Mexican economy cause of problems\nColumnist Felipe Maya (April 1) tries to make the case that it is America's fault that illegal immigrants are streaming across the U.S. border because Americans are all fat and lazy and won't take a lot of the jobs that the immigrants will take. That's like saying that the reason banks get robbed is because that's where the money is.\nThe real reason there are so many illegal immigrants is because there are no jobs in Mexico! The Mexican economy is in shambles, inflation is rampant, the local, state and federal governments are corrupt and the people are undereducated. Many areas in Mexico have no running water, no sewer systems, grossly inadequate housing and escalating crime. Visit sometime; see for yourself.\nMaynard Raggio\nUniversity Human Resource Services employee
ANWR numbers wrong, too optimistic\nThere seem to be a number of flaws with the facts used for this opinion (Edward Delp, "Arctic oil wars," March 30).\nAccording to the official ANWR Web site (arctic.fws.gov) there are indeed 36 varieties of fish, 36 of land mammals, nine of marine mammals and 160 sorts of birds. Further, there was mention of elk and sage grouse being included in the population. Unless Delp is from Europe, where our moose are referred to as elk, there are no elk in the ANWR. Certainly there are no sage grouse, either.\nIt was cited that only 2,000 acres would be used for drilling. Of course, this is misleading because from the same Seattle Times article comes this quote, "The 2,000 acre limit isn't confined to one spot, but could be made up of lots of smaller facilities spread around the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain." That will definitely cause a major disruption in the ecosystem since many oil rigs and roads will have to be built.\nLastly, it appears that the 10 billion barrel figure is an optimistic one according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has determined it is possible that only 4.3 billion may be recovered. Even if 10 billion barrels are retrieved, it will only provide the United States with 483 days of fuel, according to the Department of Energy's figure of 20.7 million barrels per day being used.\nIt baffles me that one wouldn't write an opinion article about buying hybrid cars. Or write one pushing for Hummer to make the first Hummer hybrid! There are plenty of prudent solutions to the energy "crisis," but drilling for oil is, to me, a trite and ignorant one.\nDaniel Mark Bulwinkle\nSenior
History will not \nforgive destruction\nI know the multitude of factual inaccuracies will be addressed in other letters, so I want to address Edward Delp's assertion that we should drill in the ANWR because people are more important than animals ("Arctic oil wars," March 30). First of all, it's difficult for me to understand someone whose consideration of the future is most concerned with how much he'll have to pay for a tank of gas. Nevertheless, his statement displays a common perceptual flaw that is pervasive in our society: The belief that we've somehow risen above nature. That humanity and the environment are somehow separate.\nWe're still every bit as dependent on the health of our ecosystem as ever, and if it dies, we'll die with it. We live as if we have infinite space and infinite resources, and each day we live like this we tighten the choke-hold our civilization has put on itself. Here's the future I see. I see a classroom several hundred years from now where children are reading about our era in a history book. The chapter is titled "the Age of Waste" and we're despised because this future has to expend itself in fixing our mistakes.\nRemember the first day you learned about World War II? We were astounded and asked, "How did everyone sit and watch all that horror take place? Couldn't they see what was happening?" Likewise, the children in my future will ask, "How could they destroy so much when they knew they were destroying themselves? Why did they scar the last wild place in North America for a meager supply of oil? Especially when they knew all oil would run out in a few generations anyway?" Even if gas prices do go down (and they won't), isn't it worth a little more money to protect something so rare and beautiful? Would you drill for oil if it lay underneath Arlington National Cemetery? Why is the ANWR any less sacred? We think we're so advanced and smart, yet we're just writing our chapter as history's greatest fools ... assuming there is a future. \nEric Hancock\nSenior
U.S. needs energy independence now\nI am writing regarding the opinion article published in the March 30 issue regarding the proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Edward Delp, "Arctic oil wars," March 30). Now, I'm no bleeding-heart animal rights activist, nor am I one particularly devoted to the protection of nature for purely aesthetic reasons. But I do believe that the opinion being expressed in the article requires an injection of reason. See, what I am is a humanist, one who believes in humanity making the best decisions now so that we can survive come what may in the long term. \nProposing that drilling on "only" 2,000 acres of wildlife refuge is good for humans is incredibly short-sighted. The truth of the matter is that however much we drill and wherever we do the drilling, eventually the petroleum will dry up.\nMoreover, the United States uses so much oil that it seems our local reserves will be exhausted long before those afar. So rather than destroy 2,000 acres of habitat only to delay the inevitable, why not find a new source of energy to replace petroleum entirely? We would not be dependent on foreign oil if we did not use oil. More importantly, our independence would be permanent, not linked to how long the newly drilled reserves last before we have to drill another 2,000 acres of untouched wilderness. \nAndrew Ferguson\nJunior
Journalism school making positive steps\nI am writing in response to an opinion column written by Warren Freiberg on March 9 ("Branding education").\nFreiberg came to the conclusion that the School of Journalism recently implemented its new branding campaign, including a slogan and tagline, simply to acquire more students and prestige. He claims that the J-school foolishly requested the assistance of Hirons & Company Communications to create the campaign and failed to make use of students during the process. Finally, Warren suspects that the new logo and tagline are unsuccessful, alleging that students are associating the red "J" with marijuana joints and blood instead of quality education. \nThis opinion is poorly researched. As president of the Public Relations Student Society of America at IU and an intern at Hirons & Company, I am very active in the J-school and PR community. I was one of many students who worked on the campaign, and I would like to share a more legitimate perspective of how many students feel about what is happening at the J-school.\nThe facts present a different picture than the one described by Warren. Of course the school hired Hirons & Company, a leader in the industry, to do the campaign. Hirons is an agency that consistently supports IU students, employing 30 IU grads and five IU student interns and teaching 38 IU students this semester alone. In addition, students did participate actively in the creation and implementation of the campaign, sharing their ideas during classes and focus groups. Upon completion of the campaign, a group of students from PRSSA planned an open house event that introduced students to the new logo, slogan and overall campaign. \nStudent feedback has been positive, and most appreciate the new logo and tagline. Intelligent students do not associate the logo with blood and marijuana and understand that no one is trying to bribe them. The school is simply trying to help students obtain careers in all areas of communications, positioning them to make a difference in the world. \nWarren, join me and many of your fellow students and find out what actually is going on here. \nAshley Voss\nIU PRSSA president
Autusim is more commonplace\nOn March 1, the IDS published a column titled "Health-Phobia." In the column, Aubrey Donaldson stated that, in some cases, autism is "excessively misdiagnosed." In response, it seemed important to provide readers with some accurate information.\nOnce thought to be a rare disability with an incidence rate of 1 in 5,000, the incidence of autism spectrum disorders is now considered to be 1 in 166, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC based this incidence rate on the findings of respected researchers across the country and internationally. This rate is widely accepted.\nAutism is referred to as a spectrum disorder to signify differences among a group who share a common diagnosis. Even though individuals diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder share a common set of behavioral characteristics, no two individuals are alike. Because of the differences among these individuals, making generalizations about this population is incredibly difficult. \nRegardless of the incidence, this disability makes life challenging for the many that have been diagnosed. For these individuals, simple social interactions or an event as uncomplicated as going to the movies can be stressful and challenging. Going to class and being able to take notes, follow a lecture, respond to questions and interact socially with classmates and professors may be an incredibly stressful and difficult chore. Bottom line, for the many individuals and their families who live with this neurological condition diagnosis, life is complex. There is no faking that. \nBecause of the increasing incidence, many of you will have personal experience with someone on the autism spectrum during your lifetime. Perhaps a family member or even your child will be diagnosed with this disability. For these families and individuals, our hope is that you will receive understanding, accurate information and positive support.\nThe Indiana Resource Center for Autism at the Indiana Institute on Disability and Community is available to provide information, training and assistance. For more information, visit our Web site at www.iidc.indiana.edu/irca.\nCathy Pratt, Ph.D.\nDirector, Indiana Resource Center for Autism Chairwoman of the board, National Autism Society of America
