-
Rocking the vote
Fishpond, A-Team, Duff need
to take themselves seriously
If Fishpond wants the campus to take it seriously, it
should use a dictionary.
Fishpond is one of the last ASUN parties to announce its
intentions to run for student government this spring.
At least three words are spelled wrong on its Fishpond
flyer, which is spread all over the university - canidate (can
didate), fountian (fountain) and goverment (government).
Its intentions to get more people involved may have good
merit, but it’s losing credibility with each negative move it
makes.
While A-Team and Duff, the other non-traditional par
ties, have been seen as more viable parties, their comical
names may hurt their members.
But aside from that, Fishpond, Duff and the A-Team are
a good addition to the hum-drum, predictable ASUN elec
tions.
No member of those parties have been completely
involved with student “goverment” before. They’re true out
siders, like most students at
the university.
And that’s not so bad.
Experience may be a
wonderful asset for a
“canidate” to bring to office,
but fresh ideas minus the
rhetoric can be an even
greater quality.
Often, student election
groups seem to fall into the
same molds every year -
They re true
outsiders,
like most
students at
the
university.
despite efforts to create their own identities.
The same ideas are pushed at the students, such as creat
ing a more inclusive campus community, teaching students
about ASUN and restructuring the senate.
Those ideas are great, but it’s time for the elections to be
shaken up a bit. We commend the three extra parties for tak
ing the initiative to jump into the race. '
The parties will force the two more traditional groups,
Impact and Empower, to think of fresh and creative ways to
get their messages across to a mostly apathetic student body.
But it is important the parties hurry and create solid
names. Impact and Empower have been developing their
platforms since last semester.
Fishpond is still recruiting executive candidates.
The Fishpond platform consists of one thing: putting fish
in Broyhill “Fountian.”
But its underlying goal - getting students to run under
their own platforms, rather than a blanket party statement -
has been overshadowed.
Perhaps it’s a good time for these good intentions to
come out, so the party can avoid a joke-showing on election
day.
Editorial Board
Josh Funk (editor) • J.J. Harder • Cliff Hicks • Samuel
McKewon • Dane Stickney • Kimberly Sweet • Lindsay
Young
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
submissions.Submitted material becomes property of the
Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous mate
rial 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, 20 Nebraska Union,
1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448 or e-mail to: let
ters@unl.edu
Editorial Policy v
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the spring 2000
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 acts as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan;
policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, super
vises the publication of the paper. According to policy set by
> - the regents, responsibility for die editorial content of the
newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees.
The Daily Nebraskan strives to print fair and accurate cover
age; any corrections or clarifications will be printed on page
thre§.
Obermeyer’s
VIEW
Wf HE'/..iuH,..8ATMAM... Nj
w THIS MoL£ S1KING-IN& 1
4 UP TU£ BAP <3rUV^ ANP 1
1 HA^Af&'THSAlfWt
\ BUILDING'?" • THAT'S
\ pRerry freaking
\ CRUEL AMP UNUSUAL..
1aj£’R£ GoiNGrTo
{s^i Have to put a i
_ JL^ staj® to it: A
■—tf'oHfeu.LV&siCl
U V \jim if X <xoua> i
LSWlOf lH&c-T
LS ZmjL
f SuR£-H£CKY£fitfty
-twit's tie HuwweWf
Wait - don’t date
Dating not necessarily good practice for marriage
It’s Friday morning, and I’m sit
ting on my couch watching “Sally
Jesse Raphael.”
For a change, it’s not one of those
“please give my ugly mom a
makeover” episodes. On the show is a
couple who met on a previous
episode. On this episode, they played
“The Dating Game” with a twist: if
the lucky couple hit it off, they were to
get married right away.
What, pray tell, could cause such
reckless abandon? I think the answer
can be found in one word: Dating
doesn’t work.
Maybe you’ve noticed this. Like
myself, maybe you’ve bought into the
idea that dating is supposed to prepare
you for marriage. Or maybe you think
that dating is for fun, excitement and
gratification of various desires. Or
maybe you’re still stuck back in that
last paragraph wondering if I noticed
that “dating doesn’t work” is three
words.
jr.i__rz_A_
ii yyju cut poi i ui uit ium ^iuup,
stay timed, because what I have to say
is actually relevant to your life! If
you’re part of the second group, and
you hope to someday get married, stay
tuned, because what I have to say is
actually relevant to your life! If you
are part of the second group and do
not hope to get married, you probably
won’t like this column and should skip
to the sports section. If you’re part of
the third group, yeah, it was a joke.
Please stay with me here.
For most of us, dating in the past
decade has been different than dating
was for the previous generation. In die
past, people would go out on dates
with many different people and have
little commitment. They wouldn’t be
“boyfriend and girlfriend.” In my
experience, if you actually go on a
date before you become boyfriend and
girlfriend, you’re probably moving
quickly in thatdirection. So, we are
more apt to commit to a relationship
than the previous generation, and
that’s good, right?
Wrong. This “commitment” that
we make really isn’t worth a hill o‘
beans. (For you third-group people,
that means it ain’t worth much.) I
mean, think about it! If people were to
draw up a contract when they began a
relationship, it would probably go
something like this:
We, John Johnson and Sally
Smith, do hereby agree to be there for
each other through thick and thin,
make each other a priority, be faithful
to each other and to grow in intimacy
with each other spiritually, emotional
ly and physically, until such time as
one of us doesn’t feel like it any more.
Our feelings are
so easily swayed,,
they can be
changed by the
weather, a dirty
look from a co
worker or PMS.
Who signs a contract that can be
broken at the slightest whim, especial
ly when it leads to heartbreak on the
part of the less whimsical party?
Many of us sign, and as a result, we
pursue intimacy without commitment.
We put our own needs before those of
the other person.
We think, “It feels so good to hold
her in my arms,” or “I love the way he
pays such close attention to what I’m
saying,” instead of, “Is she going to be
hurt if I move after college to pursue
my career?” or “By taking so much of
his time, am I holding him back in
school and in other important, relation
ships?”
We tend to not think about the
future when we feel the first sparks of
attraction, but pursuing a dating rela
tionship with someone before we are
prepared to commit to marriage (and
by that I mean emotionally, education
ally AND financially) is self-centered.
We don’t do this because we’re
trying to be selfish. We do it because
we don’t know any differently!
Culture says to us, “Dating is as nor
mal as drinking soda pop. It’s fim and
harmless! Enjoy it!” Culture also tells
us other lies, such as, “If you graduate
high school without ever dating,
there’s something wrong with you!”
and “Everyone’s having sex,” and my
personal favorite,'‘All American girls
shave their legs in the winter!” Boy, is
that culture guy wily!
Unfortunately, this selfish attitude
can cripple us when we do get mar
ried. If we practice this “pseudo-com
mitment” concept of dating, what
« makes us think our motives will be
pure once we’ve got rings on our fin
gers?
When people get married, they
promise to love one another. Culture
has sold us this nutty idea that this is a
promise to be in love. How can one
promise to feel something? Our feel
ings are so easily swayed, they can be
changed by the weather, a dirty look
from a co-worker or PMS.
In a wedding vow, love is a verb. It
says that regardless of how I feel, I
will put what’s best for you before
what’s best for me. It’s not impossible
that you will be in love with your
spouse until die day you die, but a
strong marriage is based on friendship
and attraction. Many marriages dis
solve because the attraction is gone
(they fall out of love), and there isn’t
enough friendship to hold it together.
The author of the book “I Kissed
Dating Goodbye,” Joshua Harris, put
it best: “Dating as we have come to
know it doesn’t really prepare us for
marriage; instead it can be a training
ground for divorce.” If you now agree
that dating is bad news, you may be
wondering, “If we don’t date, how will
we ever many?” Well, waiting is a big
part of the answer, and, to practice, I
won’t tell you the rest until next time.
Ta-ta!
Betsy Severin is a sophomore broadcasting major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.