Jordan River forum

Blattert offers different views, diversifies page\nI am writing in response to the "Head 2 Head" featured Oct. 8. Judd Arnold accused Cherry Blattert of being of the opinion that only certain segments of the population should be allowed to vote. After reading Blattert's article, I don't think that's anywhere close to the message she was trying to convey. Blattert was encouraging students to educate themselves on the issues and candidates before they cast their votes and to abstain from voting if they are only doing so in order to win a shiny new sportscar. Not only did Arnold misinterpret Blattert's message, he resorted to name-calling, referring to Blattert as a "closet elitist," which is simply uncalled for. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this year that Blattert has been called names and unjustly attacked in the IDS.\nFor the past three years, I have read countless articles by columnists expressing opinions with which I vehemently disagree. Most of these editorials have leaned way to the left, supporting issues that make my toes curl. At times I believed that some writers misrepresented the facts to prove their point or that they had not researched their subjects thoroughly. Regardless of how opposed to their articles I was, I would never have resorted to character defamation or called for their resignation from the IDS as many have suggested Blattert do.\nThe conservatives on this campus have respected the liberal journalists' right to voice their opinions for so long. Now that there is a conservative on staff, is it too much to ask that you all do the same? I for one enjoy reading Blattert's columns; at last I can finally agree with an article on the opinion page. For all of you who disagree with her, you have every right to do so. But please be respectful. In an academic debate, there is no place for name calling nor for suggesting that those who do not agree with you should abstain from offering any opinion at all.\n

\nSchool issue not thoroughly addressed by Blattert\nI am continually disappointed with the columns published by Cherry Blattert. Once again, she has demonstrated her remarkable skill at cutting and pasting random statistics into a ransom note-style article on some current issue. This time, it is school vouchers (Oct. 9, "No child left behind").\nFirst, you cannot use the school system in Maine as a good example of a successful voucher system because it is not faced with the educational complexities faced by a state like California. Second, voucher systems do stratify society because the enormous number of students would necessitate that a majority would end up at the "failing public schools" anyway. You simply can not throw money at an educational issue and expect it to be resolved, nor can you speak of "public schools" as a monolithic troubled system. The responsibility for educating children is not one-sided. Teachers are under supported, under paid and generally over looked in this whole voucher issue. Parents also need to take a greater responsibility for educating their children. Home schooling is neither an option nor an ideal for many families and is therefore irrelevant to the voucher issue. \nIt seems that Blattert is given free reign to recite whatever notions have caught her eye in the "Conservative Chronicle." In the future, please provide a space for more balanced and well-researched counter arguments to be presented against her misguided views.\n\nPermit fees cover parking in sports lots, SRSC not holding to promise\nThe administrators and staff of Recreational Sports are correct to state that there is a parking problem, but it's certainly not limited to the lot at the SRSC. Why does Recreational Sports consistently point the finger at students for parking in legal parking spots there? Why take such a restricted, self-serving perspective of the problem? The SRSC parking lot is not limited to E permits; there are also A and C permit parking spots at the facility. Should we blame faculty and staff for parking in the lot all day while they go to work? Until the SRSC lot is regulated, as Recreational Sports promotes in its marketing literature and in an IDS letter to the editor from last year, the $78 students paid to Parking Operations for the privilege to park in E spaces on campus covers parking at the SRSC.\n\nArnold avoids issue at hand\nI have not interacted with members of the IUSA administration on a personal level, but the Oct. 8 "Head 2 Head" is exactly why I feel members of the Kirkwood party are smug, arrogant and not suited for their positions. \nCherry Blattert provided several arguments for why people should be more educated when they vote and cited several Web sites to back up her claims. \nIUSA vice president Judd Arnold decided to attack Blattert. I have never seen a "Head 2 Head" argument where one side actually refers to the writer of the opposing view, let alone mentions her by name, which Arnold did three times. Not only that, he misrepresents what was written, claiming Blattert "badmouths the United States of America" and does not want people to vote when Blattert actually asks people to inform themselves when they vote. \nArnold's argument is that in democracies, everyone should get a vote, which is certainly a noble point. Unfortunately, I guess he could not stretch this thought into one column, and instead had to take advantage of recent criticism of Blattert to get people on his side. Arnold came across as badmouthing the opposition and not focusing on the issue at hand.\nUntil Arnold can learn to argue his points and without attacking his opponent's free speech, I suggest he guard a certain car that is currently being guarded by cameras that don't work.