Campus needs fiscal responsibility\nThis letter is being written in response to the staff editorial titled "It takes a whole college," (March 28). The obvious mentality behind a "spend now, ask later" policy that has become ever so prevalent in this University has managed to find its way into the newspaper. Sure, "minority programs" carry merit, but so do a lot of things. And there has to be a point where students stand up and say "enough is enough." \nWith tuition costs on an upward slope and financial burdens getting worse each and every year, there comes a time when "special programs" need to be revisited, and costs must be cut. Instead of trying to make every single group happy, we need to focus on this campus as a whole and start making fiscally responsible decisions.\nSo let's look at some of the expenses that I, the average student, pays for each year. No target is easier to hit than the IU Student Association, a ballooning sore in the budget of this institution. With thousands being spent on retreats, food and stipends, a few enjoy many splendors from the money of all. And don't forget that $250 was budgeted to give the Supreme Court justices "senior gifts." What are they being rewarded for? Do I get a gift, too?\nNow the editorial board carried a strong argument in their opinion behind the need for certain health services and legal assistance. But we're beginning to foster a culture of rapid spending that is going to drive this University into the ground. And with our mandatory athletic fee last year, we entered a new era where students now fund the debts and mistakes of the administration. \nSo I have a proposal for the Indiana Daily Student and the IU administration: What ever happened to spending my money, your money and our money on good old-fashioned education?\nAndrew C. Lauck\nSophomore\nChairman, IU College Republicans
Newspaper fee offers benefits to students\nAs a student and strong supporter of The New York Times readership program and someone who has been actively involved in bringing The New York Times to IU, I feel I can comment on the letter "Newspaper fee won't benefit students," by Randy Beam, that advocates The Times and USA Today readership program only serves to promote "conglomerates" and gives these companies "hunting permits" for unsuspecting students.\nThe proposed distribution provides students with the ability to read a newspaper that enhances their academic environment and provides the foundation to develop a global perspective. The figures speak for themselves. Over the years, The Times has been honored with more than 79 Pulitzer Prizes and is read by almost every major leader in the world.\nThe New York Times also provides a global view on world developments and politics. It has the top journalists reporting in from every corner of the world and the ability to serve every IU student's academic interest. This creates a two-way dynamic process of learning; students can relate theory in the classroom to real-world examples and instructors vice versa.\nThe financial benefits also provide another compelling reason this program will provide even more value to the education of students at IU. The rate at which the University receives the newspaper is more than 60 percent less than the newsstand price. A $1 per student fee pales in comparison with other mandatory fees assessed to students on this campus, such as to Legal Services ($9.61), IU Auditorium ($2.67), IU Health Center ($87.96) and Division of Recreational Sports ($39.15).\nTo take the argument that The New York Times seeks to gain further readership because of declining readership levels, one would be hard pressed to find any newspaper in the world that does not derive some of its advertising prices on readership levels. The fact is that all major newspapers, even the IDS, face exactly the same issues as The New York Times in increasing readership levels. \nTo that end, professor Beam's letter is not an argument against a world-renowned newspaper being distributed across campus and serving students, but against conglomerates and corporations seeking to use their hunting permits on naive college students. I feel that IU students are sophisticate consumers who are fully capable of making better decisions than professor Beam leads us to believe.\nThe partnership between the University and The New York Times provides the tools for students to form and interpret world events and politics. Further, it establishes the platform for learning that enhances the global perspective of students at IU. By not allowing students this option, you are limiting their most basic freedom, freedom of choice.\nSarood Baig\nSenior
