Since his start in radio news, Trent has won awards from the Nebraska Broadcasters Association, the Nebraska Associated Press, and the Iowa Broadcast News Association.
Rice also serves as the 2009-2010 President of the Iowa Broadcast News Association.
Rice is a native of Plattsmouth, Nebraska. He and his wife Solveig have been married since 2000. They live in Ames where he enjoys golf, reading, movies, music college football, and the heartbreak that comes from being a Minnesota Vikings fan. Trent and Solveig have twin daughters Annika and Kaija and a son, Erik, who shares the same birthday as his sisters, just five years later.
The Ames City Council will look, Tuesday night, at a formal zoning request for the old Ames Middle School land from a Texas company that want to build 900 bedrooms of ISU student-oriented housing, along with some single-family houses. You can see the council's agenda here--go to item #24. Click the PDF link, and pay special attention to ISU's letter listing it's concerns.
Lots of people who live in the area, as you might guess, oppose the development saying they aren't interested in having the lifestyles of students foisted upon them any more than the already are.
My question is this--just how many apartment do we need in Ames? Don't forget, this development will put up 900 kids. There are new apartment buildings going in not far from this location in some existing complexes near Mortenson Rd. New complexes have gone up on SE 16th St. ISU will house more than 700 kids in apartments it's building in Fredrickson Court. The university is also interested in Campustown redevelopment on W. Lincoln Way that could put student housing across the street from campus.
Sure, ISU has record enrollment--for now. What happens as the economy improves and more kids take their bachelors degrees and get jobs, forgoing grad school as "plan B?"
Who is going to fill all those apartments? Will buildings sit empty?
On Thursday we talked about this Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by a high school senior taking college admissions board to task about all the hoops kids have to jump through to be admitted to their (her words) "dream schools."
This led to a discussion of what motivates people to "give"--of themselves, whether their time or treasure. Is it for the "call" to give? How about the idea that they're giving back to the ______ that gave so much to them. Or, asked cynically, is there an ulterior motive? Should I even ask the question?--More on that in a bit.
The pragmatic Trent says...I don't care what motivates you to "give." I really don't. That being said, I'd invite you to do a little self-evaluation. If you're moitivated to "give" because you feel some kind of obligation to your God, your family, or your community, good for you. If you are motivated by the "warm fuzzies" you get, good for you, too. If you "give" because you want to pad your resume', or boost your standing in the community, or simply like the "strokes" the come with having given...I say, good for you. Like I said, I don't really care why you "give." Would I love it if everyone one "gave" because they motivated by nothing more than an all-consuming sense of altruism? Sure. But, we are complicated beings who are motivated by a broad range of ideals.
I was taken to task, a bit, for even questioning why someone "gives." In fact, someone thought me to be "disgusting" for presuming that people "gave" our of motivation to "get something back." Here's the thing. I know those people who do what they do our of pure strategy--"What's in it for me? Who's going to think well of me?" I'd lay odds that you know them too.
Like I said earlier--I don't care. We have lots of agencies and organizations that simply don't function without volunteers. Find one of them, and pitch in. Many hands make light work, you know.
As we first reported on Tuesday, Iowa State University's athletic department disclosed that it committed a number of NCAA violations related to phone calls and text messages sent to potential recruits. You can read all about it here.
Here's what I find absolutely amazing--in a news release the athletic department said it investigated 2,500 phone bills covering 750,000 phone calls from 2008 through 2011. They figured out where the violations occurred, who was involved, and self-imposed sanctions 18 MONTHS AGO...and no one in the public knew anything about it.
Think about the logistics of keeping something like that on the down-low. Coaches and assistant coaches in 18 sports, scores of administrators, all the trainers and assistants connected to the athletic department--and, for a year and a half, no one said a word. Remember, this time span includes two cocahes (Gene Chizik and Greg McDermott) who are no longer with the school.
I get it that no one in the department is outwardly motivated to spill the beans on their own missteps, but there wasn't someone, anyone, who wanted curry favor with a reporter by giving up something?
No kidding, that is an amazing bit of message control. Thing of beauty, Mr. Pollard. Thing of beauty.
Arapahoe County, CO prosecutors announced Monday they would seek the death penalty for James Holmes--the man accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 other in an Aurora, CO movie theater. You can get all the details here.
In seeking the death penalty, prosecutor George Brauchler says for Holmes "justice is death."
Really? Justice is death. To me, that seems really ironic, and patently absurd.
Let's be honest with ourselves where capital punishment is concerned. It's not justice. It's revenge, pure and simple. We can gussy it up all we want under the trappings of "due process" but at the end of the day, it's cold-blooded revenge.
I don't know what your spiritual bent is, but as I understand it, the power to take a life rests not with man, but with... Well, you get it.
While we're on the matter of hypocrisy...
How can someone claim to be a Christian, claim to be "pro-life" where abortion is concerned, yet advocate for the death pernalty. Hypocrisy.
It's my birthday too, yeah.
Enjoy some cake, have a great Easter weekend, and we'll see you Monday!
A listener e-mailed me today, saying he's convinced if the Supreme Court of the United States strikes down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the country will take the first step down the slippery slope of chruches, under court order, being forced to recognize and perform same-sex marriage.
No. No they won't.
Look at the Bill of Rights. The first words of the First Amendment say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or, prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Pretty easy to understand, right?
If kids in a public school CANNOT be compelled by their teachers to pray, churches CANNOT be compelled by the government to do...anything.
I know--your next statement is "But, Trent, other nations forced churches to recognize and accept homosexuality." While I don't know if that's abolutely true, I do know that no other country ON THE PLANET has written into it's founding document a manditory separation of church and state.
It. Won't. Happen. Here.
Just as the Consitution guarantees you the right to belong a church that doesn't condone homosexuality, it guarantees you the right to belong to one that does. Oh, and you need to understand that we're not talking about what a church must or must not do in the spiritual world. We're talking about civil protections and repsonsibilities conferred on married couples, be they gay or straight. On that issue, the Constitution is very clear. The 14th Amendment says the government cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
EQUAL protection. EQUAL.