Opinion
Open
pockets
Senators should be required
to report gifts from lobbyists
In the words of Jerry McGuire, we are asking Nebraska
officials to “show us the money.”
Elected officials should be accountable to the people who
elected them.
For that to be true, voters must be able to trace the money,
gifts and contributions that flow into their senators’ pockets
and stomachs, but those gifts from lobbyists, corporations and
private individuals can be difficult to trace under current
Nebraska law.
Two bills pending in the legislature could help itemize
elected officials’ incomes and slow the revolving door
between elected official and lobbyist.
State senators should seize the opportunity to elevate eth
er,* , , ical standards for politicians.
State Senators LB 1021 would expand the cur
Should Seize rent de^nd*on of gifts to include food,
event tickets and transportation.
the Lobbyists would be required to report
food expenditures less than $25,
OppOrtUni ty which are currently exempt.
tO elevate more than $500,000 in
entertainment and miscellaneous
ethical expenses was reported by Nebraska
lobbyists.
Standards Jor Part of that amount accounts for
nnlitirinn o the gifts given t0 state officials and
yu u is. their staffs, but it is unclear how much
individuals received and from whom.
Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, who accepts no gifts, intro
duced the bill, which now awaits committee action to
advance.
LB 156 would require senators and other state officials to
wait one calendar year from the end of their terms before
becoming lobbyists.
Many other states and the federal government have
already adopted similar restrictions to limit the potential influ
ence of lobbyists. With the delay, lobbying groups would have
greater difficulty offering someone in government a cushy
job in the private sector in exchange for support.
Our representative government was founded on the idea
that public officials serve the people of the state.
For this system to work, the people must be able to evalu
ate their representatives’ performances. The people must be
able to view what has been accomplished along with the
record of who influenced those accomplishments.
Voters need to know if their representatives have served
the highest bidder instead of their home districts. Voters also
need to know if their representatives have steadfastly refused
gifts. Under the current rules, voters know neither.
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
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 the 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
three.
Obermeyer’s
VIEW
0UO IS FOUR FAVORITE Nu rskj-o, ,
CUT OUT souf, CHOICE AMP MAIL
To-. BILL 8)'RhJ£, <03 5. 57?p\UtA
H£R8!£
BUSKER
Ill'
RED
~ TPPi£ ~
SROi/JhJ
Letters to the
EDITOR
Dr. Tom isn’t Mrs. Clinton
Keith Bartels draws a false com
parison between Tom Osborne and
Hillary Clinton.
Tom Osborne grew up in Hastings
and owns farmland and a home in the
3rd District. Hillary Clinton grew up
in Illinois, has never lived in New
York and didn’t buy a home there until
considering the run for the Senate.
Instead of making a logical argu
ment based on all the relevant facts,
Mr. Bartels accuses the editorial
board of ”seem[ing] to harbor a great
deal of anger toward Clinton.” Clinton
supporters have a history of attacking
their critics instead of answering their
arguments, and this looks just like
more of the same.
Brad Pardee
Love Library staff
Reconsidering heroes
Jeremy Patrick may want to recon
sider his choice of heroes - or kindred
spirits. He should, at the very least,
reflect more carefully on his choice of
literary quotes. His column on
“Lucifer’s courage” responds to only
one part of John Milton’s complex
portrait of the diabolic temperament
in “Paradise Lost.”
The first quote deserves both a
second and third glance. For a start,
Satan’s resolution that the war against
heaven be “Open or understood” sig
nals that he’s ready to engage in unde
clared hostilities. Such tactics are
hardly courageous, although Milton
at times shows the fallen angel actual
ly being brave, as well as skilled, in
thrilling poses of defiance.
Also, the character’s dismissal of
“Submission” puts a very proud spin
on the heavenly state of affairs. As Mr.
Patrick admits, the Angel-Formerly
Known- As-Lucifer “craved power for
himself” - and no one else. He insists
on seeing freedom as the spoils of war
instead of a divine gift that he should
share with fellow creatures. He wants
to be followed absolutely and will use
any means to get others to submit to
his will.
Which brings us to the last quote.
Satan does not want liberty in hell or
elsewhere for anyone but himself. He
wants to reign - to rule over others. He
does not want to serve God or his fel
low angels or the lesser beings that are
part of Creation. So he sets out to con
quer humankind, even while claiming
that he has no choice in the matter.
The Satan of Milton’s epic poem
may present himself as a freedom
fighter, especially in Book I, but he is
soon shown to be a warrior against
choice, against responsibility, against
sharing freedom. What’s left of his
courage - another free gift that he
claims is his only - greatly diminishes
after his own fall. This occurs not
because of arbitrary punishment but
as a consequence of his actions. In
order to achieve his conquest of
humankind, he becomes a saboteur
and spy. He is, in Milton’s presenta
tion, the primal terrorist, lashing out
at the innocent, as well creating the
model for imperialists who make
indigenous peoples the actual victims
of a power struggle. Given Satan’s
principles and behavior in “Paradise
Lost,” I can only hope and pray that
Mr. Patrick does not really share the
same “outlook on life.”
Stephen M. Buhler
associate professor
English
Angelic atrocities
I’m writing in regard to Jeremy
Patrick’s article “Lucifer’s courage”
which was printed in Monday’s edi
tion of the Daily Nebraskan.
First off, I want to get it straight
that all angels created by God have a
free will. They, like us, don’t have to
follow his law or do as they were pre
destined. There is no set agenda that
they have to follow. Angels are in
essence sinless God-fearing crea
tures. Because they are sinless from
their conception, they have no desire
to deviate from God’s laws. Only
when they are deceived by Lucifer are
they sinful and cast out from heaven.
In your article you wrote that if
angels deviated from God’s law they
were tortured and put to death. Angels
are infinite beings. They cannot die
physically. The only death that they
can know is separation from God’s
love and grace. I do agree with you
that angels are tortured. Lucifer and
his angels, or should I say Satan and
his demons, are reminded every sec
ond of every day of their rebellion by
the fire, smoke, darkness and agony
they go through in hell. Luckily we as
mere mortals have Jesus to save us
from the fiery clutches of hell.
Lucifer did not rebel because of
tyranny. God is loving and just, giving
no one real reason to rebel. Lucifer
rebelled because he thought of him
self as greater than God. He sought
the throne of heaven only because of
his selfishness and vanity. Lucifer
managed to lure many angels to his
side through his lies and false promis
es. Lucifer himself is called the
“Father of Lies.” He’s the greatest
deceiver and misleader in the uni
verse, and apparently he has mislead
you as he does to so many.
Having the ability to sin through
Adam and Eve’s eating of the forbid
den fruit isn’t something to applaud.
The world would be a sinless, loving
place if it had not been for one mis
take made by two people.
I don’t know about you, Mr.
Patrick, but I don’t think that I would
idealize such a being as Satan himself.
He stands for wickedness, arrogance,
deceit, malice and any other terrible
thing you can think of.
Now I ask, what do you stand for
Mr. Patrick?
Cody Davids
sophomore
music performance
Lucifer lover
Way to go Jeremy Patrick. I really
liked the article “Lucifer’s courage” in
Monday’s Daily Nebraskan. It is
excellent when the unlikely popular
opinions get published. I felt enlight
end as well as entertained after read
ing the article.
I hadn’t ever considered the posi
tive aspects of Eve’s choosing inde
pendence, and I have the Daily
Nebraskan to thank. I thought there
would probably be enough really
vocal critics who would point out your
assured damnation, so I just wanted to
give some positive feedback. (All the
people I pointed it out to really liked
it.)
Luke Pawlowski
Freshman
computer engineering
® C I Send tetters torOaHyNebraskan, 20 Nebraska Unions 1400 “R" St., Lincoln,
» W flT& NE 6868Si or fax to (402) 472-1761, or e-mail letter^® unl.edu.
£ must be signed and include a phone number for verification.