Laws should preserve family values\nThe debate over the legal acceptance of same-sex marriages is not only about the 'civil rights' of proposed marriage partners; it is a debate about the legal standing of the traditional family. The traditional value of marriage has been and continues to be an essential part of the social and moral foundation of America. One of the biggest problems with approving same-gender marriages is that it devalues and desecrates the traditional family. With the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the state cannot deny the legal marriage status of same-sex couples, the onus now lays on the people or the legislature of Massachusetts to demarcate the legal status of families.\nTraditional family values should be preserved by law and promoted by all citizens who carry the conviction that family values are essential to a healthy and stable community. \nAll citizens concerned for the preservation of traditional family values should do their part in constitutionally defining marriage as the legal union of a man and woman and in strengthening individual families in our community.\nMatt Curtis\nGraduate Student
Finding the real enemy\nAccording to CNN, more than 450 American soldiers have died while trying to overthrow the Hussein regime, and 335 of those deaths occurred after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003. Only 147 American soldiers died during the first Gulf War. I point out these numbers to make a point: yes, it is wonderful news for the people of Iraq that Saddam Hussein has been captured by American troops; I am thrilled that the United States has captured him. His regime murdered thousands of its own citizens during the more than 30 years Hussein was in power. However, the United Nations justified the first Gulf War, as Hussein was invading a foreign nation. The current Gulf War was not considered necessary by the U.N., as Hussein's threat to world security was never credibly established. The US invaded, more or less, on our own, and the death toll continues to rise. \nOn Dec. 14, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "It's great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to the rest of story. We didn't go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found." \nThe fact remains that Saddam Hussein attacked American citizens only when his country was being invaded by them. His threat to our country has never been proved, and those weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Although it is a victory for President Bush that the military captured Hussein, have Americans forgotten that it was Osama Bin Laden who killed more than 3,000 people on American soil? \nThere is no proven link between Hussein and Bin Laden, there have been no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and the American death toll in Iraq continues to rise. President George W. Bush campaigned as a man against "nation building," yet nation building is exactly what we're doing in Iraq. As citizens, we should ask our government to allow the United Nations a larger role in rebuilding Iraq. We should also ask our government to find the real enemy: Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the man responsible for 9/11, not Saddam Hussein. Congratulations on the capture of Hussein, but please focus on the actual threat to our nation.\nJustin Willingham\nJunior
Studies cite cell phone hazards\n"Currently, there is no research that shows banning cell phones leads to fewer accidents; there is no real proof to suggest that talking while driving is unsafe; and there is even data to suggest that turning the dial on the radio is more dangerous. Until there is direct evidence that cell phones cause accidents, this ban is simply not needed." (IDS Staff Editorial, Monday, Jan. 12, 2004)\nPerhaps the IDS staff is not aware of the following studies:\nIn 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine found that using a cellular telephone increased the risk of collision by four times compared to when a cellular phone was not being used (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/336/7/453.)\nA University of Utah study in 2003, while not saying that cell phone use causes accidents, concluded that, regardless of the cell phone model (hand-held or handless), conversing on cell phones while driving leads to "inattention blindness," or the inability to recognize objects that the driver sees (such as pedestrians, cars braking in front of the subject, etc.) (http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/03/jan/cellphone.html,\nhttp://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/03/jan/nsc.html). This study will be published in the March 2003 issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.\nWhile these studies do not specifically say that talking on cell phones causes accidents, they do conclude that talking on cell phones, regardless of the cell phone type (hand-held and hand-free), does cut response time substantially. This response time is critical for safe driving practices. Laws already exist that prohibit driving while under the influence of alcohol, which decreases response time. Saying that there is no ban needed, whether or not it is true, is making a sweeping, uninformed statement. Please make an effort to show that the IDS staff have at least made an attempt to research the opposite side of a story I found the links cited above just by using a standard Internet search engine, and it took me all of 30 seconds to find information to rebut the IDS editorial staff's claim.\nSarah Pietraszek-Mattner\nGraduate Student
Quit printing online references\nI just got a big fat expensive-looking phone directory in my dorm mailbox. With all the info accessible online, it appears someone still felt a need to use up massive amounts of paper in order to send out tens of thousands of IU phone books. Inconceivable.\nThis is not the only case of outright waste, it's simply the last straw that forced me finally to speak up. Another example: If INSITE has all the available class information and more, why does a paper copy need to be sent out every semester? With the incredible effort IU has made to make this an all encompassing Internet-connected campus, what excuse can justify the blatant massacre of trees in this well-aware and educated community? It is such short-sighted indifference that is one of our world's greatest enemies. I am sending this to the registrar, and am submiting an additional copy of this brief spasm of my wrath to IDS -- online, not on paper!\nI challenge IUB to reconsider its future policy.\nDov Rhodes\nFreshman
