DISCOURSE
- Campus safer than most Editorial
- Court honors Americans in decision Editorial
- PRO: Olympic games should continue as planned James Cannon II
- CON: U.S. needs to stand up, boycott Olympic games Josh Salman
- Cell phone ban instigates slippery slope for distracted drivers Jason Yurgartis
Campus safer than most
University community acting smart, deserves recognition for safe campus
Editorial
The crime rate throughout the UNF campus community is much lower than the national average.
This is a credit to not only the staff and UPD, but students as well.
UNF is slowly transitioning from the commuter school it was originally labeled and becoming more of a traditional campus each semester. More and more freshmen are deciding to attend UNF right out of high school, and thus the average age of the typical UNF student is continuing to decline.
This means more funding for the university but usually more crime as well.
Nineteen-year-olds are less mature than 25-year-olds, and they usually make more mindless mistakes, including committing petty crimes around campus.
Yet as our campus continues to transform, we continue to keep the low crime rate that makes our campus one of the safest in the state.
The reason is that while there are nearly 15,000 students and more than 2,500 campus residents at UNF, 95 percent of these people are honest, hard-working students just looking to gain an education and better themselves. There is only a small percentage that gets in the way of these goals.
UNF is continuing to grow at a remarkable pace. Everywhere you look new buildings are being put up.
This allows for UNF to accept more students and still keep the level of education the current students are accustomed to. Typically when a university adds more students, the crime rate also increases.
UNF's hasn't.
No department on this campus has a better understanding of the university's continued growth than UPD.
Every time a crime is committed the university police handle it in the safest, most productive manner. They are more educational than punitive, and it shows in their work.
They manage their limited resources very well, not wasting anyone's time or the university's valuable budget, while still keeping a safe environment for the students.
And as new projects are designed and buildings go up, they're the first to know what to do to make life comfortable for everyone.
A low crime rate not only means a safe campus, but also a more relaxed campus. Students are granted more freedom because they've shown they can handle it.
Students can continue to do their part by continuing to not engage in senseless activities.
Don't break into your neighbor's dorm room. Don't bring weapons of any kind to school. And if you are not 21 years old yet, don't drink on campus.
We are watching the transition of a campus and are attending a school that will not remain unknown to other parts of the state for long.
And as that continues to develop, we need to appreciate the people in the community that continue to keep it safe.
The staff and administrators are doing their part, and now the students need to continue to do theirs, because it's ultimately our actions that reflect on the entire university.
Court honors Americans in decision
Editorial
Liberty and freedom are rights granted to all American citizens through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed two encroachments on such rights.
The Supreme Court ruled on two cases: Boumediene v. Bush and District of Columbia v. Heller. Regardless of the critic's view, the Court upheld two fundamental philosophies essential to liberty and freedom: the ability to have due process and the right to own a gun for protection.
In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled 270 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, the right to petition the federal government on their detention status.
In the 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority's opinion that since the U.S. government was in legal and absolute control of Guantanamo, all detainees were afforded the right to challenge their enemy combatant status.
The dissenting opinion concluded this was a new and dangerous precedent as it was "the first time in our nation's history [that] the court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war," Justice Antonin Scalia said.
But this argument could not be farther from the truth as the Supreme Court decision only reaffirmed America's obligation according to the Geneva Convention.
Under the treaty, every detainee has the right to question their initial designation as an illegal combatant before a screening tribunal.
The second case, District of Columbia v. Heller, ruled on the right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
The highly contentious issue of private gun ownership versus the interpretation that the amendment states it is a collective right of the states was settled in a 5-4 decision toward private ownership.
The majority's opinion argued that the Second Amendment extends to individuals the right to own a firearm for the protection of their persons.
The majority opinion included limits on the individual's right to gun ownership including concealed weapons permits and "dangerous and unusual weapon" bans.
Patent bans on firearms are at best un-American and at worst criminal. If history teaches anything, once guns are removed from law-abiding citizens, only the criminals and the government will be armed. Both of which have very little regard to the well being of the individual.
It was a pivotal declaration as the federal government will never patently ban the individual from owning a working firearm.
PRO
Olympic games should continue as planned
Staffer Opinion
Since the incident in Tibet, many have advocated a boycott of this year's Olympics in China due to a number of reasons: human rights violations, high levels of pollution and a strict stance on the freedom of speech.
But this approach is at best naive and at worst irresponsible, as it shows a lack of a realistic foreign policy. With America facing a tumultuous commodities market and two fiscally irresponsible political parties at the helm, America needs to strengthen its trade relationship with China.
China has been condemned for its human rights violations since the early days of Mao Tse-tung, and rightly so.
But to address these problems, open trade and a fluid exchange of ideas is needed. A boycott will systematically drive the people into the arms of the government, which would stifle the progressive movement inside the country.
