Democrats blocked regulation

To the writer of Wednesday's letter entitled "'Bizarre' facts," I understand you are upset about having your liberal ideas called "bizarre," but in order to counter that argument, you have to get your facts straight. Blaming the housing crisis on President Bush and his tax cuts is like blaming a paramedic for a traffic accident. You claim that banks having more money caused them to make riskier loans is absurd. They were making loans they knew they would not get back, because they were forced too. You neglected to mention Bill Clinton and his ridiculous changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to make risky loans to "inner city (members) and distressed rural communities." This change was made because of Clinton's Democratic agenda - the fact that everyone, rich or poor, has the right to a house.

As banks were forced to make risky loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy those mortgages because, if they didn't, banks would have been sucked dry without the currency to make more loans. This is the same President Clinton that spent most of his time in office with the same fiscally conservative policies that you attack in your letter - tax cuts.

Need I say that the Democrats have blocked several Republican attempts to regulate Fannie Mae before this crisis started? Why could that be? Let's be real here - the three top U.S. senators who got big campaign contributions are Democrats, and our President-elect is number two on that list. I guess they didn't want to bite the hand that fed them.

Yet, Representative Nancy Pelosi continues to state that the Democrats have done nothing wrong. Why can't Democrats see that it's their liberal policies that caused this mess? Now THAT'S bizarre.

BROCK BOYCE
Huntington Beach, Calif.

Alternate plan for education

From time to time, the College Republicans and College Democrats have side-by-side discussions in The Daily Universe. More often than not, I am surprised to find how much I disagree with each side.

I've always thought of myself as conservative, but I'm not sure now. I believe in public schools, you see. In addition, I'm no Democrat, as I favor school choice by parents. The last thing we need, though, is a party line article; so here's a new idea: complete market freedom for schools.

What would happen is this: each student has a sum of money attached to their name (all the funding that would be required to fund their education for one year.) The student and family decide where to go. Whichever school they feel is best gets the student and the funding.

Hopefully, this would benefit public schools greatly. It would provide teachers more flexibility, principals more autonomy and force change where needed. If public schools aren't doing well, then as they lose funding, administrators will change their management, or will be changed.

I'm interested in seeing what people think of this idea. It's not vouchers, because it doesn't give any special benefit to private schools over public schools; but it is a way to spur innovation in schools. What think ye?

BENJAMIN PACINI
Salt Lake City

Showing up is half the battle

It seems like every week I get several e-mails from various classmates I've never met saying something like, "I missed class this morning. Could someone e-mail me their notes?" This demonstration of irresponsibility and lack of effort amazes me.

The "e-mail the class" feature on Blackboard should not be used to announce to the entire class that you skipped out on the lecture and didn't plan ahead. Going to class probably isn't easy for everyone, and I can think of other places I'd rather be than sitting at a desk. Why do I go? I pay tuition and I am responsible for my own education. I take notes so I can pass the tests. I go to be enlightened. If these are not your views and you don't go, then don't expect other random people to bail you out.

Suggestions: 1) Get to know someone in class, and if you realize you need to miss a lecture, then talk to that person ahead of time. Don't fill 80 classmates' inboxes after the class requesting them to take responsibility for a person they couldn't pick out of a crowd. 2) Talk to the TA or instructor. 3) Suck it up and accept the consequence of not attending class: a void in your notes. 4) Actually go to class.

MILES MILLER
Vergennes, Vt

Too lenient with rule-breakers

I was glad to see in The Daily Universe about BYU swimmers being arrested. As a former graduate student still associated with BYU, I am appalled when students misbehave and then act totally surprised at the consequences that come to them. What part of the Honor Code don't you understand?

I'm a former high school teacher and substitute. Too many young people are rescued by parents. They call it "helicopter behavior" where parents hover over a child to protect them from the outside world. The student at Utah State's death shows the irresponsible behavior of college students which not only affects students' lives but can cause a student's death!

There are plenty of students who want to attend BYU and would adhere to their rules. Frankly, I think BYU is way too tolerant of some students' behavior. This probably occurs because students and families will sue the university if they don't get what they want. I was born in Wyoming, and I like the idea of prompt Western action toward rule breakers! Too bad it doesn't happen now!

ELISABETH SPERRY
Orem

Minority rights

Organized minorities have had many favors granted to them by our government that the majority may not approve of. They will argue that this is why we have court justices, to protect the rights of minorities. However, in the founding of this country, judges were not given the power to make law. That is something they have decided they can do only in this latter half-century. I agree, we need to protect the rights of minorities. They need to be protected against hate crimes, open discrimination and other abuses. However, there is also a fine line dividing when the protection of minorities violates the rights of the majority.

Minorities receive more protection in this country than in any other in the world. They are safe here. Our courts have overthrown many biased laws. However, we must keep in mind that in order to have a true democracy, the majority must have a say as well.

If by law, a majority of Californians legally passed a vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman (keep in mind, this says nothing about homosexuals or anyone else; it is simply defining marriage ... bottom line), then it is the right of those in the majority to see the law is upheld. If every time the majority passed a law, it was overthrown in favor of the minority, where are the rights for those in the majority? Their voices must be heard as well.

The minority of homosexuality is protected in this country. They can live their lives as they please without fear of harm. They have all the rights that the Constitution allows them. It seems that they often forget that the other side of the spectrum has rights too, and they must be respected as well.

SAM WHITTIER

Idaho Falls, Idaho

An 'F' for DU sports writers

Sports writers are supposed to know the facts upon which they base their opinions. Unfortunately this was not the case with the DU coverage of the BYU defense in the "Making the Grade" column for the Utah football game run last Monday.

The writers give a C+ to the defense, writing that the two Brandons in the defensive backfield "kept the [Utah] wide receivers contained, holding Utah's Freddie Brown to a simple 97 yards on 8 catches, far below what the Utes normally see out of him." What the Utes normally see out of Freddie Brown, available to all sports writers, is an average "far below" the 97 yards he managed in the BYU game. In fact, he had more than 97 yards receiving in only two games this season, one game against lowly San Diego State for 110 yards and the other against TCU for a "simple" 105 yards. And his eight catches against BYU were more than he had in nine games. His receiving yards per game - 64.5. His catches per game - 5.5.

With such a blatant error in their facts, this reader has to wonder about the soundness of your writers' opinions. In their next article knocking the Cougars, the DU sports people would do better to focus on BYU's continuing penalty problem.

The F assigned to Max Hall when BYU gives only E's because an E "didn't seem right" was clever of your writers. It should be given to them, because an E for their article doesn't seem right.

DAVID WILKINSON

Provo

Copyright Brigham Young University 5 Dec 2008