SEAN GREEN ‘Big Bang’ excitement fizzles . i This must have been a frustrat ing week for George Smoot. Smoot, an astrophysicist at California’s Lawrence Berkeley Labo ratory, said Thursday that he had found the oldest remnants of the “Big Bang,” the primeval explosion that is be lieved to have created the universe 15 billion years ago. With this discovery, Smoot may have added his name to a very short list of scientists who have changed the way we think about the universe. Some members of this exclusive club include Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein and now, if his claims arc correct, Smoot. But to call a star cluster a star cluster, the reaction to Smoot’s dis covery seems to have been, in a non word, underwhelming. As a scientist finding what some arc calling the “Holy Grail” of cos mology, Smoot must be disappointed by the lack of outcry that has accom panied his discovery. Galileo, for example, was told by the Catholic Church he would have to cither admit that he was wrong about “that planet thing” or lose his golfing privileges at Club Vatican. Galileo’s was an environment a scientist could work in. He faced bodily injury at the hands of religious lead crs who had nothing to fear but knowl edge. God forbid the great unwashed should ever find out Rome was not the center of the universe. Such knowl edge would be bad public relations for the Vatican, pure and simple. So Galileo had something to work for. True, he admitted he was wrong and pul his blasphemous telescope in storage, but his discoveries changed the course of history. For Smoot, things haven’t been as challenging. What Smoot found were slight variations in background radiation emitted by clouds of primeval dust, the largest cloud spanning 10 billion I ighl years, or two-th irds of the known universe. Allow me lo repeat myself: TWO THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE FREAK ING UNIVERSE. These clouds arc the key lo under standing how widely dispersed pri mordial gases produced by the Big Bang coalesced into stars and galax ies and MTV. They also lend credence to the theory that the entire mass of the universe, before the Big Bang, was compressed i nto a sphere smal ler than the period at the end of this sentence. Had Smoot made this claim during the height of the Roman Catholic Church’s influence, he would have These are two rather contrasting theories One puts humans at the center of the universe and the other makes us look more like the scum left over after one drains the bathtub, been bonfire kindling by now. But as far as 1 know, no one has threatened to bum Smoot at the stake for his heretical claims. He probably hasn’t even received a death threat, unless Jim Bakker has telephone privi leges. Twentieth Century America docs not burn its heretics at the stake. It ignores them. Galileo faced ignorance, supersti tion and fear for announcing his dis coveries. Smoot faces all of those things, but he also faces indifference. Ted Koppcl’s “Nighllinc” Friday night was about the implications of Smoot’s monumental discovery. Kopplc began die program by saying “In the beginning ...” Those who translate the Bible lit erally still say God created the uni verse and made Adam out of a lump of clay in six days, Adam being the masterpiece of God’s creation. The Big Bang theory states that the universe as we know it came about in a millionth of a second and man didn’t show up until most of the fireworks wci'e over. In other words, by the lime “Adam” and “Eve” crashed the parly, the keg was almost empty and the really good looking women and men were gone. These arc two rather contrasting theories. One puts humans at the center of the universe and the other makes us look more like the scum left over after one drains the bathtub. Faced with such a spiritual crisis, past generations have filled the streets with rioters quoting the book of Reve lations and tearing their hair out. But Smoot's announcement didn’t even make the lead story of most ! television newscasts. They didn’t have footage. The Big Bang theory isn’t exactly i new. Scientists have been arguing I l about it for years. But they have never I < had this kind of evidence before. ! I As physidfct Joel Primack of the i i University of Califomia-Santa Cruz i said, “It’s one of the major discover ies of the century. In fact, it’s one of the major discoveries of science.” ' And humanity’s response to this news will be lukevtiarm, for a number of reasons. First of all, Americans have grown accustomed to the advances of sci ence. We have made more technologi cal advances in this century than have been made in all the time before it. Discoveries and innovations that would have shaken the foundation of 15th Century Europe don’t even hold our L intcrcst for a weekend. Another reason for the indiffer ence is a presumed lack of practical application. We believe the universe, as a whole, has very little to do w ith our everyday lives. The opening of Euro Disney, on the other hand, af fects us all. On a deeper level, the depressing, post-modernist types had it right when they said humans have become cut off from the bigger questions, the purpose of existence. They say, “God died in 1968, and _l_ —. .La a »/\nl Iti tunc n D * nr j )tan, ju uia) uv nivi v i van) ” w Bang, bul it’s all part of a cold, un feeling universe anyway, so who the hell cares? By the way, have ya seen my cigarettes?” When a televangelist stands up on his pulpit and promises a quick and dirty end to the world with muchas fire and brimstone for the guy who borrowed your snowblower and didn’t return it, people listen. When a headline on page six of the Omaha WorltkJtCTHtd says “Scien tists Find Remnants to Support ‘Big Bang,’ people say, “Well, gee, that was swell of them. Is ‘Cheers’ on?” There’s no point in getting preachy about the lack of interest we show for discoveries such as this. We don’t even get loo excited about rain forest depletion anymore. Smoot probably will win a Nobel Prize for his discovery, and might have the primeval clouds named after him. But thanks to the downright rude indifference of the American people, he probably won’t be burned at the slake. tlrecn Is a senior news-editorial major and a Daily \ebraskan senior reporter and columnist. ‘Men’s movement’ attempt to halt progress 1 was both appalled and disgusted to read Chris Halligan’s April 15 column “Feminism robs masculin ity.” In his attempt to critique the impact of the feminist movement on society, Mr. Halligan mistakenly indites what he perceives is the source of the problem — women. This shal low analysis results in three very poorly constructed arguments against the movement. The first argument is that female empowerment “created a blind cowardice disguised as strength that allowed women to think selfishly, many times without consideration of the effects on other people involved in the marriage.” My interpretation of Mr. Halligan’s argument is that he’s essentially blaming women for leav ing abusive marriages because of the emotional impact on the children. This position is flawed for three rea sons. The first reason is that it as sumes that a woman’s primary social role is to be a mother. I’m sorry Mr. Halligan, but there arc a lot of women who deserve to be considered more than a pair of breasts and ovaries. The second Haw is that he assumes that women who want to escape abusive • marriages arc selfish. This claim is both absurd and also grounded in selfishness. Finally, this argument fails to account for the role of the husband in a bad marriage. Mr. Halligan would have us believe that casual reading of Gloria Slcincm or Shulamilh Firestone caused droves of American house wives to abandon hearth and home to follow the whimsical path of empow erment. In Mr. Halligan’s worldview, the poor, loving, hard-working bread winners arc lell blameless for a disas trous marriage. The second argument Mr. Halli gan advances is that the fcminisl movement has resulted in a new awareness of rape. I’m sorry, but 1 don’t quite see how this is an indict ment of the feminist movement. On the one hand, you praise the move ment for calling our attention to the horrors of rape. Yet, on the olhci hand, you condemn the movemeni for creating a situation in which women abuse this awareness. For example, you assert that “we also have seen clear abuse on the pari of women in dealing with situations of these sorts.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but what “clear abuse” arc you referring to? I understand and sympathize with the confusion thal people must endure when defining appropriate sexual behavior. How ever, blaming women for this confu sion is somewhat foolish. It’s like blaming a victim for not wanting tc be victimized further. Finally, I car ol placing your destiny in the hands of a woman you want to have sex with is effectively mitigated by obtaining hci consent. Mr. Halligan’s final argument is essentially a call to arms for all men who want to regain the masculinity that was robbed from them. Mr. Hal ligan would have us return to a golden lime when “men could depend on women for complete support and recognition of their malcncss.” All of those bad, bad feminists have lost their most potent power — “the in herent male trust of females.” What do you mean by masculinity? The power to exploit sexually and eco nomically? Should we return to the lime in which recognition of malc ncss meant subjugation? Don’t you think that the inherent male trust of females really means that men trust women to be submissive? The call for a men’s movement is a reactionary impulse — an anachronism in an age when the world is beginning to see the dawn of freedom. Whenever a social group faces the imminent loss of its ability to dominate others, its knee-jerk response is to conjure up the demon of tradition to battle against the forces of change. Just as we have been victorious against three horse men of the social apocalypse, so shall the forces of reason prevail against the darkness of gender oppression. Cynthia S/.wapa doctoral student Gay section stereotypical I would like to commend you on he April 23 issue of Diversions — ‘Alternative Nightlife.” It contained t lot of good information, and I rnjoyed it very much. However, ;ome aspects troubled me. I feel that the issue will rein orce anti-gay feelings that some eaders might have. After seeing hecovcrof Diversions, some read ers with anti-gay feelings most likely humbed through the issue looking tt the pictures, not bothering to cad the articles. The point was made that the ‘leather boy” or “drag queen” stere otype might be seen in a gay bar, out that it was not the norm. This was contradicted by the photos, which were very stereotypical in nature. Most of the photos showed either men in leather or men in drag. Also, the statement was made to the effect that homosexuality is a “chosen lifestyle.” Homosexuality is no more a chosen lifestyle than heterosexuality. You would have to be crazy to choose to be gay in our society. Maybe a broader, more com plete view of the gay community can be presented in the future. J.D. Row sc junior art C American Red Cross ^1SfG«WGfS ^ |j “"SSS&SSWj r n f I I 17th & ‘N’ St. No Appointments Necessary ■ 476-9466 | $600 Off ! Full Service Oil Change . 1. ©; Now For $«1 Q95 Only I O (Reg S24 95) I * We change oil, oil filter up to 5 quarts. | * We lubricate the chassis. *We check and fill: transmission fluid, brake fluid, battery fluid, power steering | fluid, and washer fluid. * We check anti freeze, air filter, wiper blades, tire pressure, vacuum Interior, | and wash your windows. a Best Service In Just 10 Minutes I Most brand, available I | Expires 5-8-92 I MorvFrf.