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
