Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 27, 1998)
EDITOR Paula Lavigne OPINION EDITOR Joshua Gillin EDITORIAL BOARD Brad Davis Erin Gibson Shannon Heffelfinger Chad Lorenz Jeff Randall i— Our VIEW Bill’s BiU of Rights President deserves same rights as citizens When news of President Clinton’s alleged affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky hit the pages, the major news networks pulled Dan Rather and Peter Jennings off their assignments covering the pope’s visit to Cuba and brought them back to Washington. The call of the media circus was too strong to keep their attention - and the rest of the nation’s - on the pontiff’s historic visit to the land where he was unwelcome a few years ago. More important in most people’s minds were the rumors and gos sip in the United States. But nearly one week later, the hard facts have yet to surface. The accusations rest with former White House aide Linda Tripp, who secretly taped conversations with Lewinsky. Those tapes hardly meet the criteria for admissible legal evidence. And Tripp, who previously had accused Clinton of another affair, is the only per son who has cast such charges. Lewinsky herself has denied in a legal affidavit that the affair took place. Yet the media and the nation turn to Clinton for explanations and defenses. And those who aren’t satisfied with his answers are screaming for resignation. Americans, and especially American politicians, shouldn’t b§ go fast to toss ground words like “impeachment” and “resignation.” Both of those words occurred only once each in American pol itics: Andrew Johnson was impeached (and stayed in office afterward) by a vengeful House after the Civil War, and Richard Nixon resigned because he was going to be impeached. But does the private life of our presi dent rest in the gossip circles of our citi zens? Well, when the possibility of perjury exists, as it does here, we should be very concerned about what Clinton has done. Burden of proof lies with the accusers, however, not the accused. Clinton should n’t have to explain allegations that have not yet been substantiated. Because the president is a highly pub lic figure, it is not totally necessary to wait for a trial to find him guilty. The public has a right to answers, but the question first must be certain. If Lewinsky herself can make her own accusations, then Clinton needs to step up and explain why she could make such charges. That’s when he should explain why he gave her a dress, a book of poetry and other gifts, and explain all the other strangely suspicious details. And if he did ask Lewinsky to lie under oath, then we can talk about impeachment. But until such guilt is proven, Clinton remains like any other U.S. citizen. Innocent until proven guilty. IflMfMCV The Daily Nebraskan wekxxnos brief Jettem to toe edtor and guest oolumne, txit does nc* guarantee tneirpubfcation. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submilled. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be relumed. Anonymous submissions witt no* be published. Those who submit Mats must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. Submit material to: Deify Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters0unlinfb.unl.edu. Haney’s VIEW DN LETTERS Letter wars Thus far in 1998 the columnists the Daily Nebraskan have demonstrat ed that there are less imaginative writ ers than the staff of the National Enquirer. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Rich Sheperd (DN Letters, Friday) and his analysis of the quality of the columns this semester. J was particu larly appalled by Klaus (Marre’s) col umn, “Out With the Old” (DN, Friday). It was riddled with stereotypes and thoughtless babble about a topic he demonstrated he knew nothing about. Compassion and humanity are a writer’s greatest tools, Klaus. The style was choppy and his facts were inaccu rate. (Did you even notice how many times he wrote “maybe” and “proba bly”?) The glib title by itself should have warranted rejection. Ageism is as serious a problem in our society today as racism or sexism. Klaus, next time you feel like a sense less attack on another human being, I suggest you look in the mirror and within yourself. NOTE TO MALE COLUM NISTS: Please, stop with the Spice Girls, Dirk Diggler and masturbation allusions. They are overdone and immature. Denise I. Matulka Lincoln A new hope? Since my freshman year, I have always tried to start the day with the DN. It is a decent paper, and fun to read over first thing in the morning. But in that time span, I’ve noticed an alarm ing abundance of ignorant letters from various student factions. I’ve tried to hold my tongue, figuring everyone is entitled to their views. But (Friday’s) letter from Clint Keller and Matt Molsen is the straw that broke the camel’s back. First off, gays are not looking for “special rights,” as they are often accused of. They are looking for the right to not be attacked on the streets by lynch-mob-mentality hatemongers. Gay marriage is not about corrupting society or something stupid like that It’s about being accepted by society. Until social acceptance is reached, there will never be true equality for these people. Secondly, what’s up with saying that the gay rights movement can’t jus tify itself? You’ve obviously not read too many articles on the subject, my friends. I feel no need to rehash the arguments here; you*d probably dis miss any facts I tried to present as “lib eral propaganda” anyway, just like such noted “public debators” as Rush Limbaugh (who never allows anyone on his show with beliefs in opposition to his own on his show due to a disas trous past record) say you should. And, as for the “totalitarian” argument, I feel I should remind you of another group famous for slogans and banners - the American Revolutionary forces. What you list as “propaganda techniques” are commonly used by our government and various corporations to drive a point home and spread the message. Third, being homosexual is NOT a mental illness. Even if it is indeed genetic, as much research indicates, being gay does not detract from the individual’s ability to function in soci ety as would, say, schizophrenia (which, by the way, refers not to multi ple personality disorder, a totally dif ferent disease, but to a loss of any sense of reality at all which leads the subject to totally incomprehensible behavior). When gays start barking at passersby and shouting obscenities uncontrol lably, then I’ll buy your argument, but until then, drop the mental illness standpoint. And yes, I am heterosexual. I do see society crumbling, but not from the movement toward equal rights for all, which is the inevitable goal of any soci ety. I see the crumbling as a result of far-right resistance to any kind of change and a government mired in old, failed ideas tearing us up in die middle. If society’s standards are crumbling, maybe those standards shouldn’t exist in the first place. Joshua Richardson sophomore theater Hie letter strikes back It is truly scary that Clint Keller and Matt Molsen, both college juniors, can be so incorrect in their ideas and information. The two largest mental health organizations in the world reversed themselves decades ago in their former stance that homosexuality was a mental illness. Nebraska is (me of the more sensible states that repealed their sodomy laws, but these laws still exist in 20 other states. They decry die use of propagandist tactics by gay people, while conveniently ignor ing the massive level of propagandist activity by the Christian Coalition against gay people. Their letter claim ing gays are mentally ill, and that het erosexual supporters of gays should be condemned, is anti-gay propaganda. At least they admitted it was “their opinion.” ' Gary Rimar Romeo, Mich. Return of tiie letter We found Charles Godwin’s letter (DN, Thursday) to be a departure from the land of sound ethics and morality. Mr. Godwin first argues that deny ing women the “right to abortion” would impose upon them children at inopportune times, thus perpetuating “cycles of poverty.” He, presumably, holds that it is an act of “saving grace” to murder children who would have lived lives of poverty anyway. Abortion, then, becomes a cruel kind ness. “Of all tyrannies,” wrote C. S. Lewis, “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Next, Mr. Godwin presents two premises: (1) Life does not begin at conception, and (2) Life has been con tinuous since humanity began. Godwin would have us believe that these truths are so overwhelmingly evi dent that no further arguments are needed. We understand that the first argu ment would be impossible to defend in a short letter, but it is one we cannot accept. We believe that “human life must be respected and protected ABSOLUTELY from the moment of CONCEPTION” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270), and that “abortion always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being” (Evangelium Vitae, 62). remaps we have misread him, but it appears that he has conveniently thrown in the obscure coup de grace, “since humanity began.” We wish he would’ve explained that Furthermore, if life is “continu ous” contraception and abortion must be unjustified, since they interfere with this “continuity” - a conclusion that , Godwin would hardly want to lead us to, since he would then be arguing FOR the pro-life movement, not against it If life does begin at conception (and we bold this to-be so), then abor tion, whether “performed safely” or “under dangerous, clandestine condi tions,” is an intrinsic evil. Unless Mr. Godwin can properly provide stronger arguments, we pco-lifas must continue to call abortion what it truly is - mur der. Let barbaric things have barbaric names. LceJirovsky UU TI-1— MI wet listen wan
