OCR Text |
Show o PAGE 8 NION MONDAY 3/7 Daily U t a h Chronicle THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW Make your voice heard or shut up w p LETTERS TOTHE EDITOR Republicans should vote with their own feet Editor: I am responding to the debate between the College Democrats and the College Republicans U Chapter on gay marriage. I attended the blessed event on Thursday afternoon, and I was totally not surprised that the Republicans had no hard evidence to support their argument (if you can call it that). They used that same boring rhetoric that has been said over and over again that gay marriage is not natural, and "the people" are against gay marriage. I would like to know which people the Republicans are referring to. I am a citizen of the state of Utah. I pay my taxes here, my family is here, I am a registered voter and I choose to attend college here. By these standards, I am a member of "the people" and I very much support gay marriage. In the debate, the Republicans offered a bit of advice to all of us "gays." They told us to "vote with our feet." The notion of voting with my feet is absurd. The Republicans would be offended if "the people" asked them to all move to Texas. Well, I am not going anywhere. I will continue to vote, pay my taxes and attend school, and if the Republicans don't like it, they can vote with their feet. Lauren Littlefield Junior, Gender Studies It doesn't matter who wins, all candidates are the same Editor: I received an e-mail a few days ago encouraging recipients in capital letters to "MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD," referring to the ASUU elections. My voice is a voice of complete apathy. I don't care who wins because it will make no difference in my life whatsoever, but I do care about making it to class on time without being accosted by violent mobs of pink and yellow. I just doubt the actual difference it would make if the office holder wore a pink (excuse me, "PINC") or a yellow shirt. After all, everyone has altruistic motives for running, don't they? I do vote, but only when the results actually matter. Basically, as I understand it, one party cares about students, the other cares about people. As it stands, what we have to choose from are Pete and Repeat: the lesser of two annoyances. All I'm doing is making my voice heard, isn't that what the e-mail asked me to do in the first place? Finally, in reference to Ray Phillips' letter ("Responsible voting improves student government," March 2), I don't mind being "just another kid with a cupcake." I'd rather have a cupcake than a stale bagel anyway. Scott Gunther Sophomore, English Government shouldn't dictate retirement investments Editor: Let's all consider for a moment the opportunity each of us will have to invest the potential money we will be entitled to upon retiring ("Get it straight or lose in '08," March i). . Should we just be able to take what the government gives us in respect to the amount of Social Security each of us receives once we reach retirement age? Or should we also have the opportunity to invest that money in a rightful cause being able to grow and then spend it how we would like to? Might we also realize the potential growth that may come from investing that income as being a way of having money available to our children and grandchildren when we have passed on. In having the opportunity to invest how we want to, it will give us the chance to build a greater income base for us to live on without having to be concerned about working until we're dead. Mlke Bednarz Columnist cided a consensus had developed against such executions, thereby making them unconstitutional. Now the court claims, less convincingly, that a consensus exists against capital punishment for those younger than 18. Curiously, 20 states allowed execution for crimes committed by minors—including Utah. Several such executions have taken place in the last 10 years, and 12 states have such individuals on death row. This doesn't seem like a consensus. It's not even a supermajority. Three years ago in Atkins v. Virginia (which banned executions of the mentally retarded), the court downplayed these raw numbers. So what was the court's evidence? Five states banned the death penalty for minors in the last 16 years, supposedly reflecting an underlying consensus. Amazingly, the court claimed the practice of foreign nations banning such executions "confirms" our alleged national consensus. Essentially, the Supreme Court revised the definition for "cruel and unusual punishment" using "evolving standards" without a national consensus on these standards. The court's opinion therefore constitutes a prediction at best. More likely, it reflects subjective preferences for five unelected judges. The Constitution doesn't provide for speculation on future moral consensus. Moreover, controversial decisions can polarize partisans and prevent a consensus from ever developing democratically—as happened with abortion. Also, the court's precedent suggests that if a few states abolish the death penalty, it might compel a ban nationwide. Now, every state's decision becomes a potential citation for the death penalty nationwide. Now every state is a needless national deathpenalty battleground. The only thing the court achieved on Tuesday was letting moderates feel good about banning a postage stamp-sized piece of a ghastly practice. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu www.realsaltlake.org, and many RSL fans have been enjoying them as well. It's definitely a great honor for the U to host the regular MLS and U.S. Open Cup schedules, as well as the upcoming World Cup qualifier, and I e a r - „ ';;•:;,' appreciate the regular updates, Keep up the great work—see you at Rice-Eccles Stadium on April 16! Kali Korbis Graduate Student, Educational Leadership and Policy Since when are asphalt and concrete family values? Utah politicians promise to represent families, but continually vote for roads over schools T he 2005 Legislaleast amount of money tive Session is per pupil in the United over and for stuStates, using more of the dents, there's good news new funds for education and bad news. made sense to me. I have The good news is learned, however, that that the state got a little common sense and the surprise surplus from Utah Legislature do not the $675 million in new always go together. revenues. $46 million The wise people on L. J. Llther of the surplus is availthe hill have decided to Columnist able this fiscal year and earmark $265 million for another $73.7 million will new roads and buildings. be available next fiscal year. Furthermore, surplus monies not spent I was personally hoping for increased on roads and buildings will go to a funding for education. Of course, part Rainy Day Fund. of those funds did go to higher educaWhat must education do to get notion and the U. ticed? I constantly hear slogans about Since Utah is known for spending the family values. I just saw a news report about one city wanting to ban the sale However, since Utah is of alcohol. The reason given is that it's a moral issue. known for spending the So it seems "family values" in Utah least amount of money means new roads, construction and per pupil in the United laws about what people can do on their time, like buying beer. States, using more of the own The state is concerned with the new funds for education Legacy Highway plan. Why haven't I made sense to me. I have heard of a Legacy Education plan? It makes me wonder why roads seem to learned, however, that be more important than education. My personal "family values" say common sense and the there's no better spending than on Utah Legislature do not education. always go together. Ierters@chronicle.utah.edu PLEASE SEND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO LETTERS@CHRONICLE.UTAH.EDU .it v Shaw's soccer columns rock Editor: I just wanted to express my appreciation for the recent soccer coverage by Brian Shaw in The Chrony. I've been posting links to the articles on a Real Salt Lake fans' forum at It's good that it did, but the lack of reason behind the decision opens Pandora's box L Daily Utah Chronicle regarding what they see to be inadequacies, failings and general missteps on the part of ASUU. People complain about everything from spending to student directives, and nearly every letter is a passionate outcry. However, it is doubtful that every student who writes an angry letter voted in the election that led to the current student government's appointment. The problem here is one of . expected entitlement: Students apparently don't feel the need or desire to vote for candidates, yet they feel compelled—entitled—to dissect the goings-on - , of ASUU. What right do students have to bitch and moan when they do nothing to help determine the outcome of the very same system of governance with which they take such issue? Let's put it this way: If 25,000 students don't feel the need to vote, then 25,000 students effectively render themselves impotent in terms of criticizing student government. Do you want to be victim of . a system about which you have no legitimate say? Probably not—that's a very irresponsible and submissive stance to take. So, the only alternative to utter obsolescence is to make your voice heard. If you don't like the available options of for whom to' vote, write m a candidate. There's simply no excuse not to vote. Campaigning for elections will continue all this week, culminating on Wednesday and Thursday with the final voting. With the remarkable number of students who didn't vote, even an incremental increase in the number of votes could decidedly swing the election. Or, if numbers don't go up and. students' attitudes don't change;:.. • then there deserves to be a very> quiet student body in the coming Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle Editorial Board. Editorial columns and letters to the editor are strictly the opinions of the author. The forum created on the Opinion Page is one based on vigorous debate, while at the same time, demanding tolerance and respect. Material defamatory to an individual or group because of race, ethnic background, religion, creed, gender, age, appearance or sexual orientation will 1 be edited or will not be published. , . ^ .^ ;,. ,;.; ,.;i;:K;. Justin Wright Senior, Mass Communication The Supreme Court had no right to ban execution of minors ast Tuesday, five members of the Supreme Court concluded that cruelty depends on one's birthday. According to Roper v. Simmons, minors may not be executed due to the Constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment. Because it takes so long to bring about a death penalty case, minors haven't been executed until well past adulthood, and 16- and 17-year-old murderers aren't exactly children. However, some pundits speak as if a great barbarism has been purged from America. Yeah, now we only execute 18year-olds. Roper v. Simmons does almost nothing except harm democratic self-government. There's nothing wrong with the Supreme Court's new standard. It's logical, consistent and no less arbitrary than any other age limit. However, the Constitution couldn't have inspired it. In 1988 and 1989, the court examined the executions of minors and determined no national consensus existed on their cruelty. At that time, 25 states allowed individuals to be executed for crimes committed under age 18. Since no execution for individuals younger than 16 had taken place since 1948, the court de- ith the conclusion of the 2005-06 Associated Students of the University of Utah primary student body elections last week, interested U students made their preliminary voices heard as to which parties they support The good news: Two clear winners have emerged from the election, the People Incorporated and Students First Parties. The bad news: The number of interested U students who cast their votes was paltry and underwhelming, to say the least. When all the smoke had cleared and the ballots had been tabulated, the Students First Party was the overall winner, generating 1,980 votes to the PlNC Party's 1,537. Coming in an admirable—and most assuredly cost-effective—third place was the None of the Above Party, whose leaders, Ben Yang and Steven Paradise, spent only $47 dollars to garner 554 votes. The numbers factor out to about 4,000 students voting in the primaries, which leaves • about 25,000 students who either didn't care to vote, or simply forgot. This turnout is obscene, especially considering the potential impact that any ASUU governing body has on every single student's life. ASUU officials have the most direct control of a significant portion of student fees, and the overall attitude and policies of next year's student government will likely affect the direction of U student life greatly in the coming term. So why didn't students get out and vote? The likely answer is inherited apathy—the widely accepted idea that, regardless of for whom you vote, student government is trite and inconsequential. This is a paradoxical state of being. Every year, enumerable students voice their dismay to The |