MCT - THOUSANDS RALLY IN FRONT OF THE U.S. CAPITOL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., TO PROTEST HEALTH CARE REFORM ON NOV. 5, 2009

The health-insurance reform bill passed by the House contains an unnecessary new restriction on abortion that the Senate should eliminate from the legislation.

An amendment sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Joe Pitts, R-Pa., would go beyond current law, which in most cases prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The practical impact of the House bill would be to make it more difficult even for women buying health insurance with their own money to find policies that cover abortion.

Under the House measure, uninsured people would be able to purchase health insurance from private companies or the government – the so-called public option. Families of four earning $88,000 or less would receive government subsidies.

But the Stupak-Pitts amendment would prohibit anyone with a government subsidy from purchasing an insurance policy that covers abortion. Currently, that restriction applies mainly to women covered by Medicaid, federal employees, and inmates at federal prisons.

Because most customers in the newly created marketplace, or “exchange,” would receive subsidies, it’s unlikely that insurers would offer any plans aimed at nonsubsidized customers that cover abortion services.

The bill would allow people to buy insurance “riders” that cover abortions, but that’s a senseless proposition. Nobody plans on an unwanted pregnancy. In five states that already bar private insurers from covering elective abortions, those riders are difficult to obtain.

It would be more sensible to adopt the requirements of a previous version of the House bill, which would have segregated premium payments and co-pays to allow for coverage of abortions. It would have prohibited tax subsidies from going to pay for the procedure. Seventeen states, including New Jersey, follow a similar approach by using their own funds, not federal matching funds, to cover abortions under Medicaid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to this new restriction after she calculated that the bill wouldn’t pass without it. There was enough pressure from antichoice Democrats to force her hand.

But the health-reform bill also could have been killed by abortion-rights supporters, who didn’t want this issue to stop the overall legislation. As the debate returns to the Senate, lawmakers should restore the workable compromise that the House rejected. To allow the House version to become law would be to unduly interfere with decisions best made by women and their physicians.

The fight over abortion shouldn’t thwart health-insurance reform. But neither should a new law to overhaul health care in this country end up further restricting a woman’s right to lawful reproductive health services.

Related posts:

1. House passes historic health-care reform bill
2. Abortion pill sparks debate on campuses nationwide
3. Minors must have parents consent for abortion

Our generation is ready to become a culture that reflects the dreams and aspirations of our founding fathers.

A country, in the wordsˇofˇLincoln in 1863, “… dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

I am proof that America does not need to be divided by race or religion. I am of mixed race and have had to learn to understand both sides of my own family. Our culture in the past has been divided, and these divisions have created challenges for all of us.

Today, our president is a man who has had to deal with the ignorance of America from both sides. Our president, like many of mixed race, had no choice but to live in the middle of the division and was given theˇopportunity to understand the American situation from both sides of the racialˇfence. Anyone of mixed race can tell you that the ignorance we encounter comes fromˇboth sides.ˇ

Barack Obama is truly a representative of the American people, capable ofˇidentifying with both minorities andˇwith whites. The perspective at which Obama views our nation is going to be completely new. Obama as a leader is going to benefit this nation in ways that no one could imagine.

Obamaˇis a representative of what America’s culture can be – a mixture of the world’s cultures. I see our culture developing past its history of prejudice and oppression.ˇ

Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 gave a speech about “a dream deeply routed in the American dream.”

“I have a dream. That one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed … that all men are created equal,” King said.

Now is the time for acceptance of one another as fellow countrymen. Right now is a time of change. Our nation, in the eyes of other nations, is trying on a new pair of shoes. Our nation is developing into a nation that completely understands the complexity of its culture. We’veˇaccepted that all Americans are created equal and are capable of achieving whatever dreams they wish to pursue.ˇThis is a time when I am sure that weˇAmericansˇcan be proud of our identity.ˇ

The election of Obama wasˇa turning point for our nation. It was proof that Americans can, and will, vote in the best person for the job, and we will not allow something as simple as race cloud our decision.

In his inaugural address, Obama, said, “We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Our nation is moving forward in the right direction.ˇAnd with a new president at the helm, we as a nation are in store for some change.ˇIt has taken a long time for our nation to change course. But we have finally reached our desired heading. Now let’s see where it takes us.

STEVEN HANCOCK
Arbiter Journalist

Related posts:

1. The way we see it: Obama proves the American Dream
2. Affirmative action has desecrated MLK’s dream
3. Dream Act is a dream come true for local immigrants

Benson first abstains from smoking for 30 days and is given a battery of tests. After the first period of sobriety, Benson smokes copious amounts of weed for 30 days and is given the same battery of tests. The results are surprising and amusing. Just as surprising is the more serious topic addressed in the film: California’s medical marijuana movement.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which removed criminal penalties for the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Thus, if you can get a board certified physician to write you a prescription for marijuana, the state of California will not prosecute you criminally for being in possession. Making it seem easy, Benson flashes his legally obtained medical marijuana card and tours different medical marijuana clubs all over California.

Yes, these clubs could be heaven on earth, until the Drug Enforcement Administration drops by.

“Super High Me” also addresses the DEA raiding businesses that distribute marijuana. How can they do that? Is our federal government justified in shutting down hard-working, properly licensed, perfectly legitimate tax-paying businesses?

According to National Public Radio, the medical marijuana industry produced more than $100 million in tax revenue for the state of California in 2007. When state and federal laws compete, which succeed and which triumph?

“It is a system of shared powers, which means it is always subject to interpretation and controversy,” Gary Moncrief, professor of political science at Boise State University, said.

OK, so the DEA does have jurisdiction, but why? Moncrief clarified that the states’ power of self government has changed over time.

“Fiscal federalism makes the system much more complex because areas that at one time were left to the states (police powers, education, health, etc.) are now shared because the federal government provides some funding in exchange for some say in the policies,” Moncrief said.

The simple conclusion is the American public is allowed an increase in the federal govern-

ment’s power.

When asked, Boise State students thought the power should be with states.

“The national government is worried about [49] other states,” Chris Bermensolo, a sophomore in the nursing department, said. “With states you’re just worried about the people who are located within the state.”

The citizens of California who passed Proposition 215 are putting state rights to practice, but ultimately the federal government holds the cards in this issue. There are several other issues, such as health care and other social programs, which ride this line between state and federal power. These programs affect us directly whether you’re a recipient of these programs or your taxes fund them. So, take a step back and ask yourself this question, who do you want deciding the public policy’s that affect you in your everyday life?

KATHERINE THORNTON
Arbiter Journalist

Related posts:

1. Supreme Court to weigh states’
   legalization of medicinal marijuana
2. Quarantine plans for states purposed
3. Social Security numbers for sale

It’s too bad the tenets and principles, which King taught that day in 1963, seem to be long forgotten by modern civil rights activists.

The case in point is the latest civil rights tragedy (or triumph, depending on your point of view) that took place Nov. 4, 2008 in California. Voters went to the ballot box and approved a ban on same-sex marriage, an act that set off a firestorm of hatred and anger. The anti-traditional marriage activists seem to have forgotten about the civil rights and ruling power of the majority, a concept which often governs modern life and law in this great country.

When King spoke on the footsteps of the Lincoln Monument, he urged African-Americans to “not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred” and instructed them to “conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.”

If you paid attention to events leading up to or shortly after the vote, you would realize King’s doctrines of tolerance and peaceful protest are as dead as gay marriage in California.

The Los Angeles Times reported a Mormon Temple had received envelopes filled with white powder (which turned out to be harmless) shortly after the passage of Proposition 8. According to the Mercury News in Silicon Valley, a man was arrested after fighting with an elderly couple (76 and 77 years old) after they tried to prevent him from stealing their “Yes on 8″ signs. Paramedics treated the couple after the incident.

If the great King were still alive, do you suppose he would fill and mail those envelopes? Would King punch an old, white lady in the face so he could remove a single yard sign? I would suppose not.

The doctrines of peaceful resistance and tolerance aren’t the only principles anti-Proposition 8 people seem to have forgotten. King also spoke about a check written by the Framers of the Constitution, which, at the time, had “come back marked insufficient funds.” The check mentioned by King was metaphoric and its purpose was to free the African-American population by allowing for their eventual emancipation from slavery. King correctly diagnosed there were funds of justice and freedom to be found and distributed from within the walls and vault of the American bank. Correct is a term strongly supported by Obama’s inauguration.

From time to time, issues such as gay marriage come up, and the population must write a new check via ballot box or state constitutional amendment. Unfortunately for gay rights activists, checks supporting traditional marriage have been written and taken to the bank at least 41 times. The majority has spoken and continues to speak, as we saw in California last November. There seems to be no cash in the vault of the pro-gay marriage bank.

Gay marriage activists might claim their work will keep progressing and their check is in the mail, but the truth is it’s only an envelope filled with white powder, it’s from their offices and it’s about to be returned as “undeliverable."

DUSTIN HURST
Arbiter Journalist

Related posts:

1. PRO Proposition 8
2. Palin pukes up poor words
3. Marriage, more than a word

“I have something to tell you,” he said. “And I don’t know if you’ll love me anymore after you know.”

My heart stopped. What could he have done that is so bad I would be forced to rescind my affection for him? 

He paused. I braced myself for impact.

“I’m gay. I want you to know that I’m gay.” 

I was so relieved! Of course I could still love him. The person he is didn’t change for me because of his sexual orientation.

I’d never met a gay person before. But I knew enough about the struggle of gay people to understand why he was so afraid to tell me.

I watched him agonize over what his parents, friends and classmates would think if they found out. I saw him suppress who he is for years to hold onto their love for as long as he could. He was terrified that once they knew, they would abandon, despise or reject him.

I feel ashamed that for awhile I secretly hoped being gay was a phase he’d grow out of.  Not because I didn’t accept him for being gay, but because watching someone you love be harassed, berated and beat down because of who he is, is
excruciating. I didn’t want him to suffer and hate himself
because he couldn’t change this one aspect of his being.

I still can’t comprehend how anyone could believe a person would choose to shoulder that kind of burden.

I wonder if people who hate or fear homosexuals and deny their rights to get married, have children – to live free as they are and not what society would make them – if they got to know my best friend and saw what an exceptional human being he is,  maybe they would overcome their prejudice.

I wonder if they’ve loved someone who is gay. I’m sure most have, but some don’t know it, because like my best friend, their gay friend is afraid to tell them. Perhaps the gay person is not a friend or family member, but a respected coworker or classmate. Could the fear and ignorance caused by anti-gay
propaganda, (such as the Proposition 8 campaign) be
shattered by the reality that someone they know, care about and
respect is gay. I think it would.

I hope one day those who haven’t knowingly befriended a gay person get to know my best friend. I hope they see how kind, giving, moral and courageous he is. I hope they can look inside his soul and see how brightly he shines because of the man he is, the love and support of the man who loves him and those of us who proudly celebrate his humanity.

Dare: If you’re gay, come out of hiding, celebrate who you are. Be seen, be recognized and give yourself permission to feel at ease in your own skin. Come enjoy the love and support of those of us who’ll stand with you as you say, “Yeah, I’m gay! I have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Furthermore, as an American, I will love and marry any adult I choose with the same protection and legal recognition as you.”    
 
Straight people, educate yourselves. Get to know the gay community so you know there is nothing to be afraid of. Put down your guard and start a dialog. Remember, a single conversation about love can change everything … let’s start talking.

SHANNON MORGAN
Editor-in-Chief

Related posts:

1. Truth or Dare:
2. Truth or Dare: The love God put asunder
3. Truth or Dare:

Researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person’s sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings – including a highly anticipated study this winter – would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California’s recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that “schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys,” suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is “a choice” and “a decision.”

Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to. It was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait. Christian groups such as Exodus International argue “that homosexuals who desire to change can do so.” One prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found controversial evidence that therapy can cause some gay people to change to a heterosexual orientation, although the study concluded that a “complete change” was uncommon.

While sexual behavior may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the “concordance” of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.

“In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes,” Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton, who has studied hair patterns and other biological traits in gay men, said.

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction.

He said virtually every animal species that has been studied – from sheep to fruit flies – has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

“I really believe the reason most humans are straight is the same reason that most crocodiles are straight, and the same reason most whales are straight,” Bocklandt said. “Nature would not leave something so important for reproduction, for the survival of the species, to coincidence.”

Less understood is the degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genes or environmental factors, such as hormones or immunological factors that may act on a fetus. What scientists call “the fraternal birth order effect,” the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother’s body to each male fetus in her womb.

Long discredited are theories that parenting – one mid-20th century theory held that boys raised by a domineering mother with a distant father were more likely to be gay – has anything to do with sexual orientation.

Evidence of that, said Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, comes from studies of genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. In many such cases, surgeons would construct a vagina and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history.

As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women, Bailey said.

“If you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?” he said.

Researchers are eagerly awaiting a DNA study of male siblings with at least one gay brother by Bailey and other scientists at Northwestern University due in early 2009, because it may shed light on the role genetics plays in sexual attraction.

MIKE SWIFT
San Jose Mercury News

Related posts:

1. Straight talk on homosexuality
2. Continuing the debate about homosexuality
3. Homosexuality is not a moral issue

Those who supported Proposition Eight like to talk about “traditional” marriage. What they always fail to mention is that in this country until 50 years ago you couldn’t marry someone of a different race, 150 years ago you couldn’t divorce your partner, and African people (property) weren’t even granted the right to marry each other.

A thousand years before that a father picked his property’s (AKA daughter) husband, and any passing nobleman could claim the droit de seigneur (her virginity) on her wedding night. Each of these practices were once traditional parts of “the marriage contract,” yet no one seems to want them back. “Traditional marriage” must mean “if it happened more than 40 years ago it don’t count.”

Even though marriage started out as a religious activity, somewhere along the line the state decided to confer rights based on that activity. As the Supreme Court said in Loving V. Virginia, government cannot set limits on who it will allow to marry. The argument they tried to make then, that the law treats everyone equally because both whites and blacks were consigned to their own “race”, was flawed and today’s contemporary version is also flawed.

The difference between the gay community and the straight community is that the state places no limits on your love. We homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, but we can’t marry the person we love. Even though same-sex couples can and in fact DO have religious ceremonies, the one thing we don’t get are the rights. Taken together, not only do marriage amendments set limits on our love but on our religious freedom as well.

If African American civil rights, or Mormon civil rights had been decided by majority vote one-hundred years ago, we may never have even reached “separate but equal” and the Mormons might not even exist today. Constitutions exist to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Every court ruling protecting civil rights has been based on that fundamental precept.

There was religious (or secular) opposition to interracial marriages, to blacks marrying other blacks, and to divorce itself but even in the face of religious condemnation all of that changed. “One man one woman” marriage definitions are likewise doomed to eventual failure. Finally it’s been said that Proposition Eight passed because of heavy Mormon involvement.

Isn’t Mormon funding of “one man, one woman” ads more than a little hypocritical? After all the Mormons were once the ones pushing for a redefinition of marriage; one man many women. Aren’t there still sects today that want that very thing? In the end, though, I suppose we should be thanking them.

Proposition Eight’s passage has galvanized the gay community like no other time that I can remember. We’ll probably get national marriage rights even sooner, and it was all because of the Mormons, and the Catholics and the Baptists. But, yeah, mostly the Mormons.

James R. Rodriguez is not a student at Boise State University.

ASBSU at its finest once again …

This letter is in response to the last [infuriating] articles about ASBSU’s legislation decisions. The articles, well written by the authors, showed how little we need a group of materialistic individuals in office. While I read about wonderful bills proposed by a very select few, I read even more about how those same bills were shot down the moment they came to the table and replaced with useless legislation that do not better our community or student body.

In particular, I am speaking of Bill No. 10-2008, allocating money to help the informational events happening during Poverty Week.

Poverty is a very serious issue all across the United States, but hits home in Boise and the surrounding areas more than any of you know.

It is an invisible virus infecting our population daily and nightly; knowing no race, gender, or religion, it affects all of us and could happen to any one of us at any given time. In fact, most of us could be only one paycheck away from homelessness or not knowing where our next meal is coming from. Sen. Justin White put forth a wonderful bill to allocate funding for the events happening during Poverty Week, including a sleep-out where college students could [somewhat] see what it was like to sleep without a roof over their head.

The rest of the senate shut this bill down before it had a chance.

And due to this, many students who I have spoken to do not really know what the event is about. In fact, I have hardly seen anything advertising what this event is about (besides on the quad).

I believe part of this to be because of the lack of funding; thanks ASBSU. Keep tabling the bill until we forget it even exists. Isn’t that how we solve our problems nowadays?

Keep putting it off and hoping it goes away? It won’t.

Poverty won’t go away when we aren’t showcasing its horrid effects or working together to aid those in need.

I was a little upset when I read the first article about this bill being denied, but I am now furious when I read they are pushing a bill through to “demand” dining services and Aramark work together to create more options or they will be boycotted.

This is ridiculous! Oh, and don’t get me started on the money that was spent on flashy new ASBSU jackets for all its members… or Bill No. 11-2008, allocating $112 for new magnetic name tags.

I hope you’re proud, student body. You’ve elected materialistic, selfish, and lazy senators. ASBSU, you should be ashamed.

Cory Sims is a junior studying social work.

You’re Right Kris Donner, Marriage IS More Than
A Word!

Kris Donner, your article “Marriage: more than a word” is ill-revised and poorly executed. You’re right, marriage is more than a word and I find it interesting that you would title your article with how much more it is than a figure of speech, yet you attempt to define the word in terms that would best suit your dismissal of the gay community.

Instead of going to great lengths to define marriage, wouldn’t it make more sense to go into depth of the idea behind marriage? It seems the basis of your argument is that the majority of the nation is Christian, and it is against Christian beliefs to be homosexual. According to your “research”, 75% of the nation is Christian.

Well, according to my “research”, there are such things as homosexual Christians. If marriage is a religious act, gay marriage “does not coincide with God’s moral teachings,” and Christian homosexuals do exist, why then, are homosexuals not entitled to marriage? Why is being a homosexual wrong, if the “God” you believe created all life on Earth created them?

Your argument is completely contradictory to itself because you use the Bible and Christian statistics as support, yet you seem to forget that homosexuals can be Christian too. Why deny homosexual Christians the rights you believe heterosexual Christians have? You both love the same god, don’t you?

Using Christian ideals as an argument contradicts the separation of Church and State we all learned about in middle school. It may be true that America was founded by Christians, but it is also true that America is a free country where everyone is created equal. Homosexuals fall into the category of “equal.” I find it interesting that you seem to think the ratio of Christians to non-Christians in our country is at all relevant, when the meat of the issue deals with the government.

The government is deciding whether or not to pass gay marriage, not the Christian community. In 1954 Brown vs. Board of education ruled “separate is not equal,” According to the ruling, treating people the same, but separating them for whatever reason (in this case, being homosexual) does not constitute equality. Allowing gays to marry, but calling their marriage a different name does not make their marriage the same as a heterosexual one.

You are creating a boundary between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and thus separating humanity into two groups: us, in the case of your argument, heterosexuals, and them, meaning homosexuals. This makes for quite a separation, don’t you think? “Those who persecute and demean others for their choices have no place in our country and leave a black stain on the reputation of those who try to peacefully live their beliefs.”

Well put, Kris Donner. I only wish you can practice what you preach. Homosexuals try to live peacefully.

They believe, as do a great deal of heterosexuals, that marriage should not be dependent on the gender of the two people involved. Perhaps this is not a concept you can fathom, but two men or two women can and will be in love whether or not you give them your blessing.

By stating that homosexuals cannot get married because they will taint the definition of “marriage”, you are demeaning them for their beliefs. By your own argument, it is logical to assume that you, as well, leave a black stain on the reputation of peaceful people in our Nation. If you don’t agree with this, I hope you would have enough cognitive ability to realize that your argument is not sound, nor is it ethical.

Homosexuals do not harm you, nor does their marriage directly affect yours. In the end, I feel bad for you. You seem to “hope we can all be tolerant of one another.” You seem to think that tolerance is important, yet you use a religion with a history of intolerance to support your case. How can intolerance spawn tolerance? With simple logic, you may come to realize that it can’t.

Cari Hoffschildt is a sophomore studying English Education.

Related posts:

1. LETTER TO THE EDITOR
2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
3. Letter to the Editor

In my effort to take care, I held back what I really meant to say and instead wrote things that came across in a way I had not intended. The piece did not represent my best writing or my true intentions. I have walked away from this experience having learned a valuable journalistic lesson I will never forget.

From the beginning of time, marriage has been a binding contract between a man and a woman. It has also been, from the beginning, a religious ceremony that invited God into the relationship. The married couple vows to love one another, but also to be faithful to each other and to our Heavenly Father. 

Governments have added certain benefits to married couples in the form of tax benefits, probate rights and other laws. These things did not, however, change the true religious and moral contract that marriage is at its core.

Homosexual couples now seek the same benefits married couples enjoy. None of these things are denied them.

The legal and civil benefits of a marriage are open to all couples, gay or straight. The heart of marriage, the union of man and woman with God’s consent and blessing, however, cannot be available to all couples.

The homosexual lifestyle is one that does not coincide with God’s moral teachings. Those who live this way are free to do as they wish so far as the law is concerned. I do not understand, however, why they wish to partake in a religious ceremony that does not embrace their lifestyle.

Marriage is a religious institution and it always will be. The discussion surrounding it will always include God at its very center whether he is mentioned out loud or not. We are a country that believes in God. This country was founded upon that belief and it has not gone away. According to the American Religious Identification Survey conducted in 2001, more than 75 percent of Americans are Christian. A further percentage of Americans are made up of Jews, Muslims and other non-Christian belief systems. These religions also view homosexuality in the same light.

This doesn’t mean Christian thoughts or ideals are shoved upon anyone. This means the moral standards of America will reflect the Christian belief.

We as a country aspire to support the rule of the majority without compromising the rights of the minority. The majority has spoken many times now in California and across the country, and defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In order to respect the rights of the minority on this issue, we have made it possible for gay couples to receive the same civil rights as married couples. I feel as though democracy has run its course and proven itself again as the best form of government.

No one is protesting the rights of gay couples to live together and enjoy their own lives as they see fit. I am grateful to live in a country where I can also choose to live my life with my wife and child, and follow my beliefs without fear of persecution.

Those who persecute and demean others for their choices have no place in our country and leave a black stain on the reputation of those who try to peacefully live their beliefs.

I hope we can all be tolerant of one another and live our lives in a way that benefits the country and the world as a whole.

KRIS DONNER
Arbiter Journalist

Related posts:

1. Government should quit the marriage business
2. Legalize gay marriage
3. Marriage is not a religious institution

Sports Coordinator

The Bowl Championship Series has been under the microscope by many FBS programs that find themselves watching teams that may have competed in a mediocre fashion. The Atlantic Coast Conference and Big East Conference have failed to put up an astral champion that earned them the automatic bid to one of the five coveted bowls.

This would leave some deserving teams in the Big 12 and South Eastern conferences out due to the two team limit from any particular league. This could also leave teams like Boise State and Ball State, who have fulfilled the requirements of BCS bowl eligibility as of yet.

“The need to get the 10 best possible teams into the system is always going to be the goal,” Western Athletic Conference Commissioner Karl Benson said. “But as long as there are the guarantees and the automatics then we may see what is occurring this year.”

Upsets are a phenomena that have occurred throughout the BCS conferences long before the existence of the BCS itself. It might not be as much an issue of teams getting better in the non-BCS, which they are, but some teams like Boise State and Utah are playing at a level that warrants attention. If Utah wins it would be the third year in four season that will have the underdog taking down a supposed “giant” of a BCS team. This would shed some more light on an already flawed system. But how would anybody fix the BCS.

PLAYOFF

The current argument would be on behalf of an eight-team playoff. The one problem with this would be that instead of the 10 best teams being involved there would be two fewer teams getting to showcase their talents on the level that the BCS attempts to display. Another proposition would be to place the No. 9 and No. 10 in a wildcard game against No. 8 and No. 7 to weed out any type of confusion and still allowing the top 10 teams to compete. This would force four teams into an extra game but would alleviate some shady areas in the back end of the system.

ANOTHER BCS

Yet another revision might be the type of solution that teams and fans are looking for.

The current process implies that have been taken to account yet with teams such as No. 9 Boise State or No. 15 Ball State which their ranking supposedly represents. But the Broncos will be left out of the BCS as a top ten team due to the current rules.

I would suggest forcing the same structure on the BCS teams as the non-BCS. All participants must be in the top 16 to even be considered. That includes BCS conference champions. Teams like No. 20 Florida State and No. 22 Georgia Tech would have to say “sayonara” due to lack of performance in their conferences just as the non-BCS conferences already do. Automatic bids are a weakness in the chain of BCS strength. They must be removed to cater to the strength of non-BCS conferences.

HAVE A PIE EATING CONTEST

Football players love to eat. We should let them chow a trail into the top games. It might become a more accurate portrayal of how teams get brought into the BCS as it is. Georgia has great peaches and makes great pies which Georgia Tech loves to eat. That means they could go all the way despite their minimal BCS ranking.

Of course this is not an option. But if the voters pick even a No. 10 Ohio State team above the Broncos this season would be a travesty due to the just above par performance of the Buckeyes. BSU would make a good match up against a team like Ohio State, and would probably beat them.

At the end of the day there is little to be said in favor of the BCS. At least this year. It is very understood that there is no best way to accommodate the top teams in the country. But at least an attempt to amend philosophies within a broken system would be a nice touch for those with complaints. It seems to work on stronger documents such as the constitutions of multiple countries throughout the world. Maybe it could work here too. Making the BCS more fluid instead of more concrete could result in more realistic competition.

Kirk Bell

Related posts:

1. This is as good as you will find
2. My 2 Cents
3. ESPN Regional Television to own and operate newly created Mew Mexico Bowl