Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / March 15, 2001, edition 1 / Page 8
Part of University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Page 8 The Blue Banner March 15, 2001 Opinions The Blue Banner Editorials The Absolute Bottom Line The Darker Side of Asheville Just a few days ago, an unidentified male sexually assaulted a UNCA student in downtown Asheville in the Federal Building parking lot. The young woman is in her 20s, the same age as many of the traditional female students at UNCA. It is disturbing to think that this demented pervert is still roaming the streets of Asheville, a city in which many people feel safe from thieves, murderers and other such crime-laden humans. It is even more disturbing that the incident occurred in broad daylight in the middle of downtown Asheville at a busy time of day. What is wrong with this picture? Maybe we should question the security measures downtown. Are we possibly too secure with our safety in Asheville? We seem to be under some false impression that since we do not hear about high crime in Asheville, it does not really exist. Truth of the matter is, most of the crime that occurs goes unreported. Therefore, we often do not hear about it unless it's about murder. We then block out the fact that theft, rape and sexual assault are also very serious crimes the public should know about. Have we fooled ourselves into a false sense of security by thinking that, since we don't hear about crime, we are immune to it? We tend to think it could never happen to us. Yet, no one is immune to danger. The young woman who was attacked could be your mother, daughter, sister, girlfriend, cousin or aunt. It seems people don't want to hear about crime unless it directly happens to them or someone they know. Not only are we blind to see the darker side of Asheville, but we must also realize that violence toward women is still apparent in today's society. The victim believes she was a target because she is female. When an incident such as this arises, it makes females even more insecure about their personal safety. Will women ever be able to be looked upon as more than just a mere object for men's sexual appetite? The victim of the assault is extremely luc% that she was not harmed any more than she was by her attacker. The man could be a potential rapist, and is still wandersing the streets of Asheville, perhaps waiting on another young woman to prey on. Why Are People So Idiotic? Enormous stupidity occurred recently in central Af ghanistan. On March 11, the Taliban religous militia completly destroyed two giant statues of Buddha that were cut into a cliff face, according to international aid workers. These statues were third and fifth-century relics. They were our history. The Taliban are hard-core Muslims who rule the major ity of Afghanistan. They decided to demolish the arti facts, despite many pleas, because they don't believe people should use them as symbols of worship. Who cares if people use them to worship a religion? The statues, one of which was believed to be the world's tallest standing Buddha, took an enormous amount of skill and dedication to create. Regardless of their beliefs, the Taliban should have realized that these statues are a connection to our ances tors. Just because a relic has religious significance does not mean it should be destroyed. In fact, some would argue that preservation of such artifacts are very important because they do have religious connections. In addition, how dare they decide for the rest of the world what is bad? Few artifacts remain that are as priceless. Although we are far away from Afghanistan and America has a rela tively low percentage of Buddhists, the impact does effect us. Not only is a major piece of the world's history gone, but there are reports that the Taliban plans to demolish even more statues. It needs to stop. Such idiocy is intolerable. An Environmental Perspective Candice Carr Columnist Everything we have and every thing we use came from this planet. Except for a few moon rocks, there is nothing here on earth that didn’t come from the elements of this planet. Humans hr c figured out how to break things down and recombine them, much to the benefit of popu lation growth. All the things we consider unnatural were once part of the earth. Nothing comes from nothing. Each of these substances which we extract to transform into other things played its own role in its’ original home before becoming part of our lives as a plastic bottle, or electricity made from uranium or coal. How have we thanked the earth for these things? I can understand why people de veloped products to make life easier. We all enjoy the convenience and comfort of our lives. But what is the real price of the way we live? Are we getting some thing for nothing? Everything seems fine because it is in the store. If a resource was dwin- dljng,^wouldn’t the price go up? ’OC^ell, I’m aot an economist, but we all know it’s about the monetary bottom line, which can be dehu manizing and demoralizing. It can put too small a value on the natural world. We live in a “develop it now, ask questions later” kind of world. Because economic power is the best kind to have these days, we want to turn everything into money. Rather homogenic of us, isn’t it? Most policies and institutions teach this as the way the world works, although the world was working just fine long before we came up with money. Money is a construct, and trickle- down economics is a trick. Our present global situation rather reminds me of a book my mom would read me when I was quite young called “Hiram’s Shirt.” It’s about a farmer who was work ing one day, and busted a hole in the elbow of his shirt. He notices it as his elbow gets a bit chilly, and decides to fix it that evening. When he sits down to fix it he decides it would be the easiest and look the best ifhe just takes the cufF off his shirt, since he always rolls therh up anyway, and put that over the elbow. So, he cuts the cuff off his left sleeve, and sews it onto the elbow. The next day, his left sleeve will not stay rolled up. It keeps falling down, so he decides he does need a cuff after all. He decides to cut some of his other cuff off and put it on the left side. It turns out that they are both too short. He ends up cutting the tail of the shirt off to replace these cuffs. Aft:er all, that part is always tucked in anyway. Then his shirt keeps com ing untucked. It seems Hiram’s great idea just didn’t solve his problems. It just made his shirt look ugly and mis shapen. One major misnomer is the word, demand, in econo-speak. Do you demand all of the things that you buy? Aren’t there some things that you get just because you see them, and there they are, very cheap and readily available? Do we demand the crazy selection of cereals in the grocery store? Do children demand the ridiculous toys that are created for them? Availability would be a much bet ter term for these things. Demand is a reason for never low ering, only raising production rates, For how long? Just until the raw materials are too expensive, or will we try to find some substitute to exhaust? How would we know the state of the forests from the store shelf? Paper products are a great example. The amazing availability of cheap paper products would lead the trust ing consumer to believe that trees are, at least currently, an inexhaust ible resource. It is true that pesticide laden pine plantations are springing up all over the once forested areas of the world. Yet, that is no substitute for a forest, since pine plantations are deserts, biologically. We are fascinating creatures, al though not the smartest perhaps. Will we take all the other species with us as we poison ourselves and die of cancer? Are we essentially animals, or economic “bundles of preferences?” What do we prefer, life for genera tions to come or cheap gas? What is the real price of the way we live? Are we getting something for nothing? Out of the Closet For Good Kevin RoIlinvS Columnist It’s time for me to come out of the closet. No, I’m not gay. I’m a liber tarian. Libertarian? It’s not a church. It’s not a cult. It’s not a fraternity. It’s not a singles club. It’s a political ideology that offers and demands Liberty with a capital L. Since more and more people are calling themselves libertarians and since not everyone knows what a libertarian is, I offer you a defini tion of what they are. Simply, a libertarian is a lover of liberty. The motto is “live and let live.” A libertarian wants to be left: alone, and in turn, respects other peoples’ desire to be left alone. This doesn’t mean libertarians don’t like people, they just prefer to make their own choices about their money and their lives and not have other people do it for them. Of course, the corollary to per sonal liberty is personal responsi bility. Libertarians believe that each per son should take responsibility for their own decisions and not ask others to pay the price for their mistakes. Applied to politics, libertarians want freedom in all areas of life. They treat as suspect all attempts to infringe upon their freedom. A lib ertarian is neither a liberal nor a conservative. “Isn’t liberty generally associated with the left?” a liberal once asked me. When I repeated this quote to a conservative friend, he said, “No, that’s not true, the right is the one always defending liberty.” Both the left and right ideologies believe they have the morality of freedom. Both conservatives and liberals have an appreciation of lib erty in the areas they want it. But, they aren’t libertarians. Lib erty is the freedom to think and act, and both liberals and conservatives wish to restrain individuals’ actions Many people say libertarians put too much trust in people, and the government must be there to make sure they do the right thing. So, the question becomes whether people really can trust each other. in one way or another. Broadly speaking, liberals want to take charge of an individual’s eco nomic dealings, and conservatives want to be responsible for main taining moral order. They believe government is al ways the mechanism to accomplish these goals. They may disagree about when and where the government’s power should be used, but they do agree that they have the moral authority to use it. The government operates by sheer force. It can fine, tax, imprison and kill. The belief, that by wielding its mighty hand, the government can and should solve every problem is called statism: the belief in the piety of the state. Libertarians virulently disagree with this notion of statism. They believe the government - coercive force - is always the last option when it comes to dealing with their fellow man. Statism does not equal the state. Libertarians do not completely disdain the state, just the unwaver ing faith that people often place in government. Libertarians do not believe in anarchy, they believe that government does have a role. That role is to protect the rights, of the individuals. The rights of individuals appear to a libertarian as just one right: the right to live in whatever manner they please, and to spend their money in whatever manner they please, so long as they do not use force and fraud against other people. Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff, is another way of put ting it. Libertarians think you should be able to wave your arms in any direc tion you like, as long as you don’t whack another person in the face. Another important distinction to note is that libertarians do not nec essarily agree with what others choose to do with their freedom. While a libertarian would say a person has the right to say hateful things, he might not agree with the hateful things said and would re serve his right to openly disagree. While a libertarian might be a very rabid moralist, he would not place the restrictions on others that he puts on himself. Even when a libertarian sees people hurting themselves, while he might offer his support and his advice, he would by no means make them do the right thing. To argue against the libertarian philosophy, many people say liber tarians put too much trust in people, and the government must be there to make sure people do the right thing. So, the question becomes whether people really can trust each other. People get in their cars and drive down the road where the slightest mistake by one of their fellow driv ers could kill them. People fly in airplanes with no knowledge of who the pilot is. People go to doctors and have themselves cut open anii rearranged by people they hard!) know. Obviously, some trust is occur ring. Even those people who claim the) are just putting their trust in tht government’s licensing or tests for each of these activities are actuall) putting their trust in the person who wrote the test and the person that administered it It’s hard to trust people when the; commit so many wrongs againsi themselves and others. But, a soci ety where everyone is distrusted ol principle is not one that libertar ians can imagine. Ifyou want to be trusted, and havf the freedom to do all those thinf you want, you must be equally reael) to give that same trust to others. Ove gra( enri prol av( )y L )esi lear E lown gto cl ir can irried lope c found The ne Esitate How I Ti op As a§ mi to C ini Wi
University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 15, 2001, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75