GEO doesn't stand for all grad students\nAs a graduate student employee, I would like to express my concern for some of the wording in the Sept. 10 article about graduate students who gathered in Dunn Meadow to protest for dental benefits ("Graduate students fight for insurance"). The article refers to the Graduate Employees Organization as the "current representation for grad student employees." This classification of the GEO is very misleading. Since "representative" often implies a person or group that has been delegated authority to deliberate on behalf of a constituency, the wording may lead readers to the conclusion that the GEO has in some manner been given representative authority by the IU graduate student employees. This is simply not the case, and the distinction should have been more clearly stated in the article. The only organization that has been given representative authority by either the graduate student body as a whole or by the graduate student employees in particular is the Graduate and Professional Students Organization. The GPSO has a Benefit Committee that works closely and quite effectively with the University's administration in negotiating health care benefits for all of the IU graduate students. Furthermore, when the topic of unionizing has been brought up within this representative body, support for unionization has fallen well short of a majority. Your article would have given a better perspective on the issue of both unionization and graduate student benefits had you taken the time to interview those GPSO representatives who actually do negotiate benefits with the administration. \nPerhaps in the future your readership would be better served by regular reporting of GPSO meetings and clear delineation between small independent groups and true representative bodies.\nNicholas Remmes\nGraduate student
Truth over rhetoric\nFor an editorial board so concerned about the lesbian community being used as political pawns, I thought it was ironic that the Indiana Daily Student intentionally spun its editorial to drive a wedge between Mitch Daniels and the gay and lesbian community ("Gettin' Dirty," Sept. 15). The IDS used inaccuracies and flat-out lies to promote its liberal agenda and played politics with the gay and lesbian community. \nFirst, it correctly reported that Daniels has hosted closed meetings with traditionally Democrat groups for the past year. It then incorrectly reported that the meeting with the gay and lesbian community was different because Daniels invited neither the media nor included it on his public schedule. Do I need to define a closed meeting for you? All of Mitch's constituency group meetings were conducted in the same fashion, and all were closed to the media and public. \nNext, the editorial claimed no evidence was found that traced the Democrats to the event invitation covertly sent to conservatives throughout the state via e-mail. But according to an Indianapolis Star report, "Jerame Davis, a 29-year-old student at IU-Purdue University Indianapolis and a computer operations worker, said he traced the e-mail to the Democrats. 'I think it's outrageous,' Davis said, who leans toward the Democratic Party. 'Mitch Daniels is giving a good-faith effort to reach out'" (Sept. 7).\nFinally, the editorial claims by the way Daniels handled this latest situation that he'll only play happy host when nobody's watching. The truth is, Daniels represents a throwback to the days where politicians believed building personal relationships, not grandstanding, was the key to reaching voters. People are so accustomed to the grandstanding style of Gov. Kernan's administration that some (including the IDS) don't recognize how refreshing a more personal approach to politics can be. \nI believe the IDS owes an apology to both the Mitch Daniels campaign and the readers of this newspaper. Your inaccurate and partisan editorial is a disservice to those who look to the IDS for honest reporting. I know many of you aspire to be serious journalists someday. You will achieve success only when you place the truth above partisan rhetoric.\nAndrew Lauck\nSophomore
Stop stereotyping feminists\nIn his column ("Calling Mr. Manners," Sept. 14), Felipe Maya not only shows his ignorance about what it means to be feminist but also the difference between "chivalry" and "having manners."\nChivalry is not about merely being polite. If it were about politeness, one would hold the door open for the person behind them, regardless of that person's biological sex. Chivalry is a collection of traditions held over from a time when they were part of a larger sociopolitical schema used to oppress women by stigmatizing them as weak, delicate creatures to be protected and kept inside the home at all times. Much as a person hanging a Confederate flag outside their home is being offensive to racial minorities regardless of the flag-bearer's intent, women and men who insist upon the continuation of "chivalry" are hailing back to a sexist era. In doing so, they are affronting those who believe in the sexual equality for which feminists have fought for many decades, and continue to fight to this day.\nNo, Maya, feminists do not believe you are "thinking about oppressing women, killing things and sex" when holding open a door for a woman. We do, however, feel that by attempting to reinstitute the outdated system of chivalry, you are attempting to reinvigorate one of the many structures used to oppress women. There is no reason to men to hold the door open for women specifically; people should hold doors for one another as a matter of politeness. Making it a sex-based act only has the purpose of re-enacting rituals from a sexist period, which, regardless of the intent, carries the danger of causing the re-institution of the systems of female oppression that were used in that period. While your individual act may not seem to have such power, such sexist-based structures must be dismantled on the individual level.\nInstead of stereotyping feminists with straw-man arguments to prove your point, it might do you good to study the history of feminism and sexual oppression, to see how small, seemingly harmless rituals can add up to a society based on misogyny.\nBenjamin Barone\nSenior
The death of reason and evidence\nEdward Delp ("The NEW Vietnam Conflict" Sept. 10) joins the recent fray regarding John Kerry's activities following the war and concludes that they are demonstrable proof that he is unfit to defend this country. Delp's and others' criticisms of Kerry's testimony before Congress can mean either of several things. First, these critics dispute that American soldiers ever committed atrocities in the first place, thereby negating the verity of countless testimonies regarding My Lai and other incidents. Or, they accept these things as having happened, but argue that a) they were morally justified, or b) they were "mistakes," but Kerry still should have kept his mouth shut since we were at war. This resembles the reasoning of those who castigated reporters for revealing the abuses at Abu Gharib. I'm curious to know where Delp stands. \nHe also criticizes Kerry's participation in an anti-war demonstration in which veterans threw their medals over a barricade. It strikes me as arrogant that a college student would chastise veterans who risked their lives for this country and became disenchanted after seeing their friends die for a cause they could no longer comprehend. Underlying Delp's criticisms is a veiled defense of the Vietnam War, but since he is too lazy to articulate such a defense, he merely resorts to castigating these veterans for exercising their first amendment rights.\nHe further criticizes Kerry for denouncing "U.S. action in Central America, the Soviet Union (I'm not sure what he is referring to here) and the current Iraq crisis." Regarding Iraq, Delp is wrong. Kerry voted for giving the president the power to go to war but has since criticized that war's planning and execution, rightly or wrongly. Concerning Central America, I can only guess that Delp is referring to American military assistance to dictators in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, most of which wound up in the hands of death squads who murdered thousands in the name of "anti-communism." But Delp doesn't specify which actions he is referring to, as this would require him to coherently articulate his positions on these issues. He instead follows the recent trend in journalism by leveling ad hominem attacks at his target rather than countering his positions with evidence and reason.\nBrandon Wilkening\nGraduate student
Residents' rights\nThe cavalier tone and sarcastic reasoning from the student editorial Sept. 9, should render it unworthy of response. However, I am one of the homeowners who feel sickened by what ugly (not just unsightly) sofas (and stacks of bottles and cans and papers everywhere except in containers) do to the visual quality of our life in old neighborhoods of Bloomington. Many of us have lived here for years and have invested our money and effort in making our homes attractive. As the editorial states, students are semi-transient. Indeed they are! I believe once these students are away from Bloomington (and have matured), they will be good citizens in their own communities and neighborhoods, making attractive and keeping clean their own places of which they can be proud. In addition to the ugliness, the filth and accompanying rodents and bugs from these slum environments are very sad outgrowths of students' "rights" and choices to be poor neighbors. Rights? Where are the rights of long-time homeowners?\nSarah Robinson\nElm Heights neighborhood resident
Truth is the first casualty\nIn Edward Delp's column "The NEW Vietnam Conflict" (Sept. 10), the author makes several misleading and flat-out false assertions about John Kerry. Delp charges that, in his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry "accused his fellow veterans of war crimes ..." This is simply untrue. \nIn his testimony, John Kerry reported public confessions to war crimes he had heard from over 150 veterans during the so called "Winter Soldier Investigation" in Detroit in February 1971. Referring to these confessions, Kerry stated: "They told stories that...". However, the recent TV ads misleadingly omit this reference, hence suggesting that Kerry himself made these statements as accusations. Unfortunately, Edward Delp uncritically repeats this distortion of the truth. \nFurther, Delp charges that Kerry "proposed HUGE cuts in intelligence spending, such as his 1995 bill that would have cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget." This is a perfect example of meaningless numbers taken out of context. In the early 1990s, the nation had to shift from an overblown Cold War defense budget to new, yet undefined, challenges. According to the Aspin Commission, a bi-partisan panel created in 1996 to assess the efficacy of U.S. intelligence activities, "finding reductions (in the intelligence budget) is critical if funds are to be found for the investments in the intelligence capabilities that the nation will need in the future." Since 1996, John Kerry has in fact supported $200 billion in intelligence funding.\nFinally, it is beyond me why Delp reprimands the Kerry campaign for bringing to the attention of the FEC connections between the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" and the Bush/Cheney campaign. Would Delp dare to ridicule a person who calls the police after being robbed? There is plenty of evidence of direct connections: Now former -Bush lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg gave legal advise to the group; the veterans are funded by prominent Texan Bush supporter Bob Perry; the Bush/Cheney campaign Florida headquarters in Gainesville distributed fliers of the veterans group. And so on. It appears that not only in war, but also in election campaigns, truth is the first casualty. Hopefully, the Indiana Daily Student will not take further part in this.\nJohn Baesler\nGraduate student
Book 'em\nOnce again, not more than 15 minutes ago, at one of the crosswalks between Ballantine Hall and the Indiana Memorial Union, I was riding my bicycle and nearly collided with two coed pedestrians. According to Indiana state traffic laws, I clearly possessed the right-of-way since, upon arriving at that point, there were no pedestrians crossing the street and no oncoming traffic in the opposite direction. \nTwo young women, after having looked in my direction and, in particular, looking directly at me on my oncoming bicycle, decided to interrupt my right-of-way and cross to the Ballantine Hall side of the street, directly in front of me.\nI heard the first traffic offender mumble something to the second traffic offender -- something in reference to me -- as she looked my way. Though I do not know what she said, by her conduct, I've no doubt that she thought that I was in the wrong and they were in the right. \nI am mentioning this incident because it is one of many such incidences that I and other bicyclist-students have encountered.\nOne simple solution I offer, in order to help our esteemed campus and Bloomington police departments, would be to allow for certified law-abiding citizens to write and serve such pedestrians tickets that must be registered and applied to the aforementioned traffic offenders' bursar accounts as non-negotiable traffic offense payments which, if repeated two or three times more during their entire enrollment in the IU system, must be put on their public criminal record.\nYes, I know that such a solution sounds ridiculous. Still, if such pedestrians as these two young ladies would simply use their God-given brains and show some more consideration for their own safety and that of others, such a solution proposal would not even be necessary in order to prevent the potential consequences of their decision to break a state and city traffic regulation.\nKen Ebacher\nGraduate student
Truth should be foremost\nI am responding to Edward Delp's Sept. 10 article titled "The NEW Vietnam conflict." Even with an opinion piece such as this one, the author's first obligation should be to the truth, no matter which side of the political spectrum he writes for. Whether or not the author intended on deceiving your readers or not, the piece you have presented offers a slandered view saturated with factual errors and half-truths. \nIn paragraph four, the author claims that, "In (Kerry's) testimony, he accused his fellow veterans of war crimes, which included the killing of women and children. Evidence of these allegations has not been forthcoming." This of course is not true, there has been clear documentation of war crimes in Vietnam. Factcheck.org, a nonprofit, non-partisian organization aimed at lowering the level of deception in U.S. politics, lists several documented cases of Vietnam war crimes. To name one, the massacre of Son Thang, which resulted in the "court-martial of four U.S. Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing of 16 women and children on the night of Feb. 19, 1970."\nIn paragraph five, the author reports that, "Kerry proposed HUGE cuts in intelligence spending, such as his 1995 bill that would've cut $1.5 billion ..." To cite www.Factcheck.org again, this "HUGE" cut in intelligence spending, which was planned to take place little by little over the course of five years, "would have amounted to a little over 1 percent" of the intelligence budget. One percent is hardly what I would call a "HUGE" cut.\nLastly, in paragraph six, the author states that Kerry "has gladly ridden the wave of anti-Bush ads made by www.moveon.org" and again points out in paragraph eight Kerry's "silence as liberal groups slander the president." This here is a blatant lie. To cite an article on www.CNN.com, written by The Associated Press Aug. 17: "John Kerry on Tuesday condemned a television ad that criticizes President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard." \nIt is a newspaper's job to inform not deceive its readers. I have tried my best to show where this piece has failed. \nScott S. Mandarich\nFreshman
Librarians mistaken for book ban activists\nI felt compelled to respond to the column "Let's get subversive" by Kehla West that appeared in the Sept. 16 edition of the Indiana Daily Student. In her column, Ms. West discussed the American Library Association's most recent list of the 100 most frequently banned books. I agree with most of the points she made, but one detail bothered me. In the first paragraph, Ms. West stated that she was "ready to honk off parents, librarians and ministers." \nI would like to say that both of my parents are librarians and, as a consequence, I have known many, many librarians and been exposed to the key issues facing libraries today. One of those issues, of course, is people wanting the public libraries to get rid of books they deem "inappropriate" or "subversive". By implying that her column would anger librarians, Ms. West gave the mistaken impression that librarians were responsible for wanting to keep "subversive" books out of their own libraries when in fact the opposite is true.\nLibrarians tend to be some of the most liberal people one could ever meet. They fervently believe in free speech and the right to privacy. For instance, one of my mother's co-workers was arrested for refusing to turn over a patron's library records to law enforcement. In Ohio, librarians fought to keep filtering software off of public computers in their libraries. Librarians are our allies in the fight against banning books, so maybe it's not such a good idea to "honk" them off.\nCaroline Gilroy\nFreshman
Discriminating is still legal\nIn the reporting on the low-profile attendant to Mitch Daniels' meeting with members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community, one crucial fact has eluded mention: Anyone known to have attended the meeting could be fired for that fact alone.\nIn Indiana, you see, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone in the workforce simply because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. The privacy of the meeting, violated by a leak, was a necessity for the confident participation of those who were not high-profile GLBT advocates accustomed to publicity. \nWhen someone sitting at a computer linked to the server of the Indiana Democratic Party crafted an anonymous identity on Yahoo and used it fraudulently to invite anti-gay conservatives from around the state to this meeting, their action threatened the security of several specific attendees who then could not attend.\nChris Douglas\nIndianapolis resident
Trying to remember what matters \nI agree with Waddell Hamer (Sept. 13). Why ARE our politicians spending so much time on matters that have nothing to do with the horrendous problems facing our nation? Maybe no one has plans for dealing with nuclear nations, the environment, the oil situation, health coverage. I think we need more bipartisan panels like the one which studied the Sept. 11 attack. Unfortunately, it is the American way to wait for problems to become big deals before anyone gets exercised.\nJean Rhoads\nBloomington resident
