American action\nWaddell Hamer contends, French-like, that the Bush administration's "arrogance" lends it to believe that "the world revolves around the United States" ("Looking into the crystal ball," Nov. 8). To start, it does. And, excusez-moi, we excessively arrogant compared with whom? Absent America, I am inclined to ask, who would uphold a just international order? The United Nations? The Europeans? China? This is not intended as arrogance, but rather a statement of fact. Without American action in the world, there is no action. President Bush reminds us, "Without American leadership, the world will trend toward tragedy." If this constitutes arrogance, then at least one of our greatest presidents shared it. Henry Kissinger once asked an aging Harry Truman how he wanted to be remembered. Truman answered, "We completely defeated our enemies and made them surrender. And then we helped them recover, to become democratic and rejoin the community of nations. Only America could have done that." Our planet is quite an anarchic place, and, unlike the economic marketplace, there is no invisible hand leading it to safe ground. This is the chief justification behind vigorous U.S. leadership, which sustains our generally benign and liberal world that now finds itself under violent assault. \nBrian Stewart\nSophomore
Happiness is a right\nAs patriotic as National Rifle Association supporters claim to be, they conveniently leave out one big part of the Declaration of Independence in their ideology: the right to life. Not only is the right to life a basic human right, it is also one of the most central. Despite what most people think, we do not have complete freedom in this country (nor should we). We have the right to do virtually anything as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. \nWhen you break down any law, this is the basic undertone. For example: Why is it against the law to steal? The answer to this has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. \nThe reason we are not allowed to exercise our "right" to pursue happiness and steal is because it directly infringes on another person's right to pursue happiness.\nThe NRA has used and continues to use a logical fallacy to defend its position. Its claims are as follows: 1) The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms; 2) No law can overrule this amendment; 3) We have the right to semi-automatic weapons.\nThe mistake in its argument is that the armament of semi-automatic weapons infringes on civilians' right to life, therefore the Second Amendment (in this case) is overruled by the basic human right to live. \nIf you are an NRA supporter, you are not completely out of luck. In fact, if you want to use automatic weapons and be patriotic, I encourage you to join the U.S. Army. I will support you fully, and I will be happy to pay you, your family and even for your education (through taxes). But please, keep the automatic weapons out of America's neighborhoods and streets.\nDavid Weisburd\nFreshman
November is National Hospice Month\nAs we join with other end-of-life care providers across the country in celebrating National Hospice Month this November, it's important that we recognize that we still have a lot of work to do.\nMore than 1.5 million people will die this year without the benefit of hospice to help them and their families. Why? In part it's because nearly 90 percent of Americans aren't aware that hospice is fully covered by most insurances. And in large part, it's because our society has such difficulty facing our own mortality. \nBut that's just it. Hospice isn't about death -- it's about life. And it's about bringing comfort, dignity, control, compassion and purpose to those final days, wherever the patient calls home.\nThis November, I hope that more people throughout our community will take a moment to think about how they want to spend their final days and to consider the ways in which hospice could make a positive impact on their life or on that of a loved one. And I encourage people who have questions to talk with their physicians or to reach out to us at (866)276-4637 or www.VistaCare.com for more information. \nBecause planning for end-of-life doesn't mean you have to stop living it. And hospice can help.\nJoseph Lingenfelter\nProgram Director, VistaCare Bloomington
Fighting demagoguery\nSo your newspaper decided to get involved in the controversy at Columbia University ("Unnecessary verbal force," Nov. 5). And your newspaper, which should -- one assumes -- take up the issue of academic freedoms, decided to base its story on the statements of an ambitious and demagogic congress person. Had your newspaper bothered to look into the matter, or had you at least talked to the person in question (Professor Joseph Massad), you would have discovered that Massad never even met the person against whom you are accusing him of using "verbal force." One would have also assumed that a student newspaper would have adhered to the basic rules of journalist ethics and professionalism. One wonders whether you would have taken the case of a professor who is accused -- merely accused by political groups -- of intimidating a pro-Palestinian student. It seems that the demagoguery that motivated a member of Congress has motivated you.\nAs'ad AbuKhalil\nDepartment of Politics\nCalifornia State University, Stanislaus
