Commentary
Wednesday, January 18,1995 Page 5
Findyourself. notsomeoneelse
For the sake of my dear mother,
yes, I plan on getting married and
maybe — because grandchildren
seem to be critical for her to have a
fulfilling adult life — I can commit
to a kid, most likely via adoption.
This, however, is positively a
premature thought.
My hang-up currently lies in the
utter uneasiness that comes across
me when thinking about marriage.
Why is it that so much discussion
among college women (and men,
though I more often fall privy to
the typical girl-talk scenario)
revolves around getting married?
Why are we in such a hurry?
If, statistically, we’re getting
married in the early to mid-20s and
50 percent of us are getting a
divorce, doesn’t it seem possible
that age might be a large part of the
problem?
It seems to me that the more
independent years we have, the
more time we have to figure out
what we want and/or need in order
to make a better... well, a better
decision. I know it sounds cold and
unromantic, but it’s the most
logical choice considering the
percentages we’re facing.
Why can’t women take their
time and get their professions
started, instead of feeling this
social obligation to produce
children right away? Why don’t
men focus on their careers instead
of committing to a family or having
to produce — money, that is —
right away?
I’m simply endorsing the self
centered “Generation X” character
istic we’ve already given — it’s
OK to be a little self-oriented at our
age. Figuring out our career goals
is enough of a stress, not ter
mention grades, school, work arid
Lara Duda
money. Why add these metaphysi
cal, emotionally draining serious
relationships with the intent of the
M-word?
I mean, yes, I understand the
beauty of love, or at least I can be
categorized as one of the many
confused, but nevertheless romanti
cally passionate, magnets for the
feeling. I can understand hanging
out, having fun, getting to know the
opposite sex (or for that matter,
realizing the opposite sex isn’t for
you), but why not in a casual and
less-pressured learning experience
situation?
And then there’s sex. Ah, how it
makes me want to find the next guy
I fall in love with, go get tested and
cling to him until at least meno
pause.
Yes, our sexual world is defi
nitely a contradicting force to my
belief, but really, it shouldn’t be.
I’m not saying jump around from
“love” to “love” until you find your
sexual inner self. Although if I
could disregard humans as a part of
the animal kingdom, I would say
that sex, too, is more of an emo
tional hassle and should be dealt
with after we get our other emo
tional baggage sorted out. But
notice how quickly I digress.
I’m saying that despite the
physical aspect of a relationship
and the precautions we’re going to
take regardless, why make the rest
of it so serious and permanent?
Shouldn’t we be talking about
traveling the world instead of dress
patterns and honeymoons?
I got scared when I heard myself
ask my guy ffiend/confidant/
physical partner (I’ll call him
anything but the ex-boyfriend), if
he ever thought about us being
married.
He laughed ... too long.
Initially I was offended until I
considered how out of character it
was for me to ask. After he caught -
his breath, he explained that, of
course, he had thought about it
(maybe once) and proceeded to tell
me about that sappy instance.
He then began to rehash his
philosophy about life and his future
when it dawned on me (thank God
I went back to my old self) why I
liked this guy in the first place. He
accepted my independence, and I
never felt that long-term-commit
ment feeling that eats away at
every ojunce of every moment in
whichteilence exceeds its comfort
able limits.
Isn’t college supposed to be
about getting yourself together?
Talking about getting pearled, or
promised, or any of this marriage
sap, seems to defeat the purpose of
having the “college experience.”
However, I’m sure that by the
time I’m out of college for a few
years, my mom will probably be on
my case again. By then, I’ll
probably be ready to get in touch
with one of those prospective beaus
from my past.
But as far as grandkids, no
promises, Ma.
Duda is a Junior news-editorial and En
glish majorand a Daily Nebraskan columnist
Innocent’s murder skews truth
Truth and justice have always
ranked among the highest-held
values for humanity. Truth was
held by the Greeks in higher
esteem than friendship; Socrates
used to say, “Plato is my friend, but
truth is a better friend of mine.” So
it has been for thousands of years.
In every society, justice has been
considered an inviolable value.
This was true until Jan. 5.
For the first time, a man was
legally executed while admitted
innocent even by the prosecutor.
Jesse Jacobs was executed Jan. 5 at
the Huntsville penitentiary in Texas
for a crime committed by his sister,
who was found guilty and is
serving a 10-year sentence.
The murder of Jesse Jacobs by
the state takes humanity many
centuries backwards, to a time
when the term “justice” was
loosely applied to justify lynching.
In fact, Jacobs symbolizes a
sacrificial lamb on the altar of a
society in desperate search of a
cure for crime.
Texas prosecutor Donald
Morales argued that even if Jacobs
did not commit the murder, he was
involved enough to deserve the
death penalty. This, however,
proves only that the term “truth”
means nothing to the Texas
judiciary system, and that in its
logic, who commits a certain crime
does not matter as long as someone
gets executed for it.
In synthesis, Morales’ argument
could be translated: “Sure he didn’t
kill her, but he deserved to die
because he sure as hell wanted to
kill her.” The road to hell is paved
with good intentions, but a tod
Simon Uverani
intention slips in once in a while.
Of course Jacobs was no saint —
his criminal record took up entire
file cabinets at the FBI — but the
justice of a state cannot adopt the
popular concept that, after all,
nobody’s innocent.
Sure there was the original sin
and, for Jacobs, many after that,
but this execution was carried out
with the knowledge that the victim
was put to death for an act he did
not commit. How is this different
from any other murder? Maybe the
presence of a doctor to make
Jacobs more at ease?
Ever since capital punishment
was reintroduced, the most heated
discussions concerned the possibil
ity of an error that could result in
the execution of an innocent. The
ethical problems that this created
prompted the system to use the
death penalty only in cases where
guilt was absolutely proven. The
irreversibility of the punishment
made it a tool to be used sparingly
and only after a long series of
careful revisions.
