20 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/23/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Fifty-two years after its desegregation, the University of Mississippi is still grappling with its legacy of discrimination. Despite efforts by the administration to shed the “Old South” image, Ole Miss experienced yet another incident of intolerance Feb. 16.Three members of a fraternity group on campus placed a noose around the neck of a statue of James Meredith — the first black student to attend the university — recalling the lynchings black people faced across the country. The students also draped the statue with an old Georgia state flag, which includes the Confederate Battle Flag as part of the design. Both of these objects are potent reminders of the legacy of segregation and intolerance.The national office of Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity decided to shut down the chapter at Ole Miss after the incident. Though they claimed it was not solely the result of the noose, it is clear that the national office found the actions of their Ole Miss chapter inexcusable. The campus community at Ole Miss must take it upon itself to change the school’s culture. Students make it clear to their fellows that such behavior is deplorable. The administration and the national fraternity can try to combat the problem, but the real change is going to come from students.The students of Ole Miss need to come to terms with the legacy of intolerance at their school.And we must grapple with our own history here at IU as well. The legacy of fire-bombings, racist violence, Ku Klux Klan membership and student protests that rocked the University during the 1960s still persists.As I am sure many have noticed, certain racist groups have been attempting to advertise once again on campus — painting bridges, drawing with chalk and putting up fliers. It is up to the community of IU students to keep bigots off campus. The University community’s response to these incidents has been impressive. Every time I see an advertisement for hate, it is taken down or painted over within a day. I salute those people who take it upon themselves to replace intolerance and bigotry with diversity and acceptance.It is not a matter of free speech, nor is it a matter of having a conversation with peddlers of intolerance. They need to be sent a strong, unmistakable message — you are not welcome here. We absolutely cannot stand for intolerance.IU prides itself on its diversity and strong stance against intolerance. As students, we must continue to preserve the values of our university and take action against hatred on campus.estahr@indiana.edu
(04/09/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>IU has a lot of women. About 51 percent of the 32,000 undergraduate students on the Bloomington campus are women — much better than Purdue’s 43 percent, I always like to add. That’s about 16,500 ladies here at IU. Statistics for Indiana as a whole are similar, as 50.8 percent of the population of our state is female, comparable with the national average. Those approximately 3,350,000 Hoosier women are at a significant disadvantage to their male counterparts. Indiana ranks 40th in women’s health nationwide. Sixty-one percent of Indiana women live in a county that does not have an abortion clinic, and Indiana has many restrictions on reproductive rights. In the workplace, women across the country make less than men for working the same jobs. Indiana is one of the worst states nationwide for women in this regard — we rank 46th in terms of the gender pay gap. Hoosier women make 73 cents for every dollar a man makes, compared to 77 cents nationally. In certain areas of our state, it’s even worse. Women make only 68 percent of what men make in the First Congressional district, my home district in the northwest corner of Indiana. President Barack Obama remains committed to eradicating the pay gap across the country. Famously, the very first bill he signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expanded court access for women wanting to bring suit.This week, the president signed an executive order that prevents “federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other.” Preventing employees from discussing their salaries is clearly a tactic to keep workers, especially women, in the dark about how much they make compared to others. This hampers their ability to take action, whether in the courts or through unionization, to get fair pay for themselves.The same executive order requires federal contractors to report how much they pay women and people of color. About one-quarter of people working in the United States work for federal contractors. Tracking these numbers will allow the government to take further positive action, if necessary. A bill in the Senate, the Paycheck Fairness Act, goes further. It tasks the Department of Labor with “working with employers to eliminate pay disparities.” It also approves money to grant programs intended to educate women in workplace negotiation. These programs would reach not only federal contractors, as the president’s orders do, but all women in our country.These proposals will help the women of Indiana. It is disgraceful that our state lags so far behind the rest of the country in the treatment of women in the workplace. Women deserve to make as much as men do, and they must have access to justice if they are treated unfairly.This struggle has continued for years. American women have made advances, but there’s still work to be done. The women graduating from IU in May will be entering a workforce where they are not yet treated equally.Tuesday was Equal Pay Day. It’s time for the women of Indiana to get fair wages.estahr@indiana,edu
(03/26/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Since the 2010 Republican wave election and subsequent legislative obstruction, the American public seems suddenly obsessed with bipartisanship. A flurry of inane establishment op-eds bemoaning a decline of bipartisanship in Congress has surrounded nearly every major political event in the last few years.The harm that our extremely polarized, paralyzed legislature can do is not in question. The current Congress’ failure to compromise and take action on a number of important issues has hurt millions of Americans.Yet, the complaints coming from the opinion-makers approach this problem the wrong way. Rather than placing the blame for the harm squarely where it belongs — with a Republican party enthralled with corporate interests and the extremist minority of its electorate — Congress treat the very fact that disagreement exists as a cardinal sin.In their eyes, bipartisanship is no longer a means to an end or a method of building consensus and compromise. Instead, it has become an end goal in itself. Being insufficiently bipartisan is a consistent theme of criticism of lawmakers.For example, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the CIA of withholding important information and hacking of government email accounts. People were horrified that a senator could doubt the CIA, the very agency designed to protect us from foreign threats. As Conor Fridersdorf writes in the Atlantic, however, we should not be angry at Feinstein for criticizing the CIA. In fact, we should see it as a sign that “our adversarial, Madisonian system may be alive after all.” The conflict between Feinstein and the CIA is perhaps a sign that our democracy is working as it should. Much like our judicial system, our political system is designed to be adversarial. Each branch of the government is expected to check the powers of the others. Congress hashes out its differences in debate and voting. Committees, like that which Feinstein leads, are supposed to keep oversight on government agencies.The yearning for bipartisan compromise, combined with the sharp right turn of the Republican Party, caused the Democrats to become more conservative in an effort to appear centrist or open to compromise. Republicans now push the boundaries of American political thought even further to the right, all the while declaring anything to their left (even their own former positions) un-American. This is the source of our problems, and obsessing over bipartisanship adds to it.The problem in our political system is not disagreement in itself, but rather those who simply obstruct. This problem will not be solved by lurching toward an imagined center. Unanimity of opinion should not be a goal in its own right. Disagreement makes democracy better, and it is an integral part of our political system.estahr@indiana.edu
(03/12/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Libertarianism is a frustrating ideology. Its positions are close to the right answers, but they don’t quite bridge the gap. It acknowledges that liberality when it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, for example, won’t bring the Four Horsemen galloping in, but can’t quite take the next step to see that economic justice is just as vital.Their ideas trumpet the virtues of the free market and hard work, but you don’t see many near-poverty single mothers juggling two jobs while professing their love for von Mises. Instead, and not coincidentally, libertarianism is believed largely by those who already have the game rigged in their favor — white men.According to the Public Religion Research Institute, 94 percent of self-identified libertarians are non-Hispanic white, and 68 percent of libertarians are men.Libertarianism isn’t going away any time soon. A recent poll of Millennials from the Pew Research Institute indicates our cohort is more liberal as a whole — except for those white men. For example, a majority of Millennials support a “bigger government” with “more services.” The racial divide that so often bedevils American politics, however, raises its head again here. Only 39 percent of white respondents supported more government services, as compared to 71 percent of non-white respondents. A small majority of white Millennials favor a path to citizenship for immigrants, and 70 percent favor legalization of same-sex marriage. Yet, 14 percent fewer white Millennials than non-white favor government provision of health care. The good news is that Millennials are, on the whole, more diverse than previous generations. Forty-three percent of those polled are non-white, and Millennials overall are more liberal than their parents on most issues. Still, the libertarian trend among our white peers is worrisome.It is worrisome because libertarianism lends a false veneer of permissiveness and social tolerance to the same old Republican economic ideas that have destroyed the economic status and social mobility of our generation. Libertarianism allows white people to pat themselves on the back with one hand for being socially progressive while continuing to grind the poor to dust with the other.So, Millennials, let’s continue to move forward. Let’s not fall into the mental trap of believing that social equality is the only condition for true equality. We need economic justice, too, and an unfettered free market will not provide that. Millennials will be running the show soon enough. Let’s make sure we do it well.estahr@indiana.edu
(02/26/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Americans watch porn — and lots of it. The web’s largest porn site, XVideos, receives 350 million unique visits every month, according to the Daily Mail. The same report estimated that 30 percent of all Internet traffic is devoted to pornography. However, only 25 percent of men admitted to watching online porn in a 2013 Pew Research Center survey. While most porn is aimed at men, one in three porn watchers is a woman. And it’s big money, too. Recent estimates place the revenues of the porn industry at about $10 billion. This column is not about whether America should be watching porn. The fact of the matter is that many of us do. Rather, it is about the most important people involved with pornography — the performers.Lauren A. is a college freshman at Duke University, and she’s also a porn star. She wrote about her experiences on the popular women’s website xoJane. She began performing in porn to pay for her tuition at Duke. “Doing pornography fulfills me,” she wrote. “In a world where women are so often robbed of their choice, I am completely in control of my sexuality.” She did not shy away from writing about the darker sides of the pornography industry either. “We need to give a voice to the women that are exploited and abused in the industry,” she wrote. She talked about the harassment she received from her classmates after they discovered her profession. Internet message boards were filled with insults about her. Lauren was “a huge fucking whore,” according to one anonymous commenter.Despite the abuse, Lauren plans to continue her work in porn. “I am going to graduate, I am going to pursue my dreams,” she wrote. “Just try to stop me.” Denigrating porn performers furthers the oppression of women. “Patriarchy fears female sexuality,” as Lauren succinctly put it.Women are simultaneously encouraged to have and shamed for having sex — an unconscionable standard. And ironically, considering the number of people who consume pornography, some of the people insulting porn stars are probably the same people who watch them online every day.Regardless of your opinions about pornography, voices like Lauren’s must be taken into consideration. We must realize that many of the people who perform in pornography are often trying to make a living, to further their ambitions.Some even see the experience as liberating. Just the same, those people who are forced into the industry or have horrible, traumatic experiences are hurt even more by dismissing all performers as “whores.”Porn stars are not just objects to be ogled at and insulted — they are complex human beings with a myriad of motivations and desires. They might want to be in their position, they might not. I’m not going to tell you what to think about porn. But whatever you think, don’t forget there’s a real person in front of the camera.estahr@indiana.edu
(02/12/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I grew up near the intersection of U.S. Routes 30 and 41 in Schererville, Ind. These two roads are two of the “Crossroads of America” that give our state its motto. Northwest Indiana is a strange place, culturally and economically tied to Chicago but governed by Indiana. Moving from Schererville north toward Lake Michigan, we come across one of the best examples of this contradiction. It is Cline Avenue, a major local thoroughfare through northern Lake County toward lakeshore industrial plants and toward Chicago.The Cline Avenue Bridge, crossing the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, was closed in 2009 and since torn down. In addition to closing industrial plants and depopulation, communities like East Chicago and Whiting have now had to deal with this closure.Roads are one of the quintessential examples of a public good — taught to all beginning level economics students as one of the things the government, and not the market, should provide for its citizens. Yet, our state has time and time again refused to help East Chicago construct the Cline Avenue Bridge. After years of wrangling and missed deadlines, the city has finally made a deal with a private company to begin construction on a new bridge in 2014. The private owners of the bridge will charge a toll to cross, putting additional burdens on communities that have enough economic troubles — and residents already have to pay high tolls on the nearby privatized Indiana Toll Road. Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., is absolutely right when he calls the situation a “disgrace.” All of this could have been avoided if the state had simply agreed to help with construction of a new bridge.In the same interview, Sen. Donnelly pointed out that the state refused to set aside any money from the $3.8 billion sale of the toll road to reconstruct the bridge, which he said would cost about $133 million. Instead, East Chicago now must deal with a private company charging its own residents $6 to drive to and from work each day. The state has also refused to help Northwest Indiana expand the South Shore Line, a public transport system that links the region to downtown Chicago, despite bipartisan support for the proposal. Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, said it best — “Nobody in Indianapolis gives a ... about us at all.” Gov. Mike Pence, like Mitch Daniels before him, continues to keep Indiana in stasis. Troubled urban communities across the state continue to decay while the GOP-dominated legislature pushes forward with redundant, discriminatory constitutional ban on same-sex marriage against the wishes of Hoosiers. Instead of legislating social mores that are rapidly becoming obsolete across the country, Gov. Pence should try working on Indiana’s crumbling infrastructure.Public goods and infrastructure build community, unlike divisive, regressive social issues. For our state to be the great place we know it can be, Indiana needs to start giving a damn about the well-being of its citizens.— estahr@indiana.edu
(01/29/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The State of the Union response is sometimes thought of as a graveyard for the aspirations of those who give it. Think back to the last few years. We watched Paul Ryan’s wide-eyed wonk act, felt the crushing ennui that comes with listening to Mitch Daniels and witnessed Marco Rubio’s infamous dry mouth. All of these people came off embarrassed in the public eye.This year’s State of the Union response was given by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. Rodgers — the only woman in GOP Congressional leadership — is perhaps intended to lead this push to bring back women to the GOP.Other members of her party, however, aren’t making that easy. Seventy new abortion restrictions were passed in 2013. More restrictions were passed from 2011 to 2013 following the 2010 Republican wave than were passed during the preceding ten years. Even Michigan, Indiana’s northern neighbor, passed laws restricting insurance coverage for abortions. Despite the 2013 “How to Talk to Minorities and Women” retreat — at a former slave plantation, no less — Republicans still can’t seem to stop talking down to women. Former Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee claimed Democrats are the real misogynists because they want women to have affordable access to birth control. He referred to Democrats as “Uncle Sugar,” providing birth control because women “cannot control their libido.” According to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., maybe Republicans don’t even need to attempt to appeal to women, as women have already won the War on Women. “The women in my family are incredibly successful,” he said on “Meet the Press.”If Paul looked outside his own family, he would realize women still make 23 percent less than men do in equal positions and work two-thirds of minimum wage jobs. One-third of American women — 42 million people — are either on the edge of poverty or are already living in it, according to a report by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress. Couple these startling facts with the constant attacks on women’s sexual health and reproductive rights, and it’s clear that Paul’s bogus claim of women’s victory is absurd.The women of America need a comprehensive push for justice and equality — social, sexual, political and economic. Despite efforts to soften their rhetoric, it is clear that the Republican Party is not the party for women. — estahr@indiana.edu
(01/10/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Beginning with the 2012 presidential election and continuing to the present, a number of opinion pieces have celebrated or lamented the impending demographic doom of the Republican Party. People of color are making up a greater share of the electorate, and they vote Democratic! Political acceptance of LGBT rights, banking regulations and redistribution is increasing! Young people are getting politically involved in huge numbers, and their views are more liberal than ever! Even Texas might turn blue soon!Despite how strongly I would like to believe these proclamations, I think they are too good to be true. Progressives cannot rely simply on shifting demographics to deliver the country into our waiting, redistributing, same-sex-marrying hands.First, we can’t underestimate just how much conservative ideas have worked their way into the very core of our governmental institutions.Gerrymandering robs huge numbers of progressive voters of their voices by diluting their votes or sectioning them off into one sacrificial district. States continue to pass more and more misogynistic restrictions on abortions. With the profoundly conservative Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act, states can now pass laws restricting voting. These laws are racism and classism masquerading as crime prevention.These problems are the result of progressives concentrating too much on national issues rather than on states.As long as conservatives control the statehouses, they can continue to enact their policies at the state level while they hold just enough power in D.C. to continue to obstruct federal policies. We must learn from these past mistakes and realize that simply holding out hope for the future is not a viable tactic. The fight must be waged at every level, and it must be fought now.And progressives have not even done a particularly good job at the national level, which is severely alarming.Conservatives have shifted the window of acceptable political discourse so far to the right that a Republican idea from 20 years ago called the Affordable Care Act is now “socialism.” Marginal tax rates are lower than they have been in years, yet conservatives have convinced half the country that they’re too high. We’re going through the looking glass. I’m not just talking about Republicans, either. “Third Way” Democrats continue to push real progressive ideas out of the party in favor of Wall Street. So-called centrists continue to pull the discourse to the right. So, progressives — don’t rely on demographics to help us. Step up. Don’t bet on compromise with conservatives as a legitimate means of improvement, no matter how good it looks for the press or the cameras. Reports of the impending collapse of conservatism in the United States are greatly exaggerated .We can’t sit back and allow the other side to control institutions and national discourse. The struggle for justice must continue and progressives cannot afford complacency at a time such as this. We progressives need to be bold, decisive and most importantly should be able to sell our ideas to the public. They’re ready to listen, but we’re not doing enough speaking.
(07/22/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Academic freedom is one of the cornerstones of American universities. Universities are places of discovery, of challenging preconceptions and of comparing ideas. Indiana is known for its world-class public universities, including our beloved institution and its rival sibling up on the Wabash.It seems, however, that former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels — currently Purdue’s president — did not understand this concept during his time in the Statehouse. According to documents acquired by the Associated Press, he tried to interfere with professors’ academic freedom at Indiana’s public universities. He called Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” a well-known history text, “a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page” and called for its banning from Indiana schools. He also referred to the book as “propaganda.” Daniels’ actions are extremely problematic. First, it seems obvious they were politically motivated. Zinn was well known for his leftist sympathies, and his book is probably the most popular work detailing the class struggles throughout American history. In fact, one of his emails even contained vitriol against Zinn personally, calling him a “terrible anti-American academic.” Daniels’ attacks on Zinn’s work and character stem from the fact that Zinn’s portrayal of the struggle of the working class and ethnic minorities challenges the presuppositions of Daniels’ conservative views.Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, Daniels’ attempts to disqualify Zinn’s works are an attack on academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure — still the basis of thought about academic freedom in American universities — says this, in part: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject[.]” There is no doubt that Zinn’s work is controversial, both to the public and among historians. But “A People’s History” is also not “anti-factual” or “propaganda” — it is simply a work that challenges ingrained, happy notions about American society. Apparently Daniels takes such umbrage at this message that he wanted it banned from Indiana schools.Since the story was released, Daniels has defended his comments. He claims he did not intend to ban the book in university courses, only “the K-12 system.” Yet his emails were directed to the Indiana Commissioner for Higher Education and specifically mentioned a course at IU. Daniels cannot say his actions were apolitical. Even when claiming to be concerned only with accuracy, he cannot deny that his own sense of historical accuracy is informed by his political beliefs. As a matter of representation, it is important that Indiana students learn different perspectives on history — as long as those views are reasonably well-supported and presented in the appropriate context — even if they butt up against the political views of the Governor.Most people view history through the lens they learned in school. This view is incomplete — U.S. textbooks are often full of inaccuracies and often gloss over unpleasant aspects of American history. It is important to look at all perspectives on history, including those of ethnic minorities, women, immigrants and the working class, as Zinn does. Mitch Daniels’ attempts to erase these ideas, these stories, these people, out of the Indiana curricula are an attack on academic freedom and a detriment to Indiana students.— estahr@indiana.edu
(12/05/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Many Americans think the private sector, mostly unfettered, can solve many of the problems facing our country today.The more thoughtful of these people also realize the government is often the only source of sufficient capital. More importantly, the government is sometimes the only one with the will to use it for the general good. Based on these two premises, it seems hard to see why market-based solutions are often seen as a panacea to many people.Bidding for contracts for construction and the like are established parts of our economic practices.The problem arises when the interaction between private businesses and government goes beyond partnerships and veers into collusion. Lasting harm to the economic fabric of the United States and the world can occur.One area in which that collusion can be found is the housing market.Raghuram Rajan writes on this topic in his 2010 book “Fault Lines.” Though I do not agree with many of Rajan’s policy goals, I think his historical insight into this area is stellar. In a chapter bombastically titled “Let Them Eat Credit,” Rajan explores sources of the collapse of the housing market that helped kick off the so-called Great Recession. He talks about President George W. Bush’s “ownership society.”In “ownership society,” Americans, especially those with lower incomes, were encouraged to own homes, even if it was fiscally unwise. It was presumed that having an ownership stake in society, rather than renting, would make these people more productive in the capitalistic system, and help them “rise” in the way the poor and lower classes are advised to in American culture.But Bush was not the only one to push home ownership.President Bill Clinton and many Democrats also pushed for more home ownership in low-income families as a means of economic betterment.To this end, many in the American government pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, formerly government-sponsored enterprises, to make credit more available to low-income people. These two institutions, along with other lenders, distorted the reality of home ownership and took advantage of low-income prospective homeowners. These risky loans were then pooled together with safer loans and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Though MBSs are legitimate sources of income for banks, their injudicious use infamously played a large part in our recent financial crisis. In short, the government’s decision to collude with the private sector and try to “help” low-income people using easy credit backfired.Undoubtedly, we as a society need to help those in poverty find homes. Easy credit and pressure to own a home are not good ways to achieve this goal, though. Direct government help could be a better option.Public housing is now infamous after high crime rates and de facto racial segregation doomed mid-century attempts. It is not, however, intrinsically a bad option. Public housing needs to be implemented in a way that is more careful and integrated into communities. Section 8 housing is a better market-based solution than easy credit, though it has problems, as well.At any rate, the subsequent damage from easy credit is reason enough to be wary of market-based solutions to societal problems.— estahr@indiana.edu
(11/28/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>My departure from home after Thanksgiving break wasn’t easy. I said goodbye to my family and my beloved geriatric golden retriever, and I had to bid yet another farewell to my long-distance girlfriend.I thought about my changing attitudes toward being at university and being away from home. My experiences in this area can be roughly divided into three eras.1. “I don’t want to live in a cornfield.”Until I came to Bloomington, I had only ever lived in the suburbs of Chicago. I was afraid there would be nothing to do here, and all the people would be farmers and country folk who had never been beyond their cornfield/limestone quarry. Of course, I was mostly wrong on that account.I know campus is different from other places, yet I have found great people, plenty of great activities and opportunities and an interesting culture all around me. This idea leads us to my next phase.2. My Mellencamp phaseAfter spending a year or so on campus, I didn’t want to go back home. I was unhappy whenever I went back for breaks. I was frustrated I couldn’t walk to places at home. I thought city people were phony. My favorite Bloomington restaurants were calling my name whenever I left.I had started to think through a paradigm something like John Mellencamp’s song “Small Town,” which I heard during my drive as I pulled onto College Avenue. Those thoughts began to shift again as I entered the third era of thinking.3. Delayed homesicknessIt would be logical to think homesickness would occur when students first come to university. Often, it’s the first time they are away from home for an extended period.As I said above, though, those feelings were not too strong for me during my first two years here. I missed a few aspects of being home, but for the most part I was totally happy with my life at IU.Why, then, am I experiencing these feelings now, halfway through my junior year?Maybe it’s the realization that my hometown will always be my home. Maybe it’s that I realize my parents are right more often than I thought. Maybe it’s because my dog is getting gray, and the only girl for me lives three hours away.The academic part of me loves it here on campus, but the sentimental part is dissatisfied.My opinions about Bloomington and about home have evolved. Both places have shaped me, and both are special to me.— estahr@indiana.edu
(11/14/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As the final vote tallies came in from the 2012 general election last week, many people’s eyes, including mine, began to turn elsewhere: 2016. In modern political campaigns, it’s no longer enough to spend years working one’s way up from the bottom of the political ladder from city councilperson to president. No, candidates must now form exploratory committees, secure donors, form alliances, talk with their families, assemble huge staffs and create all the necessary groundwork to run a multimillion-dollar presidential campaign.In essence, it is not an exaggeration to say the 2016 presidential campaign starts now. Both parties will have to nominate candidates, and I thought I would take this chance, as many others have, to give some insight into Democratic contenders.Let’s get this out of the way first. If either Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vice President Joe Biden runs, that individual will receive the nomination. But I don’t think Clinton or Biden will run. They are both getting older. Biden will be about the same age as Reagan was at his inauguration, and Clinton seems to be weary of politics.Who are potential nominees for the Democrats? A number of names have been bandied about, many of them governors: Andrew Cuomo of New York, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Martin O’Malley of Maryland. Some have pointed out Patrick’s similarities to President Barack Obama. Both are black, were raised by single mothers, attended Harvard Law School and are associated with the South Side of Chicago. Patrick has generally been more successful than Obama in his legislative goals, including implementing and improving health care reform passed by former Gov. Mitt Romney, protecting same-sex marriage rights and improving education.Cuomo is known — some might say notorious — for compromise. He is often seen as sacrificing the goals of his supporters and his party for the sake of empty bipartisanship. Nonetheless, he might appeal to more business- and finance-oriented Democrats.O’Malley gave a primetime speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. These speeches are often seen as big stepping stones toward higher office. Again, Obama is the example here with his 2004 speech. Still, O’Malley has little name recognition outside his own state.Finally, an interesting long shot is Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. His legislative record seems to spread across the political spectrum. He wants to enact single-payer health care in his state, something the left supports, yet is strongly opposed to gun control, a position shared with many on the right. He supports alternative energy sources but wants to expand environmentally damaging mining. In the end, what matters isn’t what I write here or what the pundits say elsewhere. It’s who the people decide to pick. As it stands, Clinton and Biden are far in the lead in approval ratings among Florida voters, with Cuomo coming in a distant third. The rest sit in the single-digit range more from lack of visibility than disapproval.Perhaps it is this visibility, and not anything else, that is most important in determining the 2016 nominee.— estahr@indiana.edu
(11/09/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Well, we did it. This election, expected to be a dogfight at both state and national levels, has morphed into a resounding victory for American liberalism.First, President Barack Obama was re-elected, of course. His margin of victory in the Electoral College was wider than commonly predicted, and he won the popular vote. The Democrats extended their lead in the U.S. Senate, including upsets in Connecticut and North Dakota from Sen.-elect Chris Murphy and Sen.-elect Heidi Heitkamp, respectively, and a big win for progressives from Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.Claire McCaskill trounced Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin in Missouri, and Indiana’s Joe Donnelly beat Richard Mourdock. Though Donnelly is not the most progressive legislator himself when it comes to abortion rights, these races prove the GOP is slipping further from past conservative views on women’s issues.Female candidates also played a large part in this election. Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono is the first Asian woman to serve in the Senate. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is now the first openly gay female Senator. Tammy Duckworth beat Tea Party darling Joe Walsh to become the first disabled woman to serve in the House of Representatives. In fact, New Hampshire’s entire delegation to the 113th Congress will be women.The House elections were not as kind to Democrats, but some significant victories were still made. Another Tea Party leader, Allen West, was defeated in Florida. In the same state, liberal favorite Alan Grayson regained his seat in the 9th District.The Democratic victories extend all the way down to Indiana politics, where Glenda Ritz, along with angry teachers and parents, defeated incumbent Tony Bennett and his harmful policies as Superintendent of Public Instruction.The biggest victories, though, have nothing to do with candidates. Citizens of Washington and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana. State funds for abortion providers were upheld in Florida. Montana and Colorado passed referenda speaking out against the controversial Citizens United ruling. California’s counterproductive “three strikes law” concerning drug possession will be reformed.Perhaps most significantly, Minnesotans chose to not ban same-sex marriage through an amendment to the state constitution, and people in Maryland and Maine voted to enact full marriage equality in those states.I believe these direct ballot measures, though not suitable for all decisions, demonstrate a new trajectory for American society. These events show Americans care enough about these vitally important issues to learn about them and vote directly on them. In some ways, that is the real measure of progress in America.Our newly elected officials will take their positions and face the challenges ahead. Just as their jobs are beginning, our jobs as citizens are not yet over. We need to hold our officials accountable for their performance and their principles – looking at you in regards to drone strikes, Mr. President. This thoughtful, constructive, supportive criticism is necessary to ensure America’s progress continues.— estahr@indiana.edu
(10/31/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A common criticism of college-age politicos is that we are too concerned with social issues and not concerned enough with jobs and economics, except the policy wonks. I find it easier to support marriage equality and women’s rights than I do to understand the inner workings of the Federal Reserve or study the Paradox of Thrift. That doesn’t mean monetary policy and Keynesianism aren’t important. In fact, they are some of my main public policy interests, but economics does not tell the whole story of our success as a nation. Our commitment to social equality for all people is also an integral part of the ongoing success of our society. Furthermore, social and economic issues are often linked more than one might realize. Improvements in certain areas of social policy could be an important step toward ensuring our economic future.For instance, one of the simplest ways to put an already low-income family or person into poverty is an unplanned pregnancy. Ensuring both physical and financial access to contraception and abortion is necessary to prevent these situations. Instead of helping people, politicians try to curtail women’s rights in the name of “family values,” sometimes leading to situations of financial hardship. After that, some have the gall to rail against people on welfare and other support programs.Rather than accusing these people of being “takers,” perhaps we should stop creating conditions that lead to these situations for women and families. Not only is it the just thing to do, but it also would lead to fewer families in poverty.Richard Florida is a well-known economist specializing in urban economic development. In his works, he said a “creative class” of educated, culturally diverse problem-solvers is necessary for innovation and economic growth.Three of the main criteria for attracting the creative class are talent, tolerance and technology. The second of these, tolerance, is important here. If the United States, Indiana or any other place is not culturally or legislatively tolerant, it could have a hard time attracting people and businesses that lead to economic success. The business world is changing, and bastions of cultural conservatism could be left behind in an era in which many successful workers and owners are LGBT, immigrants, women or racial minorities. Continuing progress and reversing regression in areas like fair policing, racial and marriage equality and rights of workers and women are needed to develop economically.Social progress is an area that has been somewhat ignored during this election cycle except by conservative loudmouths like Republican Senate candidate State Treasurer Richard Mourdock and vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. These pundits want to move backward in terms of equality. Jobs are undoubtedly important to America right now, but do not forget essential social issues at the polls. The two parties might, unfortunately, have similar views on some things, but progressive Democrats stand far ahead of Republicans on social issues. These issues directly affect the lives of millions of people across America. Progress must be made. We must not go backward. — estahr@indiana.edu
(10/24/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Despite his recent passing, many Americans probably do not really remember former presidential candidate and Sen. George McGovern. You might remember that McGovern, a Democrat from South Dakota, suffered one of the worst presidential electoral defeats in American history at the hands of Richard Nixon in 1972.Even fewer might recall his disastrous vice presidential pick, Thomas Eagleton, a hasty choice unfairly maligned for receiving electrotherapy for depression and exhaustion.Few can recall much about McGovern, but the respected statesman, liberal standard bearer and candidate of “amnesty, abortion and acid” — as conservative muckrakers unkindly painted him — is just as relevant now as he was during the protests of the late 1960s.McGovern’s contributions to American society, especially progressive politics, still ring true today.He was one of the first national politicians to condemn the Vietnam War, opposing it as early as 1963, before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Though he voted for the resolution, he later regretted his vote. One of his main platforms during his 1972 run for president was complete withdrawal from Vietnam. This opposition to military intervention strongly influenced the progressive wing of the Democratic Party throughout the 1970s and into the 1990s until the Third Way and the later War on Terror weakened that resolve.McGovern also changed the way politics worked in the Democratic Party and, later, the Republican Party. His McGovern-Fraser Commission curbed the secret choosing of delegates to presidential conventions and expanded Democratic primaries in many states. These changes allowed people to participate more directly in American democracy. In a time when fewer and wealthier people are gaining an unfairly large amount of influence in national politics, perhaps we should follow McGovern’s example.McGovern’s changes controversially allowed grassroots activists to more strongly influence the direction of national parties. This, along with his support for immigrant workers, including a 1972 visit with Cesar Chavez, and the impoverished helped build the coalition that anchors the Democratic Party to this day. “We are the party that believes we can’t let the strong kick aside the weak,” he wrote in one of his books.McGovern’s electoral failure in 1972 highlights the need for progressive unity. The aforementioned “amnesty, abortion and acid” comment was suspected to actually have been coined by Eagleton, his running mate.As a side note, most of today’s progressives, including me, have few problems with the first two items on that list.To me, McGovern’s most important contribution is simple. When, in an interview with Connecticut’s Record-Journal newspaper, he was asked about the famous Serenity Prayer that includes the words, “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.” McGovern replied, “No. I keep trying to change them.” In today’s political climate of pessimism and doubt about the future, especially on college campuses, McGovern’s simple message of progressive change is one to keep close.— estahr@indiana.edu
(10/17/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“I think 2000 will be a good year,” Michael Beal said. “I hope so because the last five years haven’t been so good with people dying and getting shot and murdered. I hope I will be a grown man by then and will be married. I’ll probably have kids. I hope it will be a good America.” Beal wrote these words when he was 10 years old, living in Steubenville, Ohio. The year was 1977. Beal and his classmates were asked by the local newspaper to predict what life would be like in the year 2000. The predictions ran a wide range. Some became true: high commodities prices, female astronauts and pocket computers.Others were a bit fantastic or strange: colonies on Mars or keeping the same friends after high school. A few were laughably dated, retro-futuristic ideas, like robot servants.One, in particular, is heartbreaking.“I hope the violence has stopped. I hope that computers don’t take over people’s jobs.”When I found these predictions on the Smithsonian’s Paleofuture blog, they struck something in me. I had been thinking a lot about what I was like as a child — what my dreams were, where I would be and what I expected to be like today, just a few months before my 21st birthday.I wonder if I lived up to my own expectations for myself and for the world, just as I’m sure Beal and all the other young writers do.We could talk about my first scholarly love, paleontology, which started from about the time I could read. That has obviously gone by the wayside, since I’m studying policy, but some other dreams have come true.For instance, here I am at IU. Despite being raised in Chicagoland, outside the Hoosier Nation epicenter, I loved IU basketball from the time I was able to comprehend the most basic plays. Bob Knight was my hero when I was about 6 years old. My mind was made up early that I should come to IU.I had a short “I need to go to a private university” phase in high school, but I recovered from that silliness and achieved my childhood dream.Circling back to Steubenville, Beal’s predictions made me consider my younger self’s thoughts about family. I adored my parents and grandparents. Even though I disagree with them often now, including in my columns, I still love them immensely. After a series of unhealthy relationships, I have a stable, loving girlfriend and long-term plans.I think little Evan would be happy with everything I have. My morals and predilections have evolved greatly, I can’t believe I ever liked the band Creed and I’m happy with who I’ve become.College is a forward-thinking time. We are developing skills to use in our future endeavors, and we are always moving in that direction. I still believe we should all take a moment and reflect on the juvenile hopes and dreams that have helped propel us to this point.— estahr@indiana.edu
(10/10/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A golden dawn is breaking in the stricken state of Greece. A party of fascists and far-right nationalists calling itself Golden Dawn has broken into the national political scene in Greece during the last year. The fact that such a party exists and garners support is disturbing enough on its own, but the story gets worse. Of late, the party has begun managing services that the crumbling government cannot provide because of austerity measures.Fascists patrol the streets as a perverse sort of police force, harassing and beating immigrants and those who do not agree with Golden Dawn.They are preying on the security fears and anger of both the lower and middle classes, who suffer greatly under government austerity. The anger of the proletariat about austerity is absolutely justified. Austerity measures often hurt the poorest people the most, and everyone who is not already extremely wealthy feels some kind of pain from them.Golden Dawn channels this anger into appalling xenophobic and fascist fantasies. It should instead be directed toward the corrupt elites who put Greece in this position in the first place and who are now allowing the rest of the Greek people to be punished with an austere stranglehold.Of course, the majority of the Greek people are not to blame for these disturbing developments. Golden Dawn has bypassed democratic means of gaining power and is using ridiculous emotional appeals and intimidation to attain their goals.Nonetheless, 22 percent of Greeks support the fascists, and that number is far too high. The rest of Greece could suffer not only from austerity, but also from the rise of fascism that has resulted from it.The story of Golden Dawn in Greece serves as a warning for the United States. The idea of austerity is coming to the forefront of American politics and public life. Rising tuition costs, slashed funding for public education, downsizing or destruction of social programs — these, among others, are measures that we are told will help us pull out of our economic downturn.The seeds of austerity have been sewn. What will we now harvest? The poor are being decimated, and the middle class is being dismantled. The rich , the very people who often influence the making of these decisions, are the only people who are safe.Make no mistake. The blame for this damage to the lower classes sits with thedecision-makers. It does not sit with immigrants. It does not sit with the impoverished who simply want a better life.The American people must not fall into the same line of thinking that Greece has. We must have compassion and care toward our fellow Americans, especially those who have the least.At a minimum, we must not allow the elites to get away scot-free from the austerity debate. We must ensure that any measures to improve our economy, spending cuts included, do not unfairly affect those who can least afford it while the few at the top are unaffected. — estahr@indiana.edu
(09/19/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A woman sits unflinchingly upright in her chair, wiping her tears away while her mouth forms a stubbornly resolute smile. Her name is Lisa. Her family was the victim of a shocking murder.She is being interviewed about the death penalty for the people who have caused her so much hurt.The interviewer, noted filmmaker Werner Herzog, quietly suggests, “Jesus probably would not have been an advocate of capital punishment.” He waits for her response. She seems to agree with his assertion but then adds, “But some people just don’t deserve to live.” This scene comes from Herzog’s 2011 documentary “Into the Abyss”, which documents the people — both victim and perpetrator — involved in a Texas murder in the days before the execution of one of the convicted.Though it is carefully constructed to not be partisan in its meditation on the subject, the things I saw in “Into the Abyss” reinforced and added new layers to my opposition of the death penalty.The Supreme Court has ruled on capital punishment a number of times in the past, and each time it has upheld the constitutionality of its use, albeit with significant boundaries and caveats.The obstacles on the road to the lethal injection gurney are numerous — unanimous juries, a multitude of appeals, calls for clemency, “humane” execution and execution dates set far into the future.These factors all combine to make the death of a convicted person not only costly but essentially meaningless. Since the death is so disconnected from the act that, to some, justified execution, the death does little to deter others from doing the same. It does not take a possibly dangerous person out of the world any more effectively than a life sentence does, and it does not grant a possible chance at redemption.These obstacles show that we are afraid of the death penalty, and we, on some level, realize how wrong it is.In the end, the only justification that can be given for capital punishment is simple revenge. Revenge is not justice. It is simply anger, a base, personal, human emotion that must be restrained when thinking about issues of the public good.That is the point of our justice system. It exists to strip these cases of their emotional impact and to find the facts of the case.It then determines an appropriate sanction that benefits the society as a whole. It does not always do this perfectly — far from it — but it is set up to work that way.The unemotional logic of the system does not mean that such emotions aren’t important. Indeed, the emotional effects of both crime and punishment are supremely important to the people involved and to the people around them.Instead, the justice system acknowledges that anger and personal revenge re not appropriate emotions in the system.Since the death penalty is simply revenge, we have absolutely no right to use it within the bounds of our justice system, and the Supreme Court is wrong in its rulings on the subject.— estahr@indiana.edu
(08/29/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Earlier this year, I had the chance to spend some time with incarcerated people at the Putnamville Correctional Facility in Putnamville, Ind. Speaking with, having discussions with and becoming friendly with these people made me realize just that: They are people.Inmates are not monsters, no matter how heinous the crimes they have committed, and they can be very heinous in some instances. Regardless, people in prison — I dislike using “prisoners” or “felons” or other loaded terms — are people with children, parents, talents, ideas, hopes and aspirations. I do not mean to minimize the effects of crime on the victim, but we must realize that, sometimes, the perpetrator is a victim as well. I am not advocating an end to consequences for breaking the laws of our society, but we must realize the punishments handed down can be unjust.Despite the possibly apocryphal stories of people committing crimes to receive better health care and standard of living in prisons than they do on the outside, prison is really not an easy place to be.People are isolated from their families and friends, do work for far less than minimum wage and are often not optimistic about their futures.Moreover, their punishments do not end once they are released. Many states have laws discouraging people with felonies from voting, and they often are discriminated against in employment and housing.Besides, even if the stories are true, isn’t that an indictment of our profit-based approach to health care and our gutted social safety net, not an indictment about the cushiness of correctional facilities?When someone is raised in an environment of lawlessness and poverty, it is difficult to break out of that mold. Breaking more families apart with unnecessarily harsh sentences, limiting access to contraception and abortion and encouraging poverty by favoring big business instead of needy people all contribute to this harmful culture from which many inmates come.We must realize that the purpose of prisons should not be to punish for the sake of punishment. It is not to inflict pain on the lives of these men and women, despite the pain they have inflicted on others. Revenge is not noble, but forgiveness is.Prisons should be about two things: incapacitation and rehabilitation. People are kept in prison so they cannot commit more crimes against innocent citizens. This is incapacitation.More importantly, it is our duty to our fellow citizens to help them improve their lives in the future so they do not commit more crimes and have the learned skills necessary to contribute to and make a living in our society.In a time when our own state is limiting the educational opportunities of inmates with indiscriminate budget cuts, we need to be mindful of these people. We cannot think of them as abstractions that can be exploited or as monsters that require brutal punishment. We must think of them as people and members of our own society, with ideas and talents that can benefit all of us.In short, we should all visit a prison.— estahr@indiana.edu
(08/24/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When I was a child, my parents used to instill in me how lucky I was to have all sorts of great things in my life. They emphasized I had gifts —I was handsome and precociously intelligent. “You have a great family life,” they told me. “You go to a good school and get good grades.”I can’t really deny any of those things. I do have a good, stable family life. My primary and secondary educations were decent. They instilled these things in me not to make me brash, but to make me thankful for all the good things in my life.As I’ve gotten older and more aware, I have realized that I have other privileges. These are different though. These are inherent, and they were given by chance.I’m white, for one. I am healthy and able-bodied. I was born with male sex characteristics, and my gender identity conforms to those. Unfortunately, these things are all privileges in American society.I don’t have to worry about being profiled by the police, being at a higher risk for incarceration or being stereotyped by media and on the street, as people of other ethnicities do.I don’t have to worry about employment discrimination or predatory insurance companies, because I’m healthy.No one is going to inadvertently or obstinately refer to me as the wrongly gendered pronoun.Society isn’t going to shame me for my sexual urges then deny me the right to do what I want with my body. No idiot is going to try to decide if rape of people like me is “legitimate” or “forcible.”Sure, there are a few bad things about being male — very few. But these problems are caused by the same patriarchal pressures that hurt women.I know many others are realizing their own privileges. This is undeniably a good thing. It can, however, lead to a sense of guilt or shame.My view is privilege is not something to be ashamed of, nor is it something to flaunt. It is something to be aware of. More importantly, the realization of this privilege should lead us to want to help others reach equal footing.We all need to realize our privileges. We need to realize those who do not have the same privileges are not inferior, whether inherently or through action. They have simply been unfairly placed on a lower rung. We need to do these things not out of a sense of pity, self-hatred or a savior complex. We need to do these things because they are righteous.— estahr@indiana.edu