Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 7, 1995)
Ohnjon Tuesday, February 7,1995 Page 4 Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln JeffZeleny.Editor, 472-1766 Jeff Robb..Managing Editor Matt Woody.Opinion Page Editor DeDra Janssen.Associate News Editor Rainbow Rowell..Arts & Entertainment Editor James Mehsling.Cartoonist Chris Hain..*.Senior Reporter Bad mix Montigo Bay owner had his chances The Lincoln City Council effectively flexed its muscles Monday afternoon when itrevokedthe liquorlicenseofadowntown establishment. Montigo Bay, an O Street dance club and bar, has been in the negative limelight for weeks. Since September, police have made 36 calls to Montigo Bay. Whilein fivemonths time thatdoesn’tnecessarily seem like a lot, it far outweighs other downtown drinking establishments. On any given weekend night, flashing police lights can be seen on O Street. Chances are the men and women in blue are stopped in front of Montigo Bay. Chris Kugler, co-owner of the bar, feels he has been treated unfairly by the police. “They have harassed us ... more than any other bar in the city of Lincoln,” Kugler said. Kugler has had his chances. It is unfortunate, but it is nearly impossible for a bar to stay on the right side of the law if minors are allowed in the establishment. Last Saturday, minors made up half of the bar’s population. Over the weekend, the Dai ly Nebraskan witnessed minors crossing from the portion of the bar designated for them. They went unnoticed by Montigo Bay management. This is just one example of the bad faith displayed by the bar’s owners. Let the city council’s 5-0 vote be a warning to other bar owners. No cents Minimum wage hike would cost jobs Last week, President Bill Clinton proposed a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage, taking it to a level of $5.15 an hour. Clinton encountered instant and solid opposition from Republican lawmakers. No GOP congressmen attended the Rose Garden cer emony where the president announced his plan. Here in Nebraska, state Sen. Tim Hall of Omaha proposed Nebraska raise its minimum wage to $5.25, regardless of what happens to Clinton’s proposal. The Nebraska bill would make the change in one fell swoop, as opposed to the two-step implementation that Clinton’s increase would have. Also, Hall’s proposal would increase the average tipping wage to $5.25, up one dollar from the current wage. While a higher wage looks tempting to many students employed by restaurants, it would undoubtedly result in a large cutback in food-service jobs in Nebraska. That’s bad news. Even without the increase in the tipping wage, Sen. Hall’s proposal — and President Clinton’s for that matter—won’t make a lot of sense, or cents. Sure, a minimum-wage increase would, in one way, help those at the lowest end of the pay scale make more money. But then, goods producers would either have to cut back on labor (resulting in fewer low-wage employees) orpass along the increased cost of production to the consumer. This would hurt everyone, but mostly the minimum-wage earners, who have a lower amount of disposable income. The labor market is not demanding a higher minimum wage. We would know if it was. That’s how a free market system works. Our government, which meddles in business too much as it is, needs to sit back and let natural economic forces run their course. Editorial policy Staff editorials represent the official policy of the Spring 1995. Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editori als do notnecessarilyreflect theviews of the university, its employees, the studentsortheNUBoardofRegents. Editorial columns representthe opin ion ofthe author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL Publications Board to su pervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set fay the regents, responsibility for the edito rial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its students. Letter policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others. Letters will be selected forpubli cation on the basis ofclarity, originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject all material submitted. Readers also are welcome to submit ma terial as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material should run as a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions salt to the newspaper become the property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be pub lished. Letters should included die author’s name, year in school, major and group affiliation, if any. Requests to withhold names will not be granted. Submitmaterial to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St, Lincoln, Neb. 68388-0448. li mm, _ mMm Jamie Karl Am I the only one having trouble understanding Jamie Karl in his recent column on abortion (Feb. 2)? Karl says abortion clinics are closing and losing business, “not because of economic sabotage, violence or theocracy. The abortion business is suddenly struggling because of a change of heart.” Karl needs to spare us this nonsense. That suggestion is only partially true at best, but for the sake of argument, let’s suppose for a minute he is right. If this clinic Planned Parenthood is proposing is destined to fail on the account that nobody wants it, then why is Lincoln Right to Life so up in arms? They are responsible for what amounts to a blacklist of business contractors they wanted boycotted, hoping the threat of financial ruin would force them to withdraw from business with Planned Parenthood. It seems to me if the pro-lifers were to let off and this clinic were to fail on its own, not only would they prove their point, but they could free themselves from any blame placed on them for said failure. The subcontractors that with drew from this project had to be worried about bad press and economic sabotage. They’ve most likely seen bad things happen to other contractors in other cities who helped build abortion clinics. Frankly, I feel it’s time groups like Lincoln Right to Life stop harassing everyone with their moral absolutism. If anything, their recent tactics have been nothing short of deplorable and un-Christian. It’s dirty scare tactics like this that make me wonder if such groups are not out so much to stand up for the rights of the unborn, but to adver tise their opinions as facts and their morals as superior. One more thing, democracy still governs here, so I can’t agree with Karl in saying that “the abortion argument really needs no in-depth discussion.” That viewpoint not only seems undemocratic, but it seems those involved in the cause Karl regards as “the most worth while in America” aren’t practicing what they preach. Scott Carpenter senior English \ BretGottschall/DN Beef is bad I have 18 dogs and 27 cats (strays, now spayed or neutered). I care about animals on our public lands, too. Nobody can help every good cause, but anyone can be a part of a “Save Our Organized Public Lands —(Don’t Buy Beef’ movement. ‘Cattle lobby activities, resulting in the defeat of candidates support ing good causes, may have been paid for by beef you ate. Beef, eaten by those who otherwise care, may lead to further slaughter of wild horses (competing with cattle for forage) and the extinction of species on our overgrazed public lands — land also menaced by special-interest backed groups trying to wrest control from our government and prevent rangeland reform. James Griffin Fallon, Nev. Murder Is murder In response to Michael Justice’s column “Abortion is woman’s decision” (Feb. 6), apparently saving lives makes Justice’s stomach chum. I am one of those people who want to save lives, sorry. It is a pity he had to sink to mudslinging at the Church. I suppose he did so to get around the main point that abortion takes a life. It is also sad that he resorted to the old cliche that, “Well, if they’re not wanted, they won’t amount to anything, so it’s OK.” NOBODY buys that line of stereotyping. Prejudging people’s potential outcomes by their early socioeco nomic status is just plain idiotic. Moreover, who’s to say they are destined for poverty and hatred, when many couples would do anything and everything to have an “unwanted” child. People just don’t want to believe that murder is murder no matter where it occurs. It doesn’t matter if you are killed on your way some where or once you get there. The point is, your existence has ended, period. Justice should imagine his wonderful baby niece who his sister thankfully decided not to kill. He should imagine knowing what he knows now about her, and then going back in time and having his sister say,” Michael, I think abortion is the right answer.” Murder of those who are going to be is the same as murder of those who are. John R. Ohnoutka junior biological sciences
