As a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student, I received a message over e-mail announcements urging me to vote for the Haymarket arena. This came from a student group that is pro-arena and not the university itself.
I would urge students at UNL to consider the implications of their vote yes or no, especially if they do not plan to remain in Lincoln after their schooling.
The citizens of Lincoln may have to carry the burden (or enjoy the success) of the arena should things go wrong (or right). While it is perfectly fine to change voter registration to this county, thought should be given before a temporary student votes yes or no on a topic that has permanent implications for the citizens of Lincoln.
Rob Branting, Lincoln
As an alumnus of Union College, a third generation Adventist and a gay man, I'm very proud of the way Union College recently coordinated the campus visit with young gay Christian activists from Soulforce ("Meeting addresses college's stance," April 22).
What some outside the college and Adventist Church community may not realize is that the visit and education sessions leading up to the campus visit represent the first-ever dialogue on campus about topics relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) concerns. The college was academic in its approach and should be commended.
Although the Adventist Church has far to go in better understanding modern science and thought about sexual orientation and gender identity, I am hopeful this now leads to further education on campus and more support for the college's gay students and their campus allies.
Robb Crouch, Lincoln
I have been following all of the publicity and comments pro and con concerning the upcoming vote on a new arena in hopes I might get some insight as to how I might vote. A "Yes" vote means I am accepting a site I do not approve of and a "No" vote means I do not approve of a new arena. As of today I have no clue as to what the correct vote would be.
What I do know is this: One can certainly not leave the decision up to the leaders in the community. All one has to do is look at the decision that was made to locate Pershing Center where it is.
What we do know is this: The university wants a new arena for sports. Many want a new venue that will accommodate larger attractions to the city than Pershing can handle.
Going along with this thinking (right or wrong), I would like to pose this question for consideration: Wouldn't the old State Fairgrounds be the logical place to build such a facility? 1. No ground needs to be bought. 2. No tainted soil has to be tested nor removed. 3. Access (some of it brand new) is already in place, as is parking. 4. Closer proximity to the Devaney Center for practice, student access, etc.
What am I not understanding? Is this just too easy?
Bob Marhenke, Lincoln
Adding to pain
I read with interest Cindy Lange-Kubick's column "Pain you don't expect, pain that's not crazy" (April 18). She was commenting on LB1103, a bill recently passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. As Cindy writes, this bill is referred to as the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." It bans abortion in and after the 20th week of pregnancy because an unborn baby of that age feels pain. The unborn child feels her body being torn apart so that it can be removed from what is meant to be her sanctuary for nine months - her mother's womb.
Cindy seems to equate the emotional pain of a season of depression that she experienced as a young mother and that was healed by sleep and the spring season with the pain of a child being aborted.
She laments the fact that the bill contains no "exemption for the mental health of the mother" because, as she concludes, "women are pain-capable, too." She implies that a woman should have the right to abort her child to prevent or heal her emotional stress or depression.
How sad that our society puts so little value on the life of a child. How sad that our society sees the death of a child as a solution to our problems. A woman experiencing emotional pain needs counseling and possibly medical care. Aborting her child will only add to her emotional pain.
Sandy Langemeier, Lincoln
New term, attitudes
The Journal Star's recent story regarding City Council members Jayne Snyder and John Spatz visiting Cornhusker Place ("Council members in detox," April 7) highlighted the efforts of our agency in addressing alcohol and drug abuse issues in our community.
The article's print headline, however, is misleading, and the Journal Star's online version even more so. Citing Cornhusker Place as a "detox center" reinforces a negative stereotype of people with alcohol and drug abuse issues, and alluding to City Council members spending time here only reinforces that stereotype.
Replacing "detox center" with "drunk tank" in the online article simply extends that negative connotation.
In the past year, Cornhusker Place has worked to change our vernacular from "detox" to "protective custody," and we hope the Journal Star will consider this change for future coverage. Intoxicated individuals are brought to Cornhusker Place to protect themselves and the community from harm.
Cornhusker Place is the community's primary resource for individuals identified by law enforcement as being in danger to themselves or others because of alcohol intoxication and/or drug use. With over 6,000 admissions in our Civil Protective Custody program last year, we are proud to have diverted many of those admissions from being jailed while at the same time offering an intervention opportunity to each person admitted.
Beyond this key community service, however, our agency offers an array of important treatment programs for those with alcohol and drug problems. We work constantly to reduce the stigma of seeking help for substance abuse issues.
We hope future references to Cornhusker Place will focus on our positive efforts of protective custody, intervention and treatment rather than the negative terms "detox" and "drunk tank." This simple change in terms - and attitude - will go a long way toward assisting our efforts.
Phil Tegeler, executive director, Cornhusker Place
‘Dislike' Gen dissing
Cody Wallinger ("No Facebook for you," letter, April 19) wants to limit his favorite social networking site to people of his own generation.
Hmmm, if he is using his iPhone to upload onto Facebook, he better stop because Steve Jobs is from my generation. Or if he uses anything Microsoft he is still out of luck; Bill Gates is not Gen X or Y. Where is the "dislike" button when you need it?
Kim Marxhausen, Lincoln