Wednesday, March 1, 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 Main.Senior Reporter
Brain food
Subsidized tator tots mean tutored tots
A U. S. House committee approved a bill Thursday that would scrap
* the federal school-lunch program.
Rather than providing free and reduced lunches to poor families, the
government would give money to the states to provide lunches. Federal
nutrition guidelines for school lunches would be dropped.
The bill also would eliminate: a program that provides food
vouchers to pregnant women, infants and children up to 5; a program
that subsidizes meals for needy children in day care; and one that
subsidizes day care for working poor parents.
This proposal would hurt children without helping anyone else. It
also will hurt states. The federal grant would not take into consider
ation a state’s individual needs. To meet those needs, states may have
to raise taxes or scale down their lunch programs.
Our nation is struggling to find a way to help the poor without
encouraging them to stay poor. The programs eliminated by the bill do
just that.
The school lunch program works. It feeds hungry children so that
they can learn. It is not a corrupted or abused program. Kids don’t
trade their tator tots for guns. They aren’tselling their reduced lunches
on the black market— not even on chicken-fried steak day.
For many poor children, lunch is the only square meal they eat each
day. Being healthy is important for learning. Researchers have shown
that even a slight nutritional deficiency hurts a child’s development.
Furthermore, Congress will probably cut the country’s most un
popular welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
this year.
Moving off welfare will be extremely difficult for America’s poor.
Eliminating other programs that help the poor will only hurt their
chances at survival.
The House should vote on the bill by mid-April, as part of a package
of legislation in the Republican “Contract With America.” Yes, this
nation must tighten its belt. Programs will be cutback and eliminated.
But hungry children shouldn’t be the first in line to sacrifice.
The well-fed representatives should keep that in mind when they
vote.
Missed shot
Nee can’t fulfill expectations
The Nebraska men’s basketball team should be on its way to the
NCAA Tournament There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be.
Yet the Huskers are on a direct road to the National Invitational
Tournament.
Husker guard Erick Strickland said everybody’s expectations
might have been too high—because of the football team’s success.
But success should be expected out of the Nebraska basketball
program, just as annual bowl trips are expected from the football
program.
An NCAA trip is expected at Kansas, where Roy Williams has
gone 13-5 in the tournament in six seasons. It’s expected at Oklahoma
State, where Eddie Sutton has won six NCAA games in four seasons.
It’s also expected at Missouri, where Norm Stewart has won 11
games.
Nee has won one game in the NCAA Tournament, but that was 12
years ago at Ohio. Meanwhile, he has won five in the NIT.
Maybe the NIT is where Nebraska belongs.
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
the Daily Nebraskan. They establish
the UNL Publications Board to su
pervise the daily 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.
Letter policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the
editor from all readers and interested others. Letters
will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity,
originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily
Nebraskan retains therighttoedit or rejectallmaterial
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 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
Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska
Union, 1400 R St, Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
f THE aOlOCAuo THE TAXEb
its m
& Soob.
L^r\ mi f/tKAsKA>\
Send your brief letters to:
Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St,
Lincoln, Neb. 68588. Or fax
to: (402) 472-1761. Letters
must be signed and include a
- phone number for
jk verification.
Human
development
I thank Jo Dilallo and Dennis
McGucken for resubmitting their
arguments to the Daily Nebraskan
(Feb. 27). My previous letter also
suffered under the editorial knife.
Before I submit my arguments
once again, I would answer some of
theirs. First, I was more than
surprised by their retraction of what
they said was perfectly obvious on a
biological level, namely, “that a
fetus is both a living and a human
organism.” Why so obvious before
and so cloudy now? Are they
manipulating their premises to fit
their conclusions?
Second, law, whether it be civil
or even canon, is not a sufficient
foundation for rational argument
since neither claim to be absolute
and both are subject to revision.
Canon law is revised as understand
ing of principle develops and the
most obvious revision of civil law
abolished slavery.
Third, on what principle do
Dilallo and McGucken base that
sentience and awareness constitute
humanity? In this way, fetal humans
with spinal and neural development
are no different than fetal cats of
similar development. Are you
saying that aborting a fetal cat once
such a level of development has
been attained is morally reprehen
sible?
Thus, the crux of the argument.
You continue to judge humanity
based on physical characteristics,
and will always fail in your at
tempts. What distinguishes humans
from animals is the immaterial
component, namely, the soul. The
existence of a soul is not merely
theological assertion, but was held
by Plato and Aristotle and is held by
the majority of humanity.
Because the soul is immaterial, it
is linked to physical makeup but not
bound to a particular aspect of that
makeup. If a being exists, possess- *
ing a human genetic code and
operating as a distinguishable
whole, then it is human. Whether
the function is highly developed,
BretGottschall/DN
e.g., possessing spinal and neural
development, is irrelevant.
I repeat the point of my last
letter; “Personhood (human dignity)
is a direct consequence of human
existence and not an arbitrary
specification by one human con
cerning the ability, in any sphere, of
another.”
| Matt Davis
graduate student
education
Racism
This letter is in response to the
Feb. 24 commentary by Cal
Thomas, “Leaders redefining
equality philosophy.”
It seems that nothing gets some
Americans’ resentment going faster
these days than the buzzwords
welfare and affirmative action.
Sometimes I wonder if the way in
which these words are used and the
negative connotations attached to
them cause more problems than the
actual programs themselves.
I believe that far too often
assumptions are made about African
Americans as a whole that are just
not true. Some African Americans
depend on welfare, some may even
believe that affirmative action is
doing them a favor (let’s remember
that some African Americans are
not the participants of the welfare
and affirmative action programs),
but I am upset that the word “some”
is not used at all in an article
discussing controversial issues.
In my 1 lth-grade English class,
my teacher fervently opposed my
phrase when addressing another
ethnic group regarding a certain
topic when I said, “The_
believe this.” This type of statement
implied that the entire group of
whom I was speaking believed a
certain way, and I really didn’t have
a right to say that because I had
very little knowledge of these
people other than my television
viewing experience.
It seems that Thomas’ assump
tions are based on political and
media rhetoric. The fact is many
African Americans love their
country while embracing their
subculture and have always been
and are hard workers (this is not a
new and growing phenomenon as
Thomas seems to imply).
Let’s all get real for a change.
Racism does exist in this
country, but not everyone engages
in it. Yes, black people can make it
without affirmative action as long
as employers are willing to hire
them for their qualifications and the
content of their minds and do not
revert back to the old ways.
I believe this may be what some
people involved in the National
Association for the Advancement of
Colored People and other organiza
tions may be afraid about.
Colorblindness is a fallacy. The
world is made up of different
looking people with different
cultures; this is a fact. To ignore this
is not being truthful to ourselves.
We all need to just accept each
other as human beings (and bad and
good human beings come in all
colors). This will solve a lot of
problems, I believe.
Denise M. Whitaker
graduate student
community and regional planning
*
