Commentary
Iron Mike is a changed man
What a difference a month
makes. In February, sports fans were
moaning because the football season
had just finished, and baseball
showed no signs of ending the strike
or beginning spring training without
scabs.
March Madness was still a month
away, and the NBA and NHL
regular seasons were just warm-ups
for their playoffs.
Then, just in the nick of time,
two of the world’s most recogniz
able sports figures began comebacks
that could dramatically change the
sports world.
Almost everybody greeted
Michael Jordan back at his lofty
perch in the NBA. They cheered
wildly in the hope that he would
save this fragile organization from
the black eyes being delivered by
the rash of quadruple-millionaire
Jordan wannabes and crybabies
who have recently infiltrated the
sport.
The other’s resurgence has both
been hailed by many and protested
by others who are objecting to the
star status that follows him. But
Mike Tyson will bring back a
faithful following to a sport that
needs its “true” champ to carry the
banner again.
Last Saturday at 6:30 in the
morning, “Iron Mike” left the
Indiana Youth Center, where he was
detained for three years on a six
year sentence for raping beauty
pageant contestant Desiree Wash
ington,
Some women’s rights groups are
loudly protesting the fact that people
still feel Tyson is a hero because of
what he did in the past. His maraud
ing style of completely devouring
his opponents and leaving them a
pile of broken flesh in the ring has
thrilled our hearts and showed us
how tough a human being can be.
But the advocates also like to
Robb Goff
point to the past to find his faults.
There’s little doubt that Tyson, in
his youth, was an equally aggressive
bully out of the ring. He was known
to hit and push around his ex-wife,
actress Robin Givens.
It is true that Tyson was found
guilty by a jury of his peers and
sentenced to six years for his crime.
He served half of that sentence and
was released for good behavior; he
will be on probation for the next
four years. But what’s important is
that Tyson is a free man after paying
his debt to society, and we should
let him be just that.
But as we all know our media so
well, that simple and polite task just
won’t happen. He will be watched,
scrutinized, cheered and jeered on
his journey back from the lower
depths to his past place in history.
Current speculation has it that
Tyson will spend a few months
getting back in touch with society
and then begin to train for his long
awaited comeback. The rumor mill
has begun to churn news that he will
fight in July against a journeyman
punching bag who’ll get his 15
minutes of fame before the fight
begins, then about 15 seconds more
before Tyson reconstructs his face.
The big payday, however, is and
will be looming in the future. A
prospective $100 million purse
could be waiting for Tyson if and
when he decides to take on the
imposters who currently hold his
crown. Most experts say that
Tyson’s take could be somewhere
near the $50 to $55 million range.
That’s right, $55 million for
knockin’ the snot out of some guy.
Even if he loses, he’ll still get the
nice paycheck. Heck, even I would
step in the ring with him for a few
million. It would be more than
enough to cover the plastic surgery
on my nose, and I would still have
plenty of pocket change.
But what is really important is
that current whispers say that Tyson
is a changed man, not like the
overbearing brute he once was.
He reads constantly, has recited
poetry with Maya Angelou and has
converted to Islam. There’s even
current speculation that he will
change his name to Malik Abdul
Aziz. Not the sort of name that
strikes fear in the hearts of his
opponents, like Iron Mike, but this
is the new Mike Tyson and he
deserves a shot at life in society
without the hounds dogging him
everywhere he goes.
People do change, and past
mistakes can be forgiven. That is
what a fair and trusting society
should allow its members to do.
Tyson made a mistake, and he paid
his price. Now let’s let him do what
he does best: bash the brains out of
individuals.
That may sound barbaric, but our
society loves it, thrives on it, craves
it. All you have to do is look at
some of the television shows and
movies currently circulating through
our society. The American people
like staged violence and all the
aggressive brutality that comes out
of it. And frankly, there is no one
better than Tyson to deliver those
goods to us.
Welcome back Mike. You’ve
been sorely missed.
Goff Is a senior secondary education
major and a Dally Nebraskan columnist
Lauck only tip of Nazi iceberg
Ask most Americans about
Nebraska, and they’ll tell you one of
three things: We have a good
football team; we have a lot of
cornfields; or we’re a big state north
of Canada.
Ask most Germans about
Nebraska, and they might say the
same things. Chances are, however,
that they’ll tell you Nebraska is
home to Gerhard Lauck, neo-Nazi
hate-broker extraordinaire.
Since the early 1970s, Lauck has
manufactured and distributed Nazi
propaganda from his home base
here in Lincoln. In recent years,
business has been booming. German
police estimate that up to 70 percent
of all crimes involving Nazi
paraphernalia in Germany can be
traced to Lauck. Because Lauck is
protected in America by the First
Amendment and because he
generally does not deliver his goods
to Germany himself, German police
have been powerless to stop him.
Last week, Germany stepped up
its pursuit of Lauck, issuing arrest
warrants through Interpol to 15
countries where Lauck was believed
to have contacts.
It worked.
Last Thursday, it was reported
that Lauck had been arrested in
Denmark and that the German
government would be beginning the
extradition process.
Good news?
Not really.
While it is true that Lauck has
been in almost constant violation of
German law for 20 years and that
his work is an embarrassment to
America and an affront to civilized
society, one fact stands out.
The arrest and imprisonment of
Doug Peters
Gerhard Lauck will not make things
better—it may make things worse.
Lauck is not the only person on
earth who claims the Holocaust
never existed. He is not the only
person who believes in the superior
ity of the German “race.” He is not
the only person capable of supply
ing German neo-Nazis with swastika
flags and “Jews go home” bumper
stickers.
He is, however, a martyr for his
cause.
