Daily
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
Matt Waite.Associate News Editor
Michelle Garner... Wire Editor
Jennifer Mapes.Columnist
Wrong turn
' ' 4. ~
Legislature steers clear of education
As Nebraska state senators have wandered down the path
toward property tax reform, they have encountered many forks in
the road.
Wednesday they took a wrong turn.
“It seems as though
state senators are losing
sight of the far-reaching
importance of education
in the face of an
overblown push for
property tax reform. ”
Legislators moved one
step closer to final approval
of two bills, LB 1114 and
LB299, that would limit local
government spending for two
years and then limit the
ability of local governments
to tax property.
When the senators were
faced with another decision,
however, they stepped away
from an important amend
ment.
The amendment, spon
sored by Sen. Chris Bcutlcr of
Lincoln, would have increased state sales tax by a half-cent and
designated an estimated $77 million in revenue for schools. It was
defeated 10-27.
It seems state senators arc losing sight of the far-reaching
importance of education in the face of an overblown push for
property tax reform.
Penny for penny, perhaps no dollars in the state are better spent
than those that go to schools. The power of a quality education is
incredible, and education funds arc dollars that reach across the
entire socioeconomic spectrum. Nebraska should be heading in
the direction of increased spending on education. Preventive
medicine, you might call it.
Instead, legislators are cutting school districts’ budgets and
taking a step backward. The Nebraska State Education Associa
tion, a teachers’ union, estimates that LB1114 would cost school
districts $200 million.
State senators want school districts to cut down on their
spending — reducing the size of government. But should school
districts be viewed the same as other government entities?
Probably not. And that’s why the NSEA has offered a petition
intended to limit property taxes but guarantee state financing of
schools.
Ask yourself what’s more important: saving money for Nebras
kans who own property now, or giving Nebraska a better fiiturc?
When state senators continue making the wrong choice, maybe
it’s time to put teachers in charge of not only our classrooms but
our legislature as well.
Editorial policy
StalT editorials represent the official
policy of the Spring 1996 Daily Ne
braskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. 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 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.
-s
**
1 11/ /
Gun ban
A member of the Kennedy clan
takes to the House Floor in hysterics
about the pain he and his family
suffered at the hands of a gunman.
A Daily Nebraskan columnist
points out the horrific nature of a
shooting crime in Scotland (March
28).
What do both of these events
have in common? They arc both
attempts at obfuscating the truth.
°recipitatcd by the recent
attempted repeal of the Bill Clinton
“assault” weapons ban, it is interest
ing that in each ease, assault
weapons were not used and had
nothing to do with what they were
talking about.
ut course, you wouldn t have
known that unless you listened
carefully to what these folks were
saying. Kelly Johnson, for example,
attempted to make an argument for
an assault rifle ban in the United
States based upon the actions of a
handgun-armed psycho on the other
side of the world.
The Kennedy tirade was an
equally nice showing of displaced
emotion. It is the height of idiocy,
however, to fix responsibility for his
family’s misfortunes with assault
weapons.
It is the liberal mantra to ap
proach gun control issues emotion
ally and without intellect. Still I am
left with consistent amazement at
how rapidly they surrender other
people’s freedoms.
All I can say to rebut such
illogical thinking is the following.
Let there be a Birkenstock ban and
you can bet there would be hell to
pay!
Tom Eads
senior
political science/English
Playboy
Well it’s about time! I was
expecting the “exploitation of
women” argument to come forward
much sooner. This of course is in
reference to the impending visit
from Playboy and the article in the
April 2 Daily Nebraskan.
When are women like Bercns and
Kriss going to realize that their
arguments only help to further the
view that women are meek and
mindless? Playboy docs not knock
women over the head and drag them
off kicking and screaming to a photo
shoot. Thousands of women
Aaron Sieckelberg/DN
approach Playboy in the hopes of
being among the few to be in the
magazine.
I found a number of quotes by
Bercns and Kriss to be demeaning
and patronizing. Kriss’ statement
that she “bclicve(s) a woman has the
right to do this if she sees it as some
sort of honor or achievement,”
makes it sound as if a woman would
be addle-minded to consider being
chosen out of innumerable hopefuls
and then getting paid to be photo
graphed “some sort of honor or
achievement.”
Bercns talks herself in circles by
saying Playboy “appeals to men’s
sexual instinct. Not to their minds.
Not to their sensitivity. There’s a lot
more to men than that.” If that is so,
why doesn’t she think that men are
capable of putting the sexual nature
of Playboy and the like into perspec
tive? Playboy is certainly the most
innocuous magazine showing nude
women, and it is certainly not what I
would define as pornography
(erotica, maybe). Also, why is sex
and sexuality such a bad thing to
appeal to, in men or women? (Oh I
forgot, it’s that dirty thing you do
quietly in the dark once a week.)
Sex is part of the human condition
and no amount of moralizing or
outright contempt will change that.
Everyone makes choices in life,
some right, some wrong. Either way,
the only person responsible is that
individual. If I want to be respected
for who I am, that includes all of me
— my mind and my physical being.
What I choose to do with either or
both is really no one else’s business.
If I want to be an ignorant, fat slob
living under a rock, I can. Or I can
be an intelligent exhibitionist. I
believe the latter largely exempts me
from being exploited by those
“sexually driven, oppressive male
consumers of men’s magazines.”
Emi K. Nyman
graduate
economics
Lukewarm
I have watched the debate that
has followed the announcement of
Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln
regarding the anti-Catholic nature of
certain organizations, and I have
enjoyed the point — counterpoint of
both sides. I feel that the latest
repudiation of the truth, however, by
Ms. Charity H. Dredge on Tuesday,
must be answered. First I would
address the “medieval sentiments"
that Ms. Dredge seems to feel are
rampant in the diocese of Lincoln. I
would remind her that the teachings
of the Church have remained
constant for almost 2,000 years.
These “medieval sentiments" are no
different from what always has been
taught by the Church and Christ
himself. These “medieval senti
ments” are still the teachings of the
Church, through Pope John Paul II
and Bishop Bruskewitz.
The teachings of Christ are the
Catholic Church and cannot be
discarded or changed whenever it is
convenient. Ms. Dredge seems to
feel that her convenience is more
important than Christ’s teachings.
Revelation 3:15 sums up what
Bishop Bruskewitz wants us to
realize. “I know all about you, how
you are neither hot nor cold. I wish
you were one or the other, but since
you arc neither, but only lukewarm, I
will spit you out of my mouth.” As
Catholics, each of us is given a
choice. We can be cold and reject
Christ and the Church, or we can be
hot. But to be a Catholic in more
than name, one must accept every
teaching of the Church. I beg Ms.
Dredge, and all who question this
latest ruling to re-evaluate your
beliefs so that you truly know where
you stand. I beg you to be “hot,” not
“lukewarm,” lest you be “spit out” of
the Church forever.
Scott Rieker
freshman