8 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/17/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you are an IU student, no doubt you know the tragic fate of Julian Batts, a recent contestant on Wheel of Fortune. With the chance to win $1 million and a car, he messed up both times, once with the mispronunciation of “Achilles” and the other a wild guess. Because of these mistakes, he has been the target of countless barbed comments, insults and generally crappy treatment from nearly all parties. I find it absolutely remarkable that people are going so far as to denounce not only his competence as a human being, but the effectiveness of our entire educational system — all because he messed up on a game show. Just because Batts messed up does not give people the right to deem him unworthy. Yes, he made a mistake that many of us would not have. Yes, he made it on national television. But we cannot judge another person when we do not know much, if anything, about his life. A person’s intelligence is not judged by his performance on a game show. Intelligence is judged within academic, business and social situations. His scholarships suggest he is plenty intelligent. Let’s play the devil’s advocate, though. Let’s say he isn’t intelligent, and, going all the way to paltry extremism, let’s say he received those scholarships based on a clerical error. Should we say this, let us also say he is a human, deserving of respect and understanding. He is human, and these are a few of many mistakes he has made. Like all of us, he has committed stupid mistakes that he will remember days, weeks, even years from now, and the only thing stopping him from reaching back through some rip in the time-space continuum and hitting his past self for being an idiot is the very fact he cannot undo what has been done.The only difference between him, me and everybody who is reading this right now is that, hopefully, cameras were not filming us when we made our mistakes and they broadcast them across the nation. Above all the judgment, I find it shocking that many people are aghast that Batts does not feel embarrassed about his performance.They go on to claim he doesn’t recognize what he did wrong. They believe holding one’s head up high and acknowledging one’s mistakes is tantamount to stupidity. They believe refusing to be embarrassed is equivalent to ignorance. I have always thought that was dignity.allenjo@indiana.edu@IAmJoshAllen
(04/04/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Here are two theoretical students competing for a Wells Scholarship. Assume that their grades are academically equivalent. One is John. In high school, he participated in an applied science competition dealing with climate change and, due to his innovative solution, he won first place. He was also captain of the tennis team, president of student government, created his own startup business selling an energy drink, and saved countless cats from countless trees. Then there’s Henry. He played in his school’s orchestra. By his senior year, he was concertmaster and made it to All-State Orchestra. On the side, he picked up several other instruments — saxophone, drums, guitar — and became proficient at each. He was also interested in poetry and often gave readings at a coffee shop in his town. Who would you pick to win the scholarship?My guess, and I believe it is a fairly accurate one, is that you would pick John. And it is not bad that you picked him. He is an accomplished person who would take full advantage of the opportunities that the scholarship gives him. However, there is Henry who wasn’t picked, despite his involvement in the arts.I believe this is because his interests produce no tangible results, nothing that he could put on a resume or an application and say, “I succeeded in this very public way.” Yet he worked just as hard as John. Each of the poems he wrote took weeks to perfect, and he might have become a community staple at the coffee shop, often drawing crowds up to 50 people. There is no way to say that concisely on an application, though. And, even if there was, it would come across as, “Hey, I write poems, which pales in comparison to John’s abundant accomplishments.”The issue here is that the humanities are not taken as seriously as science, politics or business. When one compares a portfolio of poems to an innovative solution for climate change, there is no reason to expect the poem to ever be picked because the poems seem simple and science seems far more difficult and relevant. This results from a misunderstanding on the difficulty of creating such works of art. I have definitely experienced this. Surrounded by science majors studying for a test in Ergonomics, I can feel them glare at me and then eventually tell me how lucky I am and how easy I have it as I work on my short story for creative writing. Indeed, Ergonomics is hard, but do not belittle the work of those majoring in the humanities. I’m on my fifth draft of my short story, and I’ve been working on it for three months. It’s mentally exhausting. But nobody ever sees this side of humanities. They never see the emotional and spiritual work it takes to create something out of nothing. They just see a person sitting at a table who does not have to deal with chemistry while they have to cram four chapters in one night. Believe me. We work hard too.allenjo@indiana.edu
(04/03/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“The Art of Bowing” begins with so much promise — the grand philosophical proclamation that “The theater is dead,” the promise of a resurrection and a literal light in the darkness.But then, nothing. Nothing that it has the capabilities to do. Don’t get me wrong, “The Art of Bowing” is technically a good play. It has spots of wit and humor, developing characters and an enticing premise — the overarching question of whether the theater as it has been is capable of describing the world as it is now. The play-within-a-play format and the blurred lines between the play and reality is a fantastic idea, and I believe it is necessary in order to address its theme of the importance and relevance of theater.But this all disappears. All of it. The fundamental question that pulls audiences in and gives philosophical weight to this journey that the main characters — a trio consisting of a lost actor, a wandering actress and an irritable theater revivalist — undergo. Once the play stumbles past the third or so scene, it degrades into individual subsections with microthemes that are not connected to the overarching theme. The characters describe the future of theater as an unclear path that one must essentially stumble along and see where it goes, but the characters do far too much stumbling and end at a point far away from where they should have ended. Perhaps it is the execution of the concept itself that makes it impossible to create any cohesive unity among the whole. How can one traverse the entirety of human history and the future of humanity without straying from a single theme? One can’t go from prehistoric times to the legend of Atlantis and then eventually end up in some theoretical four-dimensional future while keeping a single theme steadily present through every moment of the play.The truth is that, as it is set up right now, “The Art of Bowing” can’t. It stumbles blindly through several vignettes. The only relationship is sharing interior themes that are essentially, “The future is scary, but go forward anyway,” or “You can do anything you want to as long as you set your mind to it.”It is not enough to confront a daunting topic such as the meaning of an art form.The impersonal and often clichéd dialogue doesn’t help. The grandest philosophical proclamation in the entire play was along the lines of, “I thought I was leading the path, but the path was leading me.”It is then followed by the character’s recognition of his own understanding by saying, “I just blew my own mind.” In what form of literature is that considered necessary? The character’s own cliched line should be enough to depict some kind of fundamental realization.By all means, go and see “The Art of Bowing” for a laugh or two, but don’t expect to leave feeling satisfied. allenjo@indiana.edu @IAmJoshAllen
(03/10/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On March 4, the Indiana Senate approved a bill that requires welfare recipients with any drug conviction, no matter how old, to be drug tested. It seems reasonable to me that the beneficiaries of a government program should have to work passed certain obstacles in order to attain the reward. That is not saying they deserve this work. Rather, it is to guarantee the legitimacy of their claims and to make sure that government money is used for the necessities of life rather than something that takes away from the quality of life. However, opponents argue that the bill is unconstitutional. Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, says, “Merely because you were convicted of an offense in the past doesn’t mean there’s justification for testing in the future” It’s completely true. There is no reason to suspect someone who had a drug conviction in the past will be taking drugs now. But it seems reasonable to suggest a humanitarian approach, focusing on the needs of the people rather than an assumption that a person, having made a mistake once, will make it again. This bill, if used right, could offer a distinct opportunity to rehabilitate people with drug addictions.First of all, this bill — as it is — will focus on a specific group of Indiana’s overall population, people who need to be on welfare and who have had a drug conviction in the past.It will not require all people who require welfare and food stamps to survive to take a drug test, so they can continue receiving welfare without the burden of drug testing.That leaves us with two groups — people with drug convictions but do not currently use drugs, and those with drug convictions who do currently use drugs. I believe it is relatively fair to assume that a person who requires welfare and has a drug addiction would have some conviction in his or her past.The people with drug convictions who do not currently use drugs will pass the drug screening with flying colors and this will remain a minor inconvenience for them at worst.However, this categorization could help a group desperately in need, a group of people addicted to drugs and who require food stamps to survive. The government should subsidize a rehabilitation program for them and help them overcome their addictions and, after however long it may take, they will emerge with new lives. Then, allow them to apply for food stamps again so they can focus on working their way out of poverty and see what happens. This is simplistic, of course. It doesn’t take account the poverty culture, barriers to economic development, the amount of government spending and a multitude of other problems. But we should at least try, for their welfare?allenjo@indiana.edu @Iam JoshAllen
(02/25/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With the release of IU administration’s Campus Strategic Plan, to be implemented in the coming years, the administration needs to remember that progress does not always equal throwing millions of dollars into state-of-the-art technology.Now, it is not explicitly stated within the Plan that IU will do this, or, at least, on the scale I imagine and fear. The Plan doesn’t list any specific, detail-ridden initiatives and relies instead on grandiose and vague wording, like “improving... technological infrastructure” or “link(ing) our classrooms to the world.”Sounds great, right? But just because it sounds great doesn’t necessarily mean it will be. The most important thing for the administration to consider throughout the implementation of their Plan is to remain committed to providing the highest-quality and most effective education possible. I believe this is, and always will be, their goal, but it is easy to become lost in an idealistic notion of a completely modernized educational system, especially in an era characterized by a fervent commitment to technological innovation and an increasing reliance on digital information.However, there is something to be said about traditional forms of education. In fact, there are many things to be said about it. In my and many students’ experiences, the most effective form of education is one that remains focused on a humanistic, interpersonal relationship between student and professor that, while enhanced by technology, does not rely on technology. It is easy to fall into reductionist principles by imagining if we take X + Y + Z, we will be able to emulate the experiences a student can and should gain when taught by a professor.However, the best education resists that approach because there is something intangible and fundamental gained through the interaction between a professor and a student. Whether it is understanding, inspiration or just plain-old interest, it is impossible to replicate with an education that relies on technology.There is nothing wrong with the administration wanting to modernize their educational approach, but they need to discover what is most effective, and the only way they can do that is by monitoring students’ and professors’ reactions to the implementation.If they find they made a mistake, they need to be able to suck up their hypothetical pride and admit they have done something unproductive, and fix it. The effectiveness and quality of the education they provide is most important in the end. — allenjo@indiana.edu Follow columnist Josh Allen on Twitter @IAmJoshAllen.
(02/17/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Senate Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee voted last week 8-4 to further ban same-sex marriage in Indiana. Allison Slater of the National Organization for Marriage testified before the committee.She said the question being debated was not about equality.“Children are born with a mother-shaped hole and a father-shaped hole in their hearts,” Slater said. “Logic and biology dictate that a woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother, no matter how much they love that child.” It is this columnist’s opinion that this statement is complete and utter bull.. First of all, this committee is determining the legality of same-sex marriage within Indiana. If same-sex marriage is legalized, then same-sex couples will be entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. At this stage, the issue is a legal one. There is no evident reason why opponents should bring the well-being of a theoretical, and apparently conservative, child into a debate over law. It’s a purely emotional appeal, and it’s not a very good one. Same-sex couples can still have children even if they are not defined as married under the law, so it is a non-issue.But let’s make it an issue just for fun. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex couples are less fit to be parents than heterosexual couples. In fact, several studies suggest that same-sex parents are just as capable of raising full-functioning children as heterosexual parents. Slater’s claims are completely untrue.Notice how Slater carefully skirted around the issue when she says a woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother. Perhaps a same-sex couple cannot fit into a strictly-defined category such as “mother” or “father.” This doesn’t mean that same-sex couples cannot be good parents.For argument’s sake, let’s say that Slater’s statement means that same-sex couples cannot be good parents, as she intends it to be. Even under this false premise, it still doesn’t mean that a child needs a mother and a father. Her only argument that claims a child needs a mother and a father is in her claim about children having a “mother-shaped hole and a father-shaped hole in their hearts,” which is so obviously unsupported that I won’t waste valuable space refuting it.Slater and her compatriots need to realize that a child can become a fully functioning, loving human being without the support of both a mother and a father. I know several people who have been raised by two mothers, a single mother or a single father, and they’ve become amazing people. I have also known several people who have been raised by a loving mother and father and have become complete bums incapable of caring for anyone besides themselves. Allison Slater, I will not ask you to change your beliefs because all people in this country are entitled to them, but tell us the actual reason you oppose same-sex marriage instead of hiding behind pseudo-intellectual statements. Once you’re done, I’ll still disagree with you, but at least I’ll respect you.— allenjo@indiana.eduFollow columnist Josh Allen on Twitter @IAmJoshAllen
(01/30/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>No one. Absolutely no one. In today’s society it is incredibly difficult — if not utterly impossible — to live without deeply-set, perhaps unconscious, cynicism. If you doubt that, it may be a sign of your own cynicism. Or perhaps I’m wrong. Personally, I don’t know. But every day I find myself confronted by questions that seem to suggest the former. To illustrate my point, let’s look at this year’s Grammys. Not only the most obviously commercialized part of the Grammys — the awards, the performances, the awkward introductions — but the part that is considered by most to have been the most radical performance of the night: Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’s performance of their song, “Same Love.” I wholeheartedly approve of Macklemore’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, even though I disagree with his blanket statements about right-wing conservatives and religion. Not all right-wing conservatives and religions condemn homosexuality. However, even as I approve of his overt political stance, and partially approve of the stunt of marrying 33 gay and straight couples, I find myself confronted with several questions. I wonder if the marriages are a true political statement, or if they are a marketing ploy to draw viewership. I also wonder if the producers of the Grammys care about the issue of homosexuality at all. It’s hard to tell if we even care or if we’re longing for some kind of statement.It seems the grandiosity and implicit commercialization of the marriages might undermine the message they are trying to send. Or, look at the issue on a personal level.A couple getting married at the Grammys becomes a highly commercialized and highly-viewed affair.Perhaps they got married on the Grammys to make a statement or to be able to tell their friends, “We got married at the Grammys.” Perhaps it was a gimmick.I don’t know their primary motives, and I’m not particularly sure if I want to. This cynicism is not limited to the Grammys. In politics, we never know when politicians are telling us the truth. We became disillusioned. We don’t trust marketing and advertising because it is directly targeted at our insecurities in order to influence our decisions. We’re skeptical of religion, government, what causes or cures cancer, what’s in our food, products from China, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps worst of all, we are even cynical about people. People can’t seem to give money to a homeless person without wondering if he’ll just use it to buy drugs.This article is less about the nature of the Grammys and more about why I — and, presumably, my generation — can’t believe wholeheartedly in something, whatever it might be. Personally, that ability is all I really want.But I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to do so again.— allenjo@indiana.eduFollow columnist Josh Allen on Twitter @IAmJoshAllen.
(01/22/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It took Dennis McGuire 25 minutes to die after he was injected with an experimental drug cocktail containing the sedative midazolam and the painkiller hydromorphone last Thursday. McGuire was sentenced to death for the 1989 rape and murder of pregnant 22-year-old Joy Stewart.The unusually lengthy execution raised controversy about the constitutionality of using lethal injection and of capital punishment overall.My initial reaction was a lack of sympathy for someone who denied not only a young woman, but also her unborn child, the right to life.However, the question here is whether lethal injection, and by extension capital punishment, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment banned by the Constitution.We can start with one of two assumptions. Capital punishment is constitutional, or it is not. The first assumption is easy. If capital punishment is not constitutional then no form of the death penalty is allowed. Done.The other assumption is trickier. Suppose capital punishment is constitutional — as it is now — but in cases like McGuire’s execution it is unconstitutional, then we have various lines on which to balance. We must decide the difference between an unconstitutional execution and one that is not.Some consider an instantaneous death constitutional, while others have a larger margin. It’s hard to say where that margin ends and execution becomes unequivocally cruel.The truth is, we cannot answer that question for multiple reasons.The Founding Fathers had no conception of the execution methods we have.Today’s backgrounds have instilled different belief systems with varying margins of errors, and we don’t know if we can allow our emotions to influence our decision.Therefore, if we allow the death penalty to be constitutional, we bring into play an unanswerable question.Our only solution is to make capital punishment unconstitutional. Then, the only argument against a life sentence without parole is it puts undue financial burden upon taxpayers. But determining the value of human life in relation to money is much easier to answer than trying to discover the line between fair or cruel and unusual punishment. Avoiding cruel and unusual punishment doesn’t mean we need to provide detainees with a comfortable lifestyle. Anyway, it would be much harder to argue that denying a life-without-parole prisoner dessert at the prison’s cafeteria is cruel and unusual punishment. — allenjo@indiana.eduFollow columnist Josh Allen on Twitter @IAmJoshAllen