Freedom of Speech

In one of the recent Sun Star issues the editor wrote: "We at the Sun Star feel it's our job to facilitate discussion rather than stifle that other First Amendment right, Freedom of Speech."

Perhaps the editor is not aware that not publishing repetitive rhetoric does not deprive the author of such text of his or her Freedom of Speech at all.

Likewise, the Sun Star doesn't have the constitutional obligation to publish any of the materials submitted for publication, that too should be a well-known fact to a managing editor.

Holding up the First Amendment as a shield when questioned about what can only be described as desperate journalism is a nothing but an attempt to dodge responsibility. Personally I would have been fine with an answer along the lines of: "I am the editor, thus I do as I please, don't read it if you don't like it," instead of hiding behind constitutional provisions which do not apply.

As for the difference between 'alias' and 'anonymous', in theory it exists, but for all practical purposes it doesn't. That the real name of the author is known to the Sun Star doesn't change the fact that this name is not known to the majority of the readership. That too is a sign of not accepting responsibility for one's writings, or actions for that matter.

If I have something important to say, you bet I will put my name on it, whether people like my opinion or not, I don't need to hide.

Peter Prokein

We will continue to publish every letter to the editor regardless of how repetitive or controversial the topic. Since August '05, I have nixed only one letter, a conspiracy rant from a prisoner in Arizona. The recent abortion discussion is not an issue of "I am the editor, thus it is so," it's because that's what people write to us about.

P.S. An alias is an assumed name. Anonymity is when a name is not known or given. Visit your nearest dictionary for more information. --Ed.

Misrepresentation

I would like to clarify some blatant misrepresentations of the initiative which was deemed a "load of crap." Since no one from the Sun Star has inquired as to the actual text of the initiative, I suppose I must take it upon myself to provide the facts to UAF students and readers.

The purpose of this initiative is to provide a "performance-based" funding scheme as you said. I believe in intellegent [sic] initiatives, the purpose of the initiative is quite contrary to damaging the Sun Star.

The initiative would decrease the Sun Star's share of the Student Government fee from 7 percent to 6 percent next [academic] year, and to 5 percent the following year and remains at 5 percent every year thereafter unless changed. To counter the 2 percent long-term decrease in the share-of-funding, I wrote in a 10 percent match-of-advertsing [sic] revenue clause for every 1 percent of the share-of-government fee decreased (based only on the previous year's revenue).

Why 10 percent? On several occasions during February I made unsuccessful attempts to acquire information regarding the past five year's advertsing [sic] revenue from Casey Grove. My goal was to determine the revenue so that I could make a revenue-match similar to the decline in revenue (a zero-sum effect if nothing changes). But the possibility of improving the revenue would be something to strive for.

Advertising revenue is one of the best ways we have to performance-rate the Sun Star. We could require an annual readership survey, but if people realize that the money could go back into the Student Government Fee and would prefer it there, then the numbers would be skewed, or the opposite could be true, and people could intentionally overrate the Sun Star in order to decrease the fund.

Advertisers are interested in selling to readers, and the quality of the product makes a difference in number of readers. Existing advertisers would be willing to pay more for advertising to a larger circulation and would attract new contracts.

The positive benefit of this initiative is that advertising revenue has a 20 percent greater contribution margin to the Sun Star's finances, after breaking even with the original funding level, every ad dollar earned will be $1.20. I hope to see a higher-quality newspaper result from this, in effect, a little bit of improvement goes a long way over the long-run as the Sun Star earns a larger share of the Student Government fee by improving performance. At the very worst, the Sun Star still receives 5 percent of the student government fee so a minimum of resources will always be directed toward the Sun Star from the fee.

If performances is good, then there should be no reason to be "pissed off" and "angry" because this initiative will certainly help you in that case.

If advertsing [sic] is not a measure of quality, then I'll measure quality as to whether or not any request for information was sent to me via my email address which can be found publically [sic] on the UA Enterprise Directory.

Gavin M. Northey
UAF Student
Author/Sponsor, UAF Sun Star Funding Initiative

Normally we fix spelling, but I didn't miss the irony of your incorrect spelling of the word "intelligent." Maybe you and Peter can split the cost of a dictionary. --Ed.

Bottom line

It is unconstitutional to violate the reproductive rights of women.

The right to choose is an absolute, constitutionally protected right. Every woman has the power to decide if abortion is right for her. In fact, I'm not sure why you insist on arguing about it. It's the law. Even if abortion laws are overturned there will still be abortions. Simply criminalizing it will not change the outcomes, only the means. Women will resort to abortions by unqualified and inexperienced people as they did before Roe v. Wade, even though the risk is great for infection, disease and physical harm. Isn't the mother's life just as important as the baby inside of her? You are obviously capable of compassion, but what about the mother, father, and family? Where is your compassion for them?

Those abortion statistics that you mentioned don't say how many of those women were raped, how many were assaulted by members of their own families, how many were victims of incest, or how many of those women were going to die if they had their child.

Who are you to say that these women are wrong, immoral and have no sense of right and wrong? You haven't lived their lives; you haven't experienced their heartaches.

I'm going to use some of your own words here to prove a point: "The same people who used to weep when a child was lost to violence or starvation or an accident, cheer when a child is lost to abortion." OK, the same people who write letters about how abortion is immoral are the same ones who cheer for capital punishment. Do you get it?

You can't oversimplify and generalize for the sake of making the other party look bad -- I know I for one do not "cheer when a child is lost to abortion," I cheer that women have the right to decide our own destinies. Don't put words into people's mouths.

There are over 500,000 children who don't have homes and are in state custody.

There are over 20 million children in the U.S. that go to sleep every night hungry.

Not every child who is brought into this world is met with loving, supportive and economically stable parents. It's a shame, it really is, but standing on your soapbox screaming about how wrong abortion is does not change anything. There are children right here, right now who need your help. I am working to help them, what are you doing?

Naomi Horne
UAF Social Work Student

To: Michael Smith

I'm sorry son but your misconceptions on abortion are way out there, nothing in life is as black and white as you perceive it.

Most human beings live in the grey area called life, not this delirium of perfection that you want the world to be in. Take off your rose colored glasses and look around -- this is not a perfect world. There is not a good home for every child and not every pregnant woman is capable of being a mother.

I respect your idealism, but it's misguided. You sound so angry in your letters and I interpret that as frustration, I don't blame you. It's frustrating that there are not enough homes for children; it's exasperating that everyone isn't taught the importance of using birth control; it's infuriating that abortions are overused when there are better options. I hear you.

The problem with your argument is that it's not based in the "real world;" unfortunately stuff happens everyday that can't be yes or no, black or white, right or wrong and abortion lies in that area of limitation. Your views are those of a child's not lived. So stand on your pedestal and scream until you're blue about the "evil, murdering, liberal feminist abortionists," but at the end of the day you're just a child throwing a tantrum over a cause you don't understand.

You really want to help lower the rate of abortions? Go to your local health clinics and volunteer, head down to FRA and help with their parenting classes, donate some of your club funds towards Habitat for Humanity.

Help the children that are here, make a difference for those who need it right here in Fairbanks and quit wasting energy on a cause you won't win until the world is perfect.

Charlotte Darrington
UAF Student

Reasoning, not force

I have talked with Michael about this issue. It's not that I don't see it as murder; I don't think it's right as a society to force someone. Even if most people, or even 99 percent of the population thought abortion was wrong, making that other person by force and not logic or reasoning is wrong. Using force is like going back in time.

For example, in the Middle Ages there was a lot of bullying and violence to force someone to change their mind.

I would feel happy and proud of myself if I helped catch a baby, child or some other killer. I am not going to feel proud to catch a "potential life" killer. A fetus is not living, breathing, or on it's own like babies or children are. It needs the energy and fuel from the womb. It is a developing multi-cellular organism that may become a mature enough to not need a womb.

Michael will never feel what it is like to become pregnant. Some women do not want to make or have a child. Michael thinks women should look over their feelings and bodies and make this potential human the No. 1 priority over their self.

There can be some defense on how abortion is beneficial to the society.

For Medicare to pay for an abortion is thousands of dollars cheaper than raising the child. It keeps population down. There will be less starving children. Keeps the cost of retirement, Medicare and other expenses down.

Overall there will be less suffering from too much of a population. You have to prove that making the women give birth will lead to happy, healthy children. They could grow up in a shitty, filthy situation and end up taking their own life. A human could grow up in with a good family but inside always feel like shit.

Just because you have life does not make life fun or happy.

As Michael said, last year about 2,000 potential humans will not get their first steps, never speak their first words or never have children of their own. We could also say they will never have the chance to get beaten up at school, get turned down for dates, or experience the pain of smashing your thumb with a hammer.

Whether we make abortion legal or illegal in this state, women will still choose to terminate their pregnancy. I feel the only right way is to convince women it's wrong is through reasoning. I will not support taking their rights away to visit doctors, to place them in jail or penalty fees.

Randee Wilson
UAF Student