When you turn on the evening news, chances are, you’re going to hear the broadcasters pitching today’s top stories with a liberal slant—meaning they’re in favor of progress or reform. You often hear stories about culture or society revolving around a particular story from the far side of the spectrum. These stories act as the beating drum to drive change and prop up political soap boxes demanding reform.
Last week, at the Hinckley Institute of Politics, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski of the MSNBC show “Morning Joe” spoke about bias within the media and the potential dangers that come from the talking-head discourse. Although both are moderate in their political views, both reaffirmed the media’s essential role as an additional checks-and-balances protector in society’s political and cultural process.
“One of the dangers in America right now is that you can wake up in the morning with a prejudice and turn on the television and have that prejudice reinforced,” Scarborough said. “By the time you go to bed at night, you don’t think that someone who disagrees with you is wrong; you think they’re evil. That’s dangerous talk.”
Some people will point out that today’s mainstream media are quick to receive whatever messages the White House releases without asking the tough, probing questions to understand what is really going on. These people will argue that Obama, one of America’s most popular presidents when he was elected, has the media in his back pocket.
However, this slanted view is inaccurate because a similar thing was done by the Bush administration when it needed to sell America on the war on terror. A strong patriotic message calling for retaliation after the 9/11 attacks permeated evening broadcasts and headlines across the country. There were some outlets that challenged the administration by breaking classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists. This is the liberal slant to which our “Morning Joe” friends refer.
The media’s job is not to entertain or present news that tests or polls well with Americans. But, because of the current structure in which advertisers write media paychecks and condone content they want pushed, it compromises the media’s true purpose. The media should be a watchdog that holds public personalities, institutions and businesses accountable. When that mission is corrupted by censorship and lazy journalists, we all lose.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/media-needs-to-be-nation-s-watchdog-1.2238306
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
PETA’s solutions worse than the problems
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has pulled a ton of publicity stunts over the years. When the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile hit the road to find a new child singer, a PETA employee dressed in a pig costume and commandeered the Wienermobile. It launched an ad campaign comparing what happens in slaughterhouses to the horrendous crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer. In addition to dumping red paint onto fashion runways or unsuspecting wearers of fur, PETA dumped a ton of manure on chef Gordon Ramsay’s restaurant doorstep after he served horse meat on his television show.
It is an admirable effort to give a voice to animals who are often mistreated or killed to grant the comforts or frills of humanity. The majority of people want to see that soft, furry baby seals grow up with a mother and that lab rats aren’t unnaturally mutated.
Although the freedom to voice your opinion is part of what makes America great, the ground rules of respect and fairness need to be followed. PETA’s latest campaign targeting the U’s animal research facilities last fall breaks the rules.
The U was charged for allowing its animals to suffer and die from experimentation and gross neglect. Unfortunately, PETA obtained this information from an undercover employee who misrepresented herself to her employer and went to great lengths to produce emotional propaganda that was taken out of context.
The PETA complaint led to a pending investigation by the USDA and changes in state law that now give municipal animal shelters the discretion as to whether or not they sell animals to be used for research purposes. Previously, they were required under law to sell animals to research labs—upon request—for testing. This in turn has slowed the supply of animal test subjects for the U’s research lab and will lead to increased research costs when it must turn to other suppliers. Congratulations, PETA, you were able to dishonestly push your agenda at the expense of ever considering the bigger picture.
Without animal research, there are no new antibiotics, no vaccines, no transplants and no new medical advances that keep people—and animals—alive and healthy. Tom Parks, U vice president for research, said the “undercover footage was edited to show only the worst scenarios in the lab’s recent history and is not indicative of any systemic problems with the institution.”
Most interesting is that the PETA employee worked at the lab during a period when they passed an unannounced annual federal investigation with no problems. Clearly, when you maintain a community of 50,000 lab rats, there will be mistakes made and some will die. The U is not above making errors and it has committed to carefully examine the PETA allegations and address each complaint. It is in the U’s best interest to keep its animals healthy so accurate data points can be collected. Meanwhile, animal labs now face the ever more attractive option of simply breeding their own lab animals—PETA’s hope to completely remove animals from U labs is a pipe dream.
No one likes having the spotlight turned on them and being told they have a booger hanging out their nose. PETA bombarded the U with strong accusations and demanded it respond in the public forum. If the game had been played fairly, this should have taken place only after the U was made aware of the accusations and given time to respond accordingly.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/peta-s-solutions-worse-than-the-problems-1.2226681
It is an admirable effort to give a voice to animals who are often mistreated or killed to grant the comforts or frills of humanity. The majority of people want to see that soft, furry baby seals grow up with a mother and that lab rats aren’t unnaturally mutated.
Although the freedom to voice your opinion is part of what makes America great, the ground rules of respect and fairness need to be followed. PETA’s latest campaign targeting the U’s animal research facilities last fall breaks the rules.
The U was charged for allowing its animals to suffer and die from experimentation and gross neglect. Unfortunately, PETA obtained this information from an undercover employee who misrepresented herself to her employer and went to great lengths to produce emotional propaganda that was taken out of context.
The PETA complaint led to a pending investigation by the USDA and changes in state law that now give municipal animal shelters the discretion as to whether or not they sell animals to be used for research purposes. Previously, they were required under law to sell animals to research labs—upon request—for testing. This in turn has slowed the supply of animal test subjects for the U’s research lab and will lead to increased research costs when it must turn to other suppliers. Congratulations, PETA, you were able to dishonestly push your agenda at the expense of ever considering the bigger picture.
Without animal research, there are no new antibiotics, no vaccines, no transplants and no new medical advances that keep people—and animals—alive and healthy. Tom Parks, U vice president for research, said the “undercover footage was edited to show only the worst scenarios in the lab’s recent history and is not indicative of any systemic problems with the institution.”
Most interesting is that the PETA employee worked at the lab during a period when they passed an unannounced annual federal investigation with no problems. Clearly, when you maintain a community of 50,000 lab rats, there will be mistakes made and some will die. The U is not above making errors and it has committed to carefully examine the PETA allegations and address each complaint. It is in the U’s best interest to keep its animals healthy so accurate data points can be collected. Meanwhile, animal labs now face the ever more attractive option of simply breeding their own lab animals—PETA’s hope to completely remove animals from U labs is a pipe dream.
No one likes having the spotlight turned on them and being told they have a booger hanging out their nose. PETA bombarded the U with strong accusations and demanded it respond in the public forum. If the game had been played fairly, this should have taken place only after the U was made aware of the accusations and given time to respond accordingly.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/peta-s-solutions-worse-than-the-problems-1.2226681
Friday, April 9, 2010
Ethics in business a tough sell
Rod Blagojevich was fired by Donald Trump on “The Celebrity Apprentice.” The former Illinois governor, who is accused of selling President Barack Obama’s senate seat and still faces charges, talked a twisted political game in an effort to shift blame in his team’s failed attempt to promote a new theme park. Blagojevich was perceived as a nice guy by many of his teammates, despite trying to throw them under the bus. Unfortunately, the trend is all too frequent in business today.
We can look at dozens of ethical dilemmas presented by a wide range of companies. For instance, many fast food restaurants post the nutritional details, not because they want their customers to be excited about consuming 900 calories in a single burger, but because they are choosing to help people make more informed decisions. Toyota didn’t have to recall all the cars that took off speeding for reasons still unknown, but it chose to in order to ease the public relations nightmare.
Still, people who think they are being ethical often find themselves acting in a contrary manner when a high-stakes situation is presented. Kristina Diekmann, a management professor at the U, is one of the authors of a new study that illustrates how business people are not necessarily as ethical as they would like to portray. We are all constantly battling the way we should be against our own self-interests.
Diekmann defines these two differences as the “should-self,” or the ideal ethical person we all should be, as well as the “want-self,” which is often more dominant and puts ethics aside for a favorable self-interested outcome. The study identifies that one successful ethics violation will likely lead to others in the future.
“Of course, people want to do the right thing,” Diekmann said. “(However), many can have answers that are not consistent with their values.”
It is true that when companies deal unethically, it seems the problem perpetuates because individuals turn a deaf ear and continue to receive the product or service at the price or place the provider is giving. There are clothing stores that were busted for violating labor laws, yet they still have loyal customers who enjoy their fabrics and styles. Banks failed for mismanaging debt, yet they were bailed out by the government in an effort to avoid a total collapse.
All of this leads us to wonder if there are examples of success and ethics in the real world, or are we all just part of a giant cesspool of scams. Multi-billionaire Jon Huntsman’s book, Winners Never Cheat, outlines specific values that he lived under in order to build his fortune. His is an example of success and fairness where he didn’t change the rules of the playing field, instead he let his core values guide him.
Truly, it is not always convenient to recognize when we are being taken for a ride, but people have to be both informed and active in ensuring they are striving to condone ethical behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/ethics-in-business-a-tough-sell-1.2217330
We can look at dozens of ethical dilemmas presented by a wide range of companies. For instance, many fast food restaurants post the nutritional details, not because they want their customers to be excited about consuming 900 calories in a single burger, but because they are choosing to help people make more informed decisions. Toyota didn’t have to recall all the cars that took off speeding for reasons still unknown, but it chose to in order to ease the public relations nightmare.
Still, people who think they are being ethical often find themselves acting in a contrary manner when a high-stakes situation is presented. Kristina Diekmann, a management professor at the U, is one of the authors of a new study that illustrates how business people are not necessarily as ethical as they would like to portray. We are all constantly battling the way we should be against our own self-interests.
Diekmann defines these two differences as the “should-self,” or the ideal ethical person we all should be, as well as the “want-self,” which is often more dominant and puts ethics aside for a favorable self-interested outcome. The study identifies that one successful ethics violation will likely lead to others in the future.
“Of course, people want to do the right thing,” Diekmann said. “(However), many can have answers that are not consistent with their values.”
It is true that when companies deal unethically, it seems the problem perpetuates because individuals turn a deaf ear and continue to receive the product or service at the price or place the provider is giving. There are clothing stores that were busted for violating labor laws, yet they still have loyal customers who enjoy their fabrics and styles. Banks failed for mismanaging debt, yet they were bailed out by the government in an effort to avoid a total collapse.
