OCR Text |
Show ™ SUMMER UTAH CHRONICLE C•PINION www.dailyutahchronicle.com Wednesday, June 22, 2005 Homosexuals make great parents ; Liberal PBS doesn't deserve government funds Editor: I completely support the idea of public television. The idea is to provide quality programs without undue commercial interference. I enjoy many programs both on NPR and PBS. However, I don't believe the government should support public television and radio. The reason for this is the bias that PBS and NPR have. These broadcasters have every right to hold and promote their views, but why should everyone else have to pay to promote their opinions? Many argue that the views espoused in public broadcasting are neutral. They claim that because the network is not beholden to advertisers, it is unbiased. The reality is they are free to promote their own views without having to justify the facts to anyone. Consequently, public broadcasting has become a haven for some very far left-thinking people. Even though I disagree with most on the left, I believe that they have the right to have their own opinion. I don't, however, believe that I should have to pay for it. Solution: Public broadcasting should be fully supported by public donations. This would force PBS and NPR to balance their approach, appealing to a greater audience in order to survive. But here is the rub—PBS and NPR know they cannot be fully supported by the public. This is because the public does not support their far-left agenda. The public will not donate money to organizations they disagree with. In order to survive, they would have to cater to the views of their audience. Yet many of these left-leaning broadcasters prefer to lecture their audience instead of giving comprehensive coverage to thenviewers. I know many people disagree with my first assessment that PBS and NPR have a liberal bias. These same people may also object to my second assessment that these broadcasters would not be able to survive without government support. To them I say: Prove me wrong. If PBS and NPR can survive with their currant bias and without government support, then I will stand corrected. Jared Shane Elliss Alumnus, Sociology THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW Express yourself about the rec center; proposal for a $31 million Campus Recreation others have complained about the price that comes iV1/ with the convenience, saying they would not want to Center at the U has taken another step toward pay $60 per semester toward a facility they would not final approval with recent approval from the use. Board of Trustees. But for those remaining U students who have so \0 • If approved by the Utah State Board of Regents far neglected to plug in their two cents on the issufef* and state lawmakers, the new project will affect U ' time is winding down. As the project runnels down to students for several years to come. 1 its final stages of approval, student feedback will.be While the center has the potential to create a needed and heard now more than ever. greater sense of campus community and enhance re'•• cruiting at the U, the center would come with a hefty Whether students favor promises of brightening the future of the U campus, or whether they fear a bleak $60 per semester price tag for all students. outlook that will prove to be a squandering of student U administrators have touted their support for the ; project along the way, but students should not blindly fees, all should weigh in on the hot issue. follow suit because, unlike the administration, they The Legislature was more generous toward the U' ; will be funding the maintenance costs. \ • ••'..-.::last session as lawmakers praised new student initiatives to voice opinions calmly and collaboratively. Assuming the 28,933 students at the U were to • : i enroll in Fall and Spring Semesters for a typical Whether or not you feel your voice will be counted, four-year degree, the center would receive nearly $3.5 student apathy never accomplishes anything. If you/ feel strongly, or even weakly, toward one side ox the million each year from students. other, it is important to let your view be heard, y > ' : That's why it is imperative that students talk about the issue. According to a 2004 audit, 67 percent of U Write or call members of the State Board of Re- X gents, who need a two-thirds vote to pass the pro- >; * 7 students were in favor of the addition. posal, or your local legislators before the issue comes Last year's student government also made indeup for final approval early next year. pendent, less formal efforts to solicit feedback from students via e-mail and other means regarding the No one can make this decision alone—not the ,;.£•': student government, not the administration, not state potential of the recreational facility. lawmakers—this is a collaborative project. Make it Some students said they would be willing to pay the price for a place where they wouldn't have to deal truly collaborative by fulfilling your civic duty and /-^ expressing interest in the democratic process; with constant crowds and availability limitations, as is sometimes an issue with the current options of the Today's U students have the opportunity to step up Field House and HPER complex. Limited equipment as a voices for future generations of fellow Utes. It is and use by classes and athletics teams currently make our prerogative to make our voices heard for the good of the campus now and into the future, and in the it hard for some to access the resources. spirit of democracy. However, while these students have high hopes, A .Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Summer Utah Chronicle Editorial Board Editorial columns and tellers to Ihe : 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, appearance or sexual orientation will!be edited or will not be.published. . . . ... . .. .,._. ,..•...;,„,...., Editor: , .1 I want to thank Ruchika Joshi 1 • for bringing up the issue of children in the same-sex marriage . discussion. loshi probably speaks for many by asking the question,what about the kids? •:. Gays and lesbians have raised, children for a very long time. The concept isn't new; it's j u s t : -; more open. And while Joshi asks why these children should be raised in a gay environment, I . . ask, why not? .. •-. Why should any child be raised in one environment over an- • other? There are many things that are more damaging to a child than gay parenting, such as alcohol-. . ism, drug abuse, bad finances, ; eating disorders, etc., that render parents truly unfit. - - -, All of the children I k n o w of 1 that have been removed from:..-.:• homes for domestic violence . have been abused at the hands.o£ heterosexual parents or guard-- .* ians. . •_.-.•Does that make every hetero.