Qhndn
Monday, February 6, 1995 Page 4
Daily
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
JeffZeleny.Editor, 472-1766
Jeff Robb.Managing Editor
Matt Woody.. Opinion Page Editor
DeDra Janssen.Associate News Editor
Rainbow Rowell.Arts & Entertainment Editor
James Mehsling.Cartoonist
Chris Hain.. .Senior Reporter
Strike out?
Clinton throws the first pitch, a deadline
Players. Owners.
Owners. Players.
For months now, the baseball strike has carried on and the two
sides seem as if they aren’t the slightest bit closer to an agreement.
That could change. This afternoon, on the 100th anniversary of
Babe Ruth’s birth, is the deadline set for a negotiation to be in place,
ordered by President Clinton, of all people. Clinton and many Ameri
cans no doubt hope that the deadline will be kept.
That could happen. But it likely won’t.
And why should it? And why is President Clinton getting involved
in this issue anyway? The United States is facing more pressing prob
lems as it is, and baseball labor negotiations do not involve Clinton,
as well-meaning as he may be.
Since Clinton imposed his deadline, the National Labor Relations
Board has said it would file an unfair labor practice charge against
the owners. Hardly a level playing field. So the owners tossed out
their salary cap.
That may have been good for the players, but it put the situation
back to square one.
Clinton and his government should set a different deadline: one to
get out of the way. Since when has government been known to get
things done?
One thing has been constant throughout the strike: Both sides have
shown a blatant disregard to the fans and to the game of baseball.
No one wants to solve the problem.
If baseball owners and players can’t come to an agreement by
themselves, then they don’t deserve to have a 1995 season, and the
Daily Nebraskan doesn’t want to see one.
It’s about time
President’s line-item veto long overdue
The 104th Congress will do today something the previous 103
have not done. It will give the president of the United States the
power of the line-item veto.
On former President Ronald Reagan’s 84th birthday, the Re
publican-controlled Congress will give our nation’s chief execu
tive a very effective tool for controlling spending.
“We’re doing it on President Reagan’s birthday as a way of
honoring him because he fought for it for so long,” Speaker Newt
Gingrich told The Associated Press.
The line-item veto would let the president reject individual pro
visions of a spending bill without rejecting the entire proposal.
Most states’ governors already have similar powers.
In Nebraska, Gov. Ben Nelson has often used the line-item veto.
It makes our state government more efficient.
It will do the same for our federal government. That certainly is
one thing we can use.
The truth is that a line-item veto is long overdue. It should have
been instituted even before Reagan’s term.
President Clinton and future presidents will be able to cut un
needed pork from bills, thrown in by senators and representatives
trying to take something from Washington home to their constitu
ents.
And presidents also can veto certain measures they oppose on
principle.
With our federal government spending money at an enormous
clip and unable to balance the budget, anything that might help us
get in the black should be welcomed with open arms.
Editorial policy
Staff editorials represent the official
policy of the Spring 1995. Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editori
al s do not necessarily reflect the views
of the university, its employees, the
students ortheNU BoaidofRegents.
Editorial columns represent the opin
ion ofthe author. The regents publish
the Daily Nebraskan. They establish
the UNL Publications Board to su
pervise the daily production of the
paper. According to policy set by the
regents, responsibility for the edito
rial content of the newspaper lies
solely in die hands of its students.
Loiter policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the
editor from all readers and interested others! Letters
will be selected forpublication on the basis of clarity,
originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily
Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject all material
submitted. Readers also are welcome to submit ma
terial 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 pub
lished. 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.
"
t
V
v.
LINCCLbl Al£E>ffa$&h ZOU
i
*
I
I
Nudity equals
smut?
Since when is a picture or a
video of a nude woman or of many
nude women considered “smut”?
Since when is female nudity
“degrading to women”? And when
did sexuality become a social
pariah?
I think some people are too
uptight with these expressions of
human sexuality. In response to
Lori Savery’s letter (Feb. 3) about
the “Strip Pool” video, if these were
naked children playing sexually
erotic pool, or if these women were
being forced to play eight ball
without their consent, I could see
where it would be problematic. But
these women made the choice to
trade their bodies for money and
minor-league fame.
Everyone has a choice. I hate
seeing Young Republicans ads in
the Daily Nebraskan. These people
offend me more than any naked
pool player could. I don’t like my
students fees going to support them;
however, I don’t deny them the
right to obtain money and minor
league fame.
My choice is to turn the page. I
suppose I could be an extremist and
boycott the Daily Nebraskan. But if
I boycotted every little or big thing
that offended me, I’d be wasting my
life, time and energy.
Woman to woman, Ms. Savery,
chill out. You too have a choice.
Amoree Lovell
senior
broadcasting
Plainsmen
I was very insulted by the Daily
Nebraskan’s article on the Plains
men (Feb. 2). As a pro-life activist,
I found the Plainsmen’s actions
insulting, degrading and damaging.
Larry Ball does not represent the
pro-life movement. His tactics
(hanging a noose and bullet-ridden
steel plate on the fence outside of
Planned Parenthood’s new abortion
mill) were uncalled for and in poor
taste. His comment, “this doesn’t
mean that you have the right to
spread your legs in the back of
every car...,” was crude and
unnecessary.
The only thing that his com
ments do is paint the pro-life people
as gun-toting, self-righteous
radicals. The majority of pro-life
advocates are against violence.
If the Daily Nebraskan wants to
run an article about protests at the
new abortion clinic, why doesn’t it
focus on the majority of protests
that have occurred since early
December; the silent, peaceful
protests.
Could it be that it is only looking
for negative publicity for the pro
life movement? The reporting
certainly suggests the bias.
Lisa Ann Krautkremer
junior
biological sciences
Fear hurt rally
The other day I saw a news
report where a pro-life supporter
was claiming their rally was a
success because it had a much
larger attendance than a pro-choice
rally the same day.
I found it interesting that the
pro-choice people (who are called
savage murderers by the pro-life
people) are afraid to exercise their
constitutional right of assembly for
fear that the pro-life people will
harass or murder them, again.
It seems that the reason the pro
life rally had such a good turnout
was that the “savage murderers” do
not pose such a grave threat to the
pro-life supporters’ lives and
happiness.
Corey A. Becker
senior
computer engineering
Whose choice?
Abortion radicals have been
recently plaguing our local and
national presses. If it isn’t “pro
life” people blocking an abortion
clinic entrance, it’s “pro-choice”
people telling people that a fetus
isn’t a living thing.
Let’s be realistic. Abortion is
legal; that won’t change. I person
ally don’t believe in abortion,
except in the case of rape and
incest, yet I do believe the fetus is a
living being. The choice of abortion
should be left up to two people, the
mother and the father, not just the
mother. Humans don’t reproduce
asexually.
Anotner point that should be
established: The two sides in this
issue are anti-abortionists and pro
abortionist.
“Pro-choice” people aren’t pro
choice if they bel ieve in welfare,
state-funded abortions, job quotas,
minimum-wage laws and affirma
tive action.
I know many pro-choicers who
believe in these laws and that
certainly isn’t my choice. So they’re
pro-choice, except for my choice
and those who believe as I do.
Christopher A. Nollett
freshman
journalism