Rather than being some racist
jerk who knows how to run a
printing press, Lauck has been
transformed into a dangerous
criminal mastermind intent on
bringing down the Federal Repub
lic of Germany and reinventing
Nazism. His clout among his
colleagues has been increased
hundredfold by the very people
who have worked to bring him
down.
Lauck will serve his time in a
German prison, just as other neo
Nazis have. He will then be released
to return to the underground. His
reputation enhanced by his incar
ceration, Lauck will attract donors
sympathetic to the cause.
Then he will “Seig Heil” and
goose step all the way to the bank.
Hate exists with or without
Gerhard Lauck and his publishing
house. He didn’t create it; he just
marketed it. The elimination of
buttons and banners will not
eliminate the feelings that caused
them to be produced.
The hate, not the symbols of the
hate, is the problem.
Since 1990, there have been
thousands of violent crimes commit
ted by German neo-Nazis. More
than 30 people have been killed in
these attacks. As far as I know, none
of the victims were killed by rolled
up propaganda posters or blud
geoned by stacks of “Great Hitler
Speeches” cassette tapes. On the
contrary, they have been stomped to
death, burned to death and thrown
off balconies.
Gerhard Lauck is a twisted,
hateful person. What he does and
what he stands for makes me ill.
Getting him out of Lincoln and into
jail is a great step for the Germans
and for us here in Nebraska.
However, you can’t kill a dandelion
by cutting off the bloom. You have
to pull it out by the roots.
Gerhard Lauck is not the roots of
the neo-Nazi movement.
If members of the international
community are serious about tackling
the neo-Nazi threat, they will concern
themselves with the firebombing,
brick-throwing, immigrant-stomping
thugs who have plagued Germany for
the past several years. They should
find these people, arrest them and
prosecute them to the fullest extent of
the law.
Instead, they are slapping high
fives over the capture of a guy who
makes videotapes and posters.
Peters ts a graduate student aid Dally
Nebraskan columnist.
Welfare reform idle
as blame game lasts
All right, I will admit to a
certain amount of pleasure in
seeing the Contract negotiations
break down. There was something
smug about the claims of the
Newt kids on the block that they
would wing through all the social
problems of our era in a hundred
days — soaring across great
cultural divides into blissful new
territories.
In the middle of the flight
pattern, some of the passengers
started to have second thoughts
about the crew. One morning,
Americans looked up at each
other over the breakfast table
saying, “Hon, do you remember
voting against the school lunch
program?” “No, sweetie, was it '
on the ballot?”
School lunch, food stamps,
block grants, big cuts. By the time
welfare reform got to the House
floor, the nice, safe voter demand
to “do something about welfare”
had turned into anxiety about
what actually was being done.
The country began wondering if
the Republicans even knew what
they were doing.
Maybe the folks who wrote the
Contract hadn’t exactly figured
out how the government could
reduce the number of children
bom out of wedlock while also
reducing abortions. Or how to
come down hard on poor mothers
while lifting their kids up. Or how
to get more mothers to work
without paying a whole lot more
for child care. And by the way,
what about health insurance? „
Finally it seemed that Demo
crats had found their voice — a
yell — with Rep. Sam Gibbons
claiming the right “to be as
petulant as I want to be.” Repub
licans were fighting with each
other over abortion and fighting
with Democrats over their
reputation. Things got so bad for
the Republicans last Wednesday
that they sent their gentler and
kinder female House members
out to talk to the media as
mothers and teachers, with Rep.
Deborah Pryce of Ohio asking,
“Now, do we look like ogres?”
You could hear the breakfast
talk on Thursday morning: “Hon,
do you remember voting for an
ogre?” “No, sweetie, was there
one on the ballot?”
But despite my good cheer at
this comeuppance, I have a little
trouble remaining uplifted by a
debate about which plan is
crudest. We’re now witnessing a
shouting contest between those
who say the current welfare
system is what’s really mean to
lads and those who say the
Republican overhaul is what’s
truly mean.
Well, really, truly, and without
Ellen Goodman
being petulant, I think there’s
more agreement in the public than
in Congress. Two years ago, the
reformers in the Clinton adminis
tration thought that a deal had
been brokered between liberals
and conservatives.
Liberals were finally admitting
that welfare should be temporary
and welfare mothers should be
directed toward work. Conserva
tives were finally admitting that it
would take money to make the
transition.
The Clinton plan was tough. It
placed a time limit of two years
for most families on welfare. It
proposed to cap payments so that
there wouldn’t be more money for
a child bom while the mother was
on welfare. But in return, it
promised a serious increase in
child care and in training and
jobs. Instead of a handout, as they
said over and over again, a hand
up.
There was a lot of grumbling
among liberal Democrats who
called this a Republican plan. The
conservative Republicans thought
Clinton was doing their act.
But then the far right decided
to out-tough the administration.
The current Republican plan not
only cuts off cash payments to
mothers under 18, but rolls
welfare into a block grant of
social programs, cuts the funds,
drops die whole thing on the
states’ doorsteps and walks away.
The idea of reforming welfare
has become a plan to slash it. The
goal of changing lives has
become a plan to save money.
And the public is getting belat
edly uneasy about whacking away
at the poorest and youngest.
So now the Republicans are in
a contest with the Democrats to
determine who’s the crudest of
them all. The good news is that
both sides are worrying about
appearing too mean to the poor,
instead of worrying about
appearing tough enough. The bad
news is we’re back in the blame
game.
“Hon, do you remember voting
for the blame game?”
“Sweetie, maybe that’ll be on
the ballot next time.”
€>1995 The Boston Globe Newspaper
Company
( Bailiff, inform'foto' 'A
V he cant live here- J
Mike Luckovldi