Wednesday, March 6, 1996 Page 4
Daily
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
J. Christopher Haiti.Editor, 472-1766
Doug Kouma.Managing Editor
Doug Peters. Opinion Page Editor
Sarah Scalet. Associate News Editor
Matt Waite.Associate News Editor
Michelle Garner......Wire Editor
Jennifer Mapes....Columnist
Here’s the beef
While lean, ACTION’S platform meatier
ACTION has it.
As did IMPACT. As did VISION. As did VOICE.
In the last four AS UN elections, the victors have always had one
big advantage — organiza
tion. This year it’s especially
evident.
Both parties have a couple
of attractive planks in their
platforms — stances and is
sues that are designed to cap
ture votes and maybe (just
maybe) become reality over
the next year. But this ASUN
election is not rcaRy about is
sues.
They never are.
They usually come down
to the same thing: “establish
ment” vs. “outsiders.”
This year is no exception.
Justin Firestone and the
OFFICE party have a noble
BretGottschall/DN goal ~ t0 Cftange Stuaent
government. They want to
bring down the political machine that is ACTION/IMPACT/VI
SION/VOICE, etc. That would be great. But OFFICE isn’t the party
to do it.
OFFICE doesn’t have enough candidates to mount a serious chal
lenge to ACTION. If the political cycle that has captured ASUN
elections for so long is ever to be broken, it must start from the
bottom. OFFICE offers only 12 candidates to ACTION’S 72. Even
if all of OFFICE’S candidates were elected, ASUN still would be
dominated by ACTION, and Firestone would be ineffective.
OFFICE’S stance on many of the issues is either weak or indis
tinguishable from that of its opponents. The party brings new people
to the table, but not new ideas.
ACTION has slightly stronger goals and experience. They have
better ideas on keeping student costs low and improving safety on
campus. Presidential candidate Eric Marintzer has necessary expe
rience and has shown a desire to use that experience to benefit stu
dents. In addition, he will provide a strong voice as a student re
gent, perhaps the most important duty of the ASUN president.
Electing someone other than the establishment is a good idea.
But only if the alternative is better.
When an “anti-establishment” party comes along that can fill a
senate slate, provide fresh, new ideas and demonstrate that a vote
for them is more than a vote against the “machine,” it definitely
will be deserving of students’ support.
But OFFICE isn’t quite that party.
The Daily Nebraskan hands the ACTION party a medium-rare
endorsement in today’s ASUN election.
Editorial policy
Staff editorials represent the official
policy of the Spring 19% Daily Ne
braskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editorials
do not necessarily reflect the views of
the university, its employees, the stu
dents or the NU Board of Regents.
Editorial columns represent the opin
ion of the author. The regents publish
the Daily Nebraskan. They establish
the UNL Publications Board to super
vise the daily production of the paper.
According to policy set by die regents,
responsibility for die editorial content
of the newspaper lies solely in the
hands of its students.
Latter policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the
editor from all readers and interested others. Letters
will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity,
originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily
Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject aD material
submitted. Readers also are welcome to submit mate
rial as guest opinions. The editor decides whether
material should run as a guest opinion. Letters and
guest opinions sent to the newspaper become die
property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be re
turned. Anonymous submissions will not be pub
lished. Letters should include the author’s name, year
in school, major and group affiliation, if any. Re
quests to withhold names will not be granted. Submit
material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union,
1400 R St Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
A
Men face burdens
After reading Jennifer Mapcs’
article “Feminism” (March 4), 1 was
both confused and angered. The
confusion came from the part of the
article where Jennifer says that her
parents were “generally egalitarian
in outlook.” To be an egalitarian,
one must believe in the goal of
making everyone as equal in
everything.
This means both in the rewards of
society and in the burdens that come
with those rewards.
The rest of Jennifer’s article goes
on to talk about the goal of Femi
nism being equal rights and opportu
nities for women. She seems to
entirely skip over or ignore the
burdens. The old saying is that you
can’t get something for nothing.
Feminists seem to think that women
should have all the same rights and
opportunities as men without having
the same burdens, and that angers
me.
One of the biggest burdens that I
can think of is selective service.
Selective service is one of the
biggest burdens that I can think of
that the American male has to
handle. It it the burden of going to
serve, and possibly, die for your
country whether you want to or not.
That is a pretty big duty.
I have yet to hear any Feminist
call out that she wants the right and
opportunity of selective service.
I think that Feminism will
succeed when women finally
acknowledge the fact that you can’t
get rights and opportunities without
also getting the burdens that go
along with them. When women
accept that, there will be true
equality for all.
Philip Paider
sophomore
general studies
via e-mail
What’s the differ
ence?
Regarding Ted Taylor’s front
page article “Senators Hear Testi
mony on Gay Marriage” (Feb. 28):
Two people fall in love. They
want to spend the rest of their lives
together in a monogamous relation
ship and share their lives and
fortunes.
BretGottschall/DN
Should they get married or just
live together?
They should get married, right? If
they make a formal commitment to
each other, they’re more likely to
take the relationship seriously. If
they just live together without taking
public vows of fidelity, they’re more
likely to fall apart in times of stress.
What if they’re named Bob and
Ted, or Carol and Alice?
If it’s good for society when
heterosexual couples settle down in
permanent, legally-sanctioned
relationships, why is it bad when gay
couples do likewise?
Out of one side of their mouths,
the religious right suggests that gays
are promiscuous, engaging in
repeated sexual acts with unmarried
partners. Out of the other, they say
that allowing gays to marry will be
the end of civilization.
Well, individuals who think
homosexuality is a sin can go on
thinking that. Churches that don’t
want to perform religious ceremo
nies for gay couples can go on
refusing to do so. The end of
segregation didn’t end racism; the
end of the ban on gay marriage
won’t end homophobia.
Disliking gays won’t make them
go away or desire someone of the
opposite sex. Never has, never will.
As such, people who would stop
homosexuality are waging a war they
cannot win.
Allowing same-sex marriages
would seem to accomplish one of the
religious right’s primary objectives,
discouraging promiscuity while
encouraging permanent loving
relationships. What could possibly
be wrong with that?
William Stosine
Iowa City, Iowa
via e-mail
In defense *
of veggies
Gene Paulsen and Heather
Stewart seem quite troubled by the
column on vegetarianism by Kelly
Johnson (Feb. 28). It was moderate,
well-thought out, and not terribly
opinionated. Why the animosity?
It appears to me that Paulsen and
Stewart are threatened by the idea of
vegetarianism going rampant. As
director of the Nebraska Vegetarian
Society, I can assure them their fears
arc unfounded. While more and
more folks are seeking a healthier
lifestyle accompanied by healthier
eating habits, there are still far more
meat-eaters than pure vegetarians.
I’d suggest that Paulsen and
Stewart try to understand the many
reasons why vegetarians choose their
lifestyle. An excellent place to start
would be the well-documented “Diet
for a New America,” by John
Robbins. This is an excellent source
for the answers to Paulsen’s ques
tions.
For instance, most of the world’s
grains are now produced for animal
feed. These are grains that vegetar
ians can and do eat, such as soy
beans, oats and wheat.
It takes 16 pounds ol grain and
soybeans to yield a pound of fcedlot*
beef. Fifteen vegetarians can be fed
on the same amount of land needed
to feed one person on a meat-based
diet. It’s a lot more efficient use of
the land, and it makes sense environ
mentally. If we use less land to grow
feed crops, we could grow more
diverse crops with less topsoil
erosion.
But this is only the tip of the
iceberg. There is a world of advan
tages to a vegetarian diet that
encompass health, the environment
and animal welfare. And the Ne
braska Vegetarian Society proudly
welcomes all, vegetarian or not, to
its fifth annual “Vegetarian Aware
ness Festival” to enjoy a vegetarian
buffet and to leam more about the
“whys” of vegetarianism.
Marcia Andersen
director,
Nebraska Vegetarian Society
Lincoln