The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, January 31, 1996, Page 4, Image 4
QhN.ON Wednesday, January 31, 1996 Page 4 1 Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln J. Christopher Haiti.... Editor, 472-1766 Doug Kouma..Managing Editor Doug Peters.Opinion Page Editor Sarah Scalet... Associate News Editor Matt Waite.Associate News Editor Michelle Garner.Wire Editor Jennifer Mapes...Columnist i-vs— James Mehsling/DN No deal Lawmakers, know when to fold ‘em The issue of expanding gambling is really very simple. There are clearly defined issues involved in the debate that few dispute. . Gambling is fun. It does make money. Jobs are created when casinos are built. Gambling, however, is also not what it claims to be. It is not an economic development tool. It will not lower taxes. * It will expand social service spending. According to Robert Goodman, who for two years researched states with new gambling laws, expanded gambling is a no-win situ ation. There are a few things that need to be said as the Nebraska Leg islature begins debate on LR43CA, a constitutional amendment expanding gambling. Gambling brings in revenue, but it increases state spending for social services, such as problem gambling counseling, and criminal processing. Goodman said if Nebraska were to introduce gambling, it would be looking at an increase of $50 million in spending. Gambling is addictive, and addictive behavior breeds actions that a person would normally not take. Actions like gambling their way into bankruptcy, gambling away savings that was meant for their children’s education, gambling away money that was meant for the future. All on the roll of the dice. A pull of the slot. A game on the table. Just one more time, they will promise. Nebraska will see an increase in problem gamblers. With casi nos in Iowa and South Dakota calling across borders, we will see some of the downside of gambling. Some would argue that the state needs to see some of the upside. What upside? Why make a bad situation worse? Why gamble away a child’s future, a happy birthday, a day in the park, all because the horse racing industry and a group of well-aid lobbyists want to see gam bling in the state? A casino in Nebraska is not worth it. Editorial policy Staff editorials represent the official policy of the Spring 1996 Daily Ne braskan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Boanl. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the stu dents or the NU Board of Regents. Editorial columns represent the opin ion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL Publications Board to super vise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility 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 mn 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 1 ished. 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. vtovi wm> caw IT BE? ■-/ /W//\/fe UNL’s cold shoulder Kudos to the DN for your criticism of winter weather policies. My hands recovered from frostbite just in time to send you this letter. I still fail to understand why morning classes were canceled on Jan. 18 but not on Jan. 26. The wind chill was about the same both days but five inches of snow fell on the 26th and none fell on the 18th. Where’s the logic? Maybe the University should forget expanding the Union and build us some heated walkways, if they’re going to have classes during a blizzard. v. NickWiltgen junior broadcasting via e-mail Money matters I am writing in reference to the article about the library course that is a requirement of all freshman students. I completely agree with Mr. Kerber in his opinions about the course and would like to see something done about the matter. I took the class as an in-state student and thought the $83.50 tuition fee was too much. I understand the course is offered to help, but other courses are there to help and are not required. The University should at least make the class worth a letter grade if the requirement policy stands. I would like to spend my money in ways that can actually help my grade point average. Allison Walters freshman finance ' ‘ - via e-mail Ticket trouble Re: editorial entitled “Husker support” (Jan. 22) You’d better talk to the ticket office about tickets to basketball (and other) games. As season ticket holders last year, another housemom and myself got the notice to pur chase tickets for the 1995-96 season. Because we are not here during the semester break, we decided to get single game tickets for all the other games. I made three trips to the office — early Septem ber, November, December — each time being told that we would have to wait to see how many season tickets were sold or would have to take bench seats. In December, they said they should know by the time second semester started which tickets were available. By telephone Jan. 1,1 was told no good seats were available and we would do just as well buying them at the door. Thanks a lot. We were also season ticket holders for football and volleyball, only to be seated behind the referee at center court for the final volley ball tournament, instead of our regular seats. Thanks again! Mary Remus house director Gamma Phi Beta Re-butt-al It was to my astonishment that Kristi Kohl (“Ab-or-tion,” Jan. 30) James Mehsling/DN countered the most fundamental of pro-abortion arguments, and then went on to argue for abortion. She admitted that abortion suggests “killing the innocent young life inside (the woman).” The difference between a born and unborn baby then becomes a mere matter of location. Does anyone out there think the killing of a newborn infant is permissible if its life presents an inconvenience? That’s right, an inconvenience. An unwanted pregnancy is an inconvenience, most often as a result of one’s own irresponsible actions, just like all the other problems we have to put up with in life. In the case of rape or incest, it’s one of the hardest inconveniences I can think of, but it was you, Ms. Kohl, who, a little later in your article, referred to the unborn baby as a “person”. A person has a right to life. And, yes, parenthood is demanding, but if a young mother feels she’s not able to handle it, there are waiting lists full of names of families that will adopt and care for that child as their own. Darren Furasek sophomore electrical engineering via e-mail Send your brief letters to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Ne braska Union, 1400 “R” Street, Lincoln, NE 68588, Fax to (402) 472-1761, or e-mail <letters@unlinfo.unl.edu>. Letters must be signed and include a phone number for verification. — »