EDITOR
DougKouma
OPINION
EDITOR
Anne Hjersman
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Doug Peters
Matt Waite
Paula Lavigne
Mitch Sherman
Anthony Nguyen
Undebatable
Perot has no business
in candidates’forum
Picture this.
It’s late September. The last carefree day
of summer has come and gone. A certain
crispness in the air signals that fall is here,
and it’s time to start getting serious—about
school and work and deciding whom you’re
going to vote for when election time rolls
around.
On this night, you’re in luck. You flip
on the television and find that the first presi
dential debate of the season is in full swing.
But something doesn’t seem quite right.
President Clinton is there. Bob Dole is
there, too. But who are the rest of those
people?
There’s Green Party presidential candi
date Ralph Nader, who just seems a little too
excited about this whole spotted owl thing.
U.S. Taxpayers Party candidate Howard
Phillips is burning his W-4 form, and Liber
tarian Harry Browne joins in the protest,
volunteering to “call in” one of his “Michi
gan boys” to “pay a little visit” to the Inter
nal Revenue Service.
John Hagelin, the Natural Law Party
candidate, is humming quietly behind his
podium, having exhausted himself explain
ing how Transcendental Meditation will help
lower the national debt.
And then there’s Ross Perot, ya see,
spouting off about his crazy aunt in the base
ment who’s got a penchant for Mexican to
matoes or something.
“And exactly HOW is this helping me?”
you ask.
This scenario is exaggerated, but the
point is valid.
Presidential debates are intended to give
the American people a head-to-head com
parison of the viable candidates for the job.
“Participation is not extended to candi
dates because they might prove interesting
or entertaining,” said the Commission on
Presidential Debates in its decision Tuesday
that Clinton and Dole should square off
against only each other in this year’s con
test.
With hundreds of presidential candidates
on ballots nationwide, clearly a line must be
drawn somewhere in deciding who should
participate in nationally televised debates.
In excluding all but the two major party
candidates — the only ones with a realistic
chance to claim the presidency this year—
die commission drew that line in exactly the
right place.
If any third-party or independent candi
date has reason to be included in the debates,
it may be Perot But the Ross Perot of 1996,
who barely registers in public opinion polls,
is clearly not the Ross Perot of 1992, who
won 19 percent of the popular vote.
It’s also important to remember that
Perot failed to win a single Electoral Col
lege vote in die last election. With an even
smaller support base this year; his chances
seem even more grim.
On Nov. 5, one of only two men will be
elected president — Bill Clinton or Bob
Dole. The debates are serious business. They
should be left to the serious contenders.
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Fall
19% Daily Nebraskan. They do not neces
sarily reflect the views of the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student
body or the University of Nebraska Board of
Regents. A column is soley the opinion of its
author. The Board of Regents serves as pub
lisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Die
UNL Publications Board, established by the
regents, supervises the production of the news
paper. According to policy set by the regents,
responsibility for the editorial content of the
newspaper lies solely in the hands of its stu
dent employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief let
ters to the editor and guest columns, but
does not guarantee their publication. The
Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit
or reject any material submitted. Submit
ted material becomes the property of the
Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned.
Anonymous submissions will not be
pubtished. Those who submit letters must
identify themselves by name, year in
school, major and/or group affiliation,
if any. Stibmit material to: Daily Nebras
kan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lin
coln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters @unlinfo.unlxdu.
"fe MM If/ WiN
'MUftVMP THOsf ItUWD
yf OTS
VIH/tfc i\ HtAH M |Jf\T iu/ttj)
IHUVitlOW. 'Wl RUW
StWfeVoOHWE. NO .
OF WINMIf^.
Historical decision
Nick Wiltgen somehow, some
where managed to miss one of
history’s major tragedies, which
continues to this day: that in all times
and places, many families’ “frame
work of values” for when their kids
should go to work has been simply,
“We’re desperately poor and
everybody who can walk in this
family has to work.” Child labor—
and we’re speaking of elementary
age kids too—has had kids in
dangerous and exploitive jobs for
centuries. The government’s hand in
this didn’t come out of some bureau
cratic urge to meddle. It came from
community outrage at a repugnant
aivuauuu.
Now, for the 13-year-old wanting
a job, I know Hy-Vee isn’t exactly a
dark, dangerous sweatshop. But I
also know that plenty of businesses
couldn’t care less if someone’s
schoolwork, health and Social or
family life suffer if they can get by
with capitalizing cm a teenager's
desire to have some real dollars of
their own. “Nothing special happens
the instant a person turns 16,18, or
21.” No, not in that instance. But an
enormous amount of growth in
judgment, maturity and reasoning
ability occurs between 16 and 21.
Our society—not our government
—decided that some things, like
selecting leaders, using alcohol
responsibly, or making employment
choices that inpact a whole life,
ought to have the benefit of a certain
level of maturity. Age limits are
arbitrary, but they are not unreason- *
able. They evolved from the experi
ences of our communities.
Paul Marxhausen
Electronics Technician III
Unwarranted actions
We were very disturbed by the
incident described in the Lincoln
Journal Star on Sept. 6 about Steve
Thompson and his two Japanese
guests. Why would the police
Jim Mihsung/DN
handcuff a napping man and pull
another out of a shower at gun point?
Neither of diem were in threatening
positions to command such a strong
reaction.
The answer seems to lie in Sgt.
Art Bandar’s response, which
indicated the police assumed the
worst and advanced with weapons
drawn because people of color are
not usually seen in Thompson’s
neighborhood.
Since when is it a crime for
people of color to walk anywhere in
the city of Lincoln? This is a free
country. All people, visiters or
residents, have the right to be in any
neighborhood in this city... without
being confronted by police with
weapons drawn. c
What do we call this kind of
behavior where people of color are
automatically suspect when seen in
places where they “aren’t supposed
to be”? That is racism. It is present in
the fabric of our society. It is present
in our institutions. And it is raising
its ugly head in the Lincoln police
force as well.
Did we learn nothing from the
tragedy of the Renteria incident? Just
because all parties were exonerated,
does that mean that the police can
return to business as usual? What
happened to the recommendations of
the mayor’s Conciliation Committee?
It is time we quit defending our
police and cut to the source of the
problem. We feel like we must
defend them, because by defending
them, we defend ourselves. We are,
after all, “good” people who don’t
want to face the racism that lies deep
within us. But the fact is that racism
is not simply isolated in the Lincoln
Police Department or in a few hate
crimes. It is hidden (not very well) in
the very fabric of the Lincoln
community. We not only are called to
condemn die actions of the Lincoln
police, but we also are called to take
our own blinders off and ask how we
have allowed and contributed to
these attitudes.
Revs. Melissa Draper and Steve
Ratzlaff
Lincoln Community Peacemakers
News slant
UPI White House Bureau Chief
Helen Thomas takes the stage at
Nebraska Wesleyan University to
proclaim the virtues of Bill Clinton
and the Democratic Party (DN,
Friday, Sept 13), and the Daily
Nebraskan reports that as news?
It is not news to most folks in this
country that such self-proclaimed
“objective” repeaters as Thomas are
as blatantly and arrogantly biased
toward the left as they are. What is
news is that the Daily Nebraskan
would have the courage to run such a
story.
Kudos to DN staff reporter Erin
Gibson forgetting the stray right!
I’ve grown accustomed to the
slanted offerings of today’s media
elite. Still it never fails to warm my
heart to see fellow members of that
media correctly identify those
obviously prejudiced reporters like
Thomas.
I don’t expect the media to
become more objective. I simply
want it to be aboveboard about its
lack thereof. In that regard, the DN
has taken the first step.
Thomas K. Eads
president
UNL Second Amendment Stu
dents* Association
P.5. Write “Back
Tebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 "R" St., Lincoln,
_ :to (402) 472-176L ore^mail.^.
5rs must be signed and inalude a phone number for verification