Eric Planner, Editor, 472-1766
Bob Nelson, Editorial Page Editor
Victoria Ayotte, Managing Editor
Jana Pedersen, Associate News Editor
Emily Rosenbaum, Associate News Editor jSj
Diane Brayton, Copy Desk Chief
Brian Shellito, Art Director
What’s In a hill?
Sponsors first should read legislation
State Sen. Ron Withem angrily withdrew a higher educa
tion bill from consideration by the Nebraska Legislature
on Friday. He tried to sound as if he had been duped into
sponsoring the bill in the first place.
Withem balked at the bill because it included a provision to
add a College of Fine and Performing Arts to the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
The problem with the bill is that the provision for the new
college is buried on page 23 of a 30-page bill. In fact, there’s
no actual proposal to add the college — just a list stating:
“Colleges and institutes of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
shall be as follows ...’’
The arts college is listed alphabetically among the 11
colleges. The bill contains no explanation of the purpose and
iole of the proposed college.
The rest of the bill’s provisions deal mostly with the College
of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
Granted, Withem should have noticed that the bill included
the fine arts college proposal. He admitted that he doesn’t
always read bills word for word.
IruiMdiu vyuuu, i>u via picsiucm aiiu gcuciai cvjuiisci, saiu
there had been a lack of communication between the Legisla
ture and the university. He said “it was very obvious” that the
new college was included in the bill.
Perhaps it was obvious to Wood. Perhaps it should have
been obvious to Withcm and to others with experience decod
ing legislative terminology.
But the senator has a point. A major policy change such as
the addition of a new college should not be relegated to the
back pages of a “housekeeping” bill.
The proposal should be a bill in its own right, with the
necessary public discussion on the issue.
When UNL administrators introduced the proposal in fall,
they said the costs of the new college would be minimal.
Money is not the only issue, however. The proposal would
move existing arts departments into the new college and
jj affiliate it with other parts of the arts community such as the
Lied Center for Performing Arts.
That’s a policy change. It would have an impact on UNL
students, faculty members and record-keeping officials. Even if
they had had input into the original proposal, they, like
Withem, should have been kept informed.
During a legislative session when higher education bills will
be viewed under a magnifying glass, university officials won’t
gain anything by concealing their interests. And slate senators
won’t be able to say, “My dog ate it,” when asked for their
homework.
— E.F.P.
-LETTERS th°e EDITOR
Public isn’t getting full picture
Iraq — no big deal, piece of cake.
We will just go and wipe them out in
no time, and Kuwaitis will live their
lives peacefully. Anyway, who cares
about K uwaitis? The charm was gath -
ering big bucks from them. That’s
what Mr. President thought. But loo
bad the dream never came true.
Iraq has proven to be an indestruc
tible rock so far. A Scud problem is
diverting the force of allied power
severely, i don’t understand why these
officials exaggerate so much, plus
give false statements.
When the war started, the media
marie it sound as though the attack by
United States and allied forces wouldn't
last more than 24 hours. But a week
and-a-half has passed, and now we
arc hearing that 15 or 16 planes have
been gunned down. I am telling you
that this is nothing, just wait and see
what’s going to happen, you know.
The only main destruction that has
been done on Iraq is on its naval
power. Their mine-laying ships are
destroyed and the same is the case
with 24 mines at sea.
The other day, one of the Patriots
(anti-missile missile) was fired by
mistake, and it was told that it went in
the sea somewhere. Who knows, it
might have dropped in any resident ial
area. But that can be covered by say
ing that the damage was caused by
Scud. I hope that American troops
don’t fire at themselves and civilians
like they did in Panama.
The allied forces bombed an in
fant formula factory, but according tc
Gen. Powell, the United States had
sufficient evidence to believe it was a
biological warfare facility. They alsc
had sufficient evidence when an oil
refinery was destroyed, but that came
out to be nothing. Then the U.S. offi
cials say that they are not targeting
the civilians.
What I am trying to say is that t
real picture of war has not reached u<
so far, which is not good. And nou
the government is afraid that if i
shows what is happening in there, th<
public is going to get mad.
“This won’t be another Vietnam.’
That is what officials are saying. Than!
God they agree that they were kickee
out from there.
I just hope that the least numbero
* human lives are taken in the Middle
East Always remember that you shouk
never underestimate your opponent.
It would have been a lot easier i
Rambo or Commando were sent inte
the gulf.
Arshad Altai' Shaikf
sophomore
pre-pharmaq
-LETTER POLICY
Anonymous submissions will not
be published. Letters should include
the author’s name, address, phone
number, year in school and group af
filiation, if any.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 S
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
i hmBShSmmHBSRI
\ mBSB^kmm^SmHSSSSSBm
JANA PEDERSEN
Gulf war equal to slaughter
A few months ago, 1 listened to
Washington Post columnist
Colman McCarthy speak about
the need to teach peace in American
public schools.
