Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 28, 2000)
The citizen’s right to know Bill would make obtaining public information easier Freedom of information is crucial to preserving those free doms we, as Americans, hold most dear. Our freedoms of the press, speech, expression and assembly rely on our knowledge of what government is doing. In a government of the people, for the people and by the peo ple, the people must be able to access the documents and reports of their government officials. Each state allows its citizens access to records and docu ments belonging to the state, county or local government or agency with certain exceptions. In Nebraska, those record holders are required to allow any citizen to examine public records and make notes from them, but there is no provision for obtaining Currently copies. Nebraskans also might run into there is not trouble when requesting records that are kept electronically because our even Cl time public records law does not make pro visions for some of the different stor limit under age formats. y . y For those citizens who might want WrllCh record a copy of a record in an electronic for y mat to do their own analysis, there keepers must might be additional difficulties. , Some record keepers have not been respond to forthcoming with documents that all citizens are entitled to view. requests. Currently there is not even a time limit under which record keepers must respond to requests. LB628 aims to remedy those concerns and ensure that Nebraskans will have easy access to public records. The bill introduced by Sen. Kermit Brashear and prioritized by Sen. Jon Bruning awaits discussion on the floor of the Legislature. If passed, the bill would require record keepers to respond to all requests within three days, and if the record cannot be accessed, specify the reasons in writing. The bill also provides for photocopying and obtaining elec tronic records in the format they are stored in. Access to public records has been pressed by media organi zations, but this access is important to all citizens. As the media work to keep a watchful eye on government, public records are an important tool. But all citizens have a right to access public records to find out how much their high school basketball coach makes or what their city council is considering adopting or how much the chan cellor of the state’s largest university makes. Public records are an important tool for citizenship. Use them to take advantage of the freedoms our government has granted us, and support LB628 to ensure all citizens proper access to public records. _ IJ £ [ Editorial Board Josh Funk (editor) • J.J. Harder • Cliff Hicks • Samvel McKewon • Dane Stickhey • Kimberly Sweet • Lindsay Young 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 submissions. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous mate rial 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, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincpln, Neb. 68588-0448 or e-mail to: lfct ters@unl.edu Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the spring 2000 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the 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 acts as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, super vises the publication 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. The Daily Nebraskan strives to print fair and accurate cover age; any corrections or clarifications will be printed on page three. Obermeyer’s VIEW ! after m cofripLgr,oKl of me vfwf Nee honors voRfa. XTaMP lNADP/Voh/\ ^ / to w s^ot/p s-w / spacrs, cmmeR- /mtiyTfflr’s W5, AMP LbUHEES, / AWP A^; BUT MREH \ Ttem is oteBMRooryj \ voUJES£6 TUB AM V For ev£*y two \ homps stupenTs? STUPfbrrs!^/v l d /you VON’7. \ K^f I TRB'i AAR A V* ^—J CONDUCIVE TO YOUR [x/f—^ \jL£DUCftTJ°N. / V V. I Sum* IjJE STILL v I ~ ^ I ^T FR££&fi& rii [twuw, right? Letters to the EDITOR Wise propaganda Having attended the “Creationist Propaganda and the Geologic Record” lecture, I am convinced that geologist Donald U. Wise is very knowledgeable. He brought up many concerns about the scientific conclu sions of some creationist geologists. Mr. Wise strongly states that creation ist geologists purposely pre mislead ing and that their science is not “true” science. His lecture gave the impression that creation science is being taught dogmatically and corrupting students of science. It would be interesting to know how many of the 200 in atten dance in his lecture ever have heard a creationist science lecture. He cautioned those who might desire to debate a creation scientist not to, because “they know their mate rial and are clever” and could “hand your head to you on a platter.” Is he suggesting that the geological record he presents as “so obviously clear” cannot hold its own to the “clever” arguments of a creationist geologist? Are college students so easily misled that they cannot determine good sci-, ence for themselves? If so, then-all the more reason to hive bo.th sidespffe sented so that students learn to discern ' good science from bad science. ' Wise