Jordan River Forum

Love it or leave it\nIt was apparently Damon Freeman's turn to write in the IDS' daily feature "Why America Sucks," for he writes a poignant article on the racism that America has fostered throughout its history. While the main body of the article is highly questionable (for instance most of those being detained are being held on material witness warrants or are awaiting deportation seeing as they are not American citizens, and the fact that we can all, including African Americans, avoid the drug laws by simply not using drugs) such concerns are neither here nor there for the purposes of this letter. I am concerned for Mr. Freeman, and want to find him a better place, where there is no ethnic, religious or racial discrimination. Perhaps egalitarian Europe. No, that won't work. The British Isles are racked with conflict between Protestants and Catholics, not to mention this summer's race riots that left dozens dead on both sides. Spain would be fine so long as you are not a member of the Basque minority group, then you are the target of national military action. The problems of the Middle East have been well documented, where preaching the wrong religion is cause for execution, and being a member of the wrong tribe marks you for death. Much the same can be said for parts of Africa, where in countries such as the Congo and Rawanda tribal conflict has developed into full scale war. The evils of South Africa are well documented, even since the fall of Apartheid. Aboriginal peoples claim discrimination in Australia, while the same can be said for the indigenous peoples of South America, where rebel groups stalk the jungles. My point is this, although all forms of discrimination are detestable, and all should do their part to eradicate them, they are a regrettable fact of life. Even if all Mr. Freeman says is true, America is still a much more accepting a free place than most of the world, perhaps with the exception of the desolate Antarctic continent where all can freeze in peace. That being said, I still want Mr. Freeman to be happy, so if America is such a detestable place for him to live, by all means I invite him to leave. I hear the South Pole is lovely this time of year.\nAndrew Teel\nSenior\nLetters unbalanced\nWhile reading the Jordan River Forum, I became increasingly angry upon realizing that every opinion published had a pro-war stance. In order for a journalistic endeavor to remain unbiased it must have equal representation of the differing opinions of a debate. This should most closely come into play in regards to an opinion column designated for non-newspaper staff. I cannot believe that a single anti-war opinion offering a differing solution to our countries current itinerary was not written in response to the opinion of Barbara Burton published in Tuesday's paper. Furthermore, I am angered by the initial publishing of this mediocre knock on peace protesters. Burton enforces a condescending tone many times throughout her letter that aides only in making herself appear a jaded and closed minded individual. An example of this petty paternalistic way of addressing a group is the direct quote, "All of us have felt your pain at hearing of civilian casualties as a result of the air strikes". Her unforgiving mockery of a person's concern over the loss of innocent life is offensive and does nothing to aide her argument that peace is not an alternative solution. Further analysis shows that she possesses the opinion that American life is more important than the rest of humanity. I cannot understand why she herself would not be upset to hear that innocent lives were lost in the supposed strategic bombings of Afghanistan. Her likely possession of an anger based sentiment towards those responsible for the loss of thousands of innocent lives in New York should thus be transferred to those responsible for the loss of innocent lives in Afghanistan. Just as the Americans lost in the WTC attacks were victims of misplaced anger so are the innocent Afghani killed by American bombs. This occurrence exactly disproves her sentence that calls comparisons of American attacks to those made on Sept. 11 as "asinine." Her blatant disregard for the loss of humanity we continue to propagate shows her inability to have an unbiased opinion, a characteristic which for me at least signifies an inconsequential view.\nMy horror has only increased when yesterday's paper showed opinions that are not only biased in content but that the quality of response has dropped significantly. The middle opinion, "Campers should turn protest into patriotism" displays an argument based on stereotypes and untruths. To simply generalize the group of people who believe that war is not the answer by labeling them with a stereotypical epithet is an action of moral and social degradation. I did not think that the IDS would stoop so low as to publish such a base slander and I am still looking for an answer as to why equal representation of opinion is not present in this publication.\nAndrew Kenower\nAlumnus\nGAP portrayed wrongly\nI must say that I have been truly appalled by the things I have seen on this campus in the past week. I do not believe that shock value is a method that should be used to explain or get your point across to other people. I am not saying that the Genocide Awareness Project message is unimportant, or that they should be silenced, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and are also protected under freedom of speech. But I do not believe that they should take advantage of these liberties by trying to scare people into hearing what they have to say, no matter how right they might feel they are. I agree with the principles that they are trying to convey, but I do not agree with the method that they are currently using to broadcast on this campus. Yes, the message is important, but there is a more respectful and tactful way to broadcast that message. I hope that the next time they are allowed to speak on the campus (because as I recall, there was a big discussion about allowing GAP on camus in the first place) they will tone down some of the methods they are applying in their campaign. \nDanielle McDonald\nJunior\nGAP portrayed wrongly\nCampus for Choice's reasons for their opposition to the Genocide Awareness Project are dishonest and borderline slander. Forming a coalition called IU Reaction to GAP, they have conveyed distortions about GAP by trying to paint its volunteers as trained agitators. But what's most disingenuous is their claim that their opposition has nothing to do with their position on abortion. For Campus for Choice to expect the IU populace and Bloomington community to believe that claim defies logic. Their whole purpose for existence is to keep abortion legal. As such, it would stand to reason that CFC and other pro-abortion groups' would have their feelings on abortion affect their opposition to GAP. What's even more condemning is the fact that they were offering "pro-choice" literature at their Reaction to GAP table. These practices greatly insult the collective intelligence of the IU campus as a whole, as well as the residence of Bloomington. It shows that they're nothing more than a group of moral elitists who are incapable of following even their own standards, let alone any other kind of ethical standards. If they really were interested in having a constructive dialogue on abortion, as they claim they do, then they would confront the images displayed in GAP -- which are nothing less than real -- and try to defend their position. Instead, they try to hide people from the reality of the pictures, and they themselves are indifferent to them. The real reason, in my view, as to why Campus for Choice and other such groups, are engaged in such underhanded tactics is that the Genocide Awareness Project weakens their side of the argument. It prevents them from denying that the act of abortion is a violent act. As such, all they can do is close their eyes.\nPatrick D. Baxter\nActivism Director/Webtech\nIU Students for Life\nRespect for all opinions necessary\nI am a graduate student and am new to Indiana. I am, therefore, not well-versed in the Indiana political climate. Despite the fact that I knew Indiana fell to the right in terms of conservatism, I was nonetheless shocked, outraged and disturbed by the pro-life demonstration/display located in front of Franklin Hall. I was not as disturbed by the display (as was pro-life demonstrators intent) as I was by the fact that their huge signs and billboards (10 feet high and taking up at least half of a city block), featuring various graphic pictures of aborted fetuses, stood directly between myself and the building in which my class was located. As I walked through this gauntlet -- a strong choice of words but entirely applicable -- two demonstrators attempted to get me to take their pamphlets and another asked me to take a Bible. I am not certain what disturbs me the most: is it the fact that few other students seemed as disturbed by this as myself? Was it that the propaganda of the demonstrators was literally pushed in my face? Was it the complete disregard for the fundamental ideals of the separation of church and state? Was it the highly manipulative and sensationalistic approach of the demonstrators? It was a combination of all of these issues and more, of course. The reason I choose to speak out is because the signs, billboards, and demonstrators directly impeded my path as I attempted to walk to the building in which my classroom was located. I am full aware that the tenets of free speech entitle any idiot with a misguided passion and a self-righteous agenda to speak his or her mind. That is why, we are told, that America is the greatest nation in the world. We should be grateful for our right to free speech, of course-but does this mean that a base amount of decency and respect for those who do not share the same values should be disregarded? \nHolly Hobbs\nGraduate Student