Opinion n#^
\ II ^ lll[ ^1 Waditasday, March 17,1993
Nebraskan
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
Wasting time
Board should focus on quality of choice
Two months ago, University of Nebraska President Martin
Massengale announced that he would not seek a contract
extension when his deal runs out at the end of the year. It
looked as though the university would have plenty of time to find
his replacement before the December deadline.
Unfortunately, the regents once again had to make a mockery
of the university system with their petty bickering and closed
door politics.
Now it seems as though the process to find Massengale’s
replacement has taken a back seat to how long the current presi
dent will stay at the university. Regents Chairman John Payne
proposed that Massengale be given a contract extension until June
1994. That would have eased the transition by not bringing in a
new president in the middle of the school year, and it would have
given the board additional time to get the search process right this
time.
But the regents couldn’t agree on the plan, and they are still
looking for a solution. Now Payne has proposed a plan that would
allow Massengale to retain his post until his replacement is found.
That compromise is sufficiently vague to allow the regents to
continue screwing around while they decide how to fill the
president’s seat.
Payne is correct when he says that it would be better for the
university to have someone in office throughout the process, but
that will not fill Massengale’s chair.
The regents should be more worried about finding a qualified
replacement for Massengale than how long they should keep him
around.
Massengale announced his plan in January. That gave the
regents nearly a full year to find his replacement. Now it’s March,
and the regents don’t look like they are any closer to even looking
for a new president.
Partisan politics
Republicans should pass motor-voter bill
Tuesday marked another defeat for the motor-voter bill and
another notch in the belt of the Republicans who have
consistently opposed it.
The motor-voter bill would allow people to register to vote by
mail and at motor vehicle offices, welfare agencies and many
other places where Americans apply for the benefits and services
of state and local governments.
Tuesday, Republicans in the Senate filibustered the bill.
Democratic attempts to stop the Republicans’ stalling by limiting
debate on the bill fell one vote short.
Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine accused the
Republicans of perpetuating gridlock by stalling and delaying the
bill.
“The problem is those who don’t want the Senate to vote on
this legislation,” Mitchell said. “No one should be fooled or,
misled about who is causing delay.”
Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., answered that the bill was petty. “I
think it is bad legislation, and I hope it goes deservedly down the
drain,” he said.
Chafee and the Republicans are wrong. Voting is not petty. In a
time when only half of the people in the United States vote in
presidential elections, any measure that could improve that
percentage should be welcomed.
The Republicans should gel past partisan politics and do what
is right for the United States — pass the motor-voter bill.
Staff 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 Regenu. Editorial columns represent
the opinion of the author. The regenu publish the Daily Nebraskan. They esublish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the regenu, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
iu 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 reuins 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 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. Requesu to withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to the Daily
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
NOW I ''WfvHT TO
ErtPUHN THE REASONS
'M\N SOU NEED TO
SUPPORT TWS PUS. |
__ BliBiiBkiMiiWirnummiu
Conservatism
Conservatism inconsistent? Decide
for yourself. After 12 years of conser
vative “pro-life,”pro- family values”
presidents, 20 percent of American
children live in poverty, and only 70
percent of our children are fully im
munized against measles, mumps and
rubella. This gives us the third-worst
record in the Western hemisphere. In
1990 alone, 26,000 cases of measles
were reported, mostly in inner cities.
Still there's more: Since 1980, no
progress has been made in the United
States in reducing the number of low
birth weight babies, which are the
result of mothers receiving poor or
inadequate nutrition. (
Even more sad is the fact that the
United States has an infant mortality
rate higher than that of 21 other indus
trialized nations. Black children are
twice as likely to die as white babies.
The 12 years of pro-life presidents left
the inner cities to their own demise
despite high infant mortality rates,
low birth weights and immunization
rates as low as 50 percent.
Pro-life administration? Actions
speak louder than words.
Paul Koester
senior
agronomy
Example
I would like to address Jeremy
Fitzpatrick’s article “Waco proves gun
control needed” (DN, March 19,
1993), because there are several im
portant points that Fitzpatrick skated
over in order to make his own.
