Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 10, 1993)
OPTNTON Neffiskan \^/| 1 1 IV JY H Wednesday, March 10,1993 Net?raskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chris Hopfensperger...Editor, 472-1766 Jeremy Fitzpatrick..Opinion Page Editor Alan Phelps. Managing Editor Brian Shellito..Cartoonist Susie Arth. Senior Reporter Kim Spurlock...Diversions Editor Sam Kepfield....Columnist Vote PARTY Its candidates more likely to bring change There is no clear, coherent choice for this year’s president of the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska. Nor has there been a clear, coherent campaign. That makes it difficult to decide what the candidates of VOICE and PARTY stand for. It makes it nearly impossible to make an informed decision when heading to the ballot box. But the Daily Nebraskan editorial board thinks the most intelligent decision in this year’s ASUN elections is a vote for PARTY. Steve Dietz, Leslie Strong and Matt Maser got off to a late start in this year’s campaign, but they have the ideas and the personal abilities necessary to lead this campus. PARTY’S platform lacks the smooth polish that months of political planning would have brought. But several elements — including the campaigning, issues and candidates of a normal ASUN election — have been missing from the process leading to the election of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s next student regent. The campaigning that did go on was almost completely behind the scenes. PARTY’S candidates admit that they did not begin this race in complete seriousness. But that has changed since they realized they were VOICE’S only competition. Unfortunately, VOICE’S candidates were already well on their way to a solid block of support and strong name recognition throughout the greck system. VOICE has managed to grab the spotlight. But that has more to do with the fact that they out-spent PARTY by almost $2,000 in the campaign. Spending $2,500 to get elected to student govern ment is ridiculous. There has also been little discussion of the issues this year. Granted, there were three debates. But the audiences were packed with VOICE and PARTY supporters. The questions the audience asked were staged and meaningless, as were the answers the candidates produced. VOICE has been trumpeting its diverse slate of senatorial candidates throughout the election, despite the fact that it has no minority students. PARTY’S slate, likewise, is lily-white, but its candidates have not been boasting about how hard they worked to come up with a strong slate. But the most notable absence from the campaign has been VOICE’S presidential candidate. Keith Bcncs missed the second debate after suffering a concussion in a car accident last week. While recovering, Bcncs missed VOICE’S meeting with the Daily Nebraskan’s editorial bo^d and the third and final debate. He even missed the party’s campaign kickoff last month because of illness. It would be pure folly for UNL students to elect a president they have never seen. Steve Dietz, PARTY’S presidential candidate, is not perfect. But he does have four years of experience in ASUN, while Bencs has none. Dietz is a far cry from the polished, practiced members of VOICE. That could be a positive, however. He has promised to make ASUN more accessible to students, and his down-to-earth manner might actually make that goal reachable. There is no clear choice in this year’s ASUN election. Voting for VOICE is voting for more business as usual in ASUN. That would be a mistake. PARTY isn’t perfect, cither. But Dietz, Strong and Maser are sure to change ASUN and could bring it closer to students. That possibility alone is reason enough to vote for PARTY. 1 Suff editorials represent the official policy of the Spring 1993 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 use 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 iu students. ■■i ii.. ....in »■ -.— - ■■■. ■■ -■1 The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from ail readers and interested others. Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, time! mess and space available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or rejecudl material submitted. Readers also are welcome to subnut 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 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 grunted. Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union. 1400 R St., Lincoln. Neb. 68588-0448. 1 fAKS ViCST l RENA-S ^ CRRW*, W W &ONUN 'WRttE. S'ku. K'ncwtt TO <;E£ HttA. IP £ L Smoking Chas Baylor (DN, March 8,1993) makes a good point — that smokers use their paraphernalia to express themselves. No doubt this is why their weird smell-o-vision trips require an audience. But he doesn’t quite gel it. Why is it so hard to understand that most people just don’t want to inhale poi son over and over again? If a diesel bus backed up to my window and piped exhaust fumes inside, would you call me arrogant and condescend ing if I insisted it get away from me? I don’t care if people want to suck hot tar, arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, ammonia, acetone, hydrogen cyanide and a mere few thousand other deadly chemicals deep into the delicate or gan that sustains their life, but keep it out of my lungs. It gives me a splitting headache and makes me feel like throwing up: a perfectly normal reac tion, it seems to me. When I see someone smoking, I picture them with a baby’s pacifier in their mouth. I wonder why it is they are so uptight about that they can’t handle without doping themselves. How do the rest of us cope with life? Not generally by spewing carcino gens into the common air, at least not under the guise of self-expression. The silliest sight ever is a new smoker posing and posturing. I won der how rational humans can fool themselves into thinking it*s cool or expresses anything but “I am a hung up drug addict” Puritan, my foot! Let me say it again: I don’t care if smokers want to maim themselves in droves; I just want them to do it somewhere so I don’t have tojoin their folly—or pay for their hospital care. Smokers ’ dead ened sense of smell makes them un aware that it stinks to high heaven. Finally, it is no coincidence that Humphrey Bogart died of lung can cer. Oh well, a painful, premature, protracted death is a liny price to pay for self-expression. But if it’s all the same to smokers, leave me out of it. Judy Sing Lincoln ‘Aesthetics’ Chas Baylor's letter (DN, March 8,1993) presented a view of smoking I was not all that familiar with — smoking as an aesthetic statement. But then I remembered how Oscar Wilde was inspired by the divine beauty of smoking. Of course, Oscar Wilde was also someone who held aesthetics above ethics. Not wishing to be considered some puritanical iconoclast with no appre ciation for aesthetics, I suppose lcould be persuaded to case up on my slightly righteous attitude toward tobacco smoke. To be honest, 1 do enjoy a faint aroma of expensive pipe tobacco, but I doubt my eyes and asthmatic lungs could ever easily tolerate the fumes ot cheap cigarette smoke. I only wish the rest of us could indulge in other pleasures and bodily functions with the freedom tobacco smokers have, whether or not they have aesthetic value. Philip Nielsen junior English David Badders DN ‘Expression’ On March 8,1 picked up a copy of the Daily Nebraskan to see how stu dents were exercising their freedom of expression—in other words, I read the editorial section. I was appalled, then angry and finally amazed that Chas Baylor (DN, March 9, 1993) would so openly admiito being sucked into Hollywood’s not-so-secret at tempt to get people to believe that the art of smoking is “thoughtful, serene, nonchalant,’’ or even sillier, “sexy.” You were right, Baylor, to say that smoking conveys an attitude of reck lessness. It is pretty reckless to fool around with your health in such a manner. I, being one of those “anti-smok ing do-gooders” (and a struggling ex smoker) disagree that smoking is ever an “eloquent” act of self-expression. I also think it is ludicrous to compare yourself to a Hollywood actor just because you light up. My mother, a long-time smoker, never looked glamorous when she lit a cigarette, and believe me, the only famous actor she ever compared to might have been Yul Brenner, as they were both completely bald at the time of their deaths. My mother’s baldness was due to the unglamorous side ef fects of radiation chemotherapy. It’s also interesting to note Yul Brenner continued his anti-smoking campaign even after his death through ads on television. Ashes, yellowed nails, bad breath, coughing and second-hand smoke arc not eloquent. As for your statement about the association between smoking and “strong class overtones,” it is without a doubt the lower and middle classes that suffer the most from outrageous health care costs, caused in large pan by all the disease and illness that result either directly or indirectly from smoking. And, as you point out, if people “enjoy” smoking so much, why do most smokers try to quit this form of self-expression at some point? I don’t deny that smoking is a right or a “legitimate” form of self-expres sion, but let’s name it what it really is — disgusting, costly and deadly. Sarah Lintz Lincoln 1992 UNL graduate human development ‘Speech’ In the March 8, 1993 DN, Chas Baylor wrote a letter to the editor which was quite interesting. In es sence, he argued: the First Amend ment protects speech, smoking is speech, thus the First Amendment protects smoking. I would Tike to re spond to this assertion. In order to be speech for the pur poses of the First Amendment, a two part test must be met: first, the speaker must intend to communicate a mes sage, and second, a responsible ob server would understand the expres sion as communicative speech&on ducL in support oi ms argument, oayiur made several points, such as: Smok ing is self-expression. Cigarettes con vey recklessness, intensity and non chalance. Or, for pipes, thoughtful ness, serenity, social understanding and stability arc trails. For cigars, power, success and indifference are identifiers. 1 will grant this to Baylor: in some of the examples smoking was an in tentional message. Unfortunately, it can hardly be said that every person who smokes is attempting to to con vey a message. The average smoker that I know is usually addicted to nicotine, enjoys the feel of smoke, and likes the buzz. It’s like a good beer. Should smoking dope to express one’s disapproval of elitists be free expression? Should shooting heroin to express disapproval of homelessness be free expression? There are limes when I might be able to identify a message conveyed by an average smoker. For* instance, when a person smokes because they are nervous. Once again, however, I doubt that every time a person smokes, a reasonable observer would be able to identify a message. And, for those persons you mentioned — Mao, Bogart, or a feminist — well, not everyone can be them. David Hosmer law student