Commentary
Tuesday, February 28,1995 Page 5
Look closer at spending cuts
There’s been a lot of turmoil in
Washington and around the country
about the spending cuts being
passed by the Republican-con
trolled House.
Our representatives were put
there because we the people
thought the Democrats had been in
power too long and it was time for
a change. So we handed the keys to
our country over to the GOP and
asked them to take over for a little
while. And look what they get out
of the deal — nothing but bad
publicity.
So before a formal lynch mob is
created, we should slow down and
take a closer look at some of the
cuts, because many of them are
actually things we’ve been calling
out for.
It’s common practice to only
rent a house or apartment that you
can afford. So why should the
government spend $2.7 billion in
rental assistance for the poor?
There are all sorts of places to
live that are pretty cheap, and if an
individual can’t afford even that,
what about the Mom & Pop Motel?
If that’s not a viable option, I’m
sure there are a few savings and
loans around the country that will
graciously lend money to help, at a
small interest rate.
Aren’t they the thoughtful
individuals?
That leads us to the cutting of
$1.89 billion to help modernize and
develop public housing. Surely our
fearless Congress wouldn’t want
people to improve on their shacks,
because that would be against the
idea of rental assistance, and why
would they want to develop more
of these housing units when the
money could be better used for -j
building, say, a whole new fleet of
B-2 bombers?
Of course if we eliminate those
programs, it’s only logical to cut
Robb Goff
the $404 million allocated for
subsidies for public-housing
authorities, because if there’s no
public housing, why do we need
people to run the show?
Now the suits in D.C. not only
create their own ideas, they listen
to the people, and one of the things
they often hear about is how bad
pollution is getting. So in their
infinite wisdom, they probably see
the $351-million cut in federal aid
to highways as a positive thing.
Car emissions are part of the
pollution problem, right? If
highway maintenance declines,
then fewer people will want to
drive cars on the roads. And if
fewer cars are on the highways,
then there is less emission coming
from the cars and that helps the
pollution problem. Or so the
thinking probably goes.
Now being really crafty, they
decide to cut $76 million in grants
to local mass-transit systems, •
because why would they want to
make life easier for the average Joe
getting to work? Polls have
suggested that people worry about
their health and are having a hard
time exercising, so by eliminating
this grant, people will have to walk
or ride a bike to get to work.
See, not ordy^rgJhey helping to
solve the pollution problem, they
are helping America shape up and
become healthier. This, in turn,
will result in Americans knowing
how to take better care of them
selves and the dangers that are out
there, thus the elimination of $36
million in AIDS prevention and
care is logical.
We must not forget about family
values, since that is an important
part of the GOP platform. Every
time a child is taken from his or her
parents, the Republicans scream
foul, so why not keep them at home
with the family? That must be the
idea behind the elimination of $ 1.7
billion from summer youth pro
grams. Kids should stay with their
families and not at camps. Family
values, gotta love ‘em.
My personal favorite is the
cutting of $159 million from the
building of 13 new federal office
buildings and courthouses across
the country. Couple that with the
$272 million being slashed from
law-enforcement, commerce and
diplomatic programs and we should
see that they are just trying to
streamline the court processes.
When someone is found com
mitting a crime, why wait to go to
a new courthouse? Just 6all the
judge and get 12 people to hold
court on the spot. Give the jury
time to deliberate. If it’s a guilty
verdict, get the police to haul them
directly to one of the new prisons
being built on the sites where the
liberals wanted to create public
housing units.
So let’s not look so harshly on
these spending cuts, because
everybody knows that Newt and
Co. would never try to hurt the
needy or the poor, or throw people
into the streets just so the rich can
have more tax cuts. That would be
wrong, and they would never do
anything wrong because they’re
Republicans and they’re in touch
with the American people.
Goff is a senior secondary education
major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist
Minorities in NHL penalty box
The other day, I was lying on
the couch watching TV. Now, I
should let you know that there is, in
fact, nothing unusual about this. I
often lay on the couch watching
TV. “Big deal,” you’re probably
saying to yourself (if you even
decided to read this far).
Big deal, indeed.
It is not in the simple act of
lying on the couch watching TV
that the meat of this column lies. It
is in the contents of the TV
programming that my brain so
eagerly drinks.
“What is there on TV,” you
might ask, “that’s so great I need to
read a whole column about it?”
“Not much,” I would answer.
Not much, that is, in the normal
flow of crap that is belched out by
the cathode-ray tubes of the world
— but I wasn’t watching just any
old flow of crap.
I was watching hockey.
As you may know, hockey is a
game played by men of Canadian
extraction, as well as by some
Russians and other people from
places where last names are not
allowed to contain vowels.
The game consists of chasing
around a little black disc' and
beating it with a stick until it falls
into a netted thingy called a goal.
Apparently, bonus points are
awarded for making an opposing
player vomit his own blood. I don’t
know this for sure, however,
because the rules of hockey are as
difficult to understand as the
instructions that come with every
“made in Taiwan” household
appliance.
The games can be entertaining
for a few minutes, but personally, I
just don’t have the stamina to
• watch a whole hockey match.
In short, I just don’t like hockey.
Never have.
I’ve never liked it because I
Doug Peters
always thought it was kind of
stupid. Now I have an even better
reason: Hockey is racist.
That’s right — racist.
Here’s the deal. I’m laying there
on my couch watching hockey,
hoping for a burst of energy so I
can reach for the remote and find
something somewhat less stupid to
watch.
Then it hits me.
There is not a single minority on
the ice. Not one. No blacks, no
Hispanics, no Native Americans
and no Asians. Not one single
minority (unless Canadians count,
and I don’t think they do).
Being a politically correct,
multiculturally oriented, somewhat
left-of-center guy, I am obviously
appalled. I mean, I’m no Mother
Teresa, but I can smell the pungent
odor of injustice as well as anyone,
and it makes me sick.
I didn’t let the feelings fester,
though. I did something about
them.
I picked up the phone to call the
headquarters of the National
Hockey League so I could Voice
my outrage. I eventually spoke
with Gordon “Gordy” LaFlambeau,
a Quebec native who served as
public relations director for the
league and who later confided that
he was the inspiration for Monty
Python’s “I’m a lumberjack”
sketch.
“Gordy,” I said, “what’s the deal
with this no-minority thing? I am
shocked and revolted that an
institution as large as the NHL can
get away with such outright
discrimination in the enlightened
’90s.”
“It’s not a matter of discrimina
tion, Mr. Peters,” LaFlambeau
began.
“My dad is Mr. Peters, you
patronizing bastard,” I interrupted.
This white-power idiot wasn’t
going to put anything over on me.
“Uh, fine,” LaFlambeau contin
ued cautiously, “but it really isn’t a
matter of discrimination. Anyone is
eligible to try out for a team. The
only deciding factor is the person’s
ability to play hockey. Now the sad
fact of the matter is that very few
minorities play hockey. Of those
few who do, a tiny number may be
good enough to try out for a
professional team. If a minority
tries out for a team and he’s good
enough to play, he will make the
team. That I can promise you.
“After all,” LaFlambeau said,
“we work strictly from the merit
system here.”
I hung up. “These guys are
airtight,” I thought to myself.
“They’ve found all the stupid little
loopholes — merit system, in
deed.”
Well, I may not have a legal
case against these guys, but I can
tell you one thing: I’m done
watching hockey. I’m not going to
watch it, I’m not going to read
about it, and I might even write
some angry letters to advertisers.
Yes, indeed, no more hockey for
me.
From now on, I’m sticking to
something more racially balanced.
Like professional bass fishing.
Peters is a graduate student and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist
'it ,j- ; i'O I IJ UJh i
Presidential race
hinges on abortion
The Democrats and President
Clinton think they have found
the wedge issue they’ve been
looking for. It is abortion.
Those advising the president
have encouraged him to use the
nomination of Henry Foster as
surgeon general to undermine the
GOP’s “big tent” strategy.
Fresh out of good ideas and
afraid that the new Republican
congressional majority reflects a
mood in the country that could
shut them completely out of
power, Democrats have returned
to an old standard they believe is
the Achilles’ heel of the Repub
lican Party.
So desperately do the Demo
crats wish their strategy could
win that The New York Times
columnist Frank Rich last
Sunday attempted to make the
case for Sen. Arlen Specter (R
Pa.) — a pro-choicer — as a
presidential winner. “Mr. Specter
bears watching as the increas
ingly attractive alternative who
could shape his party’s most
explosive internal debate,” wrote
Rich. Forget it. Specter won’t
win a single delegate. The
momentum is headed the other
way.
Not one pro-life incumbent,
Democrat or Republican, lost in
the 1994 congressional races. In
the past, when pro-choicers won,
much of the press and their
ideological soul mates in the
abortion lobby hailed the
election results as proof of a
national mood swing. They are
silent about the 1994 election
because it produced evidence of
a swing in a different direction.
Republicans can, and should,
take advantage of this new
momentum by enthusiastically
embracing the pro-life position
but with a new focus: on women.
At the party’s 1996 conven
tion in San Diego, Republicans
should feature women in crisis
^ situations who have had their
babies. Women could tell of
their struggles and how deciding
in favor of another life enhanced
their role as life-givers and
enriched their own lives. One
speaker should be Gianna lessen,
the teen-age girl who survived a
saline abortion and goes public
in a new book, “Gianna: Aborted
and Lived to Tell About It.”
Couples who adopted children
could laud birth mothers’
selflessness. Women who regret
their abortions could say what
Cal Thomas
many have told me: “If I had
only known, I would never have
done it,” and “If someone had
told me about alternatives, I
would not have had an abortion.”
Life would be seen as a beauti
ful, and right, choice.
The strategy would be simply
to tell the truth, which exposes
the philosophically empty
position of “choice” as bogus
and indefensible in light of the
momentous issue of life and
death.
As long as Republicans
remain reluctant to trumpet their
pro-life stand and the reason for
it, Democrats will dictate the
grounds of the debate and keep
Republicans on the defensive.
This will allow Democrats to
mislabel and manipulate public
opinion. By emphasizing
women, Republicans can counter
the pro-choice propaganda at the
very point of attack.
The chairman of the Texas
Republican Party, Thomas
Pauken, has it right in his new
book, “The Thirty Years War”:
“You cannot talk seriously about
American politics without
dealing with the deeper ques
tions of what set of basic values
should frame our culture. ... For
better or worse, the time for the
final showdown between the
conservatives and the New Left
is thawing near.”
How appropriate that this
showdown should come over the
fundamental issue of human life.
Republicans should accept this
challenge from Democrats (and
from pro-choicers within the
Republican Party) as they once
accepted the slavery issue as
their own. Coupled with their
plans to fix what’s wrong with
government and the rest of the
virtue agenda, Republicans can
take the Democrats’ “wedge”
and over it march a Republican
president into the White House
on Jan. 20, 1997.
© 1995 Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Nllte krfcfth
I
Mike Luckovkh
