74 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/25/11 10:11pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The idea that challenges will resolve themselves in the long run is a comforting one. And sometimes it seems plausible.Even though the state legislature voted this year to advance a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, there’s hope that equal marriage rights will be instituted on a national level in the near future.The distress of losing a single legislative battle is therefore mitigated by the promise of an imminent reversal.On other occasions, however, it would be irresponsible to deny that we alone are responsible for creating the society we want to enjoy.Two ongoing infrastructure projects question whether Indiana is doing enough to plan a successful future.The construction of I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis has attracted substantial attention and criticism for years.According to Indiana Economic Digest, the construction of the segment from Indianapolis to Martinsville alone will cost an estimated $1.3 billion.That adds up to several billion dollars that will not be spent to create 21st century forms of transportation.To be sure, high-speed rail is expensive: California’s extensive plan was projected to cost $43 billion.But if Indiana had saved a few billion dollars for rail construction in lieu of constructing another highway, the state would have provided an initial investment toward having a smaller public transit system of our own.Additionally, plans to build a new coal gasification plant in southwestern Rockport, Ind., have prompted a negative response from environmental groups.Concerned local residents and environmentalists are skeptical of the plant owner’s claims that the gasifaction process will render high-sulfur coal, a truly clean product.While some see the proposed coal plant as a solution to a region’s unemployment problem, we would do well to keep in mind the alternative of creating many other jobs in far cleaner forms of energy generation.The Huffington Post recently labeled Indiana the second “least green” state in the United States.This unglamorous distinction suggests the time has arrived to phase out our reliance on coal for energy generation.The most sensible path is shifting to renewable sources of energy that currently generate a mere 0.7 percent of the power our state consumes.These two examples illustrate that our responsibility to take the best course of action is especially great when it comes to infrastructure.Transportation and energy generation projects last decades, divert funds from other projects and have broad impacts on the way we live.They are too important to leave to chance. — wallacen@indiana.edu
(04/18/11 9:04pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After 48 years, an emergency has ended in Syria. At least, that’s what President Bashar al-Assad announced Saturday.The president was referring to the country’s official “state of emergency.”But there are several senses in which emergency has — and has not — concluded in Syria.In place since 1963, Syria’s martial law was quite transparently in place because it conveniently gave the government extraordinary powers to repress dissent. It allowed the Syrian government and law enforcement to detain people arbitrarily.In another sense, the announcement of the end of emergency rule marks an end to a real emergency.The declared state of emergency ironically produced an emergency even as it claimed to be quelling imminent danger. Its use enabled consistent threats to human rights.To some extent, we can expect this second form of emergency to be ended if the Syrian government actually begins to abide by the rule of law rather than the arbitrary rule of its top officials.That, of course, is not guaranteed.If recent examples from other protests in the Middle East are any indication, the lifting of the emergency law may not end the protests against Assad’s rule.Ex-President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak made a series of concessions that failed to appease protestors. He promised greater accountability and even agreed to step down in September, but protesters were not satisfied with anything less than his immediate departure from the presidency he had since 1981. To be sure, the current President Assad has not been in office as long as Mubarak. But when he assumed the Syrian presidency upon his father’s death in 2000, he was continuing the uninterrupted rule of his family that started in the early 1970s.Ending emergency law may — or may not — be a significant enough concession to end the emergency the Assad family’s hold on power is facing.The president seemed to recognize this in his Saturday address. According to the New York Times, Assad reasoned that “no further protests would be necessary — and impl(ied) that none would be tolerated” now that one of their objections has been met.This bizarre comment, apparently a contradiction of the promise to completely end emergency rule, shows the extent to which Assad remains aware that the challenge to his authority has not passed.And where such a challenge exists, Assad’s remark warns of the possibility that the Syrian people’s basic rights will remain in a state of emergency.— wallacen@indiana.edu
(04/11/11 7:28pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Government regulation of any market tends to inspire protest.Almost everyone agrees that some activities should be supervised while others should not be.Recent debates about abortion and health care services have highlighted the fact that people frequently take mixed positions on regulations.Few people support every restriction that is proposed, and likewise, few are in favor of eliminating completely the important role government plays in society.Politicians who favored government intervention in health care tend to think abortion should not be regulated any more than it is. And some of the health care reform act’s notable opponents are now leading an assault on abortion rights.For example, the New York Times reported last week that pro-life advocates are skillfully manipulating the new law’s implementation to make it more difficult for private insurers to provide coverage for abortions. As the new law takes