Now, while American troops drop
bombs Iraq and Kuwait, McCarthy’s
words come back to me, ringing in
my ears:
“The mainline press writes non
sense. . . . Get the words right. Use
‘slaughter’ instead of ‘war.’”
With minute-by-minute accounts
of events in the Middle East pouring
in on every television screen in
America, I can’t help but wonder if
news anchors soon will use McCarthy’s
terminology.
I picture Tom Brokaw pushing his
eyebrows together with even more
sincerity, saying, “We now take you
to the Saudi Arabian desert for more
coverage of the slaughter in the Per
sian Gulf.”
McCarthy also teaches peace stud
ies classes at universities m Washing
ton. He contends that our society would
be much more peaceful if American
elementary schools taught the works
of peacemakers such as Martin Lu
ther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi
instead of teaching about world wars.
, io arive that point home, Mc
’ Carthy quoted former U.S.Rep.Jcan
nette Rankin of Montana:
“You can no more win a war than
win an earthquake.”
t Rankin was the lone senator to
. vote against declaring war on Japan
after the bombing of Pearl Harbor,
. McCarthy said.
While home for the holidays, I
j tried McCarthy’s theory on my brother.
“Why not teach peace in clemcn
: tary schools?”
, He answered my question with one
j of his own: “How will that help in the
1 Middle East?”
P “It’s too late to teach peace to
> solve the Persian Gulf crisis. Thai’s
like trying to put a Band-Aid on an
open wound,” I said, mimicking
McCarthy’s words.
i My brother told me that answer
: was a cop-out.
He’s probably right. It’s pretty
useless to talk about teaching peace
in elementary schools when we’re in
the middle of a war right now.
Thai’s a similar argument to the
ones used against anti-war protesters.
It’s pretty useless to protest war when
we’re in the middle of one right now.
I picture Tom
Brokaw pushine his
eyebrows together
with even more sin
cerity. savinf. “We
now take vou to the
Saudi Arabian des
ert for more, cover
age of the slaueh
ter in the Persian
Gu&l
To quote every newscast cliche:
“We should all back the troops, pray
everything comes out OK, take it one
day at a time and just wait for our men
and women to come home.”
Only not all of the troops will be
stepping off the homecoming planes;
some will roll off them, in caskets,
stretchers, wheelchairs, especially after
the allied ground attack begins.
That makes the war seem like
something to object to, something to
call a slaughter.
And now that the war has opened
up an ecological front with a mullim
illion-gallon oil spill, the war clearly
is a slaughter to the Persian Gulf
environment Not to mention the people
who will die on the other side of the
front.
Yet with all that slaughtering going
on, a recent Gallup Poll reported that
about 85 percent of American adults
support President Bush’s actions in
the Middle East.
A full 45 percent would support
using nuclear force against Iraq if it
would prevent American casualties.
To me that statistic has repulsive
connotations of genocide, of siaugh
ter.
Butthose words aren’t used during i
wartime. They’re only assigned to (
wars after the shooting stops.
When peace activists use words
like slaughter while the fighting is
going on, society calls it anti-war
propaganda. Some news sources even
have suggested that anti-war protest
ers should no longer be covered be
cause they represent a small segment
of the population and hurt troop morale.
Meanwhile, Pentagon press con
ferences reduce the fighting to sterile,
unobjectionable terminology.
We’re no longer fighting Iraqis;
now we’re fighting The Enemy.
The acronym for prisoners of war
conveniently has been changed from
POW to EPW, enemy prisoner of
war.
Wartime maneuvers are reduced
to football terminology, and we’re
still winning the game.
We’ve even adopted the noble name
of our parents’ warriors, the Allied
Forces.
Such press conferences have con
vinced 85 percent of Americans that
our soldiers are giving their lives to
restore self-government to a country
wrecked by its violent neighbor.
But the truth is, Kuwait was a
class-structured, sexist society, some
thing tough to hold up against Ameri
can democratic ideals.
Apparently, 85 percent of us don’t
think it’s strange that American serv
ice women should risk their lives to
restore a sexist society.
I doubt such a majority would ask I
black soldiers to risk their lives to I
liberate Kuwait if it was structured I
like South Africa.
But it’s tough to change the major- R
ity’s mind, so I guess I’ll have to get R
used to the idea of war, though 1 never H
imagined it would happen in my life- R
time. a
Still, that’s not a reason to stop*
protesting, or a reason to stop report-®
ing about protesters. Without dissent,®
no matter how late in the football®
?;arne it comes, it’s easy to dismiss the®
ighting without considering the®
slaughter.
And that reminds me of something®
else McCarthy said:
“I don’t have a conscience. j4®
conscience has me.”
Pedersen is a junior advertising major,
Daily Nebraskan associate news editor and dBj
columnist.
