Thursday, January 25, 1996 Page 4
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
J. Christopher Hain...Editor, 472-1766
Doug Kouma.Managing Editor
Doug Peters. Opinion Page Editor
Sarah Scalet.Associate News Editor
Malt Waite.Associate News Editor
Michelle Garner.Wire Editor
Jennifer Mapes.Columnist
- Bret Gottschall/DN
Dissatisfied
Middle class ‘unhappy ’ with economy
It looks good on paper.
The American economy is the healthiest it’s been in three decades,
President Clinton said in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
The numbers seem to back him up. Unemployment and inflation
are low. And 7.8 million jobs have been created since Clinton took
office.
But after exploring the positive side of the economy in Tuesday’s
speech, the president was quick to double-back and address the
malaise of the middle class.
All across the country, the average American is shouting out that
he or she doesn’t feel the benefits of this strong economy.
The middle class shouted in ‘92 and elected Clinton. They shouted
in ‘94 and elected a Republican Congress. But average Americans
have yet to be answered. They are still shouting.
Why is the middle class so unhappy?
Both Time and U.S. News and World Report in the last two weeks
featured articles that chronicled the discontent of America’s middle
class workers.
According to U.S. News and World Report the gap between the
rich and poor is widening while the middle class isn’t moving. The
problem is wages, the magazine says. Median household income has
remained steady for the last 20 years.
Time magazine says Americans are forced to use that decreased
spending power for services like medical insurance, day care and
college tuition that are rapidly rising in cost.
The result is a large segment of the population that is working
harder and seeing less for its efforts. And this group of disgruntled
workers is sure to be one of the focal points of the ‘96 presidential
campaign. Unfortunately, solutions to their problems have remained
elusive to politicians.
This is the same discontented middle class Clinton targeted in his
‘92 campaign, and although economic improvements were made
during his term, he will have to work on winning over the middle class
again from now until November. And Republicans will have to do the
same.
Whoever wins the White House in ‘96 will have to convince
middle-class America that its problems can be solved.
Good luck.
■ / ^ . . , y ^ . ■' .. . .. .. ■ .'
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
materia] to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union,
1400 R St Lincoln, Neb. 685884)448.
vie dok't wm a \
1 ...F —?U)?UL
1 ...crrHfcF^'—
a —
-n———'
r v|oO KNOW, PANNf'MEE KlfM \
\ IAAKES the MFL SOfiND im \
Y SONDA'f StrtOOL. I
—
_ _
_
' - h
No heroes
Mr. Ray believes (Jan. 19) that
we need a hero (Colin Powell) as
president. We don’t. The job doesn’t
require a Rambo. Excepting
Washington, former commanders of
armies have not made inspirational
presidents. Remember Grant?
Eisenhower? Both led great armies
to victory. Neither inspired the
populace to increased social
consciousness or a higher plateau of
civic achievement. Each simply
assumed that the presidency was just
another promotion.
Our great presidents (Lincoln,
FDR and JFK) have been idealists,
social visionaries, people whose
greatness had little to do with
battlefield exploits.
A good political representative of
the the people must have patience,
compassion, the ability to generate
and accept compromise, and the
inclination to translate all proposed
actions into their effects upon the
most vulnerable elements of society.
When the Republican Party urged
W.T. Sherman to run for the presi
dency in 1876, he turned them
down, probably because he admitted
to himself that he didn’t have what it
took.
Powell made the same choice,
possibly for the same reason. It was
a good decision. It involved ele
ments of modesty and maturity that
are to his credit.
We will never see a great presi
dent who is a graduate of West
Point, but we may find one teaching
in a daycare.
Robert J. Tobin
graduate student
Geology
Rhetoric, It’s
what’s for dinner
In response to the Januuy 23
article, “Pro-choicers blame im
proper rhetoric,” I have to disagree
with Kay Siebler. Pro-life advocates
are gaining ground not because of
“improper rhetoric,” but because
people are finally hearing the truth.
Siebler is also wrong when she
states that pro-life people feel that
women who have had abortions
deserve to die.
Pro-life advocates are for life.
Project Rachel is one of the pro
grams that the pro-life group has
started to help women who have had
abortions. The only people who use
“improper rhetoric” are pro-abortion
advocates. The pro-abortion
movement is based on lies that have
killed 35 million babies since the
1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, making
abortion legal.
Mary Eller
senior
special education
Bret Gottschall/DN
Touche
I teach the Astronomy 103
classes described by Kasey Kerber
in his column (Jan. 23). While I
agree with his statement that
“Technology should be used only
when it makes a task a whole lot
easier and when there is a clear
purpose for it,” I do not agree with
his description of use of the Morrill
Hall Planetarium or of my video
taped lecture.
Far from being an example to the
contrary, a planetarium is a good
example of technology both being
used for a clear purpose and making
a task easier. A planetarium is a
unique tool for helping clarify some
of the hardest concepts in astronomy
— how things move in the sky.
There are things you can show in a
planetarium that cannot be shown in
any other way. Students frequently
tell me that visiting the planetarium
is one of their favorite parts of the
class.
Several times Mr. Kerber referred
to my “‘high-tech’” laser pointer”
and implied that I use it for my own
enjoyment in class! It’s no secret
that I enjoy teaching Astronomy
103, but the real reason for using the
pointer is that most of the class
would not know what I was referring
to in the planetarium sky I did not
use it! , :
Astronomy 103 is one of the
most popular courses on campus so
our sections are almost always full
and very large. Each of my sections
has around 160 students. This is
twice as many people as the plan
etarium seats. I am therefore forc^cf
to divide each class in half. In the
past, I have had graduate students
give lectures to the half of the class
not in the planetarium. This semes
' ter, we are short-handed and the
department was unable to provide a
full graduate teaching assistant for
the astronomy classes. Lack of a
substitute to give the live lectures
was the main reason for the video
taped lecture. It was nothing to do
with “the joy created by... having
your face projected on a 10-foot
screen.”
I was never under any illusion
| that a video-taped lecture would be
! as good as the real thing. Although
there certainly were problems in
seeing some of the notes in the
video tape, Mr. Kerber has exagger
ated them. He does not mention that
all notes were read out during the
lecture, usually more than once, and
some words spelled out. Finally, as
he did mention, some notes (actually
some diagrams not in the textbook)
were posted in the glass case outside
the classroom. I have almost 500
students. I’ve seen few people
copying anything from the glass
case and nobody has been to see me
to copy down any other notes.
At the start of the video, I asked
the class to sit near the front of the
half-empty room. I’m told nobody
moved forward. Today I asked a
couple of my sections for a show of
hands on the ease or difficulty of
seeing the notes. Not surprisingly,
the people who had the most
difficulty tended to be those toward
the back of the room.
I share one of Mr. Kerber’s
concerns: technology should be
more closely examined before being
thrown at students. I believe strongly
in the importance of human interac
tion in learning and I’m concerned
by a growing trend toward dehu
manizing the educational process.
Often this dehumanizing is proudly
hailed as technological progress.
Unfortunately, we’re going to be
seeing more of this, because
computers are cheaper than people.
Martin Gasket!
associate professor
physics and astronomy