effect, states are building individual health care exchanges that will provide insurance for an estimated 28 million people who are ineligible for more affordable large group plans offered through an employer. Many state legislatures are specifically designing exchanges that exclude any insurance plan that offers coverage for abortion.Conservatives are often only in favor of small government when small government favors a socially conservative agenda.Their actions cannot be justified by the oft-cited desire to keep tax dollars from funding abortions. The insurance exchanges are set up by the states but are entirely funded by the private citizens purchasing the plans.So it is really a restriction on how private citizens can spend their money, something one would assume politicians who are truly in favor of small government would oppose.Additionally, the effects of such an anti-abortion insurance requirement might extend beyond the exchanges.The Times also reported that some women’s rights activists are worried that a requirement that insurance for the exchanges not include abortion coverage may persuade insurance companies that covering abortions is generally too expensive.Since the contradictions of the conservative approach to regulation are increasingly being identified, liberals should prepare to respond to the inevitable accusation that they also subjectively pick and choose what to regulate.We must be able to articulate why it is not contradictory to oppose increases in abortion regulations while enthusiastically supporting general regulations of the health insurance markets.One distinction is that Republicans’ new proposals are not aimed at “regulating” abortion insurance, making sure companies adopt ethical practices and providing insurance in a nonexploitative way.Rather, what these plans seek is to impede access to abortions to effectively prohibit the very service they seek to regulate.— wallacen@indiana.edu
(04/05/11 10:20pm)
Let’s hope the homophobic movement’s exposure of its true aims will lead to its unraveling.
(03/29/11 1:46am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In a speech to the Hendricks County Republicans’ Lincoln Day Dinner, Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th District, was reported by the Indianapolis Star to have spoken about the need to promote a triad of “fiscal discipline, economic growth and moral values” in Indiana. When conservative politicians invoke “moral values,” liberals often become very fearful.Their fear is not unjustified.A conservative cry for an increase in moral values too often means the state is about to be used to impose the personal convictions of a powerful majority on dissenting minorities. If his recent legislative record and the agenda of the Republican Party are any indication, this is surely what Pence would do.So eager to keep government out of the doctor’s office when it comes to making sure citizens have access to health insurance, Pence and other Republicans are trying their best to break down the doors of privacy that protect women’s rights to reproductive health care.Pence introduced legislation this February that would strip Planned Parenthood of all federal funding. Since none of the funding the organization receives from the federal government can be used for abortions, Pence was campaigning to take away other crucial health services such as family planning counseling and HIV tests. Closer to home, the Indiana General Assembly has been tireless in legislating its own brand of morality. Before the House Democrats fled to Illinois to block the passage of anti-labor legislation, many of them voted along with Republican representatives to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage only as between a man and a woman. Liberals should challenge the definition of the moral values that are being put forward.There is a significant difference between legislating morally and legislating morality.In a democratic society, there is no greater moral than to ensure equal respect and fair treatment for minorities and vulnerable communities.We should call out those who violate this basic principle by conflating moral legislation with their private moral views.All of us are entitled to hold our own moral opinions.While I might disagree with the views of Pence and other Republicans that abortion is inherently immoral and same-sex marriage unacceptable, I certainly do not contest their right to live out those views in their own lives.The sincerity of a person’s private moral convictions, however, does not make imposing them on fellow citizens a moral choice.Liberals should reclaim “moral values” as a phrase that accurately describes our aim of protecting all citizens’ liberty of conscience.—wallacen@indiana.edu
(03/22/11 4:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I presume I’m not the only reader who grimaces when my eyes fall on the phrase “new media” in a newspaper. I prefer not to be reminded of the fast approach of the day when I’ll have to rely on a hodgepodge of blog posts, Google searches and tweets to stay up-to-date.My aversion to the future of the news industry makes me something of a hypocrite. I rarely pick up a physical paper. When I talk about reading a newspaper, I mean having complete and instant access to the publication online. The fact that I am fueling the very transformation that I so despise became apparent this past week with the New York Times’ announcement of a new subscriptions plan for its website.I have set my browser home page to the Times’ web page for nearly a decade. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve actually splurged and paid for a printed copy of the paper.I can’t hide my disappointment at the advent of a new era in which the Times, and the other newspapers that will doubtlessly follow its model, will charge $15 to view more than 20 articles per month.High quality reporting on the news is obviously not free, and I’ll be more than content in the long run if the revenue allows papers to continue reporting. We all knew that newspapers would inevitably transition to charging online subscribers for access to content.Personally, I cannot complain about the timing. As a teenager in Indiana eager to read nationally and internationally significant news, free access to online newspapers provided a way to become a more educated citizen when I would have been hesitant or unable to pay $180 per year to do so.Now my hope is that future generations will have the same opportunities to expand their worldview before they can afford to pay market price for the news.I would propose that newspapers cultivate a dedicated online readership by providing free access to high school students and university undergraduates.The precise means of verifying students’ identity to prevent abuse would take some work. But I am confident an investment in an educated future readership would be mutually beneficial to young people and newspapers alike.True, newspapers brought in new readers in the days before they freely published their content online.Today, however, it will take some additional effort to convince young people that newspapers offer a uniquely valuable product distinct from the endless supplies of freely available information.— wallacen@indiana.edu
(02/22/11 12:41am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A new fault line is dividing American society. What identities now stand opposed to each other? Some people favor parental choice and others the health of American children.This, at least, is the story the Tea Party is spreading and hoping Americans will buy into before the 2012 elections.If Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., and her Alaskan counterpart have their way, public opinion will accept that we must align ourselves with one position or the other.On one side, parents who deny their children dessert line up with breastfeeding advocates. Standing opposed to them, parents who lovingly gratify their children’s sweet tooth and certainly don’t want the government to award mothers tax breaks for the cost of breast pumps.But is there any basis for believing such an opposition is legitimate?Considering several facts would suggest not.It’s not at all insignificant that the figure being targeted by Bachmann is Michelle Obama. One gets the sense that Tea Party leaders are grasping frantically for any opportunity to wound the first lady’s popularity.The former Alaskan governor’s political opportunism cannot be concealed here.She trivialized Obama’s eat healthy initiative in a segment of her show taped last summer, telling her children that she’d magnanimously allow them to eat dessert, a privilege they presumably wouldn’t enjoy if Obama was in charge of their meals.The ex-office holder was also caught in a Pennsylvania school last fall delivering cookies and ironically saying, “Who should be deciding what I eat? Should it be government or should it be parents? It should be the parents.”I hadn’t been aware any of the Palin children attended a Pennsylvania school.When the first lady set out to help children live healthier lives, the Tea Party had to resort to exaggerated and inapplicable language about freedom and choice. Providing exclusively fattening foods in a school cafeteria gives parents no more choice about what their children eat than asking kids to choose between multiple healthy options.And it’s not particularly clear how Palin squares her attack on breastfeeding pump tax deductibles with the language of individual choice and lower taxes she invokes against the proposition.Admittedly, this item-specific tax deductible doesn’t represent the sort of sweeping tax repeals the Tea Party would like to see.But it’s hard to argue, as the former Alaskan governor did on Laura Ingraham’s radio talk show, that we will have a “nanny state” if women don’t pay tax on the income they use to buy breastfeeding equipment.Food shouldn’t be a polarizing issue. While it’s true unhealthy eating habits vary demographically, it’s not at all the case that eating bad food is an issue of cultural identity.All too often, the decision to eat processed, high-fat foods is no choice at all, but the only economically plausible way for low-income families to fill their children’s stomachs.And that is precisely the reason the Tea Party can’t build a sensible argument against the first lady’s work to make healthy eating more affordable. Ideological consistency would oblige them to support an initiative that gives Americans more and better choices.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(02/14/11 8:43pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The state of Indiana is sprinting toward the wrong side of history.Senate Bill 590 passed a Senate committee by a vote of 8-1 and appears to be headed for a vote in the Senate sometime this week. If enacted, the bill would require police officers to ask people they suspect of being in the United States illegally for proof to the contrary.It’s not clear how most of the reactionary measures of this Arizona-style immigration bill would ever be implemented.The bill would certainly waste the state’s time and money and would target a crucial segment of Indiana residents who, even if not here legally, make daily contributions to our cultural and economic welfare.Considering what would happen if I were randomly asked to prove my citizenship illustrates one of the major problems of the bill.I would not routinely be able to offer evidence that I am not an illegal immigrant.Like most American citizens, I do not carry in my wallet documents the federal government recognizes as legitimate proofs of citizenship such as a birth certificate, a certificate of naturalization or a passport.Probably to the shock of many SB-590 supporters, a driver’s license will not establish American citizenship.Support for the bill also seems to rest upon the flawed notion that undocumented immigrants are the only people who would be asked to provide evidence of their legal residence.n fact, American citizens have been victimized by overzealous immigration enforcement. Mark Lyttle, a mentally disabled American citizen of Puerto Rican descent living in North Carolina, was wrongfully deported to Mexico by the U.S. government.Lyttle did not speak Spanish, never claimed to have been from Mexico and had even proven his citizenship by furnishing his social security number.Most of the supporters of SB-590 simply do not know what they are calling for.The bill also includes a provision that would force the state of Indiana to commission