Jordan River Forum

IUSF, don't release the balloons\nI am writing concerning the upcoming Little 500 bike race and the traditional balloon release prior to the race presented by IUSF, the IU Student Foundation. Balloon releases, involving hundreds of latex or foil balloons, cause litter which can harm wild, domestic and farm animals, not to mention leave unsightly and environmentally unfriendly debris. The Marine Conservation Society and other organizations have conducted studies of dead marine animals, many of which were found with balloons in their stomachs, indicating that the balloons are either not easily digested or that death occurs shortly after ingestion.\nDue to these reasons, many cities and states around the United States have banned balloon releases: Connecticut, Florida, Tennessee, New York, Texas, Virginia, Louisville, Huntsville, Alabama and Baltimore.\nThe Student Environmental Action Coalition at IU has been trying for three years now to get IUSF to replace the balloon release with some other environmentally friendly ceremony, with no success. Each year, SEAC has been told that there isn't enough time to plan something else, even though we have given them ideas (cheerleading routine, Singing Hoosiers) and been willing to work with them. We understand that IUSF is a hard-working organization with many commitments, but we feel this is an important issue which needs action. I urge anyone concerned with this issue to write or call IUSF.\nSmoking ban will benefit community\nI was thrilled to learn this morning that the Bloomington City Council voted to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. I applaud the hard work of Councilman Diekhoff and others that supported the ban. As a patron of many Bloomington bars and restaurants, and a non-smoker, I am frequently bothered by the large amounts of smoke I encounter. Often, after a night out, I will return home covered in the smell of smoke and suffering from a sore throat. I can only imagine how bad this is for mine and other bar patrons' health. \nI am alarmed by the number of young students I see smoking. Certainly these students are aware of the health risks smoking imposes; smoking causes over 400,000 deaths per year, the No. 1 cause of death in the United States. Smoking also inflicts an estimated 68 billion dollars a year in unnecessary costs on the American economy in added health care costs and loss of productivity. Though I certainly understand the position of many local business owners that this ban will drive down business in the short term, I feel this ban is still an excellent long-term investment for the health and well-being of Bloomington residents.\nThese new regulations will perhaps help to curb some of the social smoking that students often begin in their college years that leads to a habitual health risk for many. It most certainly will ease the exposure to second-hand smoke for all students and in turn reduce the associated health risks. I know as a patron, going out on the weekend will now be a more enjoyable, healthy and smoke-free time. \n'Pro-war' is not 'pro-troops'\nAlthough they were against the war on Iraq before it began, many people now believe that they must support the war effort, since that is the only way to support the troops. The mainstream news media have repeatedly contrasted those who support the troops with those who are anti-war. Thus, in many people's minds, you can either support the troops or oppose the war, but not both at the same time. But asking our troops to kill and die for us is not supporting them. On the contrary, it is placing them in harm's way. \nEquating "pro-war" with "pro-troops" makes the pro-war position more appealing and acceptable by wrapping it in loyalty and honor. It also operates as a rebuke to the anti-war movement, which appears ungrateful, uncaring and unpatriotic. The effect is to shame those who disagree with this war into shutting up, falling in line and acquiescing to the unethical doctrine of pre-emptive war.\nContrary to popular opinion, the current administration is no friend to soldiers. For instance, in a sickly ironic move, just a day after Congress passed a "Support Our Troops" resolution, the GOP-controlled House voted to slash $25 billion from the Department of Veterans Affairs budget over the next 10 years. \nI object to the implication that we should be more concerned about the loss of American lives than the loss of Iraqi lives and that American lives are more valuable than everyone else's. As human beings, we should reject this assumption. It is time for us to extend our empathy beyond national boundaries; acting compassionately towards both American troops and the Iraqi people means moving away from violence, not embracing it. Let me make it clear: I am not against supporting our troops per se. I am against supporting the violence done to and by our troops in the name of an aggressive war that most of the world abhors. Rather than sacrificing lives for economic gain, military dominance and the American empire, the anti-war movement wishes to save the lives of our military personnel, as well as the lives of the Iraqi people. That is true support.\nDiscussing war in class serves students\nAs faculty consider how and when to talk about the war, I think of what students said to me after Sept. 11: They were disappointed when their professors did not discuss the events of that day in class. Even in the hours immediately after the planes crashed, classes went on without\neven a reference to what was happening. Students could not understand that silence, and were left feeling alone and unsupported in the difficulty of the hour.\nOur nation's history is not theistic\nUpon reading Drew Buser's editorial ("When Atheists Attack," March 27) about the removal of the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, I found myself asking some interesting questions. To begin with, does Drew Buser realize that the phrase in question was not added to the Pledge until the 1950's during the paranoia surrounding the Cold War and McCarthyism? The prospect of a "Godless nation," the U.S.S.R., competing with the United States of America caused the lawmakers at the time, in a fit of anti-atheist propaganda similar to this article, to add the phrase to the pledge. With the words "under God" being repeated every morning in schools across the country, surely, we think, this is what the framers of the Constitution intended.\nThis leads to the next question. Does Drew Buser realize that while indeed the phrase " ... endowed by their Creator" appears in the Declaration of Independence, neither the terms "creator" nor "God" appear anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments. This is a very interesting fact. Maybe the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were a little more inclusive than some of us thought. These documents, accepted by all of the states in the Union, seem to have none of the type of rhetoric which makes atheists uncomfortable to say the Pledge. Maybe this can remind us that it is not un-American to be an atheist, and the government must respect this right to choose a religion, or lack thereof, by not asking its constituents to affirm that the country is built "under God."\nWhen theists attack\nThe original pledge, credited in 1892 to Francis Bellamy, thirty-seven year old and socialist ex-Baptist Minister, made no mention of God. In 1954, during the height of McCarthyism and the Cold War against the atheistic Soviet Union, the words "under God" were added to the pledge in order to try and "differentiate" the United States from the U.S.S.R.. \nMr. Buser seems shocked that atheists dare to be different. Why is atheism so different? Well, "you either believe or you don't." Well, Mr. Buser, the same can be said about theism. \nMr. Buser notes that atheism "is given no credit by the framers for establishing the government." I'm sure he feels the contributions of the millions of Americans who are atheists are pretty worthless, and that the Founding Fathers would agree with him. After all, it doesn't matter what you do, if you're an atheist, your contributions are not valuable.\nMr. Buser says the Founding Fathers put forth faith as the key to success by their inclusion of phrases like "by their Creator." Let's look at other highly religious societies. What about the Taliban? If faith is the only criterion for national success, why are they fighting cave battles right now instead of ruling the world? It would be hard to find a state where religion and life were more intertwined.\nPerhaps the most staggering quote of all in his column is, "The extreme power of the United States is proof that a nation founded on Judeo-Christian virtues can be successful for over two centuries." Let me put forward some points of rebuttal. The Ancient Egyptian civilization, clearly not founded on Judeo-Christian values, is currently believed to have prospered for well over two millennia. That's 10 times as long as the United States. And what about all the other Christian nations out there, some of which even have official state religions? Well, for some reason, God picked us to be successful. It couldn't be our immense natural resources, excellent geographical position and the vigorous hybrid blood of our immigrant culture! \nIf "atheists must admit that the Creator ... has been kind to us," where does Sept. 11 fit in? Was God taking a snooze? Or maybe you want to follow the same logic as Pat Robertson, ultra-religious conservative, who predicted a meteor or terrorist attack would hit Florida because Disney World was hosting a Gay Pride Day? How about the economy? If we're going to lay the good stuff at God's feet, we'd better lay the bad as well. Do you feel totally safe right now? Ever worry about terrorism when you fly these days? Maybe you're not religious enough. After all, surely God would protect you like he guards our country? Well, I guess I can see why you're nervous.\nAtheism not rejected by Founding Fathers\nRegarding Drew Buser's March 27 column, "When atheists attack," Mr. Buser misinterprets the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The last thing these men would have wanted was for Americans to lose their right to follow their individual consciences. Therefore, even though the Founding Fathers refer to a "Creator" because they may have believed in one, this does not speak for all Americans. It is outrageous to suggest that, as Mr. Buser said, "atheism is clearly rejected (by the founding documents and the Pledge of Allegiance)." Any of the Founding Fathers would have been horrified\nto hear of such blatant dismissal of the consciences of the atheists of this nation.\nI love my country, and so it is unconstitutional that in order to express my patriotism through the Pledge, I and other atheists must suffer through the reference to a supposed "God" that we do not believe in. If any other group was being forced into the same situation -- for example, a group of Jewish students being forced to recite Christian prayers -- there would be an immediate uproar. However, atheists are wrongly dismissed as a non-issue by people such as Mr. Buser, who are so rooted in their beliefs of a creator that they dismiss atheism as having been "given no credit." \nI appreciate the fact that he does realize that atheists can be and are, for the most part, good, decent and successful people. However, his argument that this nation is what it is today because of religion is baseless. The fact is that atheists are in the best position to achieve the "earthly success" that Mr. Buser claims atheism is devoid of: instead of praying endlessly heavenward, atheists see reality -- a world in which humanity is alone and must guide its own actions. Though many of the people who have made this nation great did believe in a creator, that in no way means that "religious values" of believing in a creator caused this greatness -- rather, it came about through the values of love, compassion, decency and honesty shared by theists and atheists alike. \nPatriotic confusion\nAt the risk of stating the obvious, I wanted to make a comment about the current political atmosphere in the University, the town and the nation at large. There seems to be what I would deem, out of kindness' sake, "confusion" about what exactly constitutes patriotism. I say confusion because I would prefer to believe that people are simply misguided rather than woefully ignorant (particularly at an institution which devotes