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