Throwing around political capital\nA word of advice to the president: Please be frugal with your newly earned "political capital." A lot of talk lately has dealt with a new mandate for the president's social policies, and with 51 percent of the popular vote, it would seem the president is right. The only problem is Bush was not pulling 51 percent support until the day of the election. For weeks leading into the election, neither candidate had more than 50 percent in polls. And if the structures of the campaigns showed anything, it was the undecided or swing voter who pushed the president over the edge and on to victory. The large amount of swing voters showed that neither candidate truly represented this demographic, and with terrorism the top issue during the whole campaign, the election boiled down to who voters felt safer with. If a voter does not feel overly compelled to support either candidate and is most worried about the nation's safety, they are more than likely to vote for the incumbent. This preference is shown by the fact that the only time in the past century the nation has changed administrations during war was in the middle of Vietnam. While the election does show most voters feel safer with Bush, I would be very cautious to consider this a mandate for social reform. If the president continues with this mindset and uses the greater power Republicans have in Congress, all those that voted for Bush because they feel safer with him could feel they have been misrepresented, and a serious backlash could occur in four years. So please, Mr. President, feel assured that you won the election outright and have the support of 51 percent of those who voted, but don't assume everyone who voted for you also voted for your conservative social policies. \nChristopher Hardy\nJunior
Bracing for extremism\nI can think of a lot of adjectives to describe how I felt after learning of the election result. Optimistic is definitely not one of them. According to CNN's Web site, many Americans describe themselves as "optimistic" about Bush's second term. What rock have these people been living under? \nWith an emboldened Republican party adding to its majority in the House and Senate, we can expect to see more of the same, with an added extremist slant because of a dwindled opposition in Congress committed to defeating its dangerous and destructive agenda. Karl Rove was correct by rationalizing that a heavy turnout of the Republicans' evangelical Christian base would suffice to secure a Bush victory. Personally, I find this terrifying. \nWe have a president in office today who led the country to a neo-imperialist war on fabricated evidence and lies, a president who has publicly stated that evolution theory is still on the table, a president committed to the systematic destruction of an already meagre social safety net, a president who in four short years has united virtually all of world opinion against us, a president who has transformed a record surplus into a record deficit ... I could continue. \nAs progressives, I feel that it is our obligation to oppose this fascist administration in all of its malign endeavours. To be sure, the election results were profoundly disheartening, and its outcome will certainly bring with it disastrous policy. Still, we have to come to terms with this reality. I think it is critical that we transform our frustration from this defeat into a renewed vigor to fight against the administration and its disastrous policy. In the face of all of this, we cannot lose track of our principals and ideals. Now more than ever, it's essential that we get back to work. \nJohn Hudson\nSenior
Come together\nNow that the 2004 presidential election has been decided, it is time for the American people to rally around President Bush. The American electoral process demands that the will of the people be paramount, and the American people have made their preference clear. We should honor that decision by leaving the presidential campaign in the past. America's interests are best served by looking forward.\nThis is a time for our country to begin the healing process. Healing is crucial. It is difficult for our leaders to do their jobs until the post-election bitterness subsides, and it is nearly impossible for those who are bitter to contribute meaningfully to the public debate. \nThere is little to be gained by thinking of ourselves as voters at the moment. Right now, we should focus on being citizens. We must continue telling our leaders, regardless of party, what we think. We must find the appropriate balance between apathy and zealotry. We must try to make a difference. Above all, we must show that we care.\nJacob Farmer\nSenior
