The Rice Thresher, Vol. 97, No. 3, Ed. 1 Friday, September 4, 2009 Page: 3 of 36
thirty six pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Op-Ed
Texting while driving idiotic, dangerous
Abbreves (or abbreviations)
have consumed the world of speedy
communication, from e-mails to in-
stant messages to text messaging.
However, even if it's possible to
say "1 love you" in three characters
(ilu), that does not make it any saf-
er to text while driving, no matter
how proficient your no-look keypad
skills may be.
is simply appalling when any ratio-
nal person can see that driving and
texting should never mix.
it
Natalie Clericuzio
Fortunately, lawmakers feel the
same way, as media outlets have re-
cently been clogged with an influx of
stories about legislation banning tex-
ting while driving. Several states have
already made texting while driving
illegal. In Utah, for example, mixing
texts and driving could get offenders
up to 15 years in jail if they hit some-
one. In addition to bans at the state
levels, Senator Charles E. Schumer of
New York is pushing a bill outlawing
the practice nationwide.
I support Sen. Schumer's bill.
However, its necessity is just another
example of all-around stupidity by
those in my generation (and anyone
who engages in texting while operat-
ing a motor vehicle). The fact that this
behavior has become so widespread
that it merits legislation against it
Anyone who has
passed a driver's
test should have the
mental capacity to
register the idea that
sending a text
message is a clear
conflict of interest
with safe driving.
99
First, there's the obvious reason-
ing. If a driver's attention is centered
upon entering the right combination
of keys to appease the fickle nature
of predictive text, then he or she has
distracted himself or herself from
concentrating on the road. Clearly
the more distracted a driver is, the
more hazardous he is. Anything that
causes a driver to avert his eyes from
the road for an extended period of
time should fall under the category
of "activities that can wait until the
car is stopped."
That's not even the main point.
I would venture to say that at mini-
mum, 85 percent of texts deal with
non-pressing issues, such as, "Boys
suck," "You suck," or perhaps, if
you're lucky, "Want to get dinner
with me tonight?" If the message
requires an immediate response,
most people tend to go about things
the old-fashioned way: by making
a real, live phone call. Besides the
fact that sending a text message
is infinitely more distracting than
talking on the phone, the messages
themselves do not merit putting a
person's life in danger.
Really, though, it's just simple
logic. Anyone who has passed a
driver's test should have the men-
tal capacity to register the idea
that sending a text message is a
clear conflict of interest with safe
driving. As my high school drivers
education coach liked to tell us, a
car is a weapon. Make sure you are
prepared to use it correctly with
minimal distraction.
Because every time you buckle that
seatbelt, you're submitting a contract
to protect yourself and those around
you by concentrating on your driving.
By now, you texter-drivers out
there are likely collectively rolling
your eyes at my absurd admonish-
ments, assuming I'm some loser who
couldn't pick a text message out of an
electronic-communication line-up.
But prepare yourselves — if asked to
pick my favorite method of e-communi-
cation, I'd unfailingly go with the text.
One of my worst fears is the day when
my phone plan no longer comes with
an "unlimited texting" option.
Just not when I'm behind the wheel.
Natalie Clericuzio is a Wiess College
junior and Thresher sports editor.
By now, the consensus among rea-
sonable people is that modern science
indicates the theory of evolution was,
at best, a misguided effort. Most con-
temporary theorists agree that evolu-
tion does not explain the fact that the
universe is so perfectly adapted to our
needs. And if even a single step in the
alleged "evolutionary" process had
gone wrong, we would be complete-
ly different creatures. We probably
would not even be able to think.
Brian Reinhart
That is why there is increasing ac-
ceptance among the scientific com-
munity of intelligent design theory, or
the theory that life is best explained as
the product of some kind of prior plan,
sketched out by an all-encompassing
being far cleverer than we are. Intelli-
gent design explains why the universe
was designed for us and why our incred-
ibly complex physical systems became
what they are now. It also accounts for
the usefulness of our brains, which
would be mush had they just been left
to random natural processes.
Several hundred scientists around
the United States recently signed an
open letter expressing their doubt
about evolution. The list included Rice
professors Patricia Reiff, (ames Tour
and Pablo Yepes, plus professor emeri-
tus Dale Spence. (Seriously — they all
signed it.) But why did they stop with
biology? The latest wave in scientific
discovery suggests that evolution is not
the only theory we all got wrong.
One old theory which, like evo-
lution, appears doomed is that of
gravity. Skeptics have always had
their doubts about gravity. After all,
if gravity were true, wouldn't our ex-
cess fat be on our feet rather than our
bellies? And we have all seen birds
and airplanes fly, even though grav-
ity says that they shouldn't.
The explanation which best fits
the evidence is a new theory called
"intelligent dispersal." According to
intelligent dispersal theory, a higher
power dispersed all matter during
creation and placed each molecule
on an eternal path. The reason "grav-
ity" sometimes seems to be happen-
ing, and sometimes does not, is be-
cause the molecules falling or flying
are actually just enacting the courses
the intelligent disperser created. This
divine theory makes gravity and its
obvious flaws unnecessary.
Something similar can be said for
plate tectonics, a theory long singled out
as failing to explain the perfect align-
ment of the continents. Scientists now
understand that the continents have
been fixed in place since our planet was
created and only the rock beneath the
ocean is still moving. Our new discover-
ies pave the way for intelligent subver-
sion, the theory that oceans can slide
under the immobile continents. Intelli-
gent subversion explains where excess
water would be stored in the event of,
for example, a great flood.
Likewise, a core group of brilliant
astronomers is changing the way we
look at the stars. For centuries we
have thought that the Earth is not, af-
ter all, the center of the universe. But
now we know that it is.
Before humans acquired scientific
knowledge, we had the satisfaction of
knowing that the universe was exclu-
sively designed for us. But as we got
more and more arrogant about this
fact, treating the galaxy as our oyster,
a higher power chose to restore in us
our modesty. It did so by making us
think that we were in fact stuck in an
inconsequential corner of an unim-
portant galaxy in a massive void.
This is called intelligent decep-
tion theory: the idea that, to keep us
humble and worshipful, the intelli-
gent deceiver made us think that the
universe is not really centered on us.
The most controversial of these
revolutionary new scientific theories
is the one called intelligent sensitivity.
ti
The revolution in
science that
overthrew evolution is
now prepared to take
on other mere theo-
ries like gravity, plate
tectonics, astronomy
and phenomenology.
Intelligent design to take over all studies
This is a response to the philosophy
of the so-called "Enlightenment."
Allegedly enlightened philoso-
phers like David Hume worried
that we could not always trust our
senses, because what our senses re-
port to our brain might actually be
different from what actually exists.
Now we can dismiss this complaint
by postulating an intelligent sensi-
tizer who gives us all of our sensory
inputs after making sure they are
accurate. The sensitizer is a sort of
divine fact-checker.
99
As you can see, the revolution in
science which overthrew evolution is
now prepared to take on other mere
theories like gravity, plate tectonics,
astronomy and phenomenology. The
explanatory power of the intelligent
new hypotheses is far greater than
the old ones. I have full confidence
that intelligent design, intelligent
dispersal, intelligent subversion,
intelligent deception and intelligent
sensitivity will pave the way to new
scientific frontiers.
They even point the way to a
grand unified theory of science,
based on a central intelligent figure.
Who could that figure be? We have a
theory about that, too.
Its name is intelligent blind faith.
Brian Reinhart is a Wiess College
senior and Thresher calendar editor.
New recreation center fees
add financial constraints
In recent conversations with fel-
low gym enthusiasts about our excite-
ment surrounding the Sept. 25 open-
ing of the Barbara and David Gibbs
Recreation and Wellness Center, the
topic of the proposed membership
fees inevitably arises. I almost always
receive two reactions from students,
the first being, "Huh? What fees?"
and the second usually being a mix-
ture of outrage and despair.
Michael Contreras
I find these reactions to be some-
what ironic given that Rice just received
Princeton Review's No. 1 ranking for
"best quality of life." Although this
membership fee will affect all mem-
bers of the Rice community, I feel it is
one that is not resonating well with stu-
dents, returning students especially.
Now, nobody is ever happy about
new fees, whether large or small, but I
feel the imposition of this particular fee
evokes such emotion because it strikes
at the heart of two core issues: value of
the student and economic viability.
From the project's groundbreak-
ing on April 22, 2008, until a tiny post
on the rec center Web site on Aug. 17,
2009, minimal public mention was
ever made of membership fees. Given
that the gym is set to open Sept. 25, it
is shameful to wait this long without
informing students who have been
accustomed to paying nothing to use
Rice's recreational facilities.
After much persistence, the Grad-
uate Student Association was able to
secure an e-mail from the Athletics
Department regarding the topic. Ac-
cording to the e-mail, the undergrad-
uate fee will be rolled into tuition.
Graduate students can optionally pay
the gym membership at the $120 per
year rate with a special prorated fee of
$105 this year beginning Oct. 1. Post-
doctoral students will be lumped in
the alumni and staff category and will
be charged $288 per year.
Graduate students, however, must
purchase a gym membership to be
eligible to even play intramural sports.
Examining the membership fees as an
isolated entity, one may hasten to say,
"Wow, sounds like a great deal for a
great facility!" However, it is this lack of
knowledge of the general context of the
Rice student experience that is precisely
what is upsetting to students.
It may be said that the imposition
of the recreational center membership
fees has been the proverbial "straw
that broke the camel's back" for some
graduate students as they struggle
to stretch their stipends. Take a typi-
cal student above the age of 25 in the
Psychology Department, funded by a
stipend that amounts to $18,500 per
year, which the president's office has
informed us is comparable with our
peer institutions. After taxes, this stu-
dent is taking home roughly $1,500 per
month. (Bear in mind that stipends
vary widely across the university, and
averaging them is not necessarily rep-
resentative of the situation.)
Nonetheless, when we add up all
the yearly expenses graduate students
must pay - including rent at Rice Vil-
lage Apartments, parking, health
services, health insurance premium,
health insurance deductible and the
proposed recreational membership fee
the total nears $900 per month.
It is important to notice that
health, wellness and the recre-
ational center membership fees
comprise roughly $1,310 annually of
this student's overall Rice incurred
expenses. Besides rent, there is no
greater expense than health and well-
ness for the typical graduate student.
In summary, the devil is truly in the
details. Although the university admin-
istration, on the front end, has made
great strides to make stipends more
competitive, increase graduate student
housing, provide adequate recreational
facilities and keep the health insurance
fees consistent, it has also induced un-
written corollary fees associated with
this growth that has rendered it impos-
sible for most students to enjoy the very
facilities that were created for them in
the first place.
It is no wonder that graduate stu-
dents have sought more economically
viable ways to circumvent the system:
moving out of the Rice Graduate Apart-
ments, never going to the doctor — as
evidenced by two years of low insurance
payout of which no savings was passed
on to the student — parking their cars in
the neighboring community, postpon-
ing starting a family and, soon, opting
out of their gym membership.
It seems to be a grim situation, but
there are very logical and clear solu-
tions that can be implemented in the
near future without drawing on addi-
tional resources. Here are a few:
Be upfront with incoming stu-
dents: Graduate students' offer letters
should state in plain language their
stipend and all required/special fees
tied to their enrollment at Rice.
Have professors pay their students'
annual $125 IT fees from grants: It is
amazing that graduate students are
subsidizing IT out of their own pocket
to maintain computers and network
services that they are required to use
as part of their research. This would be
laughable in the job world, analogous
to the company you work for deducting
a portion of your check to pay for server
and e-mail maintenance.
Get rid of the stipulation for gradu-
ate students that you must have a gym
membership to play intramural sports:
Unless your sole purpose is to handicap
the GSA in college competition, there is
no fiscal reason to do this. Here's why:
Only a small minority of graduate IM
competitors do not currently use the
old recreational facilities. Assuming
IM competitors who do use the old
gym purchase memberships to the new
facility, the money left not generated
by allowing that small minority to en-
gage in IM sports without membership
would be negligible.
Engage the GSA and 5,4: I want
to express my appreciation for the
productive and attentive manner in
which Kathy Collins and her staff
have addressed the contentious issue
of phasing out student club Chase
bank accounts last year. The univer-
sity began the process with ample no-
tification, engaged both the SA and
GSA and continues to maintain dia-
logue as the changeover continues.
However, it is upsetting to see that a
similar mindset was not present in the
administration's dealing with the mem-
bership fees. So far, dialogue with the
Athletics Department on the topic has
been scant and inconsistent. The lack
of publicity regarding the membership
fees and clouded lines of communica-
tion have caused students to feel that
their interests are being overlooked.
To borrow a line from The Godfa-
ther, we are all "reasonable people
here" and are all willing to do what-
ever is necessary to find an adequate
compromise to this complex issue.
Surely, Director of Athletics Chris Del
Conte is a "reasonable man," and if
we just sit down and talk, maybe he
can make us an offer we can't refuse.
Michael Contreras is a civil
engineering graduate student
and GSA parliamentarian.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Michel, Casey. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 97, No. 3, Ed. 1 Friday, September 4, 2009, newspaper, September 4, 2009; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443128/m1/3/: accessed June 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.