T u e s d a y, M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 | T h e S p e c t r u m
6
Rylee Nelson Opinion Editor Phone: 231-6287 | Email: opinion@ndsuspectrum.com
Opinion Getting under my skin
Save money, abolish death penalties DEREK GAFFNEY Staff Writer
RYLEE NELSON Opinion Editor
MTV has done it again, with yet another attempt at rocking the world of television and appearing as a “pioneer� of the limits of appropriate programming. The distasteful airing of “Skins,� a new show based off an original UK version, has shown a complete disregard toward the responsibility of the media to protect societal views. “Skins� features a group of teenagers played by actors as young as 15 and follows their lives of alcohol and drug use, aimless sexual experiences and overall careless lifestyles. Not only are these young actors and actresses suggesting this strong content, the show almost encourages it, even involving nudity. With this growing controversy, some advertisers have gone so far as to pull their ads from airing during the show and many are speaking up about the obvious societal violation that MTV has committed. Personally, I have read plot lines of several of the episodes and was shocked to say the least. Not only did it feature very unoriginal plot substance, but also it utilized adult content in a simply gratuitous way. This no-shame move by MTV to continually push the envelope makes a complete mockery of what ought to be conveyed by a media outlet as big as this one. This station, which was founded on music video countdowns, has now spawned into a complete onetrack revolutionizing machine. Instead of providing its viewers with quality television that is catered to the comfort zones of its viewers, it continues to attempt blockbuster edgy series that are sure to get controversy, but viewers nonetheless. This is simply a power move by MTV to captivate its viewers by shock-‘n’-awe foregoing a more traditional quality broadcast.
Skin on Page 7 >>
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: We are lucky to live in North Dakota. We live in a state with a major surplus that any other state would envy, and besides our frigid winters and Red River flooding, North Dakota is a pretty awesome state. California, on the other hand, cannot say the same. Sure, California has an awesome climate and all (besides the earthquakes and mudslides), but their state is so far in debt that its appeal is almost zero. California is looking to cut funds to education, law enforcement and university pro-
grams to balance the state budget, but there’s one judge who has a different solution: Get rid of the death penalty. You might be thinking that this judge is another bleeding heart liberal that is against the death penalty on principle and is using his power to advance his own personal agenda, but you’d be wrong. His name is Donald McCartin, and he is a self-described “right-wing Republican� who has sentenced so many people to death that his nickname is “the hanging judge�. To convince you that he is a Republican, in his op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, he states that he’s actually proud of that nickname. Some may say that this judge is flip-flopping on his ideals, but I can tell you that he isn’t. With the way that our system is set up to try every way to ensure that no man or woman is ever executed by the state incorrectly, millions upon millions of dollars are spent in
mandatory appeals and other legal maneuverings after the initial trial and sentence. Judge McCartin wants the men he sentenced to death to die, but he also realizes that at this time, with the state struggling to make ends meet, the cheaper option is to put these men in prison for life without parole. Either way, the offenders will never harm another innocent person again. The ACLU estimates that California spends $137 million a year on cases involving the death penalty, where the life imprisonment option costs the state around $11 million. I don’t know about you, but I think saving $125 million a year meets the definition of being fiscally responsible. We all know how Republicans love to say they’re fiscally responsible. So Judge McCartin is holding fast to his Republican ideals, and I have to say that I respect him a lot for it. It takes a big man to look at all the
facts and admit that he made mistakes and that doing things a bit differently would have been better. I am not a fan of the death penalty for the exact same reasons that Judge McCartin is no longer a fan: I don’t like the amount of money we waste to have state-sponsored killing. Don’t get me wrong, if someone murdered my parents or my sister or my girlfriend, I would want that person dead. I completely understand the want and need to somehow make life’s equation equal, and knowing the person who killed someone I love is dead would give me peace of mind. However, killing someone is a task that should be well thought out and done in such a way that there is absolutely no doubt that the person sentenced to death is 100 percent guilty. To do that, appeals upon appeals must happen and dollars upon dollars must be spent, and in this economy, no state can realistically afford
it. We have reached a point in our country’s history where we need to make tough decisions to remain the great nation we are. At this point, any decision to continue to spend money on a program that costs hundreds of millions over a viable alternative should be deemed insane. We should all oppose the death penalty. Not only does it go against the commandments of this supposed “Christian nation� we live in, but it also doesn’t make fiscal sense. Abolishing the death penalty is one of the only things that Democrats and Republicans can fundamentally agree on. We can argue night and day about which weather is better and which state is better, but if we look at the facts, we should all agree that the death penalty needs to go. Derek Gaffney is a secondyear professional in the college of pharmacy.
