13 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/26/05 5:07am)
Conflict and disagreement are at the heart of the democratic experience. The belief that reasonable people can disagree, yet still come together as a nation to strive for a common good, is the cornerstone of our society. Without this understanding, we risk evolving into nothing more than warring clusters of rival interests.\nSure, this notion of everyone being reasonable, fair and intellectually honest in their disagreements might be a bit utopian, but I have been really struck by some of the truly horrible ideas put forth in the past few weeks. People sometimes take cheap shots at each other -- that's human nature. My wife reminds me that I've put on some extra weight every time we get into an argument. The thing is, though, she recognizes it's a cheap shot when she says it and (usually) apologizes for it shortly thereafter. While hoping that people will always be fair might be a bit idealistic, I do not consider it unreasonable to ask that people who disagree at least disagree in good faith.\nLet me give you an example of what I mean. There is a group called the American Friends Service Committee. It's an activist group founded by Quakers in 1917 to oppose U.S. involvement in World War I. It has opposed every military venture the United States has been involved in. In the 1930s, it was one of the few American groups that responded to the plight of the Jews in Germany by trying to help resettle them. It went to India in 1947 to help people displaced by the rioting that followed the Indian/Pakistan partition. It went to the Gaza Strip in 1948 to help Arab refugees. The group was even co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for its humanitarian work. What I'm saying is that this Quaker organization is a serious group that has a long commitment to a pacifistic ideology.\nNow the AFSC is planning a series of candlelight vigils and silent protests to mark the 2,000th American death from the Iraq War. Some conservative pundits, such as Michelle Malkin, have not taken the opportunity presented by this action to discuss why they believe the Iraq War was a meritorious action, however. Instead, they have chosen to attack the action by framing it as, and I quote, "The ghouls of the left -- They support the troops ... by partying over their deaths."\nThis is not just something one finds on the right. Conspiracy theories on the left, such as the one that says the Bush administration knew Sept. 11 was going to happen but thought it would be politically advantageous to let it go, are equally odious and unhelpful. These needless attacks on each other only further cement our differences rather than help us come together to find common purpose. In a time of war in which we now find ourselves, we must at least set aside our animosity to look for common ground. After all, as Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand"
(10/29/03 5:29am)
According to an Associated Press news brief released last Friday, Margaret MacDonald has been convicted in Paris of "aggravated procuring." For those of you who don't know, "procuring" is the legal term for soliciting clients to perform illegal sexual activity in the interests of making money (better known as pimpin').\nMacDonald operated an international prostitution ring with over 500 female and 50 male employees. These call girls and gigolos were "leased" to MacDonald's clients in countries across Europe, Israel and even in the U.S., at the rate of $1,170 per hour.\n$1,170 an hour!\nIf it were worth my time to get paid for writing these articles, I would have to write 147 of them to make that much money. At my current job, I have to work over 116 hours … I'm in the wrong business!\nApparently I'm not alone here. The National Task Force on Prostitution estimates that "over 1 million people in the U.S. have worked as prostitutes." It also suggests that around 1 percent of American women have been professionals in the sex industry (Frederique Delacoste and Pricilla Alexander, "Sex Work").\nThe general conception is that all prostitutes are women. Though it's true the majority of sex workers are women, a COYOTE survey of San Francisco sex employees estimated that 20 to 30 percent of prostitutes are men. Of course, the same study also suggested that as many as 25 percent of the female sex workers in the San Francisco area are transgender (which is probably not representative of the entire industry).\nNow, MacDonald was not a worker per se, as she had a management position. These positions are harder to come by. But there are many others who have attained such roles in the field.\nAnother famous sex executive is Heidi Fleiss. Fleiss established her position as the "Hollywood Madam" by her mid-twenties. When she was finally arrested in June 1993, Fleiss, then 27, had a number of employees who earned $1,500 per night servicing her celebrity clientele. Now that she has been released from prison, Fleiss earns her living writing (she has a very popular book aptly titled "Hollywood Madam"), starring in and producing videos (such as "Sex Tips"), designing clothing (Heidi Wear) and hosting a radio talk show ("Sex Advice with Heidi Fleiss").\nIt would seem that individuals well-suited to prostitution management are also apt to perform well in other aspects of the business world -- particularly in entrepreneurial arenas.\nWorld famous pimp and author Iceberg Slim (from which the "Ice" in Ice Cube and Ice-T originated) explained the nature of sex management in a 1972 interview with the Los Angeles Free Press. Iceberg Slim noted the attraction to pimpin' is the same as the attraction to other executive positions. He said, "The male aspiration is … whether he is the president of a white corporation, of General Motors for example, it all boils down to the same thing … power." \n Granted, it is true that Iceberg Slim (who actually wrote the book "Pimp") pondered, "For really what is the bedrock of all male aspiration if it isn't (sex) and money?" Yet, he saw these things as the byproducts of power. So he argued the reason to become a prostitution manager is for power.\nWell, I think Mr. Slim might have been a bit narrow in his view. The aspiration for power isn't entirely a male phenomenon. It's my contention that women want power, too (consider Fleiss, MacDonald and Hilary).\nOr maybe, we all just want to make $1,000 an hour.
(10/21/03 5:23am)
Last week, the Washington Post reported the find of something special in Fairfax County, Virginia: "someone was making moonshine in the heart of suburbia."\nUnder federal rules administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, you must qualify as a "distilled spirits plant" (see the ATF FAQ's page at their Web site for details) before you can legally produce alcohol with a still. Now, the ATF does permit you to own a small still (defined as having the capacity to distill no more than one gallon at a time). And you can use that still to do such wonderful things as producing your own distilled water! However, if you "accidentally" make alcohol while attempting to perform some legitimate functions with your still, like producing "essential oils by a solvent method," and happen to get alcohol as a byproduct, then you, my friend, are a renegade. Beware! Part 170 of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, says the ATF has the right to require manufactures to give them the "name and address of each customer."\nOf course, I don't know why you would even have to use a still anyway. You see, sections 24.75 and 25.205 allow you to produce 100 gallons of wine per calendar year and another 100 gallons of beer "for personal or family use" (26 U.S.C. 5042). Now, I don't know how much you drink. But, a couple hundred gallons ought to hold you for a bit.\nLet's face it though; beer and wine just lack the kick of a Mason jar full of good ol' moonshine. Hell, most moonshine has been known to exceed 130 proof. And to top it off, you can make your own bathtub bourbon for a couple bucks a gallon.\nIf you think that mass producing cheap liquor is a good idea, you, my friend, are not alone. Although the popularity peaked during the period of prohibition (1920-33), it is far from gone. "With hundreds of thousands of gallons of the liquor making their way out of southern Virginia and North Carolina" each year, bootlegging is still big business (Washington Post, 10-17).\nThe government doesn't really care about moonshine. The government is primarily concerned with bootlegging. Now, it's true that things can go wrong during the distilling process, things can explode and the whole batch can become poisoned (nothing sours a good bunch of mash like killing a couple of people). This is bad; nobody wants those poor hillbillies to suffer such a horrible fate. But, let's be honest, the government does not have a problem with people making moonshine. It has a problem with people selling it. According to the tax policy center, "federal tax revenues from alcoholic beverages totaled nearly $7.7 billion in 2001."\n Whenever moonshine is sold the government misses out on the taxes it would have collected had the purchaser bought legally distilled liquor. This is the root of the conflict between bootleggers and the Man. The Man wants to collect taxes, and moonshiners don't want to pay them.\n Traditionally the moonshiners would sell their product locally using word of mouth as their advertisement ("Hey Jessie, Jeb sho' does make some good rotgut!"). However, when the market develops and the producer decides that it's time to expand, the liquor has to travel and then it becomes bootlegging.\nWily bootleggers devised special methods to avoid capture. Among the most popular methods was to "soup up" the engines of their cars and drive like hell. There are some who believe that this is the root of the development of stock car racing in the South.\nMaybe moonshine is bad after all.
(10/15/03 5:12am)
In January 1992, the FDA started down a path that would lead to what is now essentially a ban on silicone gel breast implants. The FDA currently allows the silicone gel implants to be used in two circumstances. The first is for use in women who have undergone a mastectomy. The second circumstance is if they agree to be tracked as part of a long-term study.\nWell, because the silicone gel breast implants have a much more natural feel than the saline version currently in use, there has been an incredible number of women interested in participating in the long-term studies.\nAccordingly, a large number of studies have been conducted since the 1992 ban. These studies tend to exonerate silicone gel breast implants from the numerous charges that resulted in their ban.\nOne of the most recent studies released on the matter was by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences on June 21, 1999. The study covered the relationship between silicone gel implants and systemic diseases. "This investigation discovered no association between silicone gel implants and cancer, immunologic disease, or other systemic diseases." It also concluded that implants "pose no risk for breast-feeding or to unborn infants" ("Silicone-Gel Breast Implants: Health and Regulatory Update 2000" by Rodney J. Rohrich, M.D., and Arshad R. Muzaffar, M.D.).\nIn May 2001, the FDA published in the Journal of Rheumatology the findings of its study of the health effects of ruptured silicone gel breast implants. The FDA found that "women with MRI diagnosed breast implant rupture were no more likely than women with intact implants to report that they had either persistent symptoms or diagnosed illnesses."\nSome of the critics of the implants argue that silicone is just not safe for implantation in the human body because of its very nature.\nBut this just doesn't jive with the multitude of other ways in which we implant silicone into our bodies. According to the National Library of Medicine, silicone implants are "located literally throughout every part of the body." Silicone is used to "construct heart valves and other cardio-vascular prostheses." It is also used in "dentistry; in the gastro-intestinal tract, as a facilitator for nerve regeneration; in ophthalmology; in the ear, nose, throat and the respiratory tract; as a prosthesis or ingredient in prostheses for many parts of the skeletal system; as a tissue expander; as a cosmetic agent for treatment of scars and wrinkles; in the urological tract, including penile prostheses; and in many other applications."\nStanding on the back of these positive findings, Inamed Corp. of Santa Barbara, Calif., has applied for approval to sell their particular version of the implants (which they have sold in Europe for many years without problems) in the United States (Associated Press, Oct. 9).\nAlthough the science has cleared many of the allegations about the implants, certain feminist groups and other various and sundry critics are not satisfied. They curse the silicone breast implants as the cause of pain for those who have them. According to the AP, these groups are planning to unleash negative ads depicting "implants as ticking bombs in women's bodies."\nPersonally, I believe that women should have the right to choose what they put in their bodies. Now, if this means that they elect to ingest only organically grown fruits and vegetables (although since they are all carbon-based, one could argue they're all organic), so be it. But if it means that they want to use the most natural looking and feeling implant to bolster their self-image, so be it as well.
(09/24/03 5:22am)
The Los Angeles City Council has passed a law making lap-dances illegal. Actually, what the law does is mandate a 6-foot zone of separation between adult entertainers and the patrons of such establishments. This means that not only is lap-dancing prohibited, but so are other staples of the strip club environment, like tucking dollars into G-strings.\nNow, as we in Bloomington know from the smoking ban, city councils may from time to time pass certain laws that upset the public. In the same manner as our smoking ban has its roots in a similar law in New York, the L.A. lap-dancing ban has its roots in Tampa.\nIn 2002, 13th Circuit Court Judge Rex Martin Barbas "ruled that 'lap-dancing' is not entitled to First Amendment protection" and overruled Hillsborough County Judge Elvin Martinez's 2001 decision ruling that Tampa's lap-dancing ban was unconstitutional (Tampa Tribune, Aug. 24, 2002). The Tampa rule is very similar to the one just passed by the L.A. City Council in that it requires a 6-foot zone of separation between dancers and patrons.\nTampa passed its ban because "they said it was needed to prevent the spread of disease and because lap dancing contributes to prostitution" (Tampa Bay Online, Aug. 2, 2001).\nL.A.'s ban, however, stems from another source. L.A. passed its ban because the city fears that evils from the adult entertainment industry are spraying out into the city's neighborhoods (CBS News, Sept. 18).\nBelieve it or not, the proud members of the adult entertainment industry (like those folks who invaded our campus last year), are not pleased with the new addition to L.A.'s penal code.\nAspiring actress Bambi Ann Hazard said in a June 18 CBS article, "All of my dreams and pursuits have been funded by my employment as a dancer in the city of Los Angeles." She went on to say that she is against the proposal "for it will not only have a great economic impact on myself, but on the thousands of women employed in this industry."\nNow, I think Bambi has a good point. But, she fails to carry her ideas through to conclusion. It is true that the professionals who rely upon the system of G-string monetary delivery for their wellbeing will suffer an impact. But, Bambi failed to see the other side of the coin. The hardy patrons of these adult entertainment establishments will also face financial consequences. If these patrons aren't stuffing their paychecks down some stripper's G-string, what are they going to do with all of that money?\nTo counter Bambi's arguments in favor of permitting the lap-dancing to continue, Cristi Walden of Beautification of Pico said in the same article, "it's been atrocious (living next to a strip club). In addition to prostitution, used condoms (and) human excrement (are) on the sidewalks, around schools." This makes perfect sense. Clearly when a man stuffs a dollar into a strippers G-string, he gets the uncontrollable urge to take a dump on the sidewalk in front of a school. God knows we've all been there.\nBut, I know why L.A. really passed the law prohibiting the time-honored tradition of tucking. I am confident that the city invested heavily in the issue of Sacagawea dollar coins. They knew that the hard-core perverts would not be deterred by 6 feet. They also knew that these perverts would still want to tip the women that they may or may not be stalking. So, they calculated that given this situation, the patrons would exchange their bills for the Sacagawea coins so that they could toss their tips through the zone of separation.
(09/09/03 5:46am)
We have a problem in this country. You see, right or wrong, the laws of our land protect the ability of women to choose to have an abortion. And, some people who strongly disagree with this practice believe that their God wants them to use any means necessary to prevent women from having this choice. As these individuals have been unsuccessful in utilizing our legislative and judicial systems, they have resorted to terrorist acts of violence.\nOne such act of terrorism occurred on July 29, 1994. On that day, Paul Hill, a former minister and pro-life advocate, went to a medical clinic with a shotgun and killed Dr. John Bayard Britton and his volunteer escort, retired Air Force Lt. Col. James Herman Barrett.\nHill was executed for his brutal crime last Wednesday by the state of Florida.\nOn the eve of his death, Hill told a group of reporters, "I expect a great reward in heaven," (Wednesday's Washington Post).\nDoesn't that sound familiar? Didn't the terrorists who hijacked those planes two years ago make the same claim?\nThe sicknes continues. \nThere is a fear that the death of Hill may have martyred him, generating a swell that may result in violent reprisals against abortion clinics and those affiliated with them.\nThis fear may be justified.\nHill's last words were, "If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force and do what you have to do stop it. May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected" (he Associated Press, Thursday).\nTo give strength to the fear and an edge to Hill's words, followers of Hill's ideology have sent threatening letters to several officials connected to his case. These letters were accompanied by rifle bullets.\nHill and his lunatics have plenty of company.\nDo you remember Eric Rudolph? That's right, the guy facing federal charges for the bombing of the 1996 Olympic Games. Rudolph also faces charges for the 1997 bombing of a downtown Atlanta gay club, a suburban family planning clinic the same year and the 1998 bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., family planning clinic.\nRudolph was associated with Christian Identity, a reactionary association of Christian churches, political organizations and survivalist groups. This group is a terrorist threat.\nAs you can see, we do have a problem. Our country is crawling with psychopaths. Our terrorist problem is not limited to fundamentalist religious groups. It is much deeper than that.\nHere, in Bloomington, we too have had problems with terrorists. No, they were not the religious kind. They have been the environmental kind. The Earth Liberation Front has claimed responsibility for a few acts that have destroyed the property of developers who were trying to do their jobs.\nAnd, let us not forget the white supremacist who murdered IU student Won-Joon Yoon, as he was trying to enter the Korean church on Third Street. Don't forget, local white supremacist Matthew Hale is still out there preaching his filth (although he may be spending the next several years in prison due to his allegedly trying to have a federal judge killed).\nThe bottom line is this. There are people, all around us, who have become so engulfed in the passion of their beliefs that reason has no room to co-exist. These people are dangerous. These people scare the hell out of me.\nThe PATRIOT Act is not the answer. But, Hill tells us we need protection. So, help me, readers, because I don't know how to solve this problem.
(09/03/03 4:52am)
Many myths have sprung to life over the highly controversial Patriot Act since its adoption following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. In an attempt to dispel these numerous myths, the Department of Justice has created a Web site to clear away the hanging fog.\nThis site, however, has an effect quite the opposite of its intent. According to an analysis released by the American Civil Liberties Union Tuesday, it actually creates new myths while reviving the old ones, a far cry from erasing them.\n"It is inexcusable that Attorney General Ashcroft is using this Web site to further mislead the public about controversial portions of the law," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The American people are entitled to a more honest account."\nRomero seems to have some trouble agreeing with the information the Department of Justice has placed on this Web site, especially the information in an area of the site entitled "Dispelling the Myths." Here are a few of the items of concern:\nThe site claims that Section 215 of the Patriot Act (the section of the legislation that grants the FBI a great deal of power to secretly gather records and personal belongings of "suspects") may only be used to gather "business records."\nYet, as the law reads, Section 215 does so much more than that. This section allows the FBI to demand "any tangible thing" from an individual. The list of tangible things according to the ACLU is a bit more inclusive than merely "business records." Some such "things" might include "books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions and even (as Attorney General Ashcroft said in testimony before Congress) genetic information."\nConcern No. 2: wiretaps. The Department of Justice page proclaims that before the Patriot Act, the FBI lacked the proper authority to place wiretaps on terrorists as well as to conduct what are known as "sneak-and-peek" searches, which are clandestine raids to learn what a suspected terrorist has in a private area, such as his or her home.\nAgain, the ACLU report contradicts this. The report says the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had already granted the FBI these powers before the passage of the Patriot Act.\nThe Patriot Act made many sweeping changes to our laws and a number of these changes dramatically alter the basic principles of justice. For example, the act authorizes the arrest and detainment of individuals without being issued a writ of habeas corpus, meaning they do not have to be told why they have been arrested, and without the benefit of council. This alters the bedrock of American justice by suspending rights that have until now been classified as unalienable, meaning they may never be suspended for any reason whatsoever.\nWhere in the hell did we go wrong?\n Frankly, it was when we allowed fear to be the author of our legislation. When the laws of our land failed to be based on reason and morality, but rather on nightmares and grief, we lose.\nThere is only one way that we can save ourselves now. We must, in a unified voice, demand that our legislators repeal the Patriot Act. Bombard them with letters. Flood their phone banks. Do not stop until your voice is heard. Otherwise, we may all find ourselves locked-away, without ever having been permitted to seek help nor ever told why we were taken.
(08/27/03 6:11am)
In the areas surrounding the military bases in South Korea, clubs flourish. These clubs thrive because the American soldiers, who are thousands of miles away from their loved ones, seek comfort from these establishments in the form of wine, women and good times.\nThere is nothing wrong with the young soldiers trying to relax on their few hours off duty. In fact, it is critical that these soldiers have the ability to escape from the tremendous stress of an overseas deployment. However, there is something very wrong with the source of their leisure.\nA large number of the women providing "good times" in these clubs are sex slaves. They have been purchased like livestock and forced to prostitute themselves for the financial gain of the club owners.\nIn an attempt to battle this plague, the Army has placed patrols in the area to ensure that American servicemen are not being endangered at these locations. The Army has also placed a number of these clubs on a list of places where U.S. soldiers are prohibited from going. The majority of them are located within the notorious red-light district where brothels abound and sex and sin are the currency of the streets according to The Army Times.\nThis is not a total solution. Some believe that the patrols do not in fact protect the American troopers. Rather, they see these patrols as doing something different entirely. They see these patrols as providing protection for the club owners who propagate this slavery.\nThe Army is considering a next step. The Department of Defense is contemplating requiring annual instruction for the servicemen who are deployed into areas such as Korea on how to recognize human slavery and trafficking. The packets for this instruction are already being prepared through intelligence officers for the department.\nI do not believe that these meager steps go far enough. If we have knowledge of slavery, it is our duty to eradicate it.\nArmy code lists the seven Army values, which include duty and integrity. Integrity is defined as doing "what's right, legally and morally."\nIn the code, General J. Lawton Collins, former Army chief of staff, stated, "The American people rightly look to their military leaders not only to be skilled in the technical aspects of the profession of arms, but also to be men of integrity."\nAs for the Army value of duty, it depicts the epitome of all our laws that makeup our civil and moral obligations. We expect that everyone should, at least, do what they are supposed to do.\nThe values of duty and integrity tell us that it is our responsibility to end slavery. Having battled with the evils of slavery ourselves, how can we look the other way when this monster rears its ugly head in our midst?\nWe cannot pretend that placing clubs on a list will somehow magically make the cancer of slavery vanish. We cannot merely patrol an area and hope that evil runs away from the majesty surrounding our uniformed patrol.\nHow can we believe these few actions will save the unfortunate women who are being forced to live their lives as slaves to the filth of our world?\nThe simple answer is that we cannot. It is repugnant to the very essence of our being. We are the land of the free. We send our soldiers into battle to fight and die for the principles of liberty and justice. It goes against our grain to be passive in this arena.\nI am diametrically opposed to permitting this plague to persist. We must take action. We must use our forces to ensure that all people are free from the bonds of slavery.
(07/31/03 1:03am)
Young, skinny, wimpy dudes have been taking it from behind for ages. Literally.\nIn 1824, at the conclusion of a prison tour along the East Cost and in the South, Reverend Louis Dwight remarked: "I have found melancholy testimony to establish one general fact, videlicet, that boys are prostituted to the lust of old convicts."\nThat's right. Prison rape has been going on for centuries.\nYet even though the good reverend said, "Nature and humanity cry aloud for redemption from this dreadful degradation," nothing has been done about it. That is, until last week.\nThe House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill Friday that also had been passed unanimously by the Senate the previous Monday. That bill is the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.\nIn 1994, the Supreme Court ruled permitting prison rape to persist deserved a constitutional violation. So, most prison administrators disavow the existence of said problem.\nIn a commentary by Joanne Mariner, she contends this ignorance is intentional. She quoted a Dec. 2002 letter from Reginald Wilkinson (the head of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, former head of the American Correctional Association and president of the Association of State Correctional Administrators) to the Cincinnati Enquirer wherein he wrote, "Sexual assault in prison is highly exaggerated." He also was quoted in her commentary as saying the idea that prison rape is common is "a flat-out lie."\nIndependent studies, however, contradict the words of Wilkinson. One such study published in Dec. 2000 concluded 21 percent of the inmates at seven prisons in the Midwest had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact and nearly one in every 10 inmates had been the victim of prison rape.\nIn addition, a survey of the prison guards who work most directly with inmates in the prison system of a Southern state (which was unnamed as a condition of its being submitted to Human Rights Watch) estimated that approximately 20 percent of all prison inmates had been coerced into inmate-on-inmate sex.\n Since the prison administrators seem unwilling to do anything about the prison rape crisis, the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 is intended to force recognition upon them. Although it lacks the teeth to properly enforce any protective measures, the legislation is designed to generate a study of prison rape and develop the statistics that might be used to generate standards for prevention and protection.\nHonestly, it's about time Congress takes measures to save my ass if I ever go to prison.
(07/17/03 12:49am)
The future of man is intricately entwined with our technological advances. Those advances will continue to change the way we do business. If we are to stay abreast of the future, we must embrace this change and harness its momentum.\nThe rapidly advancing future of finance might not be bright. Indeed, it might be an impending disaster.\nOur financial system has been altered entirely by the advent of computer technologies. Because of these machines, our global fiscal network now is united in a manner that is entirely unprecedented. It is not entirely known what will happen in our markets, but certain trends are emerging that suggest the future might be somewhat bleak.\nProfessor Frank Partnoy, of the University of San Diego School of Law, in his book "Infectious Greed," says, "the truth is that the markets have been, and are, spinning out of control."\nWith the market system as it is today, monies that have been trusted to financial firms can be lost because of the actions of a single rogue trader. This solitary individual can fold a firm and all of the trust that has been placed into it by its investors.\nA decade and a half ago, Andy Krieger flew in the face of existing theory and began using derivatives. These derivatives could be used to legally corner a particular market and put pressure on the price of the investment in question.\nDerivatives are -- by their very nature -- highly risky. Yet it is precisely because of the lottery stakes that traders are attracted. However, as with any gambling venture, the losses can be tragic.\nNicholas Leeson, a newbie trader who was lured into derivatives because of their potential results, turned the $30,000 loss of Barings Bank in England into such a catastrophic failure that the entire firm that employed him collapsed.\nSeeing the threat of derivative losses, the government has instituted a few safety measures. These measures provide some insurance for the long term investments to "bail-out" major financial institutions. This logic, however, has failed me. I see it as a perfectly rational thing to engage in high-risk activity if there exists protection against the worst-case scenario.\nIf it is indeed the case that the leading financial intuitions agree with my reasoning, we should not be surprised by the meltdowns of Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossings. They were inevitable. They are not singular events that exist isolated from each other. They are part of a systemic failure in our financial system.\nDerivatives must be regulated, before they regulate us.
(07/03/03 12:55am)
About this time every year, we get the great idea to show our love of America by blowing a bunch of stuff up. Our massive "I love you" is spelled with burning red strontium in the sky. With a little match and a lot of gunpowder, you too can blow your patriotism sky-high.\nFor some reason or another, the government of the state of Indiana does not want us to express ourselves with rocket-propelled incendiary devices. Why? The world might never know. Maybe they are afraid that cities like Bloomington will be mystically transformed into Mexican villages from the Wild West where half of the town shows their joy by firing their six-shooters into the air; only with our modern flair perhaps we would be hurling grenades, too. I can see the chaos now: Thousands of people in the streets drunkenly cheering, naked men trying to scale greased poles to dangle from the traffic lights … Oh wait, I was there about two years ago when we made it to the Final Four!\nFireworks are on sale everywhere. You can walk into any of the many specialty shops that pop up in abandoned strip-malls this time of year and buy anything from M-40s to these enormous artillery shells that could take out a Black Hawk at 700 meters.\nThe funny thing is they're illegal.\nThe only fireworks that are legal in the state of Indiana are sparklers, those stupid snake things and the little fountain things you set on the ground that make a small shower of sparks. Whenever you buy the illegal (aka fun) variety, which would be any that launch through the air or explode, you have to sign a waiver promising that you aren't going to use them in the state.\nWhatever.\nNo matter what people sign or how many dollar licenses they have to get from the vendor, people are going to be shooting Blackcats and Roman Candles everywhere. Just wait and see. Tomorrow, when the sun goes down, the firefight will begin. Actually, now that I think about it, I can hear some firecrackers out in the parking lot now.\nLet's see if I have this right: You can buy just about any firework you want right here in good old Bloomington. It is, however, illegal to use most of these fireworks in Indiana. So, you have to sign a waiver promising to use them out of the state or at an approved site with a licensed pyrotechnician.\nThis is a perfect example of a worthless law. It is understood by the government that the fireworks laws will not be enforced. So, why are they still there? Or, if the government believes strongly enough in their convictions that fireworks are bad, they ought to try to enforce the laws. It is currently a misdemeanor to illegally use these explosives. I understand that no officer wants to arrest some guy for doing the same thing the officer has done with his or her own kids.\n This year, however, a new fireworks law goes into effect. Hospitals will be required to report the number of injuries they treat that are related to the illegal use of fireworks. It is perhaps through the application of this law that we might learn whether the Indiana laws on the matter are warranted. If indeed scores of people are being injured by these devices, then we need to move toward enforcing the laws we have.\nHowever, if we learn by virtue of the new reporting law that fireworks are not causing any more harm than other common recreational activities, such as football, then it is time to remove these worthless laws from our books.\nBut right now it's time to blow stuff up!
(06/19/03 1:40am)
We have a problem in Monroe County. The county council is thinking about spending $58 million … on a band-aid. \nBecause of an inmate-rights lawsuit, Monroe County officials have found themselves scrambling to rectify the problem of jail overcrowding. With little time to work out a solution, the county council is considering using an 85 acre plot of land on the south side of the county to patch the hole. The county purchased this land just last year to build a new juvenile facility, and now, possibly a newer and larger jail.\nJust a few short years ago, Monroe County built our current jail (which is still a new jail as far as many are concerned). When it was built, the citizens of Monroe County were promised the jail would have enough space to last well beyond what it actually did. This phenomenon is not very surprising. In our security-obsessed society, when we have jail cells, we fill them.\nThat being the case, what assurances could the county possibly give us that the new jail -- should it be built -- would not find its inmate population swelling to overcapacity in a very short time? If they can give us none, this new jail would not be a solution to our problem. It would be nothing more than a ridiculously expensive hairplug that would only delay our need to find real solutions to our very real problem.\nThe problem is not our jail. Many of the people in it are not there because they have been convicted of a crime. They are there because they cannot afford bail.\nWhen asked about his opinion on the new jail, criminal justice professor Bill Head said, "It would be silly to waste money on a new jail. It's a well known fact in Monroe County that only a couple of judges are responsible for filling the jail, that most of them are perfectly happy to look for alternatives to incarceration."\nOur judges have at their disposal a vast array of alternatives. Among them are probation, house arrest, day reporting, community service and on and on. The judges are well aware of these alternatives. Anyone who has been picked up for illegal consumption or public intoxication can attest to that.\nSo, why is it then that these judges are sending people to jail for nonviolent, victimless crimes like possession of a controlled substance (something I'll bet a few of you are familiar with as well)? Honestly, I do not know.\nInstead of focusing on temporary fixes to our problems, our elected officials ought to focus on the roots of these ails. What we need is not a $58 million quick fix that will cost us another $2 or 3 million annually to operate. Since the new jail will be located a few miles away from the courthouse, there also will be an unknown cost for transporting the inmates back and forth.\nWhat we need is for our justices to stop locking away anyone who comes into their courtrooms for the most meager of legal infractions. What we need is for bail to be set at levels where ordinary people can afford to pay it. We do not need to have a jail full of people who ought to be considered innocent, as they have yet to even stand trial, much less been found guilty.\nBuilding a new jail is not the answer for Monroe County. Doing so would only take money out of the hands of the taxpayers and allocate it into a black hole. Our schools have found themselves millions of dollars short. Personally, I believe that if we are going to spend $58 million, we might as well do it on our children, not on cages of steel and concrete.
(06/05/03 12:38am)
In Miami last month, a facility refused to perform an abortion for a 28-year-old rape victim. After challenging this refusal in court, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Arthur Rothenberg ordered the facility to perform the procedure. This decision was based on precedent. You see, it is currently legal for women in the United States to have an abortion (you can thank 1973's Roe v. Wade for that).\nSo, why is it then that if some 300 million American women have the freedom to choose, this particular American woman was forced into the courts to exercise her right? \nIt is because she has a mental disability.\nIt seems that the prevailing notion in this nation is that individuals with disabilities are less than human and therefore not entitled to the same privileges and opportunities that we take as a matter of right.\nThis is unacceptable.\nFor whatever reason, it seems a lot of people have failed to grasp the truth, that above everything else, people with disabilities are people. As such, they are endowed with the same rights as everybody else.\nThis reasoning, however blatant it may be, has failed to resonate with Florid Gov. Jeb Bush. In a case that is remarkably similar to the plight of the Miami woman, Gov. Bush has asked an Orlando judge to appoint a guardian for the fetus of a 22-year-old woman with a disability who has also become pregnant following a rape.\nUnderstandably, Gov. Bush does not approve of abortion. Also, as Bush is the voice of Florida, he has a responsibility to voice concerns regarding the state's interest in the life of the unborn.\nBut, in this case, Bush is attempting to manipulate the legal system in a serpentine attempt to deny a handicapped woman her constitutionally protected right. I am positive that his goal is not to disenfranchise individuals with disabilities. Rather, he is attempting to score points in the battle against abortion (and in the polls with the conservative right). But, he is waging this battle at the expense of individuals with disabilities.\nThe law is clear. The "decision whether or not to beget or bear a child" is a "constitutionally protected right of privacy" and as such, any interests the government may have can not forbid or burden women's exercising this right without justifying the limitation through a "compelling state interest" and by defining the limitation so precisely as to only reflect that interest (Carey v. Population Services International, 1977). Furthermore, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution proclaims, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\nFor the Constitution to be upheld and due process secured, the laws must act upon all persons equally and not subject any one person to random or arbitrary abuses of governmental power free from the checks of liberty and justice.\nGov. Bush ought to know he cannot arbitrarily deny these women their rights. After all, it was his father, the first President Bush, who signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. This law affirms Americans with disabilities are indeed full-fledged citizens of our republic and are indeed entitled to the full and equal protections of the law.