seemed alarmed by the attention creation science is receiving. . He started his lecture stating the ori gin and meaning of the word “propa ganda.” It means to propagate the faith. He gave an example of a cre ationist museum in Pennsylvania that has received 700,000 tourists in the past year at about $ 15 per person. This was to show how much money it was raising in propagating its faith. Let us consider how evolutionist scientists propagate their faith. These 700,000 people freely chose to pay money to tour this museum. Contrast this to the hundreds of thousands of students on our nation’s campuses required to take courses where both the textbooks and instructors pro claim evolution as a given. This includes courses such as history and education aside from those we nor mally consider as the sciences. Undoubtedly, every student has heard the evolutionary view of the sci ences, for that is what is taught dog matically in our public schools and I ■“ __ universities. What percentage ot our nation’s students ever has heard in person a creationist scientist? College students are required to take classes presenting the evolutionary view and to pay several thousands of dollars in tuition if they want to get a degree. If that student is pursuing a master’s or doctorate in the sciences, a creationist viewpoint becomes a severe handi cap. He>or she will receive much ridicule, as Wise had everyone laugh ing in ridicule at creationist science during his lecture. I would suggest that both sides are “propagating a faith.” Students (and everyone else) would be best served by having both sides presented - each without slandering or ridiculing the other. Most scientists - both evolu tionist and creationist - are sincere and do quality research. .. .< V'1-- : o; .' ■ :' . ;, . i.. . - , . James Wiebelhaus UNL alumnus Lincoln Politics as usual The attitude expressed by Jake Glazeski (DN Feb. 25) that he was rooting for Sen. John McCain (even to ftie point of actually considering exer cising his political power by voting for hjm) because McCain doesn’t seem to represent “politics as usual” is the single most ignorant political statement I’ve ever heard - Glazeski’s accusations of ignorance on the part of South Carolina voters notwith standing. It is a gross error in logic to argue that one should vote simply for change. Voting for the status quo is a vote that says “I like the way things are now, more or less.” It is a defensi ble position because we all know how things have been (or at least believe we do). Voting for a change simply to make one is to say, “I don’t care what the change is -1 simply know it’s dif ferent from what we currently have.” This implies that the current political situation is so bad that any change at all would be better: If you believe that, get out of the country while you’re still able. Second, Glazeski is wrong in por traying the political status quo solely as a product of the rich. Yes, wealthy people and corporations certainly j exert more authority on the political j process than do average citizens. But that doesn’t mean the average citizen J doesn’t bear all the responsibility for j the current political state. For one thing, it is the common i voters who allow themselves to be 1 bought by advertising dollars. For > another, the common voter supports the status quo far more often1 ttian Glazeski thinks. > H One good local example is term ; limits. By and large, corporations f don’t lobby nearly as heavily against j term limits as they do against any- i thing else (presumably because they know their political authority will , continue regardless of the office hold- j er). Yet term limits are resoundingly l crushed every time they appear on the ; ballot. Why? Because the common j voter is convinced that the mythioail j Washington politicians must be | defeated— but not at the expense of j their trusted, people-serving represenr tatives. This is a simple but powerful j statement in support of the status quo. j Finally, we come to Mr. Glazeski’s j “mild rebellion” against politics. The United States is a federated republic, with the basis of political responsibil ity falling on the shoulders of the vot ers. Your choice not to vote isn’t a rebellion; it’s acquiescence to the will of the voters who did take the minimal time necessary to familiarize them- I selves with the candidates. Because you live in this magnifi- j cent country, you have the freedom to complain about politics as long as anyone is willing to listen to your ill- ; thought-out, somid:bite-ridden com plaints. What you do not have, howev- I er, is any moral authority behind your complaints. Your position is foolish. Every I election in recent memory has fea tured such low turnout that if you and your fellow sideline-sitters would just get out and vote, you’d get your vqlie for change. (Although you might be disappointed by how little actually DID change in that event.) Low voter turnout is one of the keys to “politics as usual,” Glazeski. If you really do want to stop it, wake up and vote! > Eric Odgaard graduate student psychology ■■■■' -■ - ■ : i