OCR Text |
Show ™ SUMMER UTAH CHRONICLE C> PINION www.dailyutahchronicle.com Page 5 Wednesday, June 8, 2005 Using your UCard pays Editor: In response to the June 6 article, "Bookstore to charge higher credit card fees," there are still a number of things that can be said. Being a student, I can certainly see how many are angry over the seemingly overpriced textbooks. While it seems textbook prices, as well as those for paraphernalia or anything else at the bookstore, are constantly high, there are options other than Beat the Bookstore or an online merchant. Most are unaware of, or have not yet embraced, the 5 percent discount that's available to all those that use their UCard for transactions at the bookstore. Many make the bookstore out to be a monster corporation out to get the student, but this is hardly the case. The discount saved students more than $20,000 last year, an amount that would have gone to the bookstore. The UCard is a simple option that is easily accessible and free to students. There are numerous deposit machines scattered around campus, as well as the UCard office located by the front desk at the Union. As of July 1, an online depositing option will be made available on the Web site, www.ucard.utah.edu. The site is being designed to be user and student friendly. EricHu Junior, Biology ASUU Director of UCard Students should think for themselves Editor: In response to L.J. Lither's column about theology and science ("On the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle," June 6), I would say, you're right— evolution does exist, and, ironically enough, science is also a product of that evolution. If you could prove that science was infallible and had proven to be watertight in theory and practice, then I would say you have a case. Science has been wrong on many occasions—and not just hundreds of years ago with belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Science continues to evolve as we discover new things about nutrition, the structure of cells and the makeup of an atom. I don't think anyone would say that our scientific knowledge is complete or perfect, no matter how many tests you run. To use science as the standard of perfection with which to judge everything else, sets you up for failure. If logic is your end, then intelligent design seems to be the most rational plan. When you come across a building, you may not know who the architect is—but you cannot doubt that it was made under a specific design with purpose. This seems a more intelligent theory to teach than to assume that rocks and bricks coincidentally collided without purpose, and somehow over time created a sound structure with shape and purpose. Lither also implies that science is the only subject so ill-treated in the education system. If you examine textbooks around the country, you will find certain subjects glossed over or removed completely. Many of our present history books are a perfect example of this phenomenon—with Japanese-American concentration camps conveniently excluded from accounts of World War II. We should teach a subject the best we can, according to the most right and logical manner and allow students to test theories for themselves—to believe what they want and to discard theories that may not fit into their personal belief system. Surely you've not agreed with everything you've ever been taught—but does that have to be someone's fault? In the end, we must test each new theory for ourselves. If we continue to hold to beliefs because they were once "proven" to be true, we may get in the way of our own advancement. Rachael Hughes Senior, Social Work Professors need to exercise imagination Editor: I am an architect by training, but am currently an MBA student. I wanted to bring to your attention an incident in one of my classes. In a marketing class last semester, our assignment was to design new products for an established bank. The professor told us that we were to be "original, creative and bold"— making use of new technology to come up with an idea, no matter how impossibly advanced the product may seem. My proposal was exactly what a recent article in Business Week highlighted. It was banking-on-the-go, with • which you can make payments through your cell phone for purchases at regular places like groceries, malls and discount stores. Transaction through the instrument is easy and quick, and it eliminates the need for a debit or credit card. The phone would also have a calendar with reminders of when certain payments are due. My presentation was mercilessly trashed and my paper returned with the comment, "Seems to complicate rather than simplify my Hfe.-.now I have to haul around a cell phone rather than just a debit card." Who would not want to carry a sophisticated state-ofthe art PDA—a compact and comprehensive instrument that does everything for you? Everyone has a cell phone nowadays, so where does the question of ''hauling" an extra item even come in? With my proposal, I did away with credit cards, additional transaction costs, identity theft— and I made the device a gift from the bank! The second argument my professor made was "No store would invest in a 'receiving device' that would enable such a transaction." My question was: Is this - what skeptics asked when. credit/debit cards were introduced? I got no answers and was terribly disappointed when mine was the only proposal to receive a score of one out of 10. It was unreasonable for an idea that was feasible—in fact, that is currently being marketed in other parts of the world—to be dismissed without fair trial. Sahana Southekal First-Year Graduate Student, Business Administration Neighbors need to meet greeks halfway Editor: I am writing in response to Beverly Nelson's letter, "Greeks are a menace, Chronicle doesn't care" June 3. Nelson attacks the greek system saying that it does not resemble an honorable society. Many people, such as Nelson, choose not to look at the different fraternities and sororities and what they stand for. Each has values they try to emulate and stand by. Nelson also complains about students parking on residential streets. While someone parking in front of her driveway is wrong and incredibly inconsiderate, making hundreds of students park in university parking lots is not fair either. There are two university parking lots that are close to Greek Row and both are used by greek members. These lots, however, do not have enough spots for all the greeks going to Monday night meeting. If greeks, particularly the sorority members, are forced to park in distant U parking lots and walk back to their cars after dark, the U and Greek Row will face rising numbers of rape cases and other related problems. Sending roughly 400 girls across a poorly lit campus with few security posts is just a bad idea. It appears that in the past there have been some incidents where a few greek members have been inconsiderate, but is it fair to judge more than 600 people on the acts of a few? It is not. And it is not fair to endanger the safety of hundreds over a parking issue. There are ways to work this out, and the greek community is more than willing to work with neighbors who have complaints—but when will these neighbors be willing to work with us? Cara Winegar Sophomore, Political Science Alpha Chi Omega THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW Damn the man, save the record store say you want a revolution/ Well, you know we all want to change the world." Unsurprisingly, it was The Beatles who perhaps most appropriately identified the link between the universal appeal of revolution and music's unrivaled potential for cultural change. Revolution