Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 23, 1998)
EDITOR Paula Lavigne OPINION EDITOR Joshua Gillin EDITORIAL BOARD Brad Davis Erin Gibson Shannon Heffelfinger Chad Lorenz Jeff Randall Guest VIEW Time to strike ‘Town meeting’proves time for talk at an end The Post Ohio University ATHENS, Ohio (U-Wire) - A storm is getting stronger in the Middle East and the United States. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger visited Columbus, Ohio, to conduct an “international town meeting” Thursday. The possible war with Iraq has brought out strong emotions throughout the country. According to CNN, support for military action against Iraq has fallen since Feb. 1, and now the country’s approval is split almost evenly on possible military strikes. The time has come for military action against Iraq if these last attempts at peace fail. Showing our resolve is important. We cannot let Iraq fail to live up to the peace agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War. If we do, no country will take us seriously. It is also important to destroy the chem ical-weapons capabilities of Iraq before Saddam Hussein is able to cause even more serious problems. We cannot allow Iraq to be a significant military threat to the coun tries of the Middle East. Chemical weapons can cause significant, long-last ing damage. If Iraq is allowed to grow militarily, it could start a large-scale war in the Middle East. If we can inhibit its military abilities now, this could be the smaller war to pre vent a bigger war. These are the sort of opinions Berger, Cohen and Albright should hear. But, the town meeting wasn’t fealty a town meeting. To us, a town meeting is a place where everyone can come and be heard. The gov ernment officials listen and take the opin ions of the people back with them to be considered when a decision is made. We saw officials avoiding questions and giving cryptic responses. This leads us to believe that the opinions of the people will have little effect on their final decision. we are giaarne u.s. government wanted to discuss this with the people. It is always a good idea to educate citizens, but (the meet ing shouldn’t have been presented) as a forum where each person would have the chance to have his questions answered and his opinions heard. Many of the questions were preselected. Most of the tickets were allocated and not available to the public. So many questions were avoided that it should have been titled a press conference. Many of the people who attended the town meeting probably gained a lot from it. The more important question is: What did the panelists take away from the experi ence? Because, in the end, it is apparent these leaders will make the decision whether or not to strike Iraq. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student body or the Unwe&ty>of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely tie opinion of its author. The PastH nif Rortontc eoiuac ac m ihitch^r i no ducdu ui nuywub juivcRj do |amkmiui of the Daily Nebraskan; poficy » set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Tne I I Ml PiiKlinaHnfm QAarJ nnifihBnhnrf kw unl PiRNicanons uoara, estaousnea oy the regents, supervises the production Lottsr Policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters 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. Submitted material becomes property of Nebraskan and cannot be Anonymous submissions witi not be published. Those who submit letters must identity themseNes by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. r ^ f Submit material to: Nebraska Union, 1< NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: Ietters9unlinfo.unl.edu. Haney’s VIEW Mm, rR« J{ fa -jtu Cost V«o ft J> |^ CflUllTRJl^ Mo ftuf'c4t^^/^ \ 5,tA»»Oiftl& 1S£j ml \wiA? SfWKBS A PEAU... x I k Cod Mill DN LETTERS I’m right and you’re not John Harris’ letter in Friday’s Daily Nebraskan (“Dammit, Jim”) is an ad hominem: arguing by personal attack rather than reason. First of all, since I wasn’t educat ed in the United States, his state ments about my “education in this country” are nonsensical. I informed Harris of this by e-mail on Wednesday, and he had ample oppor tunity to correct his statement between Wednesday and Friday. He evidently chose not to do so. On Wednesday I provided both him and the DN staffer who original ly wrote the piece on Elijah McCoy a detailed set of references showing that the phrase “the Real Mackay” was in use in Scotland at least since the 1880s, and probably well before that, and that its first documented use in the United States was in a San Francisco newspaper in 1899 in ref erence to Kid McCoy. I’ve chal lenged them both to find an earlier case, or indeed any case, of “The Real McCoy” in popular usage in ref erence to Elijah McCoy. They have failed to do so. I have conducted my own search, and in no biography of Elijah McCoy have I been able to find any genuine citation to any use of the phrase in popular culture in reference to Elijah McCoy or his inventions. The earliest biographical account of Elijah McCoy (in 1913) doesn’t mention the phrase “The Real McCoy” at all. More modem accounts simply repeat the story without question from pre vious accounts, with no skepticism, no citation of a primary source and rarely even any mention that their explanation of the phrase is contro versial. I am upset that Harris would use a scurrilous personal attack to com pensate for his inability or unwilling ness to argue on the basis of fact. And I am very upset that the DN would print such a personal attack. Gerard S. Harbison chemistry professor You’re just plain wrong I debated today whether respond ing to Mr. Long’s letter (“The price is wrong,” Thursday) was even worth taking the time to defend such ridicu lous allegations. However, 1 feel I owe it to the student season ticket holders to set die record straight and ■ ■ .. point out how terribly off base Mr. Long was with his careless letter. Mr. Long said I blatantly lied to the student ticket holders. Perhaps he is the one who either is blatantly lying about his so-called facts or maybe his memory just needs refreshing. My money is on the latter. Please allow me to remind you, Mr. Long, by pointing out the follow ing: 1. Mr. Long stated that in 1994 (five years ago next fall), he paid $67.50 for his student football season ticket. Actually, Mr. Long paid $73.00 for the six home-game tick ets. 2. Mr. Longelaimed that in 1995, the ticket “price went up to the $70 $80 range.” However, the ticket price increased to $87.50, the same exact ticket price for the 1996 and 1997 seasons, respectively. 3. Mr. Long insisted that the “observant student noticed” that the 1996 football season consisted of seven games. Mr. Long, (an) obser vant student would have noticed that it was the 1995 season when the Huskers last played seven home games. In fact, the 1994, 1996 and 1997 season tickets only offered six home games each, respectively. 4. Finally, Mr. Long made refer ence to the ticket prices increasing “EVERY year since 1994 for a total of $40 in five years.” Simple math tells us that the 1998 price of $107.50 minus the 1994 price of $73.00 is a difference of only $34.50, and as I hope you can now plainly see Mr. Long, ticket prices have not gone up every year since 1994. The one statement that Mr. Long made that I will not dispute is that he is a “loyal fan.” This is where we share a common ground. Mr. Long, please stop by to say hello during this year’s student ticket lottery. Perhaps we may find other subjects that we can agree on. John Anderson director of ticket operations Your opinion is wrong ... Mr. GilUn, I totally disagree with your article (“Jumping the gun,” Wednesday). Are you naive or just that ignorant? When anyone joins the service they should expect, at some point in their lives, to go to some kind of hostile conflict. The reason we have a military is to deal with these kinds of situations, not to give people a free ride through life. If you don’t want to deal with the consequences then don’t join in the first place! This brings me to my second point. You stated that you don’t know why Iraq should open their doors to industrial powers. Well, I don’t know if you remember our last war, but it was against Iraq and we did win. In the cease-fire agreement they did agree not to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. To make sure they comply, we need to inspect certain sites. We are not just protecting our self-interest in their oil importation, we are protecting the world from a man who will use any kind of killing agent he can just to gain political power. We are doing this to make sure that we don’t have another Hitler try ing to take over the world. If we idly stand by while some madman stock piles weapons we will have World War III on our hands. James W. Beins sophomore finance ...AND your facts are suspect Could you please make sure that your facts are straight before printing them about the military (“Jumping the gun”)? You said that your buddy, a private first class, is a TANK COM MANDER! My husband is a sergeant in the Marine Corps stationed at Camp Lejeune, N.C. He is a tank commander, and I can assure you that a private first class (excuse me ... almost a lance corporal) with that lit tle of experience is NOT a tank com mander. I would re-check what your friend told you. Was he trying to impress someone? I also find it hard to believe that someone who practices the right to freedom of speech has a hard time believing in our country. These men and women of the military need our support in times like this, not our crit icism of how messed up the country is. I don’t want to see my husband go to war. If we do go to war, I believe that these men and women DESERVE our respect and support. Bambi Reynolds junior chemistry ....-1