OCR Text |
Show 10A Emery County Progress Castle Dale, Utah Tuesday October 5, 2004 Commentary LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Can we coni ol the Press? Dear Editor: While I agree with Patrick Sundstrom in his letter to the editor that the United States is a decent place with many freedoms and that our constitution is a unique document to be revered and modeled in the appropriate context, it is dangerous to assume that we can have freedom of the press if our reporters are afraid of being discharged for reporting what they believe to be true. How' can we control the "press and allow them to speak freely? Whose version of the truth will we use to judge what they say? We at least know that we do not want the government to regulate truth in the press. The truth is not always verifiable. Different people truly believe in different truths under different circumstances. The US Constitution is structured more to keep other peoples truths from controlling our lives than from legislating and enforcing some philosophical notion of absolute verity. Anyone who has ever had their words taken out of context by a journalist understands this fact and questions what he reads. The press can help us sort through information if we are willing to sort through the press. We must accept that a reporters writing is indeed influenced by w'ho he is, but the media overall are not controlled by ; some mystical powder. The idea that the press is controlled g liberals is silly. Reporters by are under intense pressure to get the news out quickly to beat the competition. It is tied to ratings and prestige, and we end up with more and more sensationalism in order for media companies to sell more advertising. Thus, on one side, we could argue that the true threat to the freedom of the press g comes not in the potential lies of media liberals but in the attitude of mass media profit seekers. In a class this week at the government school at Harvard, my professor brought up a somewhat humorous quote that freedom of the press belongs to those who can afford a press. All joking aside, in the generally accepted definition of American freedom of the press, which does differ from other cultures perceptions, you may say almost anythingwithin certain limits. If you accept this freedom, you must also accept the responsibilities that it brings to both the reporter and the audience to verify stories and to question untruths. Die lies that stand out most in my mind this year are not CBSs mistakes, but the lies used to lead us into war in Iraq. You may remember that, before the CBS memo, another more serious set of falsified documents emerged. Dieywereaboutacoun-ti- y in West Africa calk'd Niger. President Bush referred to these documents when making his case to go to war. He stated that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from this impoverished nation. For those of you who do not know about Niger, it is the second poorest countiy in the world. Despite this fact, the generosity' of its people remains on par with that of the people of the United States, if not in the value of gifts then in the spirit of giving. If you, a total stranger, were to walk into the home of one of the pixirest families in Niger, they would likely offer you their last chicken. How many of us would unite a total stranger into our homes for even a glass of water? Yes, it is hugely a cultural Issue, but rest assured that we as Americans have also given to Niger. Niamey, the capital, has only one bridge over the Niger River. The US helped to build it, and it is named after one of OUR presidents. Imagine if Memorial Bridge in Washington, D.C. were named after another countiys leader. I had a chance to spend a semester abroad in Niger several years ago, and I realized what a close idly the people are to the United States not only politically but also in die spirit ofgixxlwill and handwork. Yet our President went before file world and reported-usin- g falsified doeuments-tha- t Iraq and Niger were dealing in uranium. Whether President Bush knew at the time that the documents were forgeries has not yet been proven, but he was wrong nevertheless. Does Mr. Sundstrom therefore believe that Bush should be discharged? Ido. When my close friends in swing states tell me that they will vote for George Bush, I feel a tremendous feelingof dread. Since my own vote in Utah will not count in the end, I plead with them. I cannot imagine how my family will live through another tom- - of duty if my father, a Command Sergeant Major in the Utah National Guard, and our other militaiy friends are called to scree in Iraq again. I cannot express to you the feelingof terror you have each time you walk past a newspaper stand on the street and see in the headlines that another soldier has been killed. Oh, Lord, please not today, runs through your mind each and eveiy time. left-win- left-win- rush-to-mark- et cannot kid ourselves into thinkwe are viewed in the world as a that ing compassionate, giving, freedom-geneWre r- ating society (even though we are deed viewed as such in parts of Iraq!). In only three years, at home and across the globe, peoples opinion of America has drastically changed. The turn around has happened exclusively under George Bush's watch, and it is a very, very dangerous place for us to be in. Even the small decrease in danger from removing Saddam from power cannot outweigh the gathering hatred of America caused by the Iraq war. Not e even our allies like us anymore. Have their media influenced them and controlled their