Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 19, 1999)
EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte l Our VIEW Second chances Clinton prepares for his annual address Tonight President Clinton will issue the first State of the Union address given by a president under trial in the Senate. The timing could draw hundreds of thousands of viewers who otherwise wouldn’t watch a State of the Union address -in fact, between 70 million and 80 million Americans are expected to watch. Increased public interest in the State of the Union address - however short-lived it may be - could be the only good effect of the Lewinsky affair. Thus, the address should be given. Some leaders think differently and have called for it to be postponed because of the trial, just as it was postponed when the space shuttle Challenger exploded the morning of the scheduled address in 1986. Some leaders say they won’t attend the speech, including House Republicans Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia. /Ail_ _ • j .*1 4 r* WLL1C15 5>iUU UlCy Will gU UUL U1 ICSpcCl for the presidency, not the man in office. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, told an ABC News team he would “rather go to the den tist,” but he will attend the address. ABCNews.com also reports the Congressional break-room analogy that Clinton giving the speech tonight is akin to adjourning a trial for a pep rally held by the defendant for his benefit. Analysts are arguing over how Republicans will respond to the speech. Will they stand? Will they applaud? Could some really boycott? It’s political bickering and media-driven speculation, and it’s certainly no reason to postpone the State of the Union address. Last year, postponing the address was suggested when allegations surfaced that the president had an affair with a former intern. But Clinton faced the nation as scheduled, bearing baggy eyes, praising the country’s economic strength and sending a warning to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. This year, a disgraced Clinton also will press on. Tomorrow night, he is expected to speak, stressing family and health-care issues. He’s expected to propose a tax cred it for one-income families with parents who want to stay home to care for their children. 1 Like last year, he likely will try to rally support outside Congress, rally his party and set a legislative agenda. And, like last year, he will probably forgo mention of the scandal that has stained his political career. After more than an hour of reciting a speech Clinton has practiced several times in the White House theater, 80 million Americans may remember what he didn’t say more than what he did. But they will have watched, learned and participated. Thus, perhaps some of the harm Clinton has brought upon our coun try’s highest office will have been undone. Editorial Ptllcy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student body or the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves 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. Letter 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 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. E-mail: letters@unlinfo.uni.edu. Lupo’s VIEW Li|p0 jfcm.Am,... DN LETTERS The struggle continues I’d like to defend, in part, Jessica Flanagain’s article. While I don’t share all of her viewpoints, I must agree with one of her main points. Women need to be taken seriously. We need to be respected and seriously considered for things other than our measurements, our physical appear ance, or what pleasures of the mind, eye, or body we can provide to onlookers. The existence of Hooters alone is not the problem - it symbolizes the state of our society on the whole. Yes, there is sex everywhere, and yes, sex uality is part of the “plan” to ensure survival of our species. However, sex uality does not have to consist solely of a blatant, in-your-face show of flesh. Hooters differs from magazines, movies and the like in that the flesh show is real, not just a far-off fantasy k on a page or a screen. A I wonder where imagination Jj has gone. Sensuality, an integral Mk part of sexuality, doesn’t /^A require cleavage to be served with the meal. It doesn’t ar i require the objectifica tion of women that is obvious in our soci ety. Hooters is a prime example. Getting rid of the establishment will not end the difficult ties women face, but speaking out about the atti tudes it perpetuates is neces sary. Please don’t chastise Jessica or any other woman for being frustrated. Mindi Schneider senior horticulture UNL bordello? According to Jessica’s Flanagain’s definition of sexual relations in her column, “Hookers, Inc.,” just the sim ple act of looking at someone is deemed sexual relations. By that ratio nal, I, along with the majority of male students, have had sexual relations with almost every girl on campus. At first I was ecstatic at the idea that I was finally getting some on a regular basis, but then the realizations sunk in. I’m paying to be here at UNL, so in essence, I’m paying for sexual rela tions. It’s not just me, though - it’s all the students wlho are shoveling out money to go to this bordello. So I urge all the students to do the right thing and drop out of school before it’s too late. Because after all, the chance for a better life just isn’t worth losing some of our dignity over. Chris Jenkins sophomore advertising Madam Solich? I enjoyed Jessica Flanagain’s col umn. She has a snappy, no-nonsense jyriting style that leaps off the page. In her column about Hooters, she defined prostitution as “the sale of bodies»” In that case, wouldn’t any professional V'UgagV' uu ouwuuuuo pujroivai avuvujr, and they get paid to do it If that isn’t prostitution by her definition, what is? Don’t tell me that “objectification •and dehumanization” doesn’t happen on the gridiron. Just listen to what players are called: quarterback, half-. back, tight end. They’re named after body parts! What could be more dehu manizing? What about the fans? (Or should we call them “Johns”?) At least Hobters patrons don’t paint their bod ies, stand on their seats and curse at the hired help. Perhaps we should march to Memorial Stadium right now and shut down that “Husker Harem.” Let’s lock up “Madam Solich” and arrest anyone who wears red on Saturday for con i' % K r ‘ ‘ ■ ^ tributing to the demoralizing of a minor. j Okay, let’s calm down now. Jessica is correct. Hooters isn’t fooling any body about what they’re really selling. My point is that lots of people sell their bodies, but we don’t call it prosti tution. We call it sports, modeling, plasma donation or just plain old fashioned, back-breaking labor. Sometimes it’s sexy. Sometimes it’s not. But who are we to criticize a wait ress at Hooters for taking advantage of her body when we cheer Jackie Joyner-Kersee for doing the same j thing? ... Curtis Bright UNL class of 1990 Stop the insanity! I’m writing in response to Josh Connelly’s propos als for the American justice system. The poor, misguid ed soul is absolutely correct in saying that the justice sys tem is in need of some serious j reform, and while the statistics he offered were somewhat out j of proportion, his point that \ very few criminals are apprehended is completely valid. I was with him until he got a little silly and said that “the officer should be allowed to execute the crimi- I nal right there on the spot” i That’s lovely, Josh, thank i you. First thing, I don’t know of ' 1 too many people who would want to see some person get shot in the head right on the street. It would prob ably be on national TV, because you know the media would find a way to be there. What a good way to bring violence closer to home. Second thing, i’m not sure that many officers are going to be ton keen on just putting a bullet in some per son’s head. What about mistakes? We are human, right? It’s called due process and it’s there for areasbn. Because humans aren’t perfect. ♦ The death penalty accomplishes nothing, and it’s now proven that after the state executes someone, murder rates increase over a 48-hour period. In Canada they abolished the death j penalty; murder rates have dropped 27 \ percent! Weird, huh? I hate to end on an overused cliche, but it’s true that two wrongs don’t make a right. , ’ : Richard England freshman criminal justice