OCR Text |
Show ASK ijow d.tx;v+ UUZAN -that M+v ~ Relationships cannot last without trust, honesty Dear uuzan, I have been together with my boyfriend for over a year now and I really like him. I could even say that I love hfm. The thing is, I don't t1·ust him. ee, two times during our relationship he has lied to me about ex-girlfriends and a couple of other times I have caught him lying. None of them were huge lies and I 'know he's never chectted on me, but I'm aluays suspicious if he's telling me the whole truth. It has always bothered me but it bothers me more now because he has been talking about man-iage a lot lately. I do love hitn though. Do you think that true love really conquers all? · incerely, uspicious Dear usp1c1ou , lf there is one thing that i absolutely necessary to mak a marriage or any relation hip \\-'Ork, i,t is tru t. If you can ' t cru t him, you have no foundation to even build a relation . hip. Tru. t is the key component in love and relation hips. If he really love you, there ·hould he no rcas n to lie. I think that you two an work thing out though . You need t o talk to him and he hone t , just like you wam him to he h nest with you. Tell him why you arc su. piciou. of him at times and c plain to him that if you can 't trust him, there is no way a future together could he po ihlc . If he i · really serious ahoi1t the whole marriage thing and not just telling another lie, he will be honest with you . If he' not willing to change, then no, I don 't think that true love reall conquers all. Dear Suuzan, 1·have a big dilemma that I don't think anyone can solve. I need a job. I've heard that onca mp us jobs are like impossible to get and I am having the hardest time finding a job anywhere else. I know there are maybe a Jew jobs available somewhere, but I don 't have a car. I need a job so I can get a car, but I need a car so I can gel to a job. It's like a no-win situation. My parents don't have the money 1"ight now to help me with a car. Do you have any bright ideas? incerely, Jobless Dear Johlc s, That is a hard one. All I can tell you i that where there' a will, there ' a way. The first thing you should do i go talk to the campu career services. They might know of . omc joh opening n ampu · or in che area, and ma he even kn w of . ome that are within walking distance of , here you live. If that doc n ' t work, sec if a friend or ncighh r that ha a car would mind taking you around to look for a joh. Once you find a joh, you might he ahlc to fir:id people that work the same shift as you that can give you a ride. Also, it will he a 'tot ca ier to aff rd a ar if you are already working. Good Luck. DIRECTING STAFF AND OF.SK PHONE NUMBERS: Editor Glenn Haherman SU-7750 As ociaie Edilor David Barratt 5 6-7759 Opinion Director Anru Turptn 586-7759 Photo Editor John Guertler 586-7750 Copy Emto, Russell Miller 5 6-7750 Focu Editor Kam, Egan 586-1992 /\ns Editor Brandon Bevan 865-8443 port Editor Chad Lamb 865-8443 Almanac Editor Anna Turpin 65-8226 Ad Manager Miranda Mabbutt S116-775S Ad De igncr )ansc:n Gunder.ion 586· 7758 facuhy Advi ers Larry Bak.er 586-77S1 Morris Brown 865-8556 EN10ll TAFF WRITIR AND REPORTERS' DESK 5811-7757, 586-.;488 The Umvt:.r!iill)' /uutnal b .rubl11h1..-J l.."YCt)I Munday and ThunJ.iy or the acaJcmic year hy and fur the studL'tlt hoJy of Southern Uuh Un1n.T11ty h rcc.ctvcs aJv1scmcrn from the un,vc..,suy's cummuniauon Jcrmmcnt 1nJ fmm ttk:. un1vcrshy .1.dmm1Smuon. Th1! v11,.-w1, .and ur1nwn.s cx.('H"cs.scd m the: /oumol arc thos\! of unhv•Jual writ~r aoJ du tun ncccsttnly rdlcct the vn..'W, or th.! tMUtut.ion, hcuhy, tu,ff m nu4k.'tlt hody 10 gcncr11I The. uru1gn..:d 11.."Uiu1r1:1l J1n..'Ctly 11hovt,.": 1s the or1num ul the Umv~r:m y Journal as a !tingle i:Rrity. Lca:tcr1 u1 th\: cJimr mu t. be 1,r.cd and mcluJc tl'k: name ind phone numhl.:t. Only the name will be pr1nu:J Names will om he wnhhCfd under any circumnanccs anJ thi! cd1wr reserve, cdu1ni rriv1Jcgc.1_ 4-"ttcrs must be 1ubmnu.:tl by .5 r.m Thu..rsd.lys for mcha:ion ln Munday cd1ti11ns-, ant.I by 'i r,.m. Mondays for Thursday t"dtuons. Grievmeu: Any rnd1vklu.a1 with a grtc.."nncc ap.anst tht.: Journal ,;;hnulJ Jmxt such problem first w the cdn01 U unn:.st1lwL-J. that grk.:nntc hnulJ th4.:n be Jirca.00 w the fa.c.uhy thc fournal StL'LYln~ Comm1mx, wluch "clmn:J by Dr Fram C Pearson. 5116-7'17 I. UIJivuuly Jounuu: 0/f,cc, rn SUU Technology llu,ldmg 01 l M"I " SUU Bux Y.'IK4. C..-J.r C1ty, Utah !14no EAX t.C.15JSJl6.S4H7. E-nu.,l •ddrcss: JOUrtUKkuu cdu PIUNTEO UN ~f.CYUJ'Jl ~Al'F.Jt PlF. 'E RF.CYCU! 1111. COPY LETTERS Stathis battles Lewis' remarks from web site TO THE EDIT R: Recent remark · made hy professor Tim Lewis regarding the current flap ahout computer and intcmet use policies al Sllll arc nolhing if not interc cing . Twenty-five page · on a weh site and seven d otcd to my comments, ram tlanercd. A few par.igraphs would have ufticed. Time does not allow a blow hy hlow confrontation here, hut three points warrant a brief re ponsc: his contention lhat after 1787 what Thoma Jeffcr on and other catlcd "inalicnahle " or " unalienable" right no longer exi red in American law; hi suggestion thal certain of these right ·, such as First Amendment righu , arc not above tate and local jurisdiction; and his contention that the Supreme Court ha never · ruled in up port of expansive freedom when con ·idcring '"freedom of speech." Mr. Lewis is certainly correct in the notion that in a community no righ1 can he unlimited . But that does not mean that after the creation of the Federal onstiturion " inalienable " rights somehow hccame " alienahlc." They did not. The Con · cicution of the Unit~d rate. not only recognizes the exi tence the existence of "inalienable " rights, hut it is clear that this do ument wa de igned to protect uch rights. The only way these rights can be limited i by " due process of the law," hut that in no way reduces the nature of these rights, t hey remain .... " unalicnahlc , " as they were the Cot111, "If there is a bedrock defined hy Jcffcr ·on in The principle unc.l ·rlying the First Declaration of Independence : Amendment, it is that the rights entitled hy the " Law· of government may not prohihit ature and of Nature' God." the expression of an idea simply State and local courts only hccau e society finds the idea itself offensive or disagrccahk. " rarely deal with the c issue in e they arc matters of Th opinion of the Coun, m thb national off deral law, and here case al nc, should demonstrate· we arc peaking of a ''sup rior without question what should law " according to the and should not he included in a " upremacy Clause" in Article state university's compuccr and VI of Lhe Con titulion . inLcrnct u ·c policy. It is not th<.: of particular ltimately, a ca. c involving province " freedom of pccch " would in tructor . the admini tration, appear in a Federal Coun, n t a sraff, state government, or the tatc or lo al ourt. According local community to interpret is acccptahlc or to Article I, "This on ·tilution what and the Law of the United ohjectionahlc in the matter of talcs which hall he made freedom of e prcssion, which, under the Authorit y of the Mr. Lewis fails to sec, is precisely Un ited State , shall he the the matter in qu · ·tion here. hould ·uu find itself in court upreme Law I the Land; and i sue, it would Law of any Stat to the Contrary over chi notwithstanding ." There arc eventually he a Feder.ii Court , . indeed rights which by their where it hould he assumed, it nature , and according to the would he vkwc<..I a a Fir. t Federal Constitution, are Amendment case and would, no beyond the interpretation of the douht he interpreted according · local community or the to previous Federal ca cs su h as governments of the individual Cohen v. California or Texas v. states, o it mu t he according Johnson. It may not cem fair, in , \• this in tancc , that local or co the definition of federali m. Finally, we come to the community tandards hould he question whether the upreme overturned hy the Federal Court has supported a !)road Government, hut the p omt is interpretation of ·'freedom of clear that hy definition a whole peech " (or expression). '(here arr.i.y of right referred to in 'Ilic arc, of course, a numher of casts Bill of Rights , some simply to choose from . Her two wilt alluded lo in Amendment IX , arc due: Cohen v. California 403 uunalicnahlc" rights, superior U. . 15, 91 . Ct 1780 (1971); rights, or if you prefer rights so vital to the cxi ten e of this and Texas. v. Johnson 491 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989). It is republic that limitation m~t be in "Texas v. Johnson that we find carefully and only rarely the celling comment by Mr considered. Justice William J. Brennan who G. Michael ·rarhis wrote in the majority opinion of l |