OCR Text |
Show 4 Wednesday, March 4,2009 OPINION www.dailyutahchronicle.com THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW ...NOW LET'S ASUU primary elections: It's time for a Revolution epresenting a demographic as broad as the U student ody is a difficult enter- $>prise. *v The U needs straightforward •^student leaders who can improve the experience of all students, independently advocate student ^interests and—most importantly— i^set practical goals. Feasibility is a ifmessage we can respond to. That I'is why The Chronicle's editorial Aboard encourages students to vote |ffor the Revolution Parry. 0 Instead of tossing out positive 1^buzzwords and grandiose objec^tives, Revolution Party president •$&nd vice president candidates Tayl o r Clough and Rachel Rizzo have i'lstraight—even candid—answers ;^and authentic explanations as to - how their goals can be accomplished. }$ Financially, Clough and Rizzo \ -pledge to examine all student fees. £Many fees were created years • ^before anyone now attending the &U arrived. In the event that a fee is Adeemed unnecessary, they would ^advocate for its elimination. The , iparty is determined to give stu^;dents a greater voice in how their ^fees are spent. Even more telling is hJthe Revolution Party's plan to cut, S?some ASUU stipends and combine /:ine£fecient ASUU boards. The 'savings would be forwarded to student groups and others. f$ On top of trimmingfinancialfat, the Revolution Party plans to post „ updated ASUU spending records •. online and keep them available to the average student. Instead of , offering transparency on paper "'alone, Clough and Rizzo insist on r ( .their personal investment to keepj^ing ASUU accessible to students. *i Other impressive platform points are their proposal to create a University Service Core and a community mentoring program. " In orcler to avoid competition with the Bennion Community Service ^fainter, the proposed service no tan core would be a collaboration of U programs and groups, instead of an independent entity. Mean• while, the community mentoring program would give students an " opportunity to help students in middle and high school prepare for higher education. The program would also include a financial planning aspect to help students pay for their college tuition. Some of their most simple plans are also their best, such • .;> as saving energy by relocating • , summer classes to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Designcertified buildings, a designation reserved for the most environmentally friendly buidlings. Clough's suggestion to give students the ability to vote on what bands ASUU brings to campus might sound trivial, but it would make a huge difference to the average student. The party's concern about the small things that interest students beyond the circle of ASUU or student groups speaks volumes. Not only are their plans possible, but they've worked with U administrators to flesh out the details. All of these programs could reasonably be accomplished within the timeframe of a single year. ' , ;:, Our one reservation is that •-' :/ Clough and Rizzo must ensure ;: v. they remain independent. Although cooperation with U administration and others is essential, next year's student leaders need to be independent representatives of the students, not the administration. We trust Clough and Rizzo can be those kind of leaders. Beyond the level-headedness of their platform, we are impressed by Clough and Rizzo's genuiness. ASUU needs straightforward, candid leaders in order to be inclusive to all students. Both were unpolitical and honest in their meeting with our editorial board, and when they say they can make a positive difference on campus, we believe them. Should the Revolution Party carry the election, they should continue to emphasize this wel-;. ^ coming attitude. Being elected is ' Primary voting will take place Thursday and Friday online. To , place a vote, students must log • onto their Campus Information -1; System page. Election information will be posted on the main page. • ; • - ••'.:• ••'••::"' & ,•/•->l^^» letters@ chrbnicle.utah.edu 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 anindividual 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 represent those received will be printed in the newspaper. ^;:.;; .;.: see you WALK A STPAI6HT LINE/ IT TEXT AN PHIL CANNON/7/w Defy Utah Chronicle Legislature should pass H.B. 95 Driving with cells too dangerous to be legal S ometimes I'm sitting in class and the beer in my backpack is just calling to me. I can hear it calling me a couple times throughout class, and most times I cannot even wait until I leave the room to pull it out and respond. I'll walk to my car, paying little attention to anything but the beer in my hand. Frequently, I'llfinishthe beer by the time I get to my car and another one is already calling me. Hell, if I have to back out with it in my hand I will, because that beer at that moment is all that matters to me. What's wrong with this? If I can't do this with a beer, then why can I do it with a cell phone? It's perfectly legal to operate a motor vehicle in Utah while talking on a cell phone—and why shouldn't it be? 'Frank Drews, a psychology professor at the U, led a study late last year that answers that question. In his report, which appears in the December issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, he explained his findings that talking on a cell phone and driving is just as dangerous as drunken driving and much more distracting than talking to a passenger. Other studies conducted by Drews have found that driving while talking on a cell phone is comparable to driving with a .08 blood-alcohol level. In last year's study, 41 people were observed driving in a simulator while talking on a cell phone. They drifted in their lanes and frequently missed the freeway exit they were supposed to take in the simulator. This can be attributed to the fact that a driver's attention and focus is drawn away from driving when talking on a cell phone. "Hands-free (devices) aren't any safer," said psychology professor •'•.^•":'r•;'•";••-•••••"•: H . B . 9 5 - R e s t r i c t i o n s o n U s e o f Wireless Communication Devices in Vehicles Sponsor: Phil Riesen-D Salt Lake City , General Description: The bill would make it a class C misdemeanor to use a wireless communication device in any way on Utah highways. The only exceptions would be if the driver is in an emergency, is reporting a safety hazard or criminal activity or requesting assistance in the case of a safety hazard or criminal activity. Status: <r, .,„,,,, Being read for the second time by the House Rules Committee, after being amended and receiving a recommendation from the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee. Source: Utah Legislature, www.lejtate.ut.us JONATHAN DEESING David Strayer, Drews' co-author of the study. House Rep. Phil Riesen, D-Salt Lake City, has sponsored a bill to alleviate this potentially hazardous problem. House Bill 95 proposes to make any use of a cell phone while driving, whether or not it's a handsfree device, a class C misdemeanor. "I think it's a good bill," Strayer said. "Riesen did a remarkably good job at reading the science behind the issue." Hands-free devices are not a safe alternative. Texting while not looking at the phone is not a safe alternative and any cell phone usage while driving is a distraction and is dangerous. This is why H.B. 95 needs to pass. It has garnered a lot of support in the Legislature and Strayer, who visited the Legislature to testify in support of the bill, was unable to do so because of the large number of citizens testifying their support. "(This) bill is supported by the studies," Strayer said. "It's the right law." People need to ask themselves, "Is this call more important than my life?" If it isn't, then put that "beer" down and drive. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu Government has the right to reject monuments T he decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, et. al. v. Summum confirms the right of local governments to accept monuments from private donors for display in public places without incurring an obligation to display all such monuments. This is good news for all those who do not want to see the American Freedom of Religion devolve into a Europeanstyle "freedom from religion." It likewise affirms the proposition that governments do not have to erect the monuments of every group that wants to donate them. The case involved an attempt by the Salt Lake City-based religious organization Summum to erect a monument inscribed with its Seven Aphorisms in Pleasant Grove's Pioneer Park. Summum wanted its display placed next to a Ten Commandments monument. When the City refused its request, the group brought suit in Federal District Court. After failing there, it appealed the matter to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the city had to "erect the monument immediately." The city appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, which announced its decision Thursday. The Ten Commandments monument was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971. The Ten Commandments definitely have a religious significance, but they are nondenominational, being sacred to several large religions. They have also played an important role in both the history and culture of STEVEN WARRICK our state and nation. Finally, as the embodiment of right and wrong in our civilization, they are the foundation upon which our law is built. Moses and the Ten Commandments are depicted in a mural in the Park Building that dates from when the U's College of Law was housed in that building. Summum is a small spiritual group that was started in 1975 by Claude "Corky" Nowell, who later changed his name to Summum Bonum Amen Ra. Its beliefs are a mixture of Gnostic Christianity, Egyptian mummification rituals and the teachings of Amen Ra. The Seven Aphorisms embody Summum's teachings. Leaving aside the question of validity, the Seven Aphorisms haven't had the impact that the 3,500-year-old commandments have had, nor are they recognized by anyone but a smalL group of people. Justice Samuel Alito reasoned that the right to erect a-permanent monument on public property belonged to the government rather than individual speech. "A government entity has the right to speak for itself.-.and to select the views that it wants to express," he said, Alito dismissed any objection that Summum's free speech rights are infringed by the city's refusal to display their monument. "(The) city has made no effort to abridge the traditional free speech rights—the right to speak, distribute leaflets, etc.—that may be exercised by respondent and others in Pioneer Park," he said. Justice Antonin Scalia addresses the question of whether there is a violation of the Establishment Clause: "In Van Orden v. Perry, this Court upheld against Establishment Clause challenge a virtually identical Ten Commandments monument, donated by the very same organization (the Fraternal Order of Eagles), which was displayed on the grounds surrounding the Texas State Capitol. Nothing in.that decision suggested that the outcome turned on a finding that the monument was only private speech. To the contrary, all the Justices agreed that government speech was at issue, but the Establishment Clause argument was nonetheless rejected. For the plurality, that was because the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning in addition to their religious significance." Governments should have the right to honor the history and heritage of their people and communities without having to accept every monument offered to them. Public places should neither be devoid of governmental expression nor so cluttered with the monuments of every group that wants a display that they look like graveyards. letters@chronicle.utah.edu ie Seven Aphorisms of Swinmum e Principle of Psychokinesis - Summum is mind; the universe is a mental creation. '[ II. The Principle of Correspondence - As above^. below; as below, so above. 311. The Principle of Vibration - Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates. FV. The Principle of Opposition - Everything is duai; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled. V. The Principle of Rhythm - Everything flows out .$g and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates. VI. The Principle of Cause and Effect - Every cause 1 has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny. VII. The Principle of Gender - Gender is in eyejjS ) thing; everything has its masculine and feminine .principles; Gender manifests on all levels. -5|-*'\ •V.\. " " ' 1 * '-.- ' ' • ' . : , ' Source: Summum, www.summuin.us/siimnium.shtml |