Editorial
Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766
11V Diana Johnson, Editorial Page Editor
J "■ ** I Jen Dcsclms, Managing Editor
I^Wl Curt Wagner, Associate News Editor
I. Chris Anderson, Associate News Editor
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief
_ •_ Joel Carlson, Columnist___
Tap those phones
New law will chill investigations
A bill recently passed by the
Nebraska Legislature will have a
“chilling effect” on police inves
tigations into gambling.
The Legislature struck gam
bling from a list of suspected
crimes for which permission to
use telephone wiretaps can be
obtained from state court judges,
an Omaha World-Herald article
reported.
The change was a major blow
to police departments in the
stale. The wiretaps have worked
as a major tool in law enforce
ment during the last several
years. Evidence police obtain
from secretly listening to phone
conversations can be used as
evidence in criminal prosecu
tions.
Opponents of wiretaps argue
that the suspect’s privacy is in
vaded when someone listens in
on the line. But police need die
' freedom to tap personal phone
lines. It’s just like searching a
house.
It’s not an invasion of privacy,
but rather a necessary evil. As
long as the departments use the
wiretaps with good sense — and
there is no evidence that they
haven’t — then people shouldn’t
i have anything to hide. Why pro
tect suspected criminals any
more than you have to?
Fortunately, police can still
get federal court approval for
wiretaps. Most of the recent
gambling cases have used per
mission from state judges, the
World-Herald reported. Federal
approval often takes longer than i
on the state-level, thus hindering
the investigation.
Losing wiretaps also could
cost police departments more
money. Omaha Police Chief
Robert Wadman said he might
have to hire more officers to
handle gambling investigations.
* * *
The Daily Nebraskan would
like to add a comment on some
thing else, which has absolutely
nothing to do with wiretaps. The
DN usually scrambles for letters
at the end of the school year.
Students spend the last few
weeks of school typing term
papers instead of letters, leaving
the DN without any extra opinion
from the “outside.”
That’s not the case this year.
Oh yeah, few students have
wrote in lately, but three mem- j
bers of the Legislature have
helped pick up the nomial slack, j
During the last week, the DN has
run letters from Sens. Jerry
Miller, M.L. Dierks and Roger
Wchrbein complaining about the .
“offensive” nature of our April 1
joke issue, The Daily Half
asskin. Keep the letters coming
guys. We enjoy hearing your
comments.
We also want to hear from the
students . . . pro or con. So far
we’ve only received one letter
from a UNL student about it, and
joke issue editor Spuck Obscene r
can’t wait to read more. Don’t let
him down.
_^;_I
Senator dislikes joke
Your reference to drugs through
pictures and words in the Daily Half
asskin parody issue (Daily Nebras
kan, April 1) was not a good spoof.
Casual reading, or reading by those
younger, who cannot process what
you read and what the staff wanted to
accomplish, could be misinterpreted.
This tells me you have much to proc
ess yourselves before you mature into
issue’s drugs spoof
journalists.
There is much humor in your envi
ronment that can be focused on that
does not rally around drugs, vulgar
language or direct insults. My hope is
that you have learned from this poor
effort.
* Jerry D. Miller
state senator
Reader calls DN columnist a ‘hypocrite'
Where does Daily Nebraskan col
umnist Curt Snodgrass stand? It
seems to me he’s a hypocrite. In his
column (DN, April 13), he states that
“People should be free to decide for
themselves what to do with their
money” and “they attempt to make
their morals legally binding upon the
rest of us.” He was referring to the
“Bible-bangcrs” who want to impose
their ideas upon us. I think he is
opposed to other people forcing their
ideas upon us.
However, in his column on the
mandatory helmet law (March 30) he
says that government should tell us to
wear a helmet.
It is hypocritical to say that we
should be able to spend our money
freely, but that we can’t make up our
own minds freely, money or other
wise. 1 don’t sec how he can say that
he doesn’t want “Bible-bangers” to
tell us we can’t spend our money
freely, but it’s OK for the government
to impose this law and not give us the
freedom of choice.
Brian Shaffer
speech communication
-pfewsH
f tf^r rH !!
M wHeae's my 'oiue north for president' t-shirt ? "
t s
- —- ■ ■
First THE'i ASKED Mow could
THOSE tovvans Have So much
WEIGHT PICKING THE
Front runners
-4
Now LOOK WHOSE TOK.N
IT IS - - -
k—---tl-£■-J
Well-to-do get hit hard by taxes!
Royko’s liberal pal complains, must pay same as Republicans^
It was clear that my liberal
friend Moonbeam was upset
about something the other
day. His hand shook so badly that he
almost spilled his Chablis on his
power-red tie.
I took the next stool and asked the
nature of his problem. Social injus
tice? T he plight of the underclass?
