Opinion
Monday, February 27,1995 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
Opening jitters
New Denver airport worth cost, wait
The Denver International Airport has been cleared for takeoff.
And this time, it’s no joke.
After 10 years of planning, a 16-month opening delay, chewed-up
baggage, cracked concrete and even wisecracks by Dave Letterman,
DIA will open Tuesday. Attached to it is a $4.9 billion price tag.
Since its inception, the new airport has been surrounded by jokes
and debate. Opponents say the new airport is too costly, poorly
planned and unnecessary. DIA’s location about 23 miles northeast of
Denver is inconvenient, they say.
“People joked that we were building a new airport—in Kansas,”
said Norm Avery, a DIA spokesman.
But airport officials stand by the new facility, which they say is
needed because Denver’s old Stapleton Airport was too congested
and technologically outdated to handle the city’s growing air traffic.
Despite the glitches and delays, DIA should prove to be a worth
while project. At a time when concern about air safety is high, elimi
nating the bottleneck of air traffic created at Stapleton is not only
smart, it’s necessary.
In that sense, a 23-mile drive to the airport is a small inconve
nience.
DIA is following a trend of large airports building outside the city
in an effort to protect the environment and alleviate noise pollution
in residential areas.
We hope the new airport will have been worth the wait—and the
cost.
Good deal
Trade agreement saves U.S. treasures
Just in time. I
The United States and China averted a trade war Sunday as the
two sides reached a compromise on stopping Chinese piracy of
American movies, music and other goods.
Had the two sides not reach an agreement, the United States would
have imposed SI billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. China had
vowed to implement similar measures.
Rampant piracy on American creative exports had prompted the
trade-relations breakdown earlier this month, and the possibility of a
trade war became very real.
But as early as Wednesday the effects of this agreement could be
felt as China begins a six-month special enforcement period. If the
country does as it agreed to, all locations of suspected pirates, par
ticularly those engaged in illegal production of compact discs, laser
discs and CD-ROMs, will be severely punished.
U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor called the agreement a
“major step forward.”
“This agreement will go a long way in improving the balance of
the economic relationship between our two countries,” Kantor said.
Not only will it ease the economic ill will between the two coun
tries, but it will keep what is ours, ours.
Most importantly it will protect American treasures like “Jurassic
Park” and “Lion King” from being pilfered.
The U.S. should be commended for not backing down, while at
the same time, working out an agreement.
Editorial policy
Staff editorials represent the official
policy of the Spring 1995. Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editori
alsdonotnecessarilyreflectthe views
of the university, its employees, the
studentsortheNUBoardofRegents.
Editorial columns represent the opin
ion of the author. The regents publish
die Daily Nebraskan. They establish
the UNL Publications Board to su
pervise the duly production of the
paper. According to policy set by the
regents, responsibility for the edito
rial content of the newspaper lies
solely in the hands of its students.
Latter policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the
editor from all readers and interested others. Letters
will be selected forpublicarion on the basis of clarity,
originality, timeliness and space available. TheDaily
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 sent to the newspaper become die
property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will not be pub
lished. Letters should included the author’s name,
year in school, major and group affiliation, if any.
Requests to withhold names will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan UNA^n
Union, MOO R St, Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
(m NBA, ?mc raim...) ^_x
%*T TAIU& HQd KMOV) / \ \
Timu & smtm rw m r.Wr
WX VRoV\ Mes.... "
I
Bookstore theft
I am writing in response to the
article titled “T-shirt thieves keep
UNLjobs” (Feb. 21). I am abso
lutely appalled at-the punishment
that Charles Griesen, the son of
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
James Griesen, and Seth Gardner
received for what they did.
They were charged with a Class I
misdemeanor, which is unlawful
taking of $100 to $300, and the
university revoked their driving
privileges of university vehicles. In
reality, the crime was theft of 118
T-shirts, valued at $1,968. We
spoke with the county attorney’s
office, and they said the two should
AmySchrridt/DN
have been charged with theft by
unlawful taking of over $1,000,
which is a Class III felony, punish
able by one to 20 years in prison
and/or a $25,000 fine.
This punishment these two
thieves received does not fit the
crime. Not only did they break a
state law, they violated five student
codes of conduct: 2.12 Unlawful
states “Violation of any ordinance
of a municipality or in violation of
any law or regulation of the U.S.,
the State of Nebraska or any other
state ...;” 4.1g states “Unauthorized
occupation or use of or entry into
University building ...;” 4.11
“Theft” is self-explanatory; 4.22 is
“Unauthorized use of any University
property, facilities, equipment or
materials;” 4.28 states, “Any act by
a student which occurs on the
campus ... which is in violation of
any law of the State of Nebraska or
the U.S., or in violation of any
ordinance of the City of Lincoln,
shall constitute misconduct.”
Now, if I or any other student
committed a crime like this, we
would have been expelled from the
university. Viann Schroeder said,
“... are they going to be helped by
being out of a job?”
In other words, the lesson to be
learned is don’t get caught and use
your own vehicle.
Bryce Marsh
junior
political science
Chris Winkelmann
sophomore
mechanical engineering
Human organisms
We would like to thank Matt
Davis for his civil and relevant
response (Feb. 22) to our letter. Part
of the problem was that our letter
was so ineptly edited that our actual
argument was left out. Instead, our
summary assertions stood alone,
with the result that we sounded
almost as dogmatic as the fanatics
we were criticizing. Therefore as a
rejoinder to Mr. Davis, we will
make another attempt to actually
make an argument.
Davis claims that it is illegiti
mate for us to make a distinction
between a human organism and a
person. We now think it was a
mistake to use the term “human
organism,” since it suggests an
independent life form, and it is this
claim about the fetus, that it is a
sentient independent human agent
that we find untenable.
Still, it seems useful to distin
guish the fact that a fetus is human
tissue from the assertion that it is a
rights-bearing human agent. It is
certainly possible to be both;, we are
arguing that a fetus is one but not
the other. If Davis thinks otherwise,
then he needs to make a better
argument than simply asserting as
proof what we argue is the issue in
contention.
Historically in law, the fetus has
never been considered a person, i.e.,
a bearer of rights. Even Canon Law
did not view abortion as murder, but
as a sin against nature according to
the same logic that made illicit all
nonreproductive sexual acts.
In the United States, abortion
laws were either for public safety or
were eugenics legislation.
We are arguing that the only
compelling reason for interfering
with a woman’s right to exercise
sovereignty over her body is that it
would violate a more fundamental
right of another person. We have no
objection to hearing an argument
that fetuses should be considered ;
persons, but we’ve heard nothing
but the dogmatic assertion that it is
the case.
The only evidence put forward
was that a fertilized ovum is
genetically complete. This, we
argued, logically entailed that we
include every cell in the human
body in the definition of a person,
which is absurd.
More centrally in our original
letter, we argued that since fetuses,
until into the third trimester, lack
the spinal and neural development
for sentience and awareness, that it
is simply theological assertion to
call them agents or persons or
bearers of rights.
We are not arguing that abortion
is either good, bad or as is most
likely, on slippery terrain, both and
neither. We are arguing that we see
no compelling reasons to cause the
state to usurp a woman’s right to
exercise control over her own body.
Therefore, we are not judging the
quality of life of another person; we
are defending the quality of life for
the female person whom the anti
choice crowd seeks to control.
Jo Dihrilo
' senior
English
Dennis McGucken
Lincoln