All of this leads us to wonder if there are examples of success and ethics in the real world, or are we all just part of a giant cesspool of scams. Multi-billionaire Jon Huntsman’s book, Winners Never Cheat, outlines specific values that he lived under in order to build his fortune. His is an example of success and fairness where he didn’t change the rules of the playing field, instead he let his core values guide him.
Truly, it is not always convenient to recognize when we are being taken for a ride, but people have to be both informed and active in ensuring they are striving to condone ethical behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/ethics-in-business-a-tough-sell-1.2217330
Friday, March 19, 2010
Recent suicides highlight need for awareness, prevention
Unsettling headlines have spotlighted several recent cases of suicide. Within the past two weeks, the key witness in the Southern Utah artifact case killed himself as did two others associated with the case. The man in Austin, Texas, who flew his airplane into the IRS building and Marie Osmond’s son both committed suicide. Since the beginning of the year, three employees at the Hill Air Force Base have killed themselves.
Because these deaths should be preventable, suicide statistics in the country are startling. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide was the seventh leading cause of death for males and the 16th leading cause of death for females in 2006. They also report that suicide was the third leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24.
Most concerning is the statistic that an estimated 12 to 25 non-fatal suicide attempts occur per every suicide death, according to the NIMH. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides a 24-hour hotline that offers confidential suicide prevention services to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. Like many other agencies, Lifeline encourages individuals to prevent suicide by looking for the warning signs.
These signs include threatening to hurt or kill oneself or even talking about it. Another sign is to talk often or write about death, dying or suicide when these actions are out of the ordinary for the person. These signs also sometimes accompany a feeling of hopelessness, rage or uncontrolled anger.
“We encourage any faculty, staff member or student to use our crisis walk-in service when they need help,” said Frances Harris, a psychologist with the U’s Counseling Center. “As a preventative service, we offer gatekeeper training and provide information to faculty and student leadership groups to recognize the signs, take them seriously, and decrease any risks as they step in to assist.”
Although no one can fairly judge someone who kills himself, it can be one of the most selfish acts a person can commit. Family and friends are left behind with no answers to the question: “What more could I have done?”
SAVE, a suicide awareness organization, says on its website that suicide survivors not only have to face the grieving process of losing a loved one, but they have additional challenges to face because of the stigma that accompanies suicide.
Perhaps the most important point to consider regarding this issue is that we have an obligation to help each other. The responsibility falls to each one of us. Suicide hurts too much and eliminates our God-given right to offer our best effort. We all bump into different challenges during our journey and we overcome those challenges with a lot of patience, an optimistic outlook and lending a hand to one another along the way.
Because these deaths should be preventable, suicide statistics in the country are startling. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide was the seventh leading cause of death for males and the 16th leading cause of death for females in 2006. They also report that suicide was the third leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24.
Most concerning is the statistic that an estimated 12 to 25 non-fatal suicide attempts occur per every suicide death, according to the NIMH. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides a 24-hour hotline that offers confidential suicide prevention services to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. Like many other agencies, Lifeline encourages individuals to prevent suicide by looking for the warning signs.
These signs include threatening to hurt or kill oneself or even talking about it. Another sign is to talk often or write about death, dying or suicide when these actions are out of the ordinary for the person. These signs also sometimes accompany a feeling of hopelessness, rage or uncontrolled anger.
“We encourage any faculty, staff member or student to use our crisis walk-in service when they need help,” said Frances Harris, a psychologist with the U’s Counseling Center. “As a preventative service, we offer gatekeeper training and provide information to faculty and student leadership groups to recognize the signs, take them seriously, and decrease any risks as they step in to assist.”
Although no one can fairly judge someone who kills himself, it can be one of the most selfish acts a person can commit. Family and friends are left behind with no answers to the question: “What more could I have done?”
SAVE, a suicide awareness organization, says on its website that suicide survivors not only have to face the grieving process of losing a loved one, but they have additional challenges to face because of the stigma that accompanies suicide.
Perhaps the most important point to consider regarding this issue is that we have an obligation to help each other. The responsibility falls to each one of us. Suicide hurts too much and eliminates our God-given right to offer our best effort. We all bump into different challenges during our journey and we overcome those challenges with a lot of patience, an optimistic outlook and lending a hand to one another along the way.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Scott Matheson’s nominate raises eyebrows
Scott Matheson is stirring quite a debate in the conservative blogosphere. Last week, President Barack Obama nominated Matheson to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a position considered among the most powerful and influential in the United States because this court often serves as the final decision on federal cases.
Matheson, who has been a U faculty member since 1985, seems to be well qualified for the position. The honors on his résumé include Stanford alumnus, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School graduate, Harvard professor, U.S. Attorney and U law school dean. Plus, Matheson recently served as a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars during the 2006-2007 academic year.
