Live simply, happily like peace campers \nIn response to Glen Carson's letter ("Peace camp tents should come down," Feb. 8), I want to applaud Glen's attention toward the "unsanitary conditions" he observed while walking past the Peace Camp outside the IMU. I also applaud his virtuosic knowledge of the U.S. military's dedication to "defending our rights," in Glen's own words. Bravo, Glen, you know, if it weren't for the military folks blowing up people living in "unsanitary conditions" around the world, then the awful possibility that the industrialized world might have to live sustainably might actually come true.\nImagine if the first world might some day have to share earth's resources with the rest of the starving planet. Thank God we have powerful military machines to crush any possibility that our "stuff" might get taken away and we might be forced to live simply and happily like the hearty folks at the peace camp do. Glen may wonder if these peace camper people are "even Americans," but they are that and more. Glen, of all people, should know that in this rapidly globalizing economy, into which business majors like he are going to be entering, it is the humble, world-conscious people like the peace campers whom we must rely on in order to accomplish this inevitable process in a good way. Sorry, Glen, but your hyper-patriotic, "us vs. them" mentality will have no place in the new fully-globalized World Economy that people like yourself are creating.\nTriston McMillan\nSenior
IU solves housing problems with Dunn Meadow tents\nIU has solved the housing question for America's homeless! Apparently, as demonstrated by the residents in Dunn Meadow at the peace camp, it is perfectly legal to dwell in makeshift housing, generate heat by fire and stay as long as desired if you have a cause worth protesting.\nHomeless of America, here are free tips to sustain the upcoming winter with free shelter. First, get a cause. If you don't have one, borrow one of mine: Creation of Irish-American History Month, abolition of Arbor Day or even ending homelessness. You may want to declare a specific standpoint on your cause and think about a sign or poster you might create, so your farce appears legitimate. This way, your protest will be perceived as expressionism and the upholding of the First Amendment. Stake out a good spot and stay as long as you wish! There is still some availability in Dunn Meadow.\nMichael DeVoy\nSenior
Speed limits too low\nI disagree with the position of the IDS against raising the speed limit in Indiana (Staff editorial, "Speed bill hits Senate," Feb. 7).\nHere are the reasons why:\n1. This bill does not raise limits high enough to meet the true driving conditions. Speed limits need to be raised to 70 mph for four-lane state highways, 65 mph for two-lane state roads and 75 mph for interstates -- rural and 70 mph for urban interstates. It should be passed anyway since it is a step in the right direction.\n2. The excuse that the speed limit should not be raised because it would affect the economy because fewer speeding tickets would be written is inexcusable. When a speeding ticket is written, the state and large corporations known as insurance companies benefit while the speeder has less money to spend for himself and his family. It is also inexcusable to treat motorists as a source of revenue through fines and penalties obtained by enforcing ridiculous laws such speed limits set by politics, not sound engineering.\n3. Finally, the excuse of bad weather such as snow and ice does not hold any weight. Colorado has harsher winters, especially in the high country. But yet Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states all have a 75 mph speed limit. Being from Indiana and frequently coming back to visit family, I know the weather in Indiana is nothing compared to Colorado.\n4. I also had my share of speeding tickets in Indiana. In a three month period, I had two speeding tickets in Indiana. One was for 71 mph and the other one was for 77 mph, both in a 55 mph zone, costing me a total of $230. One was on a four-lane U.S. highway and the other was on an interstate highway where there was little or no traffic. Both were posted too low for the conditions.\nBrad Cuppy\nColorado Springs, Colo.
State funding doesn't rely on speeding ticket revenue\nAfter reading the rationale of the editorial board (Staff editorial, "Speed bill hits Senate," Feb. 7) to quash the state speed limit bill I felt compelled to respond.\nThe basis of the argument was centered on safety and economics. The editorial claimed that raising the speed limit would most likely not affect the speed at which a person decides to drive. I would agree with this statement. Most people tend to drive with the speed of traffic or at a speed at which they feel comfortable. People in Indiana tend to drive between 70 and 75 on the interstate so why have a speed limit of 65 if the majority of the population refuses to obey it? Testimony on the House floor also addressed this topic and alluded to the fact that raising the speed limit to 70 mph would be more in line with the driving practices of the majority. Further testimony was also given as to the safety of the makeup of our roadways. The author of the bill noted that the Indiana Department of Transportation would be required to test the roadways on which the speed limits were to be changed to determine if they would be safe to travel on with an increased speed limit.\nThe second claim of the editorial board to refuse passage of this bill was for economic issues. The board claimed that "a considerable amount of funding" that the state needs would be lost due to the lack of tickets that would be given out. First of all, I doubt that the state relies heavily on speeding tickets to fund education or Medicaid. In addition, the agency which does the fiscal analysis for the legislature did not even see fit to list that revenue source on its analysis. The only fiscal impact related to the bill was the changing of the speed limit signs, a nominal cost.\nStatistics on this issue are easy to skew. Indiana should carefully examine other states with geography like ours that have raised speed limits to make a determination. Most importantly, it should seek the opinion of the public.\nDerek Sublette\nAlumnus
Ashamed of IU fans' behavior\nI cannot disagree with Ryan Lengerich's opinion more ("Plenty to cheer about," Feb. 7). He claims IU fans had a right to treat Luke Recker boorishly and uncivilly. How immature! My Dad loved IU basketball and we watched games together from the time I was in elementary school. In other words, I began following IU basketball before this young man was, as they say, "just a gleam in his father's eye." I attended the game in 1980 or 1981 when the crowd began shouting "bull****" over a bad call. Coach Knight ran to the scorer's table in the middle of the game. He told us, in no uncertain terms, that IU fans do not behave that way. We were not allowed to boo opponents except Purdue players. Nor were fans sitting behind opponent's baskets allowed to wave their arms during foul shots. He demanded a decorum from fans that he could not deliver himself.\nIU fans have a great tradition as knowledgeable basketball fans. We have an understanding of the game's nuances that few other college fans possess. We also have had a long standing history as civil fans. I am ashamed of the behavior that the crowd exhibited on Feb. 5. It is my belief that the IU community (students, athletic department and Coach Davis) owes Luke Recker a public apology.\nCurt Kiefer\nAlumnus
Korona responsible for own actions\nWhile I never knew Seth Korona (IDS articles, Feb. 4-6), I was very saddened to hear of his death. Whenever someone young, with such innate potential dies, it is tragic.\nMy deepest sorrow and condolences go out to anyone who ever knew him. While I have these feelings, there is also something that saddens me even more than his death -- the aftermath. Many fingers have been pointed at many people. But it seems to me that the one person who could have prevented it all has never been blamed. In every article I have read concerning this story, I have never read anything about Seth being forced to drink. I do not mean to sound callous, though it is inevitable. It just seems to me that Seth was the only one who could have prevented what happened that fateful night. Sure, we can punish the greek system, but then he could have drank at the apartments or houses or he could have gotten his own alcohol and drank at the dorms. My point to all of this is that there is nothing that can bring him back. He chose his own path.\nAlthough Theta Chi may have made it easier for him, we all know that if someone wants to drink, there is no way to stop him.\nThis is not a nihilistic or laissez faire ideal, it is the way things are. It seems to me that instead of trying to ruin the lives of the people and institutions that abated Seth's death, we should focus on the positivity of Seth's life and memory. By looking to crucify more lives, we just make the situation worse. Seth died. That should be punishment enough for all of us.\nNick Temming\nJunior
Prohibition not solution on campus\nThe IU greek system is like Fredo Corleone after he betrayed Michael. You just KNOW its days are limited. Oh sure, it will always be around in some form or another, but all it will become is all guy and girl places that are no different than McNutt or Teter. Here's the deal, the frats are caught in a trap.\nYou can believe all you want that most people don't drink, but it's false. Oh, I agree, most people aren't pulling the kind of drinking stunts you see in "Animal House," but a majority of college students enjoy a drink. There's a hypocracy the school uses people, if you're in Briscoe, and the .58 GPA kid is throwing down some Nattie Lights with some of their buddies from home, are you thrown out of Briscoe? No, but when a frat brother of mine was taken to the hospital after an incident that involved drinking and I was studying, did I get kicked out of my house. Yes. And the fact that my brothers even had to CONSIDER not to take him because they would get in trouble makes me sick. They wouldn't be in that situation if the University hadn't made it that way. Let's face it, if you're not educating people that large numbers of shots are not a great idea and instead promoting a strict punishment system, people will get hurt. They're not being honest and they're not aware of the help options they have. College kids are more worried about getting in trouble than they are about their personal safety (forget other people's safety, we're not quite there yet). \nIf prohibition didn't work in the '20s, dry campuses aren't going to work now. Drinking is a problem, deal with it. Myles, instead of making your school a better educated place, make it a safer place. Create a sober driver system for IU. Relax on the frats and the minor in possession. Help, do not hurt. Let's not let someone else die at IU because he is too scared of getting caught.\nTommy Hummel\nSt. Louis, Mo.
Campaign finance dissent ill-advised\nBen Cunningham's dissent on soft money in the political system ("Candidates, earn your money," Feb. 1) uses a catchy appeal to the old-fashioned work ethic, claiming that candidates should "earn" their political contributions. But are the activities that garner the most money from political contributors necessarily the kind of "work" we want our politicians doing? Cunningham implies that those candidates who "earn" the most money are those proposing the most politically sound ideas: "If their ideas were not well-received, they could not get the contributions they do." \nIt will not matter if thousands of people who have little money to spare receive an idea well if one individual or corporation with millions supports the other side. College football, which Cunningham considers a good model for a political system, prohibits steroids; our political system should prohibit any one player from throwing his or her disproportionate weight around.\nFinally, I must challenge Cunningham's rather narrow conception (perhaps influenced by the football metaphor) of politics as a simple contest between two parties.\nHe says, "If Republicans have historically been able to raise more than Democrats, so be it."\nBut the problem here is hardly a widespread lack of Democrats in Washington. It is the way in which the better candidates within those parties lose in the primaries (and earlier) to power-hungry rivals who run dirty campaigns; the way in which politicians of both major parties use questionable tactics to solicit money from rich contributors; the way in which Cunningham, along with the vast majority of Americans, seem incapable of conceiving any political voice outside of the current dominant parties, even if they are disenchanted with both. This inability to question the current political arrangement, sadly, allows those with power to consolidate their control over America.\nElizabeth Rytting\nGraduate Student
