Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 17, 1992)
Jana Pedersen, Editor, 472-1766 Alan Phelps, Opinion Page Editor Kara Wells, Managing Editor Roger Price, Wire Editor Wendy Navratil, Copy Desk Chief Brian Shellito, Cartoonist Jeremy Fitzpatrick, Senior Reporter Opinion Stop the presses Pravda s failure reinforces media ideals Yet another icon of the former Soviet Union has sputtered and died. Pravda. a newspaper that served as both the voice and the defender ol the Communist Party shut down its presses Saturday after printing ms last edition at a meager circulation ol i (X).O(Kh compared to the paper s peak circulation of 13 — million. Since the August coup that began the end of the Soviet l nion, Pravda has suffered from nsing ncwspnni prices and increasing production costs spurred bv Russst s economic , reforms. Ii also has hao trouble getting the binding promised it by the new government. Bui Pravda s problems began long be lore thai The Communist-run newspaper showed s gns of weakening during the reform years r; imui-juviu President. Mikhail Gor bachev Pape rs broaching topics ol re formal ion not Commun srr gave Pravda a run (or circulation lr a gasp lor survival Pravda responded to the Augusl coup w ith drastic lomiai changes. Eliminated Irorr the front page were the iong \ \ standing profile of Vladimir Brian Sheiiito/DN Lenin and ihc paper’s slogan, “Proletarians ol the worldctfniic' Also eliminated was the newspaper s sc 11-description as the organ ol the Central Committee ol the Communist Party of the Soviet l nmn Bui the paper's NO-year existence alone made ii a representa tive ol the Communist Party. Free press was the only image that could survive in the the Commonwealth of Independent Slates. rravua irieti 10 snaxc ns image in us last uays, proving uscu both a watchful eye and a judge of the new government. Through such criticism of government, Pravda played a media role that is important in any democratic country and is espe j dally necessary in a new- country espousing democratic ideals. But even m light ol their extremity, these changes could not | save Pravda. a word that means truth in Russian. Pravda was a lesson on the importance ol a free press. While the media in Amcnca occasionally seem loohsh or overbear 1 mg, the alternative is nothing but a propaganda machine for the j powerful By the end ol us run. the paper had come a long way since the days when Lenin himself edited its pages We hope the new media that replace Pravda can observe and maintain the truth that Pravda was moving toward. Only then can the new society truly be Ircc -LETTER the EDITOR Hunters vent anger on animals In response to Arnold A. Reming ton s arguments in his letter titled, “Hunters necessary link in food chain" (DN. March 111 - Arnold s statement that "iI wcarc forced to quit hunting, animals will eventually overpopulate, starve and die,” is bull. “It is now known that docs (and other animals; will reab sorb embryos if they have mated during times of low food supplies or if food becomes scarce during winter In addition, greater numbersof does will ovulate when there is hunting . . . there is more lood for remaining deer.” (Ron Baker, 1985) Arnold suggested we learn the facts. Same suggestion to you, Arnold. “The American Hunting Myth" by Ron Baker would be good educational material for you if you were really interested in learning facts, hut I as sume that you arc only interested in acquiring selective myths that rein force your erroneous and self-serving assumptions. Hunting myths are the excuses for what John D. MacDonald, one of America’s most popular and intuitive authors, called “the search for balls.” Note that MacDonald called it a “search,” not a finding. People in this country who feel, justifiably, that their independence, freedom and person; power arc squashed out of existent by the weight of social control can tr to prove their masculinity and "horn sapicn superiority' by legally killin (taking control over i other life lorn (when they can't control their ow lives). Think that will make the? people "men'>" Do you think maybe hunting coul be legal and "socially accepted" b< cause then angry people can lake the frustration soul on animals rather tha on the true cause of then problem employers, leathers, politicians, ncigl borhood bullies, insurance comp; nics, IRS agents, traffic cops, ad ml nitum? Consider The downward cha ol violence that is “accepted’' in 01 culture protects those at the top Iroi attack. Tells you something, docsn it? People do not have "natural 11 slincis to hunt," and that is not if driving force behind the activity. Arnold wrote, “when an amm falls by our hand we feel respect f< that animal both before and after th animal dies." I hope fervently th Arnold never “respects" any sludci on this campus. Fran Thompsc scnii sociolof 0* 'MVU-fT HQ... t. vAO... _ v ^ BRIAN ALLEN Tax credits, not taxes, faulty I jusi paid my income taxes, and if 1 didn't find a column idea in there somewhere, I would be either stupid, ignorant or unobservant, all of w hich I have been accused of being, bul none of which is true. Unlike 99.9 percent of the popula tion, I'm not upset about how unrea sonably high my taxes arc. I don't even begin to cover all the benefits I get that arc paid for out of taxes. After all, the measly S9781 shelled out to Uncle Sam and Nebraska this year wouldn’t even pay for 6 feel of the interstate highway 