Glenn Beck would hate the fact that Matheson has any kind of association with Woodrow Wilson, a progressive whom Beck deplored in his Conservative Political Action Conference speech when he said, “I hate Woodrow Wilson with everything in me.” Beck believes the progressive movement is destroying the republic the Founding Fathers created. Maybe that’s another reason why conservative bloggers are going crazy.
Many are playing the corruption card on Matheson’s nomination because Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson is his brother. Jim Matheson voted against Obama’s health care proposal in November, but bloggers are concerned his vote will now change with his brother’s nomination.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing that the allegation was “very silly.” It’s hard to trust a guy who thinks it is funny to use his White House platform to mock someone by writing a to-do list on his hand, similar to what Sarah Palin did during a Tea Party convention, but Matheson’s office seconds Gibbs’ assessment, saying the quid pro quo claims are “patently ridiculous.”
Even Utah Republicans Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz are supportive of Scott Matheson’s nomination to the court and dismiss the allegations.
“I’m very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench,” Chaffetz said. “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”
With Matheson’s qualifications and Republican support, it is a baseless claim that the conservative blogosphere is making. The timing of the nomination is unfortunate and does raise questions as to whether it is merely a coincidence that the newest nominee is brother to a congressman who has a critical vote that Obama desperately wants.
One blogger, Michelle Malkin, called Obama “incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid” to miss these red flags and show such terrible timing in the nomination. The good news in all of this is that Jim Matheson is a solid “no” vote on Obama’s health care bill.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/scott-matheson-s-nominate-raises-eyebrows-1.2188538
Matheson, who has been a U faculty member since 1985, seems to be well qualified for the position. The honors on his résumé include Stanford alumnus, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School graduate, Harvard professor, U.S. Attorney and U law school dean. Plus, Matheson recently served as a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars during the 2006-2007 academic year.
Glenn Beck would hate the fact that Matheson has any kind of association with Woodrow Wilson, a progressive whom Beck deplored in his Conservative Political Action Conference speech when he said, “I hate Woodrow Wilson with everything in me.” Beck believes the progressive movement is destroying the republic the Founding Fathers created. Maybe that’s another reason why conservative bloggers are going crazy.
Many are playing the corruption card on Matheson’s nomination because Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson is his brother. Jim Matheson voted against Obama’s health care proposal in November, but bloggers are concerned his vote will now change with his brother’s nomination.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing that the allegation was “very silly.” It’s hard to trust a guy who thinks it is funny to use his White House platform to mock someone by writing a to-do list on his hand, similar to what Sarah Palin did during a Tea Party convention, but Matheson’s office seconds Gibbs’ assessment, saying the quid pro quo claims are “patently ridiculous.”
Even Utah Republicans Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz are supportive of Scott Matheson’s nomination to the court and dismiss the allegations.
“I’m very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench,” Chaffetz said. “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”
With Matheson’s qualifications and Republican support, it is a baseless claim that the conservative blogosphere is making. The timing of the nomination is unfortunate and does raise questions as to whether it is merely a coincidence that the newest nominee is brother to a congressman who has a critical vote that Obama desperately wants.
One blogger, Michelle Malkin, called Obama “incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid” to miss these red flags and show such terrible timing in the nomination. The good news in all of this is that Jim Matheson is a solid “no” vote on Obama’s health care bill.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/scott-matheson-s-nominate-raises-eyebrows-1.2188538
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tip amount should be a personal decision
Last week, the North Carolina ABC affiliate reported that a woman was banned from a Japanese restaurant for bad tipping.Reportedly, the woman—a habitual bad tipper at the restaurant—complained about an 18 percent gratuity that was added to her check. When she returned again to the restaurant, the servers wouldn’t even seat her.
This incident raises the question of whether restaurant patrons should be forced to tip when they pay for their meal or if that payment is to be assumed in the cost of the meal.
People go out to eat because they don’t want to cook. They appreciate the atmosphere and restaurant service, and they enjoy the company of others. All of these factors are taken into consideration as menu prices are created. Included in the meal price is the server’s wage. Perhaps the woman from North Carolina was assuming this as she decided not to tip, as Japanese restaurants can be expensive.
A restaurant’s profit margin depends on food selections and combinations, customer service, pricing and how efficiently the restaurant is managed. For the most part, the average profit margin is 5 percent of each meal that is served, according to www.donrockwell.com. The same site says labor and food costs account for roughly 30 percent of the meal price.
For the most part, the standard suggested tip amount is 15 percent of a pre-tax bill. This expectation is in place because servers are paid notoriously meager wages.
Since 1991, the U.S. Department of Labor has set minimum wage for restaurant workers at $2.13 per hour with the reasoning that tips will bring their pay up to a living wage. Servers are given incentive to provide attentive and quick service because it directly affects how much of a tip they will earn. Considering food service is traditionally a popular industry for college students, many of us are familiar with this situation.
Further complicating a restaurant’s tipping process is last week’s ruling by a federal appeals court in Portland, Ore. If a restaurant pays servers more than minimum wage, the court ruled the restaurant can create a “tip pool” in which servers’ tips are pooled together and split accordingly, not only among servers, but also kitchen staff. The waitress who brought the appeal claimed that the tip pool violated her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the court disagreed.
As servers feel further slighted and vulnerable to this ruling, it’s probably time to get out of the food service business.
Ultimately, the amount patrons choose to tip their servers should be determined entirely by the patrons, not the restaurant. Recommended gratuity charges are misleading because that amount should be determined by the customers. They shouldn’t feel obligated to tip but should also take into account that good service has value.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Social-networking sites can threaten more than grades
We’ve all seen the way social-networking sites such as Facebook connect us to friends and family.The site, started by computer science students, has more than 400 million users and is quickly changing the way we communicate with each other.
Although it’s a great distraction during lulls in lecture and homework, users are beginning to notice some negative consequences of Facebook use.
Last April, an Ohio State University study found that college students who use Facebook spend less time studying and have lower GPAs than students who don’t use it.
“We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying—but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study. “There’s a disconnect between students’ claim that Facebook use doesn’t impact their studies and our finding showing they had lower grades and spent less time studying.”
Connecting with others on the web causes users to experience a range of emotions, particularly in romantic relationships.
A study, published in the CyberPsychology & Behavior Journal concluded that there is a “significant association between time spent on Facebook and jealousy-related feelings and behaviors experienced on Facebook by college students.”
Some observers are even noticing that Facebook is exposing them to health risks. Because profile updates often include only a brief sentence, users aren’t given time to assess the value of the statement and its true meaning, says Jim Schumacher, a suite101.com contributor.
“In the long run, such a habit forms insensitive and numb personalities, as they are reading the most intimate and sometimes most horrible details of others’ lives without the need of reacting to them as they would have to in a real conversation,” he said.
Although there still hasn’t been a complete and credible study proving the negative effects of social-networking sites, the field of questions is green for behavioral scientists.
“We have to ask the questions, ‘What happens to young people when they spend hours and hours with the computer? Are they getting outdoors? Are they exercising? Are they learning to talk to each other face to face?’ ” said Gary Small, professor of psychiatry at UCLA.
One of the big questions is whether social networking is actually bringing people closer together. Users often connect without the deep interaction or one-on-one physical contact that allows people to gauge each other’s sincerity and veracity needed to achieve a close relationship.
Maybe it’s just good enough to use social networking as a way to stay in touch, kill time and quickly access information, such as someone’s phone number or address.
The very fact that we engage on these sites means we care and want to connect with each other. In terms of the depth of that connection, it’s up to the individual user to decide what that means.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/social-networking-sites-can-threaten-more-than-grades-1.2159483
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Technology necessary to stop inversion
Sometimes in the winter, Salt Lake City air gets so bad you could mistakenly think you’re in a big city such as Beijing or Los Angeles.
Particularly in January along the Wasatch Front, Utah notoriously has had bad air. It’s so bad, in fact, that the National Science Foundation just approved $1.3 million to fund a study to collect better data as to why the inversion occurs.
So far this year, more than 20 health warnings have been issued by Utah environmental officials because of the bad air quality. The dirty air causes many people to cough, sneeze and have flu-like symptoms.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Utah has been given the distinction of having the worst air in America—several times.
Professor John Horel of the U’s department of atmospheric sciences is one of the principal investigators of the study about the inversion. He said this will be the largest field study of atmospheric conditions in Utah in more than a decade.
“This study is going to identify the weather that contributes to the development, maintenance and breakup of these inversions,” he said. “What is different about our study is the goal to improve the simulation and eventual prediction of the weather conditions associated with the pollution events.”
Because much of that money—$550,000—will come back to the U in the form of students and researchers setting up equipment and collecting and analyzing data, it’s difficult to turn up your nose at the study. However, because it is commonly known that the inversion results from cold-air pockets that trap pollutants and fog, it seems like an superfluous exercise that can be predicted with Doppler radar.
Another use of the money could be investing in weather modification technology. As seen with the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, the Chinese are fine-tuning their ability to make it rain on the eve of major events.
China’s Weather Modification Office employs 37,000 people. Essentially, it uses rocket launchers loaded with cloud-seeding compounds to either moisten clouds or drain them, depending on the need. Utah definitely has the need for wind and moisture to clear out the valley when cold pockets gather and dirty the air.
Yes, solutions such as carpooling, riding public transportation and staying indoors should definitely be put into practice by people doing their part as good citizens to reduce pollution. However, when circumstances beyond our control come into play, it makes sense to adopt creative answers to solve the problem.
By investing in weather modification technology and equipment, Utah can implement immediate solutions that will cut down on the poor visibility and lung congestion caused by the bad air.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/technology-necessary-to-stop-inversion-1.2149332
Particularly in January along the Wasatch Front, Utah notoriously has had bad air. It’s so bad, in fact, that the National Science Foundation just approved $1.3 million to fund a study to collect better data as to why the inversion occurs.
So far this year, more than 20 health warnings have been issued by Utah environmental officials because of the bad air quality. The dirty air causes many people to cough, sneeze and have flu-like symptoms.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Utah has been given the distinction of having the worst air in America—several times.
Professor John Horel of the U’s department of atmospheric sciences is one of the principal investigators of the study about the inversion. He said this will be the largest field study of atmospheric conditions in Utah in more than a decade.
“This study is going to identify the weather that contributes to the development, maintenance and breakup of these inversions,” he said. “What is different about our study is the goal to improve the simulation and eventual prediction of the weather conditions associated with the pollution events.”
Because much of that money—$550,000—will come back to the U in the form of students and researchers setting up equipment and collecting and analyzing data, it’s difficult to turn up your nose at the study. However, because it is commonly known that the inversion results from cold-air pockets that trap pollutants and fog, it seems like an superfluous exercise that can be predicted with Doppler radar.
Another use of the money could be investing in weather modification technology. As seen with the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, the Chinese are fine-tuning their ability to make it rain on the eve of major events.
China’s Weather Modification Office employs 37,000 people. Essentially, it uses rocket launchers loaded with cloud-seeding compounds to either moisten clouds or drain them, depending on the need. Utah definitely has the need for wind and moisture to clear out the valley when cold pockets gather and dirty the air.
Yes, solutions such as carpooling, riding public transportation and staying indoors should definitely be put into practice by people doing their part as good citizens to reduce pollution. However, when circumstances beyond our control come into play, it makes sense to adopt creative answers to solve the problem.
By investing in weather modification technology and equipment, Utah can implement immediate solutions that will cut down on the poor visibility and lung congestion caused by the bad air.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/technology-necessary-to-stop-inversion-1.2149332
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Sundance film furthers division between gay, LDS communities
With last week’s Sundance film “8: The Mormon Proposition,” the heated and drawn out debate on gay-marriage is again in full swing. The film follows a young gay couple who are fighting for the recognition of their marriage. As usual, the LDS Church is cast as the antagonist because it urged members to donate their time and money to passing California’s Proposition 8. A yes vote reversed a court mandated law allowing gays to marry.
Ironically, many Mormons feel the same discrimination as gays. This was clearly manifest during the Prop 8 fallout when Mormons were bullied out of jobs, temple worship was postponed by obstructive protest rallies, meeting houses were vandalized and the Church was and still is the butt of late night jokes.
Even the Super Bowl has been targeted by inflammatory rhetoric. A gay-dating website wanted to air a 30-second commercial showing two men watching the game, brushing hands in the potato chip bowl and then engaging in a passionate make-out session. The company said CBS is discriminating against them by not airing the ad, when in fact the company couldn’t pay for the ad by verifying its credit status.
Often forgotten in the Prop 8 debate is that the decision was not made by the Mormons, but by California voters. In fact, every time the issue has been put to a popular vote across the country, thirty-one times in a row, same-sex marriage has been rejected.
Yet, in their persistent frustration, many pro-gay debaters continue using politically charged words like “hate,” “bigot” and “attack” to demand acceptance. This only serves to drive a deeper wedge at the expense of positive dialogue that will eventually lead to more rights.
The forthcoming 2010 US Census will provide better statistics, but the 2000 Census reported 1.5 percent of Americans consider themselves gay. Redefining the term “marriage” will open churches up to discriminatory lawsuits that will cost millions of dollars and change their protected religious practices. This not only violates the Constitution’s first amendment, but bowing to a small minority shouting over a loud media megaphone is absurd.
Most Christian, Islamic, and Jewish churches fight battles against immoral actions, not people. Churches believe that homosexuality is a choice and wrong (per God) because it is a question of morality. Marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by the US government and shouldn’t be viewed as a negotiable right. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. It also tells states they do not need to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage.
Before you type your comments calling me an intolerant bigot, let me state the position I buy into. The term ‘anti-gay’ is completely wrong and hateful. Tolerance and striving to build others who are willing to meet you halfway should always be guiding principles in our relationships.
All men and women are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This guiding creed has not been accomplished when gay people are beaten and killed for the lifestyle they’ve chosen to pursue. It hasn’t been accomplished when life has become so dark they take their life because they don’t know how to live in a society that hates them.
It should be illegal to discriminate against gay individuals in housing, employment matters and other limited rights. We shouldn’t oppose civil unions for gays, as long as those rights don't infringe on religious liberties. Giving the word ‘marriage’ to gays infringes on the religious liberties of those who practice traditional marriage.
Lines need to be drawn to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. An open mind of course is important, but not to the point where your moral compass goes out the window. If giving "equal rights" to one party infringes on the rights of another, then it's not good policy or legislation. This essentially unravels the singular purpose American colonists founded this nation and crafted the Constitution. When you change the definition of marriage, you allow lawyers and judges to begin pushing churches around.
Ironically, many Mormons feel the same discrimination as gays. This was clearly manifest during the Prop 8 fallout when Mormons were bullied out of jobs, temple worship was postponed by obstructive protest rallies, meeting houses were vandalized and the Church was and still is the butt of late night jokes.
Even the Super Bowl has been targeted by inflammatory rhetoric. A gay-dating website wanted to air a 30-second commercial showing two men watching the game, brushing hands in the potato chip bowl and then engaging in a passionate make-out session. The company said CBS is discriminating against them by not airing the ad, when in fact the company couldn’t pay for the ad by verifying its credit status.
Often forgotten in the Prop 8 debate is that the decision was not made by the Mormons, but by California voters. In fact, every time the issue has been put to a popular vote across the country, thirty-one times in a row, same-sex marriage has been rejected.
Yet, in their persistent frustration, many pro-gay debaters continue using politically charged words like “hate,” “bigot” and “attack” to demand acceptance. This only serves to drive a deeper wedge at the expense of positive dialogue that will eventually lead to more rights.
The forthcoming 2010 US Census will provide better statistics, but the 2000 Census reported 1.5 percent of Americans consider themselves gay. Redefining the term “marriage” will open churches up to discriminatory lawsuits that will cost millions of dollars and change their protected religious practices. This not only violates the Constitution’s first amendment, but bowing to a small minority shouting over a loud media megaphone is absurd.
Most Christian, Islamic, and Jewish churches fight battles against immoral actions, not people. Churches believe that homosexuality is a choice and wrong (per God) because it is a question of morality. Marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by the US government and shouldn’t be viewed as a negotiable right. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. It also tells states they do not need to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage.
Before you type your comments calling me an intolerant bigot, let me state the position I buy into. The term ‘anti-gay’ is completely wrong and hateful. Tolerance and striving to build others who are willing to meet you halfway should always be guiding principles in our relationships.
All men and women are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This guiding creed has not been accomplished when gay people are beaten and killed for the lifestyle they’ve chosen to pursue. It hasn’t been accomplished when life has become so dark they take their life because they don’t know how to live in a society that hates them.
It should be illegal to discriminate against gay individuals in housing, employment matters and other limited rights. We shouldn’t oppose civil unions for gays, as long as those rights don't infringe on religious liberties. Giving the word ‘marriage’ to gays infringes on the religious liberties of those who practice traditional marriage.
Lines need to be drawn to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. An open mind of course is important, but not to the point where your moral compass goes out the window. If giving "equal rights" to one party infringes on the rights of another, then it's not good policy or legislation. This essentially unravels the singular purpose American colonists founded this nation and crafted the Constitution. When you change the definition of marriage, you allow lawyers and judges to begin pushing churches around.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
U needs stronger stance against budget cuts
Utah State Legislators on Capitol Hill are telling the U to offer solutions to the looming budget crisis or face the consequences of even more excessive cuts. The U has already surrendered $6.8 million after Gov. Gary Herbert enacted an immediate 3 percent budget cut for all state budgets. That’s equivalent to firing 68 faculty members who each make $100,000 a year, which essentially equates to the professors of the economics and biology departments combined.Last week, a sub-appropriations committee unanimously passed an additional 4 percent budget cut for Utah’s higher education for fiscal year 2010—about $9 million more. The cut is still pending approval from the Executive Appropriations Committee before it can be voted on during the legislative session. This is in addition to the sub-committee’s discussion of a 5 percent base cut to the U’s budget.
“If we’re going to advocate for you folks (in higher education)...we need a little more specificity than what we’ve had in the past,” said Rep. Mel Brown, co-chairman of the subcommittee.
Sen. John Valentine, also with the subcommittee, is aware that the budget cuts will put the existence of two state colleges in jeopardy. Both the College of Eastern Utah and Snow College could face closure if the cuts go through.
In a statement issued Dec. 17, U President Michael Young said the administration would work with the Legislature and governor to “enact the higher education component for the governor’s proposed 2010-2011 budget.”
“We should take comfort in the fact that our other vital signs are good and that the governor understands the key role higher education plays in the well-being of the state,” Young said in the statement. “Our goal remains to minimize the impact of the budget reductions on the long-term core missions of the university and, to the best of our ability, position ourselves to move aggressively forward once the economy improves.”
Clearly, the recession is shrinking tax revenues, and the state government is scrambling for solutions. Higher education is receiving mixed messages—the governor says it is important, but legislators are knowingly putting it in harm’s way. It is scary that for the second year in a row, the U is in danger of facing substantial cuts because realistic solutions haven’t been offered.
Rather than fighting for its students and faculty to ensure that these cuts don’t hit the university, the administration is instead placing its confidence in the governor alone.
Although the immediate pain of the budget cuts will most likely be felt in the form of snow removal and custodial and security cuts, the administration must fight for the university community. It can no longer just ride the wave and not fight for providing the best education and services possible for students.
The administration must be more proactive and give the legislators reasons why they shouldn’t slash the U’s budget to help them in their decision-making so that the U’s budget is no longer compromised.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Former senator’s alleged DUI tainted democratic process
The Utah State Legislature will begin its annual session next week. Agenda items are diverse as our elected representatives will discuss and vote on all the issues that impact the state.
There are many good people who work tirelessly in our legislative branches to partner with our communities and businesses to build prosperity. However, gross violations of state ethics and abuse of power are all too common.
Last week, former State Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and resigned his Senate seat the next day. Ironically, Killpack was a vocal opponent of drunken driving, and he spearheaded ethics reforms. In fact, Killpack’s father was killed by a drunken driver, and all this didn’t seem to matter to him as he took the wheel, inebriated.
Killpack refused to take a breath test, but was forced to take a warranted blood test with results that could take up to a month to determine how drunk he was while driving. He was driving with a lobbyist and former Illinois congressman who had previously pled guilty to inducing his opponent to drop out of a state treasurer race.
It would seem that these two power-hungry politicians were more obsessed with the prestige of their position than serving the people who elected them. At least they both had enough decency to resign and show post-disgrace respect for the offices they held, after making terrible decisions.
Ethics is the core of a successfully functioning democracy. Unfortunately, personal integrity no longer seems to be a strong-enough motive for elected officials to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents. Lobbyists and political machines get in the way too easily and often, and the overall public consensus is a feeling of frustration that their elected officials don’t listen and don’t vote as the voice of the people. This is a broken democracy.
Although it can only be measured at the polls as a steadily decreasing number, not all citizens are exercising their right to vote in elections. Simply put, many feel voting isn’t worth the time because their representatives react solely to money and their respective political machines.
This perverse and disappointing reality of America’s democratic process is a cheap imitation of what the Founding Fathers worked so hard to build and our nation’s military sacrificed to protect. History shows that in these times, radical economic and political change occurs. Change is definitely on the horizon, the uncertainty of which will most likely be an unwelcome visitor.
There are many good people who work tirelessly in our legislative branches to partner with our communities and businesses to build prosperity. However, gross violations of state ethics and abuse of power are all too common.
Last week, former State Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and resigned his Senate seat the next day. Ironically, Killpack was a vocal opponent of drunken driving, and he spearheaded ethics reforms. In fact, Killpack’s father was killed by a drunken driver, and all this didn’t seem to matter to him as he took the wheel, inebriated.
Killpack refused to take a breath test, but was forced to take a warranted blood test with results that could take up to a month to determine how drunk he was while driving. He was driving with a lobbyist and former Illinois congressman who had previously pled guilty to inducing his opponent to drop out of a state treasurer race.
It would seem that these two power-hungry politicians were more obsessed with the prestige of their position than serving the people who elected them. At least they both had enough decency to resign and show post-disgrace respect for the offices they held, after making terrible decisions.
Ethics is the core of a successfully functioning democracy. Unfortunately, personal integrity no longer seems to be a strong-enough motive for elected officials to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents. Lobbyists and political machines get in the way too easily and often, and the overall public consensus is a feeling of frustration that their elected officials don’t listen and don’t vote as the voice of the people. This is a broken democracy.
Although it can only be measured at the polls as a steadily decreasing number, not all citizens are exercising their right to vote in elections. Simply put, many feel voting isn’t worth the time because their representatives react solely to money and their respective political machines.
This perverse and disappointing reality of America’s democratic process is a cheap imitation of what the Founding Fathers worked so hard to build and our nation’s military sacrificed to protect. History shows that in these times, radical economic and political change occurs. Change is definitely on the horizon, the uncertainty of which will most likely be an unwelcome visitor.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Questionable methods for health care bill: Lawsuit against government reform deserves attention
Health care coverage in America is expensive. Insurance companies operate unregulated, and coverage is often inaccessible to the people who really need it, according to Nancy Pelosi. With this fuzzy belief to guide them, the federal government is debating what the changes should be.Just before Christmas, the Senate passed an admittedly imperfect health care reform bill that President Barack Obama hailed as historic, even though much of the financial burden will be dumped onto the states. Ardent listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are calling the $871 billion Democratic health care bill catastrophic for Americans, as the high costs will compromise future generations.
Beyond the cost and the uncertainty of actual health care reform, the bill is particularly distasteful because of the way it was passed in Congress. In fact, Utah is prepared to join 10 other states in a lawsuit against the federal government. The attorneys general said there are constitutional questions and parts of the bill that smell of corruption.
According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, the health care reform bill is viewed unfavorably by 56 percent of Americans. House and Senate Democrats didn’t let that get in the way of their determination to ignore the voice of the people and force the bill through with majority votes.
Liberals had to abandon a government-run public option. Deals were made with moderates such as the “Nebraska Compromise” in which Nebraska was exempt from paying anywhere from $45 to $100 million in Medicaid bills in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote. Louisiana got a similar deal in additional federal funding. It makes you question the integrity of our leaders when these kinds of deals are made.
The constitutional questions surrounding the bill revolve around the mandate for states to enforce the laws and the requirement that every American has to buy health insurance. This line of thinking follows the law that every driver must have auto insurance, though there seems to be missing qualifiers for the health debate, not to mention thousands of uninsured drivers.
Although many Americans believe the bill will effect immediate change—such as insurers bewginning to accept customers with pre-existing conditions—the reality is, most of the benefits won’t come for another several years. This covers hidden costs and erroneously shows a balanced budget. In our great democracy, ideas and proposals should be scrutinized by the public and voted on in the open. Transparency was a campaign promise by the Obama administration, but recent actions show that day-to-day dealings have been anything but open.
Utah and the 10 other conservative states should be commended for challenging the bill’s threat to constitutional freedoms and the corrupt way it was forced to a vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)