Fditnrial
Nebraskan
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
j Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766
! Jeanne Bourne, Editorial Page Editor
I Jann NyiTeler, Associate News Editor
Scott Harrah, Night News Editor
Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief
Linda Hartmann, Wire Editor
Charles Lieurance, Asst. A & E Editor
Ethics questioned
Biden withdraws
Public outcry and damaging
disclosures struck the se
cond active Democratic can
didate out of the presidential
race Wednesday when U.S. Sen.
Joseph Biden withdrew. He
dropped out amid revelations
that he committed plagiarism in
law school and exaggerated his
academic accomplishments.
Although many politicians bor
row phrases and rhetoric from
other politicians, philosophers
and the Bible, Biden’s unattrib
uted usages and plagiarism led
the public to question the vera
city of his other actions.
Biden called this an “exag
gerated shadow” of his mistakes.
But just as Gary Hart’s fall from
“glory” didn’t necessarily hinge
on his infidelity, but rather on
his lies to the public, Biden’s
plagiarism and extensive phrase
borrowing is a matter of ethics
rather than a “crime.”
These questionable actions
raised doubts about other quirks
Biden may or may not have.
This situation brings to light,
again, the hell presidential can
didates must endure in hopes of
winning their parties’ nomina
tion as well as the hell the media
puts them through.
Some people wonder if nothing
in candidates’ pasts is untouch
able. They wonder if a mistake
made under the pressure of law
school is still game for the media’s
scrutiny.
This is the way it should be.
Just as the training for medical
doctors is so rigorous, presiden
tial candidates also must prove
their worthiness. Those who e
merge from this gantlet are qual
ified — they’re the best candi
dates possible. They have been
exposed to situations of intense
pressure where fast thinking and
common sense must prevail. If
they are elected president with
out this experience, they might
not be ready for what the presi
dency will bring them.
Biden has promised that he
will pursue the presidency again.
How well he’ll fare remains to
be seen. But one thing’s sure: He
won’t be able to hide what he has
done.
NFL players’ strike
Union, management urged to settle problems
Throughout his playing career
with the Oakland (and later
Los Angeles) Haiders, Gene
Upshaw made great strides in
football. But as executive direc
tor of the National Football
League Players Association, he
has called too many misdirected
plays.
The NFL went on strike Mon
day night, citing several prob
lems with the current free-agent
system, retirement benefits, drug
tests and roster limits.
The strike seems to center on
the free-agency debate. The play
ers want unrestricted free agency
for members with more than four
years in the NFL. The owners are
willing to change their present
free agent system, but they are
not in favor of players deciding
whom they will play for.
It Upshaw really wants to im
prove football, he should remem
ber what free agency did to pro
fessional baseball. Open free
agency led to skyrocketing salar
ies in pro baseball.
And it’s not like football play
ers are poor. Denver Broncos
quarterback John Elway just
signed a six-year, $12.7 million
contract.
And Elway became a free agent
of sorts a few years ago. He was
drafted by the lowly Indianapolis
(then Baltimore) Colts but refused
to sign with them. He said he
would only play on a winning
team or he would play profes
sional baseball. Colt owners gave
in to his demands and he was
traded to Denver.
In reality, as long as owners
give in to players’ demands, they
can almost determine where they
{ will play.
Another issue in which both
sides disagree is drug testing.
The players do not want random
drug testing, but think testing
should be done only if there is
probable cause.
But unscheduled testing will
solve the NFL’s drug problem
faster. Under a probable-cause
test, management would need to
justify its reasons for testing an
athlete for drugs.
Management should give in to
the union’s demands involving
retirement benefits and roster
limits.
The union wants the NFL to
contribute $25 million to player
pensions. An average career in
football is less than three years.
The players want and need a
pension to fall back on in case
tneir careers are cut snort by
ir\jury.
The owners are saying they
will contribute $12.5 million to
player pensions, but they should
be willing to compromise on this
position.
The players also have de
manded that the NFL’s active
player roster be increased from
45 to 52. This would allow play
ers a greater chance to make the
NFL and possibly would add
more years to players’ careers.
If this strike is going to be
settled soon, both sides must
meet and compromise on their
positions on certain issues. Both
sides should remember what a
prolonged strike did to the game
in 1982, when players walked out
for 57 days.
In order to avoid the problems
caused by the 1982 strike, the
union and management should
settle their differences and keep
playing football.
