Commentary
Gay debate needs disinterest
One man’s liberties end where
another man’s liberties begin. This
common-sense concept has been
battered in the past weeks by the
farcical displays of pseudo-theology
on the part of religious fanatics. Tlie
anti-gay demonstration in front of
the Lied Center reminded us all of
the narrow-mindedness of certain
factions of the ecclesiastic move
ment.
Keeping in mind that the indi
vidual right of privacy is sacred and
inviolable, it is a moral duty for all
of us to remove any trace of
prejudice based on sexual prefer
ence. These premises are an
absolute must for any individual.
My focus, however, is shifted
toward those aspects of gay/lesbian
militancy that trespass the bound
aries of pure political activism and
violently attack the intimate values
of some citizens. The critique of the
opposition’s values is part of
politics, as should be the respect for
personal beliefs. Unfortunately,
some segments of the gay/lesbian
movement have opted to aggres
sively challenge the system through
open provocation. One example of
this is the explicit graffiti etched
around campus during Coming Out
Day; it did nothing to advance the
gay/lesbian cause, but it wounded
people’s sensibilities.
The homosexual movement goes
beyond the search for acceptance
and tries to change people’s minds
through a shock therapy of sorts.
Unfortunately, our world is far from
ideal, and not all people are open
minded or are willing to listen to
arguments that go against their
values. Some individuals will never
understand how two men or two
women can love each other in a
sexual way. Their freedom of
thought is as sacred as anyone
else’s.
It is wrong to challenge people’s
Simon Liverani
beliefs unless they pose a threat to
others’ liberties, and the disapproval
of an elderly grandmother hardly
poses a threat to a powerful civil
rights movement.
The prevailing attitude among
most people is of indifference. This
can be seen as a victory for homo
sexuals, a step forward from the
condemnation of the past Nowa
days, few of the Generation Xers
would be shocked if they met a gay
or lesbian; even fewer would be
critical. However, there is still a
shadow of uneasiness within
heterosexual people when they come
across homosexuals. It is hardly
explainable with the old “latent
homosexuality” theory, but rather it
is related to the impossibility for
most straight people to understand
gays.
The recently adopted policy
regarding gays in the military is
emblematic of the common attitude
that most Americans have towards
that issue. The Clinton administra
tion and the gay/lesbian movement
expected too much from an estab
lishment that has always been the
fortress of conservatism.
On the other hand, if the issue
should not be sexual orientation, but
qualification. Why should a soldier
display his/her homosexuality?
Details of one’s intimate life should
have no place in a professional
environment where the ability to
perform should stand above every
thing else.
Gay issues have become vital
platforms for present and future
candidates for Congress and the
White House. Clinton used the gay
issue as a tool to discredit the
Republicans on the basis of their
lack of effort in the fight against
AIDS. Gays and lesbians are today a
strong lobbying power, thanks to
size of population and wealth, and
are hardly as discriminated against
and neglected as many other
minorities. The main issue facing
today’s gay/lesbian community is
how to change from the aggressive
style of militancy, which brandishes
homosexuality as a weapon, to one
that tries to understand and gradu
ally change opposing views.
Nearly two thousand years of
Christianity have relegated sexual
behavior to a dark comer of our
consciousness. Thus, to expect
everybody to accept homosexuality,
with its full baggage of connotation,
is at best utopian. However, it is our
duty to allow each other the freedom
to chose our lifestyles and prefer
ences.
Nobody should be discriminated
against or criticized for personal
choices and intimate values, and this
should apply to both sides of the
argument. Although I don’t under
stand the inability of religious
people to accept homosexuality, it is
their right to have that opinion. It is
another thing to demonstrate in an
offensive and intolerant fashion, like
what happened at the Lied Center.
It should be clear by now that my
basic philosophy concerning the
matter is “live and let live”; after all,
most people don’t care what others
do in their bedrooms.
It is great to come out of the
closet, but why also crane out of the
bedroom?
Ltvenul h u senior advertising major
and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
Time to bite the NRA bullet
Here s a little something about
me: I’m a tree-huggin’, “peace and
love”-type liberal whose picture is
probably pasted up at the Young
Republican headquarters with a
giant slash through my face. I also
believe in trickle-down economics.
I think that there may be a special
wing for people like me at mental
hospitals. I’ll let you know.
One of the reasons that I slap
myself with the dreaded liberal label
is that I believe in gun control. The
National Rifle Association has my
picture up at its headquarters as
well, but its members actually shoot
at the picture. Just kidding, NRA
people, please don’t kill me.
Anyway, I have this theory that
guns do in fact kill people. The
argument against this from the NRA
people (who, by the way, all have
great senses of humor—please
don’t kill me) is that “guns don’t kill
people, people kill people.”
That is true. It does take a
psychopathic killer to actually pull
the trigger of a high-powered pistol
to kill another person. But if we
replaced the weapon with, let’s say
for argument’s sake, a leafy stick,
then the argument wouldn’t quite be
the same.
“Leafy sticks don’t scratch
people about the head and neck,
people scratch people about the
head and neck” would be a lot easier
to deal with, as far as my tree
huggin’ conscience is concerned.
But, alas, it just seems that the
right for Americans to own weapons
with enough firepower to take
control of a snail nation is a
precious (me. This is a right that
should not be tampered with, and I
don’t believe that I can change that
attitude with (me column.
So, I have crane up with a perfect
Todd Elwood
solution that will not only please
liberal freaks like myself, but also
keep the happy-go-lucky NRA folks
smiling broadly. Get ready to take
down my bullet-hole laden picture,
NRA, this will be great.
I suggest that we, as a nation of
gun-totin’, shoot-’em-up citizens,
allow everyone to have as many
guns as we can carry. No gun can be
outlawed, no matter how much
power it possesses. No one, no
matter how much time they have
spent in the “Liberal Trickle-Down”
wing of the mental hospital, may be
denied a gun.
Then, after everyone is packing
some cool-looking heat, we outlaw
all ammunition.
No shells, no cartridges, no
bullets of any kind will be allowed.
All firepower is illegal.
Right now, the NRA is pasting up
another picture of my ugly mug in
the target practice areas of its
compounds, I mean offices. I’m not
a gun tease, really.
I say we allow all guns, but
instead of the keeping the potential
for things to fly out of the guns
really fast, we eliminate that
problem.
I don’t have a problem with any
gun, as long as nothing conies out of
die barrel at half the speed of light,
ready to rip through skin and shred
important internal organs.
After all, guns don’t kill people,
high-speed bullets expelled from
guns kill people.
The NRA people would argue
against this idea because it would
make guns highly ineffective,
especially for killing things. I agree.
But think about the potential for fun
here.
I played cops and robbers with
my older brother a lot as a kid. I’ve
been shot hundreds of times by him.
But here’s the kicker: I’m still alive.
He would jump from behind a
tree and make a cool gun sound,
such as, “Bang! Bang!” and then I
would fall down, gripping my chest,
whispering that death whisper, “You
got me, you got me.”
Unless, of course, I was wearing
my all-protective invisible shield.
Then I would be able to fire back
right away.
“Vrooo! Vrooo!” I would say (I
had a laser pistol that shot through
invisible shields), and then it would
be his turn to do the death whisper.
It was great fun for a couple of kids,
and it may be the answer for a
terrible social problem as well.
We could make legitimate by law
the sound of a gun going off. If a
psychopathic killer boards a subway
with a gun, for example, all he
would have to do would be to repeat
the cool gun sound (“Bang! Bang!”)
several times, and the passengers
would have to fall down, gripping
their chests, whispering the death
whisper.
Unless, of course, they were all
smart enough to be wearing their all
protective invisible shields.
Elwood Is a senior English aad sociol
ogy major aad a Dally Nebraskan colum
nist.
Fictitious scenario
offers exnlanation
A fictional but fascinating
scenario came to me while I was
writing about those formerly
secret files in Moscow — hie
ones that affirmed the link
between the old Soviet govern
ment and the Communist Party
USA. If the Soviets could put
moles in highly sensitive posi
tions within the United States,
why couldn’t the Republican
Party place a mole in the Demo
cratic Party for the purpose of
toppling it from power?
In this scenario I obtained a
top-secret transcript of a meeting
between Republican National
Committee Chairman Haley
Barbour and President Bush at
Yale’s Skull and Bones cave
shortly after the Persian Gulf
War.
“Mr. President,” said Barbour,
“you’re riding high now with 90
percent approval ratings, but you
know you don’t have a vision for
the country and are bound to lose
to a younger Democrat who
promises ‘change.’ You’ve
always served your country well.
I have a plan that will involve
your sacrificing a second term,
allowing Democrats to control the
government for two years, but I
think it well result in a GOP
takeover of Congress in 1994 and
the White House in ’96, the
destruction of the Democratic
Party’s liberal wing and a
Republican dominance for 50
years.”
“Gosh, Haley,” Mr. Bush
replied. “I’ve always tried to do
the right and prudent thing. Do
you think it will work?”
“Work? I know it will work,
Mr. President. Only no one could
ever know. We’d have to take it
to our graves.”
“Not a problem there, Haley. I
could always keep a secret. Why,
when I headed the CIA ...”
“Never mind that now, George
— may I call you George?”
“Sure Haley, all my friends do.
Have another glass of white
wine.”
“Here’s the plan. We’ve been
grooming this guy Clinton for
years.”
“Bill Clinton? The governor of
Arkansas?” replied Bush in
disbelief. “He’s a closet Republi
can?”
“Shhh, someone will hear you.
Yes, Clinton is our mole inside
the Democratic Party. We started
providing women and liquor and
the usual stuff while he was still
at Oxford. The guy wants to be
liked more than you do. Uh,
sorry, George.”
“TTiat’s all right, Haley. I can
take it. I was in the war, got shot
down...”
“Listen, will you? Clinton has
agreed that if we help get him
elected President, he’ll do exactly
Cal Thomas
as we tell him. He’ll raise taxes,
after first promising to lower
them. Then he’ll blame the rich
for not paying enough, and he’ll
do that after raising their taxes
retroactively. And when he
announces for re-election, he’ll
refuse to promise he won’t raise
taxes again. And he’ll say he
takes that position as a matter of
principle! Won’t that be a
laugh?”
“Now, Haley, let’s not make
fun of our fellow man.”
“But, George, here’s the
kicker. I’ve talked to Bob
McNamara, and he’s agreed to
help us. Sometime in 1995,
McNamara will publish a book in
which he admits to being wrong
about the Vietnam War and
claiming to have felt that way
even while he was ordering young
men to die. Veterans groups will
go ballistic, reminding everyone
again of Clinton’s war non
record. We’ll get Clinton to say
something dumb, like
McNamara’s book vindicates
him. He’ll defend his anti-war
demonstrations on foreign soil
and his attempt to avoid the draft
by pulling political strings to join
a reserve unit and then, after the
lottery threat was diminished,
making himself available. We can
keep this pot boiling right up to
the ’96 primaries.”
“It sounds good, Haley, but
what will people think of me for
losing the election?”
“George, if you love your
country, you’ll go along with this
plan. This is the only way
Republicans are going to take
over. We have an idea for an off
the-wall surgeon general, and
we’re going to get Clinton to push
for gays in the military and
abortions for everybody! And
listen, there’s something else. It’s
called ‘Whitewater.’ It could be
Clinton’s Watergate. We have
plenty on that just in case he
decides he actually likes being
president and wants to break his
agreement with us.”
Here, the transcript is soiled
by spilled white wine and the rest
is illegible.
Sound impossible? Well, is
there a better way to explain the
president’s behavior?
(c) 1995 Los Angeles Times Syndicate
I got into
thoStteot
the 01 jUfofS
Mike Luckovich
