02-17-10 p2

1
Opinion 2 | February 17, 2009 THE RAMBLER | www.therambler.org If texting while driving were illegal, would you still do it? Chris Tham Senior Political Science “If they could make a voice recogni- tion device [to] read your text mes- sages to you … that would be nice.” Breunty Reed Sophomore Business “Probably not cause then I’ll end up getting a ticket.” Risa Lewis Junior Political Science “No because it’s against the law… and I’m a good citizen.” Giovanni Mosanto Freshman English & Poly Sci “Yes, because I do it any- way, and I thought it was already illegal.” Kristina Roberts Junior Criminal Justice “Only while at red lights.” Jonathan Resendez, editor-in-chief Chuck Fain, opinion editor, arts & entertainment editor Conner Howell, college life editor, special projects editor Joakim Söderbaum, sports editor Rebecca Moore, photo editor Rachel Horton, multimedia editor Kelli Lamers, faculty adviser Dr. Kay Colley, faculty liaison Member of the Texas Intercollegiate Press As- sociation, Associated Collegiate Press, Student Press Law Center, College Media Advisers and College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers. Opinions expressed in THE RAMBLER are those of the individual authors only and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the Texas Wesleyan community as a whole. R AMBLER Contribution Please send all news briefs to twurambler@ yahoo.com. Submissions due by noon Friday to see brief in the following week’s issue. Letters to the editor: THE RAMBLER , a weekly publication welcomes all letters. All submis- sions must have a full printed name, phone number and signature. While every consider- ation is made to publish letters, publication is limited by time and space. The editors reserve the right to edit all submis- sions for space, grammar, clarity and style. Letters to the editor may be subject to response from editors and students on the opinion page. We are not afraid to follow the truth ... wherever it may lead. — Thomas Jefferson Address all correspondence to: Texas Wesleyan University THE RAMBLER 1201 Wesleyan St. Fort Worth, TX 76105 [email protected] To contact THE RAMBLER (817) 531-7552 Advertising Inquiries: (817) 532-7582 The Rambler Founded in 1917 as The Handout Publisher: Harold G. Jeffcoat Laws against texting are a waste of time Faulty Toyotas aren’t the only hazards on the road, say Texas lawmakers. e Texas Legislature is considering passing various bills that in some way restrict or prohibit certain types of cell phone usage while driving. While they have good intentions, I doubt the laws will be a deterrent to our post-MTV generation, therefore making them a waste of time. Yes, studies have shown that texting while driving is dangerous. e Transport Research Laboratory, an independent English research company, reported that reaction times were slower for people who were texting than those who were drunk or smoking marijuana. e study reveals some interesting truths but is hard to digest. e same way alcoholics who choose to drive absolutely have to have their booze and drive, tex- ters absolutely cannot wait until they reach their destination to know what Betty said about Dave’s cousin’s wife’s Facebook status a week ago. However, shiſting one’s eyes from an iPhone to a busy interstate shouldn’t be compared to a lush’s heavy foot on a gas pedal and wobbly control of a steering wheel. Some proponents of banning texting while driving want to impose fines on vio- lators that pale in comparison to those of a DWI offender. If it’s more dangerous, shouldn’t it carry at least an equal sentence? e silliness of the law shines through lawmakers’ inability to prove the dangers with concrete evidence. How is a police officer supposed to know if some- one is texting? Unlike inebriation, there is no way to prove that a driver was texting unless the officer checks the phone. Even then, a few quick button strokes could dispose of the evidence easily. ere are numerous other driver distractions: billboards, radio, makeup, talking on a phone (hands free or not) and, of course, other drivers. Making one distraction illegal would require them all to be made illegal. Keep it fair. While it’s true that some people are incapable of picking their nose and driving, making tex- ting while driving illegal would become the new jaywalking—a law that no one follows and is hard to enforce. Transcript costs soar at Wesleyan e amount you’ll pay for a full meal at Dora’s Cafeteria on ursday aſternoons - $3. e amount you’ll pay for a same-day tran- script - $20. e look on your face – priceless. As noted on Wesleyan’s Web site, a full $15 extra is required for an official transcript pro- cessed and given to you on the day you order it. e normal transcripts take about three business days to process and cost $5. While I’ll be the first to empathize with the complexities and expenses of running an institution of higher education, I also tend to bargain shop when I can. I found that the 25,000 UTA students pay $7 for a normal transcript and $17 for a same-day order. e 4,000 students at St. Mary’s University pay $3 per transcript no matter the order time. And should you order five or more transcripts, the price is right at $2.40 per transcript. To raise the bar a bit, I checked Harvard’s site and found that their 7,000 students pay $3 for an official transcript no matter the time the order is placed. Urgent transcript requests will cost the same as that of a regular tran- script ($3, or free, if the student is so entitled). Finally, our TCU neighbors to the west pay $5 for an official transcript. For those in a hur- ry, they simply send an electronic pdf version of the transcript accessible via e-mail address, usually within one-half a business day. So why all the fuss? At first, I wasn’t at all concerned. It could be seen as a justifiable punishment for procrastination, and the money simply benefits the office in the pro- cess. en again, is that what our university is here to do? Punish students who belatedly remember that a transcript is needed for an application? Not hardly. Naturally, Joe Student should be on top of extracurricular application requirements and should not need to fax or mail an of- ficial transcript the same day he receives the request. However, when one of those highly competitive opportunities arises and the per- son on top requests an official transcript, the last thing he wants to do is wait three business days for someone else to take the edge. Granted, Wesleyan students can print their unofficial transcript on their own, for free, from Ram Link. But let’s face it, it’s the official one that is needed most of the time. Furthermore, printing two pieces of profes- sional paper, slapping a seal sticker on it and having the registrar sign said paper takes all of 10 minutes. TCU e-mails the pdf version in half of a business day without so much as blinking an eye as a regular service. I wouldn’t impose that standard, but the principle of the thing is the same. e cost of a same-day transcript at Wes- leyan equals a month of ursday lunches at Dora’s. With so little cash, time and energy, should students be forced to choose between the op- portunities of the future versus the needs of the present? Jonathan Resendez Editor-in-chief [email protected] Rachel Horton Multimedia editor [email protected] Rebecca Moore | Rambler Staff Just smoke a joint next time, study shows it’s safer than texting. Dreamstime.com Transcripts cost how much?!

Upload: jonathan-resendez

Post on 09-Apr-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

“No because it’s against the law… and I’m a good citizen.” Chris Tham Senior Political Science Breunty Reed Sophomore Business Jonathan Resendez Editor-in-chief “Yes, because I do it any- way, and I thought it was already illegal.” Risa Lewis Junior Political Science Rachel Horton Multimedia editor Address all correspondence to: T he R ambleR R ambleR Contribution Giovanni Mosanto Freshman English & Poly Sci To contact T he R ambleR Kristina Roberts Junior Criminal Justice

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 02-17-10 P2

Opinion2 | February 17, 2009 The RambleR | www.therambler.org

If texting while driving were illegal, would you still do it?

Chris Tham Senior Political Science

“If they could make a voice recogni-tion device [to] read your text mes-sages to you … that would be nice.”

Breunty Reed Sophomore Business

“Probably not cause then I’ll end up getting a ticket.”

Risa Lewis Junior Political Science

“No because it’s against the law… and I’m a good citizen.”

Giovanni Mosanto Freshman English & Poly Sci “Yes, because I do it any-way, and I thought it was already illegal.”

Kristina Roberts Junior Criminal Justice

“Only while at red lights.”

Jonathan Resendez, editor-in-chiefChuck Fain, opinion editor, arts & entertainment editorConner Howell, college life editor, special projects editorJoakim Söderbaum, sports editorRebecca Moore, photo editorRachel Horton, multimedia editorKelli Lamers, faculty adviserDr. Kay Colley, faculty liaison

Member of the Texas Intercollegiate Press As-sociation, Associated Collegiate Press, Student Press Law Center, College Media Advisers and College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers.

Opinions expressed in The RambleR are those of the individual authors only and do not neces-sarily reflect the views of the Texas Wesleyan community as a whole.

RambleR Contribution Please send all news briefs to [email protected]. Submissions due by noon Friday to see brief in the following week’s issue.

Letters to the editor: The RambleR, a weekly publication welcomes all letters. All submis-sions must have a full printed name, phone number and signature. While every consider-ation is made to publish letters, publication is limited by time and space.The editors reserve the right to edit all submis-sions for space, grammar, clarity and style. Letters to the editor may be subject to response from editors and students on the opinion page.

“We are not afraid to follow the truth ... wherever it may lead.”

— Thomas Jefferson

Address all correspondence to:Texas Wesleyan UniversityThe RambleR1201 Wesleyan St.Fort Worth, TX [email protected] contact The RambleR

(817) 531-7552Advertising Inquiries:(817) 532-7582

The RamblerFounded in 1917 as The Handout

Publisher: Harold G. Jeffcoat

Laws against texting are a waste of time

Faulty Toyotas aren’t the only hazards on the road, say Texas lawmakers.

The Texas Legislature is considering passing various bills that in some way restrict or prohibit certain types of cell phone usage while driving. While they have good intentions, I doubt the laws will be a deterrent to our post-MTV generation, therefore making them a waste of time.

Yes, studies have shown that texting while driving is dangerous. The Transport Research Laboratory, an independent English research company, reported that reaction times were slower for people who were texting than those who were drunk or smoking marijuana.

The study reveals some interesting truths but is hard to digest.

The same way alcoholics who choose to drive absolutely have to have their booze and drive, tex-ters absolutely cannot wait until they reach their

destination to know what Betty said about Dave’s cousin’s wife’s Facebook status a week ago.

However, shifting one’s eyes from an iPhone to a busy interstate shouldn’t be compared to a lush’s heavy foot on a gas pedal and wobbly control of a steering wheel. Some proponents of banning texting while driving want to impose fines on vio-lators that pale in comparison to those of a DWI offender.

If it’s more dangerous, shouldn’t it carry at least an equal sentence? The silliness of the law shines through lawmakers’ inability to prove the dangers with concrete evidence.

How is a police officer supposed to know if some-one is texting? Unlike inebriation, there is no way to prove that a driver was texting unless the officer checks the phone. Even then, a few quick button strokes could dispose of the evidence easily.

There are numerous other driver distractions: billboards, radio, makeup, talking on a phone (hands free or not) and, of course, other drivers. Making one distraction illegal would require them all to be made illegal. Keep it fair.

While it’s true that some people are incapable of picking their nose and driving, making tex-ting while driving illegal would become the new jaywalking—a law that no one follows and is hard to enforce.

Transcript costs soar at Wesleyan

The amount you’ll pay for a full meal at Dora’s Cafeteria on Thursday afternoons - $3. The amount you’ll pay for a same-day tran-script - $20. The look on your face – priceless.

As noted on Wesleyan’s Web site, a full $15 extra is required for an official transcript pro-cessed and given to you on the day you order it. The normal transcripts take about three business days to process and cost $5.

While I’ll be the first to empathize with the complexities and expenses of running an institution of higher education, I also tend to bargain shop when I can. I found that the 25,000 UTA students pay $7 for a normal transcript and $17 for a same-day order.

The 4,000 students at St. Mary’s University pay $3 per transcript no matter the order time. And should you order five or more transcripts, the price is right at $2.40 per transcript.

To raise the bar a bit, I checked Harvard’s site and found that their 7,000 students pay $3 for an official transcript no matter the time the order is placed. Urgent transcript requests will cost the same as that of a regular tran-

script ($3, or free, if the student is so entitled).Finally, our TCU neighbors to the west pay

$5 for an official transcript. For those in a hur-ry, they simply send an electronic pdf version of the transcript accessible via e-mail address, usually within one-half a business day.

So why all the fuss? At first, I wasn’t at all concerned. It could be seen as a justifiable punishment for procrastination, and the money simply benefits the office in the pro-cess. Then again, is that what our university is here to do? Punish students who belatedly remember that a transcript is needed for an application? Not hardly.

Naturally, Joe Student should be on top of extracurricular application requirements and should not need to fax or mail an of-ficial transcript the same day he receives the request. However, when one of those highly competitive opportunities arises and the per-son on top requests an official transcript, the last thing he wants to do is wait three business days for someone else to take the edge.

Granted, Wesleyan students can print their unofficial transcript on their own, for free, from Ram Link. But let’s face it, it’s the official one that is needed most of the time.

Furthermore, printing two pieces of profes-sional paper, slapping a seal sticker on it and having the registrar sign said paper takes all of 10 minutes.

TCU e-mails the pdf version in half of a business day without so much as blinking an eye as a regular service. I wouldn’t impose that standard, but the principle of the thing is the same.

The cost of a same-day transcript at Wes-leyan equals a month of Thursday lunches at Dora’s.

With so little cash, time and energy, should students be forced to choose between the op-portunities of the future versus the needs of the present?

Jonathan [email protected]

Rachel HortonMultimedia [email protected]

Rebecca Moore | Rambler StaffJust smoke a joint next time, study shows it’s safer than texting.

Dreamstime.comTranscripts cost how much?!