‘New Astrology’ a trend I
People intimidated by future, afraid of inability to control itl
The weather for FarmAid III last
Saturday was absolutely perfect
— hardly a cloud in the sky,
temperatures in the 70s and nary a
reason for complaint. The concert
promoters and those who attended
were quite relieved, and a good time
was had by all.
There was very little cause for con
cern. If they had just checked with me,
I could have let them know the Wed
nesday before that the weather would
be wonderful. I knew then because I
heard a long-range weather forecast
predicting rain throughout the week
and almost no hope of good weather on
Saturday. That sealed it.
Don’t get me wrong. I have great
respect for the science of meteorology
and particularly for its most visible
practical application in weather pre
diction. However, there are limits
beyond which the moniker "science”
can no longer be legitimately applied.
I have near-full confidence in a
wpathpr rpnnrt rnvprinc thp next 24
hours. I have reservations but will none
theless listen to reports covering the
period 24 to 48 hours hence. Anything
beyond 48 hours is pure conjecture at
best, and pitiful fantasy at worst.
I cannot remember the last time I
heard a long range weather forecast
that was anything like accurate. In
fact, 1 have begun to count on the
opposite. During this summer's heat
wave, I worried all the time they were
telling us that the spell could not last
very much longer. It was only when they
gave up in the first week of August and
said the heat would probably be with
us another two to three weeks that I
took heart. Sure enough, within 72
hours we were enjoying rain showers
and below-normal temperatures. The
heat has not been back. I have cited
only two examples.
This is not just a tirade against the
foibles of weather forecasting. It is
nothing so trite as that. Rather, I bring
up the subject as just one example of a
growing trend in American culture — a
Soviet strategies si
trend I call the New Astrology. In this
day of scientific sophistication, it is
quite fashionable to ridicule and ignore
the ancient claims of deterministic
fates sealed by the movements of the
heavenly bodies — and well we should
reject them. However, the impetus is
still with us that created credence for
such practices despite repeated evi
I
dence of their inefficacy.
In short, we human beings are intim
idated and frightened by the future.
Since the beginning of civiliation we
have been used to dominating, control
ling and manipulating our environment
for our own purposes. We have long had
control over the present. Since the his
toriographical revolution of the last cen
tury we have even gained some control
over the past. But we have never been
able to get a handle on control of the
future. As long as this inability haunts
us, we are painfully aware that we are
not yet — and perhaps never will be
—the masters of the universe we desire
to be.
So we make up lies to convince our
selves that we are in control of the
future. At least, we hope, we can rea
sonably anticipate what the future
holds and can adequately prepare for
it. Of course, to some extent this is
true. The efficacy of inductive logic and
the lessons of history alone provide us
with good tools for the fabrication of
our destinies. But the game goes well
beyond these innocent common-sense
artifacts. The same paranoid angst that
drove our forebears to the darkened
chambers of Madame Parode with her
crystal ball and tarot cards drives us to
the squeaky-clean pseudo-laboratories
of the New Astrologers.
ispect
Long range weather forecasting i®
just one, and a rather innocuous®
example. More sinister soothsayer.®
abound. Chief among these is the hide®
ous practice of economic forecasting®
Who can find two economic forecaster®
who agree? And who can find one who®
has made specific predictions for tin®
future (beyond a few weeks or months®
that come true with consistency that®
would suggest anything but an edu ®
cated guess at best?
Yet we continue to listen, continue
to believe, continue to deceive our
selves that we know what will happen.
In fact, the whole "science" of futurol
ogy must at present be classified as a
New Astrology. We read with relish
these predated histories of our country
and our world in the year 2000 and
beyond. But a quick rereading of Alvin
Toffier’s 1970s smash hit ‘‘Future
Shock" should convince us that he
knew almost nothing more about the
1980s than any other aware person did.
We can only mention the abomina
ble practice of the news media to tell
us what will happen rather than what
did happen and the perennially popu
lar practice in religious circles of
assuring us that the world will end on
Tuesday. Of course, there is the oppo
site practice of the irreligious who
assure us that the end is billions of
years away if it comes at all. On every
side we are convicted of our own inabil
ity to live in a world that is bigger than
we are.
We are eschatological voyeurs. With
out certainty, we would have to run to
faith. The repugnance of so pedestrian
an approach forces us to sacrifice our
integrity on the alter of false security.
