e
orio
y g y
Hollow peace
In his Watergate speech earlier th s week,
President Nixon desperately attempted to
divert public attention from the scandal
surrounding his administration. Nearly half of
his address focused on what the n- !
believes to be his abundant accorr.pihm. nis
and his great goals.
One of the accomplishments r!eo by
Nixon was the end of the Indochin.i cdcct.
The President spoke of the "pt-,:i with
honor" that he brought to AmcMca. I
goal for his second term as Presdee:
make it possible for our children, ;w
children's children, to live in a ..
peace."
That is a great goal, as the President said,
but the developments in Indochina during the
last three months demonstrate that Nixon's
"peace with honor" is as hollow and empty as
the integrity which the President, maintains
exists at the White House.
Since the Paris peace pact was signed, there
have- been uncountable violations of the
cease fiie stipulated in that agreement.
In !ns Monday flight speech, Nixon made
'In.' observation that "two wrongs do not
make a right," Apparently, he does not
believe that such a rule should be applied to
the Southeast Asian situation. Nixon's
response to the other side's violations of the
pe.i:e tieoty has been to retaliate with
American violations of the cease-fire
Kit cement.
Heavy U.S. B52 attacks in Cambodia
continue. The U.S. has intermittently
curtailed mine clearing operations around
North Vietnamese ports. Thousands of Thai
trnnns have been hired by the U.S.
r ... , . .
to fight tor tne vienuane
Laos.
Nixon can make all the
vuant; ahout oeace with
govern ment
government in
President
statements he
honor." And he can declare his love tor
America as often as he chooses. He can even
talk about America being the hope of the
world. But none of those fine words can
change the fact that even though U.S. ground
troops have left Vietnam, there is no peace in
Southeast Asia.
Tom Lansworth
' .';
Henry veto
Dear editor:
ASUN President Ann Henry's veto of the minority
recruitment fund and the Senate's sustainment of that veto
make it evident that ASUN's sense of governmental
responsibility follows the current vogue of the Legislature and
President Nixon, i.e., ignoie the public interest and make
personal prestige the primary priority.
Since the resolution upset Henry's pre-established budget
plans, she dictatorially vetoed what the ASUN senators had
passed after listening to law professors and students state the
case for the fund. Henry failed to attend the discussion but
evidently considered there was no need to weigh the facts
before acting recklessly.
Editorials usually fry to examine the pros and cons of an
issue before passing judgement. However, Torn Lansworth's
editorial entitled "Sensible vetoes" (Daily Nebraskan, April
26) makes no attempt to do so. Instead, he writes that "it is
extremely probable that the S1,000 appropriation could be
spent in some other manner." What are the editor's reasons?
Perhaps the feeling is that it is more important to pay
guides to give tours to incoming freshman, something which is
done on a voluntary basis at other schools, and to subsidize
the ASUN piesident so that the University can enjoy her
presence during the summer.
It is imperative that law schools attract minority students if
they are to be effective in responding to needs other than
those typical of white, middle class America. One such need,
incidentally, is group legal services for students.
Paul Korslund
Senior Class President
College of Law
Editor's note: The editorial from which you quote did,
indeed, offer alternative ways in which the $1 ,000 could be
"better spent. " One of those was a program to increase the
currently low minority student population at the
undergraduate level. A second proposal was that the money be
contributed to the PACE program and earmarked for minority
student scholarships. It is the feeling of the Daily Nebraskan
that deficiencies at the undergraduate level should be given
priority in any program aimed at curing UNL's ills.
Rotten reviewer?
Dear editor:
Let me start from the preposition that I've always been a
stench supporter of Jim Gray's. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
he's ihe apple of rny ear, B 1 1 1 his usuage and abusage of the
English language' is quite abonnnal, frankly, I can't stomach it
any longer.
For example, in his most recent review, (Daily Nebraskan,
April 20) the pious pn' probably portrayed the impoverished,
ix'destnan participants in the play perfectly, but obviously
obfuscated the overt obligation of observers (that is to say,
reviewers) by ornately and obsessently obtruding his own
omnipresent, officious ego arid prejudice, (Basically, he's too
big for fits bi itches.)
Take, for example, his Mifer f luous use of superlatives. Or
his adioit use of adjectives, "Computer biained deputy,"
"solidly-framed character," labyrinth character," "trying
script," etc. Although only one of these words, in its own
write, is an adjective, this disprays a steilmg (to use one of
Jim's own words) attempt to peisonalie arnatie the language.
Let me delude now to another quote, "deliberate, insightful
acting.,." Is any acting not dehbetatc? (Peihaps, unconsciously
tie found himself upon the stage - an actor.) And what, may I
ax, is "insightful" acting7 (Blinded by the glory of his honor,
fie was insightful to act.)
At another point, he referred to characters, "all blessed
with boring, trivial lines..." Let me lernind you, boring trivial
lines are in no way a blessing, Cav in point: Jim Gray's
reviews.
I hope it v, not with a smug chagrin on my face that I point
out these weaknesses. For I am the first to say, "Do not
chasten they neighbor." Aye, do not look upon this mild
reposal as a
reviewer to
artesian
defecation of ch-nadei, but meiely as one
mother, ,i .'i!.q i" of ,t "well deserving
My M.ilaptnpositiufi
page 4
i i-idy nebraskan
thuisday, may 3, 1973
