| OCR Text |
Show www.dailyutahchronicle.com 5 OPINION Monday, February 1, 2010 Wolf extermination a misguided waste of time en. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, fed himself to the wolves Tuesday when he proposed Senate Bill 36—a bill that would not only allow, but also mandate the Senior, Mass Communication killing of all wolves in Utah. Beyond how we love nature, so what overstating the threat of better way to prove that fact wolf-related violence in this than attacking a vulnerable state—which I absolutely beanimal population? lieve we should address right Wolves are an integral after we solve the growing part of the ecosystem, Yelproblem of tiger shark attacks lowstone is ecological proof, and I certainly don't think in the Great Salt Lake—maybe Christensen forgot that that wolves deserve to be wolves are endangered. They killed or captured. I am a are protected by the Fedwristband-wearing member eral Endangered Species Act of the American Society for everywhere, save one small the Prevention of Cruelty to pocket of an environmentally Animals, and I feel that supcomatose area in northeastporting this inane bill would ern Utah. go against my credo in 35 According to an article in or more different ways. But the Park Record, a spokesabove any other reason, who man for Sportsmen for Fish & in the Senate has any sort of Wildlife said there are about time to address a bill that has 1,700 wolves in the western nearly no impact on anyone's life? United States, an enormous spike since the government Sen. Groucho Marx reintroduced 66 wolves to neglected to realize that the western wilderness in there hasn't been a reported the mid-r99os, and Chrisincident involving wolves tensen doesn't want anything since 2002, and that was only to do with them. In fact, he a poor wolf, with an anklet to has been quoted as saying track its whereabouts, caught just how incompatible our in a coyote trap. We should lifestyles are in comparison push for a Martian Registrawith wolves—a bold statetion Act next year to keep in ment, I know—especially the spirit of things. This is when wolves are an entirely about as unnecessary as the undomesticated population iPad. that has had nearly zero inSo why would Christensen teraction with Utahns in the waste his time on a bill that past decade. affects no one but poor, The one thing Utah needs unsuspecting, GPS-addled is one more ultra-conservawolves? Who knows, save the tive bill. We always talk about senator himself? Although, WILLUS BRANHAM/The Daily Utah Chronicle I suspect that a wolf might have frightened him as a child. That is just speculation of course, but it's about as founded a speculation as Christensen's plan for wolves. In a time where we have seen a spike in unemployment rates, an overseas war, government bailouts and legitimate crime, it is about as refreshing as a shot of cheap vodka to know that we have Effort for ethics reform needs grassroots strength F aced with the real threat of several citizen initiatives concerning legislative ethics reform likely making it to a vote in November, it comes as no surprise that the top priority of the Utah Legislature is to pass its own set of bills regulating legislators' ethical responsibilities. Although budget deficits, taxes and health care issues are dominant, Republican House Speaker Dave Clark's opening remarks zeroed in on the immediate need for ethics reform. It seems a series of ethics bills, which are preapproved by the House of Representatives, will be introduced this legislative session as something Clark said would "ensure that our actions on behalf of the public are above reproach." But the Legislature just now announcing its plan to enact ethical legislation as a Constitutional Amendment sounds a bit unethical, especially since ethics reform has been an ongoing request of the citizens of Utah for years. Requests that were previously easy to ignore are now imperative to a legislative body facing the unacceptable possibility of having to comply with laws created directly by the people. Unfortunately, this sudden enlightenment serves as proof for the theory that citizen initiatives act as a force to propel lawmakers to listen to their constituents. Utahns for Ethical Government is a bipartisan group trying to gather 95,000 signatures by April 15 for an initiative calling for the creation of a legislative code of conduct and an independent ethics commission. Apparently, the Legislature now agrees there needs to be ethical reform, but it wants to decide what and how much is appropriate, and it wants to beat the citizen initiatives to the punch. The Senate Joint Resolution 3 was finally posted Thursday for public view. The resolution calls for the establishment of an independent commission and defines the organization, structure, responsibilities and power of the commission. Although the bill meekly concedes the fact that an independent commission is necessary, it seems as though lawmakers are still not listening. Several legislators' code-of-conduct requests made by the citizen initiative are missing or drastically different from S.J.R. 3. UEG's citizen initiative calls for a complete ban on gifts from lobbyists. This will act as a guarantee that our elected officials are listening equally to all sides of an issue, ALICIA WILLIAMS Senior, English and Mass Communication which they are paid to do. The initiative also calls for a complete ban on legislators' and candidates' ability to appropriate campaign funds for their personal use. This means lawmakers must rely on their public paid income just like other public employees. It also bans legislators from becoming paid lobbyists for at least two years after leaving office, limits campaign contributions to $2,500 per person or $5,000 per political action committee and bans the giving of campaign funds to other candidates. The citizen initiative does have some questionable provisions. Mainly, the sponsors have set themselves up as the alternative vote for the commission member candidates if the legislation leadership does not unanimously agree. Kim Burningham, chairman of UEG, said this provision should act as a promoter to compel the leaders to work together in choosing 20 individuals from which five would be drawn. "We hope it will never be used," Burningham said. "It's intended to never be used. What if the leadership refuses to do it? Well then, we entered a backup procedure." But even with this unusual term, UEG's initiative is packed with code-of-conduct requirements that are popular with Utah citizens. Burningham said UEG has a lot of questions, especially with the legislation's new revelation of a constitutional amendment, which he said doesn't seem to be justified. Rather, he said, it's like the Legislature is doing it for the appearance of doing something great, but if what it is doing only implements a weak commission form, it's all show without substance. If the Legislature truly wants to assure the public of its stellar conduct, it needs to address all of our concerns. Instead, the legislators have predictably chosen to only address the issues that don't hurt them where it counts: their pocketbook. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu a senator who is focused on the Sasquatch equivalent of Utah, literally the one animal—save a rhino population surge—we shouldn't focus on. And if wolves do make it back into Utah, a region they inhabited far earlier than us, who is to say they shouldn't be allowed to live peacefully? letters@ chronicle.utah.edu S.B. 35 - Wolf Management Chief Sponsor: Sen. Allen M. Christensen, R-North Ogden Description: Requires the Division of Wildlife Resources to capture or kill any wolf found in the state. Source: Utah Legislature, www.le.utah.gov Limits endanger free speech ASUU campaign rules ignore constitutional rights I t's hard not to be astonished at the contempt for speech in this country and our university. The recent passage of the Associated Students of the University of Utah's rule to decrease the amount of money student body candidates may spend on their campaigns and student voices supporting it, opposed to the now two-week-old Supreme Court case striking down a similar law, in Citizens United v. FEC, couldn't have been more indicative of how reversed our university is. If we care for the sanctity of vocalizing our opinions about our lives or the student body government's composition, we ought to oppose ASUU's recent usurpation of rights and support a more consistent vision of speech. The case is summed up in the dictum: To disseminate political speech is to spend money, and therefore to restrict money is to restrict the dissemination of speech. It costs money to buy posters, print shirts, place stickers, prepare hot dogs and pass out fliers. All of these are methods of getting the ears of voters within listening range of the candidate. Why are people alarmed by the prospect of candidates being able to attract voters to their side? About the time I wrote on this issue some months ago, ASUU President Tayler Clough described his contempt for candidates' strategies to attract ears by describing them as "bells and whistles." He told reporters that he doesn't want campaigns to be about hot dogs. He said spending limitations push candidates to limit the dogs and force them to talk issues. That's an interesting idea, aside from the question of whether limiting money will inform candidates of their own talking points, an egregious logical fallacy. What would it be like to see a boxing match where the two opponents swing at the reigning champ's discretion? "No, no, no...time out ref," the holder of the belt would say. Looking at one of the contenders, he would add, "Slam him in the gut, not the jaw." Then, turning to the other opponent, he would say, "Now you need to duck while he does what I just told him to do. He's gonna go for your gut... fight!" If you think this is absurd, you understand what it means to ask political candidates to speak at current leadership's discretion, in the way they want them to speak. Other opponents add to this mess. They say that the high cost of campaigning ultimately discourages less-affluent students from entering the race. This impedes the t111 ) ZACK 17 0 First-year Medical Student diversity and quality of parties. Limiting unnecessary spending would level the economic playing field. In a supposedly post-classist Utah, within a post-classist country, it's hard to believe that our media are giving us reasons to suppress the voice of a special group of people for reasons they can't elaborate. What is it about affluent candidates that we are so afraid of? Placing on auction the rights of a few for the benefit of a theoretical group of people no one can identify is outrageous. Assuming that the affluent have special abilities or means that others don't possess says more about those making that statement than anything about the affluent. Furthermore, if these authors care to characterize, at least with something longer than one paragraph, with fewer presumptions as to what unnecessary spending truly is, that might be a conversation worth having. In the above Supreme Court decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "the government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing and respect for the speaker's voice. The government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each." ASUU and others within our university should show more foresight. Limiting the timing and content of speech, especially about the composition of organizations whose main purpose is to decide part of our fate, is ironic at least and violating our most fundamental rights and the purpose of universities: to learn by speech. I hope the above will learn from their misdeeds and abolish this heinous violation. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu |
