25 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/31/12 1:25am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I was sitting in the final 100-level general education course of my college career doing my best impersonation of an attentive student, when I began to consider the usefulness of the requirement of such a class. As I listened to the lecturing grad student, who would have undoubtedly rather been some place else, discuss at great length something which I’m sure was terribly important to someone, this question floated through my mind: What is it, exactly, that I’m supposed to get out of this? Ah, the ubiquitous question of disenchanted undergraduates everywhere. If I remember correctly, they told me as a freshman that by taking a class under this particular subheading I would end up being a more well-rounded student, future employee and citizen of the world — or some litany of phrases with an equally impressive tenor.In my dewy-eyed, youthfully enthusiastic freshman state, this all made perfect sense. In the spring semester of my senior year, I’m slightly less dewy-eyed and infinitely more cynical. Rather than discussing my current course and ruining any hope I have of getting a decent grade in the class, I’m going to turn to an earlier example of the absurdity of our current system — my first natural and mathematical science course: Psychoanalysis and Philosophy. If that title doesn’t sound like a science or a math class, that’s because, in fact, it had only the most tenuous relationship to either field. We spent much of our time discussing what it meant to be human, how philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle saw the structure of the human psyche, what exactly the soul was and how all of this factored into Freud’s largely discredited psychoanalytic theory.I loved the course and learned a great deal, but there is no way in good conscience that I could call it a science class.Fast-forward to my E321: Intermediate Microeconomic Theory class, where on a daily basis we worked with calculus-driven models and spent time finding derivatives to solve the problems we had been given. This, according to the University, is neither math nor science. I’m sure somewhere within the administration there is a well-informed, and even more well-intentioned bureaucrat that can tell me exactly why my psychoanalysis course counted as a natural and mathematical science, but intermediate microeconomic theory did not. In the end, I know the distinction ultimately comes down to an arbitrary decision by an individual or group of individuals who may or may not have had quite a few years pass since the last time they took an undergraduate course.That’s the fundamental problem with creating universal requirements in an educational setting where you have dozens of majors, hundreds of classes and thousands of students. Wherever you draw the line to distinguish one “type” of study from another, you’re bound to have really bizarre and uneven results. I don’t know what the solution to the problem is, but I can comfortably say the current setup doesn’t accomplish what it sets out to do. I’m fairly certain that it can’t. Perhaps we shouldn’t impose artificial restrictions that benefit few and irritate most, but rather allow students to take the courses they need or want to prepare themselves for whatever their next steps may be.— jontodd@indiana.edu
(01/23/12 11:35pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As I was listening to Newt Gingrich’s acceptance speech after his primary victory in South Carolina on Saturday night, I was quickly perplexed by what I was hearing from the former Speaker of the House. After spending an uncomfortable amount of time praising Rick Santorum for his effort in Iowa two weeks ago, Newt said he is running “not a Republican campaign” but “an American campaign.” Something about those particular words struck a chord with me. They sounded eerily familiar to another speech I heard only a few years ago. Which speech was it that I was remembering? I’ll give you hint, the man who gave it is currently occupying the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Shortly after his improbable victory in Iowa a little over four years ago, then-Senator Barack Obama used what would be one of the more memorable lines of his campaign. “We are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America.”You might argue the connection between those two statements is a bit tenuous and perhaps with some justification. I will submit, however, a further line from Gingrich’s South Carolina speech that also appears to play on themes that Obama used so masterfully in 2008. Newt spoke of rising to political power in the U.S. “Because we are free we can produce leadership from an amazing range of places,” he said. “The genius of America is that you can come from any background.”Senator Obama, in the very same Iowa speech Newt had already echoed, said, “Hope — hope is what led me here today, with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.”To be fair, themes like the American Dream and American unity are not unique to any president, and all candidates work them into their speeches when they can. It just seems a bit bizarre to me to hear Speaker Gingrich offer the first half of a speech remarkably similar to a man whom he spends the second half of the speech mercilessly denigrating with his infamously acerbic tongue. With such similarity, perhaps it won’t be too long before Newt begins to attack corporations and CEO’s for making unreasonable profits at the expense of average Americans. Oh, right, he also did that in South Carolina last week with advertisements attacking Mitt Romney for his time as CEO of Bain Capital. Still not enough for you? I’ll give you one last quote. Newt began by thanking South Carolina for deciding to “be with us in changing Washington,” which I suppose is something entirely different from the “change we can believe in.”For a man that regularly declares his vehement disagreement with the President on nearly every issue, Newt Gingrich is doing a fine impression of the President on the campaign trail.The best part about it is that irony appears to elude both Gingrich and his supporters. As for me, I would much rather have the real thing than a hollow imitation. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(01/20/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Throughout the course of the past few months, I’ve been following the creation of Stephen Colbert’s super PAC with great interest. During these months, he has managed to explicitly illustrate the most fundamental flaws of our current campaign finance laws. Interestingly, he has done so simply by staying in character. Let me begin by taking a quick step back. For those of you who aren’t familiar with campaign finance laws, super PACs are political action committees that are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the purpose of campaigning.These super PACs do not have to release the names of their contributors to anyone but the Federal Election Committee, nor do they have to release the amount of money they have on hand. One of the few rules governing super PACs is that they are not allowed to “coordinate” with any of the candidates’ official campaigns. Theoretically, this would prevent candidates from being unduly influenced by the nameless donors associated with the super PACs.That rule should give you no solace. Last week, while Colbert was pondering a presidential run in the South Carolina primary, he decided to transfer authority of his super PAC to his longtime friend and executive producer of his show, Jon Stewart, so as to avoid the problem of being a candidate and the supervisor of his super PAC. All it took to transfer control was a signature on a single sheet of paper, and Stewart was allowed to keep all of Colbert’s staff working on the super PAC material so long as Colbert himself did not officially “coordinate” with Stewart about the super PAC’s plans.Oh, and if Colbert were to explain his plans on his show and Stewart happened to hear, that’s not considered coordinating. If Stephen Colbert can give control of his super PAC, now titled the Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC, to his longtime colleague and business partner while maintaining the exact same staff and announcing his own candidacy, there is clearly something wrong with the way our laws are structured. As amusing and outrageous as the Colbert stunt is, every one of the primary Republican candidates has a super PAC behind him. Mitt Romney’s super PAC is run by his 2008 campaign manager, Rick Perry’s was run by a longtime friend, and Newt Gingrich publicly asked the super PAC supporting him to pull a controversial ad. This, of course, is not coordinating because he said it publicly at a press conference. While the candidates might not be explicitly “coordinating” with the PACs, they are without question intertwined with candidates and have enough shared background to warrant some serious misgivings.In essence, we are currently relying on the honor system to ensure “non-coordination” between super PACs and campaigns, but that’s not even the worst of it. The worst part about the entire system is that super PACs exist at all. By allowing them to take and spend unlimited money from sources that don’t have to be named, we’re veering dangerously close to selling elections to the highest bidder.If you believe money is equivalent to free speech, you probably don’t have a problem with this. I, for one, find the whole setup nauseating.I’d like to thank Colbert for shining light on the dark recesses of campaign finance and encourage everyone to look at what he is doing.Their satire has identified a glaring problem in our system. Once we realize and accept that, we can start pressuring our representatives to change the way we do campaign finance.— jontodd@indiana.edu
(12/09/11 12:12am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As an individual with fairly strong democratic tendencies, I have been keeping a close watch on the Republican nomination race this fall. With a parade of unqualified contenders rising and falling, it appears the Republican primary voters have stumbled upon the brightest star of the race so far, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. I couldn’t be happier. Former Speaker Gingrich has a wonderfully colorful past and has said some unbelievable things that make even some Republicans squeamish. First example, in discussing his reasons for wanting to roll back child labor laws just a few weeks ago, Gingrich said that “really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they have no habit of showing up on Monday ... they have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it is illegal.” The idea of rolling back child labor as laws should make one pause on its own merits, but explaining it this way should make you question the sanity of the Republican establishment. Not only does the former speaker believe children as young as nine should be working, he justifies his stance by making a broad generalization that demonizes an entire demographic simply for their economic standing. If I can take a brief journey into the former speaker’s mind, the logic behind his statement is as follows: Poor people are poor because they don’t work — presumably because they are too lazy to find a job — and because they don’t work, their children won’t know how to work, either. Oh, and I forgot, apparently the only commerce poor people understand is illegal commerce.I’d be curious to find out how many “poor people” Gingrich actually knows. But alas, unfounded generalizations tinged with an undertone of prejudice are not the only services Gingrich offers. He also dabbles in arrogance. After a short two weeks at the top of a Republican primary that has seen six different front runners, this statement is no hyperbole on my part: Newt decided it was time to announce himself the winner and unassailable nominee. Confidence is a good thing in measured doses. This statement is not what I’d call measured in any sense of the word. For one final treasure from the kind and generous Newt, I turn again to his own words. In the 1970s, Gingrich reportedly described the first of his two ex-wives and said, “She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.”There’s absolutely nothing I can add to that. So, as a Democrat and a strong supporter of President Obama, I can honestly say that all I want for Christmas is for Newt Gingrich to be the Republican nominee. It’s hard for me to come up with a better example of the problems found in the public face of the modern day Republican Party. Nasty Newt is pompous, out-of-touch and of questionable moral fabric — the shining candidate for a party that, if this primary is at all representative, has unquestionably lost its collective mind. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(12/01/11 11:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Black Friday, the infamous day-after-Thanksgiving shopping ritual, is celebrated by consumers and salesmen alike as one of the great days for the American economy. Waffle irons for $2, an Xbox 360 that’s practically free, flat screen televisions priced to sell. What more could we need? Certainly, there are deals to be had, money to be saved and great gifts to be purchased, but as an outside observer and nonparticipant, I wonder if this is really the kind of thing we want to embrace as a preeminent part of the holiday culture.It’s not necessarily the near-worship of consumer culture that concerns me. Though that’s definitely bad, it isn’t the worst part about Black Friday. No, the worst part about the annual celebration of materialism at its finest is people willing to do whatever it takes to get their deal.As was widely reported last week, a woman in Los Angeles, angling to get her hands on a sleek and competitively priced Xbox 360, came armed with pepper spray to give herself an advantage. A good spray or two and a few minutes later, the shopper did indeed get her 360. The 20 people around her? Well, they got sore eyes and burning lungs — casualties of coming to a consumer orgy less prepared than our pepper spray hero. Whether or not she will be charged with a crime is still pending. Videos poured out of Wal-Marts, Best Buys and a number of other retailers across the country showing mobs fighting for items the instant products hit the shelves. I watched a few of the videos in abject horror as people pushed, elbowed and clawed their way to the products the store was peddling, all so they could take advantage of those fantastic prices. I couldn’t help but think how animalistic it all was while watching the mobs. Disgust mixed with a bit of twisted humor as I was vividly reminded of a video I had seen of pigs gathering around a feeding trough, preparing to be served their slop. At least the pigs were fighting for sustenance. I’m all for celebrating the holiday season and buying gifts for your loved ones. I’m even OK with high-intensity bargain shopping. But when we glorify the deal more than the wellbeing of our fellow man, we as a culture have lost all semblance of balance.What’s worse for me is that we all seem to accept this behavior as an unalterable, if less than desirable, consequence brought about by the nature of the day. It isn’t a new problem, though. From Cabbage Patch Kids to Furbies, fights for the latest toy and the best deal seem to have been a theme for most of recent societal memory. That doesn’t mean we should tolerate it.I don’t think of myself as a Grinch, but I refuse to praise a day that celebrates greed, self-indulgence and materialism above the higher ideals the holiday season is supposed to represent. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(11/17/11 11:14pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With Thanksgiving now less than a week away, I’m already looking forward to my yearly tradition of eating unhealthy amounts of turkey, watching football and passing out on my grandma’s couch — all while trying my best to ignore the gaggle of screaming children roughhousing in the living room.Though I have occasionally wanted to squish a younger cousin or two, I am tremendously fortunate to have the loving and supportive family that I do and have resources enough to celebrate the season. As I was reveling at the thought of a turkey-induced coma, it occurred to me that many people don’t have the luxury of sitting down, feasting and enjoying the company of their family. In every city across the country, even here in Bloomington — perhaps especially here in Bloomington — people without food and shelter are just trying to make it day to day. For them, there will likely be no turkey, no football or family get-together; no presents exchanged, no Christmas sweaters and little hope of improved circumstances in the new year. I say this not to depress you, but to encourage the people reading this article to take a second and consider how good our lives are in the grand scheme of things. That can’t be the end of it, though. I’d like to ask you to consider doing something for others this holiday season. It doesn’t have to be something big. Have extra food in your dorm at the end of the semester? Instead of throwing it away or letting your roommate deal with it, donate it to the local food bank. Don’t have extra food? Make a quick trip and grab something at Kroger. Are those toys from your childhood still in good condition? Donate them to the Salvation Army or Goodwill. I can guarantee they will get better use than they’re currently getting in your closet. Have clothes that don’t fit or you no longer wear? There are definitely people who would love to have them on cold winter nights. What about all that extra time you’ll have on break? I will definitely spend my fair share of time watching movies, playing video games and spending time with my friends, but I’m going try to convince my family to take a couple hours on a Saturday to help out at our local community kitchen. For those of us blessed enough to have the things that help make the holiday joyful, let’s first remember to be thankful for them. They are by no means guaranteed. More than that, though, I think we can all do something to help out others this holiday season, big or small. Can individual effort alone solve these issues for everyone? No, but, without question, it will make a difference to someone. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(11/17/11 11:08pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Indiana lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow Indiana residents “to use force to prevent police from entering their homes in a handful of instances.” The legislation is being written in response to a 2007 case in which Indiana resident Richard Barnes shoved a police officer against the wall when the officer attempted to enter his home without his permission or a warrant. The officers on the scene tased Barnes, who was later convicted by a jury of his peers for misdemeanor battery, resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct. Barnes appealed the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, and the Court held there is “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”Lawmakers on a select committee in the Indiana General Assembly made a recommendation to carve out exceptions in which the use of force by civilians to resist entry would be acceptable. While we appreciate the lawmakers’ attempt to protect our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, we do not believe that the blanket legalization of the use of force against a police officer, in any circumstance, is the right way to approach the problem.First and foremost, defining acceptable violence sounds like an invitation for individuals with a grudge against the police to try to create circumstances in which they could legally attack an officer. Almost certainly, we would see an increase in violent confrontation between civilians and officers because of this law, whether or not the circumstances were legally acceptable.This isn’t to say that we do not support our Fourth Amendment right. We certainly do. That said, we feel the current method, which prevents the use of any evidence acquired in an unwarranted search in a court of law, is acceptable. Nevertheless, we believe if an officer sees a potentially dangerous situation developing, he should be able to use his discretion to intervene. If it turns out that such an entry is inappropriate, then the wronged individual can take the matter to the courts, as Barnes did. Barnes was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and the Supreme Court ruled against his appeal, as well. While it is never appropriate to advocate for the status quo simply because it is the status quo, in this case, it seems preferable to the proposed alternative.