a study of the cost of services provided to illegal aliens and to bill the federal government for reimbursement.Because it seems unlikely that the U.S. Congress would ever reimburse a state for such questionable figures, the provision will almost certainly cost more than it earns. That doesn’t exactly sound like fiscal conservatism to me.More examples of the bill’s substantial expense abound from Arizona’s disastrous example.Indiana will be sued if it enacts SB-590. The U.S. Department of Justice quickly took Arizona to court last year after its immigration law passed, challenging the constitutionality of a state-enforcing federal immigration law.SB-590 is a vile law designed to target people on the basis of their race and the accent of their speech. It cannot be enforced, and Hoosiers should urge their state senators and representatives to abandon it before it has a more deleterious effect on the state’s residents and its public image.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(02/07/11 9:30pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Egyptian youth have been widely reported to be the primary actors in the country’s mass demonstrations.But if this revolution’s demographic composition seems predictable, the protestors’ demands mark a new political era for the Middle East as well as for international relations.The region is, or at least has been, dotted with leaders for life who have stayed in office with the help of their security apparatuses rather than the legitimacy of the ballot box. From 1979 to 2003, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. In Syria, the Assad family has occupied the presidency since 1971. Yemen’s president has been in office since 1978. As of printing, Hosni Mubarak continues his 29-year presidency in Egypt. And President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia was only just forced out after ruling since 1987.But as quickly as once-unquestionable leaders have found themselves standing in political quicksand, Americans have also found our nation facing a generation-defining moment in our international diplomacy. Both Bush presidents were known for (and made infamous by) their policies regarding the Middle East.When Saddam’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, George H.W. Bush pined for “a new world order” of peace between nations. Coming from the former vice president of the administration involved in the Iran-Contra Affair, world peace and transparency seemed more rhetorical than substantive.Of course, when George W. Bush updated Woodrow Wilson’s promise to “make the world safe for democracy” by “rid(ding) the world of evil,” he meant ending the rule of a dictator with an abysmal record of respect for human rights.The phrase, however, turned out to be tragically ironic when it involved leveling a country’s infrastructure, prompting a sectarian civil war and sacrificing approximately 100,000 civilian lives and more than 4,000 American troops.Now, both Bush presidents should be quite happy surveying the evolving political landscape of the Middle East and finding their ambitions accomplished through peaceful means.Egypt demonstrates that the best assurance of a flourishing democracy is, well, flourishing democracy itself. When the Egyptian people reclaimed popular sovereignty on the streets through massive peaceful demonstrations, the “democratic” facade of Mubarak’s regime crumbled.In gloomier days, Americans viewed the world as full of “evil” we had to righteously root out. Just as Egyptian youth have been largely successful in redefining the future of their country’s political life, a new generation of Americans has an opportunity to rethink their own position in the world. Rather than seeing threats lurking in every corner that must be remedied with military intervention, we might recognize that democracy spreads through dialogue and persuasion.When we allow people to choose their own form of government, democratic principles may genuinely grow and create a more equitable, less repressive and more just world.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(01/31/11 11:00pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The media had a heyday as scientists solved a curious case of mass death on a Wisconsin farm.A little more than a week ago, about 200 cattle were found dead of what appeared to be bovine viruses or pneumonia. Recently, however, laboratory tests revealed that the pneumonia that killed the cows was triggered by a component of the moldy sweet potatoes that had been a part of the animals’ diet. “Ah-ha!’ I thought when I read the story. Here’s proof that industrial agriculture is more interested in manufacturing a pound of meat than raising a healthy and edible animal.The diet and environment of the dead cows appear to have shared many similarities with the problematic conditions of industrial agriculture.Like most animals raised for consumption in the United States, the Wisconsin farm’s cattle were apparently fed a minimally diverse diet designed to fatten them for slaughter in the least number of days possible. Although corn and other grains fatten cattle at a rate unparalleled by their traditional grass-fed diet, animals have not evolved to handle the acidity of a grain-based diet.But should we read in their deaths the message that industrial agriculture produces unsafe food?After all, humans appear to have been at no more risk from these particular cows than any others.Officials have insisted that the culprit moldy sweet potatoes would not have entered the human food supply chain even had the meat been consumed.And grains (contaminated or otherwise) have been shown to fatten animals at a faster pace than grass for at least two centuries, destroying the myth that less desirable, grain-fed meat only became encouraged in the wake of World War II.These facts still do not speak highly of the quality or safety of our food supply.Coupled with the petri dish-like conditions of an overcrowded feedlot, the industrial specifications of livestock’s diet require them to be inoculated with copious doses of antibiotics to ward off diseases to which they are made newly susceptible. Overreliance on antibiotics not only for aggressive treatment but also as a routine disease preventative has raised