I'm with stupid\nElisha Sauers' article, "Stupid is as stupid votes" (Oct. 27) is another sad case of generalization. Your overwhelmingly partisan stance blinds you from seeing that the converse of your argument is probably also true: a large percentage of Kerry supporters don't know diddlysquat about Iraq. Let's face it: overall, many voters are ill informed. Let's also recognize that there are many highly intelligent, educated and informed voters on both sides.\nI hate to break it to you, but I am living in America, not "Bizarro World." I am aware of what our president has done well, what he has done poorly and his platform on the issues (including issues beyond Iraq). And yet, I will still cast my vote for George W. Bush Nov. 2. Call me "closed-minded" now, please. I am rather bored with this label, as it is a matter of fact that if you believe in anything at all, you are closed-minded. \nOnly the apathetic are "open-minded."\nIf you think I am an idiot for supporting Bush, so be it. I do not think that you are an idiot for disagreeing with him or even hating him. I do not think that you are insane for voting for someone else. I believe in respecting the opinion of others, not labeling them as stupid for not agreeing with me.\nI want a stronger America as much as the next person! However, I believe that the best way to achieve this has nothing to do with the candidate for which we choose to cast our vote; it is to set aside the negativity that has been rampant during this long campaign, and to treat each other with respect. I am calling for an agreement to disagree, and a stop to the attacks by both sides. How can America grow stronger if we do not unite in all our glorious differences and stand together as one?\nElizabeth Seabrook\nSenior
Voting does matter\nIn the Oct. 12 edition of the Indiana Daily Student, I came across a piece in the Jordan River Forum about an unfortunate student who has chosen not to vote. While I could reply that this student should for any number of reasons (civic duty, helping your community or even the chance to pull that really cool lever), I'm too lazy to bother with all that. What I will try to do is give this student an understanding of the importance to this age bracket of raising one's voice.\nFace it, what are the major domestic issues of this election? Health care, social security and the economy. Now while the last will affect us greatly, the first two have nothing to do with our needs, or main stream America's for that matter. Why is that? Because the elderly vote -- frequently and in large numbers. Since politicians who are elected will only push the issues affecting the people who voted (i.e. the elderly), issues that affect people our age (who have the lowest voter turnout per age group) are ignored. \nThat's why I encourage that student (and everyone my age, for that matter) to cast a ballot on Election Day. Note that I am not saying that you vote for a candidate (you don't have to vote for everything; you can leave all or part of it blank, no joke), but just that you cast a ballot. Doing that increases the number of young voters, which makes politicians sit up and take notice. So while I can understand and accept this student's revulsion, if the government is going to do more than pay lip service to our issues, we need to make them notice us as an active part of our community.\nWesley Shaker\nSophomore
Erosion of Democracy\nOn Oct. 11, 12 of our country's most popular musicians and bands got together for a six-hour concert in Washington, D.C., in front of thousands of excited fans. Some of these musicians included Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., Dave Matthews Band, John Mellencamp, Bonnie Raitt, James Taylor and the Dixie Chicks. They sang songs about freedom and democracy. You would think this would be a grand media event that many reporters and cameras would want to cover. But no, I couldn't find any part of it on the main channels. It was covered only by the Sundance channel, which most people do not receive.\nOur media is owned by a small number of rich corporations that have been enjoying this administration's generous tax cuts and deregulation. They did not want you to know this concert was not promoting Bush, but rather the power of the people and the importance of voting. Now at least 40 TV stations across the country are being forced to play an anti-Kerry program in place of their prime-time shows. What's wrong with this picture? These corporate monopolies have too much control. They not only control the media but are affecting many other aspects of our lives as well. The control of these large corporations is eroding our democracy. This election vote for the voice of the people. Vote Democratic.\nJoanne Shank\nAlumna
Cookies had nothing to do with story\nI am writing to comment on the article in the Oct. 26 IDS regarding the Campus Crusade for Christ slogan "Where is the love?" I myself am a former journalist and I understand that David Nosko did not want to promote the Christian message, but instead wanted to simply write an unbiased account of what is going on around campus. Yet, his article severely missed the point of the outreach. CCC members have been trying to ask the campus where it is they are searching for love, and to invite them to search for (what they believe to be) true love in Jesus Christ. Your story was all over the place. I mean, seriously, what was the point of the cookie section? Are you telling me the fact that IU students love no-bake cookies is relevant to the facts of the story? There is a way to report an unbiased story and then there is a way to run from a story, and I'm sorry that he chose the wrong route. I was looking forward to the IDS story about this outreach and I was disappointed.\nKylie Stanley\nFreshman
Is Bush for civil unions?\nOn Tuesday's Good Morning America, President George W. Bush answered a question about civil unions by saying that he would not oppose states that establish civil unions for same-gender couples. Bush said that he still believes that marriage should be defined as one man, one woman, but took a new view on civil unions, saying, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do."\nAt first glance, this would appear to be a positive sign, especially coming from a president who has stood as a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage during the past year. However, there are several concerns about this statement. \nFirst is its timing in regard to the general election on Nov. 2, as it raises the notion that Bush might be playing for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender vote. \nSecond, the president's record. During the past year, he has supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. The language of the amendment is still under debate, but Bush has not made an effort to distance himself from the version of the amendment that would exclude same-sex couples from entering into civil unions. His party platform includes very strong language that opposes civil unions as well as same-sex marriage, and while Bush said on GMA that he "disagrees" with that language, he has made no effort to publicly repudiate it. This is another reason to be skeptical about Bush's new support. \nWhen I take into account that the Bush administration has blocked bipartisan efforts in Congress to include GLBT people in federal protective legislation and has also blocked efforts to recognize same-sex partners of federal employees, and the fact that Bush continues to attack same-sex marriage on campaign stops (particularly in Florida, where in an effort to attract Spanish-speaking voters, his campaign is publishing Spanish literature that opposes equal rights for GLBT people), I come to the conclusion that Bush is merely trying to get the GLBT vote to get him reelected and then ignore us once he's safely re-ensconced in the White House, as well as trying to steal one of Sen. John Kerry's major domestic policy issues. His comments are refreshing, but at issue is his intent and capabilities to follow through on them, especially in light of the fact that a good portion of his ultra-conservative religious base has already become quite angry with his comments.\nMatthew Briddell\nSenior
Draw your own conclusions\nIn a letter to the editor on Oct. 26, Merle E. Hedrick charged that John Kerry "is not a Christian" and called on Christians to "rise up and vote" for George W. Bush. As a fellow Christian, I am appalled by Mr. Hedrick's presumption to know the heart of Mr. Kerry (or anyone else) based solely on his position on a few ideologically charged issues. Mr. Hedrick would do well to remember that relatively few of Jesus' teachings regarded issues of sexual conduct. Far more directed those who presumed to know the will of God to look inward and examine their own hearts before judging others.\nI am also troubled by Mr. Hedrick's narrow representation of Christian morality as concerned primarily with questions of sexual conduct. For many believers -- and indeed for Pope John Paul II, as expressed in his pastoral letters -- questions of economic justice, the right treatment of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, and the doctrine of just war are of at least equal importance. Christians do have a choice in this election, as do all Americans. My vote will be for John Kerry because I believe he is the candidate who best represents my moral and civic values. I also believe he is the candidate best fitted to lead us through these perilous times. I invite others to investigate the issues, draw your own conclusions, and vote on Nov. 2.\nMark Hurley\nProfessional staff
Current politicians are irresponsible\nThe largest issue in our country today is not being addressed by either Republicans or by Democrats. I love my children and I want to do my part to ensure they grow up in the best country in the world. Voters need to become informed about the irresponsible government spending explosion and vote these politicians out of office.\nOur current politicians are not acting responsibly. When George W. Bush took office four years ago, the federal government was more than 5.6 trillion dollars in debt. Today the federal government is more than 7.4 trillion dollars in debt. The debt has grown 1.8 trillion dollars in just four years. This is four years during which we have had a Republican-controlled Senate, a Republican-controlled House and a Republican president! \nI remember back when the Republican Party claimed to be for a smaller government and less spending. Obviously its definition of small government and less spending does not match my definition of small government and less spending. \nHoosiers tend to be fiscal conservatives at heart. The only political party that believes in fiscal responsibility is the Libertarian Party. It is time to vote for Kenn Gividen for governor and Michael Badnarik for president. Voters need to stop voting for the "lesser of two evils" and vote for candidates who believe as we do.\nMike Sylvester\nJunior at IU-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Military career is a job\nI should like to respond to Stacy Rose concerning her letter Oct. 26. I would first like to inquire of Ms. Rose if she has even read the letter she wrote? Rep. Charles B. Rangel is quoted as sponsoring the bill regarding the draft "to spark debate on a system that places the burden of fighting on lower-income people." Nowhere in this debate has anyone questioned soldiers' abilities to fight successfully regardless of socio-economic background. Ms. Rose then interjects, "So since some in our National Guard and armed forces are in the 'low-income tax bracket' that makes them less capable of fighting wars successfully." \nShe then credits this last to Rep. Rangel, and declares that this statement reveals an elitist attitude. I should say it does, Ms. Rose then goes on to declare "better yet Rangel & cosponsors act as if these people are being forced into military service. On the contrary the men and women choose to serve their country. Now reinstating the draft would be forcing young Americans into service." \nDoes this woman imagine the folks bleeding and dying in Iraq are computer-generated? Poor people are forced into things because they're poor! The military is a job. I think if you are going to fight wars to preserve a society, then everyone has a responsibility. And if everyone has something to lose, really lose, then perhaps war won't be undertaken as lightly as this one, and Ms. Rose will be less inclined segregate "these men & women" from "young Americans." If this neophyte-neocon has a "Support Our Troops" sticker in her life, it would be supremely ironic. It is a brave and more importantly, a moral attempt, to involve our society in bearing responsibilities for our actions.\nRobert D. Hawks\nBloomington resident
Alpha or Delta\nI feel that a correction of Oct. 22's front-page story about women's recruitment should be made. I resent that the author used the phrase "potential pledges" to describe the women going through recruitment. I am a senior member of Alpha Delta Pi and we refuse to use the term pledge and never at any time have pledges. We feel it is a term that is associated with hazing, and at Alpha Delta Pi we have a "no hazing" policy. The women who accept bids to our chapter are called Alphas until they are initiated; then, they are Deltas. I appreciate your time and consideration.\nRachel Viers\nSenior
Stupid is as stupid presumes\nThe next time Elisha Sauers decides to tell Bush supporters that they are "uninformed and stupid," as she did in "Stupid is as stupid votes" (Oct. 27), I suggest that she does some real journalistic research on her own. \nEveryone knows that the 9-11 Commission reports that there is "no credible evidence" that Iraq had anything to do with the World Trade Center attacks. But don't stop reading there. Just because Iraq was not involved in al Qaeda's elaborate planning on Sept. 11 is no proof that Saddam Hussein did not support the global terrorist network. In fact, the ties between Saddam and al Qaeda are becoming increasingly clearer every day. Don't forget the first rule of war, the enemy of your enemy is your friend -- this was the basis of the Saddam/Osama Bin Laden relationship. \nIf you have never heard of Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, this is all the evidence that you will ever need of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to documents found in Tikrit, Saddam supplied Yasin with both money and sanctuary after the 1993 attack, which was masterminded by Yasin's associate Ramizi Yousef. This Yousef guy was one of many who received financial support from al Qaeda through key 9-11 planners, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Isn't it funny that one collaborator of the 1993 attacks was receiving money and sanctuary from Saddam, and another was receiving financial support from al Qaeda? Why didn't Clinton do anything about this? How strange that seven years later the WTC was attacked again! \nThere are hundreds of links like this, and none of them "prove" that Saddam had anything to do with Sept. 11. My personal opinion on our liberation of Iraq: I'm so happy I could cry. I suppose the Democrats would prefer that I wait until another 9-11 before I let the tears flow.\nKatie Vinson\nSenior
Students who study abroad can graduate on time\nIndividuals reading the "Students might pay for bad advice" article in Oct. 25's IDS might come away with the impression that studying abroad delays a student's graduation. For the vast majority of the 1,500 IUB students who plan appropriately for their study-abroad experience each year, that is not the case. With appropriate planning, students are able to continue meeting graduation requirements by fulfilling courses in their major, minor, general education or elective hour areas. \nOne undergraduate student's advising experience at IU should not speak for the excellent advising that the nearly 30,000 undergraduate students receive each year. Students and advisers have available many wonderful resources for navigating the breadth of curriculum options at IU. It is critical that students take a very active role in their own learning and degree planning. This is especially important when students plan to do things such as have multiple majors/minors, seek degrees from two different schools or integrate study abroad into their degree. \nEach day it becomes more and more important for students to graduate with experiences beyond a traditional four-year list of courses they have taken. Experiences such as volunteering, internships, club and organizational leadership and education abroad experiences are playing a larger role in job searches and the hiring process. Students should actively seek out these opportunities and learn as much as possible to prepare for the integration into their degree goals. Seeking information and planning ahead is a critical key toward success. Be an active participant in your educational experience. \nStudents can learn more about their study abroad options and how to plan ahead for an experience abroad by attending a Study Abroad 101 session. It is held at 4 to 5 p.m. every Wednesday in Franklin Hall 303.\nPaige Weting\nAssistant director, Office of Overseas Study
