| OCR Text |
Show P NI THURSDAY 226 N VACA 13 Daily Utah Chronicle THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW Support Black Awareness Month next time around February is set aside for more than a celebration of love and marriage. It is recognized nationwide as Black Awareness Month. Many events were held on campus and throughout the community to promote diversity and black awareness. Unfortunately, not many U students and faculty attended the events. The concept of bringing to public view the history and contributions of a certain culture is an important one and should receive public support. Granted, Martin Luther King Jr. Day is set aside in January to help accomplish this end. But too many of us consider it a day off work or school and do not take the time to really ponder the meaning of the day and how the actions of King and the contributions of black Americans in general affect us all. So it is not excessive to devote another period to the study and remembrance of black Americans. The U made the right decision to expand the events of Black Awareness Month into the Salt Lake community and not restrict activities to the U campus alone. A very small percentage of Utah's black population attends or is employed at the upfiwuj Break U, so it makes sense to make the events more accessible to the rest of the city. This can be a marketer's nightmare, however, especially when one has a relatively low budget from which to draw. In the future, it would be wise to solicit funds from various community groups to help foot the bill and potentially increase exposure to the events. Another factor that contributed to the low turnout was the time events especially speeches were scheduled. Many activities took and early place in the afternoon hours, when students are in class and others are at work and unable to attend. Holding more events in the evening hours may have drawn a larger crowd. Other student groups can learn from the successes and failures of Black Awareness Month. When events are planned that benefit large amounts of students and U community members, efforts should be made to inform individuals and groups from different advertising angles. And events should be planned during peak hours of the day, when the greatest number of people can benefit from all that late-morni- is offered. Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle Editorial Board. Editorial 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 an individual or group because of race, ethnic background, gender, appearance or sexual orientation will be edited or will not be published. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Edwards is best choice for president Editor: As I was reading The Daily Utah Chronicle on Feb. 24, not only was I upset about the endorsement of John Kerry for Utah's primary election, I was also upset about The balanced, and not made one candidate look better than the other, as it did in this case. Also, I am really surprised that The Chronicle didn't mention anything about education in the platforms section. Edwards' plan is one that can really address the problems of higher tuition. His plan allows any student who works 10 hours a week to receive free tuition. Kerry's plan calls for a $4,000 tax credit. But since most students work only many students will not see the benefits of the Kerry Chronicle giving the readers very little information on John Edwards' candidacy. After The Chronicle's endorsement, I am wondering if it was intentional. Your "look at the candidates' platforms" section states that both Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, but says that only Kerry opposed the $87 billion appropriations bill to continue funding of the war. plan. In reality, both Kerry and Edwards On the other hand, they will voted against the bill. It would be immediately feel the effects of the nice if The Chronicle had told the Edwards' plan. truth about every candidate, fair and Finally, when choosing a candi in-sta- te part-tim- e, date for president, I feel that trust is a large part of the equation. At the recent Florida Democratic Party Convention on Dec. 6, 2003, Kerry said, "I voted against the Medicare bill." The fact is, Kerry didn't vote for or against the Medicare bill he didn't vote on it at all. Why did Kerry feel that he needed to lie to the voters on this very important subject? I feel that we need honesty in the White House, and John Edwards has shown that quality. We are trying to force one liar out of the White House not replace him with another. David U of U Trotter Junior, History Edwards for President Campaign Morphing happily into a trivial society Students should concern themselves with important news fall of the recent celebrity think only one has hit me hard. Barbie, that bodacious beauty, has finally left her knight in jockeys, Ken. Really, how did this happen? I think she sat him down at a posh little cafe, her eyes wet with tears and uttered that profound terminating statement: "It's not you, it's me." I can only imagine that Ken was upset to learn that his beloved blonde was leaving him at lightening speed for the arms of Australian surfer hottie Blaine. The National Enquirer has its next juicy scandal. You got it Mattel retired the Ken doll. This turning point in popular culture, as it must be acknowledged in its profundity, was reported in detail on the BBC's Web site last week. Allow me to purge: THIS is news? Barbie, in case you wondered, is a plastic doll designed to give girls Her imaginary a bad breakups, I self-imag- e. breakup with her mass manufactured counterpart just happens to be the tidbit of the week. I sat in a class the other day and listened to people spout over their fears that we are becoming a society of trivialities. The key word was "becoming." I happen to believe we are already there. On campus, I've heard numerous opinions about the Bennifer breakup. I've heard excited walking hormones talking about the birth control patch. Anyone who's anyone has an opinion on whether or not Carrie should end up with Big on "Sex and the City." Oh, and I learned that carbs are satanic. with all of this societal wisdo dom, you really think that the vast majority of college students even feigns to care about Bush's domestic policy? How many of us are up to date on the minority situation in Utah? How many of us really and Yet, Pitt's butt. Still, we should do our best to Anna Piepmeyer Opinion Columnist truly pay attention to world hunger, poverty, revolution, violence all of that "important" stuff? I dare you to walk up to a classmate and ask them to verse you on the latest happenings in Chechnya. Give them a cookie if they know. Give yourself a cookie if you know. Send me a cookie if you think that I even know. I'm not trying to sit on a throne and preach at students to become better people. After all, I am the columnist who writes about Brad remember that there are troops abroad, fighting to protect our personal freedoms. Are personal freedoms essentially your right to live in a democratic society? Is the right to better yourself really how you apply "personal freedom" to your own pursuits? I'm really scared that personal freedoms have come to entail my right to watch "I Love the '80s" 16 times on VHi. Let's turn to an example. I pulled up my Internet home page today to verse myself in the happenings of American culture in the last 24 hours. Netscape.com had these headlines: "Beyonce-Whe- n Sexy Meets End of The Guarini Shy," "Justin an Idol," "Why Humans Don't Have Fur" and my personal favorite, "See Pix of Bud's Top Bikini Babe." Wow. Deep. I mean, I was really worried today about why I don't have fur. I was positively distraught at thinking that I would miss pictures of Bud's new bikini model. I'm equally guilty. I'll skim over the Democratic primaries and then pretend to know what I'm talking ' about. I'll read the headlines about the situation in Iraq. But Ken being put to rest? A wild pack of angry, rabid dogs couldn't keep me from that one. I saw the headline, I gasped for breath, and I had to know. Are we, the youth of today, seri- ously all right in our chosen lack of knowledge of world affairs? Is the ability to discuss last week's episode of "Friends" really worth more among our peers than the tragic effect of AIDS in developing coun- tries? And if Barbie's out of the picture, does that mean that Ken is (finally) ; single? letterschronicle. utah. edu Constitutional amendment couldn't come at a better time San Francisco mayor is out of line in performing gay marriages omething is rotten in the state of California. Since Feb. 12, 'more than 3,200 gay marriages have been performed in San FrancisI co's City Hall. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is extending a false sense of hope to thousands and potentially millions of gay people who believe their marriage is legitimate and that their marriage licenses are irrevocable. But this is simply not the case. If the marriages violate California law, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger purports, then the issued licenses become nothing more than scratch paper. Schwarzenegger cites a state law that regards marriage only between a man and a woman as valid. The law originated as Proposition 22 in 2000, and 61 percent of California voters approved the initiative. Don't toy with the emotions of your constituency, Mayor Newsom. Go about it the right way, the honorable way, the legal way. The people have spoken in California and they oppose your defiant actions. San Francisco does not deserve all of the blame. Other states, includ ing Hawaii and New Jersey, already couples registered as grant same-se- x domestic partners various spousal rights. Vermont has instituted civil unions and Massachusetts will begin performing gay marriages in May. Fortunately, a voice of reason has emerged in a sea anarchy. President Bush called upon Congress earlier this week to pass an amendment that will "protect marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." Some amendments banning gay marriage have already been introduced in both the Senate and House, one by Rep. Chris Cannon, As the criticisms mount upon Bush and other conservatives for speaking out against gay marriage, it is important to note that it is not a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have stressed the importance of preserving the integrity of marriage. Just this week, Rep. Jim said in response Matheson, to Bush's statement, "I support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman." Jim Berqstedt Opinion Editor Why make a constitutional amendment to ensure that marriage between a man and a woman is preserved? Why not leave it up to the states to define marriage for themselves, as Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry proposes? The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton, allows states not to recognize gay marriages or civil unions licensed in other states. But there is no guarantee that the relatively new law will not be struck down by activist courts. The courts contend that it violates Article IV, Section I of the Constitution, which states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." If this happens, states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, California or any other state that allows homosexuals to wed. An amendment would ensure that no state or city has the right to perform gay marriages, thus preventing other states from having to recognize them. And by pursuing a constitutional amendment, the ultimate decision is placed in the hands of the American people, not in a handful of courts that have their own agendas to meet. I agree that, if possible, it is best to avoid tinkering with the Constitution. But when activist courts begin to decide the fate of an entire nation, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done, actions must be taken. Why is Bush acting now to "protect marriage?" Kerry, who was one of just 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act and who civil unions, consupports same-setends it is a political move. He says the president is using the controversy surrounding gay marriage to x boost his ratings in an election year. But Bush understands the urgency of "now" and not because he is down in the polls. He understands the domino effect begun by Massachusetts last year and accelerated by San Francisco this month. If Congress does not act now, the will of the American people will be engulfed by activist courts. If anything, it is a political move on the part of Newsom, who has catered to the desires of the gay population in San Francisco and as a result, has sealed for himself a victory in future San Francisco elections. Bush already has the backing of groups he doesn't need to appease them by pushing for right-win- g a ban on gay marriage. Mayor Newsom, recognize your responsibility to comply with state law. Stop performing gay marriages in City Hall. It is a slap in the face to Californians who have already voiced their opinions in the voting booth concerning the matter. Wake up and smell the Ghirardelli chocolate! letters ffchronicle.utah.edu |
