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
