Opinion
ZM/yNebraskan
Since 1901
Editor: Sarah Baker
Opinion Page Editor: Samuel McKewon
Managing Editor: Bradley Davis
Face time
Slim chance for Gore means
publicity for Nebraska
Aside from one vice presidential debate dur
ing the 1988 presidential election, Nebraska has
n’t been much of a political hotbed in the heat of
November office races.
It could change in 2000 - key word there:
could. Might not. But it’s better than the perpetu
al unimportance that graces the only state never
visited by President Clinton.
Why could it change? A1 Gore’s got a chance in
Nebraska. Well, sort of- in Omaha, anyway.
That’s what a copyrighted Omaha World
Herald poll said Tuesday after polling 986
Nebraskans about the presidential election in
November.
Not surprisingly, Republican candidate
George W. Bush has a hefty lead in the 3rd
Congressional District - mostly central and west
ern Nebraska - 57 percent to the Democratic
Gore’s 23. In the 1st District, including Lincoln,
Bush has 50 percent to Gore’s 36 percent.
But in the 2nd District, comprised of Sarpy and
Douglas Counties, Bush has a slim lead - 46 to 42
percent - within World-Herald’s districtwide
margin of error.
Ihis only matters because Nebraska is one of
two U.S. states that splits up its electoral votes for
presidential elections. Along with Maine, the
Comhusker State awards an electoral vote to the
winner of each individual district and two bonus
votes to the overall statewide winner.
Chalk it up now: Bush will get the bonus two.
And he’ll win the 1st and 3rd districts. And,
chances are, he’ll hold off Gore in the 2nd District,
too. But the Gore camp must have a decent rea
son for launching an official campaign in the
state, the first Democratic campaign since John F.
Kennedy in 1960.
It’s largely because Bush vs. Gore is shaping up
as a real race, a dynamic the 1996 race lacked.
The World-Herald quotes former U.S. Rep. John
Cavanaugh as seeing the race coming down to
“one crummy electoral vote.”
A bit dramatic, yes. Nonetheless, a significant
visit from Bush to Omaha seems a greater possi
bility. And it’ll likely be more than Bob Dole’s fly
through in 1996. Partially because his running
mate, Dick Cheney, is a Nebraska native. But also
because Bush has not only his own horn to play,
but that of Republican U.S. Senate candidate
Don Stenberg.
Stenberg, who was shown Monday to be 20
percentage points behind Democrat Ben Nelson
in a copyrighted World-Herald poll, is seen as a
key player in Republicans' keeping control of the
Senate.
Stenberg hasn’t hid any attempts to align him
self with Bush and Sen. Chuck Hagel in an
attempt to woo voters. The World-Herald poll
suggests the tactic hasn’t really worked, but Bush
may be persuaded to throw ardent support
behind a swing-seat election.
Gore could have the same concerns in mind.
If the race is as close as it seems, his own visit to
counter Bush’s is possible. The media may prick
its ears to Democratic candidate putting a chink
- albeit an insignificant one - in the armor of a
steadfastly Republican state. Seem too trivial?
Did kissing Tipper?
Politics is often perception and impression. A
Gore visit, as feckless an impact it might have on
Nebraska, may be a proving-point type of photo
opportunity. If the Clinton administration taught
us anything, it’s that polls matter, and an advan
tage in one meaningless poll could indirectly
lead to one in an important poll.
Keyword: could. Might not.
But it’s better than status quo.
Editorial Board
Sarah Baker, Bradley Davis, Josh Funk, Matthew Hansen,
Samuel McKewon, Dane Stickney, Kimberly Sweet
Letters Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes briefs, letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guar
antee 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 wiH 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, NE 68588-0448. E
mail: letters@unrmfo.unl.edu.
tanonai roncy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Fall 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 Ftegents. A column is solely the opinion of its author; a cartoon is
solely the opinion of its artist. The Board of Regents acts as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; poli
cy 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, responsi
bility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its employees.
" '^m-7 wool?
Neal Obermeyer/DN
Greeks blowing smoke
I am writing to address the reasons that greek
bashing is so prevalent on the University of Nebraska
campus. I have been here for over three years and
have my own ideas as to why it goes on.
I base these on true experiences since that’s what
Kevin Sypal wanted in his letter to the editor on Sept
18.
Reason 1: People hate the greek system because of
the stupid things fraternity people do that gets publi
cized. These things, contrary to belief in the greek sys
tem, are worthy of front page news coverage more
than their charity work because news is when some
thing big happens.
Examples of stupid stuff done by members of fra
ternities are as follows: the cutting down of a
Christmas tree on campus, stealing lumber for home
coming floats, throwing snowballs at international
students, handcuffing someone to a radiator while in
the process of hazing them and, finally, the ever
famous cross-burning incident.
Reason 2: People hate fraternities and sororities
because every time something bad happens, the
greek system harps on charity and high GPAs.
A direct quote from Sypal stating: “I’m not going to
spout off the facts about how many tens of thousands
of dollars the greek system donates to charity each
year or how much higher their GPA is than the rest of
the university...” If you’re not going to spout it, don’t
even mention it
What do greeks measure their high GPAs against?
The rest of the student body in whole? Let’s compare
the Honors Program GPAs to any house GPA and see if
it isn’t a little closer.
Reason 3: People hate fraternities and sororities
because they don’t understand them. I personally
don't get it I don’t get why all of you shop in the exact
same places and wear the exact same clothes. I don’t
understand what all those stupid chalk letters on the
sidewalk along 16th Street are for.
It’s stated best in Sypal’s second to last paragraph.
“Simon, do you hate the greeks because they were the
same people who beat you up after high school every
day...”
You know what that statement tells me Kevin?
That tells me that members of the greek system are no
better than high school bullies. It tells me that you
think you’re better because you’re in the greek system.
You’re no better than anyone else at this universi
ty. In fact, I think that statement makes you lower than
a lot of us. But look at the bright side, you can always
fall back on your enormous GPA.
Joe Scharfbillig
Junior
Advertising
Double standard?
Matt Hansen’s speculation about “who is guilty in
the Mark Vedral sexual assault case” is based upon a
presumption of guilt.
Because Vedral had sex with someone he hardly
knew (admittedly a poor choice), Hansen is prepared
to treat him like a sex offender, regardless of the fact
that he was acquitted.
Hansen may claim that he is “uncomfortable
assigning absolute guilt,” but that is exactly what he
has done.
His suggestion that we are “letting [athletes] get
away with it,” that we “excuse often inexcusable
behavior,” and we should “shun” Mr. Vedral instead of
giving him “total acceptance” all presume that Mark
Vedral is guilty of more than just premarital sex, but
that is not the verdict the jury returned.
What Hansen advocates is a situation where an
allegation is as good as a conviction, where guilt
should be presumed and where evidence sufficient to
convict is unnecessary.
Brad Pardee
Staff
Universitv Libraries
One feather short of a boa
I’m so straight, it’s scary.
My political views tend to
be to the right. My clothing is
conservative. I don’t like to
dance all that much. I don’t
wear exotic scents, and my hair
is plain, unstyled and uncol
ored.
But I’m not straight. I’m gay.
I was a card-carrying gay for
a couple of years, until the
Jake
Glazeski
National Association of Gays discovered my trans
gressions. They came by a couple of weeks ago to take
back the card and my poster of Ricky Martin, which
was all right because Walgreens doesn’t take NAG
cards.
But still, I’m left emotionally distraught by my dis
connection from the gay community. Everywhere I
turn, I am faced with the message, “You are not one of
us,” as if it were a looming, dark face, tight-lipped at
the door of a dance club, big burly arms crossed on a
manly, heaving chest... oh, sorry.
I mean, gays come in all shapes and sizes - you
have the str8-actings and the flaming queens, the
party-all-nighters and the closet cases. Gays are short,
tall, science majors, liberal arts majors. They are
smart: they are stupid.
In other words, they permeate the spectrum, if
that isn’t a semantic knot. More and more, though, I’m
finding there is one area into which gays don’t cross,
except on extreme occasions: the philosophy of
objectivism - whose principal ideal is rationality,
whose founder is Ayn Rand.
It’s as though the only circumstances under which
gay objectivists arise is when their mothers drink cof
fee that has been laced by a trace amount of radioac
tive spider-parts while the child is in utero. I don’t
know why this is - I’ve just come to the conclusion that
gay objectivists are so rare, for all effective purposes in
Nebraska, we are - or more accurately, I am - alone.
A piece of evidence: Like any well-meaning g-boy,
I recently became more active in a couple of on-cam
pus organizations devoted to the ends of the gay, les
bian, bisexual and transgendered communities. The
ones I have so far participated in are: Allies against
Heterosexism and Homophobia, and the Committee
for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered
Concerns. There are a few others: Spectrum, Lesbian,
bisexual and questioning group, a confidential gay
men’s discussion group, as well as an ad hoc organiza
tion designed to defeat Proposition 416, also known as
DOMA. r
So I have recently been inundated with modern
gay political thinking. Implicit is the value of our goal:
to expose the university community to us, which is to
say, GLBT persons. Diversity is an unspoken value.
Domestic partnership benefits, or with 416 just
around the comer, the ability to pursue such benefits,
seems to be the most prominent goal right now. The
strategy is to rabble-rouse, to be loud and obnoxious,
to force acknowledgment.
At first, I just soaked it in. I wanted to be part of the
“solution,” and I wanted to make it easier for “my
community,” even though I didn’t feel like one of
them. But now that I have considered it, I am over
whelmed with questions.
Why are gay activists doing this? Is a gay civil union
really within the bounds of their fundamental rights?
And if it is, why are they using the strategy that they
are? They seem to overwhelm the public with their
presence - to fluff up their feathers, so to speak, to
make themselves seem larger than they really are, so
that maybe some people will not so adamantly
oppose their attempts at equality in privilege and law.
The approach is not rational. No one asks, why
should straights support us? I ask this question and
can’t answer it. Most of you are straight. Why should
you care about my sexuality or a random GLBT per
son’s attempts at social change? I can’t think of a good
reason.
And I’m not going to try to force you to think the
way I do - not like most gay activists. They are trying to
force you to think like them.
But they haven’t answered these question them
selves. To be sure, there is a weak logical chain, con
necting homophobia to oppression they call “gender
stereotyping.” I suppose the argument has some
merit - but what if people don’t want to “gender
bend?” They say you should care because you can’t
express yourself ftilly within the bounds of your social
category. Then again, none of us can. Which brings me
back to my objectivism.
GLBT persons don’t seem particularly interested
in rational thinking. To be sure, lawyers devote them
selves to the cause, and they use reason to reach their
conclusions. At base, though, are simple assumptions
no one has any reason to accept. Those assumptions
lead to the desired conclusions.
I see this as an objectivist, but no one in the GLBT
community seems to care. Quibbling, they might say.
However, by not addressing these questions, they cre
ate for the GLBT person a rut, the nature of which is
parallel to the rut of gender stereotypes. In other
words: Men shouldn’t express emotion; gays shouldn’t
think.
I can do only so much justice to my point; a gay
objectivist Web site exists, though, at
www.rattigan.net. The Rattigan Society is a group of
gay objectivists whose goal is to tell gay people simply,
it’s all right to think. Their call for rationality falls on the
deaf ears of most gay activists.
Well, I suppose if the activists prefer hysterical cat
erwauling to rational debate based on premises that
both parties will accept, I am not going to try to stop
them. I’ll let them play their game. Not that it will get
us anywhere.
Life's evil
found in
onion idea
Every time I
see a criminal
dressed in the
orange prison
garbs, being led
down a hallway to
some jail cell or
questioning
room, I wonder
what makes him
different from me.
Dane
Stickney
Why can
some people rape other people, then
beat them senseless with a hammer?
Why can some steal and hate so easily?
What keeps me from being that way?
My philosophy teacher at UNK,
David Rozema, would have said it’s
because there’s no Christian God to
direct them. Criminals don’t have a high
er code of religious ethics or sense of
damnation after death.
Rozema is a tall, skinny man with a
dark beard. He is a guest preacher at a
local Presbyterian church. He teaches
philosophy of ethics and religion.
This summer, while reading “The
Brothers Karamazov,” a story by Fyodor
Dostoyevsky concerning morality and
religion’s effect on four brothers after
their father’s death, the issues of what
makes a person terrible arose. Rozema
basically attributed it to a lack of religion
- that morality needs a sense of higher
power to exist.
I’m not “religious” in the modern
sense of the word. Being a good person is
important, but I don’t relate good works
to a God or an afterlife.
• So I disagreed with Rozema. But I
couldn’t explain why until he took a week
off and was replaced by one of the great
est men I have ever learned from: Don
Welch. Those familiar with Nebraska
poetry probably know the name well. He
was in contention for state poet a few
years ago when Bill Kloefkom eventually
earned the title.
Welch is a physical poet. He doesn’t
write about feelings; he writes about the
Platte River, cranes, his father. I had heard
much about him, and I was eagerly
awaiting learning from him.
My father had taken college courses
from Welch many times and praised him.
I had always wanted to take one of his
classes, but he retired before I got the
chance. By doing his colleague a favor by
subbing for a few days, he was doing me a
great favor.
Welch walked to the front of the
room. He turned to the board, picked up
a piece of chalk and drew something that
looked like a Valentine heart with a line
sticking out of the top. He then drew a
shaft down the middle of it. Underneath
it, he wrote "Apple.”
He then drew a circle with other cir
cles inside of it. It looked like a record.
Next to it, he wrote “Onion.”
From behind thick glasses, he peered
out at the class. He held up a copy of “The
Brothers Karamazov.”
“From reading this book, it is obvious
that there are two types of people in the
world,” he said with a deep, strong yet
shaking voice. “There are those who have
the ability to love, and there are those
who do not.”
He turned back to the board and
pointed at his drawings. “There are
apples, and there are onions.”
Apples have a core, which gives them
the ability to give and receive love.
Onions have no core; they are just layers
of humanity piled on top of each other,
lacking the ability to receive anything
while only giving out hatred.
Apples, said Welch, are far more com
mon in the world than onions, but the
number of onions are growing at an
alarming rate.
So why are people onions? How do
they get that way? Is it because they can’t
find God? Welch didn’t mention God, like
Rozema would have.
He attributed the cause of evil people
to one thing: They weren’t loved. No one
picked them up when they cried as a
child. No one played with them or read
them books. No one came to their athlet
ic events or parent teacher conferences.
No one nurtured them.
An onion can be formed many ways.
Most of the time, they spring out of lust,
grabbing and groping on a cheap mat
tress.
Then when the time rolls around,
lust’s product isn’t wanted, so it in turn
isn’t loved. Where a core should begin
forming, an abstract bulb of hatred
forms, and the cycle is started again. By
adolescence, it might be too late to
change anything.
At that stage, Welch said, physical
love, not spiritual, is needed. Without a
real, loving touch, cores can’t form.
“Onions can’t love," Welch said. “Ask
yourself, can you love? If you can, think of
who made you an apple. A parent, a sib
ling, a teacher, a coach, whoever.”
He paused and looked down at the
book, then at his watch.
"We’re out of time, but your assign
ment for tomorrow is to read the next two
chapters in the novel.
“And thank whoever is responsible
for making you an apple.”
