Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 1, 1995)
OlNON Wednesday, November 1, 1995 Page 4 Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln J. Christopher Hain.Editor, 472-1766 Rainbow Rowell.Managing Editor Mark Baldridge.Opinion Page Editor DeDra Janssen.Associate News Editor Doug Kouma.Arts & Entertainment Editor JeffZeleny.Senior Reporter Matt Woody.Senior Reporter James Mehsling.Cartoonist Managing Earth Future of planet is our responsibility Add another poor neglected creature to the endangered species list: The Endangered Species Act. Congress, in its zeal to leave the enormous Cold War defense budget intact, is ready to take the budget-cutting ax to every pro gram of social or ecological importance. It’s a heyday, all right, for someone. Not for the spotted owls of this world. Human beings greatly impact the environment — the aggregate effect of our presence on this planet will increase, not de crease with time. Failing to regulate the ef fects of our presence will rep resent failure to responsibly manage Earth. We arc its managers, now we arc, and make no mistake. With that position comes responsibility. Maybe the ESA’s time has come, but only because we must find new and more far reaching plans for the manage ment of this green planet. We cannot survive without the complicated system that supports us, and we know pre j cious little about how the in tricatc machinery of nature functions. We cannot go blundering through the biosphere like bulls in a china shop. It will not work. We are a species among species, but we are different. Our ability to plan and act out our plans has put us in the driver’s scat of spaceship Earth. Future generations will know this more clearly than we ourselves can — and they will judge us on how we went about carrying out our duties. It’s not a matter of cute owls and sonorous, poetic whales. It’s a question of the survival of life on Earth. There are fear mongers, to be sure, prophets of doom who would warn us away from every road open to us — “abandon all hope.” But for every Jeremiah there are 20 land developers, 100 lum berjacks and thousands and thousands of regular Joes — trailing a swath of candy wrappers 10 miles wide. For every environmental petition and protest there are too many pieces of shortsighted legislation — too many quick buck schemes. And we all have to think hard about where we’re going — and where we want to go. Because the issues that face us arc not political issues. They are moral issues. How will we face the future? Editorial policy Staff editorials represent the official policy of the Fall 1995 Daily Nebras kan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebras kan Editorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. Editorial columns represent the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. Accord ing to policy set by the regents, respon sibility for the editorial 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 the right to edit or reject all material submitted. Readers also are welcome to submit mate rial 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 re turned. Anonymous submissions will not be pub lished. Letters should include the author’s name, year in school, major and group affiliation, if any. Re quests to withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. Spectacles I am writing to bring attention to the spectacle I witnessed this weekend in Boulder at the Colorado game. Did I see an out of control brawl? No. Was I .subject to unprovoked ridicule? Well yes, but that is another story. The spectacle I am referring to is the 100 or so Husker fans TRAPPED with me outside the football stadium waiting to get our tickets for the game. I arrived at the football field 40 minutes before kickoff. As it turned out, our athletic department sent only two workers to deal with the disbursement of tickets. 1, along with many other hapless student Husker faithfuls, did not make it into the game for kickoff. Nor did we get to witness our first touchdown in person, rather, we had to hear about it from one shining soul in line that happened to have headphones. I feel very cheated. The ticket I purchased was paid for in advance and I arrived in plenty of time to collect it. I feel the athletic department was ill prepared to handle a crowd it not only expected, but could have estimated to within a few people. Aaron Benesh Senior Finance via e-mail Critic critique From Brian Priesman’s reviews, lirst we read that Shakespeare’s “Richard III” needed more cuts “to improve the tempo and heighten audience attention” (Oct. 23). Then we learn that Aaron Copland’s music for “The Tender Land” is “uninspiring and quickly forgotten” (Oct. 25). Evidently Mr. Priesman has been watching too much television. He certainly hasn’t developed his critical faculties to handle the likes of Shakespeare and Copland. It is astounding that such ignorance can be allowed to -1 ?IM \T BUCK Atoftl, I sm MY g&£i4sr ^ ™r-1 ^ ?zmm there are nm in THIS ROOM STILL-MAD PtT \t f\T THAT E>0D6ET UCAC& Noo think \ kmsh> hour TAX£5 Tto Atef. IT Mlfe-HT SORPKISE MOO TO KNOW THAT \ THINK \ WISH) THEfA DO T00." BretGottschall/DN masquerade as expertise. Please forget about reviewing events of artistic substance unless you can find a reviewer capable of critiquing them intelligently. Quentin Faulkner Professor School of Music Rainbow retort So sophomore Jim Vance thinks Rainbow Rowell’s writing is not “serious” and “thought-provoking” enough, and doesn’t grapple with “controversy.” I’ve read attempts at provoking serious thought and tackling controversy in the DN since I was a freshman in ’76. A dishearteningly high percent age of the resulting columns through the years have been, with some shining exceptions, recycled rhetoric and cant — or truly original ignorance — delivered in pompous tones. Similarly, I’ve waded through a tiresome parade of would-be “humor” columnists trying to be hip, irreverent, and inventive. Again, the gems in this vein have been few and far between, but Rainbow is one of them. I can believe that not everyone appreciates writing without pretense and a willingness to air real life foibles even when they betray severe lack of hipness. But I always hear real humanity in Rainbow’s columns; my wife and co-workers consider her one of the better things about the DN in a long time. Paul Marxhausen Electronic Technician Electrical Engineering via e-mail Rainbow warrior I disagree with Jim Vance’s criticism of Rainbow Rowell (Letters, Oct. 30). It’s true that she discusses lighter, less controversial fare than some other columnists but there’s nothing wrong with that. Just as we see in the DN the next generation of George Will, Mike Royko, or Ellen Goodman, I think Rainbow provides us with the next generation of Dave Barry. I have often described her writings to friends as Erma Bombeck with an edge. I hope she continues just as she has been, providing entertainment and wit on a campus that sometimes takes itself too seriously. Brad Pardee Serials Cataloging Department Love Library via e-mail 1 Send your brief letters to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588, or Fax to (402) 472-1761, or email cletters @ unlinfo.unl.edu.> t - Letters must be signed and Q include a phone number for ai3Jvailverification.*