opinions, or is there some truth to what they feel? I worry deeply for anyone that believes that Fox News is one of the only places for unbiased news. It is widely known around the country for being the g most mainstream news organization. If you are not questioning their reporting as much as you question CBSs, you are not living up to your duties as an actor within our freedom of the press. And if you are not questioning the motives and actions of your leaders you are not fulfilling your patriotic duties to our democracy. Cody Thornton Orangeville, UT (Permanent) Somerville, MA (School) in- long-tim- right-win- Five Non-negotiab- le issues A Light on a Hill Dear Editor, With so many issues facing voters in the upcoming election a clear straight forward stand on key issues may help many decide which candidate to vote for. It is obvious that the first duty of government is to protect innocent human life. Without this protection all other rights have no value. For example, if a candidate said they were for terrorist acts against innocent .Americans, most .Americans wouldn't ask them what their positions on the economy, education, or healthcare is, The fact they are for terrorist acts against innocent Americans should completely disqualify them regardless of how good their other positions are. In light of this reasoning a Catholic defense organization called Catholic Answers has issued a voters guide based on the unchanging doctrines of the church. There are five issues. These five current issues concern actions that must never be promoted by the law and can never be deliberately performed. No candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the principles involved in these issues. 1. Abortion. The church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others sins. 2. Euthanasia. Often disguised bv the name mercy killing, euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. le EV73). 3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Human embryos are human being's. Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo (CRF 4b). Recent scientific advances show that medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults fromwhom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. 4. Human Cloning. Attempts.. .for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through twin fusion, cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union (RHL 1:6). Human cloning also involves abortion because the rejected or unsuccessful embryonic clones ar destroyed, yet each clone is a human be- ing. 5. Homosexual Marriage. True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as marriage undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral (UHP 10). Though many .Americans have all but forgotten about the millions killed by abortion, an honest look at wrhat an abortion is, and at how many victims it claims, is enough to reveal that nothing outweighs its gravity among the many life issues. Multiple church documents have confirmed this insight, repeating over and over that the abortion tragedy demands urgent attention and priority and being wrong on abortion outweighs being right on other issues. The truth is, if you are wrong on abortion, you cant be right on other issues. To permit abortion, but then to cry out for the right to work, housing, education, health care, and so forth, is to say that these other rights belong to some people but not to all. They obviously do not belong to those who were snuffed out by abortion. Therefore, these rights cannot be human rights, because you have already said that not all humans have a claim on them. This trivializes those other rights and puts them on an obscure and questionable foundation. If you permit abortion, then, on what basis do you defend the other rights? Wiiy do we care for the poor? Because they have a right to food, clothing, and shelter. But why do they have a right to those things? Because they have a right to live. Wire are we concerned about unemployment? Because people have a right to make a living. Why do they have that right? Because they have a right to live. It all comes back to that foundational right. Abortion is not the only issue, but neither is the foundation of a house the only part of a house. Take it away, however, and see how well you can build the rest. The reason that being wrong on abortion makes it impossible to be right on other issues is that the heart and soul of every issue is precisely the dignity of the human person whose right to life is not under the dominion of any other person. A person's dignity comes from the fact that he or she is human, not that someone else decides to grant that right at some point in time. Any human right begins when human life begins; otherwise, it isn't a human right, but rather some kind of benefit bestowed for another reason. Now if you can take the right to life from some humans, as abortion does to the children in the womb, then obviously you can take away from those same humans all their other human rights, because non of those other rights made such a claim upon your resect that you had to let those people live to possess it. This is why the leader of a billion plus Catholics had said: ...when the right to life is not protected, cries for other human rights are false and illusory. (John Paul II) When one is wrong on abortion, one cannot be right on anything else. William Sharp Castle Dale Honoring Heroes Dear Editor, Recently on the front page of the Emery County Progress was a picture of one of our local boys who is giving his