http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2036368-155/op-ed-what-would-gandhi-do-hed
The article presents an interesting thought, about what would Ghandi do in modern day America, as one of the greatest advocates for the poor and of peace the world has ever been home to. It's all hypothetical, of course, but chances are he'd go and help the oppressed, the communities full of violence and crime, and the poor in the country.
We need people like Ghandi in the world today. He did so much for his fellow men, and suffered immensely rather than see violence continue. In America, we need people willing to assist the poor, fight for the voiceless, give help to the distraught. It's not about money, it never should be. We can help. The priorities Ghandi gave to peaceful protest, non violence, unification of many different people for the common good, and to protecting and assisting the needy are priorities we can set, in our communities, and our nation.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Lowry: Free speech embattled in the West
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2038539-155/lowry-free-speech-embattled-in-the
The attack on cartoonist Charlie Hebdo in Paris was a deliberate attack on free speech. Sure, he created possibly inflammatory material against Islam, but his right to do so should be protected and upheld. When terrorists can cause our basic rights of freedom of expression to be endangered, and our own governments fight against our criticisms, our rights to protest through media and to criticize, the terrorists have succeeded, succeeded in a war that in many ways is as spiritual, political and fundamentally philosophical and psychological as it is a physical war.
Where does this end? Laws have already been put in place in Europe that limit freedoms of speech when used in a derogatory sense against Islam and other religions in particular. Sure, it's mean, probably bad, and definitely regrettable that people and religions are criticised and degraded by media and expressions, but, we have a right to say these things, and not fear retaliation by our own government, and protection from retaliation from other entities. I think blatant racism, particularly when used in propaganda is where the line is crossed, and it's crossed because the idea is being spread with intent to degrade an entire people, and convince others to do so also. That should be regulated. But, criticisms and satire should never be regulated. The day we allow that to happen is the day the terrorists win, because they caused us to silence our own voices.
The attack on cartoonist Charlie Hebdo in Paris was a deliberate attack on free speech. Sure, he created possibly inflammatory material against Islam, but his right to do so should be protected and upheld. When terrorists can cause our basic rights of freedom of expression to be endangered, and our own governments fight against our criticisms, our rights to protest through media and to criticize, the terrorists have succeeded, succeeded in a war that in many ways is as spiritual, political and fundamentally philosophical and psychological as it is a physical war.
Where does this end? Laws have already been put in place in Europe that limit freedoms of speech when used in a derogatory sense against Islam and other religions in particular. Sure, it's mean, probably bad, and definitely regrettable that people and religions are criticised and degraded by media and expressions, but, we have a right to say these things, and not fear retaliation by our own government, and protection from retaliation from other entities. I think blatant racism, particularly when used in propaganda is where the line is crossed, and it's crossed because the idea is being spread with intent to degrade an entire people, and convince others to do so also. That should be regulated. But, criticisms and satire should never be regulated. The day we allow that to happen is the day the terrorists win, because they caused us to silence our own voices.
Wonkblog: The rich think the poor have it easy
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2038544-155/wonkblog-the-rich-think-the-poor
Sure, the author is obviously biased, most are, but the points presented are quite interesting. A lot of Americans (about half) think the poor have it pretty good, and can get government benefits for little effort. The problem with this view is that a majority of the people who said that were not poor themselves, rather they were financially stable, and more leaning to the right side of the political spectrum.
I think this view that the poor have so good, and are lazy or not willing to work to pay for things, is wrong. There will be people that take advantage of the system for sure, but when people say these things, they're not looking at the circumstances of the problem, and are quite unfair in their assessment of the poor and needy in this country. They need to consider: "Gee, it might actually be hard to be a poor person: it might be extremely hard to get a job in this country, with little schooling, might be hard to have little mouths to feed, and not being able to feed them even while working several minimum wage jobs. It might be hard to pay the rent, provide for a family, and try to save for a better life-- when most of the pay check runs out so quickly." Government aid is something we give so that people have at least a chance to rise. If they don't, people need to take the time and realize a life of poverty is an extremely hard life with many worries, and so many challenges, money at the top of the list. But, the point is they have a chance. Who are we to say the impoverished should have no support? Especially considering when we cut that support, we cut off futures, and take away chances to get out of their situation, chances they need if they are ever going to do so.
Sure, the author is obviously biased, most are, but the points presented are quite interesting. A lot of Americans (about half) think the poor have it pretty good, and can get government benefits for little effort. The problem with this view is that a majority of the people who said that were not poor themselves, rather they were financially stable, and more leaning to the right side of the political spectrum.
I think this view that the poor have so good, and are lazy or not willing to work to pay for things, is wrong. There will be people that take advantage of the system for sure, but when people say these things, they're not looking at the circumstances of the problem, and are quite unfair in their assessment of the poor and needy in this country. They need to consider: "Gee, it might actually be hard to be a poor person: it might be extremely hard to get a job in this country, with little schooling, might be hard to have little mouths to feed, and not being able to feed them even while working several minimum wage jobs. It might be hard to pay the rent, provide for a family, and try to save for a better life-- when most of the pay check runs out so quickly." Government aid is something we give so that people have at least a chance to rise. If they don't, people need to take the time and realize a life of poverty is an extremely hard life with many worries, and so many challenges, money at the top of the list. But, the point is they have a chance. Who are we to say the impoverished should have no support? Especially considering when we cut that support, we cut off futures, and take away chances to get out of their situation, chances they need if they are ever going to do so.
Rolly: Check your legislator for Count My Vote flip-flop
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2034789-155/rolly-check-your-legislator-for-count
Words cannot describe how upset I was over the Count My Vote initiative simply bending to compromise last year. Direct primaries in Utah would have done so much good for the state. Thousands of utahns, who signed the petition, agreed with me. The movement was gaining momentum, despite attempts by legislators to stop it, the political force of so many people wanting change, change that our elected representatives voted against and tried to stop, is the essence of true democracy, and should have become law. We wanted a direct election, and the people in power fought against it. Then, when the movement brought such attention, legislators talked with Count My Vote people, and a compromise was born, instead of letting the people speak, the representatives decided to pass a law, which they are now trying to overturn.
The whole point of Count My Vote was to use the voice of the people to overrule the voting process that got a lot of ineffective, and likely corrupt, representatives in power. It failed, instead of changing Utah, it temporarily added a direct election option for running politicians, not overturning the Caucus system, and that compromise will likely soon be retracted, meaning all that work was for nothing. It's sad to me, and what we learn is that we should not compromise when so many people show support for something, and it will take a huge unification of utahns if we ever want to try to overthrow the caucus system again, and hopefully we won't compromise with our representatives again. Their purpose is to protect our interests, and they not only didn't do that, they fought against us, their constituents. Something is very wrong with this picture, yet we still elect the same legislators.
Words cannot describe how upset I was over the Count My Vote initiative simply bending to compromise last year. Direct primaries in Utah would have done so much good for the state. Thousands of utahns, who signed the petition, agreed with me. The movement was gaining momentum, despite attempts by legislators to stop it, the political force of so many people wanting change, change that our elected representatives voted against and tried to stop, is the essence of true democracy, and should have become law. We wanted a direct election, and the people in power fought against it. Then, when the movement brought such attention, legislators talked with Count My Vote people, and a compromise was born, instead of letting the people speak, the representatives decided to pass a law, which they are now trying to overturn.
The whole point of Count My Vote was to use the voice of the people to overrule the voting process that got a lot of ineffective, and likely corrupt, representatives in power. It failed, instead of changing Utah, it temporarily added a direct election option for running politicians, not overturning the Caucus system, and that compromise will likely soon be retracted, meaning all that work was for nothing. It's sad to me, and what we learn is that we should not compromise when so many people show support for something, and it will take a huge unification of utahns if we ever want to try to overthrow the caucus system again, and hopefully we won't compromise with our representatives again. Their purpose is to protect our interests, and they not only didn't do that, they fought against us, their constituents. Something is very wrong with this picture, yet we still elect the same legislators.
Op-ed: No more lame excuses for not funding schools
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2036241-155/op-ed-no-more-lame-excuses-for
I love this article. Education is a highly important topic for me. State Senator Debakis clearly states one of the biggest long lasting problems in Utah, being relatively low spending on education (Utah is last place in spending per student in the nation). This year there is hope, however, as the budget plan given by governor Herbert would increase our school funding, hopefully allowing for more personnel, smaller classes, and more materials for the benefit of students.
I hope the governor's plan is approved and used. An increase in those vital funds has been a long time in coming. The future of Utah is in education. An increase would help a lot, but, even with the proposed budget, Utah will still be last in nation in per student funding. More action is needed, but every step that brings Utah closer to better competing with other states in education is an important step.
I love this article. Education is a highly important topic for me. State Senator Debakis clearly states one of the biggest long lasting problems in Utah, being relatively low spending on education (Utah is last place in spending per student in the nation). This year there is hope, however, as the budget plan given by governor Herbert would increase our school funding, hopefully allowing for more personnel, smaller classes, and more materials for the benefit of students.
I hope the governor's plan is approved and used. An increase in those vital funds has been a long time in coming. The future of Utah is in education. An increase would help a lot, but, even with the proposed budget, Utah will still be last in nation in per student funding. More action is needed, but every step that brings Utah closer to better competing with other states in education is an important step.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Governor Herbert is "concerned" about Pres. Obama's community college proposal (1-9-14)
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2039864-155/utahs-governor-is-concerned-about-obamas
Governor Herbert, when asked by reporters about the president's newly announced plan said he was "concerned" about it, but it would be great in the long run. He wasn't sure on the specifics of the plan, but where the money came in from was his main concern. He also suggested that trying to lower tuition rates would probably benefit the nation more.
I think that two years of free community college is a great idea. It would benefit so many people, not the least of which being the ones who desperately need educations, the ones stuck in low incomes who can not afford college. This plan could open doors for a lot of Americans, and bring up the education level of the nation. I don't know what the results of such a plan would be. I'm assuming community colleges would have huge influxes in class sizes, and that they might also try to raise tuition. Universities would undoubtedly make it purposefully more difficult to obtain transfer scholarships for people attending community college. They might raise tuition too. I like the plan presented, but I think that our government should put forward legislation allowing for government regulation of the cost of attending college. Education is a precious commodity, especially in the modern world, and an expensive one. It needs to be attainable for more people, maybe even all people, at this point in America, it is not attainable for everyone, at least not without going into thousands upon thousands in debt. But, change needs come step by step, gradually, to be able to be effective for the places of higher education in the USA, if Obama's plan passes, the first step towards a better nation would have been taken.
Governor Herbert, when asked by reporters about the president's newly announced plan said he was "concerned" about it, but it would be great in the long run. He wasn't sure on the specifics of the plan, but where the money came in from was his main concern. He also suggested that trying to lower tuition rates would probably benefit the nation more.
I think that two years of free community college is a great idea. It would benefit so many people, not the least of which being the ones who desperately need educations, the ones stuck in low incomes who can not afford college. This plan could open doors for a lot of Americans, and bring up the education level of the nation. I don't know what the results of such a plan would be. I'm assuming community colleges would have huge influxes in class sizes, and that they might also try to raise tuition. Universities would undoubtedly make it purposefully more difficult to obtain transfer scholarships for people attending community college. They might raise tuition too. I like the plan presented, but I think that our government should put forward legislation allowing for government regulation of the cost of attending college. Education is a precious commodity, especially in the modern world, and an expensive one. It needs to be attainable for more people, maybe even all people, at this point in America, it is not attainable for everyone, at least not without going into thousands upon thousands in debt. But, change needs come step by step, gradually, to be able to be effective for the places of higher education in the USA, if Obama's plan passes, the first step towards a better nation would have been taken.
First Homicide of the Year (1-9-14) http://www.sltrib.com/news/2038778-155/slcpd-shooting-cops-body-cam-was
Basically, an officer was called in because of the suspicious activity of a man with a snow shovel, asking people for money to shovel walks, but there was very little snow. He matched the description of some reports filed earlier for burglary. When the officer approached, the man became hostile and started beating the officer with a shovel, inflicting blows that caused several broken bones. Somewhere in the struggle, the cop's body cam stopped working, and later shots were fired, leaving the aggravator dead, and the cop with broken bones.
I'm not entirely certain who is at fault in this case, attacking a police officer is a serious offense, but one that should be filed against the offender in a court of law and not one enforced by death. It's sad to me that the first homicide of the new year was a police shooting. Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate our police officers and what they do for the communities in which they serve. But, that being said, there needs to be balance between current law enforcement tactics and reasonable responses. Even if the officer was in pain and being hit with a shovel, he could have tasered the assailant, and let him have his time in jail, instead of shooting him and taking away his life. It's a volatile topic, and one not easily traversed, to be sure. I just don't like to see deaths at the hands of our officers that are not absolutely necessary. Should we, as the community, decide what and when it is necessary, or do we leave it up to the officers? There is a certain point that the police need to be more accountable, and less prone to use their firearms. I don't condone them for having guns, those are important for law enforcement-- as a deterrent-- but, in my opinion, shouldn't be fired at anyone unless absolutely necessary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)