1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/08/07 5:00am)
The Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance was right in noting that Roe v. Wade is a reminder of several dangerous practices (“Roe v. Wade anniversary reminds of the dangers of illegal abortion,” Feb. 1).\nThe first is believing that one of the dangers of abortion is in its previously illegal nature, despite the pro-choice’s rhetoric to the contrary. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (which led the charge to legalize abortion), now admits that the statistics regarding illegally performed abortions were fictional and outright lies used to support their cause: “We aroused sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortions by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the US. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave the media repeatedly was 1 million. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed the media was 10,000.” Most abortions were performed by unscrupulous doctors, not hacks with coat hangers. Now many of the same doctors simply perform them legally, and it is still a money-driven business.\nStudies abound about the medical complications of abortions: 10 percent suffer medical complications; 48 percent have abortion-related complications in subsequent, wanted pregnancies, losing 100,000 wanted babies each year; women have a 58 percent greater chance of dying from complications later. Not to mention the psychological factors: 44 percent complain of nervous disorders and 10 percent are classified with “serious psychiatric complications.” Just looking at the increased suicide rates following abortion alone, more women die now from legalized abortion than when it was illegal. Even the original Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) now admits her case was a fraud and campaigns, with the affidavits of a 1,000 women, on the detrimental effects of abortion. Given that abortion has increased 1,300 percent since legalization, and the fact that numerous medical and psychiatric problems still arise, it is quite a stretch to say that legalization of abortion “preserve[s] the health and safety of women.” It is curious that a feminist group would celebrate that much damage done to women, legalized under false pretenses.\nBrandon Sieg\nIU faculty
(02/08/07 5:00am)
Thomas Wachtel’s unoriginal column “Talk English; you’re in America,” (Feb. 1) is full of stilted logic, horrible rhetorical skills, and poor English (with “simple rules ... constantly flaunted”). It does not belong in this high-quality student paper.\nEmbracing cultural pluralism and encouraging immigrants to learn English are not mutually exclusive aims. English is the most widely taught and understood language in today’s world, the new lingua franca. This makes it a powerful tool anywhere, especially America, where it is the primary language. These are simple facts.\nWe shouldn’t name English our official language. However, immigrants should feel obligated to learn English: not for the benefit of American-born citizens, but for themselves and their children. English skills provide opportunities for success. Learning English doesn’t require anyone to stop speaking their worthy primary language or practicing their customs.\nMy ancestors came from Norway to settle in Dakota Territory and Minnesota. Norwegian immigrants in that region realized the necessity of some assimilation, so they founded St. Olaf College (my alma mater) in Northfield, Minn., to train Norwegian farmers’ children as citizens in a new country. Tragically, some from the first and second generation abandoned the old language and customs out of a desire or pressure to become “more American.” But many did not, and today my family sings the same songs, eats the same foods, and performs the same customs as our ancestors. Many still speak Norwegian. I am learning it.\nWhile recognizing the obvious differences between my ancestors and today’s immigrants (my ancestors were white, lived in a rural area, etc.), today’s immigrants need not build a school. I have taught English as a Second Language courses in Minnesota. These are broadly available, as are free public libraries, public schools, etc. Also, technology lets immigrants retain contact with their native countries in a way my ancestors couldn’t.\nWachtel misses the point of programs like U.S. English Inc. They are not racist. Are people in the U.S. racist and/or xenophobic? Some are. But by not encouraging immigrants to learn English, thereby disabling possibilities for dialogue, we only perpetuate hate.\nMatthew Peterson\nGraduate student
(02/08/07 5:00am)
After reading Joanna Borns’ Jan. 31 column, “Seeking a BFF,” I realized I had seen the absolute lowest common denominator journalism ever to grace the pages of a newspaper since the advent of movable type. This patently unfunny and witless column reads like an irreverent escapade through the mind of an unmedicated middle school ADD cheerleader who had just watched “Napoleon Dynamite” for the 50th time.\nWhen I envision an opinion section of a respectable collegiate newspaper, I expect to see intelligent social commentary, political analysis, interesting campus issues – anything that has even the slimmest possibility of evoking a single thought, idea or emotion. This column of pure idiocy and limitless irrelevance to life outside of Discovery Zone and Chuck E. Cheese’s makes me bow my head in shame for the continuously low standards of the IDS. I am almost certain that in the four minutes it took to read this woman’s column more of my brain cells died than if I had just watched the entire “Surreal Life” television series on acid.\nSo fascinated I was by this particular piece of prose’s unimaginative drivel, I decided that I should see Borns’ complete IDS portfolio. I logged onto idsnews.com and found several opinion columns by Ms. Borns, and I have to say that they all resonate the same stuck-up and ignorant tone of the soon-to-be Pulitzer Prize-winning “Seeking a BFF.” If you don’t believe me, see for yourself.\nI have read a slew of letters sent to the editor of the IDS lamenting the ineptitude of Indiana journalism and I wish this column had been just a backhanded response to the naysayers – a cruel joke intended to say, “Yeah, but at least we aren’t this bad.” But sadly, this is not the case. I will add my cry to the apparently silent thousands before me – please find new talent; there are people with brains on this campus. Use your investigative journalism skills to find them. Oh, and this is my informal application to be Joanna’s BFF – like, whattaya say?\nRyan Cummings\nStudent
(02/08/07 5:00am)
I read an opinion piece by Abram Hess, “Fathers and mothers” (Feb. 1). It was blasting the U.K. for supporting adoption amongst homosexual couples.\nMy personal politics and sense of logic disagrees profoundly with Mr. Hess’ opinion and rationale. I do not understand how a couple devoted enough to go through the rigorous process of adoption should be deemed worthy of a child simply because of who they think is cute.\nI also criticize why this piece was in the paper. Our news services are to provide one thing only: an informed world view of current events. When columns become hate speech and pulpit thumping, I wonder how it’s considered printable.\nMr. Hess makes a statement: “I don’t know what the impetus behind homosexual adoption is, but I’ll posit a guess: It’s thought that raising kids might somehow lend legitimacy to the sham of gay marriages.”\nThis is an uninformed opinion that directly attacks Americans and a national demographic. It’s an inflammatory statement that has little to do with the child-rearing abilities of anyone. This is not a writing of substance, and does nothing to stimulate thoughtful discussion.\nThis is the second time Mr. Hess has been published in the IDS with inflammatory opinions and aggressive language. This is not just printing a column that gets people fired up; it is permitting unformed arguments that validate and encourage poor behavior. There is nothing more damaging to compromise and debate than a publication supporting narrow-minded and insulting perspectives on issues.\nMr. Hess closed his piece with the following line: “But for the good of the orphan, he’s much better off in the hands of 20 Christian women dedicated to caring for orphans than in the hands of two men dedicated to having sex with each other.”\nIt saddens me that people working for a university publication feel that this is a coherent, responsible and, most importantly, newsworthy piece. Mr. Hess is very much entitled to his opinion, but it’s the IDS’s responsibility to understand what goes to print.\nCharles Pearce\nStudent
(02/08/07 5:00am)
In response to Abram Hess’ article “Fathers and mothers” (Feb. 1):\nI will first say that you are completely and totally entitled to your opinion. With that said, here’s mine:\nYou are a moron.\nFirst of all, you provide no evidence whatsoever that homosexuals are unfit as parents. That is probably because you couldn’t find any.\nAll of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully and as well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents’ sexual orientation.\nLast year, there were 500,000 children in the foster care system, 100,000 of whom needed to be adopted. However, there were qualified adoptive parents for only 20,000 of these children. Why deny two loving and happy people the opportunity to adopt a child? And even more, why deny these children the opportunity for a loving home with two loving parents? By your standards, single parents are also unfit to have children. Well, here is some information about myself.\nI was born and raised by my single mother. My father is incarcerated and will never be released. I graduated in the top five of my graduating high school class of 333 in 2004, while balancing several time-consuming extracurriculars. I was accepted to every university to which I applied (including an Ivy League or two). I received enough financial aid to attend IU for free (out-of-state). I’m the president of my fraternity, and I’m socially well-adjusted. Yet, I’m an unfit parent just because I’m gay?\nYour views on this issue are as archaic as the Red Cross’ policy on blood donations from gay people. Here’s my advice for you: Never have children. God forbid they grow up as closed-minded and ignorant as you.\nSchuyler Troy\nJunior
(02/08/07 5:00am)
In response to Abram Hess’ column “Fathers and mothers,” in the Thursday, Feb. 1, issue of the IDS, I would like to thank Abram Hess for contributing what has to be one of the most offensive and insensitive articles pertaining to the gay community I’ve ever read in the IDS. His views are outrageous and insulting on varying levels, and not just to those in the gay community.\nI would like to ask Mr. Hess if he has spent much time talking to kids in orphanages. Sure, you have adopted siblings. But what about the kids still in the orphanages? He claims that children are better off with “20 Christian women” than with gay parents, but how would he know? Does he really assume that 20 different people can provide the same kind of love and attention that two caring parents could?\nWhich brings me to my next point: Hess concludes his article by making the assumption that gay men are “dedicated to having sex with each other.” Can he really believe this is true? Why would any member of the gay community waste their time furthering their education or joining the work force if they were really dedicated to engaging in sexual acts? I don’t think any person needs to go to college to learn how to do that, and, for that matter, I don’t think anyone lobbying for parental rights is primarily concerned with their sex life.\nFurthermore, Hess is insulting to the very Christian community in which he participates. By projecting his views on the advocacy of adoption by gay couples alongside his faith, he also projects, even if unintentionally, the stereotype that all Christians feel the same way he does. I was raised Lutheran my whole life (I spent kindergarten through eighth grade at a Lutheran school) and I certainly don’t share Mr. Hess’ viewpoint. In fact, I believe it is exactly his type of misguided, narrow-minded thinking that makes the struggle for acceptance of diversity an ongoing, uphill battle.\nNick Arnholt\nSenior
(02/06/07 5:23pm)
Last week, a proposed state constitutional amendment that explicitly bans gay marriage -- and that some worry could eliminate domestic-partner benefits -- passed its committee hearing and will receive a second vote in the state legislature.\nThe explicit ban on gay marriage is troublesome enough, but it's the sneaky wording of the rest of the amendment that causes same-sex couples to worry about losing their rights. \nThe amendment reads: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."\nIt does not "require" that benefits of marriage be conferred on unmarried couples. But we worry that the amendment is as close as one word change away from not "allowing" partner benefits to anyone without an official marriage license. Furthermore, the wording clearly defines a group of people that the state would say do not deserve the same rights.\nWhat are these basic rights that the marriage amendment might call into question?\nAt IU, domestic-partner benefits include medical and dental coverage and life insurance. The amendment calls into question an unmarried couple's right to ensure they are properly cared for in times of sickness. IU also offers funeral and sick time off as well as standard family and medical leave provisions. But this amendment could call into question an employee's right to take time off if a longtime same-sex partner suddenly died.\nIU has only offered such benefits since September 2001. Are we ready to allow an amendment that potentially threatens to make such an important achievement obsolete?\nNot only would unmarried couples enjoying these benefits at IU suffer, but the entire University would feel the effects of these continued steps to limit GLBT equality.\nIf IU were to lose domestic-partner benefits, the effect on recruitment and retention of faculty members would be significant. The University would undoubtedly lose accomplished members of our faculty to institutions that offer such benefits, and it would have a difficult time filling those vacancies.\nBut rather than ask what might happen should this amendment pass and how people committed to exclusion might use it against same-sex couples, perhaps a better question for us to attempt to answer is: "Why did IU implement these benefits in the first place?"\nThe answer is clear. The fact that a gay faculty member at IU can cover his or her partner's twice-a-year teeth cleaning doesn't threaten Indiana society. In fact, it might benefit the community if students at IU continue to be able to learn from the top qualified professors in various fields, despite personal characteristics. The proposed amendment will push the University down a slippery slope that could result in poorer education for students and a backward decline in GLBT acceptance. \nThe proposed state amendment might not "require" the recognition of domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, but we say there is no choice. They should be mandatory.