all. Nic Hunsaker, son of Jim and Ruth Hunsaker of Castle Dale, was home for a two week leave before returning to Iraq. Nic graduated from Emery High School in May 2003. He joined the National Guard his junior year and completed his basic training that summer. After gradation, he completed his specialized training and w'as then deployed in December of 2003. Nic was sent to Iraq for active duty on Feb. 4 of this year. His MOS is a Heavy Equipment Mechanic, but he also serves on Convoy Security. Nic turned 20 while he was home on his leave. His little sister, Dana, 19 years old is also in the national guard. Our Ferron Peach Days theme this year was honoring our Everyday Heros. We heard about Nic being home for a short two weeks from a mutual friend. We asked Nic to ride on our float so we could honor him and his service to our country. Nic was willing. I had never met Nic until the day of the parade. We all felt so honored to ride on a float with him. The Emery County citizens honored him too. Tears came to my eyes as people stood to applaud Nic, yell thank you to him, or stood and saluted our soldier. Later when talking to one of Nics former baseball coaches, he described Nic as One you could count on to give his all. That same character trait is seen today as Nic continues to give his all for our country and for us. We appreciate you Nic for your service. Our prayers are with you. Tammy Lacock the things the city was requiring him to do to pursue this change. This citizen was very disappointed and frustrated after almost five months of following all the recommendations and getting the petition they requested. One voice may easily be dismissed. Can so many citizens voices go unheard? Do we as citizens have the right to the scheduled time given us even through our views might not be what our mayor wants to hear? Are we allowed to speak without rude interrup- tions and orders to sit our butt down? The citizen demanded that he have the right to speak for his remaining time while orders from the mayor contin-- ! ued. The mayor then threatened to call the sheriff and have the citizen re-- ; moved. Though the citizen was very upset about the treatment he was re- ceiving and persisted to argue his case, he was not demonstrating behavior that would merit the threat of having the sheriff called. This citizen had earned the right to be heard by this city council and he had the right to disapprove of the way the city government was treating his situation. Citizens who signed the petition need to attend the next city council meeting and get on the agenda if they want to speak. Our previous mayor spoke at the last Ferron Concerned Citizens speak out Dear Editor, As concerned citizens of Orangeville, we have seen a need to become more involved in our city government and advocate for changes in policies and regulations that unreasonably limit the uses of our properties. We are also concerned that policies and regulations are manipulated to this same end. Our city ordinances should be written and interpreted to allow us the maximum use and benefit hum our property, not limit our use. Our zoning administrator has admitted on numerous occasions that, Our policies are more restrictive than Salt Lake Citys policies. Several citizens have researched specific policies ranging from dogs to property issues and have found no other cities as restrictive as Orangeville. We have attended planningand zoning and city councils meeting the last few months. We are hearing that our city government is considering having a deputy attend our city council meetings. After' witnessing how the citizens are treated, we feel that this might be a gxxxl idea. As citizens of Orangeville we are considering making this request ourselves. We want our constitutional rights and freedoms of speech protected. We do not want to be interrupted or threatened with the sheriff if we are saying something the mayor does not want to hear. One citizen who attended planningand zoningvvas havingproblems gettingon file agenda Diis citizen had made this request the previous two months and was not put on the agenda This same citizen, whose had been project had been told to go to planning and zoning at the request of the zoningadministrator. At the Mowingplanningand zoningmeetingthe zoningadministrator advised file commission that tliis citizen needed a letter. The administrator explained that because the citizen was in violation, he could no longer come to the planningand zoningcommis-sio- n but would be required to go to the board of adjustments. The letter would also In- foim the citizen that he could appeal this decision within 30 days. This citizen was beingdenied a chance to be heard by either of the boards mentioned above in the decision makingprocess. This citizen had been threatened with a fine based on a policy that has not yet received the approval of the city council or the zoning commission. Diis citizen had requested a copy of the axle he was violatingand has not been able to get a copy. This citizen with the support ofothers has attended city meetings to advocate for himself. This prompted Orangeville City to check into the situation while at a trainingwith the league of Cities and Towns. It appears that the citizen will be able to keep his porch. Other citizens who are being taken to court by Orangeville City have experienced simil;u difficulties. While waitingto receive a decision from the zoning commission, they w ere asked to attend the board of adjustments meeting. Die citizens had not received information they had