Jordan River Forum

Contrary to the belief held by some, the U.S. does not have the responsibility or the obligation to become involved in peacekeeping and/or nation building. I commend Travis Thickstun on his recollection of Kosovo; however, he seems to have forgotten the result of the peacekeeping and humanitarian aid mission in Somalia -- which was, to say the least, not as successful. Yes, this is the same president who "railed against" peacekeeping missions and nation building, and I can assure you that this role is not something President George W. Bush would have asked for. However, the nation building is for the sole purpose of supporting a government in Afghanistan that does not support terrorists, in order to keep the U.S., as well as our allies, safe. Please don't confuse a national security matter with a desire to be involved nation building, or peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid, in places we don't belong. It is not the same thing, and it is not what our military is trained for. To address another concern Mr. Thickstun seems to be preoccupied with, the U.S. is not heartless. We do not think the lives of others are worth less than ours. It has little to do with politics. What it does have to do with politics is a result of the fact that we are a representative democracy -- hence, our leaders are often, and should be, hesitant to do things that do not reflect the will of the people. And it has nothing to do with skin color. But please forgive us if we ourselves, or our families, the people we love, are not ready to invade other countries to fight a war we don't believe in for a cause we don't understand. Tell us, Mr. Thickstun, if you were enlisted in the armed forces, would you be so enthusiastic about traveling to a distant place to die for people you do not know? Heather Schuh
Junior Graduate, professional students need own government Since both the IDS and opinion editor Travis Thickstun have offered opinions about the separation of the GPSO from IUSA, the GPSO would like to present its perspective. Graduate students do not fill the graduate student seats in IUSA because IUSA meets twice as often and for twice as long as the GPSO, and IUSA meetings do not address graduate student interests, such as assistant instructor pay and health insurance. Instead, graduate students go to GPSO meetings, where we discuss how to get contraception coverage for graduate employee health insurance, or the recent, unpublicized change in the doctoral hooding ceremony. Would undergraduates attend such a meeting? No, they go to IUSA meetings to discuss the issues important to them and their constituents. The separation of the GPSO from IUSA does not dilute student voices; it clarifies and strengthens each. When IUSA can focus on undergraduate issues, it can better serve its constituents. GPSO can continue to represent graduate needs to the administration. And where our needs and interests overlap, we can present two strong voices fighting for the same causes. Most IU administrators already view GPSO as the representative of graduate student interests. GPSO separation represents a legitimization of the representation we are already providing. The final question I'll address is whether graduate students want to be separate. GPSO does not move forward without the consent of our constituents. Our current push for independence is a directive from graduate students, based on a majority vote among representatives last year. Our constituents told us what they wanted, and we are acting on it. The full rundown of reasons GPSO needs separate representation are available online at www.indiana.edu/~gpso/whyvote.html. Emily Nagoski
Director of Public Relations,GPSO Road manners prevent rage People these days. I don't know if it's because the majority of people you see here in Bloomington are students, or it's because today's society lives a fast-paced on-the-go life, but some people in this town could use a class on social etiquette and basic mannerisms! The other day I was driving down Third Street by the College Mall and the traffic was horrendous, as it always is about 5p.m. As I sat in a line of cars stretching nearly a quarter mile before the light, I find that there is a man in his mid-20's on the right side of me trying to merge into traffic from the parking lot of one of the local stores. So of course, I feel sorry for him and I wait while the other traffic moves in front of me so I can let this poor man in. Little did I know he wouldn't give me the wave as he pulled out into the street! I find myself throwing a fit in my car at him, yelling profanities that even I had never heard! I don't even think he looked in my direction when I so kindly let him in front of me. No manners, and a complete lack of social etiquette. Now maybe I'm just being too picky or asking too much, but am I really? Is a thank you, a slight wave, or even just a little smile obsolete? Maybe it's because today we live in such an on-the-go society. We reply on cell phones and e-mail, and sometimes it just seems like some stop signs are less important than other ones. But have we forgot our basic rules that we were taught as children? Did our mothers and fathers not teach us to say "thank you" or "please"? Well, I remember, whether it's with a verbal "thank you," a wave, or even the classic head nod. It always feels good to be acknowledged. Maybe that's why a "thank you" is always "welcomed." Joey B. Lax-Salinas
Junior Social workers make positive impact on lives March is National Professional Social Work Month. Social workers, regardless of context or speciality, focus on bridging the gap between resources and services and the people who need them. Over 15 million people use social work services every year. Social workers can be found in schools, hospitals, community organizations, government agencies, research organizations, educational institutions and private practice. Over half a million professional social workers use their collective power to strengthen families, to help individuals overcome adversity, to make a significant impact on the well-being of society, and to advocate for necessary change and justice for all. Celebrate the power of social work! Karen Van Arsdale
Alumna and local social woker Minimum retirement age costly In response to the article "Rule considers cash, not age" in Thursday's IDS (head-to-head column): Several questions arise about the idea that forcing people to retire at age 65 will result in less cost to the University. 1) Once they retire, there is some level of pension that must be paid. This is above the salary required for the replacement hire for the position. The only way that this is a savings is if the new hire's salary plus the pension payments for the retiree total less than the replaced person's salary. Is this the norm, or (as I suspect, but don't have numbers for), the new hire's salary plus the retiree's pension total more than the original salary, resulting in increased costs per month. 2) Just in terms of pension amounts, which is less: paying a lower pension for a longer time or a higher pension for a shorter time? For example, say we have an employee who will live to age 80. If this person is forced into retirement at age 65, there will be 15 years of pension payments. If the person works until age 70, there will be 10 years of pension payments. The shorter-term pension will only cost more over the retiree's lifetime if the yearly payments are greater than 150 percent of the longer-term pension. 3) An additional cost to consider in the equation is any costs of training a new hire. Replacing employees more often will result in more training requirements and possible loss of efficiency during the training period, resulting in added costs to the University. All of these issues need to be addressed before one can conclusively state that forcing employees to retire at age 65 will save the University money in either the long or short run. Allen Rogel
Ph.D candidate, Dept. of Astronomy Credit corporations' deplorable actions need to be stopped What could be more contemptible than corporations luring young people into indebtedness? There are cases where students have taken their own lives after realizing the extent of their indebtedness. Is anyone concerned? You have to wonder. I'll take it a bit farther. What about absolute greed in its purest form, which the credit card companies daily engage in: Charging interest rates which go beyond 20 percent. I see this as nothing less than legal loan-sharking. These are deplorable things. They should not be allowed. Why aren't the universities, the colleges and the churches coming forward and speaking out in a united voice against it? By their very absence their silence is deafening. And then, as every year before, the politicians have raided the Social Security Trust Fund -- cleaning it out for the war machine now feeding so voraciously. Mouth those words over to yourselves: Trust fund! When trust is a law -- a federal law -- and misused and bent and ignored, it is not merely wrong -- it is a national disgrace. B.G. Noe
Hemet, Calif.