A lot of people think the Constitution is a very old piece of paper hidden under glass at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The words represent a moment in time, but an evolving society has dictated that amendments and legislation be added to accommodate changing opinions and agendas. The latest evidence of this comes with the nomination of Sen. Hillary Clinton to serve in President-elect Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of State.
According to a clause in the Constitution (Article I Section 6), no lawmaker can be appointed to any civil position that was created or received a wage increase during the lawmaker’s time in office. The clause prohibits self-dealing legislation and is intended to protect the “separation of power” of various branches of government.
In January, President George W. Bush signed an executive order increasing the salaries for the Secretary of State and other Cabinet positions by $4,700. Clinton has been in the Senate since January 2001.
“We think it’s inadequate,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “You can’t amend the Constitution through legislation like that...the Constitution doesn’t have any caveats. Maybe she has to renounce the salary increase, but I’m sure they’ll find a way around it.”
This is not the first time this issue has arisen. In 1973, President Nixon appointed William Saxbe to be attorney general after he voted to increase cabinet pay during his term. The resolution was for Nixon to petition Congress to allow Saxbe to take the previous attorney general salary.
When faced with a similar situation during his presidency, Ronald Reagan upheld the Constitution closer to home.
“Reagan took a look at this clause and decided against appointing Orrin Hatch, who was a senator and still is, to the Supreme Court,” Fitton said.
It’s disconcerting when the Constitution is overlooked so that individuals can get away with achieving their own self-interests. As evidenced by his nominating of Clinton to a high ranking cabinet position, Obama feels she is the best person for the job, despite the fact that she is the only first lady to have been subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury, a result of her role in the Whitewater controversy. He’s definitely found a lawyer who can talk her way into and out of difficult circumstances.
The Constitution serves two basic purposes: first, to limit the Federal Government; second, to enumerate our basic Rights as individuals. It serves to protect our society and way of life. The Rights of individuals never change and the limitations on the Federal Government do not change without a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. It’s an injustice that it is not happening that way today.
http://dailyutahchronicle.com/sports/consitution_bars_clinton_nomination
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Altruistic restaurant bashed unfairly
Inexperience and not implementing proven business practices seems to be the main problem for the non-profit One World Cafe at 41 S. 300 East. The restaurant touts no menus and encourages customers to pay whatever they think the meal is worth.
But if you ask Rush Limbaugh, it is the liberal ideology behind One World Cafe that is causing the current struggle.
In October, employee paychecks bounced, a long-time manager was fired and the rest of the staff walked out in protest. Bringing the issue to national prominence through his “golden microphone,” Limbaugh singled out the restaurant as a symbol of what to expect of an Obama presidency.
“It’s not just mismanagement, these are a bunch of liberals,” Limbaugh said. “These are liberals playing games with the reality known as business. The owner finally figures out she’s not making a profit and blames it on the fact that she doesn’t have enough business experience and so forth. And these same kinds of people we’ve just put in charge of much of the federal government.”
Limbaugh is out of line. Restaurant founder Denise Cerreta and her chefs make entrées, soups, salads and desserts from organic meats and locally grown produce. They have been in business for five years and turned a 4 to 6 percent profit through 2007 according to the One World Web site.
The cafe even provides volunteer options for those who would prefer a “hand up” rather than a hand out. Rather than provide One World Cafe with free advertising while pushing his conservative agenda, it would be more effective to talk about the good things the restaurant is doing for the community.
One World Cafe governing board member Don Merrill said the basic idea of “helping people fill their stomachs and their spirits” will be maintained under the new management.
When the organization started, it operated without much structure. Later, demands for accountability and efficiency required the non-profit to become not less altruistic, but more professional as time went on.
“There is an arc to altruistic endeavors like this,” Merrill said. “It’s been difficult and painful, but people just felt it was moving away from meeting those new expectations.”
Nobody is forcing any kind of ideology here. As always, we are presented with opposing liberal and conservative ideas. A restaurant needs to operate on solid business practices in order to make money, otherwise it’ll go out of business and no one can eat there. As long as the restaurant makes money, it doesn’t matter what kind of ideology it subscribes to.
It sounds like One World Cafe is making changes to return to profitability, but it will take time to see if those changes will work. Capitalism only requires voluntary agreement by buyer and seller. If you think altruism is antithetical to capitalism, you’ve been drinking the Limbaugh Kool-Aid.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/altruistic_restaurant_bashed_unfairly
Friday, November 21, 2008
Diversity requires respect
Diversity is a crucial ingredient in a free and progressive society.
The U has several diversity offices that enrich educational experiences, enable individuals to progress without barriers and encourage everyone to participate in the effort.
Every day we are fighting a war of diverse ideas, and America is losing. With monumental challenges to overcome in our economy, the environment, national security, energy, health care, crime and equality, we tend to fight rather than look for solutions and compromise. Some march in protest while others sit in frustration.
It seems as though diversity is a double-edged sword—we want to be tolerant of different ideas, yet not at the expense of our own self-interests. In this battle, some voices are louder than others.
In New York after California’s gay marriage ban passed, protesters in lower Manhattan stood behind barricades, holding signs. “Love and Unity not hate,” one read. “All we need is love,” said another.
In Los Angeles, thousands of demonstrators were met by counter-demonstrators. “There is nothing civil about a man marrying another man,” one protester said. “You lost. It is not a civil rights issue. It is an issue with morality.”
It is challenging enough to achieve a diverse society when both sides of a controversial issue have valid arguments and facts to support their side. However, it becomes even harder when blind, aggressive arguments enter into the equation. Until we can sort out a compromise in deciding how to move forward with the issues facing our nation, we must maintain peaceful objectivity.
As part of the “McCarthey Family Lecture Series: In Praise of Independent Journalism,” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper addressed a crowd of more than 300 at Rowland Hall-St. Mark’s School in Salt Lake City on Saturday. He discussed the importance of objectivity and finding your own voice amid a war of ideas.
“You can’t allow your own fear and insecurity to alter what you see,” Cooper said. “It’s very easy to demonize those with a different opinion from your own, but it’s harder to walk in their shoes. Strangers reaching out to strangers is what makes the difference.”
There are no clear answers as to how to facilitate and encourage diversity, but the process is certain. Rather than get lost in the heat of emotion and angry words, we must foster an attitude of understanding and desire to listen to new ideas.
“We have to look directly into the things that scare us the most,” Cooper said. “In the hustle and bustle of daily life, we can easily forget the lives other people are living every day.”
It’s important to form opinions and have a backbone in defending them. However, when diverse ideas are presented, rather than decidedly disregarding them, it’s more important to listen while creating an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding—even if there is no solution and the outcome is to respectfully agree to disagree.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.915542
The U has several diversity offices that enrich educational experiences, enable individuals to progress without barriers and encourage everyone to participate in the effort.
Every day we are fighting a war of diverse ideas, and America is losing. With monumental challenges to overcome in our economy, the environment, national security, energy, health care, crime and equality, we tend to fight rather than look for solutions and compromise. Some march in protest while others sit in frustration.
It seems as though diversity is a double-edged sword—we want to be tolerant of different ideas, yet not at the expense of our own self-interests. In this battle, some voices are louder than others.
In New York after California’s gay marriage ban passed, protesters in lower Manhattan stood behind barricades, holding signs. “Love and Unity not hate,” one read. “All we need is love,” said another.
In Los Angeles, thousands of demonstrators were met by counter-demonstrators. “There is nothing civil about a man marrying another man,” one protester said. “You lost. It is not a civil rights issue. It is an issue with morality.”
It is challenging enough to achieve a diverse society when both sides of a controversial issue have valid arguments and facts to support their side. However, it becomes even harder when blind, aggressive arguments enter into the equation. Until we can sort out a compromise in deciding how to move forward with the issues facing our nation, we must maintain peaceful objectivity.
As part of the “McCarthey Family Lecture Series: In Praise of Independent Journalism,” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper addressed a crowd of more than 300 at Rowland Hall-St. Mark’s School in Salt Lake City on Saturday. He discussed the importance of objectivity and finding your own voice amid a war of ideas.
“You can’t allow your own fear and insecurity to alter what you see,” Cooper said. “It’s very easy to demonize those with a different opinion from your own, but it’s harder to walk in their shoes. Strangers reaching out to strangers is what makes the difference.”
There are no clear answers as to how to facilitate and encourage diversity, but the process is certain. Rather than get lost in the heat of emotion and angry words, we must foster an attitude of understanding and desire to listen to new ideas.
“We have to look directly into the things that scare us the most,” Cooper said. “In the hustle and bustle of daily life, we can easily forget the lives other people are living every day.”
It’s important to form opinions and have a backbone in defending them. However, when diverse ideas are presented, rather than decidedly disregarding them, it’s more important to listen while creating an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding—even if there is no solution and the outcome is to respectfully agree to disagree.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.915542
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Prop. 8 blame game no use
Once seen as a black-and-white issue, the definition of marriage has become gray. In last week’s election, Arizona, California and Florida voted to change their constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexuals-only institution. The marriage amendment passed in Florida 62.1 percent to 37.9 percent. It was a much tighter margin in California, with the amendment passing by less than 4 percent.
Because we live in a democracy, the citizens of our country are extended the right to vote for the passage of laws intended to benefit society. Although the majority of voters decided to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, the opposing side is protesting the decision.
Supporters of same-sex marriage focused their protest and anger on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by staging marches at the Los Angeles Temple and at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. A close look at polling numbers will quickly show that their efforts were misguided.
Black turnout—spurred by Barack Obama’s historic campaign for president—was unusually large, with black Americans making up roughly 10 percent of the total electorate. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than white voters and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gays and lesbians. According to CNN, black Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin: 69 percent to 31 percent.
“I was born black. I can’t change that,” said California resident Bilson Davis, 57, who voted for Proposition 8. “They weren’t born gay—they chose it.”
According to an analysis of the most recent reports from the California secretary of state, opponents of Proposition 8 raised $43.6 million, compared with just $29.8 million for those who oppose gay marriage. The Los Angeles Times reported that LDS Church members donated nearly $20 million dollars to support the amendment. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that California has a population of 36.5 million people. LDS Church members total 770,000, which represents only 2 percent of California’s population.
Supporters of gay marriage will inevitably exercise their right and appeal the decision of the general election. It is a healthy democracy when citizens exercise their freedoms, but it is inappropriate for supporters of gay marriage to unjustly target and falsely accuse the LDS Church or any other group of wrongdoing just because the decision didn’t go their way. There should be no blame assigned for why the amendment did or did not pass. Instead, it’d be more productive for both sides of the issue to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue to determine appropriate solutions and compromises to settle the issue rather than fight with crass words and heated emotions.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.906433
Because we live in a democracy, the citizens of our country are extended the right to vote for the passage of laws intended to benefit society. Although the majority of voters decided to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, the opposing side is protesting the decision.
Supporters of same-sex marriage focused their protest and anger on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by staging marches at the Los Angeles Temple and at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. A close look at polling numbers will quickly show that their efforts were misguided.
Black turnout—spurred by Barack Obama’s historic campaign for president—was unusually large, with black Americans making up roughly 10 percent of the total electorate. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than white voters and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gays and lesbians. According to CNN, black Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin: 69 percent to 31 percent.
“I was born black. I can’t change that,” said California resident Bilson Davis, 57, who voted for Proposition 8. “They weren’t born gay—they chose it.”
According to an analysis of the most recent reports from the California secretary of state, opponents of Proposition 8 raised $43.6 million, compared with just $29.8 million for those who oppose gay marriage. The Los Angeles Times reported that LDS Church members donated nearly $20 million dollars to support the amendment. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that California has a population of 36.5 million people. LDS Church members total 770,000, which represents only 2 percent of California’s population.
Supporters of gay marriage will inevitably exercise their right and appeal the decision of the general election. It is a healthy democracy when citizens exercise their freedoms, but it is inappropriate for supporters of gay marriage to unjustly target and falsely accuse the LDS Church or any other group of wrongdoing just because the decision didn’t go their way. There should be no blame assigned for why the amendment did or did not pass. Instead, it’d be more productive for both sides of the issue to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue to determine appropriate solutions and compromises to settle the issue rather than fight with crass words and heated emotions.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.906433
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Campus bike lanes a waste of funds
White lines are being painted all over campus sidewalks. They first appeared late last month and are intended to prevent accidents between bicyclists and pedestrians. During the weekend, bicyclist stencils were painted alongside the bike routes to educate pedestrians and bikers on how to use this new striping system.
Jake Green from Commuter Services said he is aware of two bicyclist-pedestrian accidents that have taken place this semester.
Former U student Josh Jones said he was once ticketed by a campus police officer for riding his bike too fast. Although difficult to enforce, a campus police watchdog system seems like it’d be better than lines painted on a sidewalk to promote safety.
The new sidewalk striping program is a pointless initiative. The lack of planning and research that took place before the lines were painted is dumbfounding.
Green said an ad hoc study was conducted in which avid bicyclists stood next to a sidewalk near the Student Services Building to count the number of bikes that passed during a two-and-a-half-hour period. Forgoing the use of speedometers, they counted nearly 40 bikes that passed along Union Drive. Apparently this information was enough to justify paying a contractor $3,500 to paint the lines on campus sidewalks.
Green said the initiative is in the beginning stages and Commuter Services is relying primarily on students to assist with the program’s rollout. For example, the U Bikes Public Comment Forum is a Google group where U employees, students and concerned people can discuss the biking environment at the U and make suggestions of where more white lines should be painted. But considering the money being spent, the project should be managed by an entity that does real research before implanting unproven solutions.
Many students are confused by the bike lanes and can’t see the point.
“If someone cannot control their bike because they do not know which side of the pavement to ride on, then they have serious issues and might need to think before even bringing a bike on campus,” said Brett Sorensen, a junior in communication.
The bike routes proceed from the Heritage Center to the Marriott Library and the Student Services Building. The lanes will extend to the Warnock Engineering Building as soon as water piping construction in the area finishes.
Regardless, the bike lanes are unnecessary and a reckless use of funds. The $3,500 spent to paint these lines on the sidewalk could have been better used in almost any other capacity.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/campus_bike_lanes_a_waste_of_funds
Jake Green from Commuter Services said he is aware of two bicyclist-pedestrian accidents that have taken place this semester.
Former U student Josh Jones said he was once ticketed by a campus police officer for riding his bike too fast. Although difficult to enforce, a campus police watchdog system seems like it’d be better than lines painted on a sidewalk to promote safety.
The new sidewalk striping program is a pointless initiative. The lack of planning and research that took place before the lines were painted is dumbfounding.
Green said an ad hoc study was conducted in which avid bicyclists stood next to a sidewalk near the Student Services Building to count the number of bikes that passed during a two-and-a-half-hour period. Forgoing the use of speedometers, they counted nearly 40 bikes that passed along Union Drive. Apparently this information was enough to justify paying a contractor $3,500 to paint the lines on campus sidewalks.
Green said the initiative is in the beginning stages and Commuter Services is relying primarily on students to assist with the program’s rollout. For example, the U Bikes Public Comment Forum is a Google group where U employees, students and concerned people can discuss the biking environment at the U and make suggestions of where more white lines should be painted. But considering the money being spent, the project should be managed by an entity that does real research before implanting unproven solutions.
Many students are confused by the bike lanes and can’t see the point.
“If someone cannot control their bike because they do not know which side of the pavement to ride on, then they have serious issues and might need to think before even bringing a bike on campus,” said Brett Sorensen, a junior in communication.
The bike routes proceed from the Heritage Center to the Marriott Library and the Student Services Building. The lanes will extend to the Warnock Engineering Building as soon as water piping construction in the area finishes.
Regardless, the bike lanes are unnecessary and a reckless use of funds. The $3,500 spent to paint these lines on the sidewalk could have been better used in almost any other capacity.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/campus_bike_lanes_a_waste_of_funds
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Kindle not worth Granite's money
The Granite School District recently blew $52,773 on a product that is supposed to replace books. The district purchased 147 Amazon Kindles at $359 apiece in an effort to cut down on paper costs and the space and energy needed to store books. The Kindle is an electronic reader that allows the user to download content and read on a high-resolution screen.
The Kindle is touted as the answer to literacy problems facing the district. However, the inherent flaw in the district’s logic is its assumption that students will read more books because they are presented in a new format.
Sure, there are perks that come with the Kindle that potentially could be implemented at the U, specifically to reduce textbook fees for students. With textbooks running $100 or more, Kindle titles cost an average of $10 and can easily be shared among several users.
It is disconcerting that the district invested in a technology that is unproven in the marketplace, not to mention that the product can only be utilized by 0.002 percent of its student body, as the district’s Web site reports servicing 68,075 students. Unlike Apple’s iPod, the Kindle does not have a touch screen, intuitive scroll wheel, or clear transitions between chapters and pages. It’s also an expensive product to replace if it gets damaged, stolen or becomes obsolete.
In May, Los Angeles hosted Book Expo America, a trade show for networking and selling within the publishing industry. Industry experts were abuzz debating how technology would change the book market since content could be presented in a paperless format and downloaded to portable reading devices.
It’s fascinating to consider that the book industry could also fall victim to what happened to the music industry in the late ’90s with the development of popular Internet sites that made it easy for listeners (particularly college students) to download popular music for free. Of course, Apple came to the rescue by developing iTunes, giving listeners a legal and affordable platform to purchase songs while music publishers still received compensation. The music industry changed because the Internet hit sales in the traditional music distribution model hard and profits for record companies and artists plummeted.
Perhaps the publishing industry will soon face a similar scenario because of emerging technologies and consumer preferences. There is a lot of potential for the developing format, but we seem to be at a crossroads in terms of aligning the technology with consumer behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.851466
The Kindle is touted as the answer to literacy problems facing the district. However, the inherent flaw in the district’s logic is its assumption that students will read more books because they are presented in a new format.
Sure, there are perks that come with the Kindle that potentially could be implemented at the U, specifically to reduce textbook fees for students. With textbooks running $100 or more, Kindle titles cost an average of $10 and can easily be shared among several users.
It is disconcerting that the district invested in a technology that is unproven in the marketplace, not to mention that the product can only be utilized by 0.002 percent of its student body, as the district’s Web site reports servicing 68,075 students. Unlike Apple’s iPod, the Kindle does not have a touch screen, intuitive scroll wheel, or clear transitions between chapters and pages. It’s also an expensive product to replace if it gets damaged, stolen or becomes obsolete.
In May, Los Angeles hosted Book Expo America, a trade show for networking and selling within the publishing industry. Industry experts were abuzz debating how technology would change the book market since content could be presented in a paperless format and downloaded to portable reading devices.
It’s fascinating to consider that the book industry could also fall victim to what happened to the music industry in the late ’90s with the development of popular Internet sites that made it easy for listeners (particularly college students) to download popular music for free. Of course, Apple came to the rescue by developing iTunes, giving listeners a legal and affordable platform to purchase songs while music publishers still received compensation. The music industry changed because the Internet hit sales in the traditional music distribution model hard and profits for record companies and artists plummeted.
Perhaps the publishing industry will soon face a similar scenario because of emerging technologies and consumer preferences. There is a lot of potential for the developing format, but we seem to be at a crossroads in terms of aligning the technology with consumer behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.851466
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Many issues in election will affect young voters
Election Day is fewer than two weeks away and Utah is one of several early-voting states. Students and citizens across the state can begin casting their ballots in the presidential race as well as making their opinions count in state and civic propositions and selection of representatives.
A February Rock the Vote poll found that more than half of young adults ages 18 to 29 said the top issue of concern is the economy and job creation, followed closely by health care and education costs.
Today’s young adults are having a hard time making ends meet in a difficult economy. There are 44 million 18-to 29-year-olds eligible to vote in the United States, one-fifth of the electorate. Today’s 18- to 29-year-olds are part of the Millennial Generation, the biggest generation since the baby boomers, according to CompleteCampaigns.com.
Debt and living from paycheck to paycheck is a fact of life for today’s young adults. During the past decade, college, health insurance and housing costs have soared. About two-thirds of college students graduate with debt, with the average graduate owing $20,000.
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute found that the primary concerns of 18- to 30-year-olds vary. When asked whether they agreed with certain statements, 82 percent reported they are concerned with college affordability, 68 percent said global warming is a real and growing threat, and 65 percent said the U.S. government should provide universal health care.
“Young voters are a potential powerhouse in the 2008 elections,” said Kat Barr, research director for Rock the Vote. “This poll is yet another indicator that candidates who want to win in 2008 must court this large and increasingly active group of voters.”
To make voting easier for students this year, the Associated Students of the University of Utah Government Relations Board has coordinated early voting at the U with booths set up in the Union. As it’s a presidential election year, students are encouraged to vote now more than ever. Programs and policies that are passed in this election will impact life on a day-to-day basis.
A lot of people say the vote of an individual person doesn’t count and won’t make any difference in the election. But, as they say in basketball, you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take. If you don’t vote at all, your vote really is worth nothing.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.842515
A February Rock the Vote poll found that more than half of young adults ages 18 to 29 said the top issue of concern is the economy and job creation, followed closely by health care and education costs.
Today’s young adults are having a hard time making ends meet in a difficult economy. There are 44 million 18-to 29-year-olds eligible to vote in the United States, one-fifth of the electorate. Today’s 18- to 29-year-olds are part of the Millennial Generation, the biggest generation since the baby boomers, according to CompleteCampaigns.com.
Debt and living from paycheck to paycheck is a fact of life for today’s young adults. During the past decade, college, health insurance and housing costs have soared. About two-thirds of college students graduate with debt, with the average graduate owing $20,000.
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute found that the primary concerns of 18- to 30-year-olds vary. When asked whether they agreed with certain statements, 82 percent reported they are concerned with college affordability, 68 percent said global warming is a real and growing threat, and 65 percent said the U.S. government should provide universal health care.
“Young voters are a potential powerhouse in the 2008 elections,” said Kat Barr, research director for Rock the Vote. “This poll is yet another indicator that candidates who want to win in 2008 must court this large and increasingly active group of voters.”
To make voting easier for students this year, the Associated Students of the University of Utah Government Relations Board has coordinated early voting at the U with booths set up in the Union. As it’s a presidential election year, students are encouraged to vote now more than ever. Programs and policies that are passed in this election will impact life on a day-to-day basis.
A lot of people say the vote of an individual person doesn’t count and won’t make any difference in the election. But, as they say in basketball, you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take. If you don’t vote at all, your vote really is worth nothing.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/1.842515
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)