Jordan River Forum

Column was 'purely beautiful'
"My dog is a liberal"... That was purely beautiful. I just showed it to one of my liberal friends. Go Lindsay and go ole IU. Rick Rhodes
Producer, WTHI-TV Kerrigan generalizes issues I would like to point out that you, Lindsay Kerrigan, are making generalizations on the whole country in your column, "My dog is a liberal." You state that your dog didn't do anything for itself, depends on you for everything and gives up its freedoms because it's easier. Well, chances are if your dog was born in the wild, things would be different, but you dog was probably born around humans, always cared for by humans and has never known anything else. By your same argument, President Bush must be a liberal. His parents paid his way though college, made big contributions so he wouldn't flunk, gave him a company, and when he destroyed it they bailed him out. Our president is just as dependent as your dog, yet he is not liberal. You also mention all liberals make big stinks about everything without looking at facts, are fed by the government, sheltered by the government and believe that American soldiers are always in the wrong. Really, all liberals? I know many liberals who proudly display "support our troops" magnets. Most liberals research facts and make well informed decisions. Most liberals do not blindly follow their figure head and believe that what he/she thinks of social policy must be the only way, but that seems to be the case with a lot (not all) of conservatives. I see what you are saying can easily be applied to a lot of the extremist groups on both ends, but saying "all liberals" is the kind of comment that makes conservatives look bad. So before casting judgment on all, why not research your facts, make sound arguments and think about how your statements are making the conservatives look. I encourage all people, conservative or liberal, to check their facts, get to know people of other parties, learn from each other and most of all, never generalize. Michael A. Schulman
Student Will columnist send taxpayers a refund? Since Lindsay Kerrigan is such a big fan of self-reliance, I assume she'll be sending all of us Indiana taxpayers, who are subsidizing her education, a refund. And if Audrey, the naughty pooch, should become pregnant and decide she wanted to have an abortion, would she be able to get one? Or is that a case where the government should make the decision for her? Rodger Alexander
Bloomington resident Liberal dog piece lacked evidence Lindsay Kerrigan's most recent column, "My dog is a liberal," descends to new lows. To begin, she references "liberals who think they are gods" and who "make a big stink over things they think are really important and then everything turns out to be completely irrelevant (or false!)" To whom or to what are these vague, sweeping generalizations directed? The Karl Rove scandal? The John Roberts Supreme Court nomination? Who knows, since Kerrigan offers no evidence or even explanation of such broad claims. She quickly moves on and makes an analogy, likening her dog to a liberal and herself to large, federal government. She sticks to the same old rhetoric about how liberals like and depend on a benevolent bureaucracy, which isn't so bad in itself. But I wonder if Kerrigan has looked in the mirror lately. With her beloved GOP in control of all three federal branches, the government has ballooned and nearly every department spends more tax dollars, creating the highest budgets (and deficits) in our nation's history. Bush even signed into law a Medicare expansion that was the largest entitlement program increase since LBJ's Great Society. Hey, wait a minute, Bush almost sounds like ... a liberal! But the column gets even better. Now, still sticking with her analogy of equating her dog to a liberal, she claims that her dog prefers to stand by and watch Iraqis be destroyed by blood-thirsty dictators, and that her dog always opposes the American military. Besides making vile claims against liberals, the analogy doesn't even make any sense anymore (although I would be impressed if her dog had single-handedly stopped Saddam, I imagine only conservative dogs can achieve such feats.) Lastly, she lowers her rhetoric even further by comparing the top leaders of the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean -- to dogs. Such claims only cheapen and exacerbate our already pitiful national dialogue. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to Kerrigan, but someone has to: You are not Ann Coulter. Stop trying. Bryan Schmidt
Junior Kerrigan's column insulted As an American citizen, a Democrat and a liberal (in that order), I'm extremely offended by Lindsay Kerrigan's column comparing liberals to her dog. While I'm used to finding disagreement from the far right for my beliefs and views, I have a hard time accepting what seems to be their vision of a God-given right to couch all disagreement in insult, mockery and derision. I hear it at various levels, from the president's closest advisor to the Senate Majority leader, from the talking heads on TV down to the most local of levels, the IDS. What is the deal with that? I can manage to express boatloads of disagreement without resorting to insult and mockery. Why is that such a lost art for the far right? Small wonder many people see our society as coarsening. And I also have to take issue with the last paragraph, where she wishes Dems like Ted Kennedy would learn to "play dead." Too bad she missed living through that part of American History where Kennedy's brothers were shot and killed for their political beliefs. Like Kerrigan, I too went to a Catholic school. The kindly priests and nuns, in addition to giving us a first-class education, also instilled values such as tolerance for those unlike ourselves, as well as an abiding respect for every person. They showed us that Jesus preached love, forgiveness, peace and righteousness, not intolerance, war and self-righteousness. So far, it looks like the columnist in question has the technical aspects of writing down pretty well, but in regards to the rest, she appears to be zero-for-six. Kevin Kleine
