Jordan River Forum

Michelle Perry: The vivid description of late-term abortion you lifted from the right-to-life handbook does not make me nearly as queasy as the potential for returning to the days when women's control over their reproductive lives was limited and abortion was either unavailable or perilous. The term partial birth is not medical or scientific. It exists solely to play on the emotions of those who are rightly concerned about the issues surrounding terminating a pregnancy. This deception provides the basis for the 70 percent of people who agree with the U.S. President who has not himself proven to be especially thoughtful or socially conscious. In reality 31 states already restrict abortions late in pregnancy and only four one-hundredths of one percent of legal abortions occur during the third trimester. However, women who are in need of these late-term procedures because the pregnancy is unwanted or goes tragically wrong deserve protection. Legislation banning so-called partial birth abortions is actually, and by the admission of its proponents intended to, limit or eliminate access to all abortions. This is unacceptable and unconstitutional. It always struck me how vehement the pro-life movement is regarding a fetus' -- or in the parlance of the movement "innocent child's" -- right to live up until the moment it leaves the womb. Generally one would imagine that the life of a wanted and provided for child would be infinitely better than that of a child born to a woman who simply had no choice. \nConfederate generals should not be put on pedestals\nMatthew Murray ("Heroes and Villains," Feb. 28) makes the case for honoring Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, two Confederate generals who fought to preserve the right of the Southern states to maintain slavery. The essence of the case is as follows: Lee and Jackson were talented military strategists who believed the states had the sovereign power to enslave African Americans. Thus, for Lee and Jackson, the Civil War was simply a war of Northern aggression where an alien way of life was being forced upon them. Rather than cringing at their names, because of their behavior, leadership, and loyalty to their Southern way of life, they should inspire respect and admiration, despite their defense of slavery.\nThe major problem with Murray's reasoning is that anyone with admirable traits, who truly believes that they are right, should be respected and admired. Under this criteria, Hitler, Mussolini, Charles Manson and even bin Laden should be honored. Despite the collective animus that many individuals hold for these individuals, a study of their lives would reveal some virtue. Nonetheless, it would be hard to find anyone to defend any of these villains. Be that as it may, Mr. Murray has a good deal of company -- Confederate societies abound that honor those who fought to preserve slavery with shrines, memorials, flying the Confederate flag, and they display these flags on clothing and vehicles.\nMurray and other Confederate sympathizers would have us believe that positive traits can be separated from the ends toward which these traits are used. While this standard is virtually never used for individuals who truly shock the views and values of a culture, Murray and other Confederate sympathizers make the case as to why we should apply this standard to the Confederacy and its symbols. This is tantamount to honoring the devil because he is persistent, ingenious, and works hard.\nAmericans should continue to view the Confederate cause as the shame it is. While it is important to understand the psychology, thinking, and mores of Confederate culture, it does not deserve our honor. Lee and Jackson are not heroes.\nSeparation of church and state wearing thin in school\nIf it were up to President Bush, our kids would be proselytizing in our schools. After many attempts to meld church and state, the Bush administration has yet again tried a new take on Clinton's "Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools." On Feb. 7, the federal Department of Education released the new guidelines for public schools, which state that 'student initiated prayer' is acceptable. This is news to public schools, since Clinton's guidelines on religious expression did not include this assertion. \nThe guidelines state that student initiated prayer is where "student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content."\nIndividual prayer has always been permitted, but these guidelines suggest that group prayer should be allowed. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that public prayer in school is unconstitutional due to the separation of church and state, however; Bush has plainly ignored its rulings. Americans United For the Separation of Church and State Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said "some of the new rules are intended to advance inappropriate religious activities in public schools." \nRight now the legal issues are whether the Ten Commandments can be hung, whether prayer at graduation is acceptable or even whether the pledge of allegiance should be banned because of the mention of God. Where is the line? If Bush is so vague with his 'guidelines,' teachers will not know what is expected of them. \nBush will revoke federal funding from all schools who do not comply with his guidelines. Thus, schools will be in continual fear of crossing Bush's ambiguous guidelines. Schools might become lenient with prayer to keep their federal funding and end up alienating large groups of religiously diverse American children. \nPrayer in school may seem like a concern of the past, but Bush has made it a current controversy. By disguising this new 'student initiated prayer' clause within Clinton's guidelines, he has deceived America and challenged the constitution and the Supreme Court. A children's right to learn in a religiously blind institution is becoming more of a hope than a reality. \nInterstate the best road to growth for Bloomington\nIn response to Cameron Thibos's opinion (I-69 Sucks for Locals, Mar. 3), I have to remark that his views in keeping Bloomington "just as it is" is perhaps the single greatest mockery of common sense you will ever hear. It is so common, it has resulted in numerous small towns all across America, and even many countries, wallowing in their own nostalgia and self-pity rather than adapting to the modern world. The supposition that current infrastructure is sufficient, and that Bloomington can continue to remain as it is without investing in greater connectivity with the rest of the state/nation/world is critically flawed. \nSimply put, people multiply. The number of people will not decrease, but increase. If new infrastructure is not built now, when the cost of doing so is still modest, it will have to be built later, at great expense and with far greater environmental and economic damage than the current plan calls for. \nHow do I know? If people continue to multiply, and large tracks of land between Bloomington and Evansville are not vacated (which is highly likely), then the cost of building an interstate that does not plow under sub-divisions, valuable farmland, and irreplaceable forest will go up tremendously. It is impossible to stop progress. To try and freeze Bloomington in it's current state and not adapt to the external environment is not just an exercise in futility, it is an exercise in stupidity. It's time for all those who are willing to deny the dynamics of change to either get a grip, or find somewhere else to live. On a personal note, I am not a native of Indiana, but of Hawaii. I have seen Thibos's sort of thinking destroy not only the economy, but also the people -- and eventually -- the environment. To not address these problems now is to pay for it later, and trust me, the cost is far greater than necessary.\nIU alum Watson's work was not completely his own\nAn article in Monday's IDS described the discovery of the DNA structure by James Watson and Francis Crick. What it failed to mention, as did Watson and Crick, was that their "discovery" was based in large part on X-Ray Crystallography done by Rosalind Franklin, a chemist at King's College in England. \nWatson and Crick used her X-Ray photos and analysis, without her permission, or even telling her, as the basis for their research. Not only did Franklin produce the DNA images, but in a 1951 lecture (two years before Watson and Crick's Article in Nature), she suggested a double helix as the probable structure. It is possible the two men would have never contemplated a double helix without her information. Today, Franklin's contributions are recognized, but she died of cancer in 1956 and the Nobel Prize is not given posthumously. \nJames Watson deserves credit for his work, and IU can take pride in his having been educated here. But advancing the myth that Watson and Crick alone discovered the DNA structure robs Franklin of her important place in scientific history and condones their blatant refusal to give her due credit. Much of our scientific progress would not be possible without the ethical cooperation of scientists. Students at the start of their research careers should know both Watson's scientific strengths and his ethical weaknesses. \nIvy Tech is not lesser quality, but more competition\nThe last time I checked, all state schools receive state funding, hence the legislature's right to pass such a bill. I guess Andrew LeMar (Staff Editorial, Mar. 4) is only interested in keeping the social classes separated. What an egotistically narrow editorial! Who cares about giving everyone an equal opportunity to the best possible education. What about the fact that to receive a four-year degree from IU, all students must actually complete the appropriate courses in their final two years -- whether they spent their first two years at IU or at a community college. Maybe he is afraid that Ivy Tech students will do just as well in those final two years as the students who began at IU. Mr. LeMar, you have diluted your own degree with such snobbish commentary.\nIvy Tech just as good as two years at IU\nIvy Tech wins and IU loses. I believe it will be the students winning (or should I say their parents). Why should I pay IU $9,100 when I can pay Ivy Tech $4,500 (your figures) -- and be taught by the very same instructor. Some of the Ivy Tech instructors are doctoral students -- at IU!\nWho is winning here?\nIU's new computing systems cause more than data entry problems\nWith all of the drama about health insurance and employer responsibilities, I guess I should be thankful to have health insurance offered with my graduate assistantship. Don't get me wrong -- it is a benefit, but this year the process has been so cumbersome that I might as well be uninsured.\nIn August and December of every year Indiana University has to certify student employees enrollment and continued employment. This process usually takes two or three weeks. This semester, because of the new Human Resources software (or so I've been told) as of March 1, 2003 Megalife Student Insurance had no record of my being insured beyond Dec. 31, 2002 ... two months into the term! IU finally sent a list last week so I am now updated -- but my claims will probably take at least another month because now the insurance company has to backdate everybody's account and process claims back from Jan. 1. So maybe by April I will receive reimbursement for my January claims.\nIsn't there a better way? It seems like IU should consider the bigger picture when they decide to switch software midyear -- maybe it would have been better to wait until summer ... but that just makes too much sense for bureaucracy.\nStudents should be here for studies, \nnot parties\n— Regarding Mike D'Avria's column on Wednesday, March 5: Yes, by all means, let's cancel all Friday classes. In fact, let's cancel all classes, and then we can party all week long. After all, we're not here to learn anything. So, why do we have mommy and daddy pay thousands of dollars every year in tuition for an education we don't really want? Duh! If we didn't have some socially approved excuse for hanging out and drinking for four years, we'd have to go out and get a real job, one that you actually have to get up for on Fridays, too.\nNo. 1 hardest thing to do at IU: grow up, apparently.\nLast Wednesday's walk-out uneffective in grand scheme\nAlthough I am a grad student and not taking any lecture classes, if I were I still would not have participated in Wednesday's walk-out. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to war without good cause (which our government has failed to produce yet), but I feel that walking out of class is an utterly pointless endeavor and ultimately does more harm than good.\nIs the goal to simply raise awareness of the war? If so, there is no need. The media and our politicians have made everybody all too aware of the impending war. A walk-out will do nothing to further increase awareness of it.\nIs the goal to show that a large percentage of the student body is against the possibility of war? I'll concede that a walk-out would be mildly successful in this, but I am certain the level of participation \ndoes not accurately represent the level of opposition. I was an undergrad once, and I know how enticing a "legitimate" excuse to skip an afternoon of class is. I am sure that quite a few students \nparticipated in the walk-out simply to skip class "without consequence." Was the number of students who attended the "teach-ins" in the IMU Wednesday afternoon anywhere near the number of students who skipped class? I doubt it.\nFurthermore, walking out of class is not, and should not be, without consequence. We are all paying tuition to this school in return for receiving an education. Skipping class prevents this education from \nhappening. I know that college is not simply about book-learning, and that broadening your mind and learning to express yourself and your opinions is important, but I don't feel this should be done at the \nexpense of class time. And contrary to what many undergrads seem to think, professors work hard at preparing lectures and course materials; by skipping or leaving class this hard work becomes trivialized. I think all professors should treat any students who walk out (or fail to show up) no differently than they would any other unexcused absence from class. It's not fair to the students who actually want to learn for other students to skip class, regardless of their motives. As I said before, I'm very much opposed to going to war unnecessarily, but I really don't feel that a unified walk-out is an appropriate, or even representative, way to voice our opinion.\nWFIU not being responsible to the community\nI am very ashamed of the poor judgment exercised by WFIU-FM Radio. On the eve of a (likely) war where our faculty, students, the nation, and the world are divided on principled grounds, WFIU chose to air recorded classical music rather than a live Presidential news conference that discussed this most serious matter. The NPR broadcast was carried live by WFYI-FM in Indianapolis. Why did WFIU choose to abdicate its civic responsibility for this most important public discussion? Shame.\nAs a long-time supporter of NPR stations, I now have grave concerns regarding the civic values of WFIU. I sincerely hope this was just an error in judgment.\nBush administration should be morally consistent with itself\nI guess I am too much of an idealist, but I still think that this country is meant to stand for something. But words like freedom, democracy and justice seem to be foreign concepts to the Bush administration. How are we representing these ideals to the world by assassinating bin Laden if there is a chance to capture him alive? How do these supposedly Christian men in the Bush administration justify such acts? After all the Christian Bible says "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord." Is this the reason the Bush administration is against the International Criminal Court? Is it just so much easier for the U.S. government to dispense with such petty and unimportant things as a trial? I am not suggesting that the military should have to go to extra efforts to bring bin Laden in alive, but the administration seems to believe that this is not only unnecessary but also may go against the preferences of their preferences.\nI am very proud to be an American, but it just goes to show you that even the ideals of this great nation can be perverted to the whims of someone who achieves the power of the office of President. I feel as if the people of the U.S. are being stained by their very association with the present administration. My only hope at this moment is that President Bush does not do irreparable harm to our nation. \nI have often in the past few months referred to the Bush administration as the Dubyah administration. No more. His bungling may have some comic feature to it, but he is making mistakes that are far to serious to joke about too much. \nI sincerely hope that if we do go to war that the victory is swift and the loss of life on both sides is kept to a minimum. But when we have the parade down Constitution Avenue in Washington, please don't tell me that we fought for justice, freedom and democracy. These ideals are in enough danger here at home and this war, without the sanctioning of the UN, does little to advance these ideals.\nThere is a reason foreigners hate our country\nThe Indiana Daily Student recently had a picture on its front page of a house here in Bloomington on which the residents had hung a banner saying "Support Bush, Bomb Iraq." Seeing this reminded me of all the "Death to America" posters one sees in various parts of the world, more and more each day Bush is in office.\nThose who call for "Death to America" and those who call for bombing Iraq certainly have a lot in common. However, there is a difference. Most Iraqis who live under Saddam's dictatorship can do little to bring about a "regime change." These people would constitute truly innocent bystanders in a war between the United States and Iraq. An "American," however, as a citizen of a fairly effective democracy, can be held responsible for the actions of that government. An Iraqi, for instance, is justified in resenting me for the actions of my government in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration armed Saddam Hussein. Those were the days when Rumsfeld, now a strong advocate of war against Iraq, actually went to Baghdad himself to negotiate deals for weapons exports. It's not hard to understand why an Iraqi might hate "Americans." \nWe are citizens of the country that sold Saddam Hussein the weapons he has used over the past two decades to oppress and murder the people of Iraq. It is simply astonishing how little mention that fact gets in discussions of the problems we face now. It was the militant policy of the Reagan administration that brought about this problem. The militant policy of the Bush administration will hardly solve it. You do not make friends in the world by killing people. If there is one thing everyone in this country should realize after Sept. 11 it's that our lives are directly affected by the way in which people around the world perceive us.