OCR Text |
Show • y • e H came into play when making my decision, I leaned toward skiing mostly because to me it is the classic "Utah way." But I've taken some time to look into snowboarding and have found a few compelling reasons why it might be worth a go this season. As stated earlier, snowboarding is said to be easier to master. This could be because, while snowplowing your way through the beginning stages of skiing, bad habits are often developed that may get you down the mountain, but eventually become difficult to overcome. In the case of snowboarding, it is nearly impossible to descend without extensive frustration in the beginning. There are few cop-outs like the skier's snowplow. However, this does mean snowboarders are forced to develop proper technique faster to push them over that notorious "beginner's hump" of frustrating blows to the wrists and tailbone with little distance covered. Safety, at least for me, is always a factor. And according to snowboarding website whitelines.com , snowboarding, while producing minor injuries more often, is 33 percent less likely to produce fatal injuries. Something else that always concerned me about skiing was the higher probability of knee injuries, which are difficult to recover from fully and affect day-to-day life more than a dislocated shoulder or a bruised tailbone from catching an edge on a snowboard. It may be hard to reach an agreement about the superiority of these two winter sports because of how different they really are. But maybe their differences are justification for pursuing both. Whether you ski or snowboard, why not take this Christmas break to step out of your comfort zone and carve the mountain from a new athletic perspective? letters@chronicle.utah.edu Prioritizing water privatization Because most of us have no problem accessing clean water whenever and wherever we choose, it may come as a surprise that this matter is one whose dire consequences are currently manifested worldwide. By the year 2025, two-thirds of the world will be "water-poor" or run short of clean drinking water. In addition, 783 million people have no access to safe water, and at least 1.8 billion people are forced to drink water contaminated with feces. It is easy to skirt responsibility of a crisis like this when it doesn't directly affect us, but the privatization of water will, if it hasn't already, economically affect all socioeconomic classes. This is not an urgent matter in the eyes of our local and national governments and seems to have recently been forgotten or purposely ignored. It is the public's duty to give water privatization and its negative impact the attention and level of importance it deserves. The root of this problem is the treatment of water as an economic commodity rather than a basic human right to a resource that essentially fuels life. Privatizing what should be a public global resource is a way for specific companies to control the sanitation and distribution of water and lets them answer to shareholders instead of the individuals using the resource.This creates a distance between the consumer and provider, making it far too easy for the latter to cheat the former with corrupt business practices and unsafe water. In countries where the government and economy already have a weak infrastructure, the effects of this privatization are dismal. Private sectors are able to execute full authority over water and hike up the prices as much as they want, leaving the most destitute people hemorrhaging money for a necessity that is already rightfully theirs. For those who argue that private sectors are able to provide better service for consumers, public ones are notoriously cheaper, and a study of 214 water 10 { THECHRONY I NEWS I OPINION I ARTS I SPORTS I THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2014 providers in the U.S. reported that the performance of public companies was superior to that of their private counterparts. Private sectors that control water in certain communities do not need to answer to the government or the people they provide for, giving them the freedom to run a corrupt business. If the public does not start pressuring local and national government agencies to shut down private companies and promote the utilization of public ones, the implications will be felt on all levels of the economy and in all parts of the world. Water privatization is not contained to the Sub-Saharan region, which accounts for 37 percent of unsafe water. Whether or not we feel the physical impacts, we will undoubtedly feel a monetary effect if the issue is continuously ignored. Prioritizing this grave concern in a public sphere and making it a current issue is the only way to start the process of making water public once again. letters@chronicle.utah.edu WIN ADVANCE SCREENING PASSES! NO LONGER OWN CHRISTMAS from a new perspective ere in Utah, the great debate over which snow sport is better — skiing or snowboarding — is heated and alive with few signs of future consensus. Having never gone snowboarding, I'd love to say that skiing is number one. However, there are many pros and cons on both sides that have led me to think that skiing might not be my only downhill endeavor this coming season. It is commonly understood that skiing is easier in the beginning (because of forward-facing descent and freedom to move your legs more naturally), but it is more difficult to master than snowboarding. Personally, while initial difficulty f someone asked you to think of the most urgent and relevant issues in today's news, chances are the ones that get the most airtime would be first to come to mind. Crucial social and economic problems, such as the rape epidemic, racial tension in Ferguson and the continuous struggle between Palestine and Israel, have recently been top contenders for what gets attention in mainstream media, and rightly so. There is, however, an issue that when left ignored has and will continue to prove detrimental to societies across the globe: the privatization of our most necessary resource — water. CHRISTAINS UNIVERSAL T he atheists are at it again. Each year, the American Atheists organization launches their controversial and actually quite lucrative "War on Christmas" campaign, which, according to them, is intended to provide corm fort and acknowledgment to those for whom church is the worst part of Christmas. One of their most pervasive marketing techniques includes stationing billboards around the nation that garishly advertise their message. These billboards, however, seem to be nothing but antagonistic. Last year, Times Square boasted one proclaiming, "Who needs Christ during Christmas? Nobody." While this may offend some religious individuals, the War on Christmas has become a mere publicity technique for atheists and conservatives alike. According to CNN, "The narrative seems to be good for Fox News ratings. And American Atheists has openly admitted that it is good for their pocketbooks, as their talk show appearances bring in a swell of donations." The intriguing thing about this is not simply that American Atheists are so crudely attacking Christmas, but that they consider themselves entitled to practicing it at all. This perfectly illuminates how diluted the Christian religion has become within Western popular culture. So many of its celebrations and practices have become universally recognized, practiced and advertised that the question becomes: Who really owns Christmas anymore? The celebration of Christmas was originally intended to pay tribute to the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of God, according to the Christian religion. Christianity, which encompasses various denominations, such as Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Mormonism and Lutheranism, has traditionally observed December 25 as a celebration of religious belief. For many of us, however, the celebration of Christmas is a social normality, completely irrelative to its original intentions. Today, Christmas consists of a tree, a fat guy in a red suit and weeks of corporate advertising and profit. Consider other religions, like Judaism. There will almost certainly never be a "War on Hanukkah" campaign because it's not likely that the American Atheists will assume entitlement to practice a long-standing religious tradition, and Hanukkah will almost certainly never be devoid of religious significance for its observers. Comparatively, while many other religions have maintained a sense of original integrity in their traditions, much of the Christian religion has become commonplace in our consumer culture. Christmas is not the only tradition to lose its theistic rights to the masses, however. Easter, another holiday incidentally popularized by Christianity, originally observed the resurrection of Christ. Even Mardi Gras and Thanksgiving, which were both associated with paganism, were adopted by the Christians. Joseph, Mary, Paul, Elizabeth and Aaron are all biblically originated names. The cross, once a holy symbol, is now a t-shirt design and trendy tattoo. What becomes the value of these traditions and celebrations if they are completely isolated from their original purpose? What is the significance of celebrating something like Christmas without recognizing its origin? Unfortunately, many of these things were disemboweled long before the Atheists decided to wage war on them. I myself am guilty of celebrating Easter with painted eggs and of never having stepped foot in a church on Christmas Eve but always leaving cookies out for Santa. But maybe tradition itself is intrinsically valuable. It seems terribly evident that Christmas (much like many other popular culture holidays) is no longer an exclusively religious institution, and its meaningfulness is entirely relative to the individual. No, the Christians don't own Christmas anymore — but neither do the atheists. Realistically, if anyone owns Christmas, it's probably Apple. letters@chronicle.utah.edu SURVIVAL RESILIENCE REDEMPTION UNBROKEN THE UNBELIEVABLE TRUE STORY ONCIERSALPIONS EEOENIACY PIECE A LION i% JACKRONNEIECOMNNAEEOEEESON IAIYAYI OIMITROLENO FINN WIIOCO wil ■ EINIII OECD "WOIERNORDESPEAI VIEROCEFOOOR 011111jIM SOVRESEVIIHMERINBEROE AMMO HAMS ASC EC piON MICIE THOMAS IOEL JON XII ""TANREINAJOEIE, CLAYTON 151E, 10HOM W VOEII,„ MIN SIVE nrsuur HIENBIONO "1"1;JOIE COM a DAN COEN AM RIONIC EIORPIENEOE I,HI WILLIAM WOOLSON "9111NONNAJ011f = 4i CHRISTMAS WitilliVolIT 111:1 17.V. .1 RONAL COE SCREENING IS ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17 STOP BY UNION 321 FOR YOUR CHANCE TO WIN A SCREENING PASS! ONE PASS PER PERSON. WHILE SUPPLIES LAST. EACH PASS ADMITS TWO. UNBROKEN has been rated PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned - Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13) for war violence including intense sequences of brutality, and for brief language. Please note: Passes received through this promotion do not guarantee you a seat at the theater. Seating is on a firstcome, first-served basis, except for members of the reviewing press. Theater is overbooked to ensure a full house. No admittance once screening has begun. All federal, state and local regulations apply. A recipient of tickets assumes any and all risks related to use of ticket, and accepts any restrictions required by ticket provider. Universal Studios, Daily Utah Chronicle and their affiliates accept no responsibility or liability in connection with any loss or accident incurred in connection with use of a prize. Tickets cannot be exchanged, transferred or redeemed for cash, in whole or in part. We are not responsible if, for any reason, recipient is unable to use his/her ticket in whole or in part. All federal and local taxes are the responsibility of the winner. Void where prohibited by law. Participating sponsors, their employees and family members and their agencies are not eligible. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. NO PHONE CALLS! IN THEATERS CHRISTMAS DAY UnbrokenFilm.corn 10 |