| OCR Text |
Show 6 OPINION Monday, December 7, 2009 Students deserve non-pay • parking :', 4 www.dailyutahchronicle.com I Ta flNfl Ater6le. PAMMES 1-0 %Op& IZATAetaCOTTILI C. 0 Se c-3 v e t ~ti1 `rte az til l14.-4 0 GoekAti Go //4. t G, w-dvAtrookatt- lioucAlleA4 • a 4.7V!I JONATHAN sAhLt.us ,z/al /0? DEESING I WILLUS BRANHAM/The Daily Utah Chronicle Senior, International Studies used to have a V parking pass. It was glorious. I could park nearly everywhere but the lawn. But eventually, that era came to an end, and I had to buy a U pass. This is where the troubles started. Before I had even paid tuition or bought my books, I was already forking over too much cash for a parking pass. Then I had to deal with limited parking, a problem constantly exacerbated by construction. Every time I drive through a full parking lot, I look at that $125 piece of plastic hanging on my mirror and sigh. The U's most recent effort to limit parking is a bit too much. The A lot north of Presidents Circle has recently become a pay parking lot for patrons of Kingsbury Hall. This is not necessarily for night shows and performances. Often, this lot is closed during the day, inconveniencing many, including employees working in the Park Building. Apparently, Kingsbury Hall has taken precedence over employees and students at the U. I'm sure that many of you picked up on the fact that I have a U pass, and thus I couldn't have parked in the former A lot anyway. However, at 5 p.m., those with a U pass can park in A lots. For many who spend an inordinate amount of time here at the U, this is their only reprieve. Having to stay on campus for class or work is then somehow made easier. Anyone who has spent longer than a day at the U has fought the battle with parking. The ever-vigilant employees at Commuter Services hound students relentlessly with tickets and fines. The pay parking is far from easy to afford on a student's budget. Faculty and staff must pay $250 for their parking passes, and we even charge disabled people for the privilege of parking at our limited handicapped stalls. So when administrators at the U decided to eliminate parking spaces by creating de facto pay lots, it was completely unreasonable. I was initially pleased with the construction of this new lot, but it appears that even when new lots are built, the U is dedicated to inconveniencing staff and students. This is especially galling because an official pay lot exists only a few hundred feet away. I can appreciate the fact that we need Kingsbury Hall and its patrons. However, the U is in fact a university, and therefore, students and faculty must remain our most valuable asset. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu DeChristopher's defense a fallacy Other people committing crimes doesn't exonerate activist 0 ne of my friends is fond of saying: "Nobody is perfect. I am nobody, therefore I am perfect." If you understand why this statement is absurd, you are on the road to understanding what philosophers and rhetoricians call a logical fallacy. Fallacious statements are those that have no foundation in reality or contradict evidence. The U is the last place we should expect commissions of fallacy. Nevertheless, U students aren't immune to this problem, especially Tim DeChristopher, who, after being prosecuted by federal lawyers, is now committing in his defense an informal fallacy of the oddest kind. DeChristopher intended to do what he perceived as the common good: casting bids on Bureau of Land Management property to prevent competing oil company bidders from drilling. His intention was to prevent global warming. It was a defense that Judge Dee Benson wouldn't buy. I wrote previously on the precedent this would set: Acquittal on this defense would suggest that an individual's conception of "the common good," and not the law, can act as the final arbiter of justice. With this lesser-of-two-evils defense rightly abolished, DeChristopher now plans to submit another retort, this one entailing a logical ZACK OAKEY First-year Medical Student fallacy most of us learned to avoid in elementary school. It relies on the ancient "he-did-ittoo" legal theory. DeChristopher plans to suggest that because federal prosecutors didn't pursue past land bidders after they also were not able to pay for their winning bid, he is innocent. Realizing this direct injury to logic, DeChristopher's lawyers are adding the suggestion that federal prosecutors who made these mistakes cannot be trusted and must be to blame for their selective prosecution. If DeChristopher's council can present evidence to that effect, the public ought to be thankful for its charity work and utilize these new revelations in preventing federal government corruption. I am happy to see their diligence. In fact, if they can show a judge that this is true, federal prosecutors should be removed from their posts for incompetence. Assistant U.S. attorney John Huber said, "There's people who didn't have the money, but they didn't have the intent to disrupt (the auction)." What this says about DeChristopher's personal confrontation with the law is unclear. I can largely agree with the final analysis. I'm not Benson. That, again, is not the point, nor should it ever be the point when a suspected criminal admits his guilt, as DeChristopher has. If A occurs in correlation with B, A does not necessarily cause B. In other words, if prosecutors are horrible at their job and ruinous in prosecuting the law, this fact in no way says that DeChristopher didn't commit a crime. The one does not cause the other. I'm not advocating the maximum sentence, nor am I suggesting that DeChristopher deserves only a wrist slap. Whatever the judge or jury decide, this much is clear: No matter how many crimes of whatever flavor are committed around him, DeChristopher committed a crime. Justice and protection against future criminals requires that no exemption be given to individuals who break clear statutes, especially when the infraction is premeditated. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu LETTER TO THE EDITOR Condom column inappropriate Editor: I enjoyed your special issue about the classic competition between Utah and BYU football. We strongly compete, but when either football team plays with another team, we cheer for the other (at least I do). This is just a reader's vote regarding Craig Blake's column in the issue, ("Sexual health victory is a reason to celebrate," Nov. 26). It surprised me to see such a subject in a public paper. I am not prudish, but I was offended by it and make a request that such material be eliminated in the future from your fine publication. I have children and grandchildren, whom I am seeking to raise with standards of behavior that will bring them joy and satisfaction. Don S. Robertson, Salt Lake City Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@chronicle.utah.edu . Letters should be fewer than 150 words and must include the writer's name. Letters from students should also include the writer's major and year in school. Letters from U faculty and staff should include department and title. Letters from alumni should include the year the writer graduated. All other letters must include the sender's name and city of residence. All letters become property of The Daily Utah Chronicle and may be edited for style, length and content. Inspire the campus with an incredible view of your own , 0 4 contact c.blake@chronicle.utah.edu for information about being an opinion columnist for The Daily Utah Chronicle. |
