Spirited advice
Beating around the Busch sheds light on some good liquor
4 ^^B^BP iM8aiiPsM^
JOSH WIMMER is a senior
news-editorial major and a
Daily Nebraskan colum
nist
Folks, I’ve said before I’m not
going to tell you how to live your
lives. But there’s a sickness on this
campus, and watching it devour all
y’all - well, it’s making me sick. I’ve
touched on it before, but now I’m tak
ing a real stand against it
I think you know what I’m talking
about.
Busch Light.
Warning: It is against the law for
persons under 21 years of age to con
sume alcoholic beverages! This news
paper does not condone such behav
ior.
My friends, I’m not going to tell
you to stop drinking Busch Light. I
think it’s hard-wired into your sys
tems, like that football thing, whatever
that’s about
I just want to make you aware that
there are other things to drink out
there. Things with actual alcohol con
tents. Things that make you wince.
Things that make 75-year-old lumber
jacks slap you on the back and say,
“Whooee! Bums, don’t it?”
Things that you should consume in
moderation, or not at all if you are
under 21.
Like any journalist worth his boxer
shorts, I did some extensive research
for this week. I spoke with one of my
friends back home in hard-drinking
North Dakota, the one who insists that
Alcoholics Anonymous is a “club.”
We managed to agree on five hard
liquors everyone of legal age should
learn to appreciate.
Naturally, this involved a compre
hensive taste-testing session and a
bunch of peanuts, to cleanse my
palate. The taste-testing, I must inform
you, was so successful, I had to get the
Artist Formerly Known As My
Girlfriend to help with the next part of
the research: driving me around to
compare prices at local spir- *
it retailers.
Never i.
1!
the wheel
if you are intoxicat
ed. If you do, you
are a danger to
yourself and
others. Call a
friend or a
parent for a
ride home.
Call the editor
of this section
or a vice
chancellor
of the uni
versity.
They will
be happy
to see you
home safe
ty
(Editor’s
Note: Says
you!) \i
Anyway,
this is what we
found. Consume //
these beverages in
moderation, buy them
at the places listed,
and you will be
happy, happy
Huskers.And
I won’t make \
fun of you.
■ Jack
Daniel’s Tennessee '•••- '
Whiskey. Now, Jack is more than
just a friend of mine -1 like to think
of him as a bodyguard.
For one thing, there’s the psy
chological factor. Intimidation. It
doesn’t matter who you are - if people
see you drinking J.D., all of a sudden
you’re, like, angry Charles Bronson.
And, should someone still decide
to start something, Jack can act as a
genuine weapon, too.
It’s simple: Spit a mouthful of the
highly flammable stuff at your attack
er’s face. Then flick a cigarette at him.
i
I guarantee you’ll be the talk of the
party for days; and he’ll never bug you
again, although his attorney might.
Super Saver charges only $ 12.98
for a 750 ml bottle.
■ Tanqueray Distilled English
Gin. Tanqueray is a personal favorite,
probably because I’m an international
. secret agent. You too can pretend
1 you’re eliminating Her Majesty’s
I ; enemies if you make the T &
’ ■ / T (Tanqueray & Tonic) a part
/ of your refreshment repertoire.
Martinis, of course, are always
it good too, so long as they’re
not pansy-ass chocolate or
blueberry martinis.
Shaken, not stirred, natu
re rally.
Once again, Super Saver’s got
the deal: $ 13.98 for a 750 ml bot
tle.
■Jose
Cuervo Especial
Gold Tequila. It is
almost an essential
facet of college life
that everyone has one
very bad tequila
experience. I’m not
sure why this is. It
might have to do with
spring break, or it
might be because
the stuff is
so fun to
shoot,
especially
with salt
and lime.
Matt Haney/DN
Warning! More than five or six
drinks per hour is considered “binge
drinkingThis includes tequila shots!
Studies say thousands of college stu
dents binge drink each year. Do you
want to become a statistic?
The important thing to keep in
mind with Jose is: You’re not in
charge. He’s a slippery dude, and he’ll
make you think you are.
Never believe it. My roommate
was once known to have proclaimed
“Jose, he eees my beeetch!” in a bad
Mexican accent My roommate was
also known to have thrown up for six
hours shortly thereafter.
As for bargain-hunting, you
guessed it: Super Saver, 750 ml for
$11.98.
■ Absolut Vodka. Now, back
when I was a kid, if you drank this
stuff, people called you a commie. Not
so today. Y’all got it easy.
My favorite part about vodka is it’s
made from potatoes, so it goes with
just about anything.
Want a cheeseburger, but worried
about those fatty French fries? No
problem - substitute Absolut.
Thanksgiving dinner kinda droning on
and on? Don’t pass the mashed pota
toes, Mom - just the bottle with the
blue writing, please.
Granted, it’s a more expensive
habit than super-sized Extra Value
Meals, but you can quench it at Super
Saver where 750 ml is $15.98.
■ Ron Bacardi Superior (Light
and Dry). If Tanqueray turns you into
a super spy, rum transforms even a
typical farmgirl into a bloodthirsty
pirate.
Snarl and slash and swab the decks
till your arms fall off, but just remem
ber - beverage alliance or no beverage
alliance, it’s rum and Coke. Not rum
and Pepsi.
If you hurry, you can catch the —
special at N Street Liquor, at 19th and
N streets - $7.99 for a 750 ml bottle.
Remember, all of the beverages
mentioned in this column arefor per
sons 21 years of age or older. Please
do not drink and drive, and please be
responsible drinkers.
Privacy, please
Government intrusions betray Constitution, violate citizens’ rights
TIM SULLIVAN is a third
year law student and a
Daily Nebraskan colum
nist.
Do you value youf right to priva
cy? Do you get angered about reports
of intrusions of the privacy of your
fellow citizens?
I do. In fact, I get very angry.
I recently read a book on the sub
ject Ellen Alderman and Caroline
Kennedy, two practicing attorneys,
published a book entitled “The Right
to Privacy.”
Government intrusions of the pri
vacy of private citizens make me
especially irate.
I suppose a good place to begin
talking about the subject is to explain
a little about our so-called right to
privacy and its basis in die law. -
As Alderman and Kennedy noted,
over 100 years ago, Justice Louis D.
Brandeis defined the right to privacy
as “the right to be let alone.”
As Americans; this would seem to
conform with contemporary notions
of privacy.
We tend to view our privacy as a
freedom from intrusions; not just
intrusions by the government, but by
other private individuals as well.
But legally, as Alderman and
Kennedy point out, whether you have
a recognized right to privacy, and
whether a violation of that right is
actionable, depends on what area of
privacy you’re talking about.
Legal sources of our right to pri
vacy are found in the U.S.
Constitution, state constitutions, fed
eral and state statutes and judicial
decisions.
Alderman and Kennedy recog
nized the necessity of determining
the source of the right to privacy in
various contexts and decided to
group their discussion into six broad
areas.
Those areas are Privacy vs. Law
Enforcement; Privacy and Your Self;
Privacy vs. The Press; Privacy vs. The
Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace;
and Privacy and Information.
Length restrictions on this col
umn prevent me from being able to
summarize all six of these areas, so I
decided to limit my ranting and rav
ing today to the specific story
Alderman and Kennedy told that got
me angry enough to read the rest of
thebook. .
Despite my 13 years of experi
ence working in the correctional sys
tem, I was appalled at the stories of
Carol D. and DianerH.
it all began in 1952 with the
Chicago Police Department’s policy
of conducting strip searches of all
people arrested and taken to their
lockup while they ran background
checks and held them until they post
ed bond, even those arrested for
minor traffic violations.
Unbelievable, right? Wrong. Or at
least the Chicago Police Department
didn’t think so.
Carol and Diane were next door
neighbors in Chicago. One evening
they were at a friend’s apartment for a
dinner party. Unbeknownst to them,
the police had been there earlier,
responding to a noise complaint
about loud music.
Shortly after midnight, the police
returned and arrested all of the six or
seven people there for disorderly con
duct.
Carol and Diane were taken to the
police station where they were
approached by a woman in uniform
who escorted them separately into
another room and strip searched
them.
Then they were loaded into a
paddy wagon and taken across town
to the women’s lockup. They were
escorted to a cell there, and strip
searched again.
To add insult to injury, there were
police officers moving about in the
area during the second strip searches,
and a video monitor was pointed at
dincell.
The men who were arrested with
Carol and Diane had only been “pat
ted down” once.
Carol filed a complaint that the
city ignored.
But fortunately for her, an attor
ney named Ted Stein and the ACLU
had gotten wind of the “secret” poli
cy.
After a tip to a local television
station that triggered an investigative
report, the city agreed to change the
strip search policy, but refused to
concede that anyone’s rights had been
violated, arguing that the searches
were “reasonable” under the Fourth
Amendment.
“The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unrea
sonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.’’—The Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Although the word “privacy”
does not appear in the Fourth
Amendment (or for that matter, any
where else in the U.S. Constitution),
the Supreme Court has interpreted
the Fourth Amendment as protecting
your “reasonable expectation of pri
vacy.”
It is well-settled law that die split
second demands of law enforcement
often make obtaining a warrant
impractical, and in many situations,
no warrant is requfred.
But under the Fourth
Amendment, all searches, with or
without a warrant, must be “reason
able.”
The reasonableness of the search
is determined by balancing the need
to search against die invasion the
search entails.
I certainly don’t think the need to
search traffic violators outweighs die
invasiveness of a strip search.
Carol didn’t think so either. But
the City of Chicago refused to budge.
Carol attempted to vindicate her
right to privacy in court.
A federal district court agreed
that the Chicago Police Department’s
strip search policy was unconstitu
tional under the Fourth Amendment,
but did say that a strip search might
be justified if there were reasonable
grounds to believe that a woman were
hiding contraband in a body cavity, as
may be the case in arrests on drug
charges.
The city appealed the U.S.
District Court’s decision to the 7th
U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that
the searches were justified because
the women posed a dangerous threat.
The 7th Circuit disagreed.
The court considered that nature
of the search, saying that a strip
search is “one of the more humiliat
ing invasions of privacy imaginable
.... dehumanizing, terrifying, repul
sive ... signifying degradation and
submission.”
The. Court of Appeals also upheld
Mary’s $45,000 damage award.
~ t Alderman and Kennedy tell a lot
of other stories that will get your
blood boiling. I suggest you read it if
you value your right to privacy.
It angers me beyond comprehen
sion when the government behaves in
such an ignorant, pig-headed way.
Why they couldn’t just change
their policy and admit they were
wrong baffles me.
Look out, you government
lawyers.
Here/come.