Getting in touch\nFor Jonathan Blanks and other Republicans to gloat over Bush's narrow win no more serves democracy than the elitism he rejects ("The Defeat of Elitism," Nov. 8). Blanks smacks of the same arrogance he accuses Democrats of possessing and his argument assumes, like the Democrats did, that the "facts" speak for themselves, and if given the "right" information, people make the "right" choice. Given the division in this country, it behooves us to stop trying to use statistics or "facts" to prove that the other guy is either a redneck or an elitist moron. For instance, it is difficult to imagine how Blanks could have missed that the polls consistently placed Bush in the lead, which just goes to show that statistics can be skewed to further any argument. I do suggest he consider that many of us who voted for Kerry did not actually believe he would win. The election outcome was not some huge surprise to us, it was just hugely disappointing.\nIf Blanks has nothing more than numbers from the election to inform his argument, then he is no more in touch with America than the Democrats. Furthermore, when he calls the election "a victory for democracy," and then advises the Democrats to ditch the far left, he exercises the same elitism he accuses the Democrats of possessing. To ignore a large section of the population that is impassioned about their moral beliefs is exactly the mistake he accuses the Democrats of making. The moral voices from the far left and the far right of this country keep moderate politicians like Kerry and Bush from selling their souls for a few votes and a few more campaign dollars.\nFinally, I'd love to hear Blanks explain what he meant by the Democrat's "messages of fear and hate." Does he mean our fear of inadequate health care for our families and our hatred of misguided and poorly executed wars? If so, that's one message of fear and hate I'll continue to stand behind because the Republicans' fear of the rest of the world and hatred of gay people does not speak to me. \nKathleen McConnell\nGraduate student
Quieting the babble\nRick Newkirk, given the grin in the photo accompanying your "Kiss my grits evangelists" article on Nov. 5, you must have been having a gigantic chuckle on the way from your word processor over to the filing of your column.\nThe problem for me is that your topic is no laughing matter.\nTrue, you did bring the pus up to the surface of some of religion's zits, but your "grits" dealing with religion's boo-boos weren't nearly gritty enough as written.\nSurely you can't believe that your article would cut any bait with the endless string of smiling religionists who testify in the Indiana Daily Student about the wonders that their respective religious institutions and beliefs bring into their lives. They have been force-fed religious hoopla over and over from infancy on until raging hormones finally gave them something to really think about. Given that, they are almost beyond saving from what has been inflicted on them and sucked up by them ad infinitum.\nThey are without hope unless they can muster the internal fortitude to begin to study the history of religion instead of blindly swallowing organized religion's spoon-fed ritual, dogma and bible mythology. That evangelist you write of can in no way prove such a statement anymore than s/he can prove the existence of any of the multitude of gods that mans fertile imagination has conjured up, and lo surely in response now will cometh the flood of biblical quotes to the editor to chastise us both.\nDare I hope that one of the multitude of alleged gods might spare us Bible-babble yet again?\nEmanuel Klein\nIU retiree and Bloomington resident
A dark side of daylight\nI believe that Joanna Borns is in the dark when it comes to Gov.-elect Mitch Daniels' support of daylight-saving time ("Daylight-saving time or death," Nov. 15). The issue is not the uncontrollable and unpredictable hours of sunshine, but rather it is the inconsistency with which businesses operating in Indiana relate with those out-of-state. Refusing to adapt forces every out-of-state business interacting with those in Indiana to lose two business hours daily for half a year. Of course this will influence our financial fiasco. Furthermore, the accusation that daylight-saving time is "playing God" is completely unfounded. Time is a form of measurement instituted by humans. Perhaps she should keep the Hoosiers' well-being in mind before she writes off "My Man's" plans to spring forward.\nLindsay Kerrigan\nSophomore