\n\nBrand's on his way, pray for the NCAA\nMyles, thanks for not following through on your commitment to stay at IU until your retirement. Thank you for misleading all the faculty, staff, alumni, students and your puppet trustees who somehow reasoned over the years to support you and your ridiculous initiatives. Thanks much for always raising my tuition and annually adding to your undeserved and overblown salary, even when the best of our faculty was migrating to other universities because of low funds. But most of all, thank you very much for attempting to run IU's athletics into the ground and then hypocritically find justification for witnessing first hand -- on IU's budget -- the basketball team's glorious 2002 Final Four run in Atlanta. Please try to do as minimal amount of damage to the NCAA as possible.\n\nBrand leaves business unfinished\nMyles Brand has once again shown how big of a hypocrite he can be. In the past, he has been one of the biggest critics of the NCAA by saying they have too much influence at universities in this country, especially the Big Ten. He wanted to limit the schedules of games in each sport. Then, last spring, he wrote a Letter to the Editor praising the basketball team for their tournament run. For someone so critical of athletics, why the heck would you leave IU for the NCAA? Brand himself said there is a lot he had planned for the University, especially with the budget crisis. Why leave when you are in the middle of planning? It just doesn't make sense. IU, be prepared for another decline in quality. The search for a new president will be long and hard. I'm glad I got out of IU when I did in that sense. I don't want a decline in the quality of education, but it is bound to happen now.\n\nTo Brand: Don't let the door hit you on the way out\nThank you Myles Brand? For what? Lessening the academic reputation of a fine university? For letting a bunch of sports writers dictate policy at IU? For firing one of college basketball's icons? Or for promoting his own agenda and getting the job he originally wanted? It has been rumored for years that the only reason Myles Brand took the IU presidency was to be closer to Indianapolis, the new home of the NCAA and the "true" job he really wanted. Who cares if along the way while earning a name for himself, he lost excellent professors, alienated huge numbers of alumni and helped to fire not only one, but two excellent coaches. During the sixties, seventies and eighties, IU enjoyed high rankings both academically and athletically. Now both suffer at the hands of a man who is leaving to a "reward." He should be run out on a rail after being tarred and feathered. I say, "good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out."\n\nReal solutions don't come from quick fixes\nI am bothered by the way Cherry Blattert ends her column (Oct. 9, "No child left behind") in a manner that tends to implicate teachers more than schools in the problems our students are having. I can't support a program that would penalize a good teacher based on standardized tests as a yardstick. Standardized tests have always seemed a waste of taxpayer money to me -- they don't accurately gauge what a student does or doesn't know. Holding a teacher's job in the air like a carrot in order to get teachers to solicit better test scores from students is a bad idea. It would be easy for teachers to teach based on what's going to be on the standard tests. But then students aren't going to learn much in the long run. It is my opinion that Bush's education reform policies are flawed, and are therefore leading our students further down this wrong road. Quick fixes are never real solutions.\n\nGLBT should condemn Senator Baucus\nIn what I hope will not become a trend, the Nov. 5 ballot lost -- sort of -- another Senate candidate yesterday.\nMike Taylor's name will remain on the Montana ballot as the Republican nominee against Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, but Taylor is suspending his campaign after his poll standing apparently plunged in the wake of a mother of a Democratic party TV ad showing a young Taylor in disco-style garb practicing his hair-styling profession and applying lotion to the face of a male customer. \nWhoa.\nIf Republicans had run an ad like this against a Democratic candidate, even without any explicit suggestion that the candidate is gay, the media and national gay rights groups would scream bloody murder. \nAlso, if this story had happened in an East Coast state, it would be getting major national press coverage and micro semiotic analysis of the ad. \nBut of course, neither of these things is the case, and Republicans are left with Taylor on the ballot and the prospect of some write-in effort, but no real shot here at a Democrat who, because of the nature of the state and his style of politicking, should be/would be vulnerable to a credible challenge. \nMy question is: where is the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Student Support Services on this one? Why didn't they bring it to our attention? Why aren't they fighting the scourge of gay stereotyping in our culture? By their actions -- or lack thereof -- we are left with no choice but to assume that the GLBT ignored this issue intentionally. That is, we are forced to conclude that they have become a pawn of the Democratic Party, and when a democrat commits an offense that the GLBT is trying to eradicate, they fail their own people.\nIt is time for the GLBT to show true leadership, and condemn Baucus for using gay stereotypes for political gain.