Matching your ethnicity with your khakis\nI get the feeling that the loudest racial critics would have everyone believe that European Americans are the lone source of all bigotry in America, and racist undercurrents saturate everything we say and do. My already unfavorable opinion of these critics took a deeper dive when I read Rahsaan D. Bartet's letter ("White Man's Burden" IDS Sept. 22), which blasted Paul Bryant's earlier letter ("Why is reverse racism so overlooked at IU?" IDS, Sept. 16).\nIn his article, Mr. Bryant, a white guy, explains that he wears ghetto-style clothing and hears racist remarks because of it. As if Mr. Bartet doesn't believe this could possibly happen, he rhetorically asks "How can a group with less power be racist towards the group with power? Now does that really make sense? No!"\nI disagree. Minorities are just as capable of racism, despite having "less power," whatever that means. And they are equally capable of discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping. White people are no more cursed with an inclination towards racism than any other race. \nMr. Bryant went on to mention a minority friend who wears Eddie Bauer and GAP clothing and is told that he is just trying to be white. Mr. Bartet states that this friend is a self-hater for buying clothing typically worn by white people. So can people not display characteristics of different races without being subjected to Bartet's criticism? Does Bartet always dress and do things according to his race? Is he a "self-hater" if he ever does otherwise? Does a person have to stay within all of the stereotypes for his/her ethnicity so that (s)he is not also labeled as a "self-hater"? Who is the real racist here?\nMr. Bartet's comments show the problem with the high-profile racial activists. He, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others thrive on racial tension. They are not interested in truly stopping it. To them, an end to racism means an end to their spotlight. They make ludicrous, incendiary and fallacious arguments simply to justify their existence. They turn races against each other and then turn a profit. But since Mr. Bartet probably didn't make any money from his spiel, he seems to be in it so he too can consider himself a racial activist or something. Whatever their motivations are, they are all doing little to help racial relations.\nHere's a quote for you, Mr. Bartet: "Can't we all just get along?" -- Don King\nTim Amulung\nJunior
Thibos's view on court absurd\nI would like to respond to Cameron Thibos's view of the International Criminal Court ("Buying the Law," IDS, Sept. 23.)\nHe apparently believes the United States is no better than China and Libya and Algeria because all those countries refused to ratify the establishment of the International Criminal Court. I beg to differ.\nDo we really want to live in a world where the likes of the Ayatollah of Iran or Kim Jong-Il can bring criminal charges against Americans? I think President Bush was absolutely correct in expressing his concern that Americans would be subject to politically motivated prosecution. It is absurd to say that Americans should be subject to the will of some arrogant Third World dictator looking to increase his standing in the international community. I hope the President continues to resist the establishment of this court, and I would personally support military action to rescue Americans in the custody of this illegitimate court.\nEdward J. Delp IV\nJunior
Silverstein preaches the truth\nI read Jack Silverstein's article ("America's true enemy," IDS Sept.12) and found he definitely preached the truth. We shouldn't be afraid to stand down from our religious traditional chains of negativity. There are so many different ways to hate, and using religion to cover it up is wrong. We all worship a God, but it's looked at differently from different backgrounds. Some people in the same religion look at God differently because of their family upbringing. We all seek the same happiness and same religion -- and that's a happy life. We must shine the positive light and overtake the negative darkness of tradition. Keep it righteous Jack, and keep spreading the truth. And don't give up. That's just part of the struggle.\nNeza Rufuku\nSophomore
Recall criticisms put to rest\nI was once among the many who laugh and scoff at the recall fiasco occurring in California and several criticisms. First, it appears to be completely undemocratic if one man was able to initiate the entire process. Next, unsatisfied citizens shouldn't have the right to arbitrarily kick an elected official out of office. Finally, if an elected official is recalled every time he or she makes a mistake or unpopular decision, our government will have no stability. However, after doing some thinking about the definition of democracy in America, I've changed my opinion.\nWhile democracy literally means rule by the people, it seems as though our country's forefathers intended America to be a land governed by a democratic process rather than a true democracy. This is justified by the structure of our government where citizens elect officials who represent them and make decisions for them while in office. But through a system of checks and balances, elected officials or wealthy individuals (in theory) are prevented from gaining too much power. Simultaneously, the voice of the people (in theory), is always represented. According to the intended practice of democracy in America, the recall in California is justified. To refute my first criticism, the checks and balances of the American democratic system dictate that even if only one person had the initial idea of recalling Governor Gray Davis, an entire state still has to vote him out. As for my second criticism, the right of citizens to vote out an elected official is justified by a popular phrase which helps define democracy in America: "No taxation without representation." In America, once a leader or government fails to represent the people who elected them, it is the right of the people to replace that entity. Finally, officials such as Gray Davis can only be replaced when the majority of citizens agree that as a leader, they are not doing their job. Therefore, my last criticism can be put to rest with the logic that, if a recall does occur, it is a necessary course of action that represents the voice of the people whether it creates instability in the government or not. If I were a citizen of California, I might not vote for the recall. But I take pride in being an American and having the right to do so.\nSarah Bugden\nSophomore
Back lot bike racks illogical\nToday I noticed a lot of bikes outside of McNutt (including my own) had warnings on them from the University that they needed to be registered or they would be ticketed and impounded for being chained up to the fence. I think that's stupid, because the McNutt students who use bikes don't have anywhere else to lock them up. McNutt doesn't have any bike racks in the front of the building, but they have bike racks behind the dorms. Who's going to waste time to walk all the way out to the parking lot just to get their bike? Mostly all the other residence halls have bike racks right outside of the front doors. It's ridiculous that the University would even think about ticketing the people who use bikes. WHERE ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PUT THEM? You must register your bike to use it? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't see what the problem is as long as the bikes are chained up and out of the way.\nSean Cork\nFreshman
