OCR Text |
Show DAILY THE j..:l.-..- - THE CHRONICLE UTAH .. ! - - -- - - ,, r , CHRONICLE'S VIEW vrs Basketball Accolades Put Team Back in Game a few days after a close loss to Wyoming, U men's basketball team to smile about Though the team has gone 20-the Utes lost the Mountain West Conference regular season title for the first time in eight years this past weekend. However, the announcement that four Ute players had been named to West Conferthe d ence Team brought a collective calm after the team's stormy loss. Britton Johnson was named to the First Team and both Nick Jacobson and Jeff Johnsen were named to the Third Team. Additionally, Travis Spivey was awarded an Honorable Mention. However, those were not the only accolades that the men's basketball team garnered. In addition to his First Team status, Britton was named Conference Player of the Yeara distinction that is not only but also particularly laudable. Britton averaged 15.3 points and 8.1 rebounds per game in conference play and maintained an impressive 55.7 Iust 7, in much-neede- well-earne- d, THE. RUST W -- &-- w OflitlHE BmsnV CTOER Or fgTB tce. TfWV. " 1 WJMTT7!, ' k rVs shooting percentage. Each of the Ute players named to the conference men's basketball teams, including Britton. stepped up their play in the absence of one of the team's most formidable forces, starting center Chris Burgess. Despite (or possibly because of) Burgess' sidelining, these players stepped up, maintaining a cohesiveness that is oftentimes lost when a key player is knocked out of the game by injury or other circumstances. After last season's disappointing finish (the team went didn't qualify for the NCAA tournament and lost in the first round of the National Invitational Tournament), this year is going well. And though the Ute men's basketball team has a rocky past, the players' newly announced honors indicate a promising future for a team that hasn't always had smooth sail- ft And TBt 1W 7 TcX J ' J JS4,; Jlr. 'j VTDr 'a' czrHII . I 'r'' " 19-1- 2, LETTER TO THE EDITOR xamining Olympic Media Coverage ing. Look for these players to lead this strong team as it battles its MWC foes in Las Vegas during the conference tournament starting March 7. sands of a nightmare. Editor: I was not at all surprised to read that the Olympics were a bust for most local business owners. I know many local establishments anticipated great profits from the large influx of visitors, but they have had to deal with great disappointment instead. While their plans may have been a little they were not altogether It was, in fact, the blitzkrieg of media propaganda, which made an outcry of warning to local citizens to avoid areas surrounding Olympic venues, that scared away potential customers for the unfortunate business owners. According to several pessimistic news reports, traffic would be intolerable, and the presence of thou over-optimist- out-of-tow- As it turned out, the traffic was only marginally as bad as the media coverage predicted it to be. In their thrust for rapid news reporting and their need to occupy air time with filler material, the media did not hesitate to deliver these warnings to the public. It's time that the media took a good look at the effect of the messages that they present to the masses. Of course freedom of the press is an important right not to be ic, d. Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle Editorial Board. Editor!! 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 a individual or group because of race, ethnic background, gender, appearance or seival entation will he edited or will not be published. ori- visitors would make street travel n abridged. However, the professional decision to engage is no less important. in JASON RICHARDSON self-censorsh- ip Senior, Speech Communication tt Real Debate ver Hate Crime m3HI 1 s imwossi TTfi Wednesday, the Utah Senate voted the umpteenth time to table a bill that increase penalties for hate crimes. W ith hope, the bill, which hung like a blunt object over Utah's collective head in every legislative session since 1997, has met final defeat Hate crimes legislation in Utah is unnecessary and ineffective. At first glance, the bill looks like an important piece of socially conscious law making. Closer examination, however, reveals that it does nothing more than advance a personal agenda and create confusion for legislators who already have too much Speaking to the Salt Lake Tribune, Valentine observed, "This time there are so many (problems with the bill) I don't know where to start. I don't have time to try and sit down and rewrite a whole bill." Even Suazo herself told The Associated Press before filing the proposal, "I know I'm going to get beat up " Why, then, did