Iraq war damages U.S. reputation
Regarding "Stop latte politics" Monday, Nov. 27\nBrian Stewart's latest salvo in the "us and them" debate centers on the belief that anybody who enters a coffeehouse is just avoiding reality and/or one of Stewart's priceless columns. As "anyone who has studied the world with any seriousness," he will tell us that all of us slackers (who can afford venti lattes) hanging around Kirkwood have it all wrong. Stewart, of course, is right because he is getting his degree in political science and history and is an IDS columnist -- I can't believe he isn't running for president in this age of underachievers. Since 77 senators voted to invade Iraq, it must be the right decision to destroy a hellish tyranny. The trivial issue of what the tyranny thought of the whole affair doesn't need to be dealt with. Hey, Stewart says it, so the U.S. must be right. Never mind that it dragged us into a sinkhole of violence and international ridicule that strangely benefited neither us nor the Iraqis.\nI can't wait to see the U.S. invade China after inviting them to join the WTO. Oh, monks and nuns being raped, temples being destroyed and cultures being uprooted are very recent occurrences that a very conscientious United States, led by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, would never turn a blind eye to. After all we never act to serve our own interests -- look at the holiday cheer we spread in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Perhaps Stewart should leave the "real" coffeehouse of his own making and enter the ones on Kirkwood. And yes, it would help if he stopped responding to IDS ads worded like this: "Wanted: Columnist. Must frame complete sentences."
Sriram Raghuraman\nGraduate student
Stewart lacks clarity on target of attack
I drink lattes, but I don't have any of the bumper stickers denounced by Brian Stewart in "Stop the latte politics" (Nov. 27), so I'm not sure if I belong to the group of people interfering with his enjoyment of Kirkwood Avenue. Whether or not this column applies to me, I would like to remark on several points raised therein.\nFirst, I cannot accept the broad brush with which Mr. Stewart paints his vague portrait of this unnamed community. "Everyone" in the coffeehouse lacks a sense of reality. "Latte-sippers," "people" and "they" are a few of the less-than-useful descriptors used to define the mass with whom Mr. Stewart disagrees. All we know of "they" is that Mr. Stewart finds them naive and that they promote at least one of four slogans, each unpalatable to the author. Whom, exactly, is Mr. Stewart attacking?\nSecond, I find troublesome the condescending dismissal of this mysterious group's ideas as lacking in seriousness. I cannot speak with certainty, but I am reasonably sure that Mr. Stewart has not made a detailed study of the individual opinions of these latte-drinkers and their grounding in fact. As with any large group (and it must be large, since its omnipresence upsets Mr. Stewart so) I think that within it we can safely predict a diversity of opinion and belief. My worldview is, I believe, based on careful study and contemplation, and I have no reason to assume that those with whom I disagree have not devoted equal energies to constructing their own ideals. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, the very definition of worn and less-than-elevated political discourse.\nFinally, I am perplexed by Mr. Stewart's stated discomfort at seeing slogans with which he disagrees. Like everyone else, I see a variety of bumper stickers, signs and T-shirts, as well as hear many ideas, opinions and beliefs. While I find some morally or politically repugnant, some infuriating and some downright stupid, their mere expression has never interfered with my enjoyment of life. Rather, I am encouraged by the broad and peaceful articulation of different ideas -- truly an American value suitable for export.
Colin Dietch\nGraduate student
Dow's involvment in Bhopal incident minimal
Regarding "Protestors decry DOW at career fair" Nov. 3\nYour story is another example of how many facts have been forgotten about the Bhopal tragedy in the past 22 years and how much misinformation is being disseminated by certain parties. Union Carbide continues to have the deepest sympathy and compassion for the victims and their families. UC took moral responsibility for the tragedy immediately after it occurred, as evidenced by our actions that are detailed on our Web site: www.bhopal.com.\nUnion Carbide India Limited designed and constructed the plant in the late 1970s on land leased by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. UCIL managed and ran the plant -- not Union Carbide, not Dow Chemical and certainly not Dow-Corning. UC merged with Dow Chemical in 2002, long after the tragedy occurred (1984) and long after UC, UCIL and the Government of India arrived at a $470-million settlement (1989). Dow Chemical never owned, operated, took over or had any responsibility for the Bhopal plant. \nBy passing the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief Act (1985), the Indian government deemed to represent all claimants in the case. And, under the settlement terms, the government would disburse any money and provide medical coverage to Bhopal citizens in the event of future illnesses. The former has taken some time, however. Recent media reports said all initial compensation claims only now have been cleared. This could mean the estimated $390 million still in the settlement fund as of 2004 might have finally been distributed. \nConcerning site clean up, the state government took possession of the facility in 1998 and publicly assumed responsibility for any further remediation. This occurred after UCIL and its successor company spent more than $2 million on clean-up work. \nRegarding health claims, the Hindustan Times reported a National Institute of Occupational Health study that questions voluntary organizations' fears about water contamination in/around the plant. The article said "the state government has filed the NIOH report in the High Court in support of its contention that hazardous wastes lying in the Union Carbide were not contaminating water." The NIOH study apparently supports earlier ones by India's National Environmental Engineering Research Institute and the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board. \nThe facts surrounding the tragedy and wherein responsibilities truly lie are easily discernible.
Tomm F. Sprick\nDirector\nUnion Carbide Information Center
'Green My Apple'!
It seems as though chemicals are everywhere today. After reading that a chemical leak of sodium hydrosulfite caused I-65 to close down Nov. 16, it made me start thinking about how dangerous it is to live with these toxins everywhere. I mean, sodium hydrosulfite is a flammable solid, which easily explodes with moisture such as rain, and that would have caused numerous deaths. As the article last week stated, after sodium hydrosulfite combusts, it becomes a very poisonous gas. So, where else do we see toxins? \nWell, Greenpeace Toxic Campaigners are working on a 'Green My Apple' campaign. Currently, Apple computers are full of chemicals (like toxic flame-retardants and polyvinyl chloride) and are being sold worldwide. When they're tossed, they usually end up at the fingertips of children in China, India and other developing countries. They dismantle them for parts and are exposed to dangerous toxic cocktails that threatens their health and the environment. You know, I love my Apple -- I just wish it came in green. \nGreenpeace understands that, and that seems to be its mantra on its Web site, greenmyapple.com. Apple is the trendsetter and innovator for the electronics industry so its current bad policies set a bad example to the whole industry. While other companies have improved, Apple has not. Apple is now falling behind. Instead, Apple should be setting the trend for a green future. If any company should do this, it's Apple.
Steven Furr\nJunior
Soccer team sets good example
I recently read an article on ESPNSoccernet noting how our soccer team is largely underappreciated. The article noted that the average student would likely recognize all the starting basketball players on a basketball team that has had little success over the past several years but could not even remember the dates or number of national championships that the soccer team has won. Sadly, most IU sports fans have a long tradition of worshipping coaches like Bobby Knight, Mike Davis and now Kelvin Sampson even though some have gained notoriety largely through controversy. \nI wish that students would look to other coaches for good examples of how to be team leaders that demand respect. Doc Counsilman, Jerry Yeagley and now Mike Freitag are certainly examples of men who have built winning traditions from the ground up, as in Counsilman and Yeagley's cases, and have continued successful programs, as in coach Freitag's case. \nAnyone who attends an IU soccer match will never see coach Freitag making a scene on the field. In fact, he usually sits calmly with his legs crossed pensively watching the game. This outward calmness surely helps coach Freitag make the best decisions for his team in a rational manner. Yet, it is also easy to see that he has drive, desire and the ability to motivate his players all while being a classy guy! His team in return brings a level of play and sportsmanship to the field that reflects this nature. The players work hard to get the job done, they "respond" to situations on the field rather than "react," and they win Big Ten and national titles year after year. I certainly have much respect for Coach Freitag and this year's IU soccer team. \nEven though the season is sadly finished, I look forward to next year, and I encourage the rest of the students to invest some interest in coach Freitag and his team because they are excellent examples of how to be leaders and winners. Go IU soccer!
