Illlllll II— II '!■■■■—.V‘- - OM _ - ^
Net>raskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jeremy Fitzpatrick.Editor, 472-1766
Kathy Steinauer.Opinion Page Editor
Wendy Mott.... Managing Editor
Todd Cooper....... Sports Editor
Chris Hopfensperger .-. Copy Desk ChieJ
Kim Spurlock. . . .Sower Editor
KUey Timperley. .Senior Photographer
- —r.m
Bold changes
Clinton honest about health care reform
President Clinton addressed some of the toughest issues of his
health-care reform plan directly and honestly Wednesday
night in his speech to a joint session of Congress and the
country.
The speech may have been viewed initially as a pep talk to
push Clinton’s plan, but it did contain hard facts and solid details
about the changes planned and ways to finance them.
Clinton outlined six principles to the proposed health-care
reform: security, simplicity, savings, choice, quality and responsi
bility. Establishing a health-care plan for everyone and saving
money currently wasted through bureaucracy were especially
stressed.
Clinton spoke candidly and openly about the costs of his
proposal for a new system. He said directly that new taxes on
tobacco would be imposed and that some may pay more at first in
the new plan than they would under the current system. For
instance, college students may pay more to help pay for health
care for older, higher-risk members of society.
A change is definitely needed in the current system. The
president urged legislators to keep in mind the citizens who need
a change in health care to stay alive rather than some special
interest groups who benefit from the current system that wastes
money.
The Clintons received more than 700,000 letters telling night
mare stories about the current system that testified that change is
needed to keep Americans healthy. Clinton took the first step to
change boldly Wednesday night.
Sticky situation
U.S. needs to support Russian president
As the United States struggles to address domestic chal
lenges like health care, events half a world away threat
en to prevent America from focusing on reform at home.
In Russia, President Boris Yeltsin suspended parliament and
hard-line lawmakers Tuesday. He called for new elections in
December.
Yeltsin warned that anyone who opposed him would be
“punished by law.”
Russia is now in a state of uncertainty. Yeltsin is battling
with Vice President Alexander Rutskoi for control of the
country. The Associated Press reported Wednesday that
military and police commanders have remained loyal to
Yeltsin.
Armed conflict is quite possible as the situation unfolds. The
destabilized political climate and a faltering economy could 1
produce a spark that would light Russia on fire.
Yeltsin said Wednesday violence would not be necessary.
“We would not like and do not intend to use any force,” he
said. “We want everything peacefully, without blood.”
But the collapse of Russia is a real possibility. Fighting
there could trigger instability all over the world.
The United States can help prevent that by firmly standing
behind Yeltsin and his democratic government. President
Clinton voiced early support for Yeltsin. He should take any
possible action to back Yeltsin’s government.
If civil war breaks out in Russia, the United States would no
longer be able to concentrate on its domestic affairs. Health
care and other domestic programs would have to be delayed in
favor of an international focus.
Staff editorial* represent the official policy of the Fail 1993 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by
the Duly Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the
university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents Editorial cobun ns represent
the opinion of the author The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan They establish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy sat by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely ia the hands of
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes briafletters to the editor foam nil leaden and intaiattsd others.
Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and apace
available. The Daily Nebraakaa retains the right to edit or reject aQ material submitted. Readers
also are welcome to subaut material as guest opinions The editor decides whether material
should run ms guest opinion Letters and guest opinions seat to the newspaper become the
property of the Daily Nebraakaa nod cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be
1 published. Letters should included the author's name, year in school, major and group
affiliation, if any. Roque* s to withhold naases will not be granted Submit material to the Daily
Nebraakaa, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln, Nab. 6858S-044S.
7 gnwma \
Wts
QSfeOf LCTE SINNER
—I I—
Three cheers for Hooters girls
In Friday’s Omaha World-Herald,
one Elmer Pinkerton from
Elmwood writes: “When I see
women complaining that women are
being exploited, I see complainers
who will not and never would fit into
a Hooters girl’s uniform. By their
analogy, any woman who works for
wages is being exploited.”
For once in my life, I am left
speechless by the eloquence of an
editorial statement. Humbled by this
proud declaration, 1 am only able to
respond with these two simple words:
damn right. In our never-ending bat
tle against the evil scourge of liberal
ism that is invading every aspect of
our lives—as well as our campus—
destroying the traditional family,
making us feel responsible, and all
around ruining everybody’s day, it’s
about time that someone stood up
against this fiction called the exploi
tation of women. Way to go, Elmer!
For the life of me, ljust can’t figure
out how anyone in their right mind
could interpret waitresses in tight,
cut-off T-shirts and short shorts as
somehow demeaning to women. For
as long as I can remember, all women
have truly enjoyed dressing up in
sophomoric, restrictive, revealing
outfits. What’s the big deal now? The
feminazisiust warn aU of us upstand
ing, God-rearing, red-blooded Amer
icans to feel guilty about partaking in
a little harmless, wholesome fun. I,
for one, am not buying into it.
