Anti-Americanism hits home, too\nThis letter is in response to Edward Delp's Oct. 20 column "Shut up, Europe," in which he berated European nations and newspapers for opposing George W. Bush and being "apathetic" about the war on terror. While obviously confident in America's superiority over the rest of the western world, Delp's facts are just plain wrong.\nHis claim that "the majority of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from a terror cell in Germany," is an outright falsehood. While it is important to note that the three leaders of the plot went to school in Hamburg and did in fact start a terror cell, this is hardly a majority out of the 19 hijackers, and the attack itself was planned in Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden. Delp also conveniently leaves out that 14 of the 19 hijackers -- a true majority -- spent a large amount of time living, working and learning to fly in Florida.\nAbout America-bashing being popular in Europe, Delp has no one but George W. Bush to blame for that. In the wake of 9/11, Schroeder declared "unlimited solidarity" with the U.S., the headline in the French La Monde was "We Are All Americans," and there was no trouble garnering support for our efforts in Afghanistan. Support for the U.S. was at an all-time high, but Bush squandered it in less than a year. Delp accuses European politicians of using anti-American sentiment in the wake of the unjust Iraq war to gain popularity while George Bush and other Republicans call anything remotely liberal "French" and chastise John Kerry for acting European.\nTo call Europeans "jealous" of America's pervasive world power and "apathetic" about the war on terror while we wage wars that result in influxes in terrorism and bombs continue to go off in Spain and Russia is not only childish, it's wrong. If Delp is looking for someone who opposes Bush, he needs to look no further than his own country, where half of the people strongly oppose Bush, and the other half, in the words of another Indiana Daily Student columnist, feel "stuck with (George W. Bush)."\nMark Casey\nSophomore
Crusading for Crusaders\nAs someone who used to be involved with Campus Crusade for Christ at IU, I heard from other people who were concerned with the word "Crusade" in the name ("Campus Crusaders," Oct. 12). I hope the following thoughts help clear up some things about the organization.\nCampus Crusade was founded by Bill Bright, who, after converting to Christianity, felt called by God to reach out with the love and truth of Jesus Christ, specifically to college students, to help change the world -- not by killing and destroying those who do not believe, but by sharing with them the wonderful new life he had found in knowing Christ.\nLike other ideas, the concept of a "crusade" unfortunately has been given a bad rap because of one negative association (albeit one of historic proportion) that has changed the entire meaning of the word. The meaning of "crusade," as defined by Merriam-Webster Online (definition 2) is: "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm." Dr. Bright and his successors have seen the call to share the news of Jesus Christ as a call to change their world for the better -- an enterprise worthy of their zeal and enthusiasm. In this light, the term "crusade" is very fitting.\nI encourage Mr. Weisburd and others not to judge Campus Crusade based only on one word in their name. It is certainly not fair to judge any organization, or the people involved in it, in this way. Words do indeed matter, Mr. Weisburd. But what also matters is the meaning behind the word. I would invite you to investigate further the organization Campus Crusade for Christ and see whether they promote the "glorification" of a "medieval cult." Better yet, why not investigate for yourself the life and teachings and person of Jesus Christ, who is the entire reason for Campus Crusade's existence? Jesus states in John 14:6: "... I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." I hope you, and others, find what you are looking for.\nMelissa Lynn Callis\nIndianapolis resident
Democrats behind 2 draft bills\nRumors of a military draft are rampant. H.R. 163, sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., was meant to reinstate the military draft. In addition, Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., has introduced S. 89, identical military draft legislation.\nWhile H.R. 163 was overwhelming defeated on Oct. 5, those who were behind its creation should not be overlooked. Contrary to the rumors invading college campuses across America, it wasn't the Republicans or President Bush behind the legislation. President Bush has said repeatedly that he opposed the legislation. However, Democrats are at the center of these bills. In fact, John Kerry's position could be interpreted as favoring the draft.\nJohn Kerry has said he would be open to reinstating the draft, saying that "if we had a need for a general mobilization at some time in the future, then I think that's the only fair way to do it," according WLVI's "Keller At Large" interview taped Dec. 2, 2003 and aired Sept. 26).\nIt is also important to note the reason Rep. Rangel claims he sponsored the bill. Rangel has said he "offered the bill last winter to reinstitute the draft to spark debate on a system that he said placed the burden of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan on lower-income people who make up most of the volunteer U.S. military," according to "House Crushes Military Draft Bill", an Associated Press story from Oct. 5. \nSo, since some in our National Guard and armed forces are in the "low-income tax bracket" that makes them less capable of fighting the wars successfully? In saying this, Rangel reveals his elitist attitude and disrespects the very Americans he claims to be serving. Better yet, Rangel and his co-sponsors act as if these people are being forced into military service. On the contrary, these men and women choose to serve their country. Now, reinstating the military draft would be forcing young Americans into service. \nIt is only fair to give due credit to those behind H.R. 163 and S. 89. Contrary to the rumors spread by Kerry supporters, these bills have the fingerprints of Democrats, not Republicans, all over them. Rangel and his colleagues should be embarrassed to mask their attempts to reinstate the military draft as an act of heroism where the Democrats once again come to the aid of poor people. Shame on them.\nStacy Rose\nBloomington resident
Column distorts Kerry's position\nJunior Jonathan Blanks' article was another prime example of distorting of Senator Kerry's very clear positions with the hope that we, Americans, will be too uneducated or so distracted as to believe it ("Kerry no flip, just flop," Oct. 4). What Senator Kerry said is that he favors both continued multilateral negotiations between North Korea and its Asian neighbors, and direct, diplomatically-run bilateral talks with DPRK. Kerry knows the stakes involved in alienating any of our allies; something George Bush has no clue about, and that is why 90 percent of casualties are American now in Iraq. He was vague about 'plans' and 'summits' because he had two minutes to explain complicated issues; George Bush has had four years to be even more vapid. \nMr. Blanks' tough, macho, irreverent and arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world is the same one as President George "shoot first, ask questions later" Bush that got us entrenched without a clear exit into an avoidable war in Iraq despite several military generals, State Department experts and his own terrorism expert Richard Clarke telling him the perils of starting this war. Now with over 1,000 soldiers dead and over 5,000 injured returning, things are not so easy for the president to defend. His own reaction? Act like our national security is even more at risk if we elect John Kerry. Speaking of weak on national security, President George Bush preferred to continue his golf game than pay attention to the memo referring to 'imminent al Qaeda attacks' on August 6, 2001.\nFinally, Blanks writes 'while our leaders should be respectful of the rest of the world, they should never defer our safety or sovereignty to it.' President Bush deferred our safety on Sept. 11 and now our kids' safety in Iraq and for this the American people should never forgive him! Let's hope that at the next debate Senator Kerry hammers Bush on something that has compromised our safety since 2000: domestic issues. His decision to rush to war during a recession, with tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-rich has run our 2004 Federal Budget deficit to a record $422 billion. That is money that will not go into our schools, hospitals, police forces; a better homeland security (another lip service job), job market, etc. ... talk about domestic terrorism!\nAdrian Merceron\nGraduate student
Media shouldn't focus on victim\nThis letter is in response to Rick Newkirk's column "Go ahead, drop the soap" (Oct. 22). In this piece, Newkirk makes many valid points that I happen to whole-heartedly agree with, points I would also think many understand as valid, such as ballooning a specific story based on the attractiveness of modern modes of beauty and drama and such, in effect making the story a pure entertainment piece with no value otherwise and contributing a counted loss to media objectivity. These basic points I agree with, and, as I said, I believe many others do also. Where I disagree, however, is not as easy an issue to explain.\nIn this society a man is often not held accountable or even noticed for out-of-line behavior (murder, rape, general domestic violence). Stories headline with women as victims and no mention of men as perpetrators. Some might say that obviously men are committing these acts and it doesn't bear mention. I would just like to point out that, in fact, in all similar cases, the offending or violent party is mentioned, and in a good news article equal amounts of time will be spent on both perpetrator and victim. So I, in fact, say cheers to this story being blown out of proportion, as it allows an issue that has been moved to the back of everyone's minds to be brought forward and examined. The downside of this is portrayed in light of what Newkirk talked about. The story and the relevant theme chance losing value. But, as I said before, I believe there is a deeper issue here that needs examining, and it is not media hype, it's the masking of a problem prevalent throughout the world and by chance brought forward by aforementioned media hype. I implore you, Mr. Newkirk, even if you understand prior to my writing this that male-female domestic victimization is largely unreported and one-sided, could you perhaps not assume that the rest of the world knows this and allow them to read up on hyped-up cases like Petersons' (for the hyped up oddities are some of the only ones available to the general public), without cursing them down into the depths of inferiority?\nJared Pool\nSophomore
Go Kerry, go, go!\nI voted for Bush in 2000. A president's values and deeds are more important than his words. Bush has betrayed the American people on every front. He has ignored the needs of the hungry, the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed in this country. Bush is a "steadfast, resolute, determined and purposeful" liar. Bush can't be trusted to lead and protect Americans because he hasn't held anyone accountable for the grievous errors that have led to the death of thousands of Americans on 9-11, to the death and maiming of thousands of our troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and to the recruitment of thousands to the banners of terrorism. \nBush has led by audacious totalitarian mendacity, immoral means to accomplish supposed moral ends, and utter incompetent stupidity in conducting foreign and domestic policy. Through his policies and the complicit Republican Congress, Bush has robbed our treasury and committed economic treason. Four more years of Bush's deceptions and erroneous policies will bankrupt our country, put our troops in endless wars, rob us of our liberties, shatter our alliances and increase terrorism at home and throughout the world. Kerry has the strength and character to protect and lead this nation.\nW. Kevin Rack\nAustin, Texas
