Opinion
Page 4 Daily Nebraskan Monday, September 25,2000
ZM/yNebraskan
Since 1901
Editor Sarah Baker
Opinbn Page Editor Samuel McKewon
Managing Editor Bradley Davis
Defining devices
Meaning of "candidate"
allows room for politics
So let’s think hypothetically.
Before we get to it, though, a bit of history:
Last week, with the definition change of one
word, the Association of Students of the
University of Nebraska made it possible for stu
dent government to take a stand on political
issues.
ASUN’s newly passed bylaw redefined the
word “candidate” and was necessary after the
Student Court ruled, just days before, that the
old definition wouldn’t allow ASUN to take
issue stances. Political stances.
Let’s think about the definition of “candi
date,” and what our ASUN “candidates” have
looked like in the past. Visualize.
Now, let’s get back to that hypothetical ques
tion.
Imagine a new form of the ASUN candidate.
Imagine a conservative student running in the
face of the fervent liberals that
It’s just up make up at least 50 percent of
to someone the current ASUN governing
to come body.
along and Imagine this student running
make that on a different platform-not one
change. of lowering Pepsi prices or
We ’re increasing student football seat
surprised it ing - but one of them being anti
hasn*t abortion. Or pro-death penalty.
already Imagine this candidate run
happened. ning a campaign full of the
-superfluous issues that don’t
really affect anyone on campus but are the big
two or three that get people elected.
Now imagine this student appealing to the
silent but strong conservative student voices
on campus who, in the past, have stayed that
way. Imagine this candidate going to
Navigators meetings or walking around East
Campus - up to now a virtually untapped vein
of many conservative students - lobbying on
the abortion issue.
Then imagine this student winning the
ASUN presidency. Imagine this student being
seen as having a “fresh voice” in a campus sick
of hearing about DOMA and fetal tissue
research.
Imagine this student winning with the votes
of a mere 900 students he or she rallied togeth
er because of two or three political issue
stances.
While we aren’t saying this situation is good
or bad, in fact, we do think it’s worth some
thought.
Some good things, hypothetically, could
come out of this very situation.
More students would likely vote. A lot more.
More people would care about ASUN. More
people would read the Daily Nebraskan. More
people would listen to debates.
But would they be caring for the right rea
sons?
We don’t know if we want our ASUN elec
tions to become political. We don’t know if we
want soapboxes and party lines and debates
and stances. But we do know that after last
week, ASUN potentially has the power to alter
the process.
It s just up to someone to come along and
make that change. We’re surprised it hasn’t
already happened.
And actually, it seems as though we may
have changed a lot more than the definition of
one word last week. We may have changed the
' definition-and direction-of the future of stu
dent government at UNL.
Think about it.
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 publicatiori. 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 andfor group affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daly Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, NE 68588-0448. E
mail: lettersOuniinfo.uni.edu.
Editorial Policy
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 Regents. 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 Ihe Daly Nebraskan Edtorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the
regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsi
bity for the edtorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its employees.
lAittpr Happens when footbau- what happens when fcotbau
pAAVERS RUM EASINESSES.,. ' ^NS UNnjEPSlTlES...
nfiiii
II JSg if cp J
R U READY?
Wo BEER ^ U
/ \
NealObermeyer/DN
A flawed system?
NU on Wheels: A University of Nebraska student is
at a party, and has drank way too much to drive him
self or anyone else home. So he does the responsible
thing, he calls NU on Wheels (475-RIDE).
The woman who answers on Saturday Sept 23 at
2:05 a.m. asks his ID number, his name and address,
and then refuses to help because he does not have his
student ID with him.
Why is this? A UNL student tries to be responsible
and is basically told to take his chances and drive
home because he doesn’t have his ID with him?
Shouldn’t we re-evaluate our “wonderful” pro
gram to make sure it is really helping the students who
want to be helped?
Patrick Heese
Industrial Engineering
Senior
A sign of the times
As a gay rights activist, I would like to personally
thank Josh Harshbarger for his letter regarding the
decision by Abel Residence Association to display the
Allies placard (Sex symbols, Sept. 21). He makes the
point of many gay activists very well.
Because people are willing to compare relation
ships with other humans - who just happen to be of
the same gender - to those with farm animals, it is
necessary to take greater measures to validate gays
and lesbians as people.
Mr. Harshbarger’s touching conclusion to his let
ter is a laudable claim. Ideally, there would be no need
for any signs. However, people still have a hard time
understanding why gays and lesbians are attempting
to validate themselves as people - not get special
attention or rights - simply being treated equally
which must begin with equity.
So why are gays and lesbians so special? Aren’t all
minorities discriminated against?
Yes. But the difference seems clear to me: Gays
and lesbians are not protected by the non-discrimi
nation policies of most public institutions as is just
about every other minority.
Same gender couples do not receive the same
health benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.
Further, it is still considered “morally justifiable” to
not associate with - or even hire, for that matter -
someone who is a lesbian or gay because of one’s reli
gion.
Does anyone recall slight blemishes in U.S. histo- /
ry like slavery and Jim Crow laws? How about the
Holocaust? Guess what? They were justified on the
grounds of religion, too.
The next time you feel oppressed, discriminatecf
against or less valued solely on the basis of your het
erosexuality, clearly record it in your journal because I
guarantee it will not happen often. As soon as gays >
and lesbians can say that, that is when extra measures
like posting symbols that really mean something to
many people will not be necessary.
Andy Schuerman
Marketing Education
Senior
No room for gay blood donors
“There are more things,
Lucilius, that frighten us than
injure us, and we suffer more
in imagination than in
reality."
-Seneca, Epistulae ad
Lucilium
I remember filling in the JereiTiy
little circle next to “YES” on Patrick
the questionnaire. I did it ■■■■■■
with some trepidation, but
my girlfriend at the time (a med-tech student) had
assured me that they would simply ask me some
additional questions.
Once I explained my answer, she said, every
thing would be fine. I know now that studies show
many people lie on these forms. Because of pride,
morality or some mixture of the two, I decided to be
honest.
With even more trepidatioft, I handed the form
to the nurse and sat down across from her at a little
desk screened off from everyone else in the gymna
sium. She had a little card ready.
“What type of blood are you?” she asked. I could
never remember, even though every time I went
they told me. I still can’t remember. “O” maybe?
It’s amazing that I can still recall that G.I. Joe No.
54 (a comic book I bought almost 14 years ago) has
a picture of Flint on the cover, firing a machine gun
while parachuting from a burning plane, but that I
can never recall one of the most important facts
about myself.
bne maae small taiK as sne pricicea my nnger
with a little gadget, waited a minute or so, looked at
it and then wrote the results down on the card.
“OK,” she said. “Just let me look at your form
and then we’ll get started.”
Her finger trailed down the page, and she
tapped at each question and its answer. About
halfway down she lifted her finger up to tap and it
stayed there, as if suspended from a string. She had
a confused look on her face. She looked at me and
then looked down to read the question and its
answer again.
She pushed the paper across the table so I could
read it.
"You answered “yes’ to the question: ‘Have you
ever had sex with another man, even once, since
1977?’ Is that right?” she said.
“Yes,” I said nervously, but remembering Kitty’s
advice. "But it was always safe, and I’ve tested nega
tive each time.”
“I'm sorry,” she said with a sigh, “but that’s
grounds for permanent deferral.”
She looked sincerely apologetic, but mindful of
her duty. “We really do appreciate you coming in.”
There wasn’t much else to say. I got up and left. I
was a little angry but mostly embarrassed. Kitty had
been wrong, but not without good reason. She’d
given blood several times and always answered
“yes” when asked if she had ever “had sex with a
man who’s had sex with a man since 1977.”
After explaining that it was always safe, they had
gone ahead and let her give blood. We had assumed
die same rule applied to men, but you know what
they say about the word “assume.”
Last week, the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory
Committee considered ending the ban on gay
blood donations. The American Association of
Blood Banks (which makes up half of the nation’s
blood banks) proposed the change because it felt
that the ban was discriminatory and unnecessary
to keep blood transfusions safe.
Predictably, the Red Cross opposed the change.
In law school, we sometimes ask whether cer
tain laws are overbroad or underinclusive. The cur
rent ban on gay blood donations is clearly both.
It is overbroad because it considers a man who
has only had safe sex in a monogamous relation
ship as the same kind of risk as a male hustler. It is
underinclusive because a man or a woman who has
had unprotected anal intercourse with a member
of the opposite sex dozens of times is not even
asked about the practice.
Perhaps in 1985, when the ban was first adopt
ed, it made sense. But now, enormously accurate
nucleic acid tests can detect the presence of HIV
within 20 days after infection, and the traditional
“risk groups" have changed: Heterosexuals are the
majority of new HIV infections in this country.
(Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 13,2000)
As the safe-sex advocates like to say, “It’s not
who you are but what you do.”
James Petty, director of an equal rights group,
said it well: “HIV is a disease that affects all people.
It’s particularly prominent in the African-American
community, and we’re not saying African
Americans can’t donate.
“It’s increasingly prominent among women,
and we haven’t said women can’t donate. It’s an old
stereotype that has long passed any period of use
fulness. It’s presumed that if you're gay, you’re a car
rier of STDs or AIDS.” (PlanetOut News, Sept. 15,
2000)
On Sept. 15, the FDA committee voted 7-6 to
retain the ban.
On Sept. 20, the Associated Press carried a story
with the headline: “Red Cross Appeals For Blood
Donors.”
Apparently, blood donations are decreasing
about one percent a year, while the demand for
blood is increasing by the same amount.
According to the article, several hospitals have
been forced to postpone elective surgeries due to
lack of blood, and the Red Cross has only a three
day supply in its national inventory.
“The nation’s blood supply is in danger,” said
Red Cross President Dr. Bemadine Healy. “We need
help now.”
I want to help.
But I can’t.
U.S. Military
unwieldly
for new wars
The question
has been every
where: “Is our
military ready?”
The Washington
Post, NBC
iNignuy, even old | MKkF?'
George Dubya —
have brought the Seth
issue to the fore. Felton
The worries
focus on our equipment. Much of our
armaments - jets, battleships, and
lighter arms - are aging and may soon
need to be replaced. This will incur
major cost in the coming years.
Many of our troops are also housed
in sub-standard living quarters and do
not earn a sufficient salary. Some have
been forced to go on food stamps to
make ends meet. Morale is low, and
several branches have had consider
able difficulty in filling recruitment
quotas.
All of this points to a decline in mil
itary. A1 Gore would argue that the mil
itary is in top form, but he would be
wrong. As much as I hate to admit it,
Bush is right.
So how do we fix it? This is a major
issue since, if all the military’s stuff is
broken, they’re going to need new
stuff, and you and I will foot the bill.
A solution exists, one that will
make both sides - one that says mili
tary strength is vital and one that
decries its excesses - shut up. Consider
the following:
The current standards by which
military readiness is judged are those
of the Cold War, which are based on the
military's ability to fight a two-front
war.
Since (News flash!) the Cold War is
over, it’s time to re-evaluate those stan
dards, updating and modernizing our
military to enable it to better fight the
types of wars the Pentagon predicts for
the coming decades.
We discovered in our most recent
mission to Kosovo that our forces are
slow. It’s difficult to get a 70-ton
armored tank anywhere very quickly.
These and other arms are slow to
mobilize efficiently.
This is a damning liability given the
nature of war in the post-Cold War era.
Our wars are no longer Vietnam's, last
ing for years, but Iraq’s, lasting a cou
ple months.
We need a streamlined military,
one that can access East Timor, Kosovo
or Rwanda quickly and simultaneous
ly
It has been suggested that the U.S.
military would be more effective in
this endeavor if it were streamlined to
a $60 billion force, rather than the
cumbersome $258 billion giant we
currently fund.
Which means cutting off the fat
and putting money into mobilization
rather than heavy fire power. It means
sufficient pay for all troops, and no
more contracts to build gargantuan
battleships that are judged to be in
danger of capsizing (talkin’ bout the
Reagan years, folks).
An added bonus would be all the
money saved, which instead of making
bombs for our humanitarian missions
(a bit of a contradiction), could be put
towards relief for displaced refugees,
rebuilding countries ravaged by war
and even ease a little misery here as
well.
It’s a radical idea. There’s been all
this talk about “rogue” nations and
how we need a $50 trillion missile
defense system to keep North Korea’s,
Iraq’s and (Ixlunno) Libya’s three war
heads away from us.
The fact is, that argument doesn’t
hold up, and I’m tired of this latest
Pentagon excuse for wasting money
on a doomed project. North and South
Korea just marched together in the
opening Olympic ceremonies under a
flag of unification, and there have been
rumors of unification (with North
Korea accepting the presence of U.S.
troops). I don’t think they’re too anx
ious to bomb us right now. They’ve got
better things to do.
Iraq? C’mon, give Iraq a break. The
infrastructure of the country, decimat
ed by the Gulf War, is still woefully
inadequate. Thousands die each year
from the lack of sanitary facilities and
malnutrition. The country is in no
shape to wage war against us.
These threats are exaggerated, and
the potential for change underesti
mated. As the world's only superpow
er, our actions send strong messages.
Right now, we send a message of mis
trust and intimidation with our top
heavy, destructive military.
Let’s send the message that we’re
ready for more trust and cooperation
among nations, committed to human
justice first and petty disagreements
and fears last. It might even be the first
step towards real peace. Who knows
until we try?
The military is ready, but it is ineffi
cient and wasteful. It’s time to rethink
the system.