requested or any feedback from the commission. Without being able to attend the board of adjustments, or being given a chance to appeal they were threatened with court. They are hoping a hearing or other resolution comes hi the near future'. There is a citizen who is advocating for the two feet on the property owners side of the sidewalk to be deeded back red-tagg- ed to the property owners. This citizen was instructed to have a petition signed to work towards this change. Almost 400 citizens of Orangeville have signed this petition. At the last planning and zoning commission there was some discussion about the recommendation that would be made to the city council. Although many signed the petition, the recommendations the commission wanted to make to the council would require property owners to request the two feet individually. There was also discussion among a couple of the members of the commission on who would be able to attend the city council meeting where the citizen advised them he would follow up on his petition. Why was this person advised to get a petition going if the changes that were being proposed were till going to be on an individual basis? There was little discussion on this decision at this meeting. Almost 400 citizens signed this petition and have to pursue this change individually. Why didnt they address his concern as an individual in the first place? At city council meeting, there wras no one from planning and zoning in attendance and the mayor advised him that they had not received a recommendation and it would have to wait until October. This comment was made with no apology or regard to the time and effort that this citizen ha put into " city council meeting against the petition claiming'that the old timers were not the ones signingit. He advised the newcomers, If they did not like it here, to go back where they came from. There were at least seven fairly new' citizens attendingthis meeting. Are the new citizens, with different ideas and needs, not welcome in Orangeville? Another citizen in Orangeville was told they had to move a carport to meet zoning regulations and was given information that contradicted eveiything the building inspector had said. This citizen was told her caiport was an accessoiy building and it had to be moved to meet the 40 fx)t setback requirement. In a recent planningand zoning meeting the zoning administrator reported that tliis citizen had been denied a buiklingpermit due to several issues with the building inspector. Several citizens at tliis meeting were surprised to hear this incorrect information. Citizens contacted the building inspector who was going to come to a city council meeting to clear things up. The building inspector was on the agenda, but didnot attend at fiiemayors 1 request. "Several citizens were at this meet-- ; ing to communicate with the building in- spector with concerns over this and other issues. Citizens of Orangeville are concerned about our ability to advocate for ourselves and bringany concerns' we have before the mayor, city council, planning and zoning, or board of adjustments. Diere are strict limits on our ability to talk or have any open discussion at any of our city meet- ings. We have just recently been allowed in city council to make a comment without being on the agenda. We are allowed five minutes, and we can comment, but not be given a response. This limits our ability as citizens to even ask questions. If we are not on the agenda we are not allowed to make any comments or ask questions. As citizens become more involved, die restrictions tue inereasingto the point that we me going to have to write letters to communicate. We have only been actively involved in attendingeity meetings for a few months. In tliis time, we have demonstrated respect mid courtesy. We feel we have no voice. Many citizens in Orangeville feel we are not respected by our city government. We are not beingtreated with fairness, decency mid respect. Our city government has been elected by the citizens and should repre-- ; sent the citizens. As citizens of Orangeville, we want to have our individual issues heard. We want to be given requested information when we ask for it. We want access to public records in a timely manner. We want all of file people in Orangeville to lie accepted as citizens of Orangeville even if we are new. We feel there is discrimination with the interpretation ofordinancesandcodesdependingonwho the individual is. We want to be individuals, not just policies and codes. We want vari-mices and special exceptions. We would like to be able to communicate with our buildinginspector so requirements and in-formation are not kept from us. - Because we are beroming involved mid advocating for others and showing an in- terest in making positive changes in our city, we are being viewed as trouble makers by city officials. There me issues that we me bringing to their attention, but we me not the antecedent to problems in Orangeville, weare just the result Wewould like to encourage citizens to become in- volved with city issues by attendingmeet- ings mid requesting to iew tl ic public min- utes mid other records that should be available to us. Many, many citizens in Orangeville have voiced concerns about Orangeville City codes or government. We would encourage everyone to attend your city council and other meetings to advo- cate for positive change. Jason Branson, Trina Branson, Carl Labbee, Susan Labbee, Claudia Kenney and Mike Kenney. Orangeville ,, ( f ( ' ! ! ; ' ' ; ; ! ! ; ; ; . ! ; ' : ' ; ; ' |