RPS miscalculates off-campus options Last month, RPS put up signs comparing prices of living on and off campus. These signs blatantly misled students, claiming that an off-campus apartment costs more than on-campus living. In reality, students can find comfortable accommodations off campus for far less per month than any dorm. Let us note already, that with the off-campus apartment, the prices are for 12 months, while the on-campus figures are for only 10 months. Ten months? This is already a lie because the regular school year is only nine months. And you can't access your room during holiday breaks! Using figures from the apartment complex where I live, we can compare the actual costs of an off-campus apartment to the prices RPS claims on the flyer. While students have hundreds of options for off-campus living, I feel that these numbers represent the average. For gas/heat, RPS suggests $50-$100/month per person. In actuality, it's more like $15-$20/month per person. Water/Sewage: RPS says $25-$30 per person/month. "Survey says" ... nothing. It's already included in the monthly rent. Local telephone service: $29.95 to $36.95. Who has a local phone number anymore? Just use your cell phone. Electricity: RPS says $40-$80 per person/month. Try $15-$20. Cable TV: RPS says $35/month. Once again, cable fees are already included in the rent. Finally, Internet. RPS says $26.95 to $44.95/month. Wrong again. Ethernet is also included under the rent. Plus, this apartment has its own outdoor pool, basketball courts, weight room, game room and computer room. I'm also not paying for cockroaches, like I was in the dorms, and when (if ever) there is a problem, work orders are usually fixed the same day, not weeks later. Moreover, my friends don't get tickets for parking in my apartment lot. Speaking of parking, buses come by to take me to campus every ten minutes. Clearly, RPS has exaggerated the costs of off-campus living, which can actually be cheaper per month than dorm living. This flyer is pure propaganda to persuade students to stay in the dorms. Do not be deceived, RPS is not working with the student's best interest in mind.
Ethan Ax - Senior
Who IS George Bush? Blanks raises several good issues in his column, "Who IS John Kerry?" (March 5). However, Blanks' criticism of Kerry's character and intelligence -- either "spineless" or "easily duped" -- is so over-the-top that I have to respond. Bush has justified the war in Iraq by claiming the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Kerry seems to agree. Yet the difference is, Bush made "better off without him" an element of our foreign policy -- one that begs the question: "Who's next?" Kerry's statements reasonably suggest that such an unthinking, gut-level stance in Iraq could not but generate unthinking, gut-level responses. Kerry's vote on Iraq was approval for a single military act -- no regrets -- but not support for that policy. Few doubted the war would not end in victory. The occupation that followed would be the problem, which it has proven to be, further complicated by our inaccurate claims of WMDs. Kerry, like us all, trusted that our president would rely on facts, and Kerry is critical because our president did not. Bush has responded that he did not mislead anyone; it is just not his job to question the experts. Nor is it his responsibility that "No Child Left Behind" has no funding to make it effective. Kerry has responded by questioning that sort of leadership. And Blanks, like many conservative commentators, implies that those seeking to hold a conservative accountable are merely trying to find something to blame on him. Do we know John Kerry? Maybe, maybe not. But I recall how, in the last election, Bush would tell us very little about who he had been before his candidacy; even now we don't know for sure he was truly "on duty" in the National Guard. Surely we should ask the same question of him: Who IS George Bush? Do we know, even now?John Cash - Graduate student
Let the student voice speak The term student government is an interesting juxtaposition of words. They are students and they look like a government. In reality, IU Student Association is not a governing body, rather one that should lobby for student interest. Every once in awhile, however, student politicians, eager to grasp at perceived power, engage in actions that continue to erode the notion of student representation. A group of candidates, who clearly were not the choice of the students, along with a surprisingly inept Elections Commission, are using the student judicial system in an attempt to thwart the will of the students. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if the rightful winners will take office or if an unelected group will be granted the business cards, parking passes, cubicle offices and neat titles that are their obvious true desires. I have been gone from IU and out of IUSA for two years now. However, when you still have friends involved in the organization and you were involved in it as long as I was, you find yourself casually following its major events from afar. Needless to say, I was shocked at the irresponsible action of the IUSA Elections Commission. This blatant disregard of the student voice provides more support to the growing chorus of people who believe student government at IU is an ineffective organization that does not represent student interest. IUSA has a responsibility to represent the students and the Elections Commission has the responsibility to ensure that the election is done in a fair manner. Throwing out a ticket based on 600 T-shirts that remained in a box is a gross abuse of power. It is especially disheartening because interest in this particular IUSA election was higher than any election in recent history, given the high voter turnout. Instead of using this opportunity to capitalize on student interest in IUSA, the Elections Commission has decided that votes do not matter and they, in their infinite wisdom, are better able to select next year's student leaders than the students themselves. Instead of standing for all students, IUSA, if this decision holds up, will stand for the six people on the commission. I hope the IUSA Supreme Court steps in to reverse this appalling decision. Furthermore, I hope that those who supported other tickets will bow to the students' will and support a Big Red administration. The election is over, the students have spoken, and the time for politics has ended. Those who lost should graciously accept defeat and not usurp the leadership positions of IUSA. Now is the time to unite behind Big Red and help fulfill the mission of IUSA.Jake Oakman '02 - Former student body president
People love cats, too Brian Matzke was right in the March 3 IDS when he said that IU should look into allowing students to keep their pets. However, he missed a few details. I miss my cat dearly, and would love the chance to bring him on campus just as much as any dog lover would want their dog.Steven Guthrie - Junior
Bible sits this one out The recent so-called chaos created by homosexuals in obtaining marriage licenses across this country has put me (in) a position where as a public affairs student, I have to put in my two cents. Although I do not agree with homosexuality, I disagree with the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals. A purely biblical rationale for opposition to gay marriage does not cut it when we are talking about denying a group the right to secular marriage -- a legal state entirely independent of religious involvement in a country that has as one of its primary features the separation of church and state. If religious groups and institutions chose not to recognize these homosexual marriages, then that's their problem. It seems as though many Americans opposed to gay marriages have failed to recognize the difference between a state's recognition of marriages and the rights that flow from this recognition, i.e., property rights, health insurance benefits, the right to participate in health care decision making etc., and church-sanctioned marriages. In the eyes of the state, marriage defines economic rights and responsibilities between spouses. However, I have yet to hear solid arguments from opponents of gay marriages who recognize that there is a difference between a state-sanctioned and church-sanctioned union. Instead, there are various assertions based on scriptures and the concept of sin -- these are based on the various belief systems of different individuals. Since we have separation of church and state in this country, and gay marriage is not being imposed on any churches, sects or faiths, I invite opponents of same-sex marriage (and others) to address this issue without using religion as the lens which needlessly muddles the issue. In conclusion, I would like to quote the Rev. Jesse Jackson: "I don't have to attend the ceremony, but I don't have the right to stop the ceremony." And as for me, I don't agree with the lifestyle, but if any of my homosexual friends ever do decide to get married and invite me to the wedding, I'll attend. Outside of religious beliefs, who's to say that same-sex marriage is wrong? Who's to say it's right? Not me. I am not gay and would never participate in gay relations, but I can't say it's wrong either. Hey, I have friends that are gay; and frankly, even though they are attracted to the same sex, they are as human as I am.Nyankor Matthew - Graduate student