An economically open and prosperous society is essential to forming a free society, said economist Murray Rothbard. Coupled with China's recent privatization of agriculture and double-digit gross domestic product gains, it is clear they are willing to continue their progressive movement.
The Chinese government is implementing drastic solutions to address its grave environmental problems.
It has suspended all new construction, stopped production in all chemical plants and even deployed a fleet of ships to counter the algae problem.
The more economically developed the nation becomes, combined with increased exposure to Western environmental ideas, the more apt the government will be to comprise further economic progress that endangers the environment.
Many journalists have argued the games will be unsafe for them, but China has made great overtures to the International Olympic Committee concerning its unfriendliness to the concept of freedom of speech. In fact, Chinese representatives stated they will give journalists unfettered access.
All forms of trade sanctions and boycotts have historically failed in achieving its central purpose, forcing a governmental policy shift. Even America's previous boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow had little effect in the global dynamics between the two nations.
The on-going nuclear proliferation talks is the highest foreign policy objective. Not to mention a trade deficit and capital debt of $1 trillion. It would be unwise to flex America's foreign policy muscle over the Olympics.
Contact James Cannon II at staff1@unfspinnaker.com -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE
CON
U.S. needs to stand up, boycott Olympic games
Staffer Opinion
Human rights activists, a handful of American politicians and athletes worldwide are calling for an American boycott to the Olympics in Beijing, China this summer with good reason.
There's daily bloodshed in the Tibetan region of China, including approximately 140 people who died in Tibet in the past week alone, some of which were reportedly murdered by Chinese police who broke apart a peaceful demonstration in Lhasa, according to an Associated Press report.
The bloodshed is getting worse by the day, and the United States needs to take a stand.
Many online reports argue protests of turning off television sets and opting not to buy Chinese merchandise will do more good than boycotting the Olympics, but this will only further damage our weakening economy.
The human rights issue isn't the only one; pollution plays a major factor in the decision.
Beijing is currently the second most polluted city in the world, and despite repeated efforts to clean up the problem, it seems to be getting worse.
It was also reported last month that an algae bloom broke out in the city, causing more health concerns.
Citizens of the city walk around in doctor's masks to help protect their lungs.
Athletes rely on their lungs more than anyone else, and it would be ludicrous for them to risk damage to a part of their body that directly affects their success.
By participating, they're risking their athletic futures.
Journalists don't even want to go in fear of returning with a contusion the size of a softball in their lungs.
As a young journalist myself, I wouldn't go - and I'm a smoker.
The Beijing facilities are also a joke.
The only things the stadiums appeal to are the mutant pollution birds that defecate on them.
They are out of date, nonfunctional, unsanitary and ugly. Event coordinators are also forecasting major security issues.
Why should one the world's most prestigious athletic events take place there?
The United States boycotted the games in 1980 and needs to do it once again.
Contact Josh Salman at managing@unfspinnaker.com -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE
NATIONAL VIEW
Cell phone ban instigates slippery slope for distracted drivers
Staffer Opinion
A statewide ban on using hand-held cellular devices while driving seeking to help curb distracted drivers went into effect July 1 in California.
Motorists using their cell phones without hands-free devices can now be fined $20 for a first offense and $50 or more for subsequent offenses.
The state hopes this will stop the growing epidemic of recklessness and negligence associated with distracted driving.
Though the fines are minimal and do not add points to a driver's record, many legal experts believe the new law will have huge implications on civil suits, where the damaged party can now make a more concrete claim of negligence on a driver who caused an accident and was using his or her cell phone.
But the question is,
will this have any deterrent effect on California
motorists?
For one thing, the law does not have any specific provisions for those who are sending and receiving text messages while driving, a far more distracting activity than having a phone on one ear, one hand on the wheel and both eyes on the road.
It seems the law took too long to pass - almost two years - so in yet another instance, technology has simply outrun the process of passing a law.
When the law was conceived, lawmakers did not have the foresight to predict text messaging would almost replace direct human contact altogether.
Is technology really the enemy though?
People have been driving while distracted since cars were invented.
Dads turn around to discipline their kids on the way to Disney World, women put on makeup while looking in the rear view mirror, men use electric razors to get a last-minute shave so they can get that big promotion at the office and people eat fast food while using their knees to guide the steering wheel.
Distracted driving, like it or not, is a reality that isn't going away.
This law seems to be taking a step down a slippery slope. If we aren't allowed to drive while talking on the phone, what will be next?
Should parents not be allowed to drive children who require attention for fear they might be a distraction? Will drive-thru windows be banned so we can't eat a greasy Big Mac while driving?
Will car manufacturers stop installing stereos in cars so we aren't distracted while scrambling to find a new CD?
Banning cell phone use while driving won't solve anything, as people will always find ways to be distracted.
Paying attention to the road and surroundings is the responsibility of the driver, not the state or federal government.
Contact Jason Yurgartis at features@unfspinnaker.com -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE