Opinion
I Good intentions,
poor execution -
Local entertainment taskforce
; lacks solid planning
The best shows don’t come to Lincoln. Concert-goers are
forced to travel at least to Omaha, if not hundreds of miles far
ther, to catch their favorite acts in concert.
That is the way it has been for some time, but now the
mayor wotild like to change that.
In January, the mayor formed a task force to determine
how to improve concert and entertainment opportunities in
Lincoln. - •
That’s a nice idea - we’d love to have better shows closer to
home - but it has beeu poorly executed.
The 23-member task force includes representatives from
jr . the major venues in town (Pershing,
1J a promoter Devaney, the Lied Center), local
appa thfit promoters and advertisers and the
^ UL University Program Council.
Lincoln can’t I Our sole student representative is
former^ASUN President Andy
sell out shows Schuerman, who may do a fine job,
7 7 7 but what does he know about con
at local bars, certs?
thp mninr nrtv Local Performing artists. wh°
ntujKJt might know about booking shows in
will never area anc* constraints °f tour
ing, were omitted from the task
come. force
The mayor’s task force also
excluded representatives from
Lincoln’s smaller venues (Duffy’s Tavern, Knickerbockers
and The Zoo Bar) even though they feature regular concerts.
Sometimes they bring in nationally-known acts.
If anyone would know why Lincoln can’t attract big-name
acts, it would be these bar owners. They have the expertise.
Not only were representatives from The Zoo Bar and
Knickerbockers initially excluded from the task force, they
didn’t even know it existed until a Daily Nebraskan reporter
contacted them last week.
The task force’s chairman said it doesn’t matter if Duffy’s
or Pershing is involved, because they face the same issues.
It demonstrates a lack of thought and effort that the most
active participants in Lincoln’s concert scene did not even
know the task force existed.
Better concerts must be built from the bottom up. If a pro
moter sees that Lincoln can’t sell out shows at local bars, the
major acts will never come.
Not everyone involved in Lincoln’s music scene needs to
* be on this task force, but the experts need to be consulted.
Without them, this task force’s recommendations will be
worthless.
Editorial Board
Josh Funk (editor) • J. J. Harder • Cliff Hicks • Samuel
McKewon • Dane Stickney • 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 sub
missions. Submittpd material becomes property of the Daily
Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous material 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., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448 or e-mail to:
letters@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 col
umn 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, supervises the publication
of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsi
bility 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 coverage; any corrections or
clarifications will be printed on page three.
Obermeyer’s
VIEW #
^ |F Bill ’wE#e~'~hiso~WcmG£ of
*Ufc MS iNMT SrJi bCkVBMK f&Ncyftriohi c...
' ~ wSriM.
1 ,rZJl OLYMPIC-CLASS \
~ . tTI ^tms [^£BL SUR£ IS \
\ U!«E; gur TUB ONPi f
Ӵ \ f&SgIBM WfTU -mOQ> [\
\Stairs wMpi°os£^.y i
\UAWD j :' ^
w $ut at least \
| NoW we can stay
\ COMPETITIVE /
* ^rr« other /
rkUN!V£/?S(T/^. /
1 fN^!^ *
A few left off
Jacob Glazeski, I was reading your
column on Friday and thought of a few
groups you were leaving off your “evil”
list. For instance: fraternities. Or how
about campus sports teams? How about
the university itself?
You see, these are all agents of
“political socialization.” All of these
“gangs” prey on “vulnerable and lonely
individuals.” Your family is probably
the worst because they get you when
you are just a wee little baby; die rest get
you when you come to college in prob
ably one of the most open-minded
stages of your life. They all teach “val
ues” (read: evil) and build powerful
relationships within their groups. And I
can’t see how any of these are evil.
So, Glazeski, you are a hypocrite.
You are using the same tactics that these
“Gangs of Faith” use. Calling some
thing “evil” is perhaps the easiest and
laziest way to make a point. You think
that you could do a little more in a half
page article than call people names.
Some agent of freedom you are!
You seem to like everything about the
first amendment — except that nasty
clause that allows religion to exist.
Joe Fraas
junior
English
‘My answer is YES’
In “Time Served” (DN, 4/6), Cliff
Hicks poses the question, “Is it really
fair to prisoners who have served their
time... to be haunted by their mistakes
until their lives become a living hell,
regardless of whether they will ever
commit another crime?”
■*> My answer is —YES!
I was a victim of sexual assault
as a child. The “mistake” that my
attacker made has haunted me ever
since and will continue to do so for
the rest of my life. No amount of
therapy or support will ever take
away the pain. I am left to deal with
this for as long as I live. I
Meanwhile, my attacker, who f
was sentenced to one year in prison i
(but was released after six months) >
wanders around my hometown and ?
lives his life as though nothing ever
happened.
If Megan’s Law will keep
even one child safe from a repeat
attacker, then this law has suc
ceeded. There is always a
chance that this law will be ■
abused. Every law is; that’s v
why we have a penal system.
No, our legal system is
not perfect, and it never will
be. But instead of condemn
Letters to the
EDITOR
ing a law that actually works to serve the
good of the community, why not
attempt to answer the real question: Are
we serving to punish criminals, or are
we out to rehabilitate them?
Name Withheld
Glad we’re around
In response to Jacob Glazeski’s
“Gangs of Faith,” (DN, Friday) Joyce
Minor from the University of Alabama
School of Law once asked, “How many
hospitals, universities, orphanages,
homeless and abuse shelters have been
founded by the ACLU or American
Atheist Society?”
Now, aren’t you glad we
“thumpers” are around?
Jason Bresley
sophomore
aviation
No hypotheses
I am writing in response to the edi
torial by Betsy Severin (DN, Friday) on
the scientific value of “scientific cre
ationism.” It is unfortunate that the
debate between evolution and “scientif
ic creationism” is mostly just that: a
debate, where the most convincing
speaker with the most palatable argu
ment wins. People outside science seem
to feel they cannot judge the merit of
either side because they are not experts
in biology or geology.
Luckily, all of us
are capa
___—
ble of judging science and non-science.
Science is a rational process that
involves testing a hypothesis, creating
the potential for others to repeat the test
and making predictions about the sys
tem under study. Science is a self-cor
recting process because ideas and con
clusions are reviewed by other experts
in the field, who use these criteria and
their expertise to judge the merit of a
scientific idea.
We can observe evolution occur
ring all around us, from antibiotic
resistant bacteria, to mutating viruses,
to corn varieties that resist disease,
drought and pests. Hypotheses about
how evolution works are constantly
being tested, tests are being repeated on
different organisms and situations and
are helping humans by their predictive
power.
The development of flu shots is a
good example. Researchers collect data
on what strains are virulent and spread
ing around the world, and using a
hypothesis, predict which one is going
to get us that year. Usually they’re right,
and those of us who get flu shots don’t
get the flu. If this didn’t work,
researchers wouldn’t do it, since it
wouldn’t help and would be a huge
waste of money.
Proponents ot scientific creation
ism” have not developed any working,
testable hypotheses. Biology textbooks
contain huge numbers of references to
peer-reviewed scientific papers, are
often written by researchers who have
done much work and hypotheses are
included after a great amount of work
has been published.
None of Severin’s sources are
peer-reviewed, and although I do not
■ have them in front of me, I doubt
\ * they contain references to scien
tific papers. I encourage anyone
> V interested in this debate to focus
vM on the scientific criteria of the
publications, rather than
attempting to figure out if the
arguments make sense to
them or sound appealing.
Severin and I seem to
agree on one thing: it’s impor
tant to keep asking questions
and increasing our knowl
edge.
Delan Lonowski/DN
Andrea Bair
graduate research
assistant
Division of
Vertebrate
Paleontology
University of
Nebraska State
Museum
