Commentary
Wednesday, February 22, 1995 Page 5
Woman is God’s gift to man
In the beginning, when God
came to the creation of woman, He
found that He had exhausted all His
materials in the making of man and
no solid elements were left. In this
dilemma, after profound medita
tion, He did as follows:
He took the rotundity of the
moon, and the curves of the
creepers, and the clinging of
tendrils, and the trembling of grass,
and the tone of the reed, and the
lightness of leaves, and the tapering
of elephant’s trunk, and the glances
of deer, and the clustering of rows
of bees, and the joyous gravity of
moonbeams, and the timidity of a
hare, and the vanity of a peacock,
and the softness of a parrot’s
bosoms, and the hardness of the
adamant, and the sweetness of
honey, and the cruelty of the tiger,
and the warm glow of the fire, and
the coldness of the snow, and
chattering of jays, and the hypoc
risy of the crane; compounding all
this together, He made woman.
And gave her to man.
But after one week, man came
to Him and said, “Lord! This being
you have given me makes my life
miserable, she chatters incessantly
and teases me beyond endurance,
never leaving me alone, and she
requires insistent attention and
takes all my time up and cries
about nothing, and is always idle,
and now I have come back to give
her back again, as I cannot live
with her.”
So God said, “Very well!” and
took her back.
Then after another week man
came to Him again and said,
“Lord! I find my life is very lonely
since I gave you back that being. I
remember how she used to dance
and sing to me, and look at me out
of the comer of her eye, and play
with me and cling to me and with
laughter and music, and she was
beautiful to look at and soft to
touch. So please give her back to
me again.”
So God said, “Very well!” and
gave her back again. Then after
only three days man came back
again and said, “Lord! I don’t have
higher taste, but I have come to the
conclusion after all that she is more
of a trouble to me than a pleasure,
so please take her back again.”
But God said, “Out upon you.
Be off. I will have no more of this.
You must manage how you can.”
The man said, “But I cannot live
with her.” And God replied,
“Neither could you live without
her.”
And He turned His back on man
and went on with His work.
After I read this story about the
creation of woman, I laughed, and
then I began to think and realize
God’s gift to man — the woman. It
sometimes is hard to live with her,
but without her there would be
nothing to live for. I’d go crazy. I
can’t even imagine living in a
world without women. Hell, I can’t
even imagine going to a university
without any females. But I guess
that’s just me!
I grew up smelling the fresh
aromas >of my mother’s cooking
and the crisp, dewy fragrance of
starched duds. Home was a place
where women cooked, cleaned and
served, while men went off to work
and were destined to provide bread
and butter for the family. The
women nurtured while the men
structured.
As I grew, I came across more
women in the real world and began
accepting that they had the abilities
to do things that I never thought a
woman could do. These conjectures
didn’t change overnight, as for a
long time I believed in Alfred Lord
Tennyson’s poem:
Man for the field and woman for
the hearth;
Man for the sword and for the
needle she;
Man with the head and woman
with the heart;
Man to command and woman to
obey;
All else confusion.
Ha! Ha! Now I laugh at myself.
How ignorant and vacuous was I to
believe in such a thing. But at the
time it seemed rational and true to
my immature and undiscovered
mind.
My contemplation vegetated
further when I came to America.
My scanty mind gained something
new as the days passed. When I
first saw a woman driving a semi, I
almost jumped out my skin. To me
this was unthinkable, as I had never
seen anything like this before and I
didn’t think women could do
something of this sort.
Men and women were both
created for each other. Both sexes
have different qualities and need
each other for survival. For
example, women are detail
oriented and men are task-oriented.
Both these things are needed in
order to have harmony in any
fashion of life, in any business or
elsewhere.
I think we would have been
living in a different world if the
women had entered the work force
earlier.
Bashir is a senior food science maj or and
a Daily Nebraskan columnist
Slogans boostour self-esteems
I’m addicted to magazine
advertisements.
Every month I go to the book
store and buy my three outdoor
magazines so I can tear through
them and check out the new ads.
I’m not talking about basic perfume
or toilet-paper ads; I’m talking
about hard-core, real-life, motiva
tional advertisements.
Since Nike first started making
its “Just Do It” advertisements,
people like myself have been
subconsciously drawn to reading
them. As humans, we seem to crave
the feel-good sensation that erupts
from this kind of inspirational
lingo. After Nike impacted its
consumers, health and motivational
advertisements have spread like
wildfire through the advertising
industry.
me slogans nave become a part
of history for the past decade. We
buy clothes with these slogans on
them, our favorite athletes are
associated with saying them; we
even use the catchy little quotes in
our own conversation.
The advertising craze is a
psychological phenomenon. We’ve
gone from harmonizing little ditties
back in the early days of radio and
television to the conception of new,
inspiring self-esteem devices.
Now we’re cutting magazine
advertisements out and putting
them next to the bedroom mirror,
on the front of the refrigerator or
behind the bathroom door, using
them as self-esteem boosters and
weight-watcher reminders.
I personally have taken to
religiously carrying my magazines
with me whenever I go work out. I
head straight for the stair machines
with the book holders on them.
Then I can stare at a picture of
some guy in my magazine climbing
up the side of some mountain while
Lara Duda
my drops of sweat fall onto his
godly body. It’s as if I can hear him
telling me, “Just Do it,” and
subconsciously I’m motivated to
have even half the stamina this guy
has in order to finish my workout.
Although some of these ads have
inspired Americans to motivate our
stagnant vegetable butts off the
couch and over to the rec center,
others are just so catchy and
inspiring that we want to read them
for their feel-good incentives.
One of my favorites is the “No
Fear” advertisement that says, “We
take risks not to escape life, but to
prevent life from escaping us.” The
ad is not directed at getting people
to go out and get in shape, and it’s
not trying to get people to buy
clothes, but it is thought-provoking.
That’s why people like these
self-esteem boosters. They give
people a vision for a desired image
or goal they have for themselves,
something we want to be encour
aged to go after, but our personal
inspiration angels aren’t always
there to coach us when we need
that extra little incentive. It’s a lot
easier to pick up a magazine.
The more I think about it, the
more sense it makes. People want
to be affected. Everyone has an
unobtainable goal they’re con
stantly striving to achieve, so when
there’s something telling us,
“Yeah, so maybe you’re no
champion rock climber, but you
can get your butt out there and at
least challenge yourself,” then
we’re more likely to feel that sense
of power.
Yet while some of these adver
tisements are simply profound,
others .are simply ridiculous.
I read this advertisement the
other day that said, “All revolutions
are started by dreamers.” The
words were written with pictures of
clouds inside them, and behind
them was a picture of a guy’s face
with his eyes closed.
I thought it was going to be
another advertisement for some
kind of athletic apparel, but it
turned out to be an ad for mat
tresses. It was advertising how
those particular mattresses would
provide a good night’s sleep, which
is essential for athletes. The
advertisers must have been banking
on the assumption that all athletes
are dreamers, but nevertheless, it
sells.
Thus, the health and motiva
tional craze is no longer strictly for
basketball shoes and aerobic wear.
There are now bottled-water
industries, car manufacturers and
milk distributors all tying their
products into the healthy, quick-fix,
desired American lifestyle. And to
great fanfare, they’ll continue using
health and motivation so long as
they can lure us into buying their
products.
I personally don’t feel the desire
to buy something because it has a
great advertisement; I just like to
read the ads because they motivate
me. Then again, I am wearing Nike
Air Max jogging shoes right now,
so maybe these ads have subcon
sciously drawn me to buy them.
No, I’m quite sure that’s another
addiction.
Duda Is a Junior news-editorial and En
glish major and a Dally Nebraskan columnist
Government tries to
snuff out tobacco
The state of Florida thinks it
has found a way to curb smoking
and make the tobacco companies
pay for the damage their prod
ucts cause Medicaid recipients.
This week it files a class-action
lawsuit against the tobacco
industry, asking for $1.43 billion
to cover the cost of treating
Medicaid patients suffering from
cancer or other illnesses related
to smoking.
The suit follows the passage
of a new law by the Florida
Legislature removing several
burdens of proof from the state,
which had frustrated similar
lawsuits in the past. Under the
new law, the state no longer
must prove each Medicaid
recipient’s illness was caused by
smoking. Instead, health statis
tics may be used to prove that
tobacco caused a percentage of
certain types of illnesses suffered
by smokers on Medicaid.
Furthermore, the law no longer
requires the state to prove that
patients smoked a certain brand
of cigarette. Damages against
tobacco companies can be
assessed based on their share of
the market.
The lawyers assembled to
fight the tobacco industry
represent some of the biggest
product liability firms around.
They actually had to bid for the
right to become involved,
putting up at least $100,000 each
in initial expenses for a chance
to share a projected pool of
winnings of as much as $137
million.
I have no sympathy for the
tobacco companies. Their
products are unhealthful, their
advertising misleading, their
shame nonexistent. Their denial
that nicotine is addictive is
preposterous.
But I do worry about
government’s attempts to save us
from ourselves, and I am
uncomfortable with the singling
out of tobacco as the country’s
top villain. More people die of
heart disease and alcohol abuse
(including drunken driving) than
die of lung cancer and tobacco
related diseases.
After Florida finishes with the
tobacco companies, will govern
ment go after the fast-fpod
chains and their greasy hamburg
ers? High fat content and
cholesterol cause heart attacks
among Medicaid recipients and
other people. Should the ham
burger-makers be sued? What
about the cattle ranchers who
provide the beef or those who
produce the food the cows eat?
The litigation possibilities are
endless, and the profits for
lawyers gargantuan.
The liquor industry could be
Cal Thomas
sued for every drunk driver who
kills someone. There have been
suggestions that the makers of
bullets and guns used to kill
people in the commission of a
crime could be sued by the
victim (if he survives) or by his
family (if he doesn’t). Might as
well throw in the pomographers
and creators of violent films for
the movies and television. Why
shouldn’t the skin magazines and
pom stores be sued if it can be
proved that a man raped a
woman after reading or watching
pornography?
In all of this, Big Brother has
again raised his ugly head.
Especially in the case of to
bacco, government wants to
protect you from yourself. It says
you are incapable of making
rational decisions, given the
information. It wants to stop the
use of “Joe Camel” as an
advertising tool, but it says
nothing about the Marlboro man
or those skinny women who
model for Virginia Slims.
I hate tobacco. It has harmed
my own family. But I hate
government intrusion in such
areas even more. Government
says we can’t be expected to
know what’s good for us. And
government is selective in its
moral outrage. It wants to
recover Medicaid costs from the
tobacco companies, but it will
pay for Medicaid abortions.
Add to government’s ham
fisted approach the greed of
lawyers anxious to grab the pot
of gold at the end of this legal
rainbow and this lawsuit starts to
smell worse than a cheap cigar.
Like the suggestion that in
some circumstances it might be
OK to repeal the Fourth Amend
ment against searches and
seizures of your home without a
warrant, the Florida lawsuit
against tobacco companies is a
further intrusion on die rights
and freedoms of all of us.
Tobacco today, alcohol and
hamburgers tomorrow. Your
house the next day and mine the
day after that. And then what?
Better to stop them now before
we have to ask that question.
There are better ways to curb
tobacco use than this lawsuit.
(c) 1995 Los Angeles Times Syndicate
/ Hie ones wearing
111
Mike Uickovtdi