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.

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

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.