--. sexual parent inept at raising »•••• children? Of course not. To assume that one gay or lesbian parent takes the "male" or "female" role in parenting is absurd and insulting. To be a parent, all you have to do is be yourself. I have a 16-year-old daughter, raised by lesbian parents. She is happy, healthy and a High Honor Roll student. She is beautiful, bright, spiritual, socially respⅈ; sible and already planning for , • college. - '* She has been raised to be proud of who she is and who her' mommies are. She can't under- — stand why there aren't more-gay" and lesbian parents. Frankly; l " ' ' ' neither can I. ••' Statistically, gay parents afeof' a higher socioeconomic back : ' ground with more expendable "income and with the desire to raise a child in the confines of a loving and stable household. What ah1 • ideal place for a child. " l '" A child raised in a gay or les* -" bian home is prized and t r e a t e d ^ for what they are—a gift. ' ' If the state would allow gay' " <r couples to adopt children, I cart ' assure you, none of them woU3d'rgo unwanted. All children should be so lucky. •"% * ' Connie JAitest University HospitaVSt&ff Save Grand Staircase-Escalante National Park We need to protect natural wonders, not exploit them for oil U tah is home to many wonderful national parks and monuments, and we are rightfully proud of our natural gifts. We regard Delicate Arch as Utah's unofficial symbol and show it off on our license plates. Every year we attract millions of tourists with these outdoor natural wonders. However, these tourist attractions are now facing danger. The mining and oil industries are strongly encouraging federal and state legislators to reduce in size or abolish altogether Utah's largest national monument, Grand Staircase-Escalante. Some believe that the park might contain valuable natural resources. The mining and oil industries argue that by restricting usage of the land, we limit potential financial opportunities. The problem with this position is that it is only a possibility—not a certainty—that Grand Staircase-Escalante contains significant amounts of useful natural resources. Even if the land does contain ores and oil, it is almost certainly a relatively small amount. The price to be paid for these minimal benefits include the destruction of American Indian ruins and the denial of future generations the chance to marvel at this unique landscape. Indeed, its rock formations and American Indian ruins are the main arguments that environmentalists and historians use to defend preservation of the land. During his presidency, Bill Clinton created many national monuments in the Western states. Grand Staircase-Escalante was one of the most controversial. Catherine Wong Clinton proclaimed Grand Staircase-Escalante a 1.7 million-acre national monument in 1996. It remains largely undeveloped with limited services and rough roads. The environmentalists won the first victory when Clinton declared the area a national monument, but that was not the end of the battle. The president has the right to proclaim a national monument, as well as the right to reduce its status. The controversy heated up again with the election of President Bush, who is not known as a friend of environmental interests. The mining and oil industries argue that since Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument is largely undeveloped anyway, why not reduce its status—or at least shrink its boundaries—so that industry can make use of the land? But to change the status of Grand Staircase-Escalante means more than just reducing the level of protection to one area—it means setting up a dangerous precedent. No national monument or park has ever before lost its protection level and status. If we allow Grand Staircase to be the first national park to have its status stripped, what is going to happen when the mining industry claims there could be ores in Arches National Park? ' ' '• Just because Grand Staircase isn't Utah's most popular tourist attrac-" tion doesn't mean we shouldn't fight as hard for it as we would Arches or Zion. ' If it comes down to money, Grand Staircase-Escalante could bring thestate financial gains through touristn dollars if it were developed instead-' : of drilled. '•; Why should Utah sacrifice the '' opportunity for increased state revenues from this potential, albeit undeveloped, tourist attraction? ' '.'• We need to look at the situation long-term and preserve the natural . beauty and historical significance , ; of Grand Staircase-Escalante rather^ than selling out to short-term corpo:-; rate interests. ! letters@chronicle.utah.edu Homelessness a problem in your city? J.Crew can help! Stop trying to mask poverty with renovations and new malls M ayor Rocky Anderson's desire to renovate Pioneer Park is as good of an idea as building a multi-million dollar shopping complex next to a homeless shelter. It does nothing for the people who actually reside in the area, but it makes things a little nicer for the rich people around town. Some ideas for the Pioneer Park renovation include a history walk, jogging paths and a small amphitheater—all of which would theoretically make the park a more welcoming place. Some would argue that renovating Pioneer Park would be a great thing for the area, which is known for its homeless population, prostitution and narcotics trafficking. Wake up, people. Renovating the park won't erase its residents. Instead of sleeping on the grass, the homeless people at the park will be sleeping in an outdoor amphitheater that probably cost as much as it would to add a few extra rooms to the Road Home shelter. This sort of circular thinking has been plaguing Salt Lake City for years now. The whole idea behind the Gateway Project was to bring life to a side of town that had once been neglected. Now, the once-avoided side of town has many visitors. The only problem is that the visitors come and go as they please and pay no attention to what the real concern is. Lindsey Sine The problem was never a lack of malls and parks to attract people. The problem with the area was that the entire homeless community was completely unnoticed. So now that we have our mall, condominiums, posh art space, highend restaurants and even a possible park renovation, has anything changed? No. We still have the homeless people we always did. Only now, they're surrounded by teenage girls wearing over-priced Abercrombie and Fitch miniskirts and businesspeople who are getting brain tumors from talking on their cell phones too long. Salt Lake residents who frequent the 400 West area now that it's pretty don't realize the changes made have not solved any real problems in the area. We might as well build a gigantic wall around the Road Home shelter. At least then when we go to buy a $20 steak at Biaggi's, we wouldn't have to see the homeless people and feel guilty. Changing a park, ushering in bigname stores and building high-end housing near the Gateway doesn't ' - .-* .-r-rji help the homeless situation in that" * area—it only masks it. -; =• \i If we want to improve disadvan^-jj taged sections of the city, we should* pay to increase police patrols tjiat $ could then frequent high-risk a r e a ^ j in order to discourage drugs ; prostitution. Rather than trying to hide i lessness with; should improve 1 the homeless shelter; programs where hom iess peo$l«l_<j can work with counselors to | their lives on track. Ultimately, until we address • is really going on, no amount o | perficial renovations will make*cjmjj city a better place for the hom$< * people who live here. ** |