Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 9, 1995)
Commentary Thursday, February 9,1995 Page 5 _____ i ‘ ; Poor tots torched for science mere is now a law in New Jersey that does not give any additional money to women on welfare if they surpass a two-child limit while on the program. Children No. 1 and 2, and the mother, will be cared for by the state if they are in need of assis tance. After that, no additional money will be granted. The concept of this law is to discourage welfare dependency. I applaud this. I have always believed that depending upon welfare is just not right when a person is perfectly capable of flipping burgers to raise a family. And now the lawmakers of that progressive and forward-thinking state of New Jersey have taken a step in the right direction. It doesn’t go nearly far enough, though. I have personally come up with a way to not only deter women from becoming dependent on that $330 or so a month to raise two children, but I have also found a way to spend all of the money that will most certainly be saved by adopting my idea. In my proposal, women are allowed their welfare check for two children, but if they have another child, the state immediately repossesses it and hands it over to sociologists for clinical testing. Think of it. We have a great resource in these extra children of irresponsible welfare mothers, and we need to use it. We should immediately take the suckling newborn away from its mother and give it to the government for proper studies of human activities. What a swift idea this is. It’s completely obvious to me and to any other reasonable person that the only reason that these irresponsible welfare mothers would have a third or fourth child is for that extra $70 Todd Elwood or so a month. These people are living like kings from my taxed dollars. They get food, clothes and sometimes even medicine for these children. This needs to stop. If we handed over every extra child to sociologists, we could solve so many nagging problems that have plagued humankind for so long. Up until my idea, words such as “unethical” and “inhumane” have flown around when discussing clinical research on babies. But if we don’t want to pay the $70 dollars a month that it really takes to raise a newborn, then I say take the babies, keep them alive and put them to some scientific use. We could throw a group of 20 babies in a room, periodically toss in some Gerber’s and see if a hierarchy develops in this never before-tested social environment. We could finally answer the hotly debated question of whether white people are intellectually superior to African Americans. We could see if the lack of a nurturing parent really has an effect upon behavior towards others. We could see which Halloween costume really is the most flame retardant. We could perform tests and , finally solve jth&4#>ate of whether or not spanking a child causes emotional damage. We could see which baby shampoo causes the fewest tears when poured into their eyes. My goodness, what a resource we have. And the start-up costs will be practically nothing; most of the materials will be donated. In fact, we may be saving so much money, by not wasting that $70 a month for that extra child, that we could eventually pay these irresponsible welfare mothers a little extra to have more children for further testing. Who could possibly be unhappy with this proposal? Not any reasonably thinking person, that’s for sure. The irresponsible welfare mothers will be happy because no matter how many kids they have, they will always have only two hungry mouths to feed (not includ ing their own). Plus, there’s the incentive of extra money for additional subjects, if the plan works as well as I think it will. We the taxpayers will be happy. We will have not only solved the problem of welfare dependency by saving that extra $70 a month per child, but we can also feel proud and content that we are contribut ing to the advancement of science. Sociologists will be pleased as punch by finally being able to test humans without an ethics worry. I profess, that unlike other ideas for welfare-reform laws, I have nothing to gain by my idea. I believe that if we do this swiftly, the benefits will be obvious to all. It will be obvious to the average taxpayer, to the sociologists and science in general and to the irresponsible welfare mothers, who up until now have been having babies only for profit. Elwood is a senior English and sociology major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. Multiculturalism builds bridges It was time to write my next column. But I could only think of my physical discomforts as the persistent flu ran its course. I was sick of being sick. Sick of being grounded, confined and bedrid den. For lack of better things to do, I lay in bed focusing on nothing in particular and the opposite wall in general. Then the calendar on the wall caught my attention and I realized it was February — Black History Month. And my thoughts strayed toward the idea behind declaring a month dedicated toward a cause. Such as March being Women’s History Month. The ultimate goal of this, I would think, is education. Multicultural efforts. But why should one wait until November to learn about the Native Americans or until September to revel in Hispanic heritage? The world is becoming smaller by the minute. Technology and science have made it possible for us to breakfast in Belfast, lunch in London and dine in the Dominican Republic. The implication of this fs that one cannot but come face to face with a truly pluralistic world. But the world as such has not changed — it has been just as colorful as ever, but the need for accepting and respecting people from different social, cultural, religious, economic, educational and ethnic backgrounds has increased because of the shrinking world and our inability to remain in our cozy little cocoons for the sake of development. Over the years, we have devel oped walls around us and built opinions about others, but it is time now to break down these barriers and bridge the gaps. It is vital that we acknowledge and treat every human being with respect and dignity, irrespective of race, color, sex, nationality or sexual orienta Vennlla Ramallngam tion. It is what we owe as one human being to another — that will bring us together. The task of bringing people together is made especially difficult in this country that was built over the bulldozed