OCR Text |
Show Opinions Si^fe^^^iiii^^^^iw 1 6 1 1 4 1 ^ •June 8 > 2009 Letter to the Editor to avoid Word Mm- dei . To the Editor: Socialism: a word you should know in a propagandists fashion in political and social debates. This is the first in the Despite the propaganda series, and of course, the that NewsCorp subsidiar-' first term I want to tackle is ies §uch as Fox News are "socialism." telling us on a daily basis, In order to understand President Barack Obama is what socialism really not a socialist. (Sorry, Glen means, you have to underBeck, your dreams must be stand two concepts: means dashed.) of production, and public If one understands the versus private ownership. most basic aspects of po- The means of produclitico-economic theory, tion are the things we use one knows these claims are to produce items such as making some kind of fun- cars, pencils, food, and aldamental mistake: they are most anything that can be using a word improperly exchanged. This includes in order to make another factories, tractors, shovels, claim without actually tools of all kinds, etc. You claiming it. In other words, get the idea. propaganda works better if Public ownership is it is subtle and deceitful. when a group owns someThis is a problem for thing collectively. That is, several reasons. First, it is everyone has a say in how disingenuous. If you want the thing owned is conto claim that our president trolled, used, or managed will lead the country toward and they collectively bentotalitarianism, dictator- efit from that ownership. ship, and strife, simply say Private ownership is when so,, and don't couch your only one person (or entity claims in a misused term. such as a corporation) owns This leads me to the sec- something, which means ond problem - because of that an individual controls this constant misuse of the it and decides what is done term, many people don't re- with it, and they personally ally know what socialism benefit from owning it. means. All of us engage in Now, with these two political discussions from concepts we can define two time to time, and all of us Other concepts: capitalism are affected and informed and socialism. Capitalism by the discourse we hear is when the means of profrom the news, our family, duction — the things we use our friends, and even our to produce other things for teachers. Knowing what a consumption -- are owned word really means not only by individual people. helps us communicate ef- Means of production are fectively and avoid mis- privately owned, and the takes, but it also empowers benefit (read profit) goes to us. an individual. With this in mind, I have Socialism, on the other decided to write a series hand, is when the means of dedicated to explaining oft- production are owned pubmisused terms, especially licly, or collectively by a those that are thrown about group, and the benefit (read DAVE SELF NEWLIN Opinions edftor profit) goes- to the group collectively. So, what about Obama's presidency so far would lead us to believe that he is in some way a socialist? The obvious answers are bailouts - of the banking industry and soon General Motors as well. Essentially, bailing out these industries relies on taking tax dollars, money that the public has earned, and using it to buy up shares of suffering companies, making the United States government part owner of the corporations bailed out. Now, one could assume, based on the fact that it is public money, money that every taxpayer contributed, that in this sense, these companies are partially owned by the entire community of taxpayers. If this is the case, then in some sense, these companies are partially publicly owned. But of course, government money can come from several places, and it may be that the government has borrowed money from others in order to buy up these shares, and hence the money does not necessarily originate with taxpayers. So perhaps, because the government is democratically elected, and are supposed to represent us, these companies are partially publicly owned because the government represents the entire public. If either of these situations is the case, then the ongoing bailouts could be construed as socialist. We are all part owners either because we contributed tax money, or because we are being represented by the A3 government. But ownership is not only about representation or payment - one must ask "Cui bono?" or rather "Who benefits?" Once these shares are bought up, and the companies (hopefully) get back on their feet, where does their profit go? Who gets the benefit? The answer is that it goes to private individuals, for the most part. The profit goes to the company. And remember, the bailouts rely not only on buying up shares, but also on cash injections, meaning we simply give them money, and don't retain any ownership at all. This money is simply gone. Then why is the administration doing this? Precisely to remain capitalists. We can quickly see that what Obama is doing, at least with regard to the bailouts, is not socialism at all, but simply a subtle but genuine form of capitalism. Private entities get public money, but retain the benefit in terms of profit, for the most part. Not only that, but the public has no say in how these companies are run, and what they do with themselves once the government owns their shares, defying yet another requirement for socialism. Strange then, the hysterical claims of Mr. Beck. Rest assured, Obama is not a socialist. Now that you know the most basic requirements of capitalism and socialism, go out and use terms correctly, improve your conversations and heighten your understanding of the news. As a believing, practicing-to-the bestofmy-ability LatterDay Saint, I was v,ery disturbed by a recent Opinions piece, "More blessed than thou". Its author, RussAdler, speaks as though his ideas are representative of the doctrine and attitudes of The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints. His thesis, "the closer to God you are, the richer you become, and... the richer you are, the closer to God you are, "does not represent accurately the doctrine, practices, or beliefs of members of the Church. If there are members of the Church who believe or practice this ideology, they are out of touch with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The author of this piece appears to be referencing a Book of Mormon doctrine that those who keep the commandments of God are prospered (1 Nephi 2:20). Hence, the requirement to give ten percent of our income and do our very best to take care of the poor, both as an institution, and as individual members of the Church. This is our standard, as found in The Book of Mormon: "Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good — to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted." (Jacob 2:1719) r-PaulJ* Kohler ^ Letters to the editor requirements i4vu.review.opinions@gmall.com • Letters must be turned in on Wednesday by noon in order to be printed in the next edition. • We make no guarantee that letters will be printed., • • Letters 300 words or less have a greater chance of being published - anything longer will be edited for content. • Please provide an electronic copy regardless of whether or not you wish to submit a hard copy. • All letters become the property of UVU Review as soon as they are submitted. Dick Cheney for gay marriage? You bet. ANDYSHERWIN Opinions writer Given the local interest regarding all things even tangentially Mormon-related, it was fascinating to watch the so-called "Culture Wars" implode our little corner of the world last November with the brouhaha regarding Proposition 8, California's adorably and innocuouslynamed controversial ban on gay marriage. Maybe you heard of it. Anyway, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints came under considerable Jire from gay rights (and other) groups for its vocal support of the proposition, citing that "the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan." Fair enough and to each their own. On May 26, the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling that upheld the validity of Prop 8 while simultaneously preventing any existing same-sex marriages from being invalidated. With ignoble, almost dadaesque rantings from . Mormon fringe lunatics like Orson Scott Card (or Catholic fringe lunatics like Catholic League president William Donahue) drowning the rhetorical landscape, it's difficult to remember that this isn't just a matter of faith, but also a matter of politics. Ac- "... My religions beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." President Barak Obama cording to the Public Policy Institute of California, only 33% of California voters are registered Republicans, compared to 44% Democrats and 19% independents; the LA Times reported that Prop 8 squeaked through, passing by a teeny tiny four percent margin. Now, I'm not a doctor, but I do know that if the split was that close to 50/50, it wasn't just Re- publicans that voted against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Inexplicably popular blogger Perez Hilton famously (and ridiculously) called for a boycott of Park City's Sundance Film Festival, claming that any in attendance "...will support the Mormons if you go. [They] WILL support the taking away of equal rights for gays!" For some reason, Hilton is under the impression that 100% of Utah is Mormon, and that being Mormon automatically indicates a political belief. His ludicrous blanket statements are obviously hypocritical, but affording Perez Hilton critical analysis is about as rewarding as a rousing round of Proofread Stephanie Meyer - a favorite pastime amongst English majors ~ so that's a fruitless pursuit. The point is not that his blanket statement is wrong, it's that blanket statements are wrong. I'm fully aware that that is, in fact, a blanket statement. Standing proudly next to the All Mormons Hate Gay Marriage compost pile is the Democrats Support Gay Marriage, as well as its inbred cousin, the Republicans Hate Gay Marriage. President Obama, holder of the coveted Get Out Of Controversy (Except For Fox News) Free pass, is against gay marriage. He has said so repeatedly, going so far as to tell the Chicago Daily Tribune that "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Aside from that statement's inherent admission of failure at his attempted separation of religious doctrinev and secular politics, President Obama also seems to be under the impression that Jesus ever actually addressed gay marriage, or even homosexuality. I seem to recall something about loving your neighbor a whole bunch, though (cough cough Matthew 22:39 cough cough). In fairness, Obama's gay rights record is pretty solid; the Human Rights Campaign gave him an 89% on his 2006 Congressional scorecard, indicating a strong support of gay rights. It could be, as has been suggested, that Obama's hesitance to support gay marriage is strictly a political issue and he plays it safe in order to win a second term, during which he'll tell us what he really thinks. However, I was frequently criticized back in November of 2008 for hoping that Scary John McCain of 2008, even with Palin in tow, was just Badass John McCain of 2000 in a cunning disguise, a view that I have since retracted. "B-b-b-but," some stammer, "Obama is a Democrat! That means he's for gay marriage!" Enter: Dick Cheney. Earlier this month, Cheney publicly supported the legalization of gay marriage (although he supports the rights of the states to decide their own legislation). Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a partnered lesbian and participated in campaigning for her father during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. And don't leave out Schwarzenegger. Last November, the California Governor, a Republican, was disappointed in the passing of Prop 8, saying that those righting for gay marriage "...should be on it and on it until they get it done." (LA Times) He has since encouraged protestors and vocally expressed hope that the decision would be overturned. (I'm trying to think of a good Terminator pun, but I'm coming up short.) So don't jump to conclusions. I'm a libertarian-leaning independent that didn't really want to vote for anyone that stood a chance of winning. I'm also an active Mormon (believe it or not), and a staunch, unabashed supporter of the legalization of gay marriage at the federal.level (a rare thing for a libertarian), and I have no issue sleeping soundly at night. Don't let the contradictions make your head explode. |