Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 7, 1995)
Commentary Tuesday, February 7,1995 Page 5 Research discovery not news Guess what? I’ve got a secret to tell all of you folks out there in UNL-land. I’ve learned some incredible news that will probably shock all of you into disbelief. Did you know that men and women think differently? No kidding. I’m serious. I’ve just learned that some brain researchers from the University of Pennsylva nia have discovered that men and women don’t think alike. Wow! Isn’t that the most incredible news? I know it is shocking, but we must live with this disturbing situation. My only question now is, how much money did these researchers spend to finally realize something that any normal thinking individual in the civilized world already knows? I’m telling you, these people had entirely too much free time on their hands. On the bright side, though, not only did this story give me a good laugh, but it also gave me a great idea. I’m sure these researchers got several million dollars to conduct this research, so I figure that if I conduct my own informal research, I might get at least a few hundred thousand. That should be close to the amount I’m going to owe the government in college loans, anyway, so why not call it even? The researchers say in their article that men are far more prone to violence than women. Duh. But before we take this little theory out of context, I think that we should explore all the various possibilities that exist. Okay, I agree with the fact that men are more inclined to take things outside and settle them the old-fashioned way. But as is usually the case, after the two mighty (and usually Robb Goff drunken) warriors get done beating each other to a bloody pulp, they end up back in the bar buying each other a drink. That’s what men do. We hate each other for a good 10 to 15 minutes, but then we start talking about football or something, and we’re back to being pals. Women, on the other hand, are a totally different story. Sure, women usually don’t go outside and use each other as human punching bags, but when women get mad at each other, watch out. A woman doesn’t just try to hurt someone, she tries to totally ruin someone’s life. I’m sure many of you have known a girl who has methodically planned the destruction of another girl’s life. Women hold grudges that last decades, while men just want to bash each other’s face in, forget about it and go drink more beer. I agree that men are more violent then women. But there’s some research to be done on the women’s side, because they can cause more damage. If you don’t believe me, just ask any guy. This research also shows that women arejnore inclined to express their emotions then men. Woof. These guys are good. I never would have thunk it. I’m taken by complete surprise. So, being the grand researcher that I am, I decided to run a test. My experiment was to see how reactive women would get if I changed the channel to the O.J. trial 10 minutes before the end of their favorite soaps. Just before I was about to do so, my male friends pointed out to me the heavy bookbags these ladies had and the large amount of food they had eaten. I decided I had better not test my luck. Maybe those researchers should test how violent those women would have gotten. Well, it’s something to think about. Just for the record, men do show emotions. In fact, we’re very emotional at times. All you had to do was walk into any sports bar after the Super Bowl, and you would have seen half the men crying because the football season was over. (But don’t worry, guys, March Madness is only a month away). Or how about Trent Reznor postponing his concert? I damn near broke down over that one. Men are emotional. Not as fre quently as women, but we’re still emotional. I hope I’ve gotten to the core of this issue well enough to let those researchers in Pennsylvania know a thing or two. Not only did they not look at all aspects of this issue, but they wasted an incredible amount of money doing so, money that could have been used for a worth while cause. Like me. Heck, the next thing these people are going to tell us is that college administrators know what they are doing. I tell you, the nerve of some people. GofTls a senior secondary education ma jor and a Daily Nebraskan columnist Seuss, a noose and die Juice When I was a small child, my mom read Dr. Seuss books to me almost every night. Dr. Seuss had a way of explaining complex things, such as the importance of trying out new things before deciding whether you liked them. “I do, I do like Green Eggs and Ham! I do so like them, Sam I am.” If Dr. Seuss were alive today, he would still be tackling those complex issues, breaking them into bite-sized pieces for us to digest and comprehend. And what issue could possibly be more complex than the O.J. Simpson trial? More than seven months ago, 95 million people watched a white Ford Bronco crawl down the 405 freeway in Los Angeles. In the months since, countless millions have followed the events surround ing the O.J. Simpson case, inti mately getting to know Simpson, his friends, his late ex-wife, a bunch of lawyers and a judge named Ito. The early repots of die case were bizarre; the facts that have cone out since the trial began have been even more weird. And Americans, hungry for some insight into the events of last June, glue themselves to the tube in a daily ritual viewing of Court TV and CNN. The OJ. Simpson trial, regard less of the verdict, will have a profound effect on our society. It will do more than propel the already-bright careers of lawyers such as Carl Douglas and Marcia Clark (although it may end the Doug Peters career of Clark’s hairdresser). It will do more than get Judge Lance Ito a guest spot on Letterman next fall. It will tell us how well our system works. It will tell us whether the legal phrase “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” actually rings true. It’s a confusing issue. There’s no doubt about that. What’s more, with six months of trial remaining, it’s bound to get incredibly weird. At times, I’m tempted to give up trying to figure the whole thing out. But this time, at least, in the spirit of Dr. Seuss, I have tried to shed a little light on the subject: It started in June With a chase that was slow. We watched people yell Go, O.J., go! Go, O.J., go, OJ. Go go go go. But some didn’t cheer, Some held up nooses. They didn’t believe All the Juice’s excuses. Now there’s a trial. It’s on TV. See the big trial. Come watch it with me. See the trial, see the trial. See see see see. We watch and we watch, We grin and we grin, ‘Cause we don’t find ourselves In the mess that he’s in. The media held court. He’s already been tried. “He did it,” they cried. “He should be fried!” Fry O.J., fry O.J. Fry fry fry fry. But prosecution is where The burden of proof is, And although it’s not perfect Here’s what the truth is: If the Juice’s excuses Beat what the proof is, It won’t be too long ‘Til the Juice on the loose is. In a courtroom world where die characters are stranger than any of Dr. Seuss’ creations, this little explanation may not do the trick. I suppose that shouldn’t surprise me. Some things even Dr. Seuss can’t explain. Peteti Is a graduate stndentaad Daily Nebraska! cotamaist Newsman’s outburst on-air foolishness I’ll never understand the thinking — or lack of same — that goes into television news. For example, a few nights ago an anchorman-commentator at the Fox Network station in Chicago expressed his opinions about the Baby Richard case. This is the case in which a 3 year-old child, adopted shortly after being bom, was ordered returned to his biological father because the father had been told the baby died at birth. Anchorman Walter Jacobson was furious with the Illinois Supreme Court and especially angry at Justice James D. Heiple, who wrote the court’s opinion. He told the viewers: “Justice * Heiple, it seems to me, is not only evil, he is dangerous.” A moment later, he emotion ally told the viewers what they could do to let the judge know they disagreed with the court’s ruling. “Call.him and beg him. We beg you, your honor Judge Heiple, please stop destroying the lives of children.” And the Fox anchorman did something that is unthinkable in the news business. Or at least it was in more thoughtful times. Jacobson broadcast the judge’s home telephone number. It was displayed on the screen and the anchorman read it aloud. The results were predictable. Almost immediately, the phone began ringing in the judge’s home in a small Illinois city. me judge, we re toiu, was stunned. So was his wife, who is seriously ill. When you are seriously ill in the privacy of your home, you don’t expect to spend the night hearing weird strangers saying terrible things. John Madigan, spokesman for the Illinois court, says: “I don’t want to sound scary, but they have received some calls that you or I would Say were obscene. And calls where the person doesn’t say anything, and just hangs up. “It’s one thing to debate an. issue openly. But when you start giving out someone’s home telephone number like that, well, there are kooks out there, as we ^ all know.” Madigan spent 51 years in the news business, as a reporter, commentator and newspaper and TV executive, but he says: “I can’t recall anyone ever doing something like that.” The reason this, isn’t done should be obvious to anyone in or out of the news business. All you have to do is look at the headlines about doctors being shot outside of abortion clinics; judges who have been shot in Mike Royko courtrooms; other public people , ' being assassinated. So if a TV commutator tells a large TV audience that some one is “evil” and “dangerous” and is “destroying the lives of children,” that could easily be taken as an invitation for some wacko to do something about it. But apparently the right of the judge and his wife to have privacy in their own home didn’t blink a light in the brain of the anchorman, the Fox station’s news director or the producer of the show. However, the station appears to have a deep sense of its own right to privacy. When Madigan, the court spokesman, asked the station for a transcript of the broadcast, he was brushed off. The station wouldn’t return most of his persistent phone calls. And when he finally got a few news department people, he said, “I was told that it is Fox’s policy that they do not give out tran scripts. “He (the anchorman) told me it was the station’s policy and that there was nothing he could do about it. “I’ve never heard of a policy like that. When I was a news director, if someone was men tioned in a commentary, we immediately supplied them with a transcript.” That seems only fair. Even fundamental. If you use the power of TV to bray that a public person is “evil,” “danger ous” and a destroyer of children, the least you can do is put it in writing. But more and more, TV news sets its own rules, which have little or nothing to do with nutty and scary phone calls — hey, her husband is a public figure,'right? And the show must go on. There is an ironic twist to this. Back in the days when he was a news director, Madigan gave a young hustler his big break by hiring him as a TV reporter. That hustler is now the , anchorman at the Fox station. I guess that’s what they mean when they say: “What goes around, comes around.” ©1995 Tribuae Media Services, Inc. So.Mr.Gramdhc&'you claim you didnt see your shadow, tail it true,sir that youhave3 V drinking problem? jflggs^ ^ 3 -A J Me lixtorii KJ[m \_ Mike Luckovlch