Beehivestandardweekly.com

I agree that families should do all in their power to prepare for unforeseen emergencies. Many in the media have provided some good thoughts on battling our perceptions concerning cost and space barriers to food storage and emergency preparation.

However, I have read that some believe that those barriers aloan are the cause for individuals and families not to be prepared, and that every family should be able to easily afford as "little" as $600 a year for their emergency preparedness. I disagree with the implication that everyone can afford $600 a year (or $50 a month) to put towards food storage. Certainly many of us can, but what about those in poverty, or at least on an already over-stretched fixed budget? For them it is not simply a matter of tightening the belt a bit to squeeze out an extra $50 a month. The money is often simply not there.

The problem is that when disasters happen, it is often the poorer neighborhoods and communities that take the brunt of it (for example, the flood damage in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina was disproportionately in poor and impoverished neighborhoods) and we all can remember how ineffective government response to the disaster was. Furthermore, who was it that did not get needed assistance in a timely manner? It was largely the poor.
Therefore, we can talk about how important it is to prepare ourselves and our families for disasters and that we cannot or should not rely on the government to bail us out, and I would largely agree with that, given my personally situation. However, we cannot make those kinds of blanket statements for everyone and imply that if others “fail” to prepare, that it is their fault. In addition, we should expect the government to step in and provide timely and efficient aid in those situations. That is one of the reasons we pay taxes, and we cannot forget that we need to hold the government accountable too.

In response to Rick Gregory's letter, ""Film's rating is misleading" (Readers' forum, Jan 2, 2007), about the new movie, "Rocky Balboa," I will readily acknowledge that there is some "violence, profanity, vulgarity, brief gore, racial epithets, [and] brief drugs"--it is, after all, a boxing movie. However, this movie was not just rated PG because there was "no sex."

I saw this movie on New Year's Day, and was very impressed. This film was not like the comic book-esk "Rocky IV," with graphic boxing violence, little story-line, and even less dialog, chronicling Rocky's unlikely defeat of his giant Russian opponent. This movie did not glorify the fighting like other later installments in the Rocky saga.

What will it take for the state legislators to recognize and fully acknowledge the major education dilemma in Utah? As the student-age population continues to rise, the supply of teachers continues to decline. We don't need another group of public and higher education leaders to look at how to increase the number of teachers. It is simple: increase teacher pay. It is simple labor supply and demand economics. Increase the salary, and supply will increase. It is nice that online institutions are available in the state to provide a flexible alternative for interested individuals to receive their teaching licensure, but that flexibility alone won't be enough to draw people into the field.

The bottom line is that not many want to be a teacher in the state because it is near impossible to raise a family on a teacher's starting salary in the state of Utah. I love interacting with students, and when I started my university education I wanted to teach. I thought about teaching high school for about 10 seconds. However, it just didn't seem feasible, so I abandoned that idea and switched to business--for no other reason than the pay. I suspect that there are many others who have gone through the same process--who may prefer to teach but economic reality forces them to do something that will provide for their family instead.

It is time for state leaders to finally accept that teachers need to be paid more. It is the only real way to increase the number and quality of teachers who will be teaching the rising generation.

The LDS Church does not endorse any political party or political leader, and I believe it is our moral and civic duty to be active in the political process and challenge political views and policies. This does not mean all faithful LDS Church members must be Republican, and an individual's choice to vote for or support the Democrats (or any other party issue or candidate) does not mean opposition to the church. Many church leaders have served in the Democratic and other political parties.

As a political independent (a moral conservative with both social liberal and fiscal conservative leanings on various issues), I see definite problems with both parties -- neither is inherently morally superior to the other. To suggest such is to make the claim that the world is made up of simple black-and-white issues.

I live in an intricate world of beautifully contrasting colors of all shades, and such beauty should be treasured, not ignored or avoided.

Jonathan H. Westover

I'm having a difficult time understanding the controversy surrounding the recent Discovery Channel documentary that suggests that Christ's tomb has been found.

For those not of the Christian faith, I can't see how it matters. For those who are of the Christian faith: What's the big deal?

The purported evidence only suggests the possibility that Christ's tomb (including his remains and those of his family) has been found. But really, how strong is this evidence?

Regardless of the circumstantial, archaeological evidence, there's no way that this tomb or its contents can be proven to belong to Christ and his family.

But what if such Dan-Brown-esque "concrete proof" were a reality? What would that mean for Christians?

It shouldn't mean anything.

For Christians, a belief in Christ, his resurrection, and his divine nature has never been based on scientific evidence or proof, but rather, has always been a matter of faith.

There's no reason for Christians to get all worked up over this.

After all, if a single documentary can shake a person's faith, then that person's faith probably wasn't that strong to begin with.

Jonathan H. Westover

I applaud Gov. Huntsman for his recent efforts at seeking ways to conserve our natural resources and protect our environment. This is a very important issue and one that I wish more politicians would spend time on. Despite the arguments of some, we are hardly dealing with a "pop-science" or "global-warming charade." Nearly all current scientific evidence points directly to global warming and climate change. Those few scientists that believe global warming is not happening are the ones on the fringe of science. They repeatedly use such tired arguments as melting ice caps on Mars as so-called proof that what is happening here is normal and inevitable. Regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring at the rate that current science estimates, one thing is indisputable: We are currently consuming natural resources and polluting the environment at a staggering rate and we need to seek cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. It has been argued that only God can control the climate. We must remember that ultimately we are each stewards of this beautiful Earth that God has provided for us and it is our moral responsibility to try and seek ways to best use this wonderful gift. Thus, it is in our hands to decide how we want to treat this planet and how we want to leave it for our children and future generations.

Jonathan H. Westover

Sometimes there is too much finger-pointing in the poverty debate, often between those who look at poverty from either a more conservative or liberal point of view. However, I do not believe that any one perspective is fundamentally at fault, nor do I believe that either perspective provides all of the answers.
There are those in a more conservative camp who point the finger of blame at individual factors. They argue that those in poverty find themselves there due to personal choices and individual factors, such as the extent of education pursued, drug and alcohol use, and even laziness. What they fail to realize is that whether or not one receives an education, is likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and even is "lazy" or "underachieving," has a lot to do with the hand they are dealt in life.
On the other side of the coin, you have a more liberal camp that points the finger at the government and policymakers who promote and uphold particular structural and contextual factors in society that impact poverty. They argue that those in poverty find themselves there due to circumstances beyond their individual control, such as being born into a particular family composition, socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity or underprivileged neighborhood. What they fail to realize is that regardless of all of the structural constraints society may put on an individual, that individual still has the ability to make choices regarding personal behavior and the optimization of opportunities.
Certainly, we can gain insight from each point of view, and neither side has a comprehensive claim on the truth regarding the causes of poverty or appropriate interventions. It is true that both individual and contextual factors matter in poverty. Furthermore, many individual factors can be influenced by contextual factors, and vice versa. Thus, the issue of poverty is truly a complex problem.
So how do we fix the problem? Do we target individual factors or focus on more macro-level contextual factors? It seems that the obvious answer is that we need to try to tackle both. In doing so, we need not pass unconstructive blame on one side or the other, but rather we must take proactive steps to eradicate the problem. We should work to educate individuals in our communities in regard to health-related issues, effective money management and budgeting methods, the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, and job-searching techniques and making oneself more marketable in the workplace. Furthermore, we must take a long hard look at structural inequalities in our communities that keep the rich rich and the poor poor and strive to provide equality in educational opportunities, health care and so forth.
Certainly, there are no perfect answers to the poverty dilemma. If there were, the problem would already be solved. However, working together as concerned citizens and policymakers united, we can surely go a long way in helping those less fortunate around us find the many benefits and opportunities in society that we so often take for granted.

Like most people, I was deeply saddened and appalled by the horrific pictures of the 24 severely malnourished and abused special-needs boys found in a Baghdad orphanage this past week. It is never easy to see such a graphic manifestation of abuse and inhumane treatment of any individual, but it is even more disheartening and demoralizing to see it as such behavior relates to the treatment and care of innocent children.

I largely agree with the overall message of the recent Salt Lake Tribune editorial, "Age matters: 16 is better age than 15 for teen driving to begin" (July 28, 2007)—we need to better protect our kids and make sure they are ready for the important responsibility of driving.

However, the editors' main argument for making such an age adjustment is not only lazy, but simply condescending and demeaning to all youth, and fails to reflect a more complex reality.

My family and I found ourselves at the store the other day buying goodies in preparation for the Disney premiere of High School Musical 2. Of course we also wanted to buy the new soundtrack, so we could enjoy the new music, and while back in the rear of the store, we also saw both the original and new board games for the first and second films, which my wife decided we just had to have!