(11/11/11 2:56am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Months ago as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling, Congress appointed a “Super Committee” to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal budget through 2021. The committee was given a deadline of Nov. 23 to report its plan to Congress. With less than two weeks remaining, many observers are skeptical a deal will be reached. There has been no public word of significant progress, and legislators from both sides are busy sniping at one another about the lack of development.The Super Committee’s ineffectual discussions thus far, as well as the fact there had to be a “Super Committee” created in the first place, are a reflection of the broken state of American politics. Democrats argue the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party based on the simple fact they refuse to compromise on taxes. In my opinion, for the Republicans on the committee, and in Congress generally, to say all forms of revenue increases are off the table is absurd.Conservatives are often fond of comparing the federal government to an individual household on budgetary matters. As the metaphor goes, when economic times are tough for a family, members of the family must “tighten their belt” and reign in their expenses. However, what’s forgotten in this metaphor are some expenses families see as important enough to keep, even if that means working extra overtime or some weekends to cover the cost. Expenses that might fit in this category: education and personal health broadly construed, especially for the most vulnerable members of the family — the young and the elderly. Where do we see suggestions for cuts? Social welfare programs, the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency are just a few of the programs Republicans argue are in need of significant trimming, or to the libertarian extreme, outright elimination. Notice all of these propositions have a direct impact on at least one of the two categories in the metaphor above, and again, the most affected are society’s most vulnerable. When I think about these issues I really do try to analyze problems with both sides, but in this particular instance, I’m really struggling to find significant fault on the part of the Democrats. If you look to the President as the leader of the Democratic Party as an example, Democrats are even willing to alter the structure of social welfare programs, the pillars of Democratic thought and oft-believed untouchable, to make them more fiscally sustainable in the long run.Admittedly, the changes they offer are not nearly as broad as, say, the Republican ideal of privatizing social security, but at least they have shown some willingness to compromise. On the issue of taxes, the Republican’s sacred cow, there does not appear to be any wiggle room. That fact alone is responsible for so much of the gridlock that we see in Washington. If we as citizens continue to support politicians on either side who are unwilling to work to find the middle ground, we’re all in trouble. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(11/03/11 10:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I had the television on as background noise earlier this week when a commercial for an Olay product for women came on. I’m not entirely sure why the Olay commercial caught my attention, but that’s more of a secondary concern for me than the advertisement’s content.The product being peddled was a facial hair removal kit. My understanding from the commercial is you apply one cream to the upper lip and then a second that somehow makes the previously existing, and apparently monstrous, hair disappear. I’m not entirely sure how this is supposed to work, but I’m pretty certain I don’t want to find out. The commercial was on CNN, and Olay was very clearly advertising to a national market. Based on their selection of actress, I would say they were likely advertising to women from their late 20s to mid 40s.Are there really that many women out there who are that self-conscious about upper lip hair? I really hope not, but I’m afraid the answer is probably yes, and that’s ridiculous. Throughout the course of my entire life, I might have met a grand total of four women who might have been able to put this product to good use. All of them were more than 75 years old, and at that point, who cares? Then there was the Dove commercial this summer advertising a deodorant that would make a woman’s underarms silky smooth. The commercial featured an attractive woman who was apparently too ashamed of her less than sleek underarms to even look at the camera directly. I can pretty comfortably say I have never found a woman unattractive because her underarms were not smooth enough. Based on limited conversation with my friends, they are all of the same opinion. My overarching thought is this: There is nothing wrong with taking care of oneself and working to look good, but advertisers and beauty product companies are currently making millions by exploiting the anxieties of women everywhere, and that bothers me. I’m fine with business, and I understand supply and demand. But in situations like these it seems to me that these companies are not responding to a demand from consumers. They instead are inventing demand by imagining new and bizarre ways to make women insecure about their appearance.And it’s not just the beauty companies. We as a society seem to be holding women to a more and more absurd and impossible standard by supporting products like these. What’s next, forearm waxing? Knuckle dewrinkling lotion? I mean, come on.I offer these suggestions: Women, if these products genuinely make you feel good, more power to you. But please don’t let your sense of self-worth be tied to how society tells you to feel about your appearance. It isn’t worth the worry, and I really don’t believe that most men are all that concerned about things like the softness of your underarms. Men, I think we need to stop reinforcing, through our words, actions and even silence, messages that many of us don’t really believe in the first place.— jontodd@indiana.edu
(11/02/11 1:30am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Internet vigilante group Anonymous has announced that it will take down the Fox News website Saturday. The group says the attack, “Operation Fox Hunt,” is retaliation against Fox for its unfair portrayal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The Nov. 5 date is in honor of Guy Fawkes’ attempt to destroy the British Parliament in 1605, a date that reenetered pop culture after the release of the film “V for Vendetta,” which serves as a tribute to FawkesIn its announcement, Anonymous cited Fox News’ use of the words “filthy” and “disgusting” in describing the occupiers, labeling it as right-wing propaganda.We have several issues with Anonymous’ plan. Foremost among the issues is the decision to target a news agency for practicing its First Amendment right. That isn’t to say that we agree with Fox News. Though some members of the editorial board enjoy Fox now and again, most tend to disagree with the ideological edge of the agency or, at the very least, tend to doubt the sincerity of some its programming.Whether we agree with Fox is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. For a group like Anonymous, which so staunchly defended Wikileaks’ right to disseminate its information, it is hypocritical to shut down another group because it offers a perspective different from Anonymous’ own. This hypocrisy is emphasized because Fox News’ alleged crimes in this situation would appear to be fairly innocuous by most standards. This leads to another possible explanation. Perhaps the group is just seeking recognition and selected a popular target to attack. In this scenario, Anonymous members may genuinely want to hurt Fox but are more interested in recognition for their hacking prowess and skill.It’s hard to argue against the methods of individuals and groups whose message you agree with, but it is often important to do so. While we may understand Anonymous’ frustration with Fox, the decision to attack its website does not seem likely to reflect positively on the group or its desired outcome. At best, Anonymous members look like ideological bullies, no different than the extreme Tea Partiers shouting down opponents in town hall meetings. At worst, they look like a power-hungry collective desiring only recognition for their abilities and potential to cause chaos. That, we can’t abide.
(10/27/11 10:57pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Tuesday a story broke that a couple from Long Island had filed for a trademark on the slogan “Occupy Wall Street” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The couple’s basic premise, as you might expect, was to sell “sweatshirts, T-shirts, bumper stickers and hobo bags, among other merchandise.” For those of you familiar with the movement and its basic guiding principles, this effort to trademark the phrase probably fills you with a bizarre cocktail of feelings. Words like irony, hypocrisy, cluelessness and heartburn all seem to jump to mind.It’s OK, though, insists Robert Maresca, the gentleman that filed for the trademark, because he is a strong supporter of the movement. He just wants to make sure somebody with the movement’s best interest in mind filed for the trademark as a preemptive move. In his words, “Somebody else might have gotten a hold of it.” Perhaps Maresca means somebody else who is looking to make a personal profit off a movement that finds its genesis in a reaction to the excesses of corporatism, capitalism and greed? They certainly wouldn’t want anybody to do that. To be fair, Maresca has said it is his “intent to have (Occupy Wall Street supporters) get the maximum benefit possible after any expenses.” How very noble of him to give back the proceeds to the very people who generated the movement in the first place. Maresca has also said if granted the trademark, he might be willing to sell it to OWS members, as long as the group paid all of his associated expenses. Again, his generosity knows no bounds. Maybe it really is the Marescas’ intention to hand over the theoretical trademark to the OWS movement and reap no personal benefit, but even that strikes me as remarkably out of touch with everything for which the movement stands. In my own view, OWS is in many ways supposed to be a movement of the people. It is a broad-based backlash against an economic system that seems to radically favor the few versus the many. Moreover, it is a backlash against personal and corporate greed. Even if Marescas’ motives are as pure as he portrays them to be, he and his wife’s actions do not in any way show familiarity or solidarity with a movement he purportedly supports.Taking the slogan that is now being used globally to signify frustration with capitalism in its current form and commercializing it is either cynicism of the worst kind or utter ignorance. So far, protesters have been less than enthusiastic and have noted there are already screen-printing stations and people making unique OWS clothing and gear for free. Now, that seems closer to the anti-corporate image of the movement. I hope the OWS protesters continue to react strongly against the trademark move and hold fast to the ideals they support — they’re worth the fight. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(10/20/11 10:21pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>That popular colloquialism is more than just folk wisdom. It happens to be the 10th verse from the sixth chapter of the New Testament book of Timothy. To me, it shines a spectacular light on one of the most befuddling bedfellows in the entire political sphere. Republicanism, in its modern iteration, has linked the small government libertarians with the Christian conservatives. The two factions disagree largely on social, but not economic, issues. What concerns me, however, is not their disagreement; rather, I am concerned that they agree on anything at all. By accepting the economic idea that there should be minimal taxes, little or no social safety net and, more generally, the broad ideology of rugged individualism, the conservative Christian community seems to abandon one of the primary tenets of the teachings of Christ. In his own words, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)For the non-Sunday-schooled, this verse is at the end of a parable in which Christ admits to heaven those who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked and cared for the sick. The verse above is Christ telling the righteous that when they did those things they were in fact caring for Christ himself. The point I am after, then, is this: I think the evangelical community should take a long look in the mirror and think about the interests with which they have allied themselves politically in the modern era. It isn’t those of the poor, the needy or the downtrodden. It isn’t the lepers, the outcasts or the “least of these.” It is those seeking to ease their tax burden. Often this includes billion-dollar corporations and the wealthiest of the wealthy. Indeed, it seems to be those that are the furthest removed from the struggles to which Christ refers. At this point one might argue, “Well, my desire to help the poor might guide my behavior individually, but that doesn’t mean it should be the government’s responsibility to actively support the weakest segment of society.”This is an argument I hear all too frequently. The logic might fly with me if it were applied across the board. But many Christian conservative who don’t want to see higher taxes used for social support are the very same people who promote the idea of legislating a particular brand of biblical morality in the social sphere.And there’s the ideological incoherence. If our personal religious beliefs are to inform our political beliefs, I don’t think we can pick and choose which ones to legislate, especially if the beliefs we choose to ignore are those concerning wealth — often, our own wealth. That would seem to put us in dangerous territory, so aptly phrased by the Apostle Paul as the “root of all evil.”— jontodd@indiana.edu
(10/13/11 9:21pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>One of the academic programs I’m involved with on campus is the Political and Civic Engagement Program, which is similar in structure to the Liberal Arts and Management Program. One of the primary tenets of the program is to foster growth in citizenship skills, such as the cultivation of civil public discourse. As I sat in a discussion for the senior section of the PACE program, I realized something: civil political discourse is something we are missing almost entirely in our current political climate. As a society, we know how to argue, and we know how to argue well, but we aren’t very good at talking to one another. As human beings, part of the way we take in information is to fit our experiences into our existing understanding of the world. As a child, when I saw a four-legged furry creature, I probably called it “kitty” or “doggy,” though it may well have been a sheep. I had too few structures to work with. Eventually, though, we grow to incorporate new ideas by expanding our understanding of the world. So what does that have to do with discourse? If you begin a conversation with the traditional talking points of “This is why I’m right, and this is why you’re wrong,” I am going to subconsciously place our interaction in the mental box of previous interactions labeled “stuff I disagree with and don’t have to listen to” and shut down mentally. You repeat your standard lines on the issue. I actively combat them, brush them aside or simply ignore them because that’s how I’ve successfully dealt with interactions like this in the past. In this kind of “communication,” no one learns anything or broadens his or her understanding in any way. We’re left doing the same intellectual swordplay we have learned from the time we were very young: thrust, dodge, parry, slash and repeat. We get better at making our arguments, but often fail to pick up any additional insight as to the other person’s perspective. But it doesn’t have to be this way. I think we can have these discussions in a way that is more productive for every party involved. First and foremost, we must begin by changing the way we think about political discussion. We must move past the idea that the only conversation we can have is about what we believe. I think we can have a much more productive conversation about why we believe it. To illustrate, suppose I approached a friend about welfare assistance and, instead of the traditional talking points, I told him I believe in helping the poor as much as possible because I saw the devastating effects of poverty in my own community. I am talking from a personal experience rather than simply offering my opinion. He might disagree, but he could talk to me about why he disagrees. Perhaps he has seen individuals abuse the system by taking unfair advantage of the support they are given. Again, he would be talking at the level of personal experience. After this discussion, he and I will likely still disagree. Nevertheless, I can look at his opinion with a new found respect because I can see the underlying values and experiences behind his ideas. This type of conversation won’t solve all our problems, or make us all agree, but I do think it can help us find a higher level of mutual understanding. If we have that, we’ve already made tremendous progress. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(10/06/11 10:25pm)
If the best the Republicans can do is a hot-headed, shoot-first- and-ask
questions-later kind of candidate, they are in deep, deep trouble.
(09/29/11 9:46pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I was browsing BBC News earlier this week and I ran across a profile piece about an individual named Andrew Marin, a man who is working tirelessly in the Chicago area to bring the gay community and the Christian conservative community together for an honest and open discussion about sexuality, morality and religion. I’m sure some of you might have scoffed at the mere suggestion, but Marin has had some success, largely because he has managed to break down some of the barriers between the communities.As an individual that was raised in a strong Christian, conservative household and that also has had a gay roommate and close friend for the better part of four years now, I also am fairly well acquainted with this issue. I have some thoughts on how Marin’s success can be expanded.To the Christian community: First of all, I’d like to say there are many of you who don’t disapprove of homosexuality. You are not my audience. There are many of you who disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle but still treat gay individuals with respect. You are not my audience. To those of you who belittle, disparage and otherwise demean the gay community, you are my audience. The attitude of moral superiority diminishes your standing not only among the gay community but also among people who might have identified with your message, but do not identify with hatred. This isn’t to say you cannot disapprove of homosexuality. It is your right to do so. Rather, all I ask is that you respect your fellow human beings as just that — human beings. Just a couple verses for you to consider:“Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses” – Proverbs 10:12“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples.” – John 13:34-35“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” – John 8:7 To the gay community: Many of you need to respect Christians’ right to disagree with you on homosexuality. If you really want to make a difference and help those individuals recognize your shared humanity, it may help to approach them in a way that does not overemphasize that aspect of your personality. Being gay is not the only thing that defines you as a person. I’m not saying don’t be yourself; I’m saying be yourself in a way that does not actively estrange the very individuals with whom you are trying to connect and convince. You may never be able to sway certain segments of the Christian population to the idea that your sexuality is acceptable, but that doesn’t mean you need to label those people bigots, fundamentalists or idiots. That approach hurts your standing among those Christians that might have accepted you as you are. If we ever want to have a real conversation about sexuality, morality and religion, we need to approach one another in a way that fosters cooperation and conversation, not hinders it. I think some of the thoughts above can steer us in the right direction. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(09/22/11 11:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Troy Davis’s fate was sealed Monday by the Georgia Board of Paroles and Pardons. He was executed Wednesday night by lethal injection. For those of you who don’t follow national news closely, I’ll rewind and give you the background story. In 1991, Troy Davis was convicted of shooting and killing police officer Mark McPhail. At the time, there were nine eyewitnesses who testified to seeing Davis commit the crime. There was no physical evidence tying him to the scene of the crime, and the murder weapon was never found. Fast-forward several years and many appeals later, and suddenly we have a slightly different situation. Seven of those nine witnesses who testified against Davis have since recanted their testimony. Several of those witnesses then proceeded to submit sworn affidavits in which they admitted that they “were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing (the original) statements against Troy Davis.”Oh, and did I mention? Troy Davis is a black man in the Georgia justice system. One of the two other witnesses who has not recanted his original testimony against Davis is Sylvester Coles. In what shouldn’t really come as a shock, Coles happens to be the principle alternative suspect in the crime.What should come as a shock, given the Board’s decision, is that there have been nine individuals who have signed affidavits implicating Coles in the crime. Despite the apparent evidence against Davis’s conviction, the officer’s family has continued to push for Davis’s execution.I think I should make it a point to say at this juncture that I have never lost a family member to violent crime, and I hope I never will. There is no way that I can possibly understand what it must be like to have your father, your husband or your son torn from you in such an awful way. The desire to see justice served is understandable, but putting a man to death when there is so much room for doubt hardly seems like the justice that Officer McPhail would have wanted. In fact, it hardly seems like justice at all.Maybe Troy Davis did commit the crime, but there are now as many people testifying against Coles as there were originally against Davis. If that wasn’t enough to free the man, I would have hoped that it would have been enough to at least prevent him from being executed. Neither are options for Davis anymore.And therein lies the biggest problem with the death penalty. There are no do-overs, mulligans or second chances. If the justice system makes a mistake, an innocent human being will have lost their life.But perhaps the death penalty enthusiasts we all heard announce themselves so viscerally in the recent presidential debate would have a different suggestion.Maybe we should kill Coles, too, just to be sure we got the right one. Then we’ll know without a doubt that we have avenged the death of an innocent man. Now there’s justice.— jontodd@indiana.edu
(09/15/11 11:51pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I was driving home this weekend, listening to my iPod on shuffle when a song came on that I hadn’t heard in awhile. It was a song by Ben Lee called “We’re All in This Together.” The basic premise of the song is we all share this chunk of rock we call Earth for a short time, and we might as well treat each other well while we’re here. I had always liked the song. It has a catchy beat, and it’s fun to listen to, but I had never really stopped and thought about the significance of the idea behind it. You, me, the guy who cut you off on the way to work, the girl talking loudly on her phone in front of you — we’re all in the same boat at the most basic level. We’re all human. We all feel. We all face a lot of the same stresses, joys and failures. The guy who was a jerk to you in line at Starbucks? Maybe his dog died this weekend, or he and his girlfriend just had a fight. The girl who is obviously hungover in class? Maybe she’s still trying to forget the awful conversation with her mom from the night before.Or maybe they’re just messed up people. But does it really matter? I don’t think it does. I think it’s better to give people the benefit of the doubt. But there’s more to it than that. I think we can take it one step further. I think we can treat each other well.I’m sure I’ve amazed you with this tremendously novel idea. Treat each other well? Who would have thought of such a concept?It’s an obvious thing to say we should be good to one another, but how often do we actually do it? My challenge to you this week — do something nice for someone else unexpectedly. Does your roommate have a big test next week? Help him with household chores or cook him dinner. Have a friend who’s going through a rough time? Tell her you’re willing to listen — and mean it. You might be thinking, “Jon, that sounds hard.” It isn’t, but I’ll give you an out anyway because those things do require some semblance of actual effort, and maybe that’s beyond your reach this week. Here’s an easy one. Simply smile at someone as you walk by them on campus or downtown. Not the creepy “I’m trying to hit on you” smile, but the one that conveys genuine warmth. I was having a crappy day last week and had someone smile at me like that. Immediately I felt a rather gloomy day brighten, even if just a little. Call me a pushover, a hippie or a delusional dreamer, but honestly, how much brighter would this world be if we all had the goal to try to make the people around us a little better off?Maybe nothing would change. Then again, maybe it would change everything.I think it’s worth a shot. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(09/08/11 11:45pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced to ABC he was not planning to attend the president’s speech about his job creation proposal. He’s not alone, either — Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois also announced last week that he would not be attending. You might be thinking, “So what?” Well, stop thinking that.It has long been tradition that if the president of the United States wishes to address the Congress about an issue of national importance, he is able to do so. Further, it is explicitly required of the executive in the Constitution that he “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”It is assumed, and has been assumed for the overwhelming majority of our nation’s history, that members of Congress will attend these addresses. When was the last time we had members of Congress skipping out of speeches en masse? Oh yeah, just before the outbreak of the Civil War.The outright defiance of tradition is rather ironic, considering the far right’s insistence of the absolute preservation of tradition, no matter the cost, in nearly every other facet of the political sphere.What’s even more disturbing is what this behavior really signifies: a whole segment of the political elite continue to lose touch with something fundamental to the function of our democracy — respect. To illustrate this point just a little more clearly, let’s rewind the clock just a few years, to where I believe we really saw this trend begin. In the middle of President Obama’s speech about health care legislation, another legislator from South Carolina, Congressman Joe Wilson, screamed at the podium, “You lie!” after a clause he particularly opposed. If that isn’t the height of disrespect, I don’t know what is.Fast forward to today. In the same breath as announcing he would not be attending the president’s speech, Rep. Walsh asked, “How idiotic is this president?” He introduced the next sentence with the clause, “I don’t want to be disrespectful.” Sorry, I think you already missed the boat on that one, congressman. You don’t have to agree with the president. You don’t even have to like him. But as the constitutionally elected president of the United States, Barack Obama should be treated with the respect due to that office, regardless of your political orientation. Years ago, when President Bush gathered Congress to talk about Iraq and the War on Terror, did Democrats snub the president and not attend? To the best of my searching, I could not find a single instance when they did so. The childish petulance emanating from Sen. DeMint, Rep. Walsh and their ilk is beyond frustrating. It is this kind of attitude that has paralyzed constructive political discourse in this country. If we aren’t yet sick of it as Americans, we should be. I guess I have only one thing to say to the fringe of the conservatives that refuses to treat this president, or anyone of an opposing view, with respect: Grow up. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(08/31/11 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Hurricane Irene dominated headlines this weekend. News websites exploded with information, and questions about the hurricane abounded. Should I evacuate? What kind of supplies do I need? Do we really need a National Weather Service?Wait, what was that last one? It happens to be the very serious question proposed by two opinion columnists for Fox News. As the headline would lead you to believe, the columnists think the NWS has outlived its usefulness. More importantly, they argue that the private sector will adapt to serve all of the functions the NWS currently provides, mainly warning citizens of impending danger.There are television stations, smart phone apps and websites individuals can access on their own that, according to the authors, can provide faster and more accurate information. All right, I can follow this thinking, but I’m left with a burning question: What motivates the private sector to provide these services? Profit. Cold, hard cash drives the private sector, and occasionally public interest, if it falls in line with making a profit.So if I, John Q. Public, wanted to be kept abreast of weather or warned when there is impending weather danger, I would likely need to pay somebody for this service. After all, as I’m sure the Fox columnists of the editorial would agree, there is no such thing as a free lunch. In this scenario, I give the company a yearly fee, and it sends me a text message when I need to know something about the weather. That works well for me, but what about the people who choose not to pay for this service, or worse, those who are unable to do so? Are they left out in the cold? Do we hope they’ve had meteorology training? Do we write it off as a necessary consequence of social Darwinism? This scenario is eerily similar to what might happen if the U.S. privatizes other protective services such as the fire or police departments. In this setup, if I want the firehouse to respond to my calls when my house is ablaze, I need to pay a fee. If I want the police to protect my person and property, I pay them. If I want better protection, I opt for the better plan. I’ll take the four fire truck preferred service and SWAT team coverage for my McMansion, please. Those at the bottom get a garden hose, a ten-gallon bucket and a can of pepper spray. If you can’t pay at all, you’d better invest in sprinkler and security systems with the money you still don’t have. As much as the libertarian every-man-for-himself approach appeals to our egos, we have a greater responsibility to one another. The government should have a vested stake in protecting individuals, especially those who are unable to fend for themselves. I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking on budget slashing, but as a taxpayer, I really don’t mind paying to have my television or radio ‘hijacked,’ as the Fox columnists put it, to let me know that I might be in serious danger. In fact, I think I prefer it. There is a useful role for government beyond the sole function of national security, and there are things I don’t want private industry handling alone. Warning people of imminent danger from the weather is one of them. — jontodd@indiana.edu
(08/29/11 11:31pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Perhaps more than any other invention in the last 100 years, the Internet has radically changed the ways that people live and interact. Oftentimes we view this as a positive phenomenon that has vastly improved the lives of millions — if not billions — of people. Sounds like a good thing, right?Maybe not. I can think of just a few things off the top of my head that should concern you about the Internet.First of all, it’s big. Really big. If my childhood memories of playing football as a smallish nerdy kid taught me anything, it’s that you should be afraid of big things. They are often capable of and, especially on the football field, intent on causing you pain.Maybe it’s unfair to say that the Internet wants to hurt me just because it’s big, but it is definitely capable of doing so. It has become such an ubiquitous part of our society that if it should crash or run out of space, as a CNN article online I kind of read has told me it might, it could very well bring down the fabric of our society with it. How would I order my Papa John’s? How would I know when my Domino’s Pizza is being cooked? Where does porn exist outside the Internet?There are, of course, other more minor concerns, like the fact that a stupid amount of our monetary interactions occur online. I’m talking, of course, about stock trades, money wires, paying bills or even paying the extra fine on a speeding ticket so it doesn’t show up on your record (speaking of which, does that feel like bribery to anyone else?). Our economy is now so intricately intertwined with the Internet that any interruption in the flow of cash, information and smut could be potentially devastating to every major world market. Even third-world startups have a website now.So outside of the fact that the Internet now exists as an inoperable tumor on human society, why else should it scare me?, I can hear you asking me via Skype. It’s already changing the way we interact with one another. Things like talking in person, even by phone, are becoming obsolete. If I can just IM or Facebook someone why would I ever need to actually talk to them? If we suddenly had to go back to the point where none of our interaction with people could occur virtually, could we do it? I’m pretty sure we all know people who couldn’t.Thirty years ago, our parents’ primary concern for the end of times was a nuclear holocaust started by the evil Russians (or perhaps by a senile, feisty Ronald Reagan). The threat to our society is not nearly so obvious, which might actually make it more dangerous. So as you sit here reading my article on the Internet, keep in mind that it might be destined to cause the downfall of human society. I’m watching you, Internet. — jontodd@indiana.edu