OPINIONS THE UNIVERSITY STAR
”
quoteof the day
“There is nothing humorous about steroid abuse. I would think that the California Milk Processor Board and their advertising agency would know better regarding an issue that threatens America’s youth.”
— Tim Brosnan, executive vice president for business for Major League Baseball, about a new ad campaign for the California Milk Processor Board in which a player is suspended for using milk, a “performance-enhancing” supplement.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - Page 5
Opinions Contact — Joe Ruiz, staropinion@txstate.edu
THE MAIN POINT
Redundant constitutional amendment deserves denial by Texas voters Proposition 4: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a criminal defendant who violates a condition of the defendant’s release pending trial.” In The University Star’s continuing commentary on the upcoming November elections, we tackle a proposed state constitutional amendment that is redundant, does little to protect those it seeks to safeguard and so vague as to invite abuse. Proposition 4, created from Senate Joint Resolution 17, would allow state district judges to deny bail to criminal defendants if those defendants have had any previous bail revoked for violating the conditions of their release. The supporters of the amendment claim that it is intended to protect crime victims whose safety might be jeopardized by the defendant’s release. For example, if a condition of an assault defendant’s release was that he had to maintain a certain distance from the victim, and the defendant’s bail was revoked because he was found in violation of this condition, the judge would be authorized to deny him reinstatement of bail or new bail. The idea sounds perfectly reasonable, but the actual language of the amendment does not limit itself just to violations that affect the safety of crime victims but also embraces threats to “the safety of the community,” an all-embracing term that could be interpreted by individual judges to include anything from actual violence to failure to pay a fee. When somebody is accused of a crime, the American justice system presumes the defendant’s innocence until he or she is proven guilty. The Texas Constitution in particular holds that bail should be set only to ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial and never as punishment. For those who have committed a crime, any conditions of bail would include the message to refrain from committing more crimes — and Texas law already allows judges to set prohibitively high bails or refuse to set bail under these circumstances. From a practical point of view, a defendant out on bail who still chooses to commit another crime is unlikely to refer from doing so simply because the Texas Constitution supports the judge’s right to deny him or her new bail after the fact. Should any district judges grant bail to any violent offenders or people that will terrorize their victims, the voters have the ability to vote them out and put somebody in their place that will keep criminals off the streets. Furthermore, the attempt to pass amendments like this or Proposition 2’s “gay marriage” ban, which are already covered by Texas law, highlights one of the larger issues with the Texas Constitution. This state has reached a point where the constitution is so convoluted, it’s hard to know what’s a crime and what isn’t. The Federalist Papers warn of a time when the actions of caprice rather than reason will overrun the law. If we allow amendments to be wantonly added to our constitution, we only degrade the intent behind it. At present, the Texas Constitution sits with a hefty 432 amendments. The Constitution of the United States has a paltry 27. Piling on amendments will not change behavior nor does it foster our republican system. In fact, creating a system where laws change from term to term, from day to day, only leads to the confusion of the people and apathy toward the system. In short, voting for this redundant amendment would not only add to the already massive Texas Constitution but would benefit nobody by its presence. The Main Point is the opinion of the newspaper’s editorial board. Columns are the opinions of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the full staff, Texas State University-San Marcos Student Media, the School of Journalism and Mass Communication or Texas State University-San Marcos. Letters policy: E-mail letters to starletters@txstate.edu. Letters must be no longer than 300 words. No anonymous letters will be printed. We reserve the right to edit for grammar, spelling, space and libel. We reserve the right to refuse obscene, irrelevant and malicious letters. All e-mails must include the name and phone number of the letter writer. Students should also include their classifications and majors.