The overcrowding of the prison popu
lation? The miseries of the Third
World?
“No, it’s a personal disaster,” he
said. “1 have just left my accountant’s
office and now must write the check.”
You mean THE biggie? Your
taxes?
“Yes, and I have never been so
badly gored. I can’t believe it.”
Oh, well, you’re in the upper in
come brackets. You can afford it.
“But it’s unfair. I mean, there
should be a limit on how much they
can grab. This is ... this is ...”
Economic violence?
“Yes, that’s a perfect phrase for it.
The government has committed eco
nomic violence against me. Where
have I heard that phrase before?” '
Jesse Jackson uses it to describe
what is being done to the poor by the
rich.
“Oh. Well, don’t get me wrong.
I’m sympathetic to the poor. I always
have been. You know that.”
Yes, Moonbeam. I’ve heard you
agom/e in their behalf at many a
chccse-and-wine party.
“Right. But I think there are limits
to even my compassion. Why, I just
read an article that said about 5 per
cent of us, who are in the upper brack
ets, have been paying the lion’s share
of the income taxes. Butabout half the
country is in the lower brackets and is
paying only 6 or 7 percent of the
taxes.”
1 read that, too. Seems fair to me.
“Fair? Why is it fair for me to
spend the first four months of the year
working for the government? Do you
reali/.e that’s what they took this time
more than a third of all my income?
What happened to all that lax re
form?”
As it turns out, that was the reform.
You got it, they take it.
“But I was in favor of it. I’m al
ways for any kind of reform. But now
I’m paying a lot more. What kind of
reform is that?”
- in
It’s the kind of reform that Sen.
Bradley the Tall believes in. Remem
ber, tax reform was his project. As I
recall, he is one of your heroes.
“Definitely. A great liberal. But
why would he do something like this
to me?”
Because you are a fat cal.
“How dare you. I have never been
a fat cat. Fat cats are, by definition,
wealthy and greedy Republicans. 1
am a liberal Democrat.”
But you arc well-off.
Yes, but why should I be punished
for die greed of wealthy Republi
cans?”
I think 1 understand. You thought
that only the wealthy Republicans
would be clobbered? But somehow
wealthy liberals wouldn’t?
“Yes, that was the impression I
had.”
But, Moonbeam, it can't be done
that way. If they’re going to soak the
well-off, then it has to be done to
everyone with a big bankroll.
“It doesn’t seem fair. It’s like
punishing the innocent along w iih ihcflj
guilty. Couldn’t they have cstah-K
lished a credit or deduction of somfl
kind for compassion and deccnfl
thoughts?” I
I don't think that would be legal.■
"It should be. And what was alll
that news talk about how Reagan w ajp
going to take from the poor and givff
to his rich supporters?”
Just talk. It really can’t be done
since the poor don't have enough tc
spare anyway. So when the govern
merit needs money, it has to take i
from those who have it. Rcmembei
what Willie Sutton said when the)
asked him w hy he robbed banks?
"What did he say?”
He said: "Because that’s w here the
money is." And that's the way taxev
work.
"So this means that all this time
I’ve been hating Reagan for the
wrong reason."
I don’t know. Why were you hitt
ing him?
"Because he was being cruel and
insensitive to the poor. Committing
economic violence against them."
in terms of lax rates, no, he and
Congress really haven’t done that. So
now you don’t have to hate him any
more.
“Of course I still hate him."
But why?
.“Because he’s being cruel and
insensitive to me.”
But this is what you wanted.
Higher taxes for the well-to-do ha*
been part of your liberal agenda. How
can you be angry about achieving
your very ow n agenda?
“I don’t know. It’s confusing.
Sometimes I wish I were poor so I
would not have tins inner conflict.
Just give them time, Moonbeam,
give them time.
c 1988 The Chicago Tribune
Royko is a Pulitzer Prize-winning culum- I
nist with The Chicago Tribune.
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief loiters to the editor from all
readers and interested others.
Readers also arc welcome to sub
mit material as guest opinions.
Whether material should run as a let
ter or guest opinion, or not run, is left
to the editor’s discretion.
Letters and guest opinions sent to
the newspaper become property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned.
Anonymous submissions will not
be considered for publication. Letter
should include the author’s name,
year in school, major and group af
filiation, if any. Requests to withhold
names will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily N».
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 14(K) K
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
Unsigned editorials represent of
ficial policy of the spring 1988 Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its mem
bers arc Mike Reillcy, editor; Diana
Johnson, editorial page editor; Joan
Rczac, copy desk editor; Jen De
selms, managing editor; Curt Wag
ner, associate news editor; Chris
Anderson, associate night news edi
tor and Joel Carlson, columnist.
Editorials do not necessarily re
flect the views of the university, its
employees, the students or the NU
Board of Regents.