Everyone needs a good civics lesson\nThere are a couple things that can be extracted from Dr. Arnold Shuster's letter in the Sept. 28 Indiana Daily Student ("Draft May Be Coming"). However, they are not what the writer intended. The first is that the liberal Democrats will stop at nothing to misrepresent facts to scare groups into voting for them that they could not otherwise convince. The second is that having a Ph.D. does not make you immune from intellectual dishonesty.\nThere are many misrepresentations and omissions in this letter, but let's start with the one thing that Dr. Shuster actually gets correct. It is correct that there is pending legislation (S89 and HR163) to institute a draft. The fact is that these bills were introduced by Democrats, Senator Fritz Hollings and Representative Charles Rangel, to scare the young people into thinking the president wants them to be drafted. Nothing is further from the truth. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is quoted as saying, "There is absolutely no need for the United States of America to go back to the draft. In my judgment, it would be a big mistake." The president has also openly echoed these sentiments. The truth is that an all volunteer force is what is most desirable for combat. There is also no need to force people to serve. The army can increase its incentives and benefits to attract more volunteers.\nAlso, Dr. Shuster, have you never had a civics lesson? Dr. Shuster wants us all to assume that just because this is proposed legislation it will immediately become law. Not quite. Both of these bills have not made it out of committee, and if they ever came up for a vote, they would be voted down thanks to Republican majorities in Congress. Even if it passed, we know from the administration's statements that President Bush would veto the bill.\nIt is important that young people vote, but we must make informed decisions. Whenever someone tells you something that scares you but they don't have much evidence to back up the claim, investigate on your own. Make your vote based on facts, not urban legends.\nBrent Smith\nJunior
Cranky review doesn't fly\nBrandon Morley must have woken up on the wrong side of bed the morning he wrote his review of "Crazy for You" ("I'm not 'crazy for you,'" Sept. 30). He criticized the show for having a thin plot, songs that don't advance the aforementioned plot and a general sense of outdatedness. What he failed to mention is that the show has some of the most well-known songs in American musical theater, such as "You Can't Take That Away From Me," "Someone To Watch Over Me" and "Embraceable You." The plot, needless to say, still holds up well -- it holds up better today than many movies and TV shows made now will hold up 50 to 60 years hence. The audience on Wednesday night was laughing out loud at the jokes. Too bad Mr. Morley couldn't just let the plot go, sit back and enjoy the music and dance. \nDonna Drucker\nGraduate student
Make an educated decision\nThis letter is in response to a previous letter to the editor from Dr. Arnold Shuster in your September 28 issue regarding the implementation of a new military draft ("Draft may be coming"). Yes, there is currently a bill in the House Armed Services Subcommittee that proposes a new military draft. However, the legislation that Dr. Shuster brings up was actually proposed in January of 2003 (not as recently as Dr. Shuster makes it seem). It was also proposed and is sponsored by a Democratic congressman from New York, Charles Rangel. However, in his letter, Dr. Shuster attempted to place blame on the Republican Party by stating that "there is pending legislation in the Republican-controlled House and Senate ..." \nDr. Shuster also states that "the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now while the public's attention is on the elections." The Bush administration has no part in this bill in any form. In fact, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters way back in January of 2003, "(The Bush administration is) not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all." The bill itself has gone nowhere since its proposal over a year and a half ago and has only 14 co-sponsors in the House, an incredibly low number. \nI think students like me who can be easily swayed by scare tactics like this need to be presented with the real facts of the military draft bill. I agree with Dr. Shuster that all students should go out and vote this November. I just wish that students could be given real facts before making an educated decision. I encourage all voters to really look into the issues of both parties before casting their vote. \nKristoffer Gray\nSenior
Misguided anger\nThe column titled "Crime against democracy" (Oct. 1) by Daniel Hiester is a crime against economics and an unfortunate example of misguided anger. Despite the conspiracy theories, Mr. Hiester has chosen to believe the energy crisis in California was not Enron's doing nor was it due to any failure on the part of the Bush administration. California, despite double-digit growth in demand, made no significant investment in new power generation in the decade preceding the crisis. Econ 101: When supply does not keep pace with demand, a market is prone to higher prices.\nA hurricane, which cannot be prevented or controlled, is far different from the effects of poor economic planning on the part of California.\nThere is a reason why Californians had a recall election to replace Gov. Gray Davis. The author's anger at President Bush is simply misdirected. After all, Adam Smith is the one that started all this with his "invisible hand." Be mad at him. That would be just as logical.\nMatt O'Donoghue\nSenior
Go veg!\nIn regard to the Indiana Daily Student article "Vegans unhappy with Collins food" (Oct. 1), students who are upset with the quality and variety of vegetarian and vegan food at Collins' Edmundson Dining Hall might want to visit www.PETA2.com to find out how students at the University of California-Berkeley convinced school officials to offer new, improved vegan options in the cafeteria.\nA vegan diet not only helps students fight the dreaded "freshman 15" and other health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer, it saves countless animals from suffering. Animals on factory farms are confined in filthy cages, warehouses and sheds. Most never see the sun, breathe fresh air or feel grass under their feet. They are torn from their loving mothers and are debeaked, branded, dehorned and/or castrated without anesthetics. During slaughter, they are often dismembered while they're still fully conscious. Students can also visit www.GoVeg.com for more information about healthy, humane vegan diets and to order a free vegetarian starter kit.\nHeather Moore\nPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Situation was a set-up\nI just read Michael Malik's article on Scott Wells ("County councilman files lawsuit," Sept. 30). To me it all seemed quite clear from the very beginning that this was a "set-up." First, if Mr. Wells was doing something wrong (against the law), then why was the Indiana State Police called in? Why not the IU Police Department if in IU's jurisdiction, or the Bloomington Police Department, or even the Monroe County police. The mere fact that it was state police called into town, who the people were that reported on his actions, who they called and how it was handled? It all spoke of a political set-up to discredit Mr. Wells. How could he be convicted of operating a vehicle intoxicated when he was "not" intoxicated or even legally drunk? And since he volunteered to have a Breathalyzer test at Monroe County Jail, then he was not resisting to go with the police to have this done. Did the police handcuff him? If so, why? That would violate his rights, because he was "willing" to go to the Monroe County Jail, and did not require being handcuffed. Am I right? \nTo Mr. Scott Wells, I say good luck and God be with you. You were honest and politicians don't like honesty. Or to be put in their place. Power goes to their heads and they like to show everyone just how much they can do with that power in controlling everyone's lives, whether the public agrees with them or not. They don't care. They forget that we, the people, are their employers -- even though we have no say in what they do. Quite frankly, I do not believe that they should have the power they have on many issues. My freedom has and is violated, and they don't care. \nMr. Wells, thank you for standing up for what you believe in and willing to prove it. Too bad more politicians are not like you instead of snakes in the grass.\nI have and would vote for you anytime -- unless you became like the rest of the establishment.\nJo Ann Taylor\nStaff
Everyone is a Pink Panther\nMr. Dugdale cannot be a Rosa Parks figure of fabric as he so claims to be ("Joining the Pink Panthers," Sept. 29) when Abercrombie & Fitch -- current owner of hip white kids everywhere from ages 14 to 24 -- has made pink a major color in its recent line of merchandise. If he hasn't noticed, men all over campus are wearing pink shirts. My good friend Kyle had a purple ensemble on Friday evening, and he won rave reviews. I even heard a girl at a bar last weekend say that "guys who wear pink shirts are confident and secure." I'm all for social commentary and debate, and I see nothing wrong with males wearing pink shirts, but I'm tired of it being an issue -- because it really isn't. If you are a man and you wear pink, you are not by default homosexual, and you are not by default secure. In many cases you are probably just taking A&F's best advice for picking up girls. Or, in the case of Mr. Dugdale, maybe you're just whining about nothing because your friend is a dork.\nJohn Hamlin\nSenior
Bills sponsored by Democrats\nI just wanted to respond to a letter written by Arnold Shuster ("Draft may be coming," Sept. 28). I understand that most of his letter was encouraging young people to vote, which is a good thing no matter who you vote for. However,I was upset that he suggested that pending bills S89 and HR163 were suggested by the Republican Party. If he knew anything about the bills, he would know that they are both solely sponsored by Democrats. The House and Senate may be Republican-controlled, but that does not mean that Republicans are responsible for every bill that is suggested. As I said, I do agree with the fact that everyone should vote, but do your own research and find out about the issues that matter to you.\nBrittney Porter\nSophomore
No draft, no lies\nI was appalled after reading the Indiana Daily Student this morning. For the second consecutive day, there was a reference to the draft, with articles stating, "There is pending legislation in the Republican-controlled (Congress) that will time (the draft's) initiation ... as early as spring 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election." This was from a letter in the Jordan River Forum ("Draft may be coming," Sept. 28). While the author is correct in asserting that there are two identical draft bills (HR163 and S89) currently on the floor of both houses and that both houses have a Republican majority, he neglected to mention some very important facts.\nS89 is sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina. HR163 was introduced by Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York. That's interesting, considering that both houses are "controlled" by Republicans. Take note that Democrats are sponsoring these bills, not Republicans.\nThe current status of S89, according to thomas.loc.gov , a database run by the Library of Congress, is that the bill was "read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services." This is the most current action, and took place Jan. 7, 2003! HR163's latest action was "executive comment requested from Department of Defense" Feb. 3, 2003! While the site doesn't say what the Department of Defense's comment was, here's the gist: The United States Military has no need to reinstate the draft because there are more than enough volunteers to fill its needs for years to come. If the case were otherwise, some action would have to have taken place between February 2003 and now. Therefore, no draft is impending for spring 2005.\nFurthermore, countless political analysts testify that the goal of these bills' existence is to divert attention from the loyalty of their sponsors to the Democratic Party and to discredit President Bush, leading the public to believe he is "quietly" reinstating a draft, which neither he nor is party is doing. \nThis is all a ploy by uninformed partisans to mislead voters. Make sure you vote for the man who is doing nothing to reinstate the draft, George Bush.\nAndrew Schwenker\nFreshman
You break it, you buy it\nRestaurant reviewing seems like a lark -- "What? You eat out for a living? Where do I sign up?"\nThere's another side to it, however, that weighs more heavily. When you review a restaurant you are taking someone's livelihood into your hands. A great review can make a restaurant; a bad one can break it. Consistently bad restaurants should be brought to the public's attention, but there is a huge responsibility on the reviewer to get it right.\nIn his Sept. 29 review of Restaurant Tallent ("An acquired taste"), reviewer Adam Steer did not get it right. Since they opened Tallent last year, former IU students David and Kristen Tallent have worked hard to give Bloomington a first-rate dining experience. I have had some extraordinary meals at Tallent, and as I have come to know its two young proprietors, I have nothing but admiration for the terrific job they do.\nI myself love the horseradish-crusted tofu that Mr. Steer disparages. The sauce did not taste like peppercorns, as he notes, because (as the menu says) it is a green peppercorn sauce. Green peppercorns have a sharp and distinctive flavor all their own, but they don't taste like black peppercorns. A professional restaurant reviewer would have checked his facts.\nClearly Mr. Steer has done his homework on the subject of gazpacho, but when he has eaten out more widely, he will know that what distinguishes a great chef is his ability to put his own expert mark on the classics. David's unusual gazpacho is outstanding. \nFinally, Mr. Steer takes issue with Tallent's plate-sharing fee. These are standard at fine-dining restaurants, especially small ones, which could not afford to do what they do if they had many couples taking up whole tables while ordering only one dinner. \nTruthfully, a place like Tallent is not meant for a casual budget meal, but if you want to splurge and treat yourself right, it's perfect. The food is spectacular and the service, as Steer points out, is pampering. Perhaps the saddest thing about Steer's unfortunate and inaccurate review is that you might take it seriously and miss a very special dining experience.\nChristine Barbour\nFaculty
A call of commercials\nYou mention that Mitch Daniels was complying with federal law by dumping his shares of IPALCO before he went to work for Bush II in Washington. Daniels actually did not have to sell his shares, as his buddy Dick Cheney could have told him once he got to Washington. Do you think that Cheney sold the thousand of shares and stock options of Halliburton he had accumulated during his reign as CEO? The answer would be no, and that is because a federal employee can put their stocks in a blind trust, where they are managed by someone other than the employee. This commercial is to point out the flaws behind Mitch Daniels' run for governor. If he wants to bring new employment opportunities to the state of Indiana, then why, when he ran a company in this state that employed hundreds did he sell out to an out-of-state company? If he thinks he is better at managing the budget of the State of Indiana, then why did he do such a horrible job handling the budget of the United States? These questions I would like answered in a Mitch Daniels commercial. \nJonathan Schneider\nJunior
He's just not that into you\nA couple of weeks ago on "Oprah," writers of the hit show "Sex in the City" Greg Behrendt and Liz Tucillo were guests and talked about their new book "He's Just Not That into You." These six words offer an explanation for all the excuses men give to those they simply don't want to be with. As ladies poured out tears and stories of broken hearts holding onto false loves, Behrendt discussed the meaning of "I love you, but ..." This first "I love you" is the man's way of saying "I don't want to hurt you."\nI found myself crying over a man I've been in love with for almost two years, realizing his bi-weekly phone calls (if I am lucky) and excuses of being busy and working a lot, translated into "He's just not that into me." \nI shared the show with my best friend Bexie (who is experiencing the "He's just not that into you" syndrome as well) and we began devising a plan for our love lives. A couple days later we watched "The First Daughter" at the theater. The movie pictured a perfect image of "dating material" and of a man that Behrendt described as someone worth waiting for. This is the kind of man that won't leave you wondering if he actually likes you. \nI now offer IU readers this message. Women: Do not settle for less than you deserve. Don't say "you're pretty" to someone that doesn't appreciate you. The right "He" is out there waiting to give you all the love, attention and time that you deserve because he wants nothing more than to be with you and because "He is just that into you." Men: Stop the excuses and the lies. Practice using the truth so we are not wasting our hearts on you in hopes that you'll find time for us. Go ahead; we are giving you the permission to be direct. Say to us, "I'm just not that into you." \nHeathyr Dwight\nSenior