(02/02/07 12:55am)
Everyone loves a political scandal. Something about sleazy bigwigs in Brooks Brothers suits getting shamed in front of the American public has an appeal we all oh-so-sadistically enjoy.\nBut school-board political scandals? Can that even happen?\nThe word of the day is "pretentious," folks. And because of it, an otherwise anonymous Gary school-board member, Michael Scott, is making much bigger news than he ever intended.\nUp for re-election, Scott took 61 high-school absentee voters to lunch at Ponderosa out of pocket. Eyebrows were immediately raised when all the teenagers were found to be voting in his district, and the suspicion hit the news when he requested school funds to pay himself back for the meals. The lunches cost $422.36.\nGood thing he got that 36 cents back. Measly steak lunches and measly dollar amounts are far from worthy of drawing this attention to potentially illegal activity. Buying a school-board election -- how badly does he want it? We expect this sort of thing on a larger scale. Watergate was exciting. This is downright hilarious. \nAnd there's another thing: Ponderosa. We're all elated Scott chose Ponderosa: For one, we didn't even know Ponderosa was still in business. Two, the reason we thought it had gone out of business was because the only thing it ever had going for it was the disproportionately huge dessert kiosk.\nMichael Scott wanted his money back. Trying to pull a fast one on the school district where you're currently employed -- now that's just admirable. Congressional candidates pull jaw-dropping quantities of money out of their wallets every two years and don't bother to be reimbursed. They seem to have heard the good word in Campaign Finance 101: Don't ask for reimbursement from the organization where you're trying to snag a position. It's bad karma.\nIn all seriousness, the screams of public corruption even at the local level are a bit eerie. If such is happening in a small school district such as Gary, we wonder just where else in the state and country this is occurring.\nMany can see or are at least unconsciously aware of the corrupt practices that go on at the federal level. But when those practices rear their ugly heads so close to home, we start to wonder who these people are who have such a direct effect on our daily lives. Of course, we would hate to transparently see all the underhanded deals that are occurring in Indiana. Cardiac arrest is not on our to-do list for at least another 30 years or so.\nStill, we believe we can all learn a valuable lesson from Mr. Scott. Do you want to secure that ineffectual, over-hyped position? Not sure if you can do it legally? Go for it! It's a land of opportunity, kids. Carpe diem. This is the American dream.\nJust make sure you at least take them to the Golden Corral.
(02/01/07 5:00am)
Roe v. Wade turned 34 last week. Since 1973 and before, abortion has been a most contested and controversial issue in America.\nAbortions have always been performed. But when abortions are illegal, they are unsafe. Abortion first became illegal in Europe and the United States when the medical profession became institutionalized. Male doctors realized that women and midwives had a realm of knowledge outside their professional control. Nevertheless, these doctors learned and performed abortions illegally, for a high price. Accordingly, the women most affected by illegal abortions were those who could not afford to pay for safe ones -- that is, poor and minority women. If abortion becomes illegal, that same group will suffer the consequences.\nThe state and federal governments have restricted abortion access through legal loopholes and the passage of new laws for the past 34 years, limiting Roe v. Wade's original ruling. Women seeking abortions are often bearers of "undue burden." The decision whether to have an abortion is undoubtedly a difficult one and is a deeply personal issue. The law must allow for the freedom to choose.\nFeminist Majority Leadership Alliance is a pro-choice group. Contrary to popular belief, feminists do not like abortions. Instead, we think comprehensive sex education in public schools and better distribution of birth-control information prevent unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately, our state governments do not feel the same way. "Abstinence-only" education spreads ignorance and sexual anxiety instead of helpful knowledge that could prevent abortions.\nThough abortion is politicized in a variety of ways and is complicated by hundreds of arguments, essentially, legal abortion preserves the health and safety of women. Looking to the past of illegal abortions shows us that women are harmed by unsafe, illegal practices. In examining the present we see that this issue is not being dealt with properly by our lawmakers. A woman's right to choose should be preserved, not limited by law, and the anniversary of Roe v. Wade reminds us of this.\nFeminist Majority Leadership Alliance
(02/01/07 5:00am)
This is in response to Jorie Slodki's letter ("Columnist should concentrate on Planned Parenthood's good qualities," Jan. 25), which called out Abram Hess' Jan. 18 column for not focusing on making contraceptives more widely available and providing "comprehensive sex education in schools":\nYes, there are ways to avoid the position of having to choose abortion. (By the way, no one ever has to choose abortion.) However, Slodki has failed to mention that the only way to fully prevent oneself from becoming pregnant is to abstain from sex until one is ready to take on the responsibilities that come along with it. She has also failed to mention that while chemical contraceptives can prevent ovulation, therefore preventing pregnancy, they also change the condition of the endometrium.\nIn case ovulation does occur, such that implantation is unable or very unlikely to occur, and since implantation occurs after conception, women who take such contraceptives may have abortions they were unaware could even happen. While I, of course, do not expect that Ms. Slodki believes that life begins at conception, most pro-lifers do, and that is the reason we promote abstinence and call for the end of abortion, not more contraceptives.\nI also find it quite ignorant for one to say that men have nothing to do with abortion. ("a choice that Hess, as a male, will never have to make"). A baby is a product of two individuals, not one. Just because a woman is not required to inform her unborn child's father before she has an abortion does not mean that she shouldn't, does not mean that he should have no say in the matter and does not mean that the abortion will not affect him.\nBreanne Vassar\nSophomore
(02/01/07 5:00am)
This recent cancellation of the "Girls Gone Wild" event and the cancellation of Buju Banton's concert at the Bluebird last semester have left a sour taste in my mouth. It's not the cancellations themselves but the reasons for them that irk me.\nHad the owners and managers just decided they weren't in favor of the events, that would've been fine, but they instead simply caved to pressure from a bunch of people who didn't like what was going on. Since when did it become a requirement that the powers-that-be have to side with the people they preside over?\nI'm not going to get into an argument about morality and such (well, I will, but not here). What I will say is that we can't expect to curtail the rights of others to offend us while we hold fast to our right to offend others.\nPeople who oppose religion shouldn't have the right to ban it any more than religious zealots should have the right to impose it. Why should people who oppose lascivious but legal behavior at a party have a right to disrupt that party? Are they not able to simply stay away from the party in the same manner that I stay away from churches, synagogues, etc.?\nThe management of the Bluebird and Jake's Nightclub disappoint me because they didn't make their own decisions. They let other people make that decision for them, thereby temporarily suspending their roles as managers.\nPersonally, I'm a fan of listening to others but making the choice on my own. As Bobby Bowden said, "If you listen to fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting with them."\nMerv Matthew\nGraduate student
(02/01/07 5:00am)
My family is here on campus for several months; my husband is a visiting scholar. I'm a writer on disability issues, researching a new book, and our son is enjoying exploring the campus again (we were here in 1998). He looks forward to his morning workouts with other students as a new member of the SRSC. People have been positive and welcoming while Jim meets people and learns the routine.\nWe also look forward to reading the IDS every day to see how we can become active members of the campus community. I noticed an item on Page 12 in the Arts section of the Jan. 26 issue called "The Complete Moron's Guide." I'd ask to you reconsider using terms that are degrading to people with disabilities; I know "moron" is in common usage, as is "retard," "idiot" and other less-than-humanizing terms.\nA lot of people don't see any harm in them. Certainly Jerry Lewis made a career out of mimicking people with intellectual disabilities. But I think that students at IU appreciate the rich diversity here. They understand the power of language and the disrespect even the most benign words can perpetuate. Substitute slurs for any other minority in your headline and there would be a protest.\nPlease consider this mine on behalf of my son.\nKarin Melberg Schwier\nBloomington
(02/01/07 5:00am)
It has been a tragedy for the family of Wade Steffey; I am relieved to know that so many are willing to help. The media are especially helpful; every child should be so lucky. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is unsettling to know that countless people, including children, go missing ever year, yet their stories are not broadcast so extensively.\nThe media should be ashamed that they give such great attention to only a select few. In my opinion, the mainstream media only serve to reinforce racism, among other one-sided misrepresentations. I am sure there were many people who went missing in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; did we hear about them? Not a word!\nI also lament those whose pictures appear on the back of weekly advertisements. They do not even get into the paper; their pictures are sent out on the backside of coupons and sales pitches! How is this justifiable? I ask you, the reader, what can you do to change this?\nAmy Elliott\nStudent
(02/01/07 5:00am)
In response to "High concern with low interest," Jan. 26:\nAs someone who is financing the majority of my college education, Congress's announcement of a plan to cut the interest rate on student loans to 3.4 percent was music to my ears. Many students of all economic backgrounds invest in their education by taking out student loans. Unfortunately, these same students are severely burdened by loan repayment soon after graduation, preventing them from pursuing certain public-interest careers. This reduction in interest will open more doors for tomorrow's college students and relieve the burden faced by today's.\nThat said, there is still much to be done in making higher education more affordable, and that includes increasing the federal Pell Grant to $5,100 per semester.\nAny steps the new Congress can take to relieve the burden of borrowing money for a higher education are steps in the right direction.\nBrendon Liner\nJunior
(02/01/07 5:00am)
We need to be aware of a viable, convenient and cost-effective alternative to the current contraception methods commonly used by American women.\nWhat if there were contraception, reversible at any time, that lasted for years? What if you had no more worries about forgotten pills, having to insert a ring or those dreaded injections? What if it didn't involve hormones said to cause weight gain, depression, low sex drive, bone loss and other unwanted side effects? What if the total cost of this long-term contraception works out to be cheaper than what you pay for one year of your current choice?\nIt's all possible with the copper-T intrauterine device. As the world's most widely used method of reversible birth control, it's used by an estimated 160 million women. The device must be fitted into the uterus by a qualified medical practitioner. It remains in place the entire time pregnancy is undesired and does not release any hormones into your system. Depending on the type, a single IUD is approved for five to 12 years of use. All second-generation copper-T IUDs have failure rates of less than 1 percent per year. Copper-T IUDs are also not associated with birth defects or other pregnancy complications. The cost-effectiveness of the device after two or more years of use outweighs any other method.\nAn IUD will not protect against sexually transmitted infections. If you get an IUD, you still need to practice safe sex. Use a condom if there is any uncertainty about your partner's sexual history or test results.\nFor someone like me, with no health insurance and a limited budget, saving up $300 for a Paragard IUD and the price of a visit to the Bloomington Planned Parenthood clinic means I don't have to worry about how I'm going to afford my contraceptive choice for the next 10 years. They were especially nonjudgmental, friendly and informative at this particular clinic. I hardly have to think about my IUD, and I often forget it's there. Make time to research online and talk to your doctor about the IUD today!\nKaty Muir\nStudent
(02/01/07 5:00am)
"Disapproval for the Minuteman Project ranges from being a 'vigilante' group to having connections with white-supremacy organizations. While most would agree there needs to be a serious debate about undocumented immigrants, we are wary of the group's method."\nThe preceding excerpt from your recent editorial ("Let the (minute) man speak!," Jan. 23) certainly smacks of "profiling," There is no evidence that racial supremacists are involved in the Minuteman Project because, in fact, they are not. Statements of malicious defamation in your editorials put your newspaper into the same category as a xenophobe and challenges its credibility.\nWhile your editorial was generally well-presented, it fails to sincerely deal with the issue of free speech when you "cover yourself" by inserting comments hostile to the Minuteman Project.\nIn my opinion, the preponderance of editors deliberately inserted a pejorative comment about so-called "controversial" subjects because they are afraid of violent retribution against their persons or property by those aberrantly opposed to free speech.\nAs a former newspaper reporter, I give you a B for overall content and presentation of your editorial, but you get an F for subjugating the principles of responsible journalism to the whims of those who vehemently and literally hate the Minuteman Project or anyone else with whom they disagree.\nBy the way, I am open to an invitation to speak at your university anytime. After all, we are a nation governed under the reasonable rule of law in which every person has a voice, aren't we?\nJim Gilchrist\nFounder, the Minuteman Project
(02/01/07 5:00am)