Theresa Wilson\nIU student
MCA, Patriot Act threaten rights\n
Regarding Edward Delp's contribution to the Opinion front's "Intelligence Report" (Nov. 15):\nEdward Delp's claim that he doesn't know why Democrats might oppose the Military Commissions Act and renewal of the Patriot Act worries me. I'm not nearly as bothered by someone making the argument that national security requires that we make compromises on principles like human rights, civil liberties and limits to government powers. That's an argument I can understand, even if I wouldn't agree with it in many cases. But does Delp seriously have no clue as to why someone might be nervous about the erosion of those principles? If so, that suggests a breakdown somewhere in our national discourse about the relationship between the government and the individual.\nSo, for Edward Delp, and anyone else out there who might be new to this idea, let me attempt a quick explanation.\nThe basic principles behind the concept of individual human rights and freedoms include the following: Governments make mistakes, power is easily abused, and, most importantly, it could happen to you. Thus, to determine whether the "aggressive measures for benefits" that Delp supports are appropriate security tools or abuses of human rights, ask yourself how you would feel if some foreign government applied them to you in a prison far away without even the right of habeas corpus to challenge whether you should be there in the first place -- which means, for all practical purposes, that we should assume that you are there because someone "said" you were a terrorist, not because you actually are one. (If you're completely fine with that scenario, then by all means support the Military Commissions Act.)\nLimits to government power are crucial to avoid abuses of basic individual rights. Where the lines should be drawn is a subject on which we can legitimately disagree. But to claim ignorance of the motives of people who are trying to keep the lines drawn more narrowly around the government is to violate a foundational American principle: that a responsible citizenry keeps a sharp eye on its government.
Elizabeth Venstra\nIU employee
Gender more \nthan anatomy
Abram Hess' column "Doubleplus ungood truths" (Nov. 29) asserts a "very clear distinction between men and women." However, when one considers this distinction, the boundaries prove to be more ambiguous. Gender is not merely a statement of anatomy; it is a set of characteristics, ideas, associations and standards that have become identified with particular bodies. This is not a natural distinction but rather a human one.\nAssigning an identity to a person based on their genitalia is much like assuming someone's character based on their race or health status. All of this is to say nothing of the millions of people whose genitals fit the category of neither "male" nor "female." Mr. Hess' "common sense" relies on a number of assumptions that, closely examined, just don't hold up.
Jacob Mazer\nSenior
Thank you from Gordon's family\n
The family of the late Gordon Kato wishes to thank Indiana University -- especially Linda Smith, Jim and Roberta Sherman, Elliot and Pamela Smith, John Petrocelli, Elise Percy Hall, Drew Hendricksen, Charles Seger and the staff and graduate students of the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences -- for their Herculean efforts in organizing the lovely memorial service that was held Sunday, Nov. 5... We also wish to thank each of these individuals for their friendship and support during this difficult time.\nIn honor of Gordon's memory, Jim Sherman, Gordon's friend and academic adviser, has established The Gordon E. Kato Memorial Scholarship Fund. This scholarship will be awarded each year to a student in the social psychology program at IU. Our family wholeheartedly supports the establishment of a memorial scholarship fund. Anyone wishing to make a memorial gift in honor of Gordon Kato should make checks payable to the Indiana University Foundation with "In memory of Gordon Kato" in the memo line. Contributions may be sent to: Indiana University Foundation, c/o Helene O'Leary, P.O. Box 500, Bloomington, IN 47402. For more information, please contact Helene O'Leary at 855-0594.\nThank you.
Pamela Kato Klebanov \n(on behalf of the Kato family)\nPrinceton, N.J.
