Kasey
KERBER
Weird science
Technology is making strides toward stupidity
Technology is a strange thing.
Take safe sex for example.
Thanks to a 27-year-old Italian
physics student, there is now a
“cutting edge” condom that makes
1 music u it oreaics
during inter
| course.
True, it’s
a technological
marvel, yet I
believe that this
is just one
example of
technology
getting out of
hand.
What are the chances that with
all the huffing, puffing and “wild
kingdom” intercourse noise that a
couple will hear an electronic
version of “Killing Me Softly” by
the Fugees and cease from doing the
wild thing?
Minimal to say the least. But this
is not to say technology isn’t a good
thing.
Technology and technology alone
enables us to drive a car, plow it into
another vehicle, electronically file
our insurance claim and have our
picture appear in the newspaper the
next day with a headline reading:
Dumb driver plows into livestock
truck — kills 28 pigs!
Mos| of the time we benefit from
technology. Yet it seems we’re living
in a day and age when some idiot
a
Technology and technology alone enables
us to drive a car, plow it into another
vehicle, electronically file our insurance
claim and have ohr^picture appear in the
newspaper the next day”
decides they want to benefit even
more and tries to sell us some new
technology we really don’t need.
To prove this point, I offer Sony’s
new “Watchman.”
The Watchman is designed for
those people who don’t want to miss
a single moment of television. It
includes a “Straptenna,” enabling
the portable TV to hang from your
neck and let you watch your favorite
daytime soaps as you walk from
class to class.
Price for this “I-have-to-have
ane-or-rU-go-hit-a-truck-fiill-of
livestock” is a cool $ 160.
This brings up another point —
most useless technology is a whole
heaping load of cash. This often
means that only the rich have the
privilege of making foots of them
selves with ah item as glorious as
the Duckworks’ "UltraDuck.”
The UltraDuck is a $875 kayak.
Now you might be saying, “Kasey,
that’s not too much money for a
brand new kayak!” This is true, but
the UltraDuck is no ordinary kayak.
It is INFLATABLE.
This to me seems to be a really
bad idea. For nearly a thousand
bucks, I’m sure it’s durable, but can
you imagine what the reaction
would be if the rich man’s duck
popped its bubble in the middle of
white water rapids?
Don’t imagine: I’ll show you...
RICH MAN: “I say old chap, this
UltraDuck is quite a sport on the
tough waters! I think I’ll check my
pocket radar gun to see how fast I’m
going. Oops, I dropped my 86-tool
pocketknife! Bloody hell! My
UltraDuck is deflating! ”
And as the old chap goes over a
nearby waterfall clinging onto his
plastic piece of heaven, I think we
should all keep in mind that
“stupid” technology is something we
should not take for granted.
We should be more alert to what
new technology is “stupid” and
which technology might actually be
a benefit to mankind.
I leave you with a final product to
ponder and in turn, test your ability
to know the “good” new technology
from the “stupid” new technology.
A nameless company (I wonder
why), has advertised in a wholesale
catalog a new, soon-to-be best-seller.
It’s a key chain a step ahead of all
other key chains.
No, it doesn’t shoot mace, glow
or make an extremely loud shrill to
ward off an attacker.
It makes a flushing sound.
Yes, the “Toilet Key Chain” is an
actual mini toilet with an even tinier
lever that you pull to make the
“authentic flushing sound.”
Oh, and in case some of you were
wondering, the toilet seat really does
flip up.
I guess you could say that really
is six bucks down the drain.
■ Geez, I’m sorry... that would be
the sound of the same company’s
“Sink Key Giain.”
i Their operators are standing by.
Just don’t call.
Kerber is a sophomore news
editorial major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
Nick
WILTGEN
S>«;s vuiiViii y k»j« n f. j;
A sign of government control
Forced funding for public programs is unfair
I recently received an e-mail
bearing the plea, “Save Sesame
Street!!!!!” It was a petition asking
the federal government and Con
gress not to cut funding for public
Broadcasting.
According to
the e-mail:
Currently,
taxes from the
general public
for PBS equal
$1.12 per
person per year,
and the Na
tional Endow
merit for the Arts equals $.04 a year
in total. A January 1995 CNN/USA
Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76
percent of Americans wish to keep
funding for PBS, third only to
national defense and law enforce
ment as the most valuable programs
for funding.
Below were the names of 239
people. The first 10 or 20 were
college students (who started the
petition), but the names I found later
were surprising (assuming they were
legitimate).
Signature ziv was a man wuu
works at a New York advertising
firm. Now, why would someone in
the business of advertising sign a
petition supporting government
funding of noncommercial televi
sion?!
Sadly, he wasn’t the only person
foolish enough to support his
opponents, his destroyers. Signa
tures 188 through 198 were employ
ees of ABC News and ABC Sports
in New York. Their colleagues in
Los Angeles threw in three more
signatures. And signatures 1 S3
through 166 (except for 160) were
U
When artists are guaranteed an audience
by the NEA, regardless of whether any
one likes their art, the taxpayers must
sacrifice.”
all employees of MTV in New York.
What does this say?
Apparently even those who lose
the most by the government’s
interference in the broadcasting
business are willing to condone the
pickpocket tactics practiced by PBS
and the NEA ... at my expense.
But 76 percent of Americans
wish to keep funding for PBS, the
petitioners cry. And it’s only $1.76
per person per year. Isn’t that
worthwhile?
Of course, that depends on who
you ask. I never watch PBS. I’d
rather spend my $1.12 in PBS
money on a frozen dinner. Come to
think of it, the 64 cents they stole
from me for the NEA could pay a
month’s cable box rental.
So why do I have to pay for
programs I never watch? The
obvious answer is: The majoritysays
so. Why does the majority Say so?
The only way someone could
condone government funding of
television or the arts is to accept one
basic idea: that people should not
have to exert effort to achieve their
goals, but that someone should ;
guarantee that their goals will be.
achieved. s'
Public television exists not on the
merit or popularity of its program
ming (which is at times consider
able), nor does it exist solely on
voluntary contributions or sponsor
ships. Instead, the majority of PBS’s
budget is government financing —
i.e., extortion from the American
public, with the sanction of 76
percent of that public.
So PBS does not earn its budget,
but it is guaranteed a budget
automatically. By whom? The
taxpayers, who are forced to pay up.
When artists are guaranteed an
audience by the NEA, regardless of
whether anyone likes their art, the
taxpayers must sacrifice.
When high-school dropouts are
guaranteed a living by the welfare
state, the people with college
degrees must sacrifice. ? {'J
. When children are guaranteed a
free education by the public schools,
the unmarried and the childless
must sacrifice.
When people are guaranteed
health coverage for anything by the
government health-care bureaucracy,
doctors and patients must sacrifice.
When people are guaranteed an
income alter retirement, the rest of
us must sacrifice.
And the list goes on and on.
Every day, another special interest
group attempts to achieve its goals,
not by its own effort, but by govern
ment mandate. Every day, the
wheels of American society roll
down the slow, steady hill that
descends from the heights of
American capitalism into the low,
vile swamp of fascism—where
people “own” property but the
government controls it, absolutely.
It’s easy to dream of a world
where all is guaranteed and effort is
optional — while in reality, the cart
rolls downhill. It takes effort to push
the cart back uphill.
Fortunately, that effort isn’t really
very demanding. We need only
recognize that each person must be
free to earn his or her own living,
must merit his or her own popular
ity, and must buy his or her own
things. We must never condone the
legalization of mooching, extorting
or stealing.
So if you want to watch Sesame
Street, don’t come after my wallet.
Don’t go after someone else’s wallet.
If you care about the future of
Sesame Street, write a letter to The
Learning Channel and ask them to
carry it. Write to the producers of
the show and ask them to consider
commercial sponsorship. Or send a
donation to Sesame Street’s produc
ers yourself.
. But don’t resort to force. Force is
the enemy of freedom. Freedom
requires voluntary cooperation
between individuals. That freedom
exists in only one economic and
political system: pure capitalism.
By the way, 1 didn't sign the
petition.
Wiltgen is a junior broadcast
ing and meteorology major and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist