editorial/ opinion _
ASUN elections: ‘Much ado about nothing
Apr. 9,1976
By Steve Moeller
“Much ado about nothing,’’ (quot
ing Shakespeare), I believe could aptly
describe the ASUN elections this year.
The Greeks brought something into
the election that was absent from previ
ous elections: machine politics.
I often have wondered how Mayor
Richard Daley ran his Chicago ma
chine. Thanks to the Greeks, I have
found out. It is a simple formula: give
your list of candidates to the voters and
make sure the voters get to the polls.
Efficient. Practical. Legal. Unethical.
Both the losing Greeks (who weren’t
endorsed) and Residence Hall student
candidates have shown a certain
amount of childishness since the elec
tion. Kids who play baseball near my
home would call them “poor losers,’’
but I think it goes deeper. These same
people are now behind “the Coalition’’
(sounds like “the faction,’’ doesn’t it?)
and threatened the whole constitutional
position of the UNL student govern
ment.
This action of stripping ASUN Sen
ate of its power and transferring it to
another organization would set a dan
gerous precedent.
Will the losing side in an election
now start seeking to strip the governing
i
body of its power? If there wasn’t a
question of whether the elected officials
represented the entire campus, certainly
there now will be one. Regents must
think that student politics is a game
engaged by “children.”
In the four years that I have been
here, the most important issue has been
to get students to vote, so that the stu
dent government could make the unre
alistic claim that it represented “all the
students.”
The Greeks have shown us the way:
machine politics. Choose the candi
dates, provide lists, and force the people
to the polls. I’m positive that at least 60
percent of the UNL students would vote
in such an election.
The people now in office should be
given the chance to govern and “the
Coalition” should not set this danger
ous precedent in motion, which, in the
ory, could turn the student government
into a “Banana Republic,” threatening
overturned governments and elections
every other week.
But, in conclusion, what does it mat
ter? In my opinion, they are fighting
over nothing. The stupid people got
elected and the stupid people are still
trying to get elected.
Steve Moeller is a senior anthropology major from Lin
coln.
1
umiiMimiiinrMiTWiiwr—— — 11 —
> ^
Letters to the Editor
Inmates request letters
Dec. 4,1976
Dear Editor,
We arc both former college men trying to
keep in touch with the outside world. We are
requesting your assistance in this matter which
is of grave importance to us.
Since we are both incarcerated for the first
time, we are seeking correspondence with you
out there in the free world because we know
just how lonely and depressing prison life is.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would
please run this letter. All letters we receive will
be answered.
Below you will find a short profile on each
of us. Thank you for your time and effort.
Tony Lauricclla, No. 136-671, age 29,
height 5*7", weight 170 lb., black hair, blue
eyes.
Jim McManus, No. 139-935, age 35, 5’7",
200 lb., black hair, ha/cl eyes.
P.O. Box 69
London, Ohio
43140
Abortion contradicts
human rights
Jan. 23,1976
Dear Editor,
Jan. 22 was a tragic American anniversary.
In 1973 the Supreme Court legalized abortion
on demand. In this Bicentennial year, we
Americans are constantly reminded of our
American heritage. Certain sanctity for human
life is the basis of this heritage. What good does
it do to speak of human right when the right to
life is not recognized^as an inalienable and
fundamental? Read the Declaration of Inde
pendence. Abortion on demand reduces the
value of life to someone’s whim. All reliable
medical testimony says that human life begins
at conception. It is ironical that some who
protested against the Vietnam War because of
its destruction of life would today support
abortion. As a former student, I saw the student
unrest here accompanying the war and partici
pated in some of the protests myself. If we
stand up for life, we should do so everywhere.
David D. Vocglcr
Strangers in the night
May 4,1978
Earlier this semester, I was mad as hell
about hearing there were maggots and bugs in
my dorm food. Douglas Zatcchka, housing
director, wrote me, assuring me it was “bean
sprouts” and not maggots and bugs.
OK, I’ll buy that, but when I entered my
darkci A room the other night, I’m pretty sure
it wasu t bean sprouts’ 1 found scampering
across the floor when I turned on the light I
Hunk it was what sou .1 call cockroaches il
caught the little hu'k'l r , too, in ;tse your
friends at the FDA want to make .« lull -cal ’
Ban on spray cans
Apr. 30,1975
Dear Editor:
After just finishing an article on the deple
tion of the ozone by Paul Brodeur (‘ ‘Annals of
Chemistry,” The New Yorker, April 7) and
after having read similar sobering articles in
national newspapers this spring, I am becom
ing increasingly worried about the Gangers of
using aerosol spray cans. The fluorocarbons
used in aerosol cans are exceedingly dangerous
to our world environment: these fluorocarbons
are already present in the stratosphere and as
they decompose they release atoms of chlorine
which react with molecules of ozone to destroy
the ozone. Ozone is, of course, essential to
screening out the lethal ultraviolet rays from
the sun.
In 1973, there were 2,902,340,(XX) aerosols
produced and sold in this country.
Of course, Big Business is bucking the sci
entific evidence, and Congress, presented w ith
the horrifying evidence, is dragging its politi
cal heels. A Du Pont spokesman was cited in a
recent issue of The National Observer as sav
ing that if aerosols were banned, the consumer
wouldn’t have a ‘‘free choice” -- where 1
might choose to live assured in the knowledge
that I would not be one of those 40,(XX) who
will gel skin cancer because of ozone depletion
from chlorofluorocarbons. He would not be
able to provide you with that ‘‘free choice.”
Write you newspapers, write your Con
gressmen. Convince your parents, your grand
parents, your aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers,
sisters and friends to work to ban aerosols. Do
it tnHo.%7
K. Stephens
McDonald’s obnoxious
Mar. 1,1976
To the employees of McDonald’s: Your
loyalty to your employer and the betterment of
mankind warms many a heart, but the fact
. remains that the thought of the golden arches
on campus, granting their neon benediction to
the Eternal Hamburger is obnoxious.
Perhaps you truly believe that employees of
McDonald’s are kinder and happier, and like to
pick up candy wrappers off the street, but
strangely enough, I believe the common man
on the street is capable of such extravagances,
with a smile as well. And I would no sooner fall
for the “You, you’re the one’* slogan than I
would believe that Mr. Whipple is stalking me
behind the grocery shelf to see if I’ll assault the
Charmin.
By no means do I intend to attack the sincer
ity and friendliness of McDonald’s waitresses
and waiters, but nut instead of all thai
McDonald’s has come to epitomize -* the
neon-signed, fast food joint that spits tasteless
lood all over the counter like a computer. Do I
rightlully suspect the author of the
McDonald’s editorial to be a member of th
management and not a clerk?
A Me Donald’s on campus may prov ide ta-t
ipv ' pensive food service for students and la
alls members, but it is too bad lhat such I; *
'l i ’s ha e lo overrun the small, indop nd
* ’ - ‘.remember l) ivi ■ Mh.it pr, v
-Vi v ices jus: a-. . uiivcm. all
a:*Ai an avel) with more personair
’*’‘jth Somehow, Ronald McDonald <
c personality I’m referring to.
C. Callahan
J. Penrose