IDS editorial \nmiscasts Purdue loan policies
Regarding the staff editorial "A little on the side" (Nov. 9):\nI was not interviewed for the editorial published on Nov. 9 in the Indiana Daily Student on the topic of private student loans; however, I was quoted in the article.\nAt Purdue, we agree with the thrust of your Nov. 9 editorial, "IU should watch out for loan companies offering fishy incentives." When the loans the government provides are insufficient to meet students' needs, college students and their families often turn to private loans to pay expenses. To help students identify which companies offer the best terms for them, universities develop preferred lender lists. Students are not required to use these lenders, but if they choose to do so, they will know their university has negotiated rates on their behalf and also endorses the program's administration.\nWe further agree with the Indiana Daily Student that a perceived conflict of interest could have been construed by participating in the EduCap workshop in the Carribbean. Purdue was not invited to that conference. Had we been invited, we would not have attended.\nUnfortunately, the IDS went a step further and misidentified Purdue as a university making money based on the number of students borrowing from a preferred lender. Purdue does not receive any cash payments based on the volume of our private loans. Students who are unable to get a cosigner or unable to get a loan through others can get a loan through our preferred private loan provider. Thankfully, this is a small number of students of our 38,000-plus student enrollment.\nAlso, note that the quote ascribed to me was not a quote of mine but came from a Nov. 7 New York Times article in which Tom Joyce, who works for Sallie Mae, was quoted as saying, "The school is not being asked in any way, share or form to steer a percentage of loan volume." While this statement is true, it should not be ascribed to me in quotes.\nWe use a formal, competitive process to select preferred lenders. In all cases, we are bound by the common goal of assessing what the best benefits for our students will be.\nWe all need to be clear to our congressional representatives that the loan limits for federal loans need to be increased beyond the modest increases that were approved to begin for the 2007-08 year.\nThis would cut down on private loan borrowing. Also, Pell maximums have been stagnant; increases in Pell Grants would cut reliance on private loans.\nThank you for the opportunity to respond to your editorial.
Joyce Hall\nExecutive director, Division of Financial Aid, Purdue University
Attention Teter: Inequality is \ncolor-blind
I was disappointed and discouraged to see a board in Teter decorated to raise awareness about "white privilege." The board seems to have no real goal other than to make students of the pale persuasion, to make whites, feel guilty about the color of skin they were born with. The board makes sweeping generalizations and terrible stereotypes. Someone needs to educate the Teter staff to the fact that inequality is color-blind. \nDoes the coal miner from West Virginia who makes less than $20,000 a year benefit from "white privilege?" The ability, says the board, to buy a home anywhere he pleases? I'm not sure, but I think his choices will be hampered by his income, not widened by his skin color. How about the rural mom who works at Wal-Mart as a cashier and waitresses just to get by? I guess she must be "privileged" to have two jobs. \nThe board raises the question of if you chew with your mouth open, will that be attributed to your race? No, but it might be attributed to my class. Everybody knows that "white trash ain't got no manners." \nIt is an ignorant mistake to lump all white people together, just as it is an ignorant mistake to lump any ethnic group together. I believe the real issue that needs to be addressed here is class disparity, not race. Sorry, Teter, but your need to categorize people by their color is not diversity; it's divisive and demeaning.
Rachel Passine\nSenior
Blogging could be good for presidents
Regarding the staff editorial, "Blog-worthies?" (Nov. 28):\nWhile it might not be a good idea for the president to blog, I would recommend looking at the other side of the issue. Good bloggers have these attributes: They are passionate about their subject and they tend to be experts in what they write about. And, a blog forces the blogger to think. I assume the president has all those attributes. \nSince the president is always thinking except, maybe, when he is sleeping, he has many thoughts and ideas that are worth sharing. So, in reality, there is not much additional work required to be a blogger. The thoughts that are truly important and worthy of letting the world know about can be simply and easily posted on the blog.
Ken Leebow\nMarietta, Ga.