More to porn than meets the eye\nI write in response to Colin Dugdale's column on pornography. It saddens me to see us today view pornography so lightly, like it is simply another form of media with little consequence. Mr. Dugdale describes the effect as "(warping) one's perception of reality." This is true, but the consequences are far more severe. I argue strongly against the fact that pornography has any positive effects on society. And, the damaging effects go beyond our children. Let me share some hard facts.\nAccording to "Internet Pornography Statistics: 2003" (www.healthymind.com/s-port-stats.html), pornography is a $57 billion worldwide industry, $12 billion being derived from the United States. It produces more revenue in the United States. than the pro football, basketball and baseball industries combined. Further, this industry is damaging the workforce. According to the same site, 20 percent of men and 13 percent of women admit accessing porn at work, and 10 percent of adults admit to being addicted. \nThis addiction, which drives 40 million people across the nation, (www.nationalcoalition.org), is a cause for thousands of sexual solicitations to children via chat lines. Many sexual offenders, rapists and even some serial killers (i.e. Ted Bundy) admitted their addiction to pornography was a driving force behind their actions. On a more subtle level, pornography destroys families. Today, addiction to pornography is one of the leading causes of divorce in our nation. Similar to Mr. Dugdale's portrayal, it warps people's minds on how they view the opposite sex, and this natural desire that should bring two people together is wasted on selfish fantasies. Pornography is a selfish game, and true love at home cannot exist with selfishness. There are stories and experiences I could share to solidify this, but I think you get the point. I plead to you this day to change your perception on pornography. It is as addictive and damaging as any illegal drug. Before we start to view pornography as candy, to be used "in moderation," consider these facts I have presented. We must change how we view pornography! The health of our society depends on it!\nRyan Lee\nGraduate student
Kerry's no Christian\nAlthough Kerry claims to be a Catholic, his own church denies him. I am tired of politicians using the name of God for their political gain: he is pro-homosexual and that was brought forward when he said homosexuality was not a choice on one of the debates. He has voted to limit parental rights concerning childrens' right not to tell the parents about pregnancy. He has voted against protection of the unborn and against bill protecting marriage. John Kerry is not a Christian, he is a politician. Christians, you are the majority, rise up and vote. We have a moral president who upholds our best values. We have no other choice; vote for Bush. \nMerle E. Hedrick\nStaff
Daniels' bang-up budgetry\nMitch Daniels seems fond of making the unbelievable claim that Gov. Kernan is a career politician but somehow Daniels is not. I hope that Hoosiers will keep Daniels' political record in mind when they go to the polls. He was the budget officer for the president with the single worst record of budget deficits in our country's history.\nChris Wilson\nGraduate student
Where will Daniels' fact-bending end?\nThe staff editorial of Oct. 4th states "Daniels' vote cost many Hoosiers their jobs and savings, while Daniels then walked away with an estimated $500,000. While that's all true ... Daniels was on his way to work under President George W. Bush as the director of Office of Management and Budget and federal law stipulates he had to sell any privately held stock in such a position." \nDaniels admitted this is false, when questioned under oath (Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Oct. 5, 2004). He could have put his stock in a blind trust. He also testified under oath that he reinvested his gains, except for 10 percent for charity -- contrary to his ads claiming that he donated it all. In fact, nearly all of the senior executives and board members cashed out, raking in tens of millions of dollars while the employees' pension plan lost hundreds of millions. If they had nothing to hide, why rent a mobile shredding truck for 40 days to destroy accounting records and minutes? (Bloomington Herald-Times, May 15, 2003).\nEarlier this year, fellow Republican and Secretary of State Todd Rokita killed the criminal investigation of Daniels and five other insiders before it could be completed (Louisville Courier-Journal, Jan. 18, 2004). Daniels had helped him with Rokita's fund-raising; now Rokita is returning the favor. There is a culture of corruption infesting our government. A former Enron hireling, Daniels attempted as director of the office of management and budget to provide Enron with $254 million in federal handouts (according to Senator Fritz Hollings, CNN, Feb. 2, 2002).\nHarkin, BCCI, Enron, IPALCO ... where will it end? \nDavid Hart\nBloomington resident
Opponent flip-flops\nIn a statement included in a recent Indiana Daily Student article, my opponent in the upcoming election, Congressman Buyer, says he opposes the reinstatement of the draft. I guess he has decided to "flip-flop" on the issue. Congressman Buyer declared earlier, "A lot of young people are escaping their civic responsibilities. There are benefits to a draft." \nI have immense respect for the courage of individuals who have decided to serve their country by enlisting in the U.S. military. I do not believe that it is a required civic responsibility. \nI don't assert that there is a secret plan for reinstatement of the draft. I do say that the foreign and military policy of the Bush administration, which I oppose, will not be sustainable without military conscription. We already have greatly extended tours of duty, members of the National Guard carrying out operations for which they have been inadequately prepared, and people being called back from retirement into service.\nWe already know what Congressman Buyer thinks about the lack of military service of most young Americans and the benefits of the draft. Perhaps he thinks the use of nuclear weapons, as he has previously advocated in the battle for Afghanistan, will mean we won't need a draft.\nDavid Sanders\nDemocratic candidate for U.S. Representative, Fourth district, Indiana
