The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, November 13, 1996, Page 4, Image 4
7 EDITOR DougKouma OPINION EDITOR Anne Hjersman EDITORIAL BOARD Doug Peters Matt Waite Paula Lavigne Jlitch Sherman * Anthony Nguyen ... nuymyi Tbo graphic? Ignorance is no defense — or excuse “Remember kids, don’t tty this at home.” Most of us grew up hearing that phrase — in science class experiments, Saturday morning television programs and even be fore daredevil stunts at the circus. We don’t hear that much anymore. At some point, common sense must prevail. The Daily Nebraskan Tuesday published a story on homemade pop-bottle bombs found around Lincoln. With the stoiy, we ran a graphic showing the components of this type of“MacGyver” bomb. Some readers— and apparently one local TV news outlet— objected to that decision. The headline, “How a bomb is built,” may not have been the best choice of words in this case. While harmful, this type of bomb has a blast equivalent to an M-80 firecracker —not the Oklahoma City-type image such a headline may produce. But more than its firepower, it is the crudeness and simplicity of this device that make it dangerous. When one Lincoln man last weekend found two plastic bottles sealed with tape on his porch, he picked them up and carried them inside, unaware of what they were. Tuesday morning, a similar bomb was found outside an elementary school. Imag ine if a student had carried the pop bottle inside the classroom, unaware of its contents. The purpose of the Daily Nebraskan’s graphic was twofold: • To inform readers of exactly how this type of device—something as simple as alu minum foil, glass cleaner and an empty bottle -v— can be dangerous. • To put these bombs into perspective. The term “homemade bomb” conjures up many images: the World Trade Center in New York, the federal building in Oklahoma City, and Centennial Park at the Atlanta Olympics. These bombs are simply not on the same scale, and Lincoln should not scare itself or its children into thinking they are. uur decision 10 puonsn me grapmc came to whether or not we should provide infor mation on what these bombs are and how to identify them—in hopes that people would take greater steps to protect themselves — or whether we should withhold the informa tion in the fear that someone might use it ir responsibly. An analogy illustrates this point: If a burglar breaks into a house through an unlocked basement window and the Daily Nebraskan reports exactly how he gained entry, is that responsible journalism? We say yes. We don’t deny that such a story could describe to a potential burglar an effective way to break into a house, but we hope that most readers would take precau tions to ensure their windows were locked. We hope our readers will use the infor mation presented in Tuesday’s graphic in the same way. And if we have to say it (we shouldn’t have to): “Remember kids, don’t try this at home.” Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the fan 19% Daily Nebraskan. They do not nec essarily reflect the views of die University of Nebra&ka-Lincoln, its employees, its stu dent body or the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is sdey die opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by die Daily NebraskanEdito rial Board. The UNL Publications Board, es tablished by the regents, supervises the pro duction of the newspaper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper fies solely infee hands of its student employees. Letter Policy The Drily Nebraskan welcomes brief let ters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guarantee their publication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Submit ted material becomes the property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affilia tion, if any. Submit material to: Drily Ne braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail: ' . .V - *• ® , --- I . V /'z f'Qm Get im | 1 %port » jo v 1 1 TO SX>, 60T TIKE... I 1 MTlX ?d?> £RAT> I . I SCttWt foiENraiMi-Y.. I -'•II rJt \ Hi t \ \ ) N t White whiner Well, here we have another angry white guy crying about affirmative action. First, before dealing with Nick Wiltgen’s column, I want to say,this. ,r: I’m from the South—Mississippi — and we don’t use archaic terms like “ballyhooed” any more. When we want to offend someone, we just say “Yo Mama!” That said, I don’t usually respond to neo white supremacist, sexist ' arguments. I have come to realize those arguments are like boogers in your nose—you know they are in there, and you eventually use a napkin or a finger to root them out and flick them away. But for a change, I am not going to offer up the customary counter empirical argument, which can refute every point that Nick made, because that does not address the real issue. Affirmative action was rally a band-aid for a larger problem—the problem of white supremacist cultural hegemony, which has created the societal divisions along racial, class and gender lines. For instance, you can oppress women and deny them gender equity; kill the Native Americans, who in your own stories fed and kept you alive when you arrived here (Thanks giving); and in your own Constitution regard black people as three-fifths of a human being—animals—yet still rape black women behind your white woman’s back. So, I don’t know why people act surprised when they see columns like this. It is ultimately reflective of an element within a culture that lacks any reliable spiritual values. - This could almost have been predicted, because if you believe that your own individuality is the ultimate reality, you will not only kill off the environment, but, eventually kill the God concept as well. Reynaldo Anderson graduate student communication studies ■ Aaron Steckelberg/DN SODA SELECTION So, the University of Nebraska asked Pepsi, Coke and Mid-Conti nent Bottlers (7-Up) to make bids for a contract to sell only their line of beverages pretty much everywhere mi campus. On the line hoc is several million dollars for UNL. However, the loss of choice for us students overshadows the possible benefits of having a contract with (me of the three companies. First, I am one of the “die-hard Mountain Dew” drinkers mentioned in the third paragraph in the article. I tend to have about two cans of Dew a day—one in my morning English class and one in my Computer Science class in the afternoon. I do not want to have my favored drink removed from campus just so UNL can get a couple more dollars for the budget a month. Nor should a “die hard Coke” drinker have their favored drink removed. Second, 1 do not think that the money gained from the contract would be that useful to the group most affected by the contract: the students. Yes, the money could be used for scholarships and improving the honors program, ‘information technologies,” or the swamp that is our parking system. However, I am somewhat doubtful that the money would be used for those things and instead of just being absorbed into the university’s budget. Also, the question of the loss of our choice remains adamant. And third, I appreciate the university consulting ASUN Presi dent Eric Marintzer for the “student input” factor, but I believe that this issue, which affects almost every body on campus, deserves to have more input—perhaps in the form of a vote. I do believe in the positive aspects of capitalism, but I hope that the university can in fact “look the other way” past the dollar-bill blinders and not confine us students to only one company’s beverages. Thank you. Shannon Magnuson freshman computer science Explosive graphic I find it ridiculous that you’d {Mint a graphic in your newspaper that shows the reader how to make bombs (Nov. 12 DN). The article was fine, but when you include an illustration of the steps required in die making of a bomb, you are just asking for trouble. Yes, the information is easily accessible on the Internet and in various bodes, but why make it easier fra those who wouldn’t normally seek out this information? I’m all for free speech, and I admit that I used to make these very same bombs when I was younger. But they . are extremely dangerous and rally a trained bomb expert should experi ment with such a thing. You shouldn’t have had that diagram in your paper, and I wouldn't be surprised if there’s a rise in bomb activity because of your irrespoiisibnity.