EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
Uur
VIEW
One way out
of Kosovo
Ground troops may be
America s only option
It’s hard not to flinch a little bit when
President Clinton, still flushed from an
impeachment trial and sex scandal, speaks to
the country about “American values.”
Nevertheless, this is what he cited as the
reason for U.S.-led NATO involvement in
Kosovo. He explained that our country cannot
stand by while a tyrant such as Milosevic
committed genocidal atrocities in the
Balkans. And, according to several polls, most
Americans agreed with their president.
And despite what the White House expect
ed, it explains why, according to a Newsweek
poll, 58 percent of Americans support sending
in ground troops to finish what NATO started.
It also leaves one questioning Clinton’s com
mitment to the ousting of Milosevic and the
end of the Serb aggression that has emptied
most of the war-tom province.
When Clinton got Americans involved in
the centuries-old Balkan powder keg, he need
ed to be prepared to win the war against the
bitter Serb nation. His announcement last
weekend that ground troops would not be
used against Yugoslav forces has caused many
a pundit and official to question Clinton’s ded
ication to “American values.”
Nobody wants this to be a second
Vietnam, and nobody (except perhaps
Clinton) considers Milosevic a neo-Hitler.
But since we are involved, and we have com
mitted ourselves, we must finish the war, even
if it requires the use of ground troops.
Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam vet and
P.O.W., has been among the most vocal for
total U.S. dedication in the Balkans. Putting
aside his personal distaste for war and night
marish experiences as a North Vietnamese
prisoner, he believes the only way to stop
Milosevic is to commit troops even at the risk
of civilian lives and NATO soldiers.
“This administration has been trying to
avoid war while waging one,” McCain wrote
in Time magazine.
Getting involved in Kosovo was a gamble
by any standard, and one that many presidents
wouldn’t haven’t taken. But since we are in
now, as McCain says, the only option is to win.
If the United States truly has a global respon
sibility as a guardian of human rights, and
NATO is going to act as a benevolent billy
club, then it must fulfill those obligations to
the fullest or risk being perceived as weak and
noncommittal to the rest of the world.
But that is not the greatest reason for
ground troops; after all, the U.S. has certainly
suffered international embarrassment before.
While NATO quibbles over details, more than
300,000 Kosovars have become forced
refugees by Milosevic’s Serbian army.
Concentration camps have been reported deep
inside the region and everyone is wondering
where the Albanian men have gone. It may not
be a Holocaust, but it is a horror, and NATO
cannot stop the nightmare until it wakes up to
its responsibilities.
Editorial Policy
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.
Lener 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.unl.edu.
Lapps
VIEW
DN
LETTERS
Underappreciation obvious
If I ever had any doubts the
University of Nebraska cared very little
for its employees, they are long gone
after yesterday’s parking meeting at the
Nebraska East Union.
Dark-suited, power-tie-wearing rep
resentatives from Parking and Transit
Systems showed several slides indicat
ing where parking will be lost from
expansion and where new parking will
be located. Apparently, no one consult
ed any non-suit-wearing university
employees when they constructed this
plan, because after they are finished,
only deans and directors will be
able to afford the parking.
Not only will their plans 9
push employees into the residen- 9
tial area south of East Campus I
even more than they currently 9
are, but they have very little in 9
the way of contingencies for the 9
new problems they are creating 9
- like residential parking bans, 9
which are an inevitability. 9
Parking spaces, restricted or 9
not. will double in price over the
next 3-4 years. The staff-restrict- 9
ed spot that I pay $31 per month 9
for will be almost $100 per 'J
month within 4 years. Regular 9
lot permits will go up as well - to 9
$50 per month, as will perimeter 9
parking. 9
All this while salaries Wmk
remain stagnated. This was an JPj|
issue the Parking and Transit folks
were unwilling to entertain, laying the
blame at the feet of the legislature. They
also blame the City of Lincoln for many
of the problems.
They tried comparing the
University of Nebraska to other univer
sities they claimed were in “our peer
group” - mainly Big 8/Big 10/Big 12
schools. What they failed to mention is
that salaries for University of Nebraska
employees are far below those same
schools. It’s apples and oranges. Even if
I assume I’ll get the maximum 3 percent
raise for the next five years, I’ll need all
that money and more to pay for parking,
so the benefit to me is nil. I cannot imag
ine how this will affect support staff
' making less than $18,000 a vear.
We were encouraged to call or write
our state legislators and state senators,
which is the response people in “public
service” often give when they have no
intelligent answers, but I am not that stu
pid, and neither were the other employ
ees who packed die meeting room to the
hilt yesterday.
Therefore, I encourage all universi
ty employees to call Chancellor Moeser.
Call as many times a day as you can to
make yourself heard. Also call the
Board of Regents. Annoy die hell out
them all and force them to stop ignoring
their employees.
It seems every day there is another
reason to stop working for this universi
ty and take my skills to a more apprecia
tive environment. Hundreds of others
feel that way, too. Parking is just thfe lat
est slap in the face. So what happens
when all the good, hard-working people
leave? I guess the University of
Nebraska is hell-bent on finding out -
and they will find out
Jason Fredregill
film/video director/producer
East Campus
Matt Haney/DN^235
There is an alternative
The rules determine how the game
is played or to put it another way, pre
conditions limit choices. The University
of Nebraska-Lincoln and the City of
Lincoln are about to embark on an inter
woven project that will commit huge
amounts of money to a perceived need.
Yes, there is a potential for flooding
on the eastern margin of the campus. A
second box (culvert) would alleviate
that danger at a cost far less than an open
drainage way with all the ramifications
for the taking of land and maintenance.
Yes, there is traffic on campus. I
would suggest that some creative think
ing and recognizing existing topogra
phy would lead to pedestrian overpass
es, tunnels, etc. at a cost far less than a
four-lane bypass and a huge “green”
mall on which to run buses.
The specification of a bypass and
drainage way has led to the current dis
cussion about loss of parking space and
the stated options.
Still, let’s examine the ramifications
of a bypass and drainage way, which is
the current mind-set of the university.
The costs are truly staggering. The
bypass and open drainage way is esti
mated at $210 million. Replacement of
parking is estimated at $50 million. The
cost of the mall extending along east
Vine Street is likely between $50-100
million when you consider the replace
ment ofbuildings, etc. There is even talk
of having to build a building to the west
of the Beadle Center to house delicate
equipment that would be affected by
road vibration from the bypass. The pro
ponents’ reply to the cost questions
seem to come easy. The federal govern
ment will assume much of the cost of
the bypass and floodway. The parking
lot users will pay for the new garages
and enhanced surface transportation.
I beg to differ. The total costs
!|. for all of the project will easily
J approach a half a billion dollars.
There will be lost opportunities if
|| this much money is committed to
|| the overall project. As a reality
H check, the university communi
H ty was just informed that UNL
|| may have a $2.7 million shortfall
1| because the legislature may not
If appropriate funds needed for the
|| “unfunded mandates.” How can
H we be so poor in one area and so
II rich in another?
From the more focused
viewpoint of an employee of
UNL, I have several additional
observations. The proposed
parking garages will likely
become the lot of choice for on
campus residents because of their
locations. The commuter will
truly have only a hunting permit,
iP with better chances of bagging an
endangered species.
There is a choice location for a
major parking garage that would also
enhance the campus environment.
There is a huge area represented by the
mall east of die stadium where a multi
story underground garage could be
built
Access from Vine Street and 14th
Street could be at the subsurface level,
so that intersection would have minimal
traffic. I am aware that a steam line runs
across the middle, but somehow I don’t
view that as an insurmountable prob
lem.
1 also fail to see how this garage
would be less safe than the other park
ing garages, as has been suggested in
the past. This type of a garage coupled
with pedestrian overpasses/tunnels
would cost far less than the proposed
projects. Even if it cost the same, the
location and opportunities would out
weigh die other options.
If the needs are truly there, this
option should be considered. At the
minimum other options (box, pedestri
an overpasses, etc.) should be consid
ered first before proceeding under the
current mind-set
DarryDT. Pederson
professor
geosciences
