Editorial
p. *1 Amy Edwards, Editor, 472-1766
Uaily Boh Nelson, Editorial Page Editor
T "1 J Ryan Sleeves, Managing Editor
Q I/' Hric Pfanner, Associate News Editor
J. Nl X d X^. d X I. Lisa Donovan, Associate News Editor
cj,,... . D_ Brandon Loomis, Wire Editor
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Jana Pcdcrscn'Nlghl News Edltor
Bigotry in uniform
Military’s prejudice snubs Constitution
In a rare decision last week, a military appeals court
overturned the conviction of a Marine corporal who
served 226 days in the brig for allegedly having sex
I with another woman.
The appellate court ruled that two officials serving on
the jury at Barbara J. Baum’s court martial were biased
and that the military judge had allowed uncorroborated
, testimony, according to The Associated Press.
The reasoning behind the ruling is wrong.
Of course a biased trial constitutes overturning the ver
| diet, but the charge never should have been given in the
| first place.
Even in the homophobic military system, having sex
with someone should not be reason enouch for court
J martial or 226 days in the brig.
The Defense Department’s official policy states that
'“homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
J The presence in the military of persons who engage in
l homosexual conduct... seriously impairs the accom
| plishment of the military mission. ’’
Sure. If Baum was such a serious threat, why did she
| make it to corporal?
Are homosexuals a threat because they’re homosexuals,
or only when their sexual preference is known? Neither.
J And as much as the military would like to believe other
; wise, it follows the latter. Which shows that the Defense
I Department’s policy is paranoid and unrealistic.
The military’s policy on homosexuality never should
J have been implemented in the first place and now is
! horribly out-dated. Sexual preference is only a threat to
people who are too closed-minded to accept others ’
f differences.
The court in Baum’s case declined to rule on several
other arguments raised in the appeal, including that it is
unconstitutional to selectively prosecute and punish gay
people for sodomy while heterosexuals are not punished
for the same actions.
The court should have ruled on that while it had the
chance, and gotten rid of the unconstitutional biases
1 aimed at homosexual people in the military.
It’s 1990. Gay men and lesbians work alongside
i “straight’ ’ people every day, and are just as capable as
everyone else of performing any job.
No decision has been made yet on whether Baum will
face another court martial. Hopefully, the Marine courts
won’t even consider one.
Homosexuals face enough bigotry in society. It’s about
time our government took a step toward its own
! constitution by eliminating the,prejudice in the U.S.
| Armed Forces.
•• Amy Edwards
for the Daily Nebraskan
Cafeteria employee outraged
At first I did not want to respond to
Mr. Bauistoni’s editorial (DN, Feb.
15) because it is a very touchy subject
to me. I happen to be a part-time
employee at one of the “tastebud
murdering’ ’ cafeterias. In fact, I work
at Abel so if this article upsets you,
t omc see me. Just ask for the Captain,
Mr. Validine, Lou or Kent, and I will
be glad to answer your questions.
Let’s set the record straight. The
food here is not Misty’s or Red Lob
ster, but it definitely is not as bad as
you would make it out to be. Yes,
there is a lot of chicken served - and
hot dogs and hamburgers and pizzas.
Could this be because these are less
expensive items? 1 think so, Mr. Bat
tistoni. The idea is to serve good
meals at a lower cost so you can pay
for the rest of your college. There arc
many items to choose from, plus sal
ads and many different beverages.
Try something forme, Mr. Bahistoni.
Eat at McDonald’s or your favorite
restaurant for three meals a day, seven
days a week, four months straight and
tell me you don’t start thinking their
food is blah!
Now lei me explain the raw chicken
pally lo you, if you will listen. When
you arc frying those patties and people
such as you arc bitching to get the
food out on the line, sometimes you
can’t check every patty. You just trust
that the fryer is working right and
getting things cooked. Of course, if
you want to pay more money to hous
ing, then we will hire food tasters,
raw chicken testers, and you, person
ally, can come in and tell us what we
are doing wrong.
Just let me end with one final
question. Do you think cooking for
1,000 people a day is an easy job? I
guess you must. Well, when one of
the big guys retires, put in your appli
cation. Then you can fix all of the
problems.
Oh, by the way, while you are at it
could you do something about acid
rain, world hunger and the deficit?
We peons of the world would appre
ciate it.
Kent Speer
junior
secondary education
#
X ^
HOW PIP T GET
TO BE THE
L CHEESE ?
Drug demand is real problem
‘War' needs more bucks to rehabilitate, educate, fill free time
President Bush deserves com
mendation for his greatest ac
complishment at the Colom
bian drug summit last week.
He lived through it
Little else but the simple survival
of our president stands out in the
aftermath of forming what Bush la
beled “the first anti-drug cartel.”
Actually, the fact that the presi
dent of the world’s leading importer
of cocaine met with the chief execu
tives of the world’s leading exporters
of the drug is remarkable in itself.
But beyond that, what was accom
plished?
The leaders agreed that each coun
try may use its own military to wage
the “war on drugs” within its own
boundaries.
i ne leaders agreed to call for a
worldwide drug summit in 1991.
Bush admitted that dealing with
the demand for cocaine in the United
Slates is a priority. He owes it “to the
children of America,” he said.
And, finally, the leaders agreed to
begin talks on developing more lu
crative alternative products to cocaine
growth for farmers in the Andean
nations.
Talk, talk, talk.
They talked a great deal, but lead
ers forgot the wcl 1 - worn ax iom: “ Put
your money where your mouth is.”
Bush especially seemed reluctant
to deal in the real issue behind the talk
-- financing.
I’m anxious to hear how our presi
dent plans to save the country for
America’s children for free. I’m dying
to know how Peruvian farmers will
expand their exports without the United
States investing in Peruvian imports.
Reducing the United States’ de
mand for cocaine, in particular, will
icqunc money. i nere s no way to get
around that. American dollars must
be invested in programs dealing with
America’s drug problem - programs
such as public drug rehabilitation
clinics, increased government sup
port for education and public aware
ness campaigns.
Drug rehabilitation clinics do work.
Even if the success rate is less than
100 percent, there is a success rate.
And that’s important
But rehabiliation works only if
clinics have well-trained personnel
and more-than-just-adequale, humane
facilities. (Not boot camps.) Person
nel and facilities cost money. And
realistically, the federal government
is the only corporation that can afford
to invest in rehabilitation clinic! that
are affordable for low-income drug
users, with or without insurance.
Once clinics are operating, contin
ued federal assistance will be essen
tial to maintain the staff and facilities
and to keep the patients’ fees reason
able.
More government financing is also
necessary for public education. I be
Jana
I Pedersen
lieve this support in particular must
include expansion of funding for ex
tracurricular activities.
Why should we — in light of recent
studies revealing the “horror” that
American students aren’t learning
everything “educated” persons should
know - expand this area?
Simple. If American students won’t
invest their lime in studying, give
them something else to focus on. Teach
them what they need to know outside
the classroom. Who says that educa
tion must be confined to four walls,
desks and a blackboard? And regard
less of common belief, extracurricu
lar activities involve far more than
just athletics.
Student government, newspapers,
debate, computers, speech, Future
Farmers of America, science club and
all the rest offer students things that
can’t always be learned in the class
room. And participating in sports, at
the very least, teaches students disci
pline and how to work with others.
Giving students something that they
enjoy doing may spark interest in
school and give them less time to seek
out other forms of recreation such as
drugs.
Finally, public awareness cam
paigns about drugs must change. I’m
sorry, but the "Just Say No’’ attitude
doesn’t cut it. Eggs frying in a pan
makes a neat visual effect, but no one
really believes that ‘‘this is your brain.’’
Anti-drug public service announce
ments should take a lesson from those
promoting AIDS awareness. They need
a lesson in realism, in cutting to the
chase, in giving the facts.
And 1 think I’ve seen a turn for the
better recently with testimonial com
mercials that really make me think. I
just hope the trend continues.
But producing realistic campaigns
and distributing factual information
on a broad basis costs money too.
Add that Jo federal support of re
habilitation clinics and increased
funding for schools, and we’ve got
quite a bill.
So, where will this money come
from?
An obvious source is the “war on
drugs’’ itself. The strategy behind
this war is wrong. Dead wrong.
The whole attitude behind the name
“war” implies the need for a change
of focus.
Come on, America. Our battle
against drugs is not a war. A war
involves people battling each other,
not people battling a problem. People
need to work together to combat this
problem. People fighting people won’t
solve anything.
Standard argument: We must fight
the people who supply the drugs.
Wrong. The suppliers aren’t the
problem. It’s the users.
We can throw all the drug lords
ami nncKurc tho uinrlH in iail Rllf IK
—— ~ v — mmw j
long as there is demand for drugs,
new drug lords and pushers will rise
in their place. That’s a fact. A fact
that the Bush administration needs to
realize. Now.
Instead of putting so much money
into chasing drug suppliers, let’s put
it into dealing with the problem itself.
One drug supplier in jail means an
other opening for someone to become
very rich off the real problem. Taking
away the real problem of demand
takes away the opportunity for sup
pliers.
It just makes sense.
I’m no idealist. I know my ideas
aren ’ t the only ones or the best ones to
deal with the drug problem in Amer
ica. But we do need a change of focus
- away from the "war” on suppliers
and onto the real problem of demand
for drugs themselves. The key to
changing the focus is changing where
our money goes.
Until that happens. Bush can talk
about forming all the anti-drug car
tels he wants. It’s still just talk.
Pedersen Is u sophomore advertising
majo^nd a Daily Nebraskan night news
editor and columnist.