and rock, rock and revolution—it'shard to imagine one without the _ other. But what happens when a revolution looks to threaten the music? Do the two still make for good bedfellows when the success of one may mean the downfall— or essential mutation—of the fundamental nature of the other? Such questions are especially compelling in the post-millennium music world, where the digital revolution and the rise of the Internet have not only made access to all kinds of music only a mouse-click away, but also blurred the moral line between convenience and implied consent. Is the Internet only an innocent means of musical distribution, or is it also a subversive agent of its essential demise? For listeners who support artists, but loath their corporate backers, illicit Internet downloading is a moral no-brainer—since the majority of money spent on music never makes its way to the artists, why spend it? However, while seemingly noble, such logic fails to recognize the collateral damage of Internet music downloading (both legal and otherwise): The small-time independent record stores and the music lovers who own them. It's counterintuitive to the inherently, personal nature of music—in its true, unpolluted form, music is undeniably a means of individual expression—to fail to support local, grass-roots music purvey- ors. They are, after all, the last of a dying breed in a world so increasingly rife with stiff, impersonal and corporate music conglomerates. Be it rock and roll, hip hop, dance-pop, electronica, indie or any other perrhuta- • tion, the roots of all musical genres can be traced back to garages, basements, hole-in-the-wall clubs and independent . . record stores—those places where musicians concerned with making an authentic, unspoiled sound can always be found. This is now, and always has been, the . essence of music—made by people, for people, out of dissatisfaction with the oppressive mechanisms of the dominant status-quo. Music is an art form most acutely understood on the most personal of levels. Music has stirred rebellion, has caused upheaval and has always been the go-to medium for vocalizing social unrest. It follows that doing something harmful to the last visible symbol of music's inherent independence—the local record store—is to do something categorically anti-music. Whether it's intentional'or not, any action that threatens the theoretical sanctity of music is one contrary to the categorical nature of true music. While the Internet is an undeniably convenient, often legitimate, source for acquiring music, the fact remains that there are people out there who need your business more than iTunes, Napster or Limewire does. You may not be able to put your money right in the pocket of the artists you love, but at least you can still support the people who represent the essence of music. When faced with the moral dilemma of where to get your music-fix, why not think twice about what your actions symbolize, and ask yourself simply, "What would John, Paul, George and Ringo do?" 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, religion, creed, gender, appearance or sexual orientation will be edited or will not be published. Bookstore wants to save U money Editor: I would like to clarify a few misunderstandings in Alexandra Pape's June 6 article, "Bookstore to charge higher credit card fees." The bookstore does not charge a fee to any of its customers who make credit card purchases. The fee increase that we are concerned about pertains to the credit card fees that we, as a retailer, must pay to the credit card companies. The bookstore absorbs these credit card fees as a cost of doing business. We are also concerned about the high interest rates that credit card companies charge customers, and we want people to know that we have some options for them that may help them save money. • -> In fall of 2004, the bookstore launched a program that enables students to save 5 • percent on the majority of their bookstore • purchases, including both new and used • • textbooks, by using their UCards as prepaid debit cards. The bookstore is pleased to announce that this program will continue through the 20052006 school year. We are also researching other ways to save the students money on their textbooks, including a limited test of electronic textbooks for fall 2005. ''! EarlCIegg Director, University Bookstore Extreme Makeover: Soul Edition Society should focus less on looking good and more on finding real happiness A ll too often, only men are portrayed in the exciting roles on TV and movies. Women are typically portrayed as weak, overly emotional or merely sex objects. Recently, however, I stopped on an interesting TV show starring almost exclusively female characters. One would think that a program with a predominantly female cast would be a step in the right direction. The program in question, however, is "Extreme Makeover." Instead of portraying the power and dignity of women, this show and others like it degrade them to the status of chattel. I will admit that surgical shows are interesting. However, the messages that these shows send to society are devastating. On this show, doctors—mostly men—stick a tool inside a woman's stomach, melt the fat and suck it out in a process called liposuction. Next these doctors cut open the woman's breasts and insert sacks of saline. They then break her nose with a chisel in order to piece it back together in an entirely different shape. Then a dentist grinds down each tooth until they are little stubs, completely restructures the teeth formation and inserts porcelain veneers. "Extreme Makeover," "The Swan" and, my new personal favorite, "I Want a Famous Face", send the message that people cannot be accepted into society unless they look like a model or celebrity. The most difficult part about watching these shows is knowing Jay Richards that women voluntarily participate—and in some cases, pay for the surgeries themselves. What does it say about our society when people are volunteering for life-threatening surgery in order to feel better about themselves? Five percent of young women in the United States suffer from eating disorders. Do we really need to make this problem worse by pro- moting the idea that only surgically enhanced women are beautiful? Of course it's not only the TV show's fault. The fault lies with all companies, organizations and people that turn women into commodities rather than portraying them as human beings. Despite the shared blame, however, these TV shows do something that magazines and fashion designers don't. Shows such as "Extreme Makeover" imply that an actual physical or artificial transformation is needed in order for an individual to feel happy and important. Our society would be much better off if we could realize that there is no connection between happiness and physical appearance. Eating healthy and exercising can increase happiness and should be encouraged. Developing a low self-esteem because weight or appearance doesn't match up to some imagined ideal will never lead to real happiness. The worst aspect of shows lilte" ' "Extreme Makeover" is that they ; ; spread a false notion of happiness.; The show's Web site says, "This* season, expect more emotion, tears and joy as lifelong dreams and fairy^ tale fantasies come true." ' ' Happiness is not physical appear-1 anbe. Women are not commodities." As long as we continue to support shows like "Extreme Makeover,"' the commodification of women will persist. Instead of turning to a surgeon to find peace, society should try to find real and meaningful happiness. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |