EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
I-—
Our
VIEW
Too much
information
Release of Tripp tapes
won’t benefit anyone
We’ve said it once, we’ll say it again -
enough already.
It was bad enough that all four hours of
„ the Clinton testimony were released for
public consumption, but now the taped
conversations between Linda Tripp and
Monica Lewinsky are being considered for
release.
When it was announced that the testi
mony was to be released, we scolded^
Congress for setting a dangerous prece
dent.
Beyond the fact that it is evidence in a
legal proceeding, beyond the fact that
Clinton’s testimony and Tripp’s tape were
never intended for the masses, beyond the
facts that CNN has been “Clinton’s
Notorious Notables” for weeks now, one
main question remains:
How much evidence does the public
really need to see?
After the tapes, are we going to see the
dress? The stain? More still?
Where is the line drawn?
Many polls point to the public’s tiring of
evidence with the Clinton/Lewinsky scan
dal. They want Congress to act or stop, not
debate.
If the Tripp tapes see the light of day,
television stations will broadcast them in
their entirety.
Even if just parts of the tapes are
released, it’s still far too much - more than
the public wants, more than the president
wants, more than we want.
This time, it’s the Democrats who are
pushing heavily, claiming that there is evi
dence to support the president on the tapes.
It seems “evidence” is the new watch
word for politics these days.
Despite this massive flood of “evi
dence” being lauded on the people of the
world, very few people have changed their
minds.
Opinions show no sign of changing in
the near future. The lines have been drawn,
and the fire is burning very well, thank you
very much, without more fuel on it.
Releasing more evidence reduces
Capitol Hill to a mud-slinging match in
which no one will win, especially not the
American people.
Republican or Democrat, conservative
or liberal, for or against the president, you
know what you need to know to form your
opinion.
With major decisions from Washington,
D C., coming in the near future, what the
public needs to hear is not more evidence,
but answers, resolutions, decisions.
We know the story. We know the facts.
So stop with the evidence already, and start
with proceedings, if you’re going to have
them, or just give it up and walk away.
Somehow, we doubt the Tripp tapes will
change anyone’s mind.
Unsigned editorials are tiie 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
Univereity of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents selves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
Lenar Men
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
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. Ennail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
- -' i
Mook’s
VIEW
■ Now scN/1M tor 1
1 utwmm,
m mimm £
!
Moral response
A bold, new solution to the problem of divorce
TIM SULLIVAN is a third
year law student and a
Daily Nebraskan colum
nist
I knew presiding as the Bishop of
the Diocese of Lincoln would pre
sent a great many challenges. One
challenge in particular, the problem
of divorce, has long been a preoccu
pation of mine.
I’ve performed a great many mar
riages. I’ve also witnessed the break
down of what has seemed to be an
equally great number of marriages.
My experiences counseling cou
ples going through marital difficul
ties have caused me a great deal of
personal sadness and compelled me
to consider solutions I never thought
I would.
After a great deal of research,
meditation and prayer was devoted to
this matter, I have found an appropri
ate, and indeed a moral, response for
dealing with this grave social prob
iciu wrntu iui bu many years nos
plagued our American culture.
According to the Society for
Intelligent New Solutions (S.I.N.S.),
66 percent of all marriages end in
divorce. Americans waste $226 bil
lion every year on weddings, flowers,
dresses, photographers and the like
to marry one another.
Americans squander another
$325 billion on divorce lawyers each
and every year. S.I.N.S. estimates
that a full 40 percent of the increase
in the number of lawyers in the last
20 years has been because of
divorce.
Not only does this represent a
drain of $551 billion from the econo
my each year, but S.I.N.S. estimates
we may squander another $700 bil
lion each year on such meaningless
pursuits as family therapy, counsel
ing and other pre-divorce activities.
Considering that $1.2 trillion is
wasted every year on premarital,
marital and pre-divorce activiues, a
well-planned, well-conceived solu
tion is certainly mandated.
Some may find my response to
this dilemma radical or even sacrile
gious. Those with such concerns
should find comfort in knowing that
the American Conference of United
Religious Leaders has reviewed and
given my plan their unanimous sup
port.
I propose minimum 20-year
prison sentences for those convicted
of attempting to get married, and 40
year terms for those performing or
assisting in the performance of a
marriage.
Additionally, all current mar
riages would be administratively
annulled by the county clerks of each
county under this legislation.
As soon as my plan to criminal
ize marriage wins Senate approval
and is signed into law by President
Clinton, as I am certain it shall, the
economy will benefit, and there will
be a great many other social as well
as spiritual advantages.
No lon^Cr will Hillary and the
spouses of other adulterers feel the
need to hang their heads in shame in
public.
A great burden will be lifted
from our court system, which cur
rently devotes 41 percent of its time
and resources to dealing with
divorces and child custody battles.
As a result, the number of worthless,
low-life, scum-sucking attorneys will
go down - a great accomplishment in
and of itself.
Young juvenile delinquents as
well as older criminal-types will no
longer be able to blame their having
come from a broken home as a con
tributing factor to their hopelessly
dysfunctional personalities.
Homosexuals will no longer find
it necessary to lobby state legisla
tures to win the right to marry or be
recognized as married couples for
purposes of health insurance or
home mortgages. Lenders will no
longer be able to discriminate against
homosexual couples, nor will they be
able to discriminate against single
women, a long-standing problem in
this country.
Self-destructive behaviors such
as alcoholism, drug addiction and
suicide will decrease in direct pro
portion to the lack of a sense of guilt
which Americans somehow find it
necessary to feel when they divorce
their partners.
Spiritually, everyone will be able
to rest assured they won't be con
demned to hell and eternal damna
tion for having sex outside of mar
riage, much less for having coveted
thy neighbor’s wife.
Indeed, even those who may have
done so in the past will likely only
need endure a brief stay in purgatory
before ascending to their rightful
place in God’s kingdom.
Some may wonder what effect
the annulment of all current mar
riages will have on traditional family
gatherings. No doubt there will be
those among us who will need to
learn new ways of finding fulfill
ment which the traditional family
unit has provided in the past.
I know there will be those who
will oppose this response, and still
others who will accept it yet find it
difficult to adjust to life without mar
riage and the traditional family unit. I
have planned for this as well.
Extensive study and preparation
has enabled us to send these people
to H.E.L.L., the House of
Emancipated Liberal Lovers, Inc.
H.E.L.L. is a non-profit corpora
tion which is currently constructing
residential treatment facilities.
This project is the result of years
of extensive study and research
devoted to the areas of relationships,
human sexuality and alternative
lifestyles.
i nose experiencing severe emo
tional distress as they learn to adjust
to life without marriage will be
offered free treatment.
Judges will be given the option of
sentencing persons who attempt to
get married to probation, with a stay
in H.E.L.L. as a condition of an
offender’s successful completion of
probation.
H.E.L.L. will grow to more than
2,000 residential facilities nation
wide. Each facility will be staffed by
trained professionals whose mission
will be to counsel and teach so that
all may begin to reap the benefits of
their new freedom as soon as possi
ble.
Some have questioned my
integrity in this matter, accusing me
of expecting to somehow profit from
my plan. I see no way I might profit
or expect to benefit in any way. My
only gain will be the mutual benefits
I will share with every other
American.
Indeed, my earthly reward will be
in knowing the great good I have
done mankind.
Once every American has experi
enced life free of the constraints of
marriage, and has reaped the benefits
of the liberal and open attitudes
toward relationships that eventually
will become the norm, my reward
will most certainly come only from !
my ascension into my rightful place i
in God’s kingdom. ■ ]
&
. A