itself to learning). The truth is that patriotism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with backing the actions or ideology of any administration. Many of the same people that are currently criticizing dissent as un-American didn't have any difficulty criticizing the last president. Much of the current criticism is reminiscent of the Red Scare of the '50s, in the sense that it assumes the mistaken belief that one viewpoint or position owns the right to call itself American. The point is that our political views will differ greatly. What unites us as Americans is a belief in the fundamental principles of the country. That our wars are just is not a fundamental principle; that we all have a right to agree or disagree with them, is. True patriotism embraces the inclusion of any speech, whether we agree with it or not. To label the spoken view of anyone in this country as "un-American" is ludicrous. In fact, in many ways, because the citizenry has the important responsibility of choosing our leaders, not having or expressing views is far less patriotic. I hope just as people argue that our defense of liberty makes dissent possible, they would also realize dissent has the power to make liberty something worth fighting for. \nEnd all emergency contraception\nWhat Ms. Hutchinson (Jordan River Forum, March 27) did not say about emergency contraception is that it is a form of abortion. One of the ways it works is by causing the uterus to be inhospitable to an already fertilized egg.\nFor those incapable of respecting life in all of its stages, giving over the counter status to these types of drugs is seen as acceptable and welcome. For those of us who feel differently, however, giving OTC status to an abortifacent would be one more backward step for a society increasingly marked by its disrespect for life.\nLies and propaganda\nDrew Buser ("Code Yellow," March 11) told us of the horror of the attack on Nazif Mamik Tofik, the Kurdish woman who was recently set ablaze by an Iraqi border guard.\nWhether this story is true or not I cannot say. But I would like to point out to Drew and like-minded individuals that our country has a long history of lying to initiate conflict. "Remember the Maine?" This was the slogan used to suck us into the Spanish-American War. In Vietnam it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. During the build-up to the first Gulf War, the Kuwaiti government hired a Washington public relations firm to promulgate the lie that Iraqi soldiers were ripping babies from incubators in Kuwait. Last fall, Bush, quoting an International Atomic Energy Agency report, told us that Iraq was "six months away" from having a nuclear weapon, adding, "I don't know what more evidence we need." Plenty more, it turns out, because no such report exists (The New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002). Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council on Feb. 5 was filled with lies. Aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment? No, for conventional missiles say experts worldwide. Satellite images showing Iraqi weapons development and movement of banned materials? Blix and El Baradei tell us they cannot substantiate these allegations. Recently, the documents that Britain and America presented to Blix as proof of Iraq's attempt to buy plutonium from Niger turned out to be forgeries (The Washington Post, March 8).\nBuser uses the Nazif example to reinforce his belief that the United States, having a "unique burden" in world affairs, should "be responsible for spreading the flames of liberty to the areas of the world who haven't yet felt their warmth." I don't know if he was trying to be intentionally funny, but when we begin the blitzkrieg of Baghdad, thousands of innocent Iraqis will suffer the same fate as Nazif as hundreds of bombs rain down upon their city; they will feel the "flames of liberty" firsthand.\nBuser goes on to allege that "anti-war/pro-Saddam demonstrators would say that these reports of brutality are propaganda spread by the Republican Party in order to Americanize Iraqi oil fields … " There's a very good chance this is true. The facts support this view. And to say that anti-war demonstrators are pro-Saddam is absurd. Nobody likes this guy. But many Americans, and certainly the majority of people around the world, are waking up to the truth, to the real reasons we are going to war. To deny that oil is one of several motivating factors in this looming war is to be completely out of touch with reality. \nThe Bush Administration, as stated in their National Security Strategy, is turning our country into the latest fascist power to threaten world peace, not unlike Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. Fortunately, thus far the United Nations has functioned as it should, by standing up to the arrogant Bush Administration. If it is true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," then we should all be thankful for the millions of Americans who are fighting against the chickenhawks like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft -- men who love war but have never seen the horror of war. They threaten to turn Iraq into a military base for American domination of the region to fulfill their dreams of global domination.\nOpen Seventh Street to through traffic \nI recently read that you (Board of Trustees of Indiana University) have decided not to open Seventh Street by the IU Auditorium to through traffic. \nI'm sure you realize there is only one north/south through street (Walnut) in Bloomington and that's one-way for most of its route. There is one east/west through street (Third) and it jogs and is one-way in the Prospect Hill area.\nThe University (one of our man employers) has Third street, 10th street, 17th street and the Bypass only to route traffic through and around (not enough by any standard) and you're cutting out one that's already there (Seventh Street).\nEven before the terrorist threat, these streets/roads were heavily congested much of the time. If something catastrophic would happen in our community or on campus, Seventh Street would be one more exit for 40,000 plus students and workers and for other areas of Bloomington if needed.\nPlease reconsider!