We would rather feign dominance than
admit subordination. The emperor is
stark naked, but the ghastly conse
quences of such an admission far out
weigh the price required to perpetuate
the myth.
Sennett it* a graduate student in phi
losophy and campus minister with Col
lege-Career Christian Fellowship.
INF Treaty called misguided
So the leader of the fight to ratify
the INF Treaty will be Alan Cran
ston. If Sen. Cranston had been in
charge of our defense policy over the
last 20 years, we would have nothing
much left to bargain with than maybe
the Coast Guard. But he is the appro
priate vehicle for Mr. Reagan’s be
nighted treaty: the man who always
trusts the Soviet Union, always distrusts
the Pentagon and has waged war through
| out his career against the military
industrial complex, not Gulag.
Meanwhile, the top congressional
military man, Rep. Les Aspin, is not so
sure about the INF Treaty. His point is
that the nuclear sacrifices promised by
the Soviet Union do not amount to very
much because even if they proceed to
destroy their SS-20s, all they need to do
is to build up their supply of SS-25s
—which they are free to do under the
INF Treaty — and in due course they
will match their conventional preponder
ance. Mr. Aspin does have a suggestion
for this problem, that we observe strictly
the terms of SALT II, which does forbid
the development of a fresh weapons
system. But of course, SALT II is
already violated by the Soviet Union
and the Soviet Union is not even theo
retically obliged to bind itself to an
unratified treaty.
Confronted on “This Week with David
Brinkley" with Mr. Aspin’s reservations,
secretary of State George Shultz couldn’t
find much more to say than that this
was the first time in history that the
Soviet Union has proposed an actual
reduction in strategic weapons; and
that it was really wonderful, the asym
metrical shape of the thing. We would
remove about 350 nuclear warheads,
they would remove about 1,500.
But, the interrogator persisted, what
if the Soviets should re embark on a
strategic buildup? There’s no way we
could ever persuade the pacifist forces
in Europe to redeploy our Pershings, is
there? Well, no, said the secretary. But
how can you say we would be worse off,
when we are talking about an asym
metrical reduction right now?
True, we are hardly disarming, if by
"we” one means the nuclear resources
of the Western world. The proposed
reduction amounts to 4 percent of our
total nuclear firepower, and — INF
enthusiasts never tire of telling us —
.. w.
there are presently 2,000 nuclear wea
pons in the European area. That’s true.
But to stress them is on the order of
saying that we don’t need more police
to keep order in Harlem since, after all,
we have the National Guard. It is the
principal point of the treaty’s oppo
nents that there is a difference between
an effective deterrent (theater nuclear
Weapons that stand directly in the path
of an invading Soviet army) and abstract
weapons, mostly situated in the Mid
west, and in submarines primarily under
the control of the United States. It is
the conventional wisdom that the Uni
ted States would be reluctant to begin
a nuclear world war to stop Soviet
tanks backing, say, a demand for West
Berlin, or points west.
Gen. Bernard Rogers, who until a few
months ago was head of NATO, com
ments on the treaty with the clipped
accents of a professional soldier: "We
are left without a deterrent.” Gen
Alexander Haig, also a former com
mander of NATO, and now a presiden
tial candidate, will testify’ against the
treaty. Question: How is it that without
our Pershings Europe managed to sur
vive for four or five years when the
Soviets had the intermediate range
monopoly with their SS-208? Why should
no Europe then be better off under INK
than it was between the late 70s (when
the SS-20s were deployed) and 1080
(when the countervailing Pershings
began to be deployed)? Answer: a) It
did not suit the Soviet timetable to
assert itself in Europe during that
period; and b) European willpower was
stronger then, in favor of resistance,
than it is now. In 1977, Helmut Schmidt,
the chancellor of West Germany and
head of the Social Democratic Party,
was demanding countervailing strategic
theater weapons from the United States.
Today, his party has for all intents and
purposes renounced nuclear deterrence.
Anti nuclear rhetoric of the adminis
tration resonates through the chancer
ies of Europe, and the people wonder,
“Why is it that the United States is now
given to proclaiming its distaste for the
weapon that has served to guarantee
the peace of Europe for a generation?"
The question is difficult to answer.
It is one of many questions we will
need to ponder when this misguided
treaty is presented to the Senate for
confirmation, and cheered on by the
likes of Alan Cranston and the Commit
tee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and, I
guess, the Quakers.
1987 Universal Press Syndicate