If I didn't know better, after reading Maureen Mendyk's editorial, I would think she was a character in George Orwell's 1984. Using the power of an educated mind, equipped with an understanding of vocabulary and its proper use, the amazingly prescient Orwell, as far back as 1948, was able to paint mental pictures for his readers of how all totalitarian societies live. Of utmost importance is the perversion of the traditionally understood definition of words. Some may remember - love is hate, war is peace and slavery is freedom. Long before Orwell, Samuel Adams said, "How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words!"

Ms. Mendyk sees a government "that cares" and has "an ethical and moral responsibility" to reduce "second-hand smoke exposure among non-smokers." Instructively, the founders and architects of the freest and most prosperous political and economic system ever devised by mankind held the complete opposite view of government and its responsibilities. George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." Daniel Webster: "Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under the pretense of public safety.The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." James Madison: "All men having power ought to be mistrusted.The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." Benjamin Franklin: "No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session."

Equally instructive, Ms. Mendyk trumpets the virtues of California, the most highly taxed and regulated state in the union, as the paragon of ethics, moral responsibility and freedom.

Aside from a perverted definition of words and a socialist view of government, she appeals to fraudulent statistics put out by whom else, the U.S. government! All governmental agencies base their "facts" upon a 1992 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) report that claimed second-hand smoke was a class A human carcinogen and cause of lung cancer. Unfortunately, the EPA report was sternly rebuked by U.S. District Court Judge William L. Osteen in a July 1999 decision. Judge Osteen concluded, "the EPA knowingly, willfully and aggressively put out false and misleading information." In fact, if a graduate student or a professor wrote a report similar to the EPA, he would face repudiation by his colleagues, charges of academic dishonesty and summary dismissal from the university.

Anyone with a modicum of a real high school education should be able to readily dismiss all claims of "scientific" proof that second-hand smoke causes cancer. Sometime before high school, you should have been taught the fundamental tenets of the scientific method established centuries ago by Sir Francis Bacon. A scientist must be able to isolate the variables in his hypothesis, and it must be demonstrated in a sample large enough to have statistical significance. How could anyone possibly gather enough people together and isolate them from any and all other possible variables from conception to death? The absolute best one could hope to show is a correlation. And as one scientist put it, "There is a correlation between breathing air and death. Everyone who is breathing air will die." Would Ms. Mendyk propose that we outlaw the breathing of air?

Finally, Ms. Mendyk curiously ignores Ms. Moffett's valid question. Who is forcing anyone to patronize any bar, restaurant or other private establishment? In fact, a freedom-loving, entrepreneurial American could seize the opportunity by opening several "smoke-free" businesses and become fabulously wealthy, while leaving our smoking citizens free to enjoy their God-given rights to "life, liberty and property."

Benjamin Franklin offers this sage advice and warning: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Irl Gilliland

Central City

Immature students not representative

Recently there have been several articles published in local newspapers depicting the Kearney High rowdies as being rude, immature students.

First of all, I would like to say that we are in high school, and are expected to have a certain level of maturity. I realize some students do not measure up to Kearney High's standards of how to act at sporting events, but adults do not need to group the entire student section as a whole.

I would also like to note that the school administrators do step in and stop anything that they think could be taken as inappropriate. They even asked the rowdies not to say things that could possibly sound unacceptable.

One thing that our administration absolutely does not allow is for the rowdies to boo. A Grand Island parent claimed in the Kearney Hub that "the Kearney student body started booing the Grand Island [dance] team as they came onto the floor to do their routine."

I had previously been sick and was not able to dance at the girls' game against Grand Island that night, so I was sitting in the section next to the rowdies to watch the halftime performance. The rowdies cheered when both dance teams walked out together; then when Grand Island's team started their dance in a somewhat inappropriate way, some students made some comments about it. If that is what the Grand Island parent is talking about in her article, she should not have said that the student body was booing.

Accusations such as these have been the basis for a lot of disruption at KHS and in the community.

It seems ridiculous because encouragement and enthusiasm are keys to success in the event; therefore, I would like to thank the rowdies for supporting Kearney High's dance team. It makes it so much easier and way more enjoyable when you know your fellow students are going to show their respect and support.

It is also evident after talking with several athletes that they want the support of the rowdies as well. Crowd involvement is so important, it could change the outcome of the game. If we keep getting complaints about our students, we will probably not even be able to clap, just in case it can be taken as being "inappropriate."

Yes, there are some immature students at Kearney High, but I would really like to know if there are any schools that this is not true for. The adults that are writing the letters need to observe their own student sections and criticize with the same judgment, because saying "Who cares?" when a team's players are being announced is not very sportsmanlike. Yet, no one has said anything about their conduct.

Both students and adults need to remember that fans are all there to cheer on their teams. Cheering should be done with courtesy and respect, but instead of pointing the finger at the opposite side, perhaps people need to focus on what they can change, on their own side.

Robin Jenkins

Kearney