How would you rate the crime problem in your area? 8% 68% 24% 12%
2004
2005
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 13-16, 2005. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
The University Star 601 University Drive, Trinity Building San Marcos, TX 78666 Phone: (512) 245-3487 Fax: (512) 245-3708
I just wanted to at least four). We send out a heartwouldn’t want our felt thanks to the college-educated editorial board of students tackling The University Star. complex issues After reading your with complex editorial attempting thinking involvto debunk Kinky ing a myriad of Friedman, I felt the JEFF FELDERHOFF possible solutions; warm fuzziness of Guest Columnist that’s just silly. All false-dichotomy hail the false-dipolitics envelop me. chotomy! It was like a frontal lobotomy You chastise Friedman without all the mess. But wait, because he chooses to go by there’s more I have to thank “Kinky.” That is the name you for! by which he is known. Every Thank you for defending thing he has done in the puba terribly failed system that lic eye has been done as Kinky. is Texas politics. Your article I guess it is good enough for made me realize that I should writing books, singing songs ignore a political candidate and saving stray dogs, but who has the potential to be “Kinky” just won’t do for gova catalyst for real positive ernor. I always thought that a change in Texas, simply beperson’s actions determined cause the current system is the gravity of one’s name, not unwelcoming to such progthe other way around. What ress. I suppose it is my duty else should he change? as a business-as-usual Texan Should he put out his cigar, to put faith in the defendcut his hair, shave his face, ers of the status quo to rise slap an American flag on his above two-party stagnation new tailored suit, pick the and change the current sysproper side of the fence to tem in a manner that would park his SUV and trade in his encourage true discourse of Star of David for the more important issues when I know voter-friendly cross? I forgot that the preservation of the that being oneself is not acsaid system is the key to their ceptable in politics. Thanks grasp of power and control. for the reminder. Maybe I We wouldn’t want to rock the should change my name. I boat, now would we; somedon’t know a whole lot of exthing extraordinary might traordinary Jeff ’s. happen, and that isn’t good You attack those who Texas politics, right? choose to “Get Kinky” for the Thank you for encourag“sheer satire of it.” I know of ing mediocrity and stifling a lot of people who slapped the spirit of thought and disBush or Kerry bumper stickcourse. Your articles defend ers on their Expeditions and the fallacious notion that Volvos without so much as a there are only two solutions single neuron firing in their to every problem (most of my one-sided, straight-ticket multiple-choice exams have brains. Your attack is baseless
There’s nothing wrong with being independent
19%
1,012 People Polled
The Main Point should be consistent and thoughtless. In Oct. 18’s The Main Point, you stated that “our newspaper defends the high standards of discourse” and that you “failed” in that endeavor when you allowed the submission of that completely inappropriate Rugh Cline column. Yet, two days later, you published an article that effectively stamped out any possibility of discourse. You also criticized Cline’s column for “launching ad hominem attacks on” political opponents “rather than engaging them in substantive argument,” yet you commit the same fallacy. You said the inclusion of Friedman in the general election would be “at the expense of a lot of good candidates.” You also attacked Friedman by stating that he should “let the grownups govern.” An ad hominem attack involves attacking the person rather than his arguments, something that is blatantly and belligerently clear in your article towards Kinky. You do not give a good reason why he is not “good,” and you do not establish the premise by which Kinky should not be considered a “grownup.” Your article embodies the “mean-spirited attacks” that which you stated in your Cline apology would “be a charge that we (Star editorial staff) will endeavor to perform better in the future.” Please let us (Star readers) know when in the future you plan to embrace this value. Many view The Main Point as the point of reference of the editorial section. It usually gives an opinion based on factual data and good
journalistic ethics. Not this time. I know that it is still opinion-based, but as a collective, you guys have a responsibility to present well-thought, fact-based opinions to the student body. You wield a very powerful tool here, and your inconsistent and loose cannon behavior has shattered my confidence in your collective ability to encourage any kind of effective discourse among the student body. In the same article, you accurately assessed that the Cline article “closed-off, rather than encouraged, dialog,” yet your latest article commits the same crime. You attacked every political party but one, and you picked the most superficial and irrelevant issues to do it. “High standards for discourse,” indeed. I guess I cannot expect those who do not think to encourage thought. I felt like I had just read a transcript of The O’Reilly Factor. The University Star’s The Main Point has become inconsistent from issue to issue. Every quote in this column is from the Main Points of last week, and none have been misrepresented or distorted for my own personal benefit. I encourage all readers to peruse the online archives (star.txstate.edu) and compare the Oct. 18 and Oct. 20 Main Points in order to form their own thoughts about this topic. Don’t take my word for it. Definitely don’t take the editorial staff ’s.
