Jordan River Forum

Coffee houses address greater concerns
It is interesting that in an article about Bloomington's coffee houses ("The Simple Pleasures" Jan. 22) staff writer Jenica Schultz failed to mention a huge issue many coffee consumers are concerned with -- fair trade -- coffee that has been fairly traded with the producer, assuring that no matter what the current market value of coffee, the farmers will be fairly compensated to maintain a living wage. Also, not only was the incorrect address listed for the Theater Cafe (which is actually 112 E. Kirkwood Ave.) but never was it mentioned that the Theater Cafe specializes in exclusively fair trade, organic, shade-grown coffee from Equal Exchange. Soma coffee house also offers fair trade coffee. It is unfortunate in a world of corporate greed, as Schultz mentioned Soma challenges with its logo and style, that fair trade was not addressed in this article. Tess Hannah
Sophomore Getting political about getting political
I'm glad Jack has discovered politics ("Jack Gets Political" Jan. 22), but I worry about him in his quest to knock Bush out of the White House. If his sole goal for the next election is to knock Bush out of the White House, he is going to be the first to congratulate Bush on his re-election. No one should vote for a candidate just so their opponent doesn't win. You should vote for a candidate because you believe in that person's ability to govern. Jack admits that Dean "seems untruthful" and resembles "a sci-fi character who is posing as a human but is actually an alien or a robot." However, if he can beat President Bush, he's good enough for the presidency much less the party nomination. Well, nothing is more robotic than acting upon a set of given commands. In this case, the command is "Remove Bush from the White House." The robotic response is, "Yes, I will elect any Democrat who can beat Bush for the oval office," even if he appears untrustworthy and not fully qualified for the job. If diehard democrats really want to win the White House in 2004, they should turn off their power switches and turn back on their thinking caps. What made Democratic leaders of the past like FDR, Harry S. Truman and JFK so respected is they controlled their environment instead of reacting to it. The Democratic voters in this year's primaries need to make up their own minds about who they want as their leader instead of letting Bush's policies do it for them. If they do that, then they have a chance of convincing the rest of moderate America that they have the better man for the job. Aaron O'Brien
Sophomore Democrats don't always play dirty
Perhaps Cameron Thibos can get facts straight before writing an editorial. First, Thibos is wrong when he said the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. Yes, they did lose seats in both the House and the Senate, but the Democrats lost the majority in the Senate. Also, Thibos focuses his editorial on two Democrats (Kerry and Dean) and applies their competition to all Democrats. John Edwards placed second in the Iowa caucuses because he ran on a platform of positivism, something the voters in Iowa obviously responded to since he was a relative long-shot before the caucuses. As quoted from the CNN Web site, John Edwards cites the reason for his success: "I think what went right is this incredible response to a message that's finally getting through: my message of hope and optimism, and trying to build one America where everyone gets a chance to do what they're capable of doing." Definitely a positive platform, not a mudslinging one that Thibos universalizes for all Democrats. It's an election year; competition is always fierce when a shot at the White House is on the line. Perhaps Cameron can go back and think about the brutal campaign Bush and McCain fought when trying to win their party's nomination for the 2000 election. Just because your boy Bush is the incumbent doesn't mean that he didn't play dirty and won't play dirty again. Jesse Pace
Sophomore Dealing with insurance cuts
Students returning to campus last September may have been surprised to find that the option to buy voluntary health insurance through IU had been cut to just one plan, the Basic plan provided through MEGALife Insurance Company. Previously, students without prior coverage had the choice of the Basic Plus plan which in 2002-2003 had an annual premium of $907 and a maximum lifetime benefit of $100,000, as well as 100 percent coverage for expenses accrued at a preferred service provider. This fall, students found their choices limited to what is commonly referred to as "catastrophic" or "accident" insurance which covers 70 percent of "usual and customary charges," has a maximum lifetime benefit of $75,000 and an annual premium of $301. Despite the fact that 808 students were enrolled in the more expensive Basic Plus Plan in 2002-03, administrators decided to cut the program without warning students that the plan would be canceled. In support of all IU students who failed to receive notification of the voluntary plan changes, the Graduate and Professional Student Organization (GPSO) recently passed a resolution calling for "the Basic Plus plan or an equivalent plan to be reinstated as soon as possible." We believe that it is essential for all IU students to have adequate coverage options available at an affordable price. We also request that the University be open with students about important changes to their insurance plans. In an effort to bring about this spirit of open dialogue between students and administrators, the GPSO will be hosting an Insurance Forum with expert panelists who will be able to answer student questions about MEGALife insurance plans, navigating the IU Health Center and learning to talk the insurance "lingo" with future employers or service providers. If you have questions about how your insurance works, what's covered, how to get reimbursed or simply want to share your experiences with health care at IU, make plans to attend the GPSO Insurance Forum on Tuesday, January 27th starting at 7:00pm in the Whittenberger Auditorium at the IMU. Students may also submit health care questions prior to the Forum to gradcare@indiana.edu. Melissa Adams
Graduate Student
GPSO Assistant Moderator Free trade propagates Cambodia conditions
Chris Hintz's column "Sweatshops as Saviors" (Jan. 21) argues that sweatshops are acceptable because the proliferating sex trade in Cambodia is the only alternative for female workers. Chris does not understand that sweatshops are merely one evil of free trade, which destroys the economies of poor nations and creates conditions for worker exploitation and a growing sex trade. Agricultural corporations dump cheap products into the local market, forcing local farmers out of business and purchasing their land. The same tactic can be used for any other industry, and the local economy is systematically devastated. Sweatshops move in and drive wages down, offering a pathetically meager salvation for citizens of a nation devastated by free trade. The nature of a sweatshop economy prevents conditions from improving. The sweatshops are established in "export processing zones." Owners pay no taxes and are not accountable for violating labor or environmental laws. The government of Cambodia will gain no revenue, and the only money that will be invested into the local economy is the poverty wage made by sweatshop workers. The factories can be moved at will as more countries open themselves to the free market sham and offer labor forces that will work for even less. Cambodia began market reforms in 1989, making itself vulnerable to powerful corporations looking for cheap labor, and falling victim to the above process. Where there was once a local economy there is now a country with sweatshops as virtually the only means of employment for women. Chris fails to associate these two hopeless employment options which have ravaged poor nations as a result of the same political-economic forces. He assumes that the free trade regulations which allow sweatshops in Cambodia are natural, inevitable market forces. Free trade is a result of non-democratic institutions controlled by corporate interest which have usurped the autonomy of countries from Cambodia to the United States. Sweatshops can't stop the sex trade; both will flourish together if we fail to question institutions such as the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank that continue to force economic collapse in "developing nations." Adam Shackelford
Sophomore IDS causes news anorexia
Since my freshman year, I've noticed a steady decline in the quality of the IDS. From the full-page ad for Playboy so gracefully featured in the Sports section the very first week of the fall semester, to the full page ad for the Bloomington Shuttle "drunk" bus on what should be the second page of the Nation and World section last week, the IDS has successfully managed to fill its pages with anything but news. Examining the IDS would leave a news-hungry student still aching for that steak of information. Furthermore, the articles that are selected for publication only actively take up a lot of space not saying much of anything. For example, in "Crews Attempt to Contain Norwegian Oil Spill," (Associated Press, Jan. 22) the author clarifies three times how many people died, but not once does it reveal how much oil was spilled, whose oil it was or what the accessed damage is to either the economy or the environment. To further emphasize, let me express that this article was one of only two in that section. The IDS, sadly, has only been following the footsteps of mainstream media. As more events happen worldwide that affect us as a public, the more our access to a confident, unbiased news source is limited. Has a war on information been declared that we should be fighting? Amanda Barker
Senior Perversion trumps divorce
Amanda Peterson's letter ("Questioning Values," Jan. 13) is so typical of the arguments that support homosexuality that it merits examination. She claims that there is no data regarding the claim that traditional families make communities safer. I doubt this is true, but it is irrelevant. Often governments must act without good data. I doubt there is conclusive evidence for gun-control laws making communities safer, but the government is required to make a decision in this regard. It is argued that a ban on same-sex marriage would amount to the state endorsing religion. Why? We have age limits and laws against bigamy and statutory rape, and no one considers this an establishment of a religion. Next, the argument is that everyone's civil rights are endangered by this discrimination against homosexuals. But there is no discrimination of persons here, only of behavior. Every person is afforded precisely the same rights. The discrimination is merely that not every type of sexual behavior is given the title and benefits of marriage. The state must retain its ability to discriminate behaviors, honoring some and punishing others, this is the nature of government. Finally, traditional families are attacked because of divorce. This makes no sense. Divorce and abusive marriages are examples of our failures to live out our values, not an example of a failing of the value. We have missed our ideal, but we need not abandon it. There is good reason for our government to protect traditional marriage, as the state has an interest in preserving a healthy environment for the raising of its next generation. To extend marriage to include other types of relationships would amount to our government licensing and promoting unusual and unfruitful sexual acts. At the very least, this would be a startlingly risky course of action. I expect that the next generation would suffer much more from this perversion than our generation has from the failures in our parents' marriages. Eric Wilson
Graduate Student