EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
Our
VIEW
Not quite
out of time
Y2K won’t be the end of
the world as we blow it
Y2K.
The acronym can send some to crawl
beneath their sheets, clutch onto whatever
safety blanket they can find and whimper.
Between computer programmers,
media speculators and panicked masses,
much has been said about the dreaded year
2000 problem, most of it heavy on possi
bilities and short on facts.
People have called it everything from a
“bomb” to “the end of the civilized world.”
While the facts about Y2K are still
coming in, a lot of people are worried
about things they shouldn’t be. In addition,
a lot of things they aren’t worried about,
they should be.
borne say mat banks will crash, credit
cards will be back-charged for a century
and that everything will fall into the earth.
Others have said that the world’s power
will turn off, hospitals will shut down, and
the computers of the world will explode
into a mess of silicon.
From the facts known so far, the truth
isn’t as bad as all that.
Most analysts are confirming there will
be major problems in the year 2000. Power
very well may go out for some time, be it
three days, three months or almost a year.
The electrical infrastructure is perhaps the
most vulnerable spot on the Y2K problem.
Also, many pilots are planning on not
flying until they are sure that the jet they
will be on has been updated. Boeing and
the FAA have admitted that problems with
their systems are indeed genuine, and they
are looking into them. ..
These two possibilities compose most
of the largest concerns. Many rumors,
however, have been disproved.
Credit cards should be fine, and the
majority of commercial businesses will
adapt in time to avoid significant prob
lems. Business always looks out for No. 1.
The problem is being addressed, per
haps a bit too lackadaisically, but people
are aware.
borne people have gone into hiding on
mountaintop cabins, stockpiling food and
firearms, like they were in a “Mad Max”
film.
This, we feel, is a bit much.
We can make sure that the products we
use and the services we employ will be
fine when the calendar turns over, but run
ning away from technology is not the
answer.
Will Y2K be the end of the world?
Probably not.
Is there anything the people on the low
end of the spectrum can do?
Buy lots of canned food and hope. Like
much of the computer industry, it’s out of
our hands.
We’ll pull through. Don’t we always?
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect the views of trie
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its
employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the 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 student employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters 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.
Submitted material becomes 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
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
(
Mook’s
VIEW (
tub cum
MffitHK.
DN
LETTERS
Good sports
As Aggies, we know how hard it is
to suffer a loss to anyone, much less an
upset, but the Comhusker fans that trav
eled to College Station, Texas, on
Saturday deserve a lot of praise. From
the fans we saw leaving Kyle Field to the
fans at the Dixie Chicken and the rest of
Northgate, every one of them congratu
lated us on the game we played and
showed the utmost respect for our team
and for our faith in our team.
It is rare today to find fans who
know how to suffer a loss gracefully, but
the Comhuskers showed us that they
know how. Without a doubt they are the
best group of fans I have ever seen at
Kyle Field in my three years at Texas
A&M.
The Huskers played a great game
and were starting to have us worried in
the fourth quarter until we intercepted a
pass. They deserve a lot of credit for not
falling apart and making such a strong
run at us. Every person I have talked to
has agreed that it was the most exciting
game we’ve ever seen played at Kyle
Field.
I’m already looking forward to our
trip next year on Nov. 6 to Lincoln; if it
is half as thrilling a game as Saturday’s
was, we will be lucky. I only hope that
the 12th Man will be as great a group of
guests as the Comhuskers wdre. We
look forward to a rematch of last year’s
Big 12 Championship game this year,
but we are hoping for a different out
come.
Best of luck with the rest of your
season. Go Big Red and Gig ’Em
Aggies!
JohnW.Kretlow
proud member of the Fightin’
Texas Aggie class of2000
construction science major
Texas A&M University
Righteous royalty
I would like to take this opportunity
to set the record straight on the
Homecoming royalty selection process.
First of all, there are three tracks avail
able - campus involvement, community
service and athletics. Applicants were
self-nominated and responsible for
picking up applications at the designat
ed, centrally located spots and complet
ing them to the best of their abilities.
A selection committee was formed
for each track, consisting of one resi
y
dence hall, off-campus, faculty and
greek representative. This means that in
each of the three separate committees
selected to focus on each track, only
one-fourth are affiliated with the greek
system.
Matthew Eickman recently made
the statement: “Idealistically, maybe the
make-up of the Homecoming court
should be determined by what the stu
dents have done, and not by where they
live.”
Idealistic or not, Matthew, this is
what happened. Based on their written
presentation of their qualifications,
their sincerity and their articulation in
the interview, 22 excellent candidates
were selected from a very competitive
pool of highly qualified applicants.
However, the majority of the applicants
were greek, and so it is not surprising
that the majority of the finalists also are
greek. The finalists were chosen on
their merits, regardless of where they
lived, which is exactly what Matthew
calls for.
I had the pleasure of being a mem
ber of the selection committee under the
campus involvement track, and I had the
honor of meeting and interviewing Matt
Boyd and Lisa Schkade. They were both
excellent representatives of the highest
ideals we as involved students hope to
maintain. So were the other 20 finalists.
I do not fmd it fair to discount or attack
the other members of the royalty court
simply because of their greek affilia
tion.
It was not an easy task narrowing
down the cream of the crop, but it was
done in a fair and impartial manner by a
group of diverse students and faculty
members. I would like to challenge
everyone to vote for their king and
queen and also to consider applying
next year. Those who want to see change
need to take action. By the way, which
track did you apply under, Matthew?
Gina Todero
junior
biological sciences
Beliefs?
Mr. Wimmer’s editorial Thursday
quoted Webster’s dictionary for a defin
ition > of the word atheism.
Unfortunately, the definition given does
not completely encompass the views of
many atheists.
Within atheism there are varying
degrees of unbelief and disbelief. Some
people hold the “hard atheist” position
that completely denies the existence any
gods. Others are “weak atheists” and are
merely skeptical of the existence of a
god or higher power. Still others hold
agnostic positions, maintaining that the
existence and nature of any higher
power is unknown or even unknowable.
Mr. Wimmer attacks the strongest
atheist positions while largely ignoring
the more agnostic positions. He argues
that it’s silly to reject God’s existence
because it can’t be proven. But then he
turns around and decides that we should
reject atheism because the non-exis
tence of God can’t be proven.
To be fair, Mr. Wimmer does cite a
bit of evidence and even quotes a few
atheist arguments (though checking out
some Web sites to get an understanding
of atheism is not a whole lot more infor
mative than listening to Brother Jed for
an hour to get an understanding of
Christianity).
ms responses to these arguments
are supremely insightful: “That’s just
one of those unknowable things about
God” and “God... obviously isn’t bound
by [the rules of nature].”
For the theist side, he cites evidence
from the wonder of biology, math and
physics - things like the fact that pi
shows up a lot in physics and people are
medium-sized compared to the uni
verse.
Without proof either for or against
the existence of God, we are left to
decide on tb basis of such scant evi
dence. Atfk , and agnostics conclude
that there is enough evidence to war
rant belief l god. This is not to say
they deny the wonder of nature.
To quote dbert Einstein, “I do not
believe in a personal God ... If some
thing is in me which can be called reli
gious, then it is the unbounded admira
tion for the structure of the world so far
as our science can reveal it”
Just because the world is really neat
and there is much about it that we don’t
understand doesn’t necessarily mean
that a god is the best explanation for this.
Jill Matlock
junior
vice president
Travis Fisher
senior
secretary
Campus Atheists and Agnostics
PS. Write 3oc
34 Nebraska Union, 1400 "R" St., Lincoln,
472-1761, or e-mail <letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
must be signed and include a phone number for verification
