| OCR Text |
Show Friday, November IEditomial 17, 1989 Tfcu rv;l.r liiok rl. I . n . New pay raise shouldn't be .cloaked 'in ethics bill House of The Representatives newest innately bad. A pay increase to keep pace defeated again. Indeed, the ethical package brings to mind the image of a with inflation makes sense, and the tragic provisions may be enough to distract supposedly .friendly neighbor who fall of such elected officials as former public attention away from the pay raise promises to keep his yard clean, while all Speaker of the House Jim Wright display the the time he is plotting to fence off that need for ethical reform. But the manner in disputed area between your properties which congressmen appear to be cloaking a and claim it as his own. pay hike in the veil of moral righteousness The package in question involves is, to say the least, disturbing. Even the ethical revisions, which are boosting pay for House members by 7.9 in 1990 its current (from percent $89,500. beneficial on the surface, do not attack and then 25 level), again by percent in such deep and nagging issues as campaign a in 1991, resulting salary of'about funding. In leaders have House addition, When they introduced this current $125,000, decided to tack some badly-neede- d ethics measure, congressmen were undoubtedly the onto same reforms package, including remembering the public outcry that of honorariums and the prevented them from receiving a 51 the banning long enough to have it passed. President. Bush's endorsement should also defray public outcry. In other words, the pay increase should slide through the proper governmental channels like an oily snake. This unfortunate combination of pieces of legislation is a gloomy example of the deception that Congress can take part in. If House members want a 33 percent pay increase and feel that such a measure is indeed justified, they should introduce it as a separate measure open to public scrutiny. If the public is opposed to the of outside earned both income, limiting percent pay increase earlier this year. measure, it is the public's right to see it 1991. House members don't appear to be willing doesn't pass. Pretending a pay raise has by The separate aims of the package are not to take the chance a pay hike will be anything to do with ethics is a sad sham. Letters Eloquence not necessarily sign of competent leader Editor: prejudice. A good leader (or person) is not judged by where that person was born or if they have an accent or not. That is unless a person chooses to use such a standard. Second, Jorgensen as well as others Chris Jorgensen's letter ("ASUU president a form without substance," Nov. 14) should remind all of us of the dangers of ignorance. Not only did Jorgensen ignorantly criticize Molonai Hola for his efforts to build a better university, but it also implied sentiments of prejudice. Unfortunately, I not the only person on campus who holds such unfounded believe Jorgensen is notions. Jorgensen's erroneous presumptions should be rebutted in order to dispel these foolish beliefs. First, eloquence has never been the mark of a great leader. Some of history's greatest leaders have been poor speakers. Take for example Moses, who. led an entire nation. Granted, Hola is not an eloquent public speaker, but to base his ability or effectiveness as a student body president on such an immaterial trait would overlook his other abilities. It appears Jorgensen was referring to Hola's native accent when criticizing him for his inability to speak articulately. Not only is this observation a shallow attempt to judge a person's character, it borders on . who have written to the Chronicle have failed to give Hola the credit he deserves. Hola has attempted, and succeeded in many respects, to bring some enthusiasm and interest to a campus that is in dire need of both. Hola has recognized a major weakness with campus life and has addressed it head on. How many other ASUU presidents have had the determination and ability to confront problems as Hola has? Hola's attempts have also been, in the face of opposition from indifferent voters, a hostile student newspaper and ignorant students. Give Hola credit for what he has done rather than criticize him for such petty personality traits such as his poor diction or his inability to speak well in public. Surely there are more important qualities whereby to judge a person. Kent Hart law Humanities courses at U. teach student to think well " Editor: I feel the urge to write in support of the Humanities Center. the at Departments University of Utah don't deserve to be attacked before they're even given a chance to be appreciated. Thanks to Chronicle reporter Dagi Binggeli (Nov. 14) for bringing humanities onto the scene. One statement attributed to Larry Gerlach, Humanities Center director, made me laugh although this letter is not directed at him. ". . .the center at the U. will not become a think tank," he said. God forbid any center at the U. become a think tank! Far better for the future of this country that universities train students solely to earn more money. We certainly don't need future leaders who can assess past history, learn from it, apply learning to and do it subtly and , leading recognize ethics and use them to lead. Can't we afford to have our power threatened by students who have learned how to think? Could I start over, I'd "cram nothing but humanities courses into my schedule. I've learned to think well enough to pursue knowledge on my own from the few classes I've managed to choose well. ' V. Dissel Senior . PERE5TR01KA iiff"'- Pedestrians should not use U.'s sidewalks letter (Pedestrians responsible for Nov. 14) bicycle damage, condemning university pedestrians who use the sidewalks and show blatant, disregard for the best interests of cyclists, for whom the sidewalks were originally intended. She points out that pedestrians should be ashamed of themselves for forcing cyclists on campus to slow down from 30 mph to 20 mph or even 15 mph. Even worse, many cyclists must No with her that small, slow-movin- g pedestrians should get off the sidewalks and let cyclists have tree . ' problems with erosion, no problems with pedestrians, cyclists can still get to school and ride around the outside of campus. Best of all, no nasty lawsuits against the university when a cyclist injures a student. Think about reign. , : In a similar vein, I feel that small, cyclists should get off the streets and let the motorists have free slow-movi- , ng reign. Since many cyclists feel that they can run pedestrians off the sidewalks (or into the sidewalks), there should be no complaints when motorists follow their example and start using cyclists for hood ornaments. it. . Nately Havermyer psycnoiogy . difference between abortion and murder Editor: I have noticed recently the issue of abortion has once again entered the headlines ("Students, profs rallies at participate in Nov. 13). I'd just U., State Capitol, to the comments like to add my rest of the junk heap. It seems to me that the issue here is less one of "choice" than it is of the precedence of rights. In the article referenced above, pro-choi- ce Deborah Threedy is quoted as Write the Editor if you have a gripe!! Or we could just follow the example set by universities in the northwest and not allow bicycle riding (walking the bike around is fine) in the middle of campus. No swerve to avoid pedestrians callously using the sidewalks. I heartily agree Editor: This is to express my wholehearted agreement with Jennifer Peterson's . saying, "The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong, the issue is who gets to decide." Since when does the right of one individual "to decide" take over another's right to fjrecedence "decides" that it is no longer convenient for him to be married and kills hiswife, he is charged with murder When a woman "decides" that it is not convenient to have a child and kills the fetus, she is protecting her right to choose? That seems like an incredible double standard. If I "decide" that my supervisor's attitude is not in the best interest of my career and kill him, then am I justified in claiming that I was only protecting my rights? Obviously not. Yet this is precisely what is claimed by many people who are trying to justify abortions. So what is the difference? In the one case, a murder is obviously committed. In the other, the victim of the act is hidden under dehumanizing terms such as fetus and zygote, but the end result is the same. The crime has simply been justified with the claims of "preservation of rights." Another woman, Wendy Brown, is quoted in the story as saying, "The vocal minority is trying to convince our lawmakers that the start of human life can be mandated, and it can't!" Well, Ms. Brown, neither can the termination of a human life be mandated. It is as unreasonable and wrong to allow the murder of unborn people as it is to allow the murder of anyone else. I suppose such condemnatory terms such as "crime" and "murder" are avoided by pro-abortioni- for the obvious reason that recognizing the act for what it is blows a big hole in the preservation of rights argument. Where do the rights of the baby enter the picture? This isn't an issue of women's bodies and the right to choose, it's an issue of selfishness, where one group of people want to exercise ultimate control over life and death for reasons of convenience. Let's call it the way it is. pro-aborti- on Stanford K. Acomb Senior electrical engineering |
