Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 3, 1993)
Opinion Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chris Hopfensperger.Editor, 472-1766 Jeremy Fitzpatrick.Opinion Page Editor Alan Phelps.Managing Editor Brian Shellito.Vi.Cartoonist Susie Arth ....7.Senior Reporter Kim Spurlock.Diversions Editor Sam Kepfield..Columnist Ethanol power Regulations will help agricultural economy While more controversial issues were in the national spotlight this week, President Ginton quietly made a decision that will benefit farmers in Nebraska and the Great Plains. The Ginton Administration last week reinstated more than 100 regulations protecting the use of ethanol-blend gasoline in areas with high smog concentrations. Ethanol is put in gasoline to reduce carbon monoxide emissions, which contribute greatly to smog. The regulations, issued in the final months of the Bush administration, have been held up by Ginton pending their final review. Lobbying from farm-state senators — in particu lar Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin — saved the program. Some environmental groups objected to the use of ethanol in gasoline, claiming that ethanol’s faster evaporation rate in creases — rather than lessens — the smog problem. The new regulations will almost certainly face continued opposition from oil companies during the period of public comment. The new lease on life for ethanol comes as welcome news for Nebraska and Iowa farmers. Ethanol, distilled from com, creates revenue for farm statcVlikc Nebraska. Ethanol production used 400 million of the 9.4 billion bushels produced by U.S. farmers in 1992. By 1995, the ethanol program could consume 800 million bushels of com. The end result would be the addition of revenue into a farm economy that sorely needs help for rural development. Time for sacrifice Budget needs to be trimmed to cut deficit When President Clinton gave his inauguration speech, he was praised for asking Americans to work and sacrifice to make the United States a better country. Now that sentiment is facing its first test. The Clinton adminis tration has suggested that cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients might have to be limited because of budget constraints. The immediate reaction from some was predictable. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Clinton’s proposal wouldn’t make it past his committee. Moynihan called the proposal a death wish. General reaction has been less extreme. The lack of a public uproar may indicate that for the first time since 1983, a cut in the cost-of-living increase for Social Security may actually pass this year. Social Security is an important and valuable program, and it should not be cut unnecessarily. But in a time of great budget constraints, cutting a cost-of-living increase is not too much to ask. The larger issue behind the Social Security proposal is how Americans will react to the real need for cuts in federal programs in order to trim the ballooning federal debt. Other programs must also be evaluated to sec if they have room to be trimmed as well. Will we be able to sec beyond the narrow constraints of our individual needs to sec the larger issue of the future of the coun try? That is what we praised Bill Clinton for suggesting at his inauguration. Whether we are willing to back up our praise with our actions will be clear in the upcoming months when hard decisions have to be made. Suff editorials represent the official policy of the Pall 1992 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by , the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. Editorial columns represent the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its students The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others. Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject all material submitted. Readers also are welcome to submit material as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material should run at a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions tent to the newspaper become the property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Letters should included the author’s name, year in school, major and group affiliation, if any. Requests to withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. mv WK, -NOT ( SoUiHC, WhO V4t LOOKUP ^ seKRS CKTM-06^ I ' Passion doesn’t strike in battle I’ve never been in a life-threat ening situation where my sur vival depended on someone nearby. Crouching in a rain-soaked hole in some distant republic with a hoard of armed zealots who think I’m the devil and are trying to kill me, for example. I can’t fathom anything more stimu lating. I’m sure that I could think of noth ing else except how to seduce the person next to me. I would be so preoccupied with having sex that I couldn’t be bothered with trifling de tails like how to keep from gelling incinerated, blown up, perforated or otherwise dismembered. I wouldn’t be wasting time franti cally invoking the gods of all reli gions to let me live. I wouldn’t be grappling with any moral reluctance about killing someone, or wondering if the person next to me could kill someone. I’d be thinking, “What a nice time for a nude frolic!” Actually, I’d be welting my pants and citing hysterically. Evidently