Jordan River Forum

In "Shirt Hypocrisy" (Oct. 17), Amy Obermeyer makes an intriguing point about the exploitation of sweat shop laborers who produce T-shirts, which carry the even so exploited image of Che Guevara. Having thought about this after purchasing the first Che T-shirt, we decided to make our own, and have been doing so for a couple of years now with simply the name Che without using his image. Every ideology has its counterpart. Today, religion seems to be feeling the void left by communism. If religion is back, why not communism? If Jesus is back, why not Che? Both ideologies came into existence in the name of humanity. Both figures gave their lives during the process of bringing these ideologies into reality. Christianity has more than 2,000 years of triumphs and failure, communism, a mere 70 years. Communism came to being as a counterpart to capitalism and whether the Marxist ideology will triumph again is unknown, but as the T-shirt debate shows us, Che is alive, like Jesus, like Gandhi, like Mandela, like Joan of Arc, in the hearts and minds of the people. Because, like them, Che's life and actions continue to inspire people, especially under the current political climate in America. The image of Che on a vodka bottle, as was done a few years ago by Smirnoff, is clearly not servicing his ideals. We cannot be certain that a American teenager, or a German for that matter, who has a Che poster in his or her room is aware of Che's ideas and life, or that they are not necessarily going to follow in his footsteps. Yet for some, Che serves as a symbol of rebellion against the status quo. Where does the line between validation, inspiration and exploitation begin and end? It does not matter whether this image is printed on a poster or on the upper arm of a Hungarian truck driver, it's the strength of this message embedded in it that matters. Today, in order to establish justice and freedom, some religious fanatics kill in the name of their faith and America is delivering democracy to the Middle East via bombs and sacrifice of human life. It is no wonder that people look for alternative ways of expressing their own vision of this justice and freedom. Let's hope that this alternative self-expression, in Che's words, "is guided by a great feeling of love." Filiz Cicek and Maarten Bout
Graduate students

Cigarettes not trendy

I am thoroughly disappointed in the Indiana Daily Student for their section Trends in Tuesday's edition. I had no objections to the lack of journalistic value in the Trends section, but what was disturbing was a picture on the last page. A man named Kaio Buttiang is smoking a cigarette in a photograph. I thought that cigarettes were bad for you, as does almost every physician in America. Reduced rates of bronchitis and pneumonia, living longer, reducing chances of lung cancer, cutting the risk of heart attacks in half and not having bad breath are some reasons why smoking is bad for you. Apparently, having a man with nice pants, a jean jacket and smoking a cigarette is considered trendy. Smoking is already an issue here on campus. I have to walk to my classes seeing and smelling smokers as they lurk outside the doors of campus buildings. But now, the IDS is classifying smoking as trendy? I don't seem to quite understand, especially since this is an institution of higher learning where we would assume that we have intelligence to determine what is good and what is bad. The IDS needs to carefully review everything it puts into print. Sure, everyone has the right to smoke and everyone has the right to free speech. However, putting a picture of a man smoking and calling it a "random act of fashion" is probably the most ignorant and irresponsible act. I am not hoping for a crusade against smoking, I just hope that everyone at the IDS can realize what they say and show does have an influence and does represent our institution. Mark Taracuk
Sophomore

Parking garage should not be built

The IU board of trustees is considering a proposal to build a parking garage at the corner of Atwater and Fess. The last thing this campus needs is more parking. The streets are already congested enough with single-passenger vehicles. What the trustees and the University should be doing is encouraging students, faculty and staff to use alternative means of transportation. When the campus decided to subsidize student fares on Bloomington Transit buses, ridership increased dramatically. The need for additional parking decreased as well. That was a positive step in the right direction. The same could be done for faculty and staff. I believe there would be a similarly dramatic increase in ridership by faculty and staff. How about more sheltered bicycle parking? Every effort should be made to reduce the congestion around campus. A decision not to build would show true leadership and would be a sign that the University takes its responsibility to the community seriously. Bob Flynn
IU faculty member

To the IU trustees:

On Nov. 4,0 please affirm the modes of transportation most beneficial to the campus and our community -- walking, biking and public transit -- by voting against the construction of a new parking garage at Atwater and Fess. The reasons are many. Not only will we dodge additional traffic congestion, noise, pollution, depletion of finite energy and safety risks to pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit users, we will save money. Please follow the lead of universities such as Washington, Michigan, Cornell, Wisconsin and Colorado and embrace improved transit services, appropriately priced and located park-and-ride services, carpooling benefits and improvements to bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes and paths, sufficient parking racks, convenient shower facilities and on-campus bike maintenance services). To encourage driving is not provident. Melissa McReynolds
Bloomington resident

Athletics concession prices outrageous

I'm sure we're all breathing a sigh of relief knowing that football revenue will ease the burden of a repeal of student athletic fees. But I'm also interested in reducing the burden of concession prices at Memorial Stadium and Assembly Hall. I must admit that I'm somewhat shocked by the increase in concession prices at Assembly Hall if those listed behind the concession counters during Hoosier Hysteria are any indication of the prices we'll be paying for soda and popcorn this year. Seriously, since when did popcorn and sugar-flavored water start costing so much? I seem to remember an IDS article in which the University bragged of the "significant discounts" it receives on Coke products via the University's contract with Coca-Cola ("Brand name bombardment," March 3). If the University is truly receiving deep discounts on Coke products, could someone please explain to me how charging $3.75 for a Coke is in any way justified? Seriously, just because an institution can get away with such a crime (and it is a crime) does not mean they should. Consider the math: the price of one 32 oz. Coke at Assembly Hall is now $3.75. Seeing as how 32 oz. is one-fourth of a gallon, a little bit of math reveals that IU is charging $15 for a gallon of pop. Last I checked, gasoline was going for about $2.80 a gallon. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time believing that pop costs 5.3 times the price of a gallon of gas. Put simply, this madness must stop. How about cutting back on the $300,000 bonuses and the new scoreboards, and let's stop nickel and diming the fans on concessions? I'm left wondering how the University ever got by charging $1 for soda and popcorn and $6 for tickets at Assembly Hall in 1981, when we were national champs, no less. And, yes, I've saved my ticket stubs, and that's exactly what it cost back then. Phil Eskew
Adjunct lecturer

2 sides to intelligent design

If the IDS is going to report about intelligent design, as it did in a front page article on Oct. 21 ("Circuit lecturer touts 'intelligent design'"), it should do so in a more thoughtful and professional way. News articles should avoid implicitly endorsing the position of those who promote intelligent design. Those articles also should provide context and balance. The article's problems begin with its first paragraph, which says that speaker Walter Bradley "gave evidence that a higher power created the universe." I doubt it. Perhaps Bradley gave what he said was evidence that a higher power created the universe. But the IDS' phrasing suggests there's no doubt about what Bradley accomplished in his talk — he gave the evidence, and it proved this key element of the "theory" of intelligent design. That leads to a second problem with the article. Throughout the piece, the IDS refers to intelligent design as a "theory." That's precisely what the proponents of intelligent design hope the news media will do. They want reporters to buy into this characterization of intelligent design as a scientific theory because that would put it on equal footing with real scientific theories. But within the scientific community, theory has a specific meaning, and intelligent design falls short of the standards for being one. Among other things, real scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, have that potential for being proved false. Intelligent design cannot be proved false. That's one important reason that it does not qualify as a scientific theory. If Bradley wants to argue that intelligent design is a theory, that's fine. Quote him to that effect. But it's naive and inaccurate for the IDS, in its independent references to intelligent design, to embrace it as a theory, too. It's akin to taking Bradley's side in the discussion. And from the perspective of most scientists, to call intelligent design a theory would be inaccurate. The final shortcoming of the article is that it fails to provide any balancing comment. But it never mentions that most life scientists dispute the precepts of intelligent design. Randal A. Beam
Associate professor

A closer look at hypocrisy

In Precious Sanders' "American Hypocrites" (Tuesday), although she's very passionate for us to not judge one another, she consistently does this through her entire article. Whether it's calling Americans "anti-intellectuals" based on the revenue of a movie released three years ago and assumptions on the study habits of students that aren't her's, to evidence that shows nothing. Who cares if 10 percent of Americans are divorced and most European countries' divorce rates are lower? What does this have to do with legalizing gay marriage? She continually blasts the things she doesn't like, judging them harshly without valid evidence other than the fact that she disagrees with it. She claims that Christianity in America has something to do with the Iraq War, and while I disagree with the war, it has nothing to do with Christianity. The United States isn't a theocracy last time I checked. She also complains that Michael Moore's First Amendment rights were violated when Disney refused to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11." Excuse me? Disney is merely exacting its First Amendment rights and its rights, first and foremost, as a business. It did not distribute the film because it criticized President Bush. It made a decision as a business, not because of the morality or politics of its executive board. Moore's film was released, and made more than $220 million worldwide. I hardly see this as prevention of the First Amendment. Instead of creating new or interesting ideas of American hypocrisy, Sanders relies on the old favorites of politics, religion and media representation or misrepresentation. Adrian Bachnivsky
Senior