And hey, not only is it fun for us,
it’s a hoot for all of those Hooters
girls, too. According to a recent
World-Herald column, DeShawnc
Bird, bartender and assistant manager
ofOmaha’s Hooters restaurant, thinks
that “It’s the funnest place I’ve ever
worked.” Lisa Vleck, a 21-year-old
Hooters girl, says that “The main
thing is that we have a good time.”
And having a good time is what’s
most important, isn’t it? Far be it from
For as long as I can remember,
all women have truly enjoyed
dressing up in sophomoric, re
strictive, revealing outfits. What’s
the big deal now?
me to argue with success. It's not up
to me to pass judgment on these gals
who are just trying to make an honest
living. If they like their jobs and we
like watching them do their jobs, who
minds if it degrades women1? No one * s
making them do it, right?
Critics contend that just because
these girls go about their jobs scantily
dressed, this somehow lowers wom
en’s self-esteem. Far from the truth,
according to the girls that work there.
Twenty-two-year-old Lira Schneider
said, “The first thing 1 thought about
was wearing the uniform. I really
didn’t know what they were. But after
I got here and went through the train
ing, there was nothing wrong about
it.
See? It maybe true that girls might
have reservations about donning the
costumes initially, but after they do it
for a while and get used to it, thev
really forget what they are wearing, ft
doesn’t bother them anymore.
And just think of the important
function the gals serve as role models.
How inspiring it must be for younger
girls in the community to be able to
look up to the Hooters girls for guid
ance. Let’s face it, it’s a rough-and
tumble man’s world out there, and it
isn’t easy for anyone U> make it, let
alone a woman. It must be heart
warming to know that there is a place
in society waiting for them when they
grow up. Or when they look mature
enc *,
re do these people who file
lawsuits against Hooters get off mak
ing all of the trashy comments that
they do? How in the world can these
leftists say that the Hooters girl image
encourages sexual harassment? Un
believable.
First of all, this is, in part, just
another case of male bashing. Why
don't we have the right to ask these
women out if we want to? They are
beautiful, sexy girls. I’m sure that
they really appreciate customers con
stantly coming up to them and telling
them so.
Second, the girls have no responsi
bility to contribute anything to the
overall attitudes between men and
women. Even if wearing skin-tight
outfits did contribute to backward,
sexist, stereotypical images of wom
en as being playthings for men ...
which, of course, is inconceivable...
it isn’t the girls’ fault.
People see what they want to in the
outfits. The girls aren’t there to con
vince you one way or the other. They
are there to make a living.
So for all of you who are sick and
tired of listening to the old, tired
rhetoric of victimization. I’m buying
the next time we go to Hooters for
dinner. In all actuuity, the meals are
excellent. And, of course, the true
reason we all go down there is for the
food.
Right?
Ummtrmam la a Jaator Eagllah ««Jor
a ad Dally Nebnukaa cahwalst.
—
Gun control
Much like A1 Gore, the DN has no
clue what is going on in the real world.
Take crime for instance. The DN
seems to believe gun control would
have prevented the Waco fiasco and
the recent killings in Florida. Bril
liant, guys! Adolf Hitler would agree
w ith you. So would the Chinese Com
munists who murdered the unarmed
students of Tiananmen Sauare. Why
them? Because they were die origina
tors of gun control — not so much in
fear of crime but to perpetuate crime
by the state against its own.
Crime in America has no parallels
with gun use. if it had, why would gun
control have npt been so necessary in
1778 when citizens could possess can
nons? Would David KLoresh have been
a criminal in 1778 for owning guns
and cannons? No, for the Achdles
provision of the 1986 Firearms Act
had not been enacted yet.
Twenty-two states are under court
order to release prisoners premature
ly. A welfare check has caused chil
dren to be bom for money, not love.
And violent crime has increased due
to all these problems and more be
cause liberals like the DN don't warn
to tackle the real issues, so they choose
to blame inanimate objects like guns.
Liberalism is truly the most gutless
choice you can make. So is gun con
trol.
Dustin Ruge
senior
finance
“Entertainment”
Just what does Patrick Hambrecht
find “entertaining” about Joseph Stalin
(DN, Sept. 21)? It must be the 1929
30 rural collectivization in which 1-3
million families died of starvation or
in slave labor camps. Or perhaps he
refers to the purgesof the ’30s. Stalin’s
“exploits” resulted in a much more
impressive Aim of 8 million.
Hambrecht must conclude that the
“Man of Steel” had a dull start in the
'40s. Stalin's invasion of the Baltic
States resulted in only half a million
deportations and deaths. And the
Katyn Forest massacre is numerically
dwarfed by Stalin's earlier adven
tures. Yet the sum of Stalin’s “ex
ploits” are unparalleled, and this must
be why Hambrecht finds Stalin more
“enjoyable" than Adolf Hitler.
Hambrecht, research your impotent
attempts at wit. Those who lost rela
tives to totalitarianism find your igno
rance repugnant.
Karl E. Serbousek
senior
mechanical engineering