for an independent to get on the ballot (for example, the requirement of 50,000 signatures of voters who didn’t vote in the primaries), but there’s no harm in trying. I’m not trying to tell people how to use their vote. I’m just trying the remind them that the vote is theirs to use however they wish. They shouldn’t be swayed by what opinions are printed in the papers, and they should take the time to see for themselves what each candidate has to offer. Your vote is not wasted if you feel you voted the way you want to. “Always stand for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone”.
Entrepreneurial endeavors inspire students
Felderhoff is a communication disorders senior.
Letters to the Editor
69%
% Extremely/Very serious % Moderately/Not too serious % Not at all serious
Kelly Simmons/Star illustration
Gallup Annual Crime Poll Released: Oct. 13, 2005
Knowing that the typical opinions piece tends to be one-sided, I’d like to offer a different viewpoint than what the opinions writers cooked up about Kinky Friedman. People have the right to use their vote anyway they choose. Perhaps people would vote for Friedman because they actually like his platform, rather than voting simply to jump on to the Kinky bandwagon, as most critics tend to believe. What Friedman represents is a logical approach to the problems facing
Editor In Chief..................David Michael Cohen, stareditor@txstate.edu Managing Editor..................................Joe Ruiz, staropinion@txstate.edu News Editor......................................Kirsten Crow, starnews@txstate.edu Assistant News Editor.................Ashley Richards, ar1225@txstate.edu Trends Editor..............Christina Gomez, starentertainment@txstate.edu Photo Editor...........................Courtney Addison, starphoto@txstate.edu Sports Editor...................................Miguel Peña, starsports@txstate.edu
Texas today. And his position on the issues is a strong one; he does not give vague answers to important issues as most candidates tend to do. What Friedman offers is a chance for things to change a little in Texas. What’s so wrong about that? What’s wrong with people wanting change? And another thing, what’s so wrong with an independent trying to get on the ballot? Yes, the American political system does favor two-party competition, but last I checked, there was nothing in the U.S. or Texas Constituitions that states that there can only be a two-party system. Granted, the Texas Constitution does make it difficult
Copy Desk Chief.......................Siobhan Chapman, sc1108@txstate.edu Design Editor.......................................Matt Rael, stardesign@txstate.edu Systems Administrator.............Chris Jeane, starsysadmin@txstate.edu Webmaster...........................Ryan Johnson, starwebadmin@txstate.edu Art Director.......................................Marisa Leeder, ml1131@txstate.edu Advertising Coordinator......................Jodie Claes, starad1@txstate.edu Account Executive......................Richard Para, Jr., rp1060@txstate.edu
— Marilyn R. Serna pre-music freshman
Account Executive................................Ana Kulak, ak1094@txstate.edu Account Executive..................................Lindsay Lee, atlas@txstate.edu Account Executive.....................Lindsey Randolph, lr1068@txstate.edu Student Business Manager................Robby Silva, rs1237@txstate.edu Publications Coordinator..Linda Allen, starbusinessoffice@txstate.edu Publications Director..............Bob Bajackson, stardirector@txstate.edu Visit The Star at www.UniversityStar.com
Thank you for Thursday’s story “Business dreams become reality for savvy students.” I enjoyed the coverage on the student’s successes and start-up ventures; I wish them the best of luck. It is inspiring to see the diversity in talent we have at Texas State and hope you will print more on entrepreneurial efforts around campus. — Jessica Herrington communication studies senior
The University Star is the student newspaper of Texas State University-San Marcos published Tuesday through Thursday during the fall and spring semesters. It is distributed on campus and throughout San Marcos at 8 a.m. every other Wednesday of Summer I and II with a distribution of 8,000. Printing and distribution is by the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung. Copyright October 25, 2005. All copy, photographs and graphics appearing in The University Star are the exclusive property of The University Star and may not be reproduced without the expressed written consent of the editor in chief.