| OCR Text |
Show OPINION Page 5 Friday, February 9,2007 EDITORIAL Beech is wasting the Supreme Court's time A: more harshly for what they have done. The article regarding the Activate memo ("Beech reaches out '•>'•• Elections to fellow V Committee LlNDSEY student ruling to STNF body presi.; theASUU •-_ . dent can\. Supreme * ' didates"), ; Court is—at — published * its best—a in The Chronicle on Jan. 16, •C frivolous waste of ASUU was full of Beech patting iv resources. himself on the back for be^; The Elections Conuniting the good guy by sending % tee ruled Tuesday that, memos out regarding the ;-! by sending a parry memo transparency of his party. /J to The Chronicle, Beech' The only transparency =•' violated election rules. As here is the crystal-clear mopunishment, the Elections tive behind their m e m o Committee prohibited Beech and his running mate publicity. They got to look like the nice boys next door • Ryan Carrier from actively on the front page of a newscampaigning on the first paper thousands of voting day of dialogue week. * students read every day. If Associated Students of that isn't actively campaign• the University of Utah Suing for the betterment of a preme Court Justice Nicola party, what is? Saliendra said if someone . In addition to disregardthinks an Elections Coming the rules, they put the ;• mittee ruling is unjust, "it other candidates—whom is their right to have a full they claimed to care hearing." about—at a disadvantage. Yes, it is a right, but it No other party got to have shouldn't be used every an article about them time a candidate doesn't printed on the front page of like what the Elections The Chronicle. Committee has to say. During elections, the court Beech and Carrier deshould only be used in serve the little slap on the cases where the committee wrist that they got, but has delivered a punishment instead of sucking it up and too harsh for the given cirtaking it like decent people, cumstances. they are going to waste the resources of election offiA perfect example of cials who have better things • when to use the Supreme Court happened in the 2001 to do with their time. : As Special Prosecutor :•' 'student" "elections. Trie InnocttJ Zan Larsen so eloquently vati'oh Tarty was removed ; from the ballot by the Elec- said, "Ignorance of the election rules will not, in any • tions Committee for incorcircumstances, constitute a rectly listing the price of defense." donated ice cream on their expenditure records. This Beech and Carrier were punishment was obviously wrong for sending out the too harsh and was appealed memo and their supposed to the Supreme Court who ignorance will not save overturned the ruling. them. ; It is an abuse of the If anything, the Supreme ' court's purpose, however, to Court could, and should— convene for each and every given the circumstancesgive them a more harsh slap on the wrist. Beech punishment. • " feels that the committee decision constitutes censorBeech and Carrier should ship, and in taking the mattake a note from Larsen by - ter to the court he believes revoking the submission of the decision against him their case to the Supreme and Carrier will be overCpurt, and taking the punishment—which is right%-. ruled. fully theirs—like the good * But Beech and Carrier boys next door that they will be lucky if the court claim to be. doesn't punish them even ctivate Party presidential candidate .Cameron Beech's decision > i'.'• to appeal .: anASUU m § Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle "Editorial Board. Signed editorials, 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. All letters to the editor will now be published online at www.dailyutahchronicle.com. Letters that the editor deems best rep. resent those received will be printed in the newspaper as well as online. TVte gewus of ASUUfr +aCf*iCS: • » > D e a r S+uden-V; do you s u p p o r t a •d $ \ 0 increase »vi s+uden*-tees? continue y \'d o4es. +V\caV$\O-for insurance. ONo, V YiaVt < T A $10 you -for C +h'iS rSirn* m. JENNI ZALKIND/ The Daily Utah Chronicle Teenagers really aren't created equal At least according to House Bill 217 iscrimination. It's such an ugly word. Tempered by years of feel-good PC, there's very little room to dispute that "discrimination" has become one of the most emotionally charged words in the American vernacular. I'm a man who chooses his words deliberately, so it is with measured intent that I use the word now. On Wednesday, the Utah House of Representatives passed House Bill 217. Sponsored by Rep. Kory Holdaway, R-Taylorsville, the bill would make it a secondary traffic offense for anyone younger than 18 to talk or text message on a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. Though not a primary offense (meaning the police can't pull teens over for the cell phone infraction alone), the law would still discourage teens from using their phones while driving. That, my friends, is discrimination. There's an accepted, institutionalized bigotry toward young adults in our culture. Why not? They can't vote, they're certainly not organized enough to protest, and they're so focused on MTV, American Eagle and their PSPs that even if they wanted to protest they'd have no idea what to protest about. For lawmakers, it seems, teenagers are the one demographic they can still safely single out. Does anyone honestly believe the bill would have passed had it targeted lesbians or blacks instead of teens? D One will notice that there's no mention of teenagers in the study. In point of fact, some participants in the study reAARON ported that they had observed ZUNDEL other people driving dangerously while on the cell phone, but "rarely, if ever, thought that their own driving was impaired when they used the cell phone." At least one Utah lawmaker, One will notice, however, that Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, opposed the bill. He told the Deseret there have been studies claimMorning News, "We're becoming a ing that driving while talking on a cell phone has the same effect nanny state." on one's reaction time as driving But I disagree with Rep. Herwhile legally intoxicated. rod, too. Arrogant enough to believe It's not that teenagers should be allowed to drive while texting that only when a teenager is behind the wheel is a cell their friends about the "hot MILF in the corvette next to me." phone dangerous, lawmakers must assume that their age and . It's that nobody—be it a bratty wisdom negates the danger they teenager, a snotty soccer mom themselves present in the same or a self-important legislator— scenario. . should be allowed to talk on a cell phone while driving. DodgHerrod argues against HB 217 ing traffic at 70 mph on Utah's on the grounds that the bill is interstates is dangerous for attempting to save teenagers anyone, whether or not they're from themselves, and that the on a cell phone. state should not be legislating safety. He's wrong. The state In a nationally published 2003 should definitely legislate safety research study done here at the U, researchers found that talking when it is in the best interest of the general public—hence DUI on a cell phone while driving laws. "impaired driving performance, and this impairment became In its current form, HB 217 is more pronounced as traffic dendesigned not to protect teen- ; sity increased." agers from themselves, but to protect me from teenagers. In The study also found that its ideal form, however, HB 217 "Conversing on a cell phone impairs the recognition memory would be designed, like DUI laws, to protect me from teenagfor objects presented in the ers, Reps. Holdaway and Herrod driving scene...(and) that the cell phone conversation disrupts and those Diet-Coke-sucking performance by diverting atten- soccer moms. tion from the external environIetters(5) ment." chronicle.utah.edu Californians, not Mexicans, pose the real threat E ach year, thousands of Californians invade our sovereign state borders to steal our jobs, buy our property and corrupt our youth with their despicable alternative lifestyles. Here is what I have against these moral invaders and their wicked plot to take over the state: First, because they come from the land of bloated incomes, they expect to earn the same here as they did at home. And many of our employers (opportunists)— native Utahns, no less—grant them this desire. Unlike Latin American immigrants, who take the jobs we don't want, these immigrants steal the high-paying jobs Utahns desire most. But do these invaders stop there? No, they've also hatched a territorial expansion scheme to buy our property and annex Utah into their homeland. The Econo- mist recently reported that many new homes in the state aren't even intended for native Utahns. Rather, they are constructed—and priced—for cash-greedy Californians and their ostentatious lifestyles. Undocumented Latina/os are satisfied paying us rent to live here, but these intruders want it all for themselves. Yet perhaps the most worrisome trend is the degradation of our culture. Anyone who is familiar with this race knows of its suncrusted bodies, scandalous attire and idolatrous lifestyles. Mexican border-hoppers may speak a foreign language, but these new aggressors want to introduce the language of sin. What's more, most of them have come illegally. Although they like to say they're from "California," the name of their home is actually the "California Republic"—which, MATT HOMER of course, is different from a state. Take a look at their flag and you'll notice the true source of their conspiracy—a bear and a red star. Who else uses these symbols? Communists. Confronting such an attack will require considerable effort, but the solution is relatively simple. The first and obvious step is to build a wall and deport all Californians currently living in the state. The wall should be at least 30 feet tall and able to withstand a nuclear test from the Nevada desert. It should also contain heat- seeking sensors and a beefed-up border patrol. In order to deport those already here, we must first separate the Californians from everyone else. To accomplish this, I suggest we assemble a group of volunteer youth who will go doorto-door asking for identification. Those who cannot prove they aren't Californian will be required to wear a red star on their right breast. After identification is complete, we'll ask those with red stars to leave voluntarily. Those who choose not to leave will be taken to a relocation center until they can be transported across the border. Not only will this solution be relatively straightforward, but it will also boost our patriotic sense of identity. ,,•.-, , i-: . But these measures are just half of the solution. We also need to do more to discourage them from coming in the first place (in case some are tempted to sneak through). To accomplish this, we'll fine any employer caught employ^ ing an illegal Californian and we'll also make efforts in California to correct the problem. In particular, I suggest changing Utah's state tourism logo to "Life Defecated" and buying up as much Californian ad space as we can afford. This should give them plenty of reason to avoid setting foot in our state. These, of course,.are just a few initial steps and certainly . more will follow. Last, we need to make a quota : system that allows a few Californians to migrate each year. After all, a limited amount of immigra-•; tion is OK. We just want it done., 1 the legal way. After this we can : * sit back, reclaim our lost jobs and-' know that we've upheld the laws of the land and protected our culture. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |
