Opinion ZM/yNebraskan Since 1901 Editor Sarah Baker Opinion Page Editor Jake Glazeski Managing Editor Bradley Davis Out of excuses NUForce's campaign reaches breaking point Sometimes, you've got to know when to throw in the towel. That seems clear in the case of NUForce, a party in this year’s student government election led by presidential candidate Angela Clements. On Feb. 15, NUForce’s candidate for second vice president, Rowena Pacquette, was thrown out of the race after forged signatures were dis covered on aform required to run for office that she submitted. Candidates for second vice president must gather200student signatures to officially file for office - of those, 35 of Pacquette’s were forged, the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska Electoral Commission found. The signatures were apparently forged by a former UNL student, Terrence Batiste, who wrote a letter of confession and apology to the Office of Judicial Affairs, to which the forgery case was forwarded. NUForce’s Clements denies any involve ment in the forgeries - and we must take her at her word - yet we must also hold her account able for things that occur under the heading of her party. Leaders of organizations, no matter if they are directly responsible for an incident, must take responsibility for anything that occurs under the banner of the entity they head. Instead, Clements let Batiste take all the blame. He was a convenient fall guy. That’s not a quality of a good leader. NUForce’s image was already bruised when Pacquette turned in the signatures in question, which were due Jan. 31, a day late. Clements said Pacquette filed her signatures late because she simply didn’t understand the process - another case of passing the buck and another quality that isn’t desirable in a leader. The forgeries came as another blow to NUForce, whose Sheila Gathuma was disquali fied Feb. 13 because she turned in only 30 signa tures to apply for the Arts and Sciences College Advisory Board, instead of the required 35. In response to the forgeries, the Electoral Board fined NUForce $100 and forbade it from posting large banners on campus. The board, in announcing the punishment, was following the same principle Clements should have followed when dealing with the forgeries: If it happened under the NUForce name, I’m going to take responsibility for it In admonishing candidates not to breach ASUN election rules, Electoral Commission Chairman John D. Conley stressed the need for professionally run campaigns. “If you think this is student council or home coming in high school, I’m afraid you’re wrong,” he said Tuesday. it would serve rsiuhorce leaders wen to need Conley’s advice: A college-level campaign needs to be run like one. No forging shenani gans and no excuses and buck-passing when your party messes up. It makes one wonder how a party, whose platform has included cleaning house in the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska, will be able to achieve more account ability in the senate when its members can’t even run a successful - and honorable - cam paign. In this newspaper’s view, it can’t, which is why Clements should withdraw from the cam paign. It’s unfortunate NUForce’s ideas of greater senate accountability, a more diverse senate and a renewed focus on human rights were overshadowed by a shoddily run campaign. But it’s time to throw in the towel. Editorial Board Sarah Baker, Jeff Bloom, Bradley Davis, Jake Glazeski, Matthew Hansen, Samuel McKewon, Kimberly Sweet Letters Policy The Daly Nabnakanwotaomoo brief lettere to the editor and guest cdwins. but doee not guaran tee thek pubicatton. The Daly Nabnakan retains the rij** to edtt or reject any material submitted. SubmMad malarial becomes property of the Daly Nebraskan and cannot ba returned. Anonymous submissions wl not be published. Thoee who submit letters must Identify themselves by name, year In school, ma)or anchor group aflKation, If any. Submit material to: Daly Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, NE 68588-0448 C mol' tottnrsOctnlynob.ccm Editorial PoRcy Unsigned edkorials are the opinions of the Spring 2001 Daly Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Uncoin, its employees, its student body or the Unfcraraty of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is soieiy the opiiion of its author a cartoon to aoietytheopinionoftsartiBLTheBoaRlof Regents acts aB publaher of the Daily Nebraskan; pok ey ia set by the Daly Nebraskan EdMorial Board. The UNL Pubtcabons Board, establshed by the regents, aupenflsee toe production of the papet Accordhg to polcy set by the regents, reaponsi for its edtoritt content of toe newspaper las eolalyhihe hands of its employees. » v * -j w I _ >1 ' \1 I I I IHV "Well, I didn't put them anywhere. They were on the hanger the last time I saw them, the last time being when I showed them to you.” "Well, what ever did you do with them?” "You don’t think they got up and walked away all by themselves, do you? I mean that couldn’t have happened. Is there any way that you could have accidentally packed them away with you?” “Uh, no.” “Well, why don’t you look around OK. Hey, I gotta go.” And after numerous e-mails from her-with no apology for die stolen pants, I might add -1 still am not talking to her. The funny thing is that she never got mad at me for accusing her, and she never talked about the issue; she just kept asking me why I wouldn’t e-mail her back. I have a couple of words for my good friend: “Get a clue.” Other friends I consulted on the matter said: "Well, maybe this is just a weakness of hers. Maybe you should just get over it” Or “How can you even talk to her ever again? You’re lucky she didn’t get into your purse!” So with conflicting advice like this, I really didn't know what to do. In these situations, I believe it’s best to consult my dogs. They are the real experts in matters like these. Vinny says, “Just pee on her.” Falcon says, “Does she have any fried chicken, and can you get some of it?” I deduced that since she was too far away to pee on and that she didn't have any fried chicken that I could conceivably get my hands on, the friendship was basically off, which really didn’t bother me too much until this morning, when I was driving in my car, singing badly off-key with the cold air fogging up my windows. I realized that there really is such a thing as bad karma, and yes, a person can actually bring it upon themselves. How so? Which brings me to the story of the first and only physical fight I had when I was an innocent lovely coquette in the 10th grade. I remember that I had, yes, indeed, specifically set out to befriend this girl that I met at a homecoming dance because her boyfriend was so cute that yes, I had to have him. That’s right. I called her and said we should hang out together, talk on the phone, watch the football game that Saturday together (hint hint: Why don’t you invite your boyfriend over, and he can watch it with us) and other fun girly girl activi ties. Sadly, I got the boyfriend, but once I got him I was shocked and horrified to find out that he was not what I was looking for, and we only lasted four days after. I got so sick and tired of his repeated phrase of “okey dokey.” Then I said, “You know what, why don’t you go back to so and so.” To make a long story short (I know it’s way too late for that), remember the Calvin Klein pants this girl said I had so wrongly stolen from her? Well, I did steal them, and for the life of me, I can’t even remember what I did with them So if you are out there, and you know who you are, I will buy you a new pair if you give me a call. I really don’t blame you for giving me a bloody nose because after all, I kinda deserved it I mean, yes, I did steal your jeans, and yes, I did steal your boyfriend, too. Since then, I’ve had boyfriends stolen, and not surprisingly, one very cherished, brand new pair of pants. Go figure. But in the end, I guess sometimes it takes some wormy events to make a person real ize that maybe what they got was something they may have really deserved after all Lesson learned, and now about that fried chick en... Strike at the source of the problem Last night, the incomparable Elton John and the inimitable Eminem per formed in a much-publicized auet during the Grammy Awards. Ja Maybe you saw it GlazesKl Oh, nelly. Michelangelo Signorile, one of the most prominent columnists on queer issues these days, has come to the foie, demanding an explanation for Elton John’s betrayal of sorts. Elton owes the gay community an explanation, he says. An explanation for what? Well, since Elton is gay and Eminem has written lyrics depicting violence against women and expressing hatred toward gays, He thinks there’s a conflict of interests. But can it be said Elton owes anyone an explanation? It’s not like he’s an elect ed official or an official representative of the gay community. The gay community has embraced him, and he’s accepted that embrace. But does his behavior need the community’s approval? Is he bound by his association with diem? It’s an artifact of liberal thinking in general where a person’s nonintellectual characteristics - be it his or her sexuality, race, gender, whatever - are associated with what amounts to a party line drawn along such characteristics. When a per son doesn't toe that line, he or she is held accountable by the community to which they “belong,” whether they want to be held accountable or not And if you’re a celebrity, the price for breaking the line can be severe. This is mob thinking; it serves only to negate the very advances gay rights groups hope to make. Allowing that Hton can support organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign while agreeing to perform with Eminem also acknowl edgesthat gay people can think for them selves. Is that so bad? Well, that’s the end of the straw man. The prominent gay activist would argue; But Elton isn’t just performing with some Schmoe with abnormally blond hair. He's performing with someone that has writ ten very disturbing lyrics that “victimize” homosexuals. Those lyrics oppress homosexuals because they create an environment wherein violent behavior against such individuals is acceptable. As one student said in Wednesday's DN, Elton is "contributing to his own oppression.” The argument works only if you accept the premise that states producing lyrics that depict violence encourages such violence. And, yes, I am vaguely aware of studies that suggest being exposed to violent media tends to incline young’ns into imitating such violence and being desensitized to it But tnat premise is only permissible n you accept what is, at base, moral rela tivism. You must accept that morality, in practice anyway, rises from the emula tion of behaviors you perceive and moral codes you are taught; in other words, it is not founded on an objectively provable set of observations. Thus, exposing a per son to ideas that encourage antisocial behavior is irresponsible, perhaps immorally so, because it will ultimately encourage the actual realization of that behavior. Thus, no morality can be inher ently “better" than the other. Whatever is moral depends on who you are, where you are and how you grew up Gay activists, in accepting this prem ise, directly contradict themselves because they are trying to convince oth ers that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual behavior, or at least that decisions on the secular level should not be affected by evidence of such behavior. In other words, there do exist objective moral standards. So if such moral standards exist, violence against women and gays will continue to be wrong, no matter how much people are exposed to images encouraging it Listening to Eminem will not form the moral in a person’s mind that vio lence against women and gays is right, nor will not hearing his music convince the person otherwise. Thus, Elton per forming with Eminem poses no conflict of interests. The possible fact that some people may be affected by the images from the media does not mean it is irresponsible for the media to propagate such images; it suggests only that such people hold a morality that is not objectively founded. And that is the root of the problem. Gay activists need to abandon alto gether their attempts at coercing oppo nents and supporters and beating them at the polls. They need to devise objective standards - based on rationality and not on impassioned pleas that refer back to Matthew Shepard every other breath. In particular, Signorile and others like him need to stop trying to bully gay celebrities into toeing this narrowly con ceived line and should instead focus on establishing a platform that is based on reason rather than uniformity of thought along race/sexuality/gender lines.