Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 24, 1975)
73 ERA repeal lacks logic
The Christian Selene Monitor
'O.K. Pop, you crank, I'll drive"
Editor's note: The editorial on page four of
Thursday's Daily Nebraskan ("UNL indifference
to student rights criticized") was the opinion of
Joe Dreesen. ,
The 1973 Nebraska Unicameral couldn t
decide between serving as a legislative body or a
circus. On Feb. 22 of that year, it became a
circus with Sen. Richard Proud of Omaha gladly
playing master of ceremonies.
The legislative chambers were packed for the
Government, Military and Veterans Affairs
Committee's hearings on a resolution to rescind
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
And Sen. Proud played to the crowd.
"Now who is the biggest backer of ERA?"
Proud asked. "Probably the organization called
NOW (National Organization of Women). They
also back unrestricted abortion, marriage of
homosexuals, all that type of thing."
Proud's fellow senators, somehow finding
logic in that statement, nodded. The ERA was as
good as gone. It had been ratified less than a year
earlier by a vote of 38 ayes, 0 nays and 11
The 1973 Legislature has never explained the
logic of repealing an amendment for equal rights
in a nation supposedly based on the concept of
The cost of that body's action in wasted time
is obvious. Many worthy bills were pushed out of
consideration by the time-consuming anti-ERA
resolution. The eventual cost of this insult to
women is hard to measure.
Now it appears the state will be given one
more chance to redeem itself. State Sen. John
DeCamp of Neligh has introduced a resolution
seeking approval once again for the ERA. He
introduced the original resolution in 1972.
With the chance for redemption comes the
likelihood of another session bogged down by
endless arguments that the ERA is not necessary,
that women's rights have already been legislated.
The fact that women themselves support the
amendment speaks to the contrary.
The unicameral should admit its mistake and
speedily reratify the ERA. This year's 90-day
session should not be gobbled up by senseless
Perhaps the task would be easier if more than
one woman had a seat in the , Legislature.
Perhaps, if that were the case, it would not be
We find the cartoon on the front page of the Daily
Nebraskan (Thursday, Jan. 23) objectionable. The
implication that mothers who are students neglect
their children and are unable to handle the
responsibilities of both school and child-rearing,
maligns all student mothers. In fact, the only aspect
of the cartoon that could be considered amusing are
the grammatical error and the misspelling
The purpose of this letter is to comment on your
front page cartoon which appeared on Thursday, Jan
23. The cartoon accompanied an excellent article on
services for women going back to school.
The cartoon pictured a woman reading a
Chemistry book and jamming a bottle into her baby's
mouth. The baby, looking very dejected, is saying "I
wish I were a chemistry book."
The message seems clear: If a woman chooses to
go back to school she will be neglecting her children.
This only serves to reinforce the guilt that our society
has placed on women who want to continue with
their education or have a career.
The article accompanying the cartoon explained
that women "hesitate to return to school because of
the sterotyping of their roles."
This cartoon is reinforcing those very stereotypes.
Was this the intent of the Daily Nebraskan? If not, a
note or explanation
and apology would be
(Editor's note: The daily Nebraskan apologizes for
poor judgment on Thursday's cartoon. It was not
meant to offend.)
Driving to war
Like most solutions proposed to the oil problem,
that advocated by Mark Speece in the Jan. 22 Daily
Nebraskan is both simplistic and indicative of
ignorance of the magnitude of the problem.
Although it may surprise Mr. Speece, the
additional billions in our deficit balance of trade
going to the Arabs are indeed one of the causes of our
economic troubles. Also, the current and preceding
administrations are not solely responsible for the
inflationrecession; Congressional do-gooders
spreading year-round cheer with public funds
(electoral pump-priming, if you will) have done their
share in creating the problem.
Nationalization of the oil companies (does he
propose to nationalize their foreign ventures, too?
There's some legal resistance there) will not bring
down prices. It would send the stock market
plummeting, greatly increase the national debt (after
all, those companies belong to citizens who must be
repaid) and saddle us with another huge bureaucratic
establishment to support.
It is widely thought that the difference between a
capitalist and a bureaucrat is that if you give a job to
a capitalist, he'll try to do it more efficiently to
increase his profit, while if you give it to a
bureaucrat, he'll try to do it less efficiently to assure
himself of continuing employment. Bureaucracy is to
government what DDT is to the environment. Once
you've got it, you're stuck with it.
The possibility of war over oil in the Middle East is
very real. The Arabs are taking a very dangerous path,
and Mr. Kissinger's recent statements, which caused
the uproar, were only vocal expression of what
everyone already knew. World cooperation is fine, if
everyone wants to cooperate. But the Arabs are
demanding dangerous and unrealistically high prices
for their oil. Faced with economic ruin if they
continue to pay ever-increasing prices, Western
nations may well consider a militarily feasible
invasion. Wars are seldom fought over ideals, often
I don't advocate a war. Obviously, the best way to
avoid one is to decrease our dependence on foreign
sources of oil, through development of domestic
sources and decreased consumption. Regulation by
Congress has made domestic development fiscally
ridiculous until recently. The oil companies have been
warning for years about dependence on foreign oil,
only to be called prophets of doom. Mr. Ford's tax
on imported crude oil is designed to discourage waste.
The decision we must make now is whether the
convenience of driving our cars now is worth going to
war over in the future.
- ! y'Yy
-JL , z. x
Hi I III! 1
friday, january 24, 1975
Powered by Open ONI