she file the bill? What good did Suazo see in bringing up such a contentious issue in a legislative session already dominated by bitter fights over funding? The only possible answer is that she hoped to use a delicate political issue to back Utah's conservative Legislature into a corner and force them to vote for the bill. In the United States, and particularly in ultra-whit- e Utah, nobody wants to be a bigot. White America fears nothing more than racism. Opposition to hate crimes legislation, therefore, no matter how or logically grounded, is attention-hungr- y for easy prey politicians like to do. Suazo. JOHN MORLEY V Chronicle Opinion Columnist Last The late Sen. Pete Suazo. who used his tus as Utah's only Latino legislator to champion minority issues for nearly a decade, first proposed the bill an 1997. After failing the first time, he tried to pass it every year until his death last August in an ATV accident. Sen. Alicia Suazo, Pete's wife and replacement m the Senate after his death, decided to bring the bill back again, even though she realized ihat winning this time would be nearly impossible. Senate Majority Whip John Valenwho helped the bill clear the tine, Senate last year only to see it die in the House, said this years proposal never had a chance. sta- well-reasone- d Comments made by the bill's supporters illustrate the outlandishly ideological way in which Suazo tried to frame the debate. After last Wednesday's hearing, SB 64 supporter Robert Gallegos told the Salt Lake Tribune, "I guess we're going to have to experience what happened in Wyoming, where they crucified a man on a fence post because he was a homosexual. I think that what we need to do is get rid of the legislators who practice racism." When the House of Representatives voted against the till last year. Rep. Gerry Adair, a veteran GOP lawmaker who supported the bill joined the absurdities. After enduring the del H If uge of public opinion common to such contro- versial issues, Adair complained to the Salt Lake Tribune, "I'm a victim of hate crime." Such politically charged language makes reasonable debate impossible. Instead of talking rationally about whether the bill is needed and effective, Suazo and her supporters tried to make everyone who opposed it look like a Mathew Sheppard-hatin- g devil. The decision not to pass the bill, however, has nothing to do with hoping homosexuals get crucified or spreading racism. Instead, it wisely reflects the relative insignificance of Utah's hate crime In the United States, and particularly in ultra-vhit- e Utah, nobody vants to be a biqot. problem and the total inability of harsher sentences to solve it Obviously, every hate crime is a tragedy. This writer certainly doesn't condone or advocate such behavior. But policymaking is all about choosing what's important enough to justify the use of limited time 2nd money. The Legislature currently has its hands full of thorny questions about funding, including what to do about higher education, urban planning and even law enforcement It doesn't have the time or resources, therefore, to deal with a problem that affects as few people as hate crimes. CHRONICLE OPINION EDITOR LAURA B. WEISS LWEISSCHRONICLE. UTAH.EDU Statistically, hate crimes are a minuscule part of Utah's overall law enforcement. According to the state's Bureau of Criminal Identification, there were 65 hate crimes in 1995, 40 in 1997 and 66 in 1998. Utah's portion of the national total (more than 8,000 in 1998) is startlingly small. Even if the senators had given in and voted for the bill, however, its impact on hate crime would have been negligible. The bill would have increased the sentencing schedule for crime in which hate was a motivating factor by one level. But liberals have long argued that " programs arc political whitewash. Longer prison terms, tougher probation policies and expanded police forces reflect simplistic but popular approaches to problems that defy easy solutions. Hate crimes are no different. Furthermore, passing the bill would do nothing to solve the underlying social roots of hate. Though Suazo and pals might say the bill would send an important message, it's doubtful, if not laughable, that a solemn ceremony in which the governor signs the bill with a gold pen and old people in suits stand around clapping would do anything to change life on Salt Lake City's streets. Such action might make us feci good, but it wouldn't change anything, A word of advice, therefore, to Sen. Alicia Suazo: Lay low. Your party needs your help on funding issues. And for Pete's sake, please don't bring this bill back again. John welcomes feedback at: jmorley'a xhroni-clc.uta- h cdu or se ni letters to the editor to: "tough-on-crimc- 581-704- 1 |