Nebraskan
TuMday, February 23,1993
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Chris Hopfensperger...
Jeremy Fitzpatrick..
Alan Phelps...
Brian She llito..; .
Susie Arth.....
Kim Spurlock...
Sam Kepfield...
I 1)1 I (>KI \l
... .Editor, 472-1766
Opinion Page Editor
.. .Managing Editor
.Cartoonist
,... Senior Reporter
,.. Diversions Editor
.Columnist
Going to waste
Re lief funds poured into secret program
As southern Florida slowly rebuilds in the wake of Hurricane
Andrew and while the West Coast tries to dry out from its
wettest winter in years, it is reassuring for Americans to
find out that their federal disaster-relief dollars have been spent
wisely during the Reagan-Bush years.
I/\ccoramg 10 a siory
from the Cox News Service,
the Federal Emergency
Management Agency — the
federal agency responsible for
< responding to natural disasters
- —has poured $1.3 billion into
a secret program to protect
America’s leaders in case of
nuclear war instead of helping
out in actual disasters.
The Mobile Emergency
Response Support program
was started early in Ronald
Reagan’s first term to replace
the even further outdated plan
of presidential bomb shelters.
The plan, which sounds like
the plot for a 1950s “B”
David Badders/DN movie, was to keep high-level
officials moving around the country in a self-supporting caravan
to make them a tough target for Soviet missiles. Strangely
enough, the whole thing was hatched with the help of America’s
most trusted servant, Lt. Col. Oliver North.
The five mobile units include, among other antiquated ideas:
• a variety of classified communications gear, including a 24
ton truck with a pop-up satellite dish;
• a semi filled with enough military meals, water and other
supplies to sustain 50 people for 10 days;
• a fuel tanker that can siphon diesel fuel from the gas stations
that make it through the nuclear blast.
The personnel required to maintain the program is more
depressing. One-third of FEMA’s staff is dedicated to working on
the secret project. That is three times as many people designated
to work on actual disasters. And not even the FEMA employees
sent to help after Hurricane Andrew knew what the agency was
capable of because of the high level of secrecy surrounding the
project.
But the worst detail of all is the budget. For every dollar spent
on an actual disaster over the last 10 years, $12 have been sucked
into the program to keep the government running after a nuclear
holocaust. The budget request has slipped through every year on
one line labeled “submitted under a separate package.” What the
package is, apparently, remains to be seen.
The effects of this type of spending became clear after Hurri
cane Andrew. When city officials in Florida asked for hand-held
radios to take the place of their downed phone system, they
received “high-tech vans capable of sending encrypted multi
frequency messages to military aircraft halfway around the
world.”
Government waste is nothing new, but it has become painfully
obvious in recent months that this is exactly the kind of bureau
cratic nonsense that Americans are tired of. If President Ginton
expects everyone to stomach a tax increase, he would do well to
hunt down this kind of government waste and kill it.
I 1)11 OKI \| Pol |< '>
Staff editorials represent the official policy of the Fall 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 regenu publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise die daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the regenu, responsibility for the editoriid content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
iu students.
H Pol l< ^
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 rejecUll material submitted. Readers
also are welcome to submit material as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material
should run as a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the
property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot he reamed. Anonymous submissions will not be
published. Letters should included the author’s name, year in school, nuyor and group
affiliation, if any. Requests to withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to the Dsily
Nebraskan. 34 Nebraska Union. 1400 R St.. Lincoln. Neb, 685S&444S.
U I I I RS TO I 111 Kl)l I OK
Science
I wish to respond to Gary Young’s
article, “Church, Science need to
Unite” (DN.Fteb. 22,1993).
First Young needs to learn a basic
fact about writing: Defining what it is
you are writing about is essential.
What exactly is this “lawlessness” he
writes about? Lack of laws in a secular,
ecclesiastical, or scientific sense? The
term lawlessness is vague and without
a clear definition of it his “argument”
that church and science should join
forces is worthless. '
And aside from the fact that Young
can’t write his way out of a wet paper
bag, his article is flawed anyway. For
science never claims to say what is
true; just what can be reproduced
under controlled conditions. So the
difference between the system of belief
afforded by science and the system
afforded by the church is this: science
believes something to be true after
careful testing the thing and with the
provisio that should tests show a
contradiction with other “known”
things then the theory w ill be modified
so no contradictions exist under all
tests, whereas the churches system of
belief is simply that some holy text
tells us all we need to know and all
that is true and we don’t need to ask
any questions.
It took the Catholic Church almost
50 years to admit it wrongly
persecuted Galileo for his question
about church doctrine. Science needs
the church like I need lung cancer.
Young should write about things
about which he knows more.
' Bob Moyer
graduate student
mathematics
‘Ignorant letter’
I would like to say a few words to
Dallas Beshaler about his letter (DN,
Feb. 22, 1993) regarding
homosexuality. Once again, I have
I ---
read an ignorant letter from someone
who fails to realize that homosexuality
is not a choice. A homosexual person
cannot one day decide to become
heterosexual. One’s sexual
preferences are not chosen like a
political party.
Could you someday decide to be
homosexual? I imagine this would be
unthinkable for you. As far as the
military, you say you want “the best
military we can have.” Do
heterosexuals necessarily make the
best soldiers? You seem to have this
notion that all heterosexuals are these
weak, timid men and women. I bet If
you lined up 20 people you couldn't
tell their sexual preferences.
You are right about our country
having a powerful military, due in
part to many homosexual men and
women serving right now. Maybe none
of these soldiers have announced their
preferences for fear of being
persecuted.
Your comments on the Amendment
Two controversy in Colorado are 100
percent incorrect. I am from Colorado
so maybe I should clarify the issue for
you. The cities of Denver, Boulder
and Aspen voted a law into their
books making it illegal to discriminate
against a person because of their sexual
preference. This is the same law that
protects a person from discrimination
because of race, sex, etc. All of these
categories are similar in that they are
not chosen by anyone. The reason
these three cities enacted this law was
because homosexuals who served
companies faithfully for many years
were being fired because someone
found out they were homosexual.
Amendment Two came after this and
is a state law saying that no city can
enact laws which give special rights
to homosexuals.
The amendment was worded on
the ballot as saying homosexuals
would receive “special rights” which
scared many voters who thought
homosexuals would get away with
murder if the bill passed. I do not
believe that any group should have
special privileges. However,everyone
should be allowed the basic rights
described in our Constitution. That is
what Denver, Boulder and Aspen were
trying to accomplish.
Finally, you say that you do not
want homosexuality to be ^introduced
as a natural and normal part of society.”
Who are you to say what is normal?
Russell R. Worth
junior
arts and sciences
Praise
I praise President Clinton forlifting
the ban on gays in the military. His
deed is commendable and his words
most praiseworthy. Aside form
banishing discrimination against gays
in the military, the disease of
homophobia will be made equal to
racism and all other forms of injustice.
American gays, irrespective^their
sexual orientation, are entitled and
deserving of the same right to “life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”
as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Or is this phrase applicable only to
heterosexual Americans? Further, the
axiom “taxation without
representation” isaplausible argument
on behalf of the gay citizenry. We
hold strongly to these rights. Their
violation is against democracy and
outright un-American.
And what of the military chain-of
command? Is it not obligated to defend
the ideals inherent in our great
Constitution? Are “all men are created
equal,” or is the principle intended
only for heterosexual members of our
democracy? I implore the Congress to
legislate for full rights for the gay
population, and to get with the times
of progressive change. I demand the
country to expedite equal rights for
gay Americans in this decade of the
gay nineties of the 20th century.
Alexis Wolf
Lincoln resident
■ i... ■ —i
P.S. Write Back
artklerf^tHkAWantS l° hCa^ fr0m, yOU* If you want to voicc y°ur °Pinion about an
it (don't foreetwMir SfnSESSS..^ "a kn°^-‘ Ju8t writc a bricf lcttcr to thc editor and siSn
1 mai U l°thc Dai,y Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union,
Uirionand'vfrinlSS'us. Jre^alfears ** stop the off,ce >" the basement of the Nebraska
jL
i