there are those in the armed forces who believe that gay people arc I ikely to be sexually aroused in the hysteria of battle. My, what big nerves of steel they must have. The military isn’t all combat, of course, and the experience includes serious discipline, inhumane endur ance and humiliation. People form close relationships when they survive the military together. Some of my father’s closest friends were sailors with him 50 years ago. The camaraderie of military life is being exploited to defend banning gay people from serving, and men have raised more objections than women. The most obvious reason is that women are still fighting for their privilege to serve, and they under stand all too well the battle of exclu sion. Another factor in the relative si I would be so preoccupied with having sex that I couldn’t be bothered with trifling details like how to keep from getting inciner ated, blown up, per forated or otherwise dismembered. lence of servicewomen on the ban ning of gay people from the military can be summed up nicely in a word: Tailhook. Unwanted (i.e. disgusting, violent, revolting) sexual advances have been a part of women’s lives since we smashed grain with stones. Men don’t share our few thousand years of cop ing experience. Public opinion forced the disci pline of officers who al lowed service men to assault servicewomen at the Navy’s Tailhook convention. The of fenders may have learned that the public objected to their behavior, but they probably don’t fully understand the consequences of their actions. I’d suggest a forced march in loose boxer shorts through the bars of Castro Street with a carte blanche grope for the patrons. Tailhook rem inds us that there are, indeed, perversions of camaraderie in the military. The digression results from individual decisions. The prohi bition of a gender, a persuasion, or a race from the military service consti tutes an evasion of responsibility. Responsible behavior separates us — ever so slightly — from chimpan zees. A straight male can just as easily decide not to molest a woman as a gay male can decide not to molest a man. It’s quite simple. We call it being civilized. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin was asked on “Face the Nation” if the conflictof lifting the ban would over shadow more important issues. Sec retary Aspin observed that the social problems of the military arc the social problems of the nation, and they would not d isappear. He said that his job is to find out how to lift the ban without endangering anyone. While our incredibly expensive military grapples with the animal of prejudice, Hussein is rolling his mis siles into the U.N. no-fly zone and Bosnian women are being subjected to an organized Serbian rape pro gram. The irony of allowing gay people to serve in the military is that they have always served. They simply served in silence. President Clinton’s lifting of the ban reflects the very basis of civil rights, that “people shall be judged by the content of their character.” For thousands of individuals, lift ing the ban will mean lifting a veil of secrecy. It will mean that they can function without the dead weight of fearing exposure and losing every thing. For some, the change will be diffi cult. Others will simply refuse to ac cept it. A word of advice for those men who fear becoming a gay man’s ob ject of desire while pinned in a fox hole: Don’t be so provocative. McAdams is a sophomore news-editorial major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. — Education Sam Kepfield’s most recent mas terpiece (DN Jan. 28, 1993) claims that assimilation of minorities is the key to success in America, not multicultural education. Sam mea sures success in monetary terms, and claims that multiculturalism is based on dealing with feelings, which dis tracts children from becoming good citizens because they have less time for reading, math and most impor tantly, American indoctrination, I mean history and culture. Sam, look at our inner cities once again and tell us that denying minori ties an education in their history and culture turns out good citizens. Don’t you think if we spent some time on children's feelings about themselves there might be less violence and an ger? Wouldn’t minorities have an easier time integrating into our soci ety if white children were taught to be tolerant and understanding of minori ties? Paul Koester senior agronomy Help Kathy Steinaucr (DN, Jan. 29, 1993) seems to think the pro-life movement’? time and money would be better spcnt“on the starving, home less, dying people that surround us and really need our help.” She sug {jests we begin with the money col ectcd in the Catholic Church’s “One Rose, One Life” campaign. If Slcinaucr is so concerned about people who “really need our help," perhaps she should donate lime or money to Catholic-led charities like Covenant House, Boys Town and Catholic Social Services. Does Slcinaucr think the soup kitch ens, homeless shelters and AIDS hos pices of this country arc being run by the National Abortion Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood and the Fund for a Feminist Majority? She would probably be shocked to find many of them arc operated by churches — Catholic and otherwise. Joe Luby senior history, English and math