The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, October 19, 1988, Page 4, Image 4
Editorial I Nebraskan University of Nebraska-Lincoln Curt Wagner, Editor, 472-1766 Mike Reilley, Editorial Page Editor i Diana Johnson, Managing Editor Lee Rood, Associate News Editor Bob Nelson, Wire Page Editor Andy Pollock, Columnist Micki Haller, Entertainment Elditor Opinions unfair Post-rape exams re-victimize victims jri is 1 a.m. The buttons of her blouse are pissing, the I material is tom from her shoulder. Tears mark trails on -**her dirty faee. She has driven to the police station to report a rape. But that’s not enough. In Nebraska, she will not be granted a juiy trial unless she can provide collaborating evidence of the rape, says Thomas Shanahan, Nebraska Supreme Court judge. Within 24 hours of the alleged rape, she must undergo a physical exam. Hair and fingernail scrapings must be taken as evidence of the assailant and ail body orifices must be swabbed. The clothing she was wearing at the rime of the assault must be taken by the police as evi dence. Some dl winded uninformed people that m alleged rape v* * “ revenge on EHSL &■<« a woman s or j ajmsuy a furthering into the] Once vii Victim! rcpmthe^sex ^ ttotlsf Andis only in Nebraska that rape victims must jhow further evidence of the assault. All other states have J updated ibis precedent to include individual representation as substantial evidence of the assault The requirement for evidence is not a part of Nebraska statutes, Shanahan says. It stands only because of judicial opinions that support it It still stands that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. But if rape victims were no longer forced to supply collaborating evidence of the assault, perhaps victims would be more likely to report the incident to the police. for Urn Path Nebraska* Gay rights activist confused with caption As an advocate for gay people and a journalism major, it confused me to read the caption with the photo of people participating in National Coming Out Day (DN, Oct. 12). The caption implied that the people in the photo, one of whom was myself (the one not holding the sign), were “members of UNL’s gay/les bian population However, if the photographer had checked with us instead of assuming, which is bad journalism, he would have learned that not everyone there was a “coming out” gay man or les bian woman. I was there because I was a “coming out” straight person. Coming Out Day’s purposes weren’t only to increase the visibility of a population of more than 20 mil lion people in the United States, but also to show respected and famous gay men and lesbians and to educate the public of the oppression that gay people endure. On that day, and throughout history during other events, parents of gay sons and les bian daughters, the children ol gay parents and friends, like myself, have publicly introduced themselves as supporters of gay men and lesbians. It's a misconception that only gay people arc fighting for the rights and respect that other cultures receive. There are many straight people fight ing beside them. But because they are labeled as being gay or lesbian for their support, their number is far less than that of gay people. Still, straight supporters exist and should be recognized, just as the gay protesters are. It’s my belief that the existence of gay people and straight people working together is the sole purpose of the gay movement. Gay people can’t stop fear and ignorance without the help of others and while hidden and ignored behind the walls of a closet. Amie DcFrain sophomore news-editorial and member Gay/Lesbian Student Organization Critics should judge movie, not Elvis If I am not mistaken, Michael Deeds and William Rudolph are sup posed to be movie critics, not criticiz es of a man’s life. Elvis Presley was an extremely talented man who be came trapped by his fame. He became a vie till of that fame and suffered becatBe of it. He paid for it with his life. All ihal I’m saying is critique the movie and stop judging other people’s lives. I’m sure that both of you are far from perfect. After all, “Let’s be real, here.” James Ingles freshman ^Fl RST LADY DESIGNJET DOLL SIT "The Auntie N, AuntieN”i coper vatnc attire for that £S‘S,8SSS&N First Lady Vamp OriffinalW worn by Cher wren she dated the ftl.33 bassist. Poor selection generates doubt Columnist says election ‘firsts’ may damage America’s future For the first time in 20 years, we are observing a presidential election that does not involve a sitting president NotsinceHumphrey/Muskielosta heartbreaker to Nixon/Agnew has the nation had to guess about what two unknowns would do. Millions of Americans, myself included, have never voted in a contest that did not ask us to evaluate the actual perform ance of one of the candidates in light of the promises of his challenger. Another interesting statistic, though basically irrelevant to this column, is that it has been since 19S2 — when Dwight Eisenhower faced off against Adlai Stephenson—that a presidential election has not involved a sitting president or sitting vice presi dent. The great majority of Ameri cans have never voted in a race be tween two complete