Those darn terrorists\nIn case you didn't hear, "terrorists" shot down another one of our helicopters. That's right, if you shoot down an enemy helicopter while defending your country, you are a terrorist. All of the Iraqi soldiers should lie on their backs and let us shoot at them. Those frickin' terrorists just don't know how to play fairly.\nNext thing you know they will want to have their own government and spend their oil revenues on things they want. I hope our government does the right thing in response to this terrorism and gives those terrorists an ol' fashion Texas butt-whoopin'. Then we can set up a model democratic government like all their neighbors have ... the only question is should it look like Israel, Egypt or Pakistan's democracy?\nHere is one quick question for the day: Were the American Revolutionary leaders terrorists? My vote is no. They were Americans and they spoke American, they loved God (not some other idol) and owned slaves. \nWes Kocher\nSophomore
'Appaled' by false report\nI am appalled at the "alleged victim" who cried rape. She has slapped the face of every single person who has truly suffered because of a rape or sexual assault. The crimes of rape and sexual assault are difficult enough to report, and victims are often dismissed despite good evidence of the crime. The "alleged victim's" 15 minutes of fame have come with a price that makes reporting this crime more difficult than it already is. \nShe can be as remorseful as she wants, but it will never take away the pain of what real victims feel.
Partisaship redressed\nThis editorial is written in response to Jim Harper's Nov. 6 article, "Is Bush's recovery worth it?" \nIt is curious why Harper would attack a fiscal plan with such a positive result, particularly when his points are tinged with blatant and inflammatory partisan politics.\nFirst, the reduction in tax rates, which Harper seems to believe is the primary driver of the national deficit, is only part of the story. Excessive government spending habits developed during the period of government budget surpluses in the late 1990s, coupled with the costly War on Terror, have led the charge into red ink. Tax cuts will help redress these problems by loosening the shackles on the economy. His solution of taking these tax rebates and spending it on more government programs like education or homeland security is counteractive, and it only makes sense that most Americans would like to have their own money back in their wallet to spend on college, duct tape, or whatever else they feel they need.\nSecond, the loss of jobs, a facet of recession, has been decreasing lately; a recent Labor Department report noted that jobless claims have hit a 34-month low last week. This fact, coupled with weekly jobless claims that are well below the 400,000 mark that most economists consider to show the economy to be in recession, belie some of Harper's claims. Concerning the 2.6 million unemployed, he does not take into account the reabsorption rate of able-bodied workers or that the fall in jobless claims has been in spite of soaring productivity rates, a fact that generally prompts employers to hire fewer workers.\nFinally, a 7.4 percent GDP growth rate is nothing to sneeze at; a rate of this magnitude has not been seen in two decades, and it means that consumption and production are both picking up speed at an unprecedented rate. This can spell only one thing for the American as both consumer and worker: more goods to purchase and more opportunities to work. It seems President Bush's stimulus plan is the solution rather than the problem.\nAndrew Allaby\nSophomore
Fairness examined\nIt was interesting to read about a group of students selling cookies to protest affirmative action. These young men and women -- who have probably never seen an urban ghetto -- feel that their sale would "illustrate the point that all people are not treated equal." Well, for African Americans like myself, that point is mute. I, along with many others in my race -- as well as other minorities -- know from experience that people are not treated equal. First, there are the looks I receive -- as a black male -- from many white females as I approach them on the sidewalk in the dark. In addition, there are the numerous times since I have lived in Indiana that I have been called n----- by my fellow citizens. Next, is the fact that African Americans without a criminal record are less likely to be called back for a second job interview than a white man with a criminal conviction. Moreover, blacks and other minorities who live in urban areas have poorer educations. Their books are older, classrooms are run down and technology lacking in comparison to many suburban and rural white communities. \nThe rising trend of school segregation is another example of minorities not being treated equally. According to a study by the Civil Rights Project of Harvard University, 70 percent of the nations' black students attend predominantly minority schools, meaning schools with 50 percent or above minority enrollment. Additionally, 35 percent attend school with an enrollment of minorities of 90-100 percent. Conversely, whites on average attend schools with an enrollment of 80 percent white students and 20 percent minority combined. So, Stephan Jerabek is correct in his assumption that people are not being treated equally. The question should be what are we going to do about that treatment? Are we going to sell cookies to end affirmative action? I think a more productive manner for Jerabek to fight for equality would be to volunteer in the Bronx tutoring minority students. Or he could donate the money he makes from his cookie sale to buy textbooks for minority students who cannot afford them.\nIn short, this nation has a long way to go in order to ensure equality for all it citizens. Affirmative action is one way to increase diversity and possibly equality in the long run. Maybe with that increased diversity, students can create a dialogue in order to understand each other backgrounds? It is a start. Not all of us are fortunate enough to have parents with money or equal educational opportunities. Do we leave those less fortunate behind? I say no.\nTaylor A. Marrow III\nAlumnus
Bake sale misinformation\nThe information provided by the so-called "Campaign for Freedom" about their bake sale is misleading -- the pay gaps they propose are not representative of 'privileges' gained from affirmative action, but rather the pay inequity that occurs in this country on the basis of race and gender. White women make on average 75 cents to the dollar that white men make, even if they have the same education/experience level. Men and women who are Hispanic and/or black make even less. The Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance (www.indiana.edu/~fmla) has held pay-equity bake sales in the past to reflect this inequality. Until we live in a society that is no longer sexist and racist, affirmative action is necessary to combat oppression present within educational opportunities and the work force.\nAmanda Stevens\nPR Co-chair\nFeminist Majority Leadership Alliance
Bake sale organizers lack knowledge\nI attended the Anti-Affirmative Action Bake Sale held on campus and am shocked at how little its organizers from the Committee for Freedom knew about race and affirmative action policy. Far from being privileged, minorities and women do not pay less for cookies, for education, for anything. Rather, for centuries these groups have been forced to pay more (through blood, sweat and tears, even their lives) for everything. Affirmative action is about allowing opportunity to groups who are forced to endure severe prejudice from overt cruelty to subtle discrimination that was legal as recently as our parents' generation. Privilege is not even guaranteed by giving minorities and women better opportunity -- this merely makes it possible. These disadvantaged groups must still -- and do -- work very hard to achieve the touted privileges of living in America.\nMichael F. Thompson\nGraduate student
Setting free the committee for freedom\n \nThe Committee for Freedom felt that selling cookies with prices based on race "illustrates more clearly the problems with affirmative action." Clearly, its members failed to adequately look into the matter of affirmative action before holding their cookie sale. Let's start with the basics of what they should know before getting too carried away with illustrations. By definition, affirmative action is the preference for underrepresented minority groups if such an individual is deemed equally qualified with an individual of the majority. Now, charging white students more for a cookie obviously implies that the cost represents one's qualifications, such as GPA or standardized exam score. So if this Committee for Freedom truly was illustrating affirmative action, wouldn't they have to charge everybody the same cost? In this way, if two students both paid the same amount they would be equally qualified. Now, the Committee for Freedom would have to give the cookie (assuming that the two students eagerly desire the same cookie) to the student from the minority group. Furthermore, the student from the majority would not get his or her money back since you can't really take back a GPA, plus application fees are non-refundable. As you can see, the Committee for Freedom was way off in attempting to mimic affirmative action. Another interesting error they made was their misrepresentation of the ramifications of affirmative action. We all know that affirmative action seeks to create a diverse environment such that all students can learn from each other's differences. Based on the bake sale, only two consequences can be implied: either the members of this Committee for Freedom would rather remain ignorant than become more open-minded, or the committee wants to decrease diversity among cookie eaters. And one other thing, what about Asians? As an Asian Pacific American, I can honestly say that I love cookies. Couldn't you at least charge $1.25 as opposed to not even offer us any? I guess they really don't want diversity among the cookie-eating community. I believe that the Committee for Freedom needs to first free their minds from the shackles of ignorance by embracing diversity. \nPaul Hae-Yong Park\nSenior
It's getting hot in here\nSens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh cast a vote last Thursday, in favor of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.\nWhile the bill did not pass, it was the first vote on global warming policy in the Senate. Our senators were among those 43 who stood strong on this issue of international relevance.\nLugar and Bayh and the 41 other senators who voted in favor of the Climate Stewardship Act should be praised for their steps to resolve this most important of issues. Global warming is a very real threat and people should be concerned with the scope and imminence of the problem. Those senators who voted against the bill should be questioned and held accountable for their disgraceful actions in opposition to the movement to bring this world-threatening problem to a halt. \nIt is estimated that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of actions on global warming, as are countless groups, organizations and businesses. It is time for all of us to step up to the task and try to find real solutions to this and other major global ecological problems.\nRobert Mikolon\nSenior
Corked politics\nRepublicans are to Bloomington as the Cubs are to Chicago. Nov. 4 was a day of great hope for me. Being only 20, this was the first major election in which I was eligible to vote. I had hoped the city of Bloomington would get out and vote for the right candidates -- namely the ones I supported. I was wrong. However, there is a valuable lesson for me in this election. I have learned this will not be the first Election Day disappointment I will face as a Republican, especially if I plan to stick around Bloomington. You see, for some reason I was naive enough to not realize a large liberal arts college tends to have a large liberal population. I guess I must have missed all those protests at the Sample Gates and tent cities in Dunn Meadow. Or, perhaps I have not paid enough attention to all the "Stop I-69" bumper stickers and random professors (who are not even in the political science department) telling me how much of a bad guy President George W. is for the past two and a half years. I didn't even get the picture when the IDS informed me of the 32 years of Democratic mayors here. In conclusion, I would like to thank mayoral candidate Fred Prall for getting me interested in local politics and thank all the local Republicans for running (special kudos to Jason Banach and David Sabbagh, lone Republican winners). Prall made a huge effort to reach out to Bloomington, and fought a hard uphill battle. Like Cubs fans say in Chicago, there's always next year. To Republicans in Bloomington, there's always next election.\nJanna Ingle\nJunior
Why save Reagan's rep?\nCBS dropping "The Reagans" is a clear sign of censorship. While it has been said that Reagan, regarding people with AIDS, never was quoted saying, "They that live in sin shall die in sin," no one can argue this was exactly his position on the subject and the victims of AIDS. This resulted in genocide. This is a very strong argument for the separation of church and state. It is this writer's opinion that the religious right was largely responsible for promoting this position. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.\nBen Carroccio\nWestlake, Ohio
Science guy, just not the Nye\nThis is in response to Tim Arena's, "Two philosophies and a microphone" printed in the Jordan River Forum on Nov. 4. The author dismisses scientific inquiry as obfuscation and accuses scientists of manipulating data to fit their theories. Then, in an effort to support his creationist stance, he subjectively summarizes several books written by "non-creationists" who attack Darwinian theory while, at the same time, he conveniently dismisses scientific inquiry by neglecting to read and summarize the hundreds of thousands of studies that support Darwinian theory. Finally, Arena eloquently demonstrates for us how the human brain did not evolve, but rather was designed. For those of you who have ever had an original thought in your life, you can imagine my surprise. I think the author is lost and confused in a world of one philosophy and a soap box. Tim, you are on stage, alone, holding your own microphone. There is no war and I am not impressed with your soliloquy. I think a couple of points should be clarified, though.\nFirst, Darwinism is not taught as "unquestioned dogma." Darwinism is taught. It is the students who often do not question, or refuse to listen. Unfortunately, some of these students become teachers and the cycle continues. Furthermore, Darwin is not read nearly as much as he is cited in casual conversation. For this reason, many people misunderstand and misrepresent Darwin.\nSecond, contrary to popular belief, scientists throughout our University (and around the world) are dedicating their lives and their careers to the rejection of Darwin's theories. That's right, the rejection. Science very often works to disprove or falsify. So, proof sometimes must come through a process of elimination. The fact is that scientists continually fail to reject the hypotheses that are based upon\nDarwin's theories. For a Darwinian, this is a good thing. For a creationist: not so good. The scientists' personal beliefs are a moot point, though. The actual war, Tim, is between those who do not question Darwin and those who do not question God.\nFinally, please allow me one last point/request. You asserted, with some surety in fact, that the human brain and eye were designed and not evolved (because of the extent of their complexity). You have no idea what you are talking about. I think I speak for a majority in the Departments of Neural Science, Psychology, Biology, Chemistry and Physics when I say that I could put a name to your statement from a range of terms -- all the way up to misinformed. I won't. Rather, I'll digress and simply ask you not to write about what you don't know.\nRichard W. Vogel\nGraduate student
Fear over thought\nOn Sept. 7, President Bush asked America for support in enacting his $87 billion proposal. This proposal divides the money between military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money allocation breaks down as follows: four-fifths of the $87 billion will go to military efforts in Iraq and another $20 billion for Iraq's reconstruction. Afghanistan military operations will account for $11 billion and $800 million will be used in its reconstruction efforts. The remaining $4 billion is marked vaguely as going toward other parts of the world.\nIn reading the president's address, one is left with questions. For example, he claims we've made great progress, but gives no evidence as American soldiers continue to perish. Using key phrases such as "training camps of terror" and "critical to our security" in his speeches, he creates a system of fear that appeals to our emotions and not our intellect. He also admits $87 billion is only the beginning of the money he will need.\nWe are a university founded on diversity and awareness. Whether one supports the war and/or President Bush is not the issue. What we, as the voting public, must look at is where this money is coming from, how it affects national budget issues such as education, and a means to hold President Bush accountable for this proposal's success or failure if it does go through. We cannot continue to hand over money without a means to measure the effectiveness of its use. True, we cannot just leave a country in ruins, but we must create an opportunity to discuss how best to proceed from here. We must be informed citizens and voice our concerns/opinions to our current representatives and in our voting practices. Our size and our youth make us a highly sought-after voting demographic. Our representatives will listen.\nDana White\nSenior
The lion, the witch and the heretic\nIn "What Would the Jewish God Do?" Jack Silverstein asserts that organized religion is moving further and further away from "spirituality and good living," that it is missing the true foundations of religion, such as "kindness, goodwill, community, brotherhood and forgiveness" and that in fact "the biggest lesson organized religion teaches is that their(s) … is the only true organized religion." He asks, "What's more important: the message or the messenger?"\nIn Christianity I dare say the answer is in fact the Messenger. Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity and of true religion. One who thinks that the heart of Jesus' message was "be good to each other" simply has not read the Bible, as Mr. Silverstein clearly has not. I challenge anyone with such a view to read the gospel of John. You will be amazed at how different the Jesus you thought you knew is from the Jesus of the Bible.\nSilverstein asserts that according to Jesus the true work of God is "spirituality and good living." Did he not read Jesus saying, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." (John 6:29)? Or what about this verse concerning true religion with God: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)?\nI am not saying that Jesus did not teach morality, but to say that this was the heart of his ministry is to completely ignore every thing He ever said about Himself. You cannot have the teaching of Christ without Him at the center of it. C.S. Lewis said it best:\n"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell ... You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."\nNicholas J. Nugent\nSenior
