Use free e-mail accounts, don't pay ridiculous fees\nToday, I got up extra early for class so I could go check my email. Well, I get to the computer lab on campus and I went to the world's leader in taking people's money -- Microsoft.com. I came to find out that if I want to be positive that I will have my email in my account and some extra megabytes of memory, it is going to cost $19.99 per year. The main problem is that I cannot get my old email or any new email till I pay this ridiculous fee. On top of this, I do not have $19.99 to waste on such a worthless cause. I can go to any number of sites like yahoo.com or excite.com and set my accounts up for free and receive my emails for free. This is just another Bill Gates device to take more money from the people and stick it in Mr. Gates' over stuffed pockets. I understand that the corporation needs to make profit, but just how much money does Bill Gates need? I guess $60 billion is just not enough. So I say this to all of you Hotmail users out there: Boycott the molestation of the poor people's wallets in America and throughout the world. It is just email and this is not the U.S. postal service. If we are going to get charged to send mail, go conventional and buy a stamp. At least the people of America know that the post office's main goal is to lose money, not to buy its CEO the largest home constructed in the U.S.\nJustin Lepper\nSenior
Laws for safety, not inconvenience\nI am 100 percent in support of the police officers in Bloomington and especially on campus. The men in blue are here for a purpose: Public safety! Afterall, this is a university and it's purpose is to educate students. If people want to party and get drunk, let them go off-campus. \nThe officers are doing their job to keep us safe. Whether it's those who have been drinking or the people that the drunks come in contact with, we need to be safe. The laws are there for our safety, and that's the issue at hand.\nCraig Simon\nFreshman
Mental health important when dealing with loss\nAs the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks consumes us, feelings of despair, depression, anxiety and fear may rise again in our hearts and minds. One year later, we are still learning to deal with such a horrifying event. No doubt, the media will show us footage and replays, over and over -- but how much can we really take? \nWe are all humans, and we suffer together. But we all deal with traumatic situations differently. As Americans, we must reach out to each other during these difficult times as we did when they first occurred. Studies on the mental health impact of Sept. 11 and anecdotal evidence from around the country indicate that the prevalence of mental health disorders among children and adults throughout the nation has increased in the wake of the attacks. \nIt is crucial that we do our best to stay healthy emotionally and mentally. Do something positive this month such as giving blood or volunteering. Get plenty of rest, exercise and eat well. Avoid excessive drinking and risk-taking behavior. If you have children, encourage them to talk about their concerns and feelings and let them know that you are there to listen.\nMost importantly, if you have strong feelings that won't go away, please seek professional help. This is essential for those with mental health problems or those who have suffered trauma in the past. Contact the Mental Health Association of Monroe County at 323-9720 for more information on coping positively and getting help in our area.\nMary Hinrichs\nDirector, Monroe County Mental Health Assoc.
Abortions not 'big cash cow' for Planned Parenthood\nI would like to know the source Cherry Blattert used to support her assertion that "abortions...are a big cash cow for Planned Parenthood," ("Abortion clinics breaking law," Sept. 10). Planned Parenthood is a non-profit, tax-exempt, volunteer-driven organization and always has been. Yes, they charge a fee for abortions, but every clinic sets different rates that are assessed on a sliding-scale. \nThe fees do not cover the operating costs of the clinic, and at least half of Planned Parenthood's budget is met through donations.\nPlanned Parenthood was begun by Maragret Sanger at the beginning of the 20th century. Far from being a female robber baron trying to profit from sexual activity and abortions, Sanger believed that every person should be able to decide when or whether to have a child and that every child should be wanted and loved. In 1945, Planned Parenthood even began a fertility clinic to aid infertile couples. \nThough Planned Parenthood now provides counselors to teach about birth control and family planning in schools, the goal of such education is to prevent -- not encourage -- abortions. Studies have shown that complete birth control education (including, but not limited to, abstinence education) does not increase sexual activity but actually decreases the incidence of teen pregnancy. \nTeenage pregnancy and premature sexual activity also have "deep moral, emotional, spiritual and oftentimes physical consequences." Knowing you were not wanted haunts not only children, but the adults they become. Abortion is only one, and not necessarily the best, possible answer to the urgent question of an unwanted pregnancy. But it should be a safe, informed option available to those who decide it is right for them.\nSally Grant\nGraduate Student
Blattert's got Hussein's back\nCherry Blattert is absolutely right. In her Sept. 11 column, "War on Iraq Justified," she points out that if my neighbor was pointing a cannon at my house, I wouldn't be making peace -- I'd be taking a defensive course of action. Absolutely. What could be more justifiable? Now let's take her logic a bit further. Let's say someone who wasn't even your neighbor -- say some guy all the way around the world (let's call him Uncle Sam) -- had not just one cannon pointed at you, but 550 ICBMS that could wipe out 50 million people within a half an hour. And let's say this Uncle Sam guy could just as easily cruise by your house with a submarine carrying up to 192 nuclear warheads. And just for good measure, he's set up a bunch of military bases in your neighbors' yards, supporting non-democratic regimes so he can keep his big guns trained on you. Now the guy is blabbing it all over the globe that his next goal is to take you out.\nAccording to Blattert's logic, you wouldn't be making peace, you'd be totally justified in taking that guy out before he got you. Saddam Hussein will be thrilled to hear that Blattert's got his back.\nCheck out the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council Web sites for the low-down on U.S. potential for nuclear aggression. After all, we're the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon on an enemy. Kind of freaky how that "justified preemptive strike" stuff winds up looking a lot like Saddam Hussein's own line of reasoning, huh?\nSara L. Mauer\nGraduate Student
Blattert doesn't understand 'just war'\nIn her Sept. 11 column, "War on Iraq Justified," Cherry Blattert claims that a war in Iraq would be a "just war," but she applies this term without regard to its full meaning and weight. The term "just war" is surrounded by a complex and nuanced ethical theory, and its application to a case requires that stringent conditions be met. Specifically, the jus ad bellum, or justice in entering war, offers seven criteria: just cause, legitimate and competent authority, right intention, last resort, relative justice, proportionality and reasonable hope for success. While Blattert's column seems awkwardly aimed at establishing just cause, she fails not only in this goal but also in considering any of the other criteria.\nThe criterion of just cause is generally construed as self-defense, although some humanitarian interventions are also permitted. Self-defense means response to an actual aggression and such\npreemption is usually ruled out. Michael Walzer argues that in order for preemption to be justified, a state must be already "engaged in harming us." This would mean not only the possession of weapons, but a specific and clearly demonstrated intent to use them. Hussein has not threatened a first strike; furthermore, the existence of Hussein's arsenal is unsubstantiated and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter claims that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are few and unthreatening.\nIf the U.S. intention in this case is the humanitarian liberation of Iraq's people, then an appropriate first step would be not war but the removal of U.S.-led sanctions, which have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths through starvation and are probably the single greatest cause of Iraqi suffering.\nMany of the other just war criteria are not met in this case. While I will abstain from questions of Bush's competence and legitimacy here, it is doubtful that the war in Iraq is motivated through right intention. The potential war seems aimed more at installing a U.S. friendly regime than at securing peace and justice. Further, military action is not being pursued as a last resort, for the Bush administration refuses to re-deploy weapons inspectors to Iraq.\nJames Bourke\nSophomore
