This is not a theocracy\nDan Gelok maintains ("Neither hating nor fearing homosexuals," Jordan River Forum, IDS, Sept. 30) that to settle the question of whether homosexual activity is immoral, one "simply" needs to determine whether it "is in contradiction to Biblical morality." It may be that some (or even many) devout Jews and Christians solve all moral questions by referring to their respective scriptures, and Mr. Gelok is free to do so. Not all Jews and Christians do; nor, certainly, do members of other faiths, agnostics or atheists. This country is not a theocracy, yet, and despite what many people think, our Constitution and legal system are not based on the Ten Commandants or any other part of Judeo-Christian scripture. \nBetty Rose Nagle\nAssociate professor for the Department of Classical Studies
Dennis Kucinich for president\nOn Oct. 13 Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, will officially declare his candidacy for president. Kucinich, who is chair of the House Progressive Caucus, has established a grass roots campaign focused on peace and social justice. Following his bold vote against the Bush administration's USA Patriot Act in 2001, Kucinich voted against the October 2002 resolution which swept away one of the most grave responsibilities of our elected officials. And instead of spending billions after billions on war, Kucinich proposes an investment of resources in a cabinet-level Department of Peace, which pursues peaceful resolution of conflicts internationally and locally.\nKucinich sees health care as the right of all citizens, and he has a solid plan for a single-payer universal health care system -- Enhanced Medicare for All. And he recognizes the need of education in creating jobs and has proposed quality education for all, from pre-kindergarten through college. If you want to hear more, please join the Bloomington Kucinich Team the first and third Thursday of every month at 7 p.m. at the Runcible Spoon, or visit www.kucinich.us.\nMelissa McReynolds\nBloomington resident
Both sides of the coin\n \nI would just like to respond to the letter in question "Who can be racist?" (Jack Silverstein, IDS, Oct. 3). There is racism on both sides of this coin; the only difference is no one takes it serious when it is directed at whites. You said being called "cracker" is humorous and not mean? Excuse me, but it is offensive to me and many others, just like the "n" word is offensive to blacks ... also, all the blacks are not from Africa, so why do they call themselves African Americans? If you live in this country, you are just Americans. Last, but not least, quit blaming all the whites of today for what happened a long time ago. You seem to forget that they sold their own people to the whites, and believe it or not, there were white slaves too. Quit blaming everyone else for some people's problems with dealing with everyday life. Move on and grow up and quit focusing on the past. I have been around for a lot longer than a senior in college and have seen a lot more what goes on in this world. It goes for both sides of the coin, so quit making the pot boil by egging it on every day. Move on and concentrate on important issues like what is going on in this world everyday, not name calling. \nMarge Kiefer\nRoachdale, Ind., resident
Pride in diversity \nI am Chinese American. When I was little, my mother forced me to wear traditional Chinese dresses at special events. I dreaded those moments; no one else -- especially "normal Americans" -- ever dressed like that.\nWhen I arrived at the Traditional Asian Clothing Demonstration on Sept. 26, I was thrilled to see four or five Asian and Asian-American children modeling their traditional Asian clothing with great pride.\nImagine my shock at reading the IDS's article "Diversity 101" (Wednesday), which featured photos from the event and little else. IDS showed little journalistic responsibility in its use of photos with the article. Asma Khalid's article focused on whether diversity could be taught -- not the Traditional Clothing Demonstration. Yet a photo of a young boy in traditional Korean clothing took up a full quarter of the entire page, and four photos of other presenters, another eighth. Only two sentences in the first paragraph of Khalid's article referenced the meaning behind the program at all.\nKhalid did not balance the photos of the Traditional Clothing Demonstration with an explanation of what the program tried to accomplish. She did not interview any of the participants or audience members. She did not explain that a 10 to 20 minute explanation of the cultural, social and historical significance accompanied the demonstration of every piece of clothing.\nRather, Khalid ridiculed the presenters' efforts by stating that "sushi and saris have replaced any genuine debate" on diversity.\nThat evening, I saw a fun, but serious, cultural exchange. I saw people eating samosas, kimbop and pad thai for the first time in their lives. I saw the audience of 30 -- not 15, as Khalid claimed -- learning the meaning behind the Indian bindi and the Japanese Three, Five, Seven ceremony. I saw non-Asian women rushing to the front of the room to learn the proper way to wear the sari and kimono.\nFinally, I saw young Asian and Asian-American children showing pride in their heritage, and the broader community showing appreciation for their culture. It is unfortunate that Khalid missed so much of a great program. \nTheresa Chen\nGraduate student
Trivilaizing the real issues\nYour staff editorial "Rental saga continues" (IDS, Wednesday) gets one thing right: any law that specifically prohibits anyone from renting a house on the basis of race is unconstitutional. The egregious history of housing discrimination that, through red-lining, covenants segregation, violence and other forms of outright discrimination, has prevented African-Americans, Jews, Latinos and Asian-Americans from renting or buying homes when and where they wanted makes such protection necessary.\nBy comparing this to Bloomington's ordinance restricting the number of unrelated adults who can rent a house or apartment, you trivialize the history of racism in America. \nDr. John P. Bowles\nAssistant professor, Department of Art History
Backing Clark\nLet me take a few minutes to discuss Thursday's (column by Tony Sams,) "The General's Inexperience." Like many hit pieces on Clark's candidacy that have been oozing out of the right-wing media lately, it is long on distortion and irrelevancy. It's also full of hypocrisy. \nA quick comparison of Gen. Clark's resume shows him to have more experience than President Bush did when he ran for president. Clark served with honor in Vietnam, a war that Bush wanted nothing to do with. Gen. Clark led armies. Bush led a baseball team. Clark is a successful investment banker; Bush headed up two failed businesses. What about Clark's lack of political experience? Who cares? Republicans didn't have any qualms about electing another four-star general with no political experience to two terms as president. His name was Dwight D. Eisenhower.\nThe lamest attack, however, and the one most likely to backfire, is the claim that "Clark is not really a Democrat." Obviously, the idea is to get Democrats to nominate anyone else, presumably Howard Dean. Though this is misguided of itself, since Dean would trounce Bush in 2004 as well, this will horribly backfire once Clark becomes the nominee. After all, how can Clark be tarred as a liberal after months and months of claims by the Republicans that Clark spoke well of certain Republicans and voted for Reagan in the past? The Republicans are going to send centrist and independent voters to Clark in droves.\nThe bottom line is that Bush has been a miserable failure as president, the worst since Herbert Hoover. Gen. Clark represents a clear and compelling alternative, and will serve his country with honor again as its president. Ironically, he may have Republicans to thank for it.\nOh, and about Clark's "stupid campaign items" for sale? Don't feel left out, Republicans. Make sure to visit the Republican National Committee's www.georgewbushstore.com. Besides the "W" beach towel and the "W" cowboy hat, you drooling right-wingers everywhere can buy a Bush/Cheney '04 bib. \nSee for yourself. \nThomas J. Davis\nLaw student
Speaking out for the GLBTs\nThis is a letter meant to be taken strongly and alert those confined by ignorance that this member of the GLBT community will tolerate no more from those that call me immoral, do not want to afford me the same rights as any other citizen or would rather I just burn in Hell.\nFirst: the issue with professor Eric Rasmusen's Web log: He admits on his Web site that the results are not totally conclusive and there are surrounding factors that negatively influence the data gathered in studies. Rarely is any research or study air-tight, but for accusations such as his to be made, there must be a higher level of certainty and conclusiveness. Your own confidence in the correctness of the results does not count. Because of the aforementioned reasons, these comments are slanderous, hurtful, hateful, harmful and harassing. It seems as though we have rested this issue with the fact that speech must be preserved even if we do not agree with because we can learn from it. My question is this: what if these statements serve as an introduction to those who know nothing of the GLBT community or its people? Are these the comments that should mold the views of those who have never been exposed to anything of this nature? What about groups that are already filled with hatred towards our minority group; these statements are just another stepping stone for them. I do not think the professor was trying to discriminate, but his actions were not well thought out, and his decision was poor because these factors were not taken into consideration.\nSecond: "Biblical morality": This is used to legally discriminate against people in the GLBT community and I believe the Bible was used as a basis to justify slavery in our young country, but you do not see that anymore. Personally, I consider myself above any god, the Christian God and the Pope himself because no person will stop me from loving who I love and if I cannot marry them legally, then I will consider myself above marriage. I do this because what I have endured as a lesbian in past relationships and my love for my fiancée now, is greater than anything many heterosexuals can imagine. We do not need your (approval) to be together, we will simply be together on a higher level. As a sidenote -- the Bible also infers that you should whore out your daughters.\nThird: History repeats itself. So many people will not see that the GLBT community is no different from African Americans, Asians, Jews and so on. I do not care if the president, the Pope, the law or even my own professors are against me. I am even aware that many in my own minority group are against me, but I have been personally compelled to draw the line for myself and speak up for myself. It does not even matter the retorts that will come of this letter because against all odds gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons will be equal and those that do not understand the error of their thinking now, will in the future. Our day will come just as the day had come for African Americans, Asians, Jews, etc., and for that reason, nothing said against this letter will matter to me. \nAmanda Peterson\nSenior
The Pakistani's side\nThe headline in Monday's IDS should have been "Indian official blames Pakistan for everything wrong with India," rather than "Retired Indian official discusses diplomacy." The article, written by Paul Musgrave, said that Malik believes India got its freedom without having to fight. I would like to tell Mr. Malik and others that Pakistan too got its freedom without having to fight. Our founding father Mr. Jinnah made Pakistan using diplomacy and by negotiating with the British as well as Gandhi. I found this article to be extremely biased and believe that articles such as these should give equal coverage to both sides, not just India.\nNot surprisingly, the event was extremely biased too. Malik portrayed Pakistan as the aggressor even though India was the first one to develop and test nuclear weapons in 1974 and then again in 1998. India also has 700,000 military personnel in Indian-controlled Kashmir (about the size of Indiana). If the Kashmiris want to be with India (that's what the Indian government professes) then why do they need the 700,000 strong military forces to control these people (who amount to about 9 to 10 million)? Malik said thousands of civilians have been killed in Indian-controlled Kashmir, but he failed to mention (not surprising) that these people have been killed by the Indian military.\nRecently, I watched a BBC world program on Kashmir, it was a discussion held in the Indian-controlled Kashmir. A vast majority of the people who attended this program wanted the right of self-determination and almost all blamed India for the Kashmir problem. This was in the Indian-controlled Kashmir. So, most Pakistanis and Kashmiris fail to understand India's position on Kashmir.\nOther than that, India professes to be a "secular" nation; if it was really "secular," then a Hindu fundamentalist government would not be ruling India, and thousands of Christians and Muslims would not have been killed in India in the recent past.\nI believe that the political science department, Office of International Programs, Department of Asian Studies or Indian Studies should also bring a Pakistani commentator, so that the people of Bloomington are made aware of both sides of the issue. \nFawwad Shafi\nSenior
