Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (April 12, 1993)
Nebraskan toiionai dOHiu University of Nebraaka-Uncoln 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 “| • Shed old ways Bush’s leftovers hurt Clinton internationally President Clinton could make great strides in his foreign policy image by cutting back George Bush’s failed efforts to get rid of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The new president has enough to worry about on the domestic front without policing an international conflict that Bush helped create. Too many presidents have been doomed by inheriting their predecessors’ dirty deeds. The Great Society programs of Presi dent Johnson that suffered as the Vietnam War captured America’s attention should be evidence enough of the damage a poorly handled foreign conflict can do to a president’s good intentions at home. Ine proper solution to tnc prooiem in Iraq, consiacnng me exchange between U.S. airplanes and Iraqi artillery in the no-fly zone and the image Americans have of Hussein, will be hard to find. But it is apparent that the current program is not working. Last year, the United Stales spent $40 billion — up from $15 million in 1991 — on a CIA-run program to overthrow Hussein. A review of the spending found that much of the money went to groups with little following or support and ineffective propa ganda. By calling Hussein “worse than Hitler,” Bush created an impression in the minds of Americans that the Iraqi leader had to be deposed. When he failed to do that, Bush left a program that is now ripe for abuse. Clinton would do well IQ s^qtidramalically reduce the t program against Hussein arid carc&lly examine all of the covert * programs he inherited from Bush. They are a threat to what the new president hopes to accomplish at home. With each backroom deal President Clinton cuts in an attempt to balance the budget, he comes one step closer to making a mockery of the phrase “shared sacrifice.” The latest onslaught came last week when the administration's spending package was wheeled through Congress in record lime. Ginton compromised significantly on the funding of nuclear energy research and the taxing of energy — two areas he prom ised to stand lough on while campaigning as the environmental president who would stand for the common citizen, not big business. But perhaps the most troubling hint that this administra tion is pursuing business as usual is Ginton’s backpcdaling on his pledge to change dramatically the way federal land is managed. The original budget proposal included provisions to raise live stock grazing fees (they are now minimal) on 280 million acres of public Western range land and to establish royalties for the first time on gold, silver and other metals now mined on public land at no charge. uui auvi nvdi&iu lA^iuutiau laidSAi a wiamui utvi uiv vw nomic cost of such changes, the administration backed down and pulled the plug on the grazing fees and mining royalties portion of the budget package. With that quick white flag, Clinton sent a clear message that he would continue to allow taxpayers’ grass land, water and forests to be exploited by a few special interests at bargain basement prices. What happened to the promise that budget-cutting would be a burden openly shared by everyone? Compromise is a necessary fact of life inside the Beltway if possible stalemate is to be ! avoided. However, in the case of Clinton’s budget plan, one would have to look long and hard to see certain special interests “sharing the sacrifice” with American taxpayers. -Minnesota Daily _ University of Mtowscta property of iJk DiiJy Ndbrukwi And cwmo^bc returned. Anonymous submisjmns will nol be G(M -rjc \iJAn i wvjho. i mess n k omm nm<&. 1 Si ‘Inept editorial’ I was stunned to read the staff editorial “Power struggle,”(DN, April 6), which blindly attacked the Coor dinating Commission for Postsecondary Education. Strong opinions require strong facts to back diem up. Without the facts, all cred ibility is lost, which is exactly what happened in the aforementioned staff editorial. Let’s begin with the question of the peer group debate between the re gents and the commission. The commission’s responsibility, as de nied by Nebraska Statutes, is to de velop a peer group for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, not simply place their stamp of approval on the re gents’ lisL The commission did this. That is, they obeyed the law. Furthermore, the commission was established by a vote of the citizens of Nebraska. The majority of those citi zens spoke, saying in effect that, “Ne braska needs a better way of conduct ing the administration of its postsccondary education.“The inten tional result of that majority vote was the establishment of the commission. So as the DN ’ s staff cd itorial preaches on about the evils of proliferating bureaucracy, it is forgetting that this added bureaucracy is precisely whai the the citizens of Nebraska voted foi and consequently must be respected by those that the decision affects. In closing, there seems to be i general lack of understanding amongsi the students as well as the DN edito rial staff about what it is the Coordi nating Commission actually does Rather than carelessly ramble on in comprehensibly about how bad the commission is, perhaps everybody’; lime would be belter spent (earning about the commission’s role and how it relates to UNL. Itall comes down tc whether the DN is able to make the leap and think on a higher plane. II not, the best the students of UNL car expect is one inept editorial after an other. D. Jay Hoffman junioi economics ‘GONE!’ What were you thinking? Today, on the way to lunch, wc picked up a copy of the Daily Nebras kan off tne stack silling faithfully in the entryway of our class building. Anticipating the laughs provided by “Calvin and Hobbes” and “The Fai Side” and the menial Olympics ol attempting the daily crossword chal lenge over lunch, you can imagine oui distress in Finding two of the best parts of the^DN gone! GONE! What were we going to do now to get our menta thrills for the day? When “Calvin ant Hobbes” was once inadvertently lef out, Mark Baldndge intervened ana added another episode of Calvin and his tiger to the following issue. Could you provide the same justice to Eu gene T. Maleska and Gary Larson? Need we remind you of the purpose of the DN — not only to inform but to amuse. Rebecca Miller senior French Janclle Dietz senior biology r—, 1i James Mehsling/DN t : Student seating Did you bring your binoculars? I : don’t know what they were thinking when they moved the student sections 1 out to the end /ones. I know for a fact that this upsets a majority, if not all, of the students who attend the games. Relocating the students was a bad move. Our fans have a hard enough time getting loud when showing sup port for the Comhuskers. I feel that we, as students, should have the right to be in the front row when supporting our fellow peers who are playing for our school. I have heard the argument that the people who are seated behind the student section cannot handle standing the whole game. This is a very weak reason for moving the stu dents because this is what going to a football game is all about. The next . thing you know, they will want pad ded scats. 1 f people can ’ t handle stand ’ ing for a couple hours, then they should reconsider attending the game. The school can make more money I by moving the students and this is I what really upsets a lot of us because L money is so hard to come by as a Muucni. u seems as n an mis scnooi is interested in is the money. Students have parking tickets, tuition and hous ing that they arc constantly paying the scnooi. I think it is time to consider how the students feel and not think so much about the money. I cannot af ford binoculars or a megaphone. Travis Hopkins freshman general studies Media to blame I would like to commend Gary Young on his article “Talk of trial full of racial biases” (Daily Nebraskan, April 5). He has come out against political correctness. He has stated many true facts about the Rodney King incident that many will not say because of the feared backlash. Many civil right leaders have suggested and even threaten violence if “justice is not served” — guilty verdict They always call for fair trials when blacks are on trial, but now that the situation has changed, they now want an unfair trial or a bias, if you will. The point is that none of us are able to judge this ease. We are not there. We have not heard all of the evidence. We should not judge without hearing the complete story. This concept is called having an open mind. I am not saying they are innocent. Not by a long shot I’m saying nobody outside that courtroom has the right to judge the outcome of this case. This brings me to the point I want to make about the first trial. How many people, if any, saw the footage of Rodney King getting off of the ground and lunging at one of the officers. I never did, before or during the first trial. The media never thought this was relevant to show? They did not state that the case would be hard to gel a conviction on. Same as the cur rent case. It is not an easy case to prove, but the media will not say that. 1 have to blame part of the riots on the media. They do not tell the whole story. The prosecution in the first trial was not trying to prove excessive force. They could have done that eas ily. They gambled with a more seri ous charge, and South Central Los Angeles lost. The fact is the main stream media does not want to be viewed as politically incorrect. They report on the facts they think arc relevant. If the cops are convicted, I hope it is on the merits of the prosecution and not fear of riots. Mark Bunncl senioi computer science