outsiders. This year bom are challengers, and we aren’t quite sure how to handle it. This is one reason the election has seemed so strange. It is also the main reason, I think, that we have not been able to evaluate the issues that ought to make a difference, and have been susceptible to such bogus issues. As a pre-election service, I will spend this week and the next on issues that are real ones, whether we realize it or not. This week I look at a few unadulterated real issues, and next week I will examine what I call “yes, but” issues. You’ II have to check back next Wednesday to find out what that means. But here arc three matters that strike me as much more important than many people want to consider them: •The “L Word”/ACLU Contro versy. Many want to label this a “non issue,” and Michael Dukakis has spent much energy combating the politics of label-pinning. But labels are important, particularly if they stick. It makes a difference to me if the label on my new shirt says “100 percent cotton.” It tells me something about how the shirt is made, and how I can expect it to react in certain situations. And what baby-boomer has not grown up singing, “Look for the Union Label?” So why is Dukakis so worried about labels all of a sudden? Espe cially labels that he complains about but refuses to denouncer I can only think of one reason why he should be so concerned about the labels Bush wishes to pin on him. He is worried that, if people believe the label fits, they will not vote for him. And this is why the label issue is a real issue. If Dukakis’ being a liberal (a la Ted Kennedy or Walter Mon dale) or a card-carrying member of the ACLU is enough to make millions of Americans decide against voting for him, what could be more of an issue than that? I---1 If Bush is right, and these labels represent a departure from the main stream of American sentiment, then Dukakis must cither admit that he is such a departure, or summarily reject the stands behind the labels — and demonstrate that his past political record need not be a concern to those for whom these labels are unaccept able. • National Health Insurance. The Republican party has continued steadfastly in its refusal to admit that the lime is long overdue for the United Stales to take responsibility for the health care of its citizens. Bush be moans the fact that so many Ameri cans cannot afford to buy their own homes, while ignoring the fact that many more Americans cannot even afford to buy their own hospitaliza tion. Dukakis has been emphasizing the issue of national health insurance since the campaign began, and very few have paid any attention to him. His stunning story at the first debate —about a lather who had to refuse his son’s request to participate in high school athletics because he could not afford to buy the insurance needed — should strike at every compassionate heiut in the county. That it did not strike at Bush's is disturbing to me. The Republicans tell us that such insurance would cost too much. It can’t possibly cost more than the combined thievery of private hospi talization and obscene health care costs do now. What is the ditterence between spending a fortune on a na tionalized health program and spend ing a fortune on a private health pro gram? The only differences I can see is that the former would be more fair, would probably rise less dramatically and would make sure that everyone could afford to get sick or hurl. •The Ultimate Issue. I have writ ten before that I prefer a good presi dent to a strong one (and that is why I voted for Carter in 1980), but it 1 cannot have the former I would lake the latter over a weak president (and that is why l closed my eyes, clenched my fists, and voted for Reagan in 1984). This year I even do not have that choice. I see neither candidate as promising goodness or strength, so I must go to the last two choices in the hierarchy—weakness and detriment. Would I rather have a president who will undoubtedly be weak, or one who could quite possibly be bad? I think that Bush would be weak. He would get pushed around, and he would fail to continue the Reagan chutzpah. However, I do not think he woula be especially bad. Amcricacan survive a weak president — we have done it before. I am not sure we could survive a bad one. Ana tnat is wnai gives me about Dukakis. I am afraid that he is just out of touch enough to do some real harm. One example must suificc. Dukakis keeps talking about how bad the economy is. Now, either he be lieves that or he doesn T. If he docsn l, then he is a liar. If he docs, then he is out of touch. The plight of the poor and homeless notwithstanding — and it is a serious, serious issue — the tact is that the economy of this country is in the best shape it has been in for decades. If Dukakis gets in and starts push ing buttons and flipping levers, wc could see double-digit inflation, in terest rales, and unemployment again before the end of his term. And that is frightening. Certainly weak or very possibly bad. The choice is yours, America. And remember—you could have had a race between Bob Dole and Jesse Jackson. Sennett is a graduate student in philoso phy and Is a Dally Nebraskan editorial col umnist.