Elitism schmelitism\nI just wanted to let you know that it seems you mistakenly put the article titled "The Defeat of Elitism" by Jonathan Blanks on the Opinion page in the Nov. 5 paper. Although I am most definitely a snobby Northeastern establishment elitist (if not an activist judge), I would never presume to direct you about article placement. But it does seem curious that there are actually no original -- or, let's be honest here, factually based -- thoughts contained in the entire piece. Perhaps this was meant to be a case study of what happens to potentially thoughtful people after they bathe in Fox News and other idiotic punditry for too long. Does the columnist know that he shot nothing but blanks?\nIt is a shame that the article cannot be in multimedia format because I think its syntax and argumentative sophistication would fit very nicely into the mold of the fabulous children's TV show, "PeeWee's Playhouse." As you might or might not recall, at the start of every show, PeeWee would declare a "magic word." And any time someone on the show said "the magic word," the characters would yell and sounds and lights would go off. There's a plethora of tired, empty ideas in Mr. Blanks' article that would benefit from this treatment: "activist judges" (ding! ding! ding! whooo-hooo!), "Democrats in absolute disarray" (whoop! whooop! Yaaaaaaaay!), "Democratic Party and its messages of fear and hate" (beeep! beeep! wowza!). I could go on and on, but I, unlike Mr. Blanks, know when to stop. \nAmy Neymeyr\nBloomington resident
Get on your feet\nWe have a problem at IU: terrible fan support for our basketball team. At the Southern Illinois-Edwardsville game, two friends and I had the best seats we could ask for -- main section L, second row -- and two groups of people sitting behind us had an usher instruct us to sit down as we stood up to cheer on the Hoosiers. Students, please take a moment to realize how ridiculous this really is. At an intimate college basketball arena, at one of the greatest basketball colleges ever, when our teams needs us most after a disappointing season, emphatic cheering is suddenly annoying to some fans? How about these complainers? Well, they were the only people in Assembly Hall who didn't rise to their feet when Pat Ewing Jr. rocked the crowd with a second half break-away dunk. They barely clapped their hands once, not even during the greatest two minutes in college sports. Every student deserves a ticket, and going to the game and not screaming your lungs out is fine. Just don't ask other people not to.\nNathan Schiller\nJunior
Is evangelism a crime?\nAfter reading Rick Newkirk's opinion column on Nov. 5, titled "Kiss my grits evangelists," it should be clear to any reader that the conclusions which were drawn in this article are absurd and utterly ridiculous. It was stated in the article that, "Can someone explain ... why an evangelist needs to force everyone around him to believe the same thing he believes?" The purpose of evangelism is not to "force" beliefs on another, but rather to inform, to guide and to direct another person so that their beliefs and behaviors align with the Church. Ask any Christian what is the purpose of an evangelist, and never will you hear the word "force" and "evangelist" in the same sentence. If evangelists truly "force" their beliefs on another, then evangelism would be a crime. How often do you see a Christian holding a knife to a person's throat telling them to repent? \nThe article also makes a reference concerning how the president wants to pass a constitutional amendment to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The author states that the president is "so insecure in his own beliefs that he's afraid millions of gays and lesbians will get married and raise successful families." It is a fact that in nations which have legalized same-sex marriage (Scandinavia), the family dissolution rate (the rate at which parents split up) has skyrocketed. This leads to re-marriage after re-marriage and the ultimate breakdown of the family unit, which results in unsuccessful families. Quite frankly, the president, as well as a vast number Americans, are very secure in their beliefs for a marriage amendment, and to call a person "insecure" about a belief they feel very strongly about is disrespectful and rude.\nClearly this is an opinion editorial, and I respect the author's opinion. However there is a fine line between stating one's opinion, and drawing rash conclusions that are exaggerated and have little factual base. I feel that this is one of those articles.\nMichael Phillip\nSophomore
Environmental group deserves praise\nWe, the Council for Environmental Stewardship at IU-Bloomington, wish to lend our support to the City of Bloomington Environmental Commission in their effort to request a moratorium protecting sensitive land from development until such time as the zoning ordinances are revised to protect these areas.\nWe believe that Bloomington is losing too much greenspace. Indeed, the EC recently concluded that at current rates of development, all remaining unprotected greenspace would be lost within 30 years. It is well known that greenspace provides critical ecosystem services, such as storm water and soil erosion control, water and air purification, and recreational opportunities. One of the things that makes Bloomington such a great place to live and visit is the greenness (literally) of the community. By protecting environmentally sensitive areas, the proposed moratorium would help to insure that our city's green infrastructure is also protected.\nIf you wish to know more about our organization, please visit our Web site at http://environment.indiana.edu.\nTeddie Phillipson-Mower\nChairperson for the Council for \nEnvironmental Stewardship