\n\nStudents should show up at football games\nDuring the game this week, my fellow IU alums and I pondered the following question: What is it going to take for the students to start showing up at football games? Is it winning? IU has now won six home games in a row -- the most in the Big Ten. Is it exciting play? Last years team, who won their last three games, featured the most most exciting player in college football. This years team is winning games with inspired, second half comebacks. Is it a busy schedule? You're college students -- you have more free time now than you ever will in "real world." The same intensity that Coach Davis' team played with the last year is presently on display at Memorial Stadium. So, Saturday morning roll out of bed and get to the game!\n\nIUSA argument 'Bong-brained'\nI was pretty appalled at Judd Arnold's ridiculous sermon (Oct. 8, "Democracy is process,") on behalf of all of America's truly and shamelessly ignorant voters. One would be hard pressed to find a comparably knee-jerk, reactionary, wang-swinging, good-ol'-boy display of flag waving this side of Pennsylvania Avenue. I, for one, completely missed Cherry Blattert's alleged "badmouthing of the United States of America." My McCarthyist radar must not be finely tuned enough to read so, um, deeply into her argument. Arnold's bong-brained assertion that Blattert's view is inherently racist and sexist would be laughable if he weren't actually serious. Women and African-Americans won the vote because, over time, society recognized its logical justice. On the other hand, there has never been a push for idiot suffrage, and I doubt there ever will be unless Arnold enters politics. I don't want to put words into Blattert's mouth, but if I had written her column, I would have included the explicit statement that if you're too lazy to put down the funnel, get up off your sorry ass and at least make a passing acquaintance with the candidates and issues, you have no business blindly punching your ballot. The saddest part is that Arnold seems to be endorsing the view that it's patriotic to be dumb. Dubya would be proud.\n\nSave yourself, lose Grace\nI'm not the sort to habitually complain about an inferior product, but I've been reading Joe Grace's column for a few months now, and I'm absolutely baffled as to why he is allowed to continue to write for a major college newspaper. I think I recall Joe referring to himself as a "humor" columnist, and ostensibly, that seems to be his purpose. But he is criminally unfunny. Has he ever made you laugh, smile, or even smirk (except, perhaps, in condescension)? It has gotten to the point of being embarrassing for IDS, in my humble opinion. Joe attempts juvenile humor -- a risky proposition, because when one fails, one simply looks juvenile. Joe has consistently presented witless, juvenile, and, frankly, lazy columns in the time I've been reading him. I can only really see two reasons that Joe Grace continues to be published: either because he gets a reaction (so would articles advocating infanticide) or because the IDS is run like community theater and everyone gets to participate. Am I a lone voice in the wilderness? I doubt it. Barring Joe finding a new calling (something involving absolutely zero communication with the outside world) the only light at the end of the tunnel I see is his graduation -- unless, that is, the IDS opinion editors decide to develop some sort of standard for what appears in their paper.\n\nGilles should be sponsored to speak\nFor a few weeks, Jim Gilles has been at the center of debate regarding the freedom of expression. He has come onto our campus uninvited and preached hatred and intolerance. He's now claiming he has a right to do so wherever he wishes in flagrant disregard for established campus policy. Now he's complaining that his civil rights are being violated by this policy, demanding that he be allowed to use the MAC or the IU Auditorium for his sermons, free of charge, and that the University pack the house. The University has done a good job so far in declaring Dunn Meadow to the "official" assembly and demonstration zone on campus, but they need to go a step further if they truly want to prevent further incidents and potential lawsuits. I think that the University would be well within its rights to ban individuals or organizations from coming to campus unless they were directly sponsored by a student organization. By doing this, the University could ensure that such people or groups are properly sponsored and advertised, and if a person like Gilles or a group like the Genocide Awareness Project wished to come to campus, they could obtain a proper formal invitation instead of just showing up unannounced and uninvited. Meanwhile, if Gilles is threatening to whip the squirrels and birds out in Dunn Meadow with the word and beat them with the Bible, then perhaps a call to PETA may be in order.\n\nPraise for Earle's music overdue\nAll I can say is great editorial ("'John Walker's Blues' not so sad," Sept. 30) on Steve Earle's John Walker Blues. As a 51-year-old American who lives in Singapore and works as an assistant to the editor of The Straits Times, I'm appalled that any radio station would even consider banning the song -- that's exactly the kind of thing the Taliban regime would have done in Afghanistan if they didn't hear something they didn't like. Is that what freedom of speech has come to in the United States?\nNo one gives a damn, it seems, when Eminem's garbage is allowed to fill the airwaves -- he fills his songs with such hatred of women and life in general and all just to make a few million bucks. Yet when someone like Earle makes a brilliant statement, he gets flack for it.\nNo wonder I live and work in Singapore. No wonder young Americans turn into John Walkers.\n