I can't say I'm surprised that IU has earned a D-plus on the College Sustainability Report Card. Looking around the campus, I can't recall the last time I saw a concerted effort to avoid waste on the part of ordinary students, faculty or staff, whether it be of paper, energy, water or other valuable resources. Sinks continue to drip, some buildings are overheated in winter and overcooled in summer, and many of us (myself included, though I try to avoid it) print a lot more pages than we need to.\nOne very obvious instance of waste that was recently reported in the IDS: the new parking shuttle for faculty and staff. It's not just that turnout was low the first day; how many can the University expect at a parking lot with only 50 spaces? Why devote a full-size bus to this shuttle when a smaller vehicle seems more than adequate? Better yet, why not encourage employees to park at the stadium, where two shuttle routes already run every five minutes?\nI believe that the Council for Environmental Stewardship has worked hard and done good things (like the green-bottle campaign), but IUB will never make real progress until the desire to live and work in a more sustainable way spreads throughout our campus culture.\nElizabeth Venstra\nIU employee
(01/31/07 4:12am)
There is evidently something in the Hoosier character that relishes a really oppressive tax.\nThis is our reaction upon hearing Gov. Mitch Daniels' popular proposal to increase duties on every pack of cigarettes by a quarter -- and the 62 percent of Hoosier voters who would support a $1 increase, according to a recent poll.\nThe apparant reason for this tax increase over the current tax of 55.5 cents is to help fund health insurance for lower-income families.\nThe whole affair reeks of redistribution of income and the tedious era of prohibition to such an extent that we have to ask: Is the governor, a conservative, emphasizing small government and individual liberty -- or is he not?\nLet us be clear about our starting-point. Government, especially at the local or state level, need not be especially large. Taxes should be levied only after policies are deemed necessary, not the other way round. And although it would be nice to curb smoking in society -- for the health benefits that might arise -- that impulse should take the form of an encouragement program away from smoking, which in fairness, is being advanced by Gov. Daniels.\nIf smoking is such a health hazard that it cannot be left up to individuals to decide, then by this logic, the state is at fault by not banning it outright. Or, in the case before us of a further tax, why not push the amount up by say, $100 per pack?\nBut that might just "discourage" smoking. Banning cigarettes -- which will be the eventual result if current trends against affordable smoking in public places continue -- is the issue, and this is denied only because the advocates of an increased tax know very well that the cure would be worse than the disease.\nThis proposal has brought fresh evidence of a citizenry that relies on bureaucrats and lawmakers to decide the rules of their society. And out of sheer curiosity, when will this descend into methods of petty surveillance to enforce the law?\nThat might be a little farfetched. But for those who have been fondly waiting for era of big government to return, be careful what you wish for.
(01/29/07 5:00am)
JERUSALEM -- The Israeli government overwhelmingly approved the appointment of the country's first Muslim Cabinet minister Sunday, billing it as an important step for a long-suffering minority.\nBut the appointment of Raleb Majadele, mired for weeks in political infighting and charges of racism, drew renewed criticism from hard-liners who said the move was little more than political expediency. Even Arab lawmakers dismissed the development, saying the government has little real interest in improving the lot of Israel's Arabs.\nMajadele told AP Television News that his goals as a Cabinet minister would be "promoting coexistence between the two peoples inside the state, and promoting dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis toward negotiations and political agreement."\nMajadele, a parliamentary backbencher from the Labor party, says his appointment is meant to give representation to Israel's Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the country's 7 million citizens. He has predicted that in the future, every Israeli government will be obliged to include an Arab minister.\n"The present government is proud to be the first government to give executive representation to the Arab Muslim minority," said Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.\nIsrael's parliament has always had Arab lawmakers -- today, they number 13 members out of 120. But the country has had only one Arab Cabinet minister before: Salah Tarif, a Druse, who was appointed in 2001 and forced to resign nine months later under a cloud of corruption allegations.\nThis appointment was more contentious because Muslim and Christian Arabs, unlike the Druse, do not serve in the army and have a far weaker identification with Israel.\nArabs have been slowly taking on a more visible role in Israeli society in recent years. There is an Arab Supreme Court justice, as well as several diplomats and senior civil servants. There is also a smattering of Arab TV journalists and actors, along with a former national beauty queen and the winner of the Israeli version of "America's Next Top Model."\nBut Arabs lag behind Israel's Jewish population in income, education and standard of living, and have long lacked representation in government commensurate with their numbers.\nWasil Taha, a lawmaker from the Arab Balad party, said there was little chance Majadele would be able to have a positive effect by working inside the government.\n"Progress for Israel's Arabs depends on changing the entire discriminatory approach of the government over the past 58 years, and not on the appointment of a minister or deputy minister," Taha said. \nFrom the moment Defense Minister Amir Peretz, the Labor Party leader, plucked Majadele from political obscurity to fill a vacant Cabinet post designated for the centrist party, the move was dogged by political squabbling in Olmert's fractious coalition government.\nOlmert dragged his feet on approving the appointment pending an upcoming Cabinet shuffle, and some members of the Yisrael Beiteinu party opposed the appointment on ideological grounds, with one member decrying it as "a fatal blow to Zionism."\nThe nomination even drew fire from inside Labor, with Druse members protesting that they were passed over for the ministerial post. Peretz, who has been unpopular since last summer's inconclusive war in Lebanon, was also criticized for using the nomination to try to shore up his political support ahead of Labor's party primary election in May.\nIn the end, hard-line Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman was the only Cabinet member to vote against the appointment. Lieberman accused Peretz of exploiting the nomination to seek Arab backing in the primary voting. But he rejected allegations of racism.\n"I have no problem with an Arab minister," Lieberman told Israeli Army Radio. "I have no problem with a Muslim, Christian or Druse minister."\nLieberman favors redrawing Israel's border to exclude most of the country's Arab population.\nArab lawmakers slammed Majadele for joining the government alongside Yisrael Beiteinu. "It's not moral for an Arab lawmaker to join a government alongside Lieberman, the racist," the Balad party's Taha said.
(01/29/07 1:22am)
Once again, the IU student body has been left in the dark. The sudden closing of Cold Stone Creamery's Kirkwood store left us feeling betrayed and gave no time to adjust our dietary habits accordingly, and now we have received more belated bad news. \nTo comply with a new federal law, the IU Health Center has drastically upped the prices of birth control products, without first informing its customers.\nThat's kind of a big deal to us. Next time, we would appreciate a little heads-up.\nThis change is by no means unique to IU. Across the nation, college health centers are losing their bulk discount rates because of a new federal law barring pharmaceutical companies from continuing to offer group-purchasing discounts.\nGood idea or not? You tell us: Abstinence is far from being the prevailing trend on the IU campus, and after hearing the entreaties of the powers that be for years on end, 4,200 women across campus have consented to practice sex in such a way that they don't end up with "mini-thems" nine months later. Shouldn't Congress support that decision? Or would they prefer that we just stop using birth control and flood the welfare system with babies? After all, if college kids are too poor to buy birth control, supporting a child is just out of the question. While they might be OK for students, the college dietary staples (beer and Easy Mac) are not ideal for feeding a baby.\nThere's still one more consideration in this controversy: Since birth control prices are increasing, should we be worried about the costs of other drugs climbing? Well, maybe, but rest assured that certain drugs are still being sold at a common rate. "Vital" drugs such as male performance enhancers are still available to college students on the cheap side. CVS pharmacy sells ViraMax DS, one such enhancer, at 60 tablets for $13.99. \nAs crucial as such enhancing drugs are in day-to-day college existence, we are left speculating about the latent sexism and ageism behind this new regulation. Birth control might not be a personal concern for the mostly elderly Congress, but come on! When they were in school, they experienced the phenomenon known as "free love." Now that collegiate sexual practices have become reliant on birth control, is it fair to jack up the prices and deny us our free love? \nWhen all is said and done, the loss of the group discount rate will probably not cause those on birth control to stop buying it. Nor will it stop them from having sex. But it will cause a lot of whining about the price change -- our prerogative, given the circumstances. Once again, we have a semidiscriminatory decision coming down from Congress that hurts the less affluent among us.\nBefore Congress considers passing another bill like this one, we suggest it does a bit more to publicize the proceedings and take into account the feedback it receives. Just because U.S. population trends point to huge increases in older adults does not mean the "poor college student" demographic should be ignored.