/M/i’Nebraskan
Since 1901
Editor Sarah Baker
Opinion Page Editor Samuel McKewon
Managing Editor Bradley Davis
Decision 2000
Fetal-tissue research stances
make candidates top choices
When looking at the races for the University of
Nebraska Board of Regents, one issue takes
precedence: fetal-tissue research.
In each district, a candidate from one side of
the debate is pitted against the other.
In the four open districts, Chuck Hassebrook,
Jay Matzke, Drew Miller and Rosemary Skrupa
support fetal-tissue research. Jeff Johnson,
Robert Prokop, John Breslow and Randy Ferlic
oppose the research.
We back the four candidates who support
tetal-tissue research as they are concerned with
academic freedom and making Nebraska’s uni
versities progressive institutions.
The support of Hassebrook, the chairman of
the Board of Regents, is a no-brainer. He is domg
a good job representing the 3rd District and
shows no signs of doing otherwise.
In the past, Hassebrook has placed an empha
sis on making college education affordable to
students from all financial backgrounds.
Likewise, the behavior of Breslow makes it
easy to support Miller for the 4th District seat.
Breslow has compared Miller’s support of fetal
tissue research to the Holocaust This irrational
thought does not serve Nebraskans well.
When the story of the University of Nebraska
Medical Center’s use of aborted fetal tissue cells
in research broke, Miller strongly supported aca
demic freedom in the face of much criticism.
In the 5th District, Matzke’s medical back
ground and experience in various leadership
positions makes him the clear choice.
Skrupa is the most appealing candidate in the
8th District because of her character. After her
opponent, Ferlic, spent nearly $300,000 of his
own money to get elected, Skrupa was entitled
nearly $275,000 for her campaign. But she
refused to take it because she had no use for it
Hassebrook, Matzke, Miller and Skrupa are
the obvious choices for the regents because they
suppojf&cademic freedom and accolades.
The seats for the U.S. House of
Representatives are just as clear-cut
In the Pl District, Doug Bereuter is a battle
tested candidate. He has shown that he is not
blindly partisan by being a rare pro-choice
Republican. Bereuter also has the opportunity to
be the head of the International Relations
Committee. He is certainly an active representa
tive that Nebraska can be proud of.
In the 2nc* District, Shelly Kiel and Lee Terry
square off in an interesting race. Terry is a hard
line, big-business Republican, while Kiel is a
Democrat who has been active in the State
Legislature. AlthoughTerry has been amuchbet
ter representative than his predecessor, Jon
Christensen, he has not proven that he is more
than a rank-and-file representative. His position
against taxes, unions and the minimum wage
look to benefit those at the top of society, while
neglecting those at the bottom.
Because Nebraskans need someone who will
fight for their concerns, Kiel looks to be a better
choice than Terry.
In the 3rc* District, choosing a candidate is
frivolous. Republican Tom Osborne has the race
wrapped up. But the free ride for Osborne must
stop after the election. He can't ride into
Washington and live off his public support; he
must become active and fight for Nebraskans.
Osborne has shown that he places issues
above party affiliation by being strongly anti
death penalty. He is his own man, which is
appealing, but he must show that he knows
about government; he needs to show that he
wants to do something and not just exist
Given the crop of candidates, Doug Bereuter,
Shelly Kiel and Tom Osborne rise to the top.
Editorial Board
Sarah Baker, Bradley Davis, Josh Funk, Matthew Hansen,
Samuel McKewon, Dane Stickney, Kimberly Sweet
Letters Policy
The Daly Nebraskan welcomes briefs, letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not gusr
arteethekpubication. The Daly Nebraskan retains the right to edit or refectory material submitted
Submitted material becomes property erf the Daly Nebraskan and cannot be returned Anonymous
aubmisaions wi not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major anchor group affRation, if any.
Submit material to: Daly Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, NE 68568-0448. E
mat lettersOunlnlb.unl.edu.
^-11*.-i—« W-B_
carcoriai roiicy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Fal 2000 Daly Nebraskan. They do not necessarily
reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Liocoln, rts employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely Ihe opinion of its author, a catoon is
solely the opinion of its artist The Board of Regents acts as publsher of the Daly Nebraskan; po*
cy iB set by the Daly Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Boa-d. established by the
regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responst
bity tor the edtorM content of the newspaper las solely in the hands of its employees.
Nb\meet- Pr all-sawts nm oat r°-thank
'TUglR pt\TRON SAINT}
Voti STEMBRfrj RMR£ OF The g^J N£L50Kf, 8f/uG-'nft BRl6fmR VbiUMSkweV Focl&HL FAN$
ifireyr Pou Ft&u*e<>,twwks dftwo vn /nco-ase SMiFttBs^ mm/, our
(X&MZI "flMUfo Atr««6i4S, W B6 MAWUAC, 1W€ ftf**** SfiiWT OF tAlty OFTWe flRe5£*rr*W,'TH*F
Patrol saint of lost cAn&* vtwtommtr muxe** pmovsu »tr of uemSKA
aw jutes Mi^wT
taiiJA*mxorxm,-mef**'*' ^“S^JS'ffiKrrVF mUs+utim &wza*a,
MrvmKv******* ^p|gSw^ t0mtetSS^!^!um
,/ r—
*m> awMj PM**
5AiNTof iw6rf£fi$Mr&W
* /;
...Art Look )W> S£M$t?a*j, the
Fm*l SNtfT 6fBt£Mt£SoTmUG(&4
Neal Obermeyer/DN
Letters to the editor
It's my right
Karen Brown:
I do not hate you.
I disagree with you.
I do not agree with you that your lifestyle choic
es are worthy of being officially recognized
through the legal instrument of marriage.
I realize that it is very convenient for you to
paint everyone who does not agree wholehearted
ly with your position as being a homophobe.
I realize you didn’t use the “H” word in your col
umn, but you referenced “hate” so often that you
didn’t have to.
Is it really appropriate to equate heterosexism
with homophobia? I have made the decision not to
have sex with men. This means that I am hetero
sexist. Does this also mean that I automatically
hate all homosexuals? I think not.
I am going to vote yes on 416 because I think
that marriage is an institution that deserves to be
protected as it is currently recognized between a
man and a woman. I don’t think homosexual cou
ples should have all the same advantages as do
heterosexual couples in wedlock.
I also don’t believe that unmarried heterosexu
als should have any kind of “partner benefits.” My
vote for 416 is not an attempt to “sever all ties,” or
to sweep homosexuals under some rug; it is simply
my statement that I disagree with you, and I will
not give you any official recognition if I have a
choice in the matter. r
As far as the rift between your brother and you
is concerned, 416 did not create that situation; it
merely brought it to the forefront so that you could
deal with it if you want to. I doubt very seriously
that your brother decided, “Well, I think homosex
uality is morally wrong,” just because of 416. As a
result of 416, you now have an opportunity to have
a dialogue with your brother that you might not
have had otherwise.
I know that the homosexual community craves
acceptance and inclusiveness more than almost
anything else. Perhaps that is why it allies itself
with organizations like NAMBLA (North American
Man Boy Love Association).
Perhaps the conspicuous inclusion of NAM
BLA at all of the large scale homosexual rallies and
parades is one reason why people associate homo
sexuals with pedophiles.
I am going to vote yes on 416 in order that you
know that I disagree with your position. I am going
to vote yes on 416 to protect the institution that I
think is still worthy of respect. I am going to vote
yes on 416 because it is my right to do so.
MarkBuhrdorf
classics
senior
Painful questions answered
The warm air of the
office rushed to meet me as I
pulled open the door. The
lobby was furnished in cool,
dead colors - gray-blue
chairs on a darker blue car
pet, soft gray trim, egg-white
walls. A few people leafed
through magazines, sitting
randomly throughout the
lobby; across the room from
Jake
Glazeski
the entrance, a receptionist sat. I approached her.
She was an older woman, her permed hair an
indeterminate colorbgtWeen full blond and silver.
She wore a pair of glasses, with thick, pink plastic
frames, secured by a gold chain which descended
down and behirid her neck. She sat up straight,
wearing a powder-pink sweater vest over a white
blouse, leafing through a pile of papers, pulling
some of the papers oiit and setting them aside.
She didn’t look^at me until I was pressing
uncomfortably close to her desk. She looked over
her frames at me. “Yes?”
“I'm here for my interview,” I said.
She looked at me fully now, and I could see she
had bifocals. She seemed.to assess me coldly.
“Name?”
“Glazeski, Jake.” I over-enunciated my last
name, like I always have to, so she could tell it start
ed with a "G.” She pulled a file from a nearby file
cabinet, and laid it in front of her, spilling the con
tents.
“You were a former resident?” she asked. A cer
tain checkmark caught her eye. She paused, then
pulled the paper over. She looked at me, as I waited
for a cue. What should I say?
“Yes, I left for graduate school.”
She looked down at my file again, not indicat
ing that she had heard. She found another paper -
the short answer section of my application. “You
want to come back because, ‘You love this state?’"
“Yeah, I really kind of miss it, after being in New
York and all...”
She didn’t register. She put the papers back
together and closed the folder neatly. “Please take a
seat. Mr. Allen will be with you shortly.”
I nodded and moved to find a chair equidistant
from everyone else in the room. I picked up an old
Time magazine as I walked. I flipped through it,
looking for interesting pictures and reading the
stories they were attached to. A short time later, my
name was called.
"Mr. Gal - Galalezki?”
I stood, recognizing the most common mispro
nunciation of my name. The man calling my name
was Mr. Allen. He appraised me as I walked to him.
He turned, and I followed.
We walked down a short corridor, and turned
into a side office room. The windows opened up to
some pleasant greenery outdoors, or it would have
been, had it been summer. Now, the tree was bare
and the grass robbed of color, prepared for the first
heavy snow of the winter. The sky was gray and
i
uninviting. For a moment, I wondered if I really
wanted to be back in Nebraska.
Mr. Allen cleared his throat. “Jake, right?” he
asked. I nodded. “Says here you want back in the
state.”
“Yes.”
He flipped a page in my file. "You're aware of
the Nebraska policy on homosexuals?”
I blinked. "I’m afraid I'm not familiar with it,
no.”
Mr. Allen leaned back in his chair, which
swiveled under his shifting weight. "You see, Jake,
most Nebraskans don’t like homosexuals here. We
just don't want to have to deal with them. They
come in, they want equal rights, they want to re
define marriage, so a couple years ago we passed
this policy on homosexuals.” He looked at me, try
ing to assess the weight of this revelation. I sat qui
etly, and tried not to betray any of my thoughts.
"You see, you get too many fa -1 mean, homo
sexuals in this state, it messes things up. The natu
ral balance of things, as it were. Too many of them
and we won’t be able to attract businesses. It’s the
same thing we saw with the University of
Nebraska-Iincoln, before the policy...”
"I went to UNL,” I said.
Mr. Allen blinked, interrupted. He stumbled
back to his train of thought. "As I was saying, with
the university, I was a regent back then, and
despite everything that was going at the time, this
man - this gay-rights guy-was chosen for chancel
lor, and he really screwed things up because of all
the pro-gay stuff he did... ”
“Perlman. Harvey Perlman, I remember him,” I
said.
Mr. Allen became visibly irritated. “Now listen,
Mr. Galeski, I’ll give you a chance to talk if you give
me mine. Understood?” I nodded. “So anyway, he
screwed things up because homosexuals felt at
home at the university. It just screwed everything
up. We became the homosexual university. And
that just doesn’t sell, for faculty or for students. So
the citizens of Nebraska made a policy. And things
have turned for the better since.”
“I’m sorry, Mr. Allen, but it's my understanding
that the state population has, indeed, dropped
even faster since anti-gay rights people mobilized
their efforts. You're losing your best, your brightest
and your youngest. Corporations don't want to
come to a state where their actions will be overseen
by a state whose constitution and laws are founded
upon a very selective and subjective morality. I was
under the impression that you would welcome one
who, such as myself, would bring his youth, his
ambition and his dreams to a state like this, regard
less of sexual orientation.”
Mr. Allen leaned forward. “I’m going to deny
your application, faggot,” I heard him say. “Go back
to New York, where you fit in."
I was shocked, stunned, but not too surprised. I
should have expected it. So I got up, taking my
coat, and I left.
Goodbye, Nebraska.
Pondering
lessons in
road rage
I’m following
a white car. I can
see this girl’s
blond head
behind the steer
ing wheel.
She’s driving
slow, and I’m in a
hurry, so I swerve
a bit into the left
lane to see if any
Dane
Stickney
cars were coming.
A whole line of traffic is approach
ing, so I ease back into the right lane. As
I did, the blonde’s brake lights flash on,
so I have to press my brakes. Then she
rolls down her window, sticks out her
arm and flips me off.
Road rage intrigues me. It’s amaz
ing how people can be civil in one situ
ation but completely irrational in
another.
Take the girl in the white car. If I
were to be behind her in the supermar
ket and peered around her to see how
many people were in the checkout line
in front of me, I don’t think she would
have turned around and flipped me
off. But in the pro- _
There is no
personal
interaction
on the
road, so
people feel
like they
can be as
disrespect
ful as they
want
without
ever having
to feel bad
about it.
tection of plastic,
steel and seat belts,
she felt perfectly
fine.
Just what is it
about being in a
car that gives false
confidence?
Maybe it’s because
of the physical Sep
aration; we're rid
ing in a large con
traption that we
own.
Maybe it’s the
speed. No one
would slow down
from 80 miles an
hour to rectify a
dispute over pass
ing or leaving a
blinker on. And if _
one party decides
to slow down, the other party can just
speed away or exit.
The most frustrating road rage
event that I have ever been associated
with happened about two months ago
on 1-80.
A man driving a blue-gray van with
Illinois plates kept passing lines of peo
ple waiting to pass slow vehicles. It’s a
common scenario. You see a slow semi
on the right side ahead, and you merge
into the left lane behind the other cars
trying to pass.
But there’s always some jerk who
can’t wait in line, so he dives into the
right lane and darts in front of a car,
narrowly missing a collision.
That’s what this guy was doing, and
after cutting off three straight cars, he
was caught in the right lane. I had the
choice of letting him merge over or
making him wait behind a large, slow
semi. J
Needless to say, I made him wait
because he was being such a jerk. Not
only did I not let him get over, I drove
slow so he’d have to wait even longer.
He noticed this so he swerved onto
the shoulder of the interstate passing
the semi.
He then swerved back onto the
interstate and sped ahead.
Once he got away from the glut of
traffic, he slowed down. Once I got
close to him again, he began swerving
into the lane I was trying to cjrive in.
When I changed lanes, he swervbd into
that lane.
And once I passed him, guess what
I got. That's right, the finger.
Like the girl in the white car, I don't
think this guy would have acted the
same way if we were waiting in line for
a movie.
He wouldn’t cut in front of people
because he would have to answer to
whoeverhe,cut in front of.
But pfi the road, it is different.
There are no repercussions. Adults
have the freedom to act with the igno
rant malice of a kindergarten child.
There is no personal interaction on
the road, so people feel like they can be
as disrespectful as they want without
ever having to feel bad about it. After
all, drivers will probably never see each
other again, so why be nice?
The thing that I hate the most is
how road rage is contagious. How it
pisses me off when people disrespect
me on the road.
Since I’m competitive, I return the
finger when they give it to me. I find
myself thinking of ways to get revenge,
and it makes me mad.
But my actions are reactionary; I’m
not the one trying to incite violence on
the road. But I am guilty of being too
protective of my pride.
Until I^et that solved, I can contin
ue to study the human psyche in doses
as small as compact cars.