1 drive on every day. I'm not even going to write about Social Security taxes, although the odds of Social Security and I both making it to the year 2035 arc pretty slim, and I’m quite sure I would be much better off in my golden years if I just put the money I give to Social Security in my piggy bank. What I am going to write about are some lax laws that I consider destruc tive and unfair — not the corporate tax breaks or tax shelters for the rich that typically make easy targets lor uninspired editorialists, out the Uix il breaks for people with children and c the higher tax brackets for high in ^ come individuals, o Yes, that's right, I don 't believe m g tax exemptions lor the rcproduclivciy IS proficient, and I don’t believe that n people who make more money should c pay a higher percentage of their in comes in taxes. d In Nebraska, taxpayers in the lowest brackets pay about 2 percent of their Ir incomes in slate taxes while laxpay n ers in the highest bracket pay almost 7 percent. i- Let’s look at this tax-bracket issue i- reasonably. If Jane Doe busts her butt i- and works her way through lour, six n or eight years of college, or if she ir sweats, skimps, works, saves and gets n a successful business off the ground, ’t why should we expect her to pay a i- higher percentage in taxes than some ic lazy parly boy who got thrown out ol high school, has no work ethic and il can’t hold down a job requiring any >r more responsibility than my dog has? il If everyone paid the same pcrccnt ii age of his or her income to taxes, H individuals with higher incomes still would pay more simply because they n make more money. They just would >r avoid paying the ever-increasing ;y percentage that goes along with a i Get married, pav less income tax! Have kids, pav even less income taxi Have , enough kids, pax almost none! 1I higher income. There’s nothing like a liltlc incen tive to excel. Do well in sch<x>l impress your interviewers, land a good job and get bumped right into that top tax bracket where you really can begin to feel that you are paying for all you get. And I don't want to hear about all of those poor, unfortunate individu als who can’t ever hope to get good paying jobs because they can’t afford to go to school. If I can work my way through school, anyone can. If people want to go to school bad enough and are willing to work hard, they can make it. It only may be part lime, or they may have to take semes - ters off to work and save up money as I have had to do, but they can make it. As for giving lax breaks to people with children, just make a list of some of the major problems facing the country today. Most people’s lists probably would include global warm ing, joblessness, endangered species and pollution of all types. There arc a myriad of causes for these problems, but they all stem from one source — people. Specifically, too many people. Too many people for loo lew jobs, too many people using too many cars, developing loo much former wildlife habitat and producing loo much gar bage and waste. While overpopulation is not as big a problem in the United Stales as it is in many other countries, and our population is growing slowly if at all, we would do well to reduce it msleat of giving lax breaks u> those who increase it. To save the world, many would have me become a vegetarian, live frugally and drive nothing but a bi cycle. While this may work, it doesn 't sound like a very pleasant life. I have another approach. We don t need to reduce our standard of living we just need to reduce the number ol people living at that standard Our tax system, however docs no' support my approach. It seems to have been set up with increasing the birth rate in mind Get married, pay less income tax! Have kids, pay even less income tax! Have enough kids pay almost none1 Seems kind of unfair to those of us who aren’t looking to gel married or have kids anytime soon Our government needs a fixed number of dollars peryear to operate li the Internal Revenue Service or the Nebraska Department of Revenue decides to give X number dollars ol tax credits per child to families, then that amount of money will have to be made up somewhere, either by in creasing the budget deficit or by in creasing taxes elsewhere Single people don’t use any more tax-supported services than married people do. In fact, they probably use fewer, but just arc forced to pay more lor them. I realize that raising children costs big bucks these days, but f don t think I should have to subsidize through the tax system someone else s decision to have kids. I have no problem paying taxes to support schools, although \ have no children in an> of them. I have heard the idea that people with no children should not have to pay taxes to sup pori the school system because they have no kids to benefit from it, but that is a faulty argument. When people pay taxes to a school district, they arc not paying for their children’s education, they are paying off their own. It may not be the same school they went to, but if they got a free or subsidized education, it’s only fair that they pay up somewhere. No one would support a plan to try to increase the country’s population or to require taxpayers who have no children to hand over cash to taxpay ers who do, but that is exactly what we have under our present lax laws. Allen is a senior mechanical engineering major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist
