Questioning new species\nMonday, the IDS reported that IU biology professor Loren Rieseberg reproducibly re-enacted the creation of a new species ("IU sunflower genetics expert wins 'genius' grant," AP).\nProfessor Rieseberg's sizeable monetary "genius grant" recognized his work in understanding the basic biological question that faced Charles Darwin, of how new species originate.\nI wonder, doesn't this in turn create a sizeable problem for so called fundamentalist Christian "scientific creationists?"\nWhile creationists will undoubtedly have no problem in obfuscating the professor's work for their gullible followers, I wonder how (the followers) will handle it for the thinking public.\nEmanuel Klein\nBloomington
The truth about poker\nIn the Sept. 30 article "Betting it all" (IDS), Aobo Zou and his friends are portrayed as mindless, incorrigible addicts, who imperil their financial welfare for a quick gambling fix. While this may or may not be the case, it is important that readers keep in mind the positive aspects of poker as well as its differences from other types of gambling like roulette and craps. \nThe primary myth about poker is that it is a game of luck. True, the cards are random, but in the long run everyone's luck at a poker table is precisely the same. I hate to take my pearls of wisdom straight from Hollywood, but as Matt Damon says in "Rounders," "Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table at the World Series of Poker every single year?" Poker, unlike roulette, craps, the lottery and even blackjack, is a game of skill. No one has a problem when professional golfers play in tournaments for million-dollar prizes because no one disputes the obvious skill involved. But a misunderstanding of poker, the same misunderstanding that was evident in the article, causes people to brand the game as immoral and reckless. \nThose who do not know the game of poker miss out on a game that is exciting, nuanced and profitable. Most importantly, poker is a challenging game intellectually. Imagine playing chess against eight other players at the same time, and you can't see some of their pieces. The green felt table is the ultimate level playing field. Poker is a game in which long-term success is determined solely by the quality of a player's thinking. Neither luck nor any other factor has more bearing on a player's success than the quality of the decisions he makes. Poker is the world's purest meritocracy.\nIt is unfortunate that so many people misunderstand poker. Not only do they miss out on it themselves, but they make it harder for those of us who understand and love the game.\nAustin Crum\nSophomore
Work more hours\nI couldn't help but laugh at the arguments made by Ursula McTaggart in her letter, "Living wage works." She seemingly glosses over nearly every tenet of modern economics and completely fails to substantiate her thesis (unless we are now considering emotional conjecture as support). \nUrsula writes "Most employers can absorb the costs of wage increases without resorting to lay-offs." Great, Ursula, even if you are right about this (I would argue you are not), you have now more than doubled the cost of labor for employers and made the cost of employing more people (note: employing more people is good for the economy) double what it previously was. Fat chance anyone is hiring sometime soon.\nMy other favorite part of Ursula's letter is her budget analysis. She states that "In 1996, the Indiana Coalition on Housing and Homeless Issues estimated that a single adult in Bloomington earning $6.62 per hour ... would spend the following monthly: $466 on housing, $162 on food, $147 on transportation, $90 on health care and $214 on taxes ... this worker would be left with only $87 a month for remaining expenses." This budget makes one gigantic assumption: the worker will only work 40 hours per week ($6.62 hourly wage times 40 hours per week times 4.4 weeks per month backs into her figures). I don't know anyone who works less than 50 hours per week and is termed by the IRS as "rich." In fact, most that I know work 60 or more (or at one point in their life worked 60 hours a week or more). Now I am not proposing that everyone become an investment banker (note: investment bankers work 80-100 hours per week), I am suggesting that if people want to make more money they might want to consider working more hours.\nJudd Arnold\nSenior