In the case of Jesse Jacobs, none
of these guidelines applied. He was
convicted once because of a false
confession, which he later re
tracted. The prosecutor acknowl
edged that the first confession had
been fabricated in order to protect
the real culprit: Jacobs’ sister.
Nevertheless, the first sentence,
given at the time of the false
confession, was never reversed.
A long sequence of fruitless
appeals brought Jacobs to the
Supreme Court. The latter found
itself in a tight spot, since it had
two contrasting guidelines that
applied to this matter. The Supreme
Court suggested the unconstitution
ality of executing a person known
to be innocent, but, on the other
hand, it did not consider .its sphere
of influence to declare this person
innocent. The final blowifrom the
top court came with the 6-3 vote
against the suspension of die
sentence.
This incredible and sad story is
only the latest drama that uncovers
all the contradictions in today’s
American society. A government
that crosses the globe to uphold the
ideals of justice in Kuwait, then
tramples on those same values
within its system. A country where
groups of anti-abortionists are so
blind that they see no paradox in
justifying murder in order to save
lives. Finally, a country where a
man can legally buy a gun, but
cannot legally drink a beer.
The polemics do not revolve so
much around the case of Jacobs,
whose criminal record would have
led him at least to life in prison, but
it concerns a system where the will
to administer punishment overshad
ows the evidence.
IiYeranlbaJulor advertising major and
a Dally Nebraskan colnmnist
P.S. Write Back
I
The Daily Nebraskan wants to hear from you. If you want to voice your
opinion about an article just write a brief letter to the editor and sign It (don't
forget your student ID number) and mail it to the Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R Street, Lincoln, NE 68588-0448, or stop by the
office in the basement of the Nebraska Union and visit with us.
Binding contracts
equal legal blues
I’m thinking of conducting an
unusual experiment.
My idea is to go to a new-car
showroom, point at a vehicle and
say: “How much is that buggy?”
The salesman will probably
show me the sticker on the side
window, and I’ll say, “OK, give
me your rock-bottom price and
we’ll have a deal.”
Then I’ll sign dll the papers,
shake hands with the happy
fellow and drive away.
I’ll drive the car for a few
days, then I’ll return to the
agency and tell the salesman:
“You know, I’ve been
thinking it over. I don’t think I
like this car after all. How about
if you take it back and give me a
complete refund?”
If the salesman hesitates, I’ll
say: “You want your customers
to be happy, right? Well, I’m not
happy. I have noticed that there
are other cars on the road that
are prettier than mine. And that
makes me unhappy. Now if you
don’t want an unhappy customer,
just give me my money and I
will be happy again. Of course, I
won’t be your customer any
more, but we can’t have every
thing, can we? I’ll even throw in
the price of a car wash. Is it a
deal?”
What will the salesman say?
I suppose he might tell me,
no, he won’t refund my money
because we have a legally
binding contract. And that I had
an opportunity to read the
contract before I signed it, and
we agreed on the price, so I now
own the car and that’s that.
In that case, I will respond:
“Then I will call a press confer
ence and tell the world that I am
not happy and it is all your fault
and that I hate you, I hate you, I
really, really, hate you. So
there.”
If that doesn t sway him, then
I will use my ace card.
I’ll call the man who is
apparently the owner or a partner
in that agency.
See, I’m not going to walk in
to just any car dealership. The
one I have in mind bears the
name of Scottie Pippen, the
Chicago Bulls basketball star.
Maybe you’ve heard him in the
commercials, urging us to buy
his product.
I chose Pippen’s dealership
because he, more than any other
car dealer, would empathize with
someone who suffers from
unhappiness.
For quite some time, Pippen
has been one of the most visibly
unhappy people in Chicago.
His problem is that he really
hates working for the people
who own and operate the Bulls.
He didn’t always hate them.
Or if he did, he didn’t say so
when they won three straight
Mike Royko
National Basketball Association
championships. He was just as
giddy as everyone else.
But times change, and now he
is obviously miserable with his
working conditions and wants to
go somewhere else, even if it
means joining a lesser team.
Then why, you might ask,
doesn’t he just pack up and go
somewhere else to work? That’s
what some people do when they
find their jobs intolerable.
He surely would if he could,
but he can’t because of a legal
technicality.
The technicality is that in
1991 he signed a five-year
contract that requires him to play
only for the Bulls until some
time in 1996, unless he is traded.
So why, might you ask, would
he sign himself into five years of
bondage with an outfit he now
detests?
I don’t know. Maybe they
drugged his Gatorade. dr held a
pistol to his agent’s head. Those
management types will stop at
nothing. Especially someone like
Jerry Krause, the general
manager. He’s a real short guy,
and you know how they are.
Of course, it might have been
the paychecks — about $18
million over the five years. A
young man needs food and a roof
over his head.
But that was way back in
1991. And as anyone who has
been shopping lately knows, $18
million ain’t what it used to be.
Especially under our harsh laws,
which require sports superstars
to pay taxes like the rest of us.
Newt should do something about
that inequity.
And now there are about four
dozen other basketball players
who earn more than Pippen, even
though most of them aren’t as
good as he is.
So Pippen has been telling the
world how much he hates his
employers and how miserable
they make him feel. Even when
they win, his hatred and misery
runneth over. I sometimes fear
that a long losing streak would
make him suicidal.
That’s why I’m confident that
Scottie’s auto agency would be
enlightened and sensitive and
realize that a contract is just a
piece of paper.
But happiness is a smile.
(C) 1995 Tribute Media Services, lac.
■®e oanocrara> dtawihe Un6 vfte^e1^h^, will, tettieiha fla’UHicanfe.'/
Ed Gamble