Class of '74 Column was ignorant, prejudiced Lindsay Kerrigan's Monday, July 25 column "My dog is a liberal," was full of ignorance, prejudice and irony. A comparison of her dog to a liberal is one thing, but to unabashedly issue blanket statements that all liberals "make a big stink out of things that are unimportant," "are fans of allowing other people to control their lives" and "have an unabashed loyalty to more government" is downright ignorant. It is clear from her column that Kerrigan would rather waste her space spewing her preconceived ideas about liberals rather than engaging in any pragmatic discussion of policy or current events. For Kerrigan, it is simply more name calling and insults, accomplishing nothing but making herself and her party look foolish. It is ironic that Kerrigan condemns liberals for "passing blind judgment and being rude" and saying things that "turn out to completely irrelevant of false," because that is exactly what she does in her column. I do not identify solely with a conservative or liberal ideology, but prefer to consider facts and form an individual opinion rather than wasting time fighting ideology wars. Although after reading this column I am tempted to dismiss all conservatives as ignorant and prejudiced like Kerrigan, I know for a fact that would be unrealistic, ignorant and downright rude. Christopher Skees
Student Column made blood pressure rise There I was on the hottest day on record in the past three years, trying to cool off in the cold air conditioning yet finding myself getting hotter by the moment. Why? I was reading an opinion piece by one Lindsay Kerrigan, self-styled "Common Sense." A fine piece of claptrap equating liberals to dogs. My first reaction was annoyance accompanied by a dangerous rise in my blood pressure. But after a bit of reflection, I began to question my own response. Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps it was all written tongue in cheek meant to illustrate the dismal state of what passes for political discourse. Maybe it was written by a left wing mole whose intention was to discredit the conservative movement by showing them to be small minded, petty and mean-spirited. Or it was intended as satire and I had lost my sense of humor. Or maybe it was written by a cat. I suppose any of these alternatives could be true (cats are smart and sneaky) but taking it at face value impels me to respond with a few thoughts of my own. I've had more than enough of this type of drivel. It's worthy of a grade school playground, or a Sunday morning shout down and is not only useless, but detrimental to our political process, our exchange of ideas and the respect we ought to accord one another. Perhaps the IDS could find a columnist who can actually articulate the conservative viewpoint without resorting to name calling, over the top generalizations and weak analogies. In doing so they can help to reverse our continuing slide into mudslinging as entertainment or ranting and vilification as a substitute for analysis, argument and persuasion. For the author of the piece -- I don't know -- the tone of your column suggests you hear nothing but your own internal voice; your column practically oozes with contempt for those who think and feel differently than you. Perhaps in time you will find that most issues aren't black and white, that your world is a vastly complex stage. Creativity and open-mindedness will generate far better solutions than instantly classifying everyone and everything into your own narrow and necessarily limited world view. With regard to your dog -- perhaps she smelled something about George she found alarming. Jim Rausch
Bloomington resident War language distracts from truth I think you are right! Just get rid of the government entirely. That should make the right very happy by making the liberals (oops! is that a bad word) do something instead of "...sacrificing her freedom." But anyway ... on to the truth, or I mean the blurred version. I love how people like to justify the war in Iraq by using language that distracts from the truth. The column stated that a dog "...would have preferred to stand by and watch them (I am assuming this means the Iraqi people?) be destroyed by blood-thirsty dictators." The right loves to put a scare into people to justify actions, i.e. "blood-thirsty dictators". I didn't think the U.S. invaded Iraq because there was a blood-thirsty dictator. I thought we invaded due to the weapons of mass destruction. But since none were found, the Right must now again use the scare tactic to distract from the truth! And by the way, don't use the American soldiers as a pawn. I have not heard of anyone saying that the soldiers are in the wrong. The person/machine that is wrong is Mr. Bush and his gang of thugs. Todd Richardson Column had no substance I don't really consider myself a liberal, but I do consider myself a Democrat, which I suppose is enough for someone like Lindsay Kerrigan to consider me a dog. Not that I'm too worried about the opinion of someone who salutes a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush and resorts to using blanket statements and flimsy anthropomorphic references to argue a political stance. After all, everybody is entitled to an opinion. What bothers me is the fact that the column contains no substance. It is a tirade against, as well as an open insult to an entire demographic. The only thoughtful opinion I could discern in her entire column is that she considers liberals somehow less than human. Over the past few years, we have witnessed the arteries of our government become clogged by partisan bickery. The collective mind of our country has become clouded by the notion that all issues are black and white and that you're either with us or against us. Do we really need another voice stoking the flames of intolerance and condescension? If the IDS needs a "conservative" columnist to represent the perceived minority on this campus, why not choose an educated, rather than inflammatory, one. Shawn Way
Student Poets antagonize, alienate listeners Poet Ian Girdley was quoted in the July 28 IDS as saying that he and other members of Drunk and Unpublished have been to College Mall and Wal-Mart to get poetry to those "... who usually don't hear it read -- those who usually aren't around it." Mr. Girdley, you are unable to know if those people are involved with poetry or not and you are displaying prejudice. Are you really concerned about getting poetry to people or attention to yourself? Further, as a writer myself I have no interest in taking my work to those who have not expressed an interest in it. If this group should "push it further", as Dennis Ray Powell Jr. mentioned, then I believe they will antagonize and alienate the very people they want to reach. To all involved in Drunk and Unpublished, though your performances may be done in a "sober" manner, if the first word you use to identify yourself is "Drunk" then maybe that's at least part of why you are "Unpublished". If you are truly serious about honoring and developing your talent, then for the sake of that talent I encourage you to learn about and learn from the lives of earlier writers whose alcohol and drug related choices kept them from giving more to the world and to resolve to never in your lives to consume these substances which actually consume you. Alcohol and other drugs are the deceitful enemies of creativity, accomplishment and excellence. Kirk Lundy
IU employee