OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, March 31, 2010 Views&Opilli011 Utah State University • Logan, Utah • www.aggietownsquare.com OurView AboutUS Editor in Chief Patrick Oden The day it rained mud News Editor Rachel A. Christensen W hen the weather forecast predicted rain, and the clouds began to thicken, we grew anxious for the looming precipitation. Rain means puddles, greener grass and that spring is ready to show its face. However, after the first rain we were less than amused. The cars lining the streets and sitting in parking lots looked as though they were vomited on by a mob of seagulls who ate a buffet of bugs the day before. The pollution of Cache Valley's air is now tangible. If the air statistics didn't seem real before, now the dirty air is as plain as the vanilla milkshake that seems to have catapulted from the sky and splattered on the windshield of everyone's automobile. Cache Valley can thank its high elevation, the high air pressure, low temperatures and snow for the pollution that enjoys staying put within its surrounding ring of mountains. When chemicals are released in the air, they aren't going anywhere for a while because of these topographical elements. Since the pollution is stuck in the atmosphere, it has no choice but to join surrounding particles in the condensation process. Polluted rain is common in metropolitan areas like Beijing, China, where the population is undoubtedly many times larger than Cache Valley's. The air we breathe is so filthy it rarely passes the air-quality federal standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The saying is true though, what goes up must come down, and this time it is coming down in water droplets full of fuel emissions. Mother Nature decided to take a stand after automobile consumers decided to relentlessly burn needless amounts of fuel year after year. We have been punished. Instead of a spanking, Mother Nature threw soot at us. Now we must add an additional $5 into our budgets for an already needed car wash. If we want to keep our cars clean, we may need to stop driving them altogether so the air stays lemony fresh. Next time the clouds roll in we might need to seriously consider bringing an umbrella for hygiene and safety purposes. Ask Miss Jones Dear Miss Jones, So, I've kinda started seeing this guy ... I think. We have hung out a couple times, watched some movies and even made out. Apparently he was trying to pick between two girls he liked, and he picked me. Well one of my girlfriends says when he said he picked me, he was really asking me if I wanted to be his girlfriend. However, I don't know if I am really ready for a boyfriend. I don't know if I am ready to give up on the social life I am currently enjoying. But don't get me wrong, I really do like this boy. My friend knows him a lot better than I do because she's dating his best friend. So I'd like to take what she says as truth, but I would rather this be spelled out. I feel like we might be in that period where we need to have one of those define-this-relationship thing, 'cause when friends ask, I don't really know what to call him. Is he just "the boy"? or is he "my boy?" What should I do? Do I take my friend's word on this, or do I ask him? Should I leave it alone and not bother doing anything about the awkward situation we seem to be in? Sincerely, Confused and Questioning Dear Confused and Questioning, In my experience, which is quite a lot, the woman is often forced into making the first move on the "DTR" talk. In my opinion, you need to avoid being the one to bring it up, especially because you don't know what you want. For you, I think the longer you hold off the better. Although it's a little strange that your friend knows the boy you're making out with better than you do, I think you should take her word for it, believe that he likes you but don't back him into a corner. Growing up in Utah gave me some great experiences, but one lesson I learned the hard way was why you should never corner a wild animal, and let's face it, men are animals. When I was 9 years old, I went to Green Canyon with my brothers. I was riding my horse, Hop-Along, while my brothers were on their horses, Swayback and Daisy. At about noon, we stopped and unpacked our picnic. As we were eating, HopAlong started to nudge me. I kept pushing him off, thinking he just wanted some of my PB&J. But seconds later, a powerful roar sounded from about 50 yards away. Standing there on a rock outcrop was a huge mountain lion. We started throwing rocks at it, pushing it farther and farther back to the cliff. When it pushed its back against the wall, my oldest brother, Korihor, picked up a perfect throwing stone. He wound up and let it go. The stone tore through the air and plunked the lion's left eye. With a deafening roar, the lion sprung and pounced on Korihor, tearing my brother limb from limb. And that, Confused and Questioning, is why you should never corner a wild animal. Good luck and remember: "With as many times as Miss Jones has been around the block, her directions must be good." E-mail your questions to be answered by Miss Jones to statesman.miss. jones@gmaiL corn or search for me on Facebook. Assistant News Editor Catherine Meidell Features Editor Courtnie Packer Assistant Features Editor Benjamin Wood Sports Editor Connor Jones Assistant Sports Editor Matt Sonnenberg Copy Editor Obama's inner Ike: As Eisenhower did with civil rights legislation, the president stuck with health care reform p resident Obama gets it. So did President Eisenhower half a century ago. When you are breaking a decades-long legislative logjam, you take what you can get so you can do better later. Critics deplore the compromises Obama made on healthcare. And it's true that the bill he signed Tuesday doesn't accomplish everything reform advocates had hoped for. But give Obama credit for historical perspective. Covering the millions without health insurance is the civil rights issue of our time. And Obama walked a path analogous to the one Ike walked on civil rights in 1957. Eisenhower proposed a strong bill that year. It seemed a fool's errand-no civil rights legislation had been passed for 82 years. The proposal included protection for voting rights and authority for the attorney general to enforce an array of civil rights, including school desegregation. The latter provision, known as "Part III," quickly ran into political trouble. Southern Democrats at the time were the "party of no," and they presented a united front. Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia charged that Eisenhower's bill was "cunningly designed" to authorize the attorney general "to destroy the system of separation of the races in the Southern states at the point of a bayonet." That allegation was the 1950s equivalent of last year's allegations by Republicans that healthcare reform would set up government-run "death panels." Finally, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson told Ike he had the votes to kill the bill if Part III remained in the legislation. Eisenhower dropped it to salvage voting rights. Even that part of the legislation proved difficult. Southern senators gutted the remaining reform by persuading the Senate to require a jury trial for anyone prosecuted for violating voting rights, something that would make convictions extremely difficult. In private, Ike stormed: "Hell of a thing. Here are 18 Southern senators who can bamboozle (the) entire Senate." In public, Eisenhower lamented that "many fellow Americans will continue, in effect, to be disenfranchised." Obama's declaration while campaigning for passage of healthcare reform echoed that principle: "We can't have a system that works better for the insurance corn- panies than it does for the American people." Like Obama, Eisenhower was urged to give up or, in effect, "start over" on drafting a bill that would have wider acceptance. Civil rights leaders implored Eisenhower to veto any bill that didn't make meaningful change. Instead, Eisenhower took what one columnist called "a bold and perhaps dangerous gamble." He prolonged the exhausting debate, holding firm and threatening to resubmit Part III if he didn't get an agreement. The condition for avoiding that fight was removal of the jury trial roadblock to the protection of voting rights. Obama took a not dissimilar path. He refused to start over and instead used the reconciliation process to push forward. Ike won his gamble. LBJ accepted a workable compromise and, on Aug. 29, 1957, the Senate passed the final version of a bill that included significant new civil rights. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina conducted a 24-hour filibuster but gave up at 9:12 p.m. Many liberals denigrated the 1957 act. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., however, supported it. He acknowledged that "many sincere leaders, both Negro and white, feel that no bill is better than the present bill." But, King concluded, "I have come to the conclusion that the present bill is far better than no bill at all." The 1957 Civil Rights Act was a weak reed, but the logjam had been broken. The debate laid the groundwork for the landmark civil rights legislation passed in 1964 and 1965. NAACP leader Roy Wilkins called the 1957 Civil Rights Act "a small crumb from Congress." But it was the first crumb in 82 years. In early March, Obama posed a series of questions to the nation: "When is the right time? If not now, when? If not us, who?" He was right to press forward. As Eisenhower demonstrated, the first order of business is to break the logjam. Then we can do something better. David A. Nichols is the author of "A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution." He wrote this for The Los Angeles Times. Mark Vuong Photo Editors Pete Smithsuth Steve Sellers Web Editor Karlie Brand About letters • Letters should be limited to 400 words. • All letters may be shortened, edited or rejected for reasons of good taste, redundancy or volume of similar letters. • Letters must be topic oriented. They may not be directed toward individuals. Any letter directed to a specific individual may be edited or not printed. • No anonymous letters will be published. Writers must sign all letters and include a phone number or email address as well as a student identification number (none of which is published). Letters will not be printed without this verification. • Letters representing groups - or more than one individual - must have a singular representative clearly stated, with all necessary identification information. • Writers must wait 21 days before submitting successive letters - no exceptions. • Letters can be hand delivered or mailed to The Statesman in the TSC, Room 105, or can be e-mailed to statesman@aggiemail. usu.edu, or click on www.aggietownsquare.com for more letter guidelines and a box to submit letters. (Link: About Us.) POSTAL SERVICE PLAN CHARGE FOR SATURDAY MAIL DELIVERY U Is THERE A REBATE ON ANY JUNK MAIL? a' fliti""mavvil Wawa - 446:, ------ 4- 5TAY5KAL igieWle M600 setzvices Y/2°I0 Sound Off Leave your comments on the stories and columns you find in The Utah Statesman at aggietownsquare.com |