverage of the war in the Persian Gulf on KHCC and KHCD. I'm David Naylor. It's impossible to know exactly what the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf are feeling and thinking today, but we wanted to know how forces still here in the States were feeling as well. Lieutenant Colonel Malen Dowse is the executive officer for the 35th Division Artillery, a National Guard division in Hutchinson. He says he and his fellow soldiers have, naturally, been watching the

latest war developments with great interest. [MALEN DOWSE]: Of course we're all a little apprehensive about it, but it appears that things are going quite well over there. And I guess we feel pretty good about that in that things are going rather smoothly as far as the military operations are concerned. And it looks like that they had the element of surprise, and it appears to us, or to me anyway, that that probably will go a long ways in shortening the operation over there, and of course, you know, we're all appreciative and thrilled about that. If it keeps going at the rate they are, why I think it'll be a shorter conflict, or shorter operation, than they had originally anticipated. We just hope they keep the momentum and keep their head of steam up. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Though his unit has been neither activated or even alerted, Dowse says there have been volunteers from the Hutchinson areas that wanted to serve in the Gulf with other units. As any soldier does, Dowse has paid close attention to any reports of injuries, casualties, or missing soldiers. And the small number of those reports regarding American forces so

far surprise him. [MALEN DOWSE]: Two of the things that impressed me both about it was the minimization of casualties on our side. And also from the CNN coverage of this thing, it appears that there was also a very limited number, if any, casualties on the Iraqi side as well as far as civilians are concerned, and that's always- I think that's always a relief, especially for the military people over there conducting the operation. It appears to me that they've done an outstanding job of their surgical bombing and the things that they're doing. They're taking great care not to do anything or damage the civilians any more than just absolutely necessary, and I'm especially appreciative of that. [DAVID NAYLOR]: And, he says, he's also surprised at the small amount of Iraqi military response. [MALEN DOWSE]: Reading the news on the TV last night it appeared that maybe we'd, you know, had achieved total surprise, and that we'd caught them on the ground. But Saddam Hussein appears to be a pretty smart cookie, and he might just be saving that for his Sunday punch, you know. I don't think we can

assume too much from that. I think the military people, especially General Powell, they're still very worried of what he's still got in his locker. I think it would be foolish for our commanders over there to conduct themselves in that way, and I believe they won't. I think they'll assume that he still has plenty of power left, and he might use that. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Lieutenant Colonel Malen Dowse is the executive officer of the 35th Division Artillery, a division of the Kansas National Guard in Hutchinson. Congress as well is watching Iraq carefully. U.S. Senator Bob Dole met with President Bush this morning and later expressed surprise at the Iraqi response. [BOB DOLE]: If fact, I asked where was this guy? Where was Saddam Hussein? He must have been on vacation or asleep, because there was nothing- there was no response. And maybe he didn't think we would do it -- maybe he didn't think there was a resolve. In my view, that was settled last Saturday in the Congress of the United States. But there was a feeling of satisfaction about the punishment inflicted, not on innocent civilians, but on strategic targets. [DAVID NAYLOR]: U.S. Senator Bob

Dole. I'm David Naylor. ***** [DAVID NAYLOR]: You're listening to KHCC and KHCD's continuous coverage of Operation Desert Storm. I'm David Naylor. In his speech to the nation last night, President Bush listed children as one of the chief victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Now that war is underway, children here in the States may be victims of another sort, facing questions and worries about a parent or parents overseas or about the general tension in the States. Jack Hobbs, the superintendent of the Manhattan Public School System says while the children in the Manhattan-Fort Riley area may be more aware of the war, and thus more needy of help, his schools are providing that help by not addressing the issues that may be uppermost in their students' minds. [JACK HOBBS]: We didn't arrive at that decision just all on our own. We have had personnel from Fort Riley and met with all of our staff in two or three different meetings about our role in this. And of course everybody says

to continue doing the good things that we think teachers are doing -- and that is, you know, they like kids, and they meet with the kids and talk to the kids -- and not to change the good things we were doing. [DAVID NAYLOR]: One might think that the schools would be a very logical place to have some extra help or some extra attention paid to the pressures that war brings with it. [JACK HOBBS]: It's not that we're going to avoid their questions. And I suspect this morning that there are many questions on the part of the students, and teachers will continue to be acting in answering those. But we're not calling students together primarily to discuss the situation. We thought that there probably was going to be enough attention given to it by the media and others that this might be the best approach for our students. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Are the students asking the questions that you may have expected? Are there the concerns floating around the hallways? [JACK HOBBS]: I've not talked to teachers about that, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. You know, we- as I said, we've been talking about it for the last couple of months. And we just had

quite an in depth discussion of it just a couple of days ago in one of our high school classes. I did get an interesting report from one family this morning, where, you know, the TV had been on covering the news for many, many hours, and the student came out and turned the TV to another channel, saying, you know, I would just like to watch cartoons or something else to get my mind off of this a little bit before I go to school. So, I think there's as much concern that we over-inundate kids with the attention from this, if we expect them to continue to be academic students in our schools. [DAVID NAYLOR]: I don't know if you knew about this, but Mr. Rogers, the children's program host had developed a series of little messages for children, reassuring them that their parents were all right, and that they were going to be taken care of. Do you feel that that is an element that the schools can provide or should provide? Is that caretaking, that caring element something that needs to be emphasized? [JACK HOBBS]: Yes, but I think

we may be doing it in a little different way than the Mr. Rogers program, in the sense we think we're doing that whenever we are there for them, just like we were yesterday or two months ago. And we're giving that stable base, everything's going to be running on time in our schools, they're really going to be away from the impact of the news media for the time they're in school. And we're going to continue to try to carry on the educational program, because we think that's probably of greatest benefit to them right now. They're going to be back out in the world just as soon as they walk out of school this afternoon. We would like to think that we're as stable a place as they're going to be- stable environment as they're going to be in in the next few weeks at least. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Jack Hobbs is the superintendent of the Manhattan Public Schools. I'm David Naylor. ***** [SILENCE] [DAVID NAYLOR]: Last night was in some ways much like New Year's Eve. Many televisions that aren't usually tuned to late-night programs

were as the U.N. deadline rolled by at 11 o'clock Kansas time. For many, it was difficult to think of the Saudi Arabian desert being bright under a morning sun at that point, but now as January 16 is more than halfway gone, it's dark in the Middle East. And that darkness, the first after the passing of the deadline, has been marked as the most likely time for an initial military strike against Iraq. The families of soldiers in the Persian Gulf are nervous. And in fact, most of America is either worried or angry or sad or a mixture of all three at the prospect of war. But none more so than peace activists, those people who have worked and hoped for a diplomatic solution to the crisis even when the diplomats involved said it was no use. Though peace demonstrations yesterday and today have been most visible in Washington, D.C., Kansas has its share of these citizens opposing war. We talked to several peace activists on this, the day with the most war-filled talk in 20 years. Mary Herrin, the coordinator of a peace group in Wichita, said last night's countdown to a deadline was both fascinating and terrifying. [MARY HERRIN]: I don't

ever remember in my life where an authority, a legitimate authority, as we like to think of President Bush, has called a war- scheduled a war, and sent out his emissaries to invite them to help give the war. It's the first time I can remember this, that people have been invited to come and help in the slaughter. But this is the way we operate. And it just horrifies me to think that we have reached the stage in history where we will schedule a war -- and this is what we've done. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Today, most of America and the world seems braced for war, though perhaps not truly ready for it. Michael Sprong, the director of the Newton Center for Peace, says many Americans may be cautiously optimistic about the situation now that the midnight of the 15th has come and gone without immediate conflict. But he also says- [MICHAEL SPRONG]: Right now I'm cautiously pessimistic. I don't rule out some kind of a last minute coming to his senses by Saddam Hussein and a reversal of his obviously illegal and immoral act. I'm hoping the same for George Bush, that perhaps he will come to his senses and realize what he's talking about is a choice between sending back tens of thousands of bodybags of young men and women

and/or the possibility of killing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians by mass bombings of their cities, which is highly illegal under international law, clearly. So, again, I'm cautiously pessimistic that it's going to occur. I'm hopeful that there's still some chance. I'm also hopeful that the prayers and that the working over of the democratic process that we're trying to do here will have some effect. I think there are too many Americans who simply realize that this is not a wise idea, that this war is not a good idea. It's not worth it, and we can wait. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Obviously, Saddam Hussein may not feel the same way. He pushed it to the last minute and then still didn't withdraw, and still hasn't even though the deadline has

passed. What makes you think that there's still a chance for peace? [MICHAEL SPRONG]: The chance that I think that there is, is not for peace right now. That's way down the line, and in fact, I'm really not focusing on the politics as much as I'm focusing on how do we avoid the monstrous catastrophe that war would be at this point. Peace is not just the absence of war, it goes a lot deeper than that. And certainly in the future, we need to start figuring out ways that as a world we can deal with people like Saddam Hussein. I don't know why anybody thinks that the full responsibility of this needs to fall on the United States of America, or why we feel like we've got some magic power to fix all of the world's problems. There has to be another way. [DAVID NAYLOR]: While peace is desirable, says Wichita State peace educator Louis Goldman, it's not always achievable. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: I don't see any chance at all of no conflict happening. I think if there is some conflict and

we suffer certain embarrassments, loss of lives and so forth, and we retreat somewhat from that intransigent position, then Hussein could save face, perhaps, that he stood up to the Americans and inflicted damage against them and so forth, and he could still be a hero, you know, to his followers. And he wouldn't have to, you know, just withdraw with nothing to show for it. Bush made it very plain that he's ready to act decisively and with great military force against Iraq, and I think we have to believe he means it. So I think there's going to be, you know, a good deal of destruction. I think that we don't want to commit too many of our troops and have the bodybags coming back early in the game.

And I think strategically it would make more sense to wait them out on the ground, but in the meantime to soften them up with air attacks. I suspect the paper is wrong when they say that this week is the best week because the tides are right for an amphibious landing and the moon is dark, you know, so ground troops could move without being detected, and all that. I think that's all off base, because I think the initial attack will be an air attack against their missiles and airfields and so forth. I think the initial attack has to be against the missiles that would be directed towards Israel. I think that probably would be the first move that we make. But then I think that Saddam Hussein must have some tricks up his sleeve, and it's only in the last few days that we've begun to hear about

terrorism, not only directed at the Europeans, but directed at Americans here, which would be, you know, the first time in our history really that a war would be brought to our own shores. So I think we may be in for some very, very big surprises in the next couple of weeks. [DAVID NAYLOR]: The national press is reporting very little news from Washington, so there are at least three scenarios. Either the president and his top advisors did spend much of last night and today in secret planning sessions, and no one knows it; or the national press is voluntarily holding in any military information that has leaked that would reveal the U.S.'s plans; or there are no plans at all. Goldman says the last scenario is the least likely. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: We probably have a number of different scenarios and timetables for the immediate future. I don't know if we have any plans at all for the distant future. You know, what happens if we get rid of him? Who replaces him? And what do we do if there's renewed Arab hostility? All these long-range consequences, I think, have

probably not been mentioned, even, in the White House. But the short range, what are we going to do in the next few weeks and few months, and what do we do if he does this, and so forth, I think that's probably all been well thought out. And there probably are no leaks, and if there were leaks I think the press would exercise restraint and not publish them. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Louis Goldman, Michael Sprong, and Mary Herrin all say peace is still possible, though they admit it's not likely. And though the time for diplomatic pleas for peace has seemingly run out, Mary Herrin says it's never too late until the guns begin to fire. So she and other members of a national Catholic peace group are trying to convince the Vatican that Pope John Paul might be able to succeed where other political diplomats failed, and so see the Pope on a last minute flight to Baghdad. [MARY HERRIN]: All we can do is hope that it would make a difference. He certainly does speak for millions of Catholics in this world. And he is a conservative man, as everyone well

knows. And I would be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from this man. But he does speak with some veracity and authority. [DAVID NAYLOR]: The Pope's personal qualities may have an effect on the Catholics here in the States as well as having a great impact on even non-Catholics around the world, but what kind of a difference would he make to Saddam Hussein? [MARY HERRIN]: I don't know. I think that we have to hope that there is enough good left in the man that he would want to listen. I hope that if he does go to Baghdad, that Hussein will say, let's dialogue about this. It's all we can do. We just do everything, we pull out all the stops, because we can't allow this to happen. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Mary Herrin is a coordinator for the

Wichita-based Kansans for Peace in the Gulf. ***** [SOUNDS OF GUN SALUTE] [SOUNDS OF GUN SALUTE] [SOUNDS OF FIGHTER PLANE FLYOVER] [DAVID NAYLOR]: It was almost a year ago that a 19-gun salute and F-14 fighter plane flyover rocked the grounds of the state Capitol. In January of 1990, it was a kickoff for the Eisenhower Centennial. January 14, 1991, however, was a different sort of celebration. Rather than a memory of a former president, there was the anticipation of a new state government. This is a look at Inauguration Day 1991. [SOUNDS OF GUN SALUTE] The day marking the swearing in of the state's first woman governor began grey and slushy. By 9 o'clock in the morning, the South Grounds of the Capitol were crawling with workmen setting up chairs, scraping ice off the sidewalk, and press setting up.

Along Interstate 70, gas stations and convenience stores noticed a big jump in mid-morning traffic. Florists were busy putting together centerpieces. And in and around the Capitol grounds, only Faust himself would've been able to barter for a parking space. Inside the Capitol building, crowds of people milled around, eyeing security men and flustered state employees as they tried to answer phones and get a modicum of work done. The main attraction however was a display of laminated paper placemats taped all around the walls, each bearing an elementary school student's idea of the future of Kansas. And from downstairs came the sound of another group of people getting ready for the big day's events. [MARCHING BAND MUSIC] [MARCHING BAND MUSIC] It wasn't all military uniforms and band uniforms at the inauguration. There were more than a few bluejeans in sight. Joan Finney ran her campaign on a populist theme, and she let it be known as often as possible that it was the people she

represented, not small special interests. There were other outfits as well. Outside huddled around a ceremonial drum, a delegation of Native Americans, Iowa Indians, stood quietly for a few minutes. Then at just past 11 o'clock, long before anyone expected any real activity, a voice came booming out of the loudspeaker. It was a spokesman for the Iowa tribe. He began to tell a story about Joan Finney's involvement with his tribe and others. She'd made a campaign appearance at a special meeting they'd held, he explained. And even when it began raining, she told him she wanted to see them dance -- so dance they did in the middle of a tennis court for the gubernatorial candidate. Now, said the spokesman, it was the tribe's turn to stand behind Finney at her gubernatorial inauguration. [IOWA TRIBAL MEMBER]: We see now that you are on a journey, Governor Finney -- down the road to a better tomorrow for all people in Kansas. The Indian nations in Kansas would hope that you always have sunshine. But if a little rain comes and the road gets muddy, we would like you also to know that we will walk with you on

that road. We have come here to dance a victory dance, and at this time I'm going to turn the microphone back to our little soldier singers from Mayetta, Kansas. Governor Finney, this is your victory dance. [DAVID NAYLOR]: And suddenly without any warning, there was the governor-elect. She'd appeared out of nowhere, apparently drawn out by the story coming over the loudspeaker. And as the dance began, she bent over, grabbed a stick, and began beating the drum with the rest of the singers. [INDIGENOUS SINGING/MUSIC] Halfway through the dance, Finney linked arms with several dancers nearby and, grinning and stomping, turned the South Patio of the Capitol into a temporary tribal dancing ground. [INDIGENOUS SINGING/MUSIC] Afterwards,

Finney disappeared inside, not to be seen until her formal presentation to the crowd about 45 minutes later. Governor Mike Hayden was the first dignitary to speak during that hour-long ceremony. His remarks, though cursory, seemed friendly and hardly of the same timbre as the campaign rhetoric of three months ago. [MIKE HAYDEN]: I want you to know, Joan, from the bottom of our heart, we wish you the very, very best. As you assume and become the chief executive of our state, we wish you the very best. For the people of our state, for you and your family personally, in any way in which any of us may be of assistance to you, we stand at your beck and call. God bless you. [APPLAUSE] [DAVID NAYLOR]: More introductions and remarks. The Board of Education, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, and Chief Justice of the State of Kansas were sworn in -- then State Treasurer, the post that Finney herself held for many years; then Attorney General; Secretary of State; Lieutenant Governor; and Governor. [CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD HOLMES]: Place your right hand on the Bible, please. Do you

solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Kansas, and that you will perform your duties as Governor of the State of Kansas to the best of your ability, so help you God? [JOAN FINNEY]: So help me God. [CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD HOLMES]: Congratulations, Joan. [APPLAUSE] [DAVID NAYLOR]: Finney's address was short, only five or six minutes. Throughout her address the subject of time always made an appearance, and in fact the entire inaugural theme was, "The Future Is Now." [JOAN FINNEY]: History is being made today, built on our past -- the story of men and women who braved the chilling winds of our prairies to establish this state. If we will but recall our past heritage and the tough times overcome by our Kansas ancestors, we cannot help but to face with courage the uncertainties of our future. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Those uncertainties

include war in the present, said Finney, and she asked Kansans to stand together under the threat of war in the Persian Gulf. She did not dwell on that subject, however. [JOAN FINNEY]: And building on the past of our forebears, we move forward into the future with a sense of dedication and determination, embracing their values. And we will step forward into this new decade. A decade for the future is now. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Following her inaugural address, the new governor inspected the military honor guard and laid a wreath at the memorial to the Kansas pioneer women. She then swept into the Capitol building to mingle with the crowds as best she could before attending a private reception and heading back out to the waiting crowds. By the middle of the afternoon, however, most people had left to attend an open house at Cedar Crest -- the governor's mansion -- or simply to rest up for one of the night's inaugural balls. All of these events were free and open to the

public. And what did the public think of this day and all of its events? These two women spoke for nearly all the people I talked to. [FEMALE INAUGURAL ATTENDEE 1]: We're very excited that a woman got governor in the first place and just wanted to be here for all the fun. [FEMALE INAUGURAL ATTENDEE 2]: And all of the action. Same thing. [FEMALE INAUGURAL ATTENDEE 1]: We got the opportunity to meet Joan early last summer when she was just trying to win the primaries, and how she started from the very beginning and is actually here today as governor, and that's very fascinating. She's a very "people person," down-to-earth, what everybody thinks of when they think of Kansas, and I don't think she'll ever change that part of her. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Even if Joan Finney, the person, hasn't changed, her position certainly has. When she woke up this morning in a bedroom in Cedar Crest, it may not have sunk in that she is now the state's chief executive. It will have to, though, and quickly. She faces a tough time ahead as she tries to trim down the state's budget and address internal legislative concerns. But if Mrs. Finney needed a busy, unusual, and lively inaugural to get going as the state's 42nd governor, it would be

safe to say she got what she needed. I'm David Naylor. ***** [DAVID NAYLOR]: The answer, say most experts, is, "Yes and no." "Yes," because with questions about public funding, obscenity, and freedom of expression there's more for art students to understand. And, "No," because it's never been the purpose of education to teach students everything. Students have to learn some things -- like an awareness of the volatility of today's arts world -- on their own, says Henry Moran. He's the director of the Mid-America Arts Alliance. [HENRY MORAN]: I don't expect it to directly impact the classroom teacher who has an agenda as an educator, particularly when they're dealing with the training and technique of the arts themselves. I think arts education has to be viewed from a couple of different perspectives. The

one is the training within the arts themselves, how to draw. Another is the value of the arts, and how they relate across the various educational disciplines themselves -- the way in which history is revealed to us by artists. So I think it's more the latter cross-cutting theme that would probably have some greater consequence within the educational process itself. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Moran visited Bethany College in Lindsborg last week to lecture on the events of the last year and a half to a group of art students. He presented the eyebrow-raising catalog of a traveling exhibit of photographs by the late Robert Mapplethorpe in what he called an admittedly biased presentation. He labeled the pictures art, not obscenity, and pointed out that a federal court had done the same thing. Last year's decision in favor of the Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center that wanted to present the Mapplethorpe exhibition as art was quickly labeled a landmark decision. Some arts educators may wonder if their students will now try to push the established boundaries of

art in their own schools in an effort to imitate legally successful artists like the Mapplethorpe estate and Andres Serrano, who often combines religious symbols and bodily fluids to create graphic images. Henry Moran says- [HENRY MORAN]: Yes, they will. I think they will. Actually, preceding the contemporary museum, you know, there was that issue at the school of the Art Institute of Chicago, where a student placed an American flag on the floor and invited people to step on it to make a statement. And this caused a big furor, not only in Chicago, but right up to the president of the United States willing to comment on it. And so I do think that the students will take advantage of their opportunity to express themselves freely. I think traditionally they have in this country anyway. So I think, typically, students who are brought up within disciplines, within boundaries, once they

have the opportunity, they're going to test those boundaries as students and children do as we mature. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Susan Whitfield-Lundgren, a Wichita lawyer and the coordinator of Lawyers for the Arts, is not so certain that will be the case, however. [SUSAN WHITFIELD-LUNDGREN]: In the secondary schools, I just cannot see that it's going to be done any way but just inadvertently. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Still, she says, there are particular age and educational groups that can be counted on to try new, potentially controversial things. [SUSAN WHITFIELD-LUNDGREN]: If we're talking about university level, I don't think that we will see it, simply because the fact that the private universities are diminishing and the financial problems are such that the faculty members who might otherwise be in a position of wanting to pursue something like this are finding that departments are being, you know, diminished because of the financial aspects. And so as far as the state schools are concerned, which are not private, I think there'd be a lot more likelihood of some of the art faculty in the state schools taking issue. As far as-

get below that, you go down to the- I don't think the elementary schools will have a problem. But into the secondary schools, I think that maybe these new magnet schools that we have here and in Kansas City -- it's possible that as time goes on there might be, you know, some concern, but there again, you're dealing with public schools. I don't really see there being any kind of court cases coming out of private secondary schools. You know, I see much more of a chance of there being some concerns raised in the public schools. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Mary Sue Foster, an arts educator herself, says while students may not push to expand their horizons by branching into controversial art, she says they're not afraid to, either. [MARY SUE FOSTER]: They find it curious that a small amount gets so much attention. I don't believe it's going to be alarming or those kinds of negative ideas, but it's a surprise that

there are people who think differently than they do. It's always interesting to consider people with other viewpoints that are different from one's own. And it's a good place for students to explore that, is in a classroom. [DAVID NAYLOR]: And, she says, it is important for arts educators to teach their students about current legal events going on in the arts world and to make them aware of potential responsibilities. With the question of public funding for the arts still facing this country, Henry Moran warned his audience last week that present funding for new artists is being cut, in part by a new Congressional requirement for the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA has been newly ordered to give more money to regional arts centers, which means less money for endowments, grants, and fellowships from the NEA itself, though these centers could then provide those. In addition, says Moran, still more money is being funneled out of the NEA's coffers. [HENRY MORAN]: The NEA has a department for arts education that's been funding the professional artist in academic settings for 20 years. That program is

attractive to Congress, and they have asked under the new legislation that more attention be paid to arts education. So I think we'll see greater appropriations, National Endowment for the Arts appropriations, going to arts in education projects. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Is this a backdoor to decreasing the amount of funding that they have for works of art that may later be considered controversial? [HENRY MORAN]: I don't think so. I think it's a genuine interest on the part of Congress and in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts to develop a broader appreciation of the arts and humanities in this country. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Henry Moran is the executive director of the Mid-America Arts Alliance, headquartered in Kansas City. He visited central Kansas last week. In Hutchinson, I'm David Naylor. ***** [SILENCE] [DAVID NAYLOR]: This is Morning Edition. I'm David Naylor.

[SOUND OF BUZZSAW] Today this large room in this limestone building is filled with wood chips. It's covered with sawdust, and it's noisy. Painters stand painting in one corner, and the sounds of construction -- the hammers and the nails and the saws -- start up from time to time. But one day, this room will be a little quieter in the new public library of the town of Inman, just north of Hutchinson. [CONSTRUCTION SOUNDS] [CONSTRUCTION SOUNDS] [CONSTRUCTION SOUNDS] Rosetta Bartels stands with me, watching the saws do their work. She looks around as she recounts the history of the soon-to-be library. [ROSETTA BARTELS]: Well it was built by the Odd Fellows, and I don't know that they ever used the downstairs, but they used the upstairs as their lodge. I mean, it was where they had their meetings, and there have been town dances

and club meetings and all kinds of things and that upstairs. Then the downstairs was used as various businesses of one kind or another -- restaurants and it was an appliance store once upon a time. When I came to Inman it was an appliance store, and most recently it's been Harold Knackstedt's office for his naturopathic practice here in town. [DAVID NAYLOR]: This building of many uses is a good example of a relatively recent trend in architecture. Rebuilding is only one if its names. You might call it modified preservation or reconstruction. But no matter what you call it, rebuilding gives new life to old buildings by changing old structures to fit new uses. David Burk is a Wichita architect. [DAVID BURK]: In the '80s we overbuilt, especially in the office environment. And I think you'll be seeing a lot of coming in and remodeling, because you can buy buildings fairly inexpensively now, a lot cheaper than you can build a building from

scratch. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Preservation purists cringe when economics rises to the top of the priority list during a rebuilding project. Unfortunately for that opinion, says the industry, rebuilding is a business. Many examples of rebuilding in central Kansas, however, illustrate what their owners call a proper balance between practicality and preservation. Lloyd Smith and his wife Jackie own the Old Mill in Newton. It's a combination restaurant/office building housed in what really was an old mill. [LLOYD SMITH]: But this particular building, being all nice brick walls and stone walls and attractive spaces and high ceilings made it- probably gave it an extra plus, because when you get through it the office spaces, they're unique, and they don't look like a typical modern steel and glass building with eight foot ceilings and so on. So, yeah, it costs less, but it also is worth more when you're finished. [DAVID NAYLOR]: For a city the size of Newton, the Old Mill was a substantial project. Other cities like New York City or Washington, D.C., have tackled multimillion dollar

rebuilding projects, either as a result of their own businesses or their city governments. Those efforts are the subject of an exhibit at the Reno County Museum now going on through the weekend. Curator Mary Lynn Baker says though some businesses struggle to make the changes, they're still relatively well off. [MARY LYNN BAKER]: Private enterprise may have a better chance at it, because they're from a business standpoint and they do things businesslike. And if they think it's going to be profitable, they can do it from start to finish, whereas some nonprofits might have to dig for the money and start and stop and start and stop until money comes through. [DAVID NAYLOR]: In some cases, however, the economics come second to holding onto a building's past. Ron Harder at Newton's 500 Main Place says when his building was being rebuilt, he felt some things were more important than the flat bottom line. [RON HARDER]: We had several goals in mind when we started out. One is we wanted to leave the exterior as much original as possible. Two, we wanted to leave the windows. It has 18 foot high windows, arched on top. We wanted to leave those intact and not change those or

build anything inside across those windows to change the look of them. And we wanted to leave space inside what we call the "Great Hall" now -- it was actually a bank lobby at that time -- which was all 20 foot ceilings. And we wanted to leave enough space there so people could come in and say, "Yes, this is where I worked, and this is how it used to look." And we wanted to leave the pillars and the capitals on top of the pillars exposed to show them, the fancy plasterwork. And we wanted to leave enough intact so people could remember how it was. And it resulted in one-third of the first floor is un-rentable. It's public space with the Great Hallway there and the restrooms. And so we lost- we lost leasable space, but that was the price to pay to keep the feeling and the nostalgia and the character intact. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Like Ron Harder, Lloyd and Jackie Smith

wanted the interior of their Old Mill to remind the patrons of the past. Jackie points to a wrought iron chandelier above a spiral staircase between floors one and two and says the small details, the decorations and designs, can make or break the final look of a rebuilding project. She remembers an architect on this project who- [JACKIE SMITH]: Sometimes got the words but not the music. And when we saw the drawings of the light fixture that he had planned for this spiral staircase here, I did assert myself and felt that instead of a square, straightforward, rough-edged chandelier in this stairway, it should repeat the spiral of the staircase in the lighting. So that's about my only little outright improvisation. [DAVID NAYLOR]: That's a comparatively modern looking chandelier. [LLOYD SMITH]: Those globes are the fireproof, explosion proof bulbs that are used in flour mills. You know, the dust in the flour mills is

explosive, and so those are protective things from the Old Mill. So we did save that and just rebuilt them into the chandelier. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Sometimes, however, clashes between the past and present are unavoidable. Rosetta Bartels. [ROSETTA BARTELS]: If we left the front of the building the way it was originally -- which we wanted to do, even the steel plate is out there that was put in originally as the entranceway -- it's up a step, which means, of course, it's not handicap accessible. So we've had to make the south door back here the handicap entrance to the library. And then we had originally hoped that this multipurpose room back here would be on ground level so people could come in without having to come down a step, and this ended up with a step in it. So we'll have to have that south door as the handicap entrance to the multipurpose room, which was not in our original dreams. [DAVID NAYLOR]: One advocate for the disabled that we spoke to, though not on tape, said there are two schools of thought on this issue. One is carried by those who say a building is a building is a building, and all entrances

should be accessible to everyone. Others feel that allowances can and should be made for historic buildings, and in fact the new Americans with Disabilities Act that went into effect this last year agrees. Mary Lynn Baker at the Reno County Historical Society says no one is ever going to be completely pleased with a rebuilding project, even those who may have worked for a building's safety. [MARY LYNN BAKER]: People really into preservation probably wouldn't like some of the things being done, because they did change the buildings significantly. They've added a lot of glass and smoked glass and things. But they are using the building, which is cheaper than building new and reuses what's there. And you don't have to tear down something just because it isn't exactly what you need at the moment. It's recycling. It's non-waste. Just the idea of losing that amount of history and that amount of just plain building materials, you're reusing all of those. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Jackie Smith. [JACKIE SMITH]: We are a new society, a new

country. We haven't learned the wisdom of Europe and other societies that new isn't necessarily best, bigger isn't necessarily best. Now of course, even the young people realize what we've done with our planet. We're going to have to recycle things. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Including, she says, old buildings. Jackie Smith and her husband Lloyd own the Old Mill in Newton, one of the state's many examples of rebuilding buildings. The exhibit, "Remaking America: Old Places, New Faces," a traveling exhibit from the Smithsonian Institution will be at the Smoky Hill Museum in Salina in early summer. I'm David Naylor. ***** [DAVID NAYLOR]: Today there is no waiting for news from peace talks in Geneva, but plenty of questions remain from yesterday's session. The regretful and critical statements about the talks from both Secretary of State James Baker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz have left the world wondering what comes next. Louis Goldman is a co-sponsor of Peace

and War, a peace education group at Wichita State. He says overall the talks that ended yesterday in Geneva may have been disappointing, but were hardly surprising. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: Given the unfortunate intransigence of President Bush, it was almost predictable that Saddam Hussein would not back down and lose face and so forth and cave in. So I think it was to be expected. And I think if Bush expected anything else he was, you know, whistling in the dark. [DAVID NAYLOR]: The problem, says Goldman, is that both sides came across as hardheaded, though a six hour conference could scarcely have been held without some give and take. In his press conference after the talks, said James Baker, the U.S.'s position has not and will not change. [JAMES BAKER]: The message that I conveyed from President Bush and our coalition partners was that Iraq must either comply with the will of the international community and withdraw peacefully from Kuwait, or be expelled by

force. Regrettably, ladies and gentlemen, I heard nothing today that- in over six hours, I heard nothing that suggested to me any Iraqi flexibility whatsoever on complying with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Iraq, meanwhile, denied any worry about the U.S. position. Tariq Aziz, followed by Dr. Goldman. [TARIQ AZIZ]: I told Mr. Baker that we are prepared for all expectations. We have been prepared from the very beginning. If they decide to attack Iraq, we will not be surprised. We have all our experience in war, and I told him that if the American administration decides to attack Iraq militarily, Iraq will defend itself in a very bold manner. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: We have done the same thing

ourselves. You know, we're not in a very morally defensible position, I think, to tell Iraq to cease their aggression and to withdraw when, first of all, we permitted Syria to take over Lebanon. Nobody said anything about that. And then we, ourselves, have intervened repeatedly, most recently in Nicaragua, where we committed acts of war by mining the harbors and hiring mercenaries to invade. And even when Nicaragua did protest and did go to the World Court, and the World Court found us guilty by a 12 to 1 vote, we still thumbed our nose at the World Court. And here we are now saying that Saddam should acquiesce to the United Nations mandate, you see. So Saddam, perhaps justifiably, is cynical about the American position. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Goldman says

the U.S. has long had a history of demanding unconditional cooperation of its enemies, both proven and potential, and he cites the refusal of the U.S. to begin talks with Japan during the spring of 1945 near the end of WWII. The Japanese wanted to talk and to keep their emperor after the war, but the U.S. and thus its allies refused. Ultimately, there was unconditional surrender on the part of Japan several months later, but the country still kept its emperor. Goldman says an assumption that one's customs and expectations should always win over any other is dangerous in a crisis like this one in the Persian Gulf, and that's what we saw in Geneva in the form of a letter. President Bush has sent a letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to be delivered through Baker and Aziz. Aziz, however, refused to receive the letter, saying it contained impolite language and phrasing not suitable for communication between heads of state. Here's what James Baker and President Bush had to say about that assessment. [JAMES BAKER]: The minister chose not to receive the letter from President Bush. He read it very slowly and very carefully,

but he would not accept it, nor would the Iraqi Embassy in Washington except an Arabic courtesy translation. You will have to ask the minister why he did not accept the letter. [GEORGE BUSH]: The letter was proper. I've been around the diplomatic track for a long time. The letter was proper, it was direct, and it was what I think would've been helpful to him to show him the resolve of the rest of the world, certainly of the Coalition. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Goldman says Bush may not have considered the letter rude, but diplomatic experience should have taught him that not all standards are the same. On the other hand, he says, Aziz, and by extension Saddam Hussein, should have been willing to bend as well. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: It may well be that Bush, despite his so-called, you know, vast experience in diplomacy, is unable to appreciate the Arab position and how they perceive good manners and proper diplomacy and so forth. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Yet President Bush has said that perhaps Saddam Hussein is truly under

a delusion -- that he doesn't really understand what is in store, what's ahead. Perhaps it took direct talk from the president of the United States to another head of state to get the point across. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: Yeah, well, everybody talks about him not understanding and how sheltered he is. Now that may well be the case, that he is as guilty as Bush is, just as Bush may not understand the frame of reference of the Arab mind. So Hussein, who has hardly ever traveled outside the Middle East, I don't know what the history- but you've probably heard that, that he is kind of woefully ignorant. And when he was told that it's legal in the United States to criticize the president, he couldn't believe it. And he just learned that recently. So he's undoubtedly harboring some misinterpretations and so forth. So, as the old expression goes, there's a failure of communication someplace here.

[DAVID NAYLOR]: The impression that each leader has of the other is crucial, says Goldman. And the impression that Iraq has of the U.S. government is more crucial still. Bush has repeatedly referred to Saddam as being the one force behind the Gulf crisis. While Saddam has a basically correct view of the president and Congress working together to make U.S. policy, unfortunately they're not really working together at the moment, with the lawmakers ready to debate a military action resolution and the chief executive saying he's able to take action on his own. Senator Bob Dole spoke to reporters late yesterday saying Congress needs to send a clear signal to Iraq to show a united front. Dole, followed by Tariq Aziz. [BOB DOLE]: I'm worried about sending Saddam Hussein a message that he'll understand. One thing I noted Aziz said today was oh yes, they listen to Congress. Well if they're listening to Congress, they're getting a very mixed message. And they may not know for certain whether Congress has the resolve, and whether we really mean what we say, or whether some have- which view may be the prevailing view. I think the best step for peace is to send Saddam Hussein a message from

Democrats and Republicans in Congress that we support the president of the United States. [TARIQ AZIZ]: Any support in the United States or elsewhere for the cause of peace is a noble phenomenon. And such a noble phenomenon has to be appreciated. We do appreciate the reasonable statements made by American individuals, by American politicians about the situation in the region, even if they differ with us, even if they differ with our point of view. We do appreciate that. [DAVID NAYLOR]: The question is, do they respect that? Dr. Louis Goldman. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: If Congress did really say, "We will back the president on this," then Hussein might, at that point, have second thoughts. But that's still a straw for him to grasp at, that even though Bush is talking tough, Congress will not allow him to act tough, and the American people will not allow him to act tough. And so there's no reason for

him to cave in at this moment. [DAVID NAYLOR]: The biggest obstacle to a peaceful settlement in the Persian Gulf is still Iraq's insistence that the Kuwaiti invasion is tied to Israeli and Palestinian peace talks. Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz says limiting the crisis to two countries, Iraq and Kuwait, is not accurate. The U.S. meanwhile refuses to go along with that, saying giving Iraq what it wants, peace talks, would be a reward for breaking international law. Louis Goldman agrees. [LOUIS GOLDMAN]: We have to make a distinction that the Iraqi acquisition of Kuwait was an offensive movement, it was unprovoked by the Kuwaitis, and Kuwait was raped by this superpower -- or quasi-power -- superpower to the north. The Israeli occupation of territories was a reaction against an offense being committed against them, and they are holding onto the Golan Heights and so forth

defensively. They were not out to acquire anything, they were simply out to maintain their own territorial integrity, and these occupied lands are kind of the spoils of war. So the two situations are not at all similar. They're diametrically opposite, and I think it's unfortunate that anybody should think that there's some kind of linkage there. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Dr. Louis Goldman is a professor at Wichita State University and is a co-sponsor of the peace education group Peace and War. In Hutchinson, I'm David Naylor. ***** [DAVID NAYLOR]: There's more confusion today in the Soviet Union. Yesterday Moscow threatened to use force against draft dodgers and deserters from the Red Army who say Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders are overstepping their bounds, claiming the armies inside their borders of some republics are armies of invasion and occupation. Lithuania, for example, has told all men eligible for the mandatory military draft that

since that tiny republic is independent from the Soviet Union, the potential draftees are not required to follow the orders of Moscow. And so those would-be draftees have gone into hiding, and they will claim prisoner of war status if they're found and arrested. Meanwhile, Gorbachev is denying Lithuania's and other republics' rights to make such statements and moves, and the use of military force by Red Army loyalists is now hanging over the republics' heads. The problems are not unexpected, but a K-State professor of Russian and Soviet History, John Daley, says it's another serious blow for the shaky Soviet Union. [JOHN DALEY]: Obviously Gorbachev's caught between the reformers who want to go ahead in uncharted waters and the conservatives who figure with his powers now of being able to declare presidential martial law, that the best way to deal with unrest in the Baltics and the border areas is to crack down. We've now had in Lithuania, the prime minister has just resigned as of yesterday because of

a presidential decree that paratroopers will be sent to Lithuania to round up people evading the draft. Latvia, on the other hand, the legislature has threatened not to cooperate, because it would infringe upon Latvian sovereignty. [DAVID NAYLOR]: When we talk about the controversy and the draft dodging and the reluctance for the Soviet young men and I guess women too to avoid this draft, we can't help but thinking of it in U.S. terms, about a draft in the U.S. Army. Are we talking about the same thing, even though the words are the same? [JOHN DALEY]: Well, in the Soviet Union it's universal military service for men. There are basically no exceptions. However, especially after Afghanistan and the fact that these units are now being deployed to areas such as Azerbaijan, it's less popular than ever, obviously. Furthermore, the Baltic recruits are frequently harassed by the Russians, and they're marked out for abuse -- much in the way, I guess, the Blacks in the armed forces in the early '50s found it

difficult in our country. So there's a great deal of disinclination to serve in the Soviet armed forces, especially as the Soviet Union has a policy of not having you serve in your home region. So if you're Lithuanian, you've got the very real possibility, for example, of going to Central Asia or the Far East or Azerbaijan to do your service. So the stage looks set for a showdown between Gorbachev imposing Soviet control in these regions, and these regions defying him. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Do you think that defiance will really make a difference? [JOHN DALEY]: When you're looking at a nation of, let's say, 3.5 million against a remainder part of the nation of about 270 million, martial law is going to be whatever Gorbachev and the hardliners decide. It could be gentle, or it could be rough. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Whether it turns out to be gentle or rough, is this sort of a way of Gorbachev flexing his muscles and saying, "Don't forget about me, I'm still here, we're still powerful. It may seem a tad chaotic to you,

but things are under control here"? [JOHN DALEY]: Well it's certainly sending the signal that the direction and speed of changes, or further changes if any -- for example, a new treaty of federation -- is going to be decided in Moscow and not in the border regions. However remember, he was not appointed in March '85 to preside over the breakup of the Soviet Union. The great achievement of the Russian people is the empire, in political terms. And for whatever they may feel about the problems, there are very few that are inclined to let these regions go, as for example Solzhenitsyn has recently called for. However, there's a great deal of tension. The economy is in shambles. Eastern Europe is of course in ferment. And there are wildly differing views on what's the way ahead for the Soviet Union. But for whatever you do not want to see of politicians, they do not want to see a breakup of the Soviet Union. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Is such a breakup likely? [JOHN DALEY]: Since you've asked my opinion, here it is. First off, remember the Soviet Union is the one

great European empire which has not decolonized. The French Empire is basically gone; so is the British -- I mean the Falklands don't count in a real sense. Germany no longer holds non-German populations. The Soviet Union's the only one left. I think the problem is Gorbachev's missed the boat on getting together his treaty of confederation. I think he waited too long to come up with something equivalent to the British Commonwealth. And now there's basically nothing he can offer a lot of the regions, such as the Baltic states, to stay in such a confederation which is more attractive than independence. [DAVID NAYLOR]: You compared the Soviet Union right now to something like the British Empire. Oddly enough, there's been more talk recently about reestablishing a monarchy. [JOHN DALEY]: Well I think the monarchy is just a pipe dream of some people who are, if not completely out to lunch, at least an afternoon tea. Lenin and his party did kill the Imperial Family. You do have

Prince Vladimir in western Europe, but the guy's in his 70s, he doesn't have any kids, and the monarchy has really no way forward. I think that issue is pretty well dead and gone. [DAVID NAYLOR]: So what happens next? [JOHN DALEY]: Well, this winter, I think, is going to be make or break time for the Soviet Union. You've got food rationing, for example, in Leningrad for the first time since the Second World War. You have got the industrial production continuing to slide. You have got a very great gap between what the average Soviet citizen perceives happening in the country and the West. For example, Gorbachev getting the Nobel Peace Prize, for the average Russian they're far more concerned about getting dinner. The ethnic tensions are simply widening. And even the Red Army and the secret police can't be everywhere at once. Of course, the West has been sending confused signals about how it views crackdowns, the best example again being China,

where thousands were killed in Tiananmen Square. We protested, but of course shortly thereafter renewed Most Favored Nation trading status. So there is the very real possibility that the presidential law results in a few deaths. The U.S. will confine its protest to lip service. But you've got to remember the great principle of revolutionary control, which is shoot one and intimidate a thousand. As far as the future goes, it's a question of what hungry people are willing to confront. [DAVID NAYLOR]: John Daley is a professor of Russian and Soviet History at Kansas State University. ***** [DAVID NAYLOR]: As winter drags on in parts of the Soviet Union, survival is sometimes at stake with the food and supply shortages. Here in the States, however, survival isn't so much a question as is safety. Yesterday and today ice, snow, and freezing rain pelted central Kansas making traveling in any form difficult at best. Salt pellets solve the problem for most of us, but create other problems as they do their job. K-State civil engineer Alex

Matthews says there are two properties of salt that keep it from being a perfect defroster, and he's working on a substitute that will fit the bill. [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Salt causes a lot of problems, especially the major one being corrosion. Corrodes the steel in bridges and degrades the pavement. Also cars, you know, you're going to have axle-related corrosion problems with the salt. The secondary problem's when everything melts, then the salt runs off into the, you know, nearest streams or ditches or whatever, then it damages the vegetation first and then basically it accumulates in the soil and the water. So you have some environmental problems also. [DAVID NAYLOR]: So we have corrosion and pollution. [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Yeah. So long term, you're talking about increased

costs in terms of having to repair the bridges, roads, and so on more frequently than if you could find a substitute that would be less damaging. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Which is exactly what you're trying to do. [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Yes. [DAVID NAYLOR]: How are you going about doing that? [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Well we're, you know, trying to look at substitutes that would be less corrosive and also, you know, possibly biodegradable in the environment. So you have to look at some kind of organic materials. The biggest hurdle here is trying to find some substitute that is reasonably inexpensive. Salt being, you know, quite cheap, you have to compete with that material if you don't add in the long-term costs of corrosion and the environmental problems. So, one of the materials that we're looking at is calcium magnesium acetate.

The basic product there, materials there -- acetic acid and lime- limestone, both of which are reasonably inexpensive, the expensive part being the acetic acid. There have been some studies, and the material works as effectively as salt. And there needs to be, you know, some studies done to make this cheaply available. [DAVID NAYLOR]: That may well address the problems of economics. How well do these chemicals that you mentioned work in fighting corrosion and pollution? [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Salt is quite corrosive because, you know, simply it increases the ability to pass current.

So anything- any way you can reduce the salt concentration, you know, that's a big step. And calcium magnesium acetate, from research we know that it's less corrosive, so that's a big plus right there. Now as far as the effects on the environment, you know, there's no sodium, there's no chloride. So it is generally less harmful. Acetate is simply going to biodegrade in the environment, so the bacteria will break it down. So, you know, it's not going to be accumulating in the environment over the long term. And calcium and magnesium simply are going to be a lot better than sodium. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Those two elements are naturally occurring in soil, are they not? [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Right, yeah. They are there in soils. And, you know, the worst that can happen is a slight increase in the hardness of the water, if it ever gets to that state. So the amount that is going to be applied is so small, so that's not a concern. So calcium and magnesium are basically good

for the soil compared to sodium, and the other part is going to degrade. So overall it looks a lot better than salt. [DAVID NAYLOR]: How seriously is your research being taken by the scientific community here? Are experts at a consensus that a salt substitute must be found? [ALEX MATTHEWS]: Well, you know, the Department of Transportation is actively involved in some of this type of activities. There are also some other people working, you know, in this line. DOT is also looking at a lot of other alternatives to reduce the amount of salt that's being applied. So it's a national concern, you know, if you look at the amount of total salt or deicers that are being applied across the country, it's a large quantity. So there is work going on elsewhere, and also, you know, the

different angles -- trying to find different combinations that would produce some substitute that would be less damaging to the highways and bridges and so on, plus less damaging to the environment. So there's going to be quite a bit of research in the next few years, and hopefully something will come out in about five to ten years' time frame. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Does your location there in northern Kansas provide you either with an advantage or a disadvantage to studying something like this? We don't have nearly the severe weather that scientists in New England or in Michigan or several other places across the country could face and test their products. [ALEX MATTHEWS]: That's not any, you know, serious disadvantage. You know, basically this kind of weather's plenty bad. I think I've actually quite noticed a substantial amount of salt being used,

and there seems to be even, you know, a shortage in this part of the country, as far as salt is concerned, depending on the severity of the winter. So, it's not a problem, you know. It doesn't make a difference whether you're here or up in the north as far as doing some research of this kind. [DAVID NAYLOR]: Though his research is nowhere near the testing stage now, K-State researcher Alex Matthews says days like today will provide a perfect opportunity once an appropriate salt substitute is developed some time in the future.