The first is that Koresh and his
followers are allegedly armed with
such exotic weaponry as .50-caliber
machine guns and even more power
ful weapons that, Koresh has boasted,
have the capability of stopping ar
mored personnel carriers. Regardless
of what you choose to believe, the
NRA is not at all in favor of America’s
citizenry owning such weapons.
Secondly, the outrageous armory
of the Branch Davidians is what caused
this brouhaha in the first place, not
Koresh’s less-than-emotionally stable
assertion that he is Christ. What do
you think the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms was trying to
serve him a warrant for—spitting on
the sidewalk?
1 think what happened here is that
Fitzpatrick picked a lousy example to
demonstrate the need for gun control.
He should have picked some lone
pyscho who walked into a store,
bought a gun and used it the same day
on a local 7-Eleven, not a fanatical
religious group for whom paramili
tary training and aggressive arms ac
quisition are as much a part of life as
Bible study. I am not necessarily
against gun control in America, but
saying the NRA is responsible for the
situation in Waco is like saying that
the Food and Drug Administration is
responsible for suicides by drug over
dose.
Todd Nelson
senior
Russian and sociology
David Badders/DN
‘Fighting back’
I
I’m writing this letter to let every
one who owns a gun or likes hunting
or shooting for competition know that
we are under attack. The mass media
— NBC, ABC, CBS and the newspa
pers — has declared war on the gun
owners of America. They have some
pretty powerful allies, also. The presi
dent has said he would sign the Brady
Bill if it passes through Congress. The
president's appointee for attorney
general is also an anti-gunner. Sarah
trady and Handgun Inc. have a lot of
clout in Congress.
All who value their Second Amend
ment rights know that gun control is
not crime control. We have to let
people know that there are other wavs
to combat crime. Stiffer penalties for
people who use guns in violent crimes
is just one of the many ways. Most
guns used by criminals are stolen and
not bought legally, anyway. If guns
are taken from honest citizens, then
only the criminals will have guns and
can terrorize anyone, without having
to be worried about someone fighting
back.
Washington D.C. and New York
have the toughest gun-control poli
cies in the country, yet more murders
are committed there with guns than
any other method. Proof that taking
away rights of people to carry guns
only allows criminals to do what they
want. Why not allow more people to
apply few permits to carry concealed
weapons? The police can’t be every
where. More people with concealed
weapons make someone think before
going intoapublic building and shoot
ing people.
The anti-gunners argue that honest
gun owners shouldn’t be upset if we
have to wait to buy a gun. Bull! I
shouldn’t be punished for wanting to
buy something. Would people like a
•seven-day waiting period to buy a
car? Cars kill more people every year
than guns do. How about a seven-day
waiting period on alcohol? Alcohol
contributes to many damaging ac
tions. Although the government tried
that with alcohol — Prohibition —
all it did was make criminals rich.
One last thought: Without the
people who owned guns during the
last time we were fighting for our
independence, we would be part of
the British empire and be singing
“God Save The Queen.” God bless
America! .
Kelvin K. Kreitman
senior
political science
Real newspaper1
In regards to the shooting range
story, “Shooting range cold, hostile
place to be” (DN, March 12,1993):
Once again the DN has shown us
why it is not a real newspaper. This
painfully typical DN article s author
seemed filled with hostility and para
noia toward guns and was unable to
produce an unbiased story. This was a
cheap attempt to scare people away
from recreational shooting while mak
ing some slanderous remarks about a
businessman.
If the'DN editors are unable or
unwilling to separate news and propa
ganda, they should be replaced.
Jon Eggen
senior
biology
Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh serves the pur
pose in our society of “lightening up"
the masses, making them feel OK
with their lack of concern over the
real issues facing our society; plus he
gives them a common enemy that
they have historically had a need for.
Rush assures us that this is all in
good humor, but not (Nice luNe I heard
him speak out for the environment,
women or the poor. I find his jokes
about as funny as racist and sexist
jokes.
Paul Koester
senior
agronomy