remains of a civiliza tion where people were kept in bondage and subjected to subse quent slavery. Hard? Yes, but not altogether impossible. A lot of work has been done toward multiculturalism; definite and determined multicultural efforts have been made. As an international student, I am often forced to educate people about my country and its culture — a pleasant but tiresome job that I do willingly, for the most part. Before demanding global awareness from fellow humanity, I only demand that a person of color coming into this community should not be required to introduce her back ground or dispel myths about her people. For the simple reason that she is just as American now as anybody else, even though it was not so long ago that she was only two-fifths American. How can one be expected to view affirmative action and equal opportunity in a fair light without understanding that it was not until 1968 that people of color were allowed even to apply into Ivy League colleges? Multicultural education does not have to be and should not be a guilt trip for the average white male, for what his forefathers and their forefathers perpetrated, but it should be a lesson for all on what has been done in the past and what should be prevented at all costs in the future. Multiculturalism should not mean mere political correctness. Such superficial attempts are pathetic and will only end up as a passing fad. While it is important to be politically correct, it is more important to be morally correct. Multiculturalism should not be like a book on “How to do business with the Japanese,” which teaches you how far to bend for a perfect bow, but does not mention anything about calling the Japanese “slant eyes” or something equally disre spectful behind their backs. Some people think multicultural education and awareness are for the benefit of minorities, and some others think they are for the benefit of the majority. But the people they truly will benefit are all the people who receive them. They are the kinds of knowledge that will help one academically, professionally and personally to become a better, more tolerant and understanding person and promote a peaceful pluralistic society. Multicultural knowledge strengthens humankind because when one studies about a different culture, it is hard to not be amazed at the similarities. Multicultural education should aim at celebrating the differences while accentuating the commonness. Our similarities come from our humanness, our feelings — love, hatred, jealousy and anger — the same emotions that guide and rule us. What an influx of ideas the flu has inspired in me. Maybe I should pass it around. . • Ramalingam is a graduate student In computer science and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. j - — I —— Homeless solution should please all It’s the dead of winter. During recent Republican administra tions this has meant numerous network television reports on the homeless. These reports usually linked the “insensitive” and “harsh” policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations to the plight of those who slept on heating grates and on occasion froze to death. With the exception of a few local newscasts, the homeless watch is virtually over for the networks. There have been no suggestions that President Clinton is to blame for those foraging in trash cans and eating out of dumpsters or sleeping in cardboard boxes. One man is trying to rise above the political battle by actually doing something to help the homeless. Not only is Ohio Congressman Tony Hall a Democrat, he is proposing a solution that might work and wouldn’t cost the taxpayers any money — something that ought to appeal to Republicans. Beginning in his home district of Dayton, Hall has persuaded the local Democratic Party to open its headquarters to home less people, bounding nice some of his Republican colleagues, Hall said, “Government alone cannot solve these problems. Private organizations must also bear the burden.” The chairman of the Mont gomery County Democratic Party, Dennis Lieberman, announced that empty upstairs rooms of the party’s building in Dayton would be equipped with bunk beds to house as many people as possible. Most will be the overflow from the St. Vincent Hotel, which currently pays through the local shelter program for overflow residents to sleep in other hotels. Lieberman says the party’s offer should reduce or eliminate those expenses, currently running between $10,000 to $15,000 per year. Local Demo crats estimate it will cost the party between $1,000 and $2,000 a year to maintain their building as a facility for the homeless. They say they will bear the cost, whatever it is. Cal Thomas Hall also wants doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professionals to donate their services to needy people in the community. If the homeless are able to work, they will receive job counseling, resume help and, it is hoped, be directed into the Job Training Partnership program that develops the skills they need to find jobs. The executive director of St. Vincent, Jim Butler, told the Dayton Daily News: “This is an ideal solution to a problem we’ve been facing for the past five years. The community didn’t want to create another shelter because of the financial burdens that would have resulted.” An “ideal situation” is not a phrase usually associated with the homeless problem. But if Democrats and Republicans could get together on this significant social concern, they might become a model for other groups and individuals that political and philosophical differences don’t mean people can’t work together in true compassion and charity. The Republican rap is that Democrats see problems as opportunities to create new, expensive and unworkable federal programs. The Demo cratic rap is that Republicans care too little about the poor and hungry. Hall is providing by example a way to bridge that philosophical gap and to demon strate that where compassion and humanity are concerned, party labels should be checked at the door of at least one party’s headquarters. Democrats are showing the way in Dayton. Can Republicans afford to be left behind in that cily and in other communities? © 1995 Los Angeles Times Syndicate Youre just jealous) you dM think of it.. I Mike Lukovich Please Write Back! The Daily Nebraskan appreciates your feedback! Please write to: Daily Nebraskan 34 Nebraska Union 1400 R St. Lincoln, Neb.6858S0448