Property tax: A reasonable rent MATT SEVERNS Spectrum Staff
Show me someone who thinks that property taxes are a bad thing, and I'll show you someone who has never enjoyed a walk in a park, seen firsthand the benefits of a properly funded government or received an education. In North Dakota, there are more than 25,000 residents who have never really enjoyed the amenities a community has to offer and they have been given a voice that could soon be proposing a state constitutional amendment to put an end to the state property tax. There is merit in reducing undue taxes, but is “frivolous� the first word that comes to
mind when a reasonable person thinks of public school districts, parks and recreation, water resources and soil conservation? Included in the nearly $775 million proposed blow to such programs through the elimination of state property taxes is a provision which suggests that funds cannot decrease; instead they must be drawn from other sources. This money must come from “that guy� instead of me, which I'm sure will fare quite well for programs in jeopardy, particularly the schools, which as we know, tend to have no issue funding themselves. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but pawning civil duty off into the hands of the nearly 650,000 residents who didn’t sign the petition is a juvenile
“
This money must come from ‘that guy’ instead of me, which I'm sure will fare quite well for programs in jeopardy, particularly the schools, which as we know, tend to have no issue funding themselves. notion. It is like saying, “Hey, I’m not old. Why should I pay for Social Security?� The campaign against a state property tax suggests that taxing spending and in-
come instead of property allows taxes to be paid on the basis of income availability instead of as a rent charge for access to ubiquitous public services. If my earnings and expenditures are further taxed, my spending power becomes further inhibited. If my spending power is reduced, I might not be able to afford a house. If I cannot afford a house, I will have to sleep on a park bench. But if there are no property taxes, I might not have a park bench to sleep on. This seems overly simplistic, but the rationale behind the campaign's push is similarly elementary. Yes, charging people on the basis of income and expenditure ensures that people who have money will be paying
taxes. However, if the expenditures associated with home ownership cannot be afforded, perhaps that property shouldn’t have been bought in the first place. The last thing the state needs is a legion of people who don’t understand that public resources come with a cost and that the most just way to collect those costs involves taxing property because of its access to them. Understanding this issue is as easy as taking a walk in the park. For those who still don't get it and remain supportive of repealing the state property tax, I encourage you to get an education -- oh, wait... Matt is a junior majoring in English education.
Tuesday Night
College Special WT *SVZL ! w e N
Bar Specials ,]LY` ^LLR
)V^SPUN
7LY .HTL
>LZ[ (JYLZ )V^S ‹ 0U[LYZ[H[L )S]K : -HYNV
TEAMSTERS $3 Bomb For shots the month of November $10 Large one topping pizza and pitcher of beer With a student ID $1.50 Domestic Bottles Tuesdays and Thursdays from 4 - 9
Daily Specials Monday - Friday 4-9
$.50 Tap Beer 11 - 1
$.75 Tap Beer 4 - 6 Monday - $2.50 Morgan $1 Tap Beer 10 - Midnight Tuesday - $1.50 Domestics Bottles $1 off Appetizers 4 - 9 1/2 price Homemade Pizza 4 - 9 Wednesday - $2.50 Budweiser Thursdays Thursday - $1.50 Domestic Bottles Free Food 4 - 6 Friday - $2.00 Long Island Teas Thursdays and Fridays Saturday - $2.50 Smirnoff Karaoke Sunday - Happy Hour all day Saturdays Live Bands
Sundays
Happy Hour all day
701-293-9620 21 18th St. Fargo, ND
We Support The
Bison