OCR Text |
Show A7 The Emery County Review, Tuesday, October 14, 2008 VIEWPOINT Opinion and Letters to the Editor MY VIEW Epidemic of ‘Drunken Sailor’ Vocabulary Kathy Ockey It seems one of the most common complaints about movies and television is not sex or violence, even though there is plenty of it, but the use of profanity. Anymore most of the dialogue appears to be written for drunken sailors. Movies are rated and you are aware of what you are getting into when you attend, but why should television be a source of bad language. Do I have to be insulted in my own home? Why should we have to have a rating system for something that is viewed by all ages? Although it is common to hear profanity almost everywhere, it is still possible to learn not to use it. We as adults should have enough confidence in what we say that we don’t need to use profanity to express ourselves. Profanity is actually a fairly limited language which can offend other people and is a habit like any other that can be broken. Profanity is almost everywhere. It seems as if people do not know how to use proper English anymore. Is it something that is supposed to make us sound more sophisticated or simply to shock or offend people? The English language can be beautiful and offers many words that are far more expressive than the nastiness of profanity. It may be thought as “colorful,” but truly colorful language is recognized in how a person expresses their thoughts and feelings and their ability as a speaker without using the base language of profanity. Avoiding profanity may also help us realize how we really feel. Profanity is defined as the use of abusive, vulgar or irreverent language. When speaking in public is there any reason to use this type of language? There is no reason; it is disrespectful to yourself and the people you are speaking to. These are words we can’t print or would never want to print. We were at a public event recently and had two young children with us. The couple sitting behind us must have thought these two children needed to know every unnecessary and vulgar word in the English language. If you insist on using profanity, recognize that it can offend others. Watch yourself, and apologize if necessary. As a more forthright argument, eople who use excessive profanity in every sentence must not be very good conversationalists. Cussing is just their way of filling in the empty gaps.. What do you think the use of profanity in everyday life indicates? Anger, frustration, lack of vocabulary or simply the modern way to communicate with others? Swearing is an easy, lazy way of expressing feelings and is watered down each time it is used. The older I get, the more things change and I kind of wish some things, like the English language, would stay the same. You can easily say what you want to say without using rude or cuss words. If you want to know what is acceptable, consider if you would say it to your parent, grandparents or clergy? Profanity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly. To quote Joseph Cook, “A single profane expression betrays a man’s low breeding.” PUBLIC FORUM Truth is Beside the Point of the CEOs in this country who have helped put many into bankruptcy while taking millions for themselves as they make their exit. It should not be a place where we put people who unintentionally fill paper work out incorrectly and then do what they can to right the wrong when the discrepancy is brought to their attention. From what I have read in the newspapers, it appears to me that this unintended discrepancy happened two to three years ago, that the amount of money in question is minimal ($1500 or less), and that the money was paid back at the time it was brought to the attention of Commissioner Sitterud. To I have long held a belief that when an issue goes to trial the truth is beside the point. I believe it’s more about who has the best story, who can sell their story the best, or who has the longest reach with those who are in authority (or control). The recent court hearing and sentencing of Commissioner Drew Sitterud has done little to change my belief. I found it interesting that he was put in jail. Jail! The place where we put murderers, rapists, drug dealers and the like. The place where we should probably be putting some Established January 2, 2007 James L. Davis, Publisher & Editor w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Colleen A. Davis, Co-Publisher, Office & Advertising Manager Josie Luke, Assistant Editor Lyndsay Reid, Advertising Design Paige Motte, Advertising Sales Kathy P. Ockey, Staff Journalist Casey Wood, Webmaster me, personally, the timing on this matter feels politically motivated. Politics is such a mean, mean game. Why Commissioner Sitterud still wants to be a commissioner and work for this county is lost on me. Good for him, though. Maybe we should give him the chance. My thinking is that he must be doing something right to have so many ruffled and feeling threatened by his presence. We hear often on the news and read in newspapers of people who have been accused of one crime or another. Some of these accusations are of things that are unthinkable, such as sexual abuse of a child, for example. These court cases go on for years at great expense to the individual accused. We seldom hear or read of the final outcome of these cases, but, on occasion, the person accused is found innocent. This does not matter. The person’s life has been ruined emotionally, publicly and financially. It’s my personal belief that there are times when people are accused and brought to trial because they have angered or crossed an individual or individuals. It is also my opinion that people often take plea bargains, or plead guilty to lesser charges, not because they are guilty, per se, but that they cannot count on the truth being told or heard. I’m not saying this is what has happened in the case of Commissioner Sitterud, but that it is a possibility worth considering. Something else worth considering is the possibility that many things could be dug up from the past on many people, if someone with enough connections, power, access to information, something to gain and the time, choose to do so. I am not implying that what Commissioner Sitterud has been accused of did not happen and was not against some policy or the law. I do believe, however, that it was done innocently and unintentionally. I do not believe that he, or his family, deserves what has been so viciously done to them. Good grief, we let murderers go free in this country (again, who has the best story, who sells it the best). Let’s get a little perspective. It was reported in one newspaper article that Commissioner Sitterud should know how mileage reimbursements work. Really? Apparently no one quite understands this because it sounds like the county still owes the state the money that was paid back. Here’s a question: why aren’t those involved in not paying the money back to the state being investigated and charged? What’s more important, spending Editorial Submission Guidelines The Emery County Review welcomes and invites letters to the editor and guest opinion articles on public policy or current events. We welcome letters of thanks to individuals who have helped make our community a better place to live, work and play. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all submissions for space constraints, clarity and errors in fact. Submissions must include author’s name and contact information. Contact information will not be published. Letter’s and opinion articles can be sent to jldavis@theemerycountyreview.com, mailed to The Emery County Review, P.O. Box 487, Orangeville, UT. 84537 or faxed to 435-748-2543. I honestly feel, that at the end of the day, after everything has been said and done, we are better for having Commissioner Sitterud in our community working for us than we would have been (or will be) without him. I believe, all things considered, he is a good person with his county’s best interest at heart. I believe he brings great strength to the office of county commissioner and will continue to do so, when given the chance. I am sure there will be those who will be irritated and angered by what I have had to say. Who will say that I don’t know the truth or have the facts. To that I ask, “Whose truth and whose facts?” There are as many opinions out there as there are facts and truths. All you have to do is pick the ones that work best for you. In closing, I would like to say that I thought long and hard before writing this letter for fear of angering “the powers that be” in our county and suffering the backlash. And, might I add, how sad that I feel I need to be worried. I am not putting any of this out there as fact. It is only my opinion - not my husband’s, not my family’s, not my friends’ - just mine. And, after all, I am entitled to it. In Defense of ‘The Rich’ Larry Elder Our Vision To be a valued member of the communities we serve and to be trusted as an honest, truthful and reliable source of news. w w w Our Mission To inform, entertain and provide a public forum for the discussion of events impacting the people of the Emery County area and to inform with news and features relevant to those who call the Castle Valley area home w w w Our Principles We will be ethical in all of our efforts to provide information to the public. We will be unbiased in our reporting and will report the facts as we see them and do our best to focus on the good news of the county, its people, history and way of life. We will be strong and active members of the community and assist in any way that we are able. We will strive to provide the best quality product possible to our readers and advertisers...always. We will verify the details of news we are reporting and if a mistake is made on our part we will correct it immediately. We will always listen to suggestions on how to do our job better. time wallowing around in all the bureaucratic rules, regulations and policies (which I’m sure number in the thousands) or spending time doing one’s best to work for the community? There is not time for both. Also, I’m not convinced that Commissioner Sitterud is the person responsible for keeping this investigation going for 22 months. I don’t think this is one person, but people. After reading both articles in our local papers, it feels to me that the letter Commissioner Sitterud put in the papers had a lot of bearing on his punishment. Another way to look at this might be that he was punished for exercising his freedom of speech. Regardless of what one thinks or feels about this one incident, or about Commissioner Sitterud, it needs to be pointed out that he has paid his debt to society. In my opinion, he has more than paid the price. He didn’t get away with anything and he didn’t get off easy. If you are tempted to judge him for recent events, then be fair and also judge him for all he has done for this county as a commissioner for the past eight years, and all that he has done for his community, including the youth, in the years prior to his becoming a commissioner. So, what do “the rich” pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for “the rich” -- known in some quarters as “job creators.” A recent poll commissioned by Investor’s Business Daily asked, in effect, “What share do you think the rich pay?” Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay. First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 -- the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent’s taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government’s revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts. Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less -- far less -- than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent. Let’s try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, “What should ‘the rich’ pay in income taxes?” Half the respondents said “25 percent”; 25 percent said “20 percent”; 12 percent said “30 percent”; and another 12 percent said “35 percent.” The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate! Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes agree with Obama’s $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama’s health care plan. Non-taxpayers support Obama’s plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000. Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of “neighborliness.” Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of “patriotism.” Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income. Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals -- especially secular liberals. In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity -- or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity -- or 5.5 percent of their income. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent. Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity -- or 0.1 percent of their income. So let’s sum up. The “compassionate” liberals -- at least based on charitable giving -- show less compassion than “hardhearted” conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more. (Creators Syndicate Copyright 2008 Laurence A. Elder.) |