■ Nebraskan
Monday, Aprils, 1993
m_^■Ri
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
Showing support
United States should provide Russia aid
Despite the desperate state of the domestic economy,
President Girtton is making a wise investment by deciding
to offer Russia a generous aid package.
Ginton recognizes that the United States should do what it can
to help the suffering people of Russia as the country struggles
mrougn us iransiuon 10
democracy. The $1 billion aid
package he offered Russia at this
weekend’s summit in Canada is
a fitting gesture to help feed the
starving people in Russia.
But the Clinton
administration admits that the
package is much more than a
humanitarian gesture. It is also
an investment in the future of
Russian President Boris Yeltsin,
who has struggled recently with
the hard-line Communists in the
Russian Parliament.
The United States should
do whatever it can to support
Yeltsin, his fledgling democracy
and the other nations emerging
from the former Soviet Union.
For years, the United Stales has
tried to push its democratic
domino on the Soviet bloc. Now
i that the first chips have started
1 to fall, the president should do
what he can to continue that
momentum.
Equally important are the savings that sharing the world with
another democratic superpower would bring to both countries.
Not having to worry about protecting the United States from a
huge enemy will allow the presidents of both countries to
concentrate on domestic ills. It will also guarantee that the money
the government does spend is not wasted. A large humanitarian
investment now could save billions of dollars in defense spending
in years to come.
But the results of a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll show
Ginton may have a much more difficult time convincing
Americans that the aid plan — which will also cover the Ukraine
and other parts of the former Soviet Union — is a worthwhile
venture. The survey found 80 percent of Americans opposed
increased aid to Russia; 56 percent doubt that supporting Russian
democracy would reduce U.S. military spending; and 55 percent
said additional funds would not help Russia move toward
democracy.
The aid package has a few less obvious benefits as well. The
plan Ginton proposed will give the new president a good
opportunity to gain experience in foreign relations. It will be the
president’s first major test of foreign-policy ability, an area of
inexperience that former President Bush pressed during the
election.
Continuing support for the move toward democracy will also
help relations with the new nations. That movement was
immediately obvious in the focus of this weekend’s summit. For
the first time since the U.S.-Soviet summits began in 1959, the
leaders of the two nations were able to sit down and concentrate
on something other than nuclear weapons.
SulT 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 orthe 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 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
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 Nebraska) 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 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 granted. Submit material to the Daily
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
'MtU. WU-LO
E.ORW. ...
-G£>un,noe
UjOR
terr*^
v^CAJNEEP
M EtlRK 6W»
W*»J --
'MElCOWE.
<d
-1 I-•
‘Fools’
I would like to express my opinion
on your April Fool’sexlra in the Daily
Nebraskan. I think you can take out
the April and call yourselves fools.
I’m not going to get into any specifics,
but some of your humor did not belong
in a campus newspaper, rather it
belonged in a pornography magazine.
I’m sure you thought it was all in fun,
but I feel it was very tasteless. I guess
this is what I have grown to expect
from the DN after other tasteless
articles and pictures.
I probably would not have thought
twice about it and just thrown the
paper away as usual, but April 1 -2 was
the stale Future Farmers of America
convention. Thousands of high school
kids from around the state were on
campus during this time and I’m sure
many of them had extra lime on their
hands to read the DN. I do not think
too many teachers or parents from
around the state really appreciate your
humor, either. I think you need to get
your act together.
David M. Fiala
senior
agribusiness
Parody
The “parody” of the Daily
Nebraskan (DH, April 1, 1993) was
the most tasteless, crude, lewd,
scatological, testosterophilic,
misogynistic, sophomoric,
frcshmoric, hctcronormal, specicsist
assemblage of drivel I have ever read.
Uh, you gonna publish another one
real soon?
Henry Eugene Brass
Lincoln
Clinton
God bless Bill Clinton! At last we
have a president who dares to dip into
the pockets of the rich capitalists who
pull the strings of our politicians.
Not only must we lax the rich
heavily but we the people must stop
our sheep-like attitudes and cease the
tolerance of soc iall y acceptable whi te
collar crime. Wc must quit allowing
landlords to steal deposits from the
poor, as well as make insurance
companies pay on claims instead of
forcing those with valid claims to
fight a losing battle in court against
their well-paid (and therefore more
represented and influential) lawyers.
We must prevent corporations from
polluting our en vironmen t and gelling
us involved in wars. Defense
contractors must be stopped from
bui Iding weapons of mass destruction
in the guise of providing American
jobs. We must stop the filthy rich,
corporate farmers from wiping out
the family farm. Cigarettes and booze
companies must be held accountable
for literally pushing their legal, socially
acceptable drugs. The list goes on and
on.
Paul Koester
senior
agronomy
Opinions
As I read Gary Young’s column on
the nature of contemporary politics
(DN, March 29,1993), I was struck by
the unique perspective he presents.
Although Young does raise some
interesting points, his column
firovokes me to point out the
imitations of his views of American
culture toward the political process.
I hope that Young, both as a
journalist and and as a law student,
recognizes that the heart of our
political process lies in the virtue
upon which that process is built:
freedom of expression. As much as
any of us would rather have it, in order
to assure that our own voices arc
heard in the political arena, we have
to be willing to allow the voice of
opposition to be heard. Of course, this
freedom is conditional, but more on
that later.
Despite what Young may believe,
1 truly doubt that the columns and
cartoons of other journalists arc
swaying America from religion.
Religion in general, and Christianity
in particular, have a firm grasp on our
society and our culture. For better of
for worse, religion has a role in our
country.
Young points to the murder of Dr.
David Gunn and the bizarre and rather
stupid assertion of New York Times
columnist Anthony Lewis that the
murder reflected the mainstream anti
abortion movement. He also
recognizes the equal I y stupid opin ions
of leaders of Operation Rescue and
others in the anti-abortion movement,
who took the stance that although
Gunn’s murder was wrong, they view
him as a mass murderer and somehow
that makes Gunn’s murder OK.
These are opinions of other citizens.
Not agreeing with them doesn’t
invalidate them. Only if a large number
of the citizens of America push to
have their representatives pass laws
based upon these opinions arc they
going to have much political
significance. This holds true for the
standoff in Waco, Texas and the
bombing off the World Trade Center.
Our culture and our political system is
based on people spouting off their
opinions on these and other issues. If
people choose to agree or disagree
with them is a matter of personal
choice.
Young seems to suggest that if we
all thought alike on moral issues
(which sounds like, in Young’s
context, a plea for us all to become
Christians) we could resolve these
differences and get on with our lives.
The fact is that America is, and has
from its creation, been comprised of a
diversity of people. Since the time of
its creation the diversity has grown in
size, composition and complexity. In
a country like ours, agreement is
neither achievable, nor really
desirable. What may be moral
perfection to my mind, being a smart
mouthed, liberal, atheist college senior
in Nebraska, may be evil incarnate for
a well-spoken, conservative, Bjuddnisl
mother of four in Ohio.
At tne very ncan 01 wnai maxes
America significant in terms of
freedom, and what Young seems to
have a problem with, is the freedom of
the citizens to express themselves. I’d
be both naive and incorrect to believe
that freedoms are without limit.
Freedom of speech and freedom of
expression arc limited by the U.S.
Supreme Court, and as a law student
Young should recognize that. Wc
certainly don’t have the freedom to
compromise the security of the
government, nor to harm other
persons. The recent offenders in this
are the cultists in Texas, the bombers
of the World Trade Center and the
murderer of Gunn, not the media who
react to these events, nor other
members of the religious organization
unrelated to these events.
I personally would prefer to have
the media blitzkrieg surrounding the
events of the past month. I'll put up
with any anti-abortion ignoramus long
before I’ll allow fear of confl ict cower
me into giving up my own right to
make moral judgments. The real key
to making America’s political process
work lies in the intelligence and
diligence of its citizenry. Americans
need to be bright enough to listen to
what is being said and evaluate it
rationally. Rationality, similar to
beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
James A. Zank
senior
art and English