concerns that human consumption of antibiotic-laden meat will increase bacterial resistance to antibiotics, making difficult diseases harder to treat.And that’s the truly frightening part of the Wisconsin bovine mass-death mystery.The fact that 200 disease-prone cattle might have easily reached your table doesn’t pose much of a threat to your health.At least not when compared to the fact that every bite of antibiotic laden meat contributes to breeding super-diseases we may not be able to combat. E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(01/25/11 12:53am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Cuban Democracy Act means you can cross Havana off your list of potential spring break destinations again this year.Thanks to the 1992 act’s codification of a long-standing embargo, American holiday makers and those eager to expand their cultural horizons have been largely banned from setting foot on the island for the past 50 years. More importantly, the embargo has cut Cuban exports off from the United States, the largest and closest market, making the embargo a major contributor to the island’s depressed living conditions.If promoting democratic governments is our aim, we certainly have some work to do to make our foreign policy consistent around the world. Al-Jazeera Opinion contributor Mark LeVine recently called attention to some of the ways our foreign policy defeats itself when he wrote about the recent revolution in Tunisia.According to LeVine, while the United States has admirably hoped for democratic governments, we have actually favored stability in the Middle East against respect for human rights, supporting regimes like those of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.If our desire to create prosperity and stability in the Middle East undermines our support for human rights there, our heavy-handed and punitive approach to dealing with Cuba’s government, sadly, is equally ineffective at bettering the lives and liberties of most Cubans.Anyone can recognize our current administration’s noble intentions in calling on the Cuban government to release political prisoners.Yet to make democratic government and respect for political foes’ rights a precondition to normalizing relations with Cuba fails to appreciate what we know to be effective foreign policy.The fact that China keeps Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and democracy advocate, imprisoned on vague charges of political subversion does not stop the United States from entertaining Chinese President Hu Jintao at a White House State Dinner.The last 40 years of Chinese-U.S. relations demonstrates the unsurprising fact that friends may be willing to follow our lead and heed advice more quickly than enemies.Since Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, China has gone from being in the throes of the Cultural Revolution to an increasingly open society.And it was diplomacy, not embargoes, that allowed President Obama to stand alongside the Chinese president in Washington last week and emphasize the “universal rights of all people.” In contrast, the Cuban embargo does little damage to Cuban leaders. It supplies them with an easy “villain” to blame for all Cuba’s problems, a technique that may have helped them stay in power for the last half century. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton essentially made this observation last year when she speculated that the Castro government likely did not want the embargo to come to an end.It’s time to overhaul our policies toward Cuba. An embargo that economically hurts average Cubans and drives them into the arms of a government with a less-than-stellar human rights record does nothing to promote democracy.If we instead try to draw them closer as friends, maybe we will gain another friend willing to listen attentively and seriously weigh our suggestions.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(01/17/11 11:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>December turned out to be a good month for President Obama.But when you win a lot, you lose some. Unfortunately, those who lost the most as the 111th Congress came to a close were the motivated, successful children of undocumented immigrants. Had the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act been approved by Congress, by 2010 it would have provided a route to citizenship for an estimated 700,000 young people.But by only providing a path to citizenship for very successful and very young immigrants, the DREAM Act avoided addressing our morally and economically untenable immigration policy as it applies to the estimated 11.5 million undocumented U.S. residents.For them, and for all reasonable Americans, a general amnesty offers the only real solution.Amnesty for all immigrants who have not broken any law other than entering the United States without the proper paperwork will undoubtedly be met with resistance from those who cling to the principle that immigration must always proceed in an orderly fashion. If we take them at their word, these critics of amnesty genuinely want to safeguard the rule of law. Therefore, they claim immigrants already residing in the United States should move to the “back of the line,” returning to their own countries to reapply to re-immigrate lawfully. With 11.5 million immigrants, or 4 percent of all U.S. residents, living in the country illegally, the idea that our immigration laws have been in any way realistic or enforceable is simply not credible.If we want immigration laws to be respectable in the future, first we will have to make our laws compatible with our practices. Our government has for decades given immigrants the signal that, though illegal, they are welcome in the United States. The Center for American Progress writes that the past 20 years of immigration policy amount to a “de facto invitation to undocumented workers to live and work in our country.”There can be little doubt about the contributions laboring immigrants have made to the United States. Because immigrants without papers cannot take their employer to court for abuses such as less than minimum wage pay, less than ethical employers have used them as a steady supply of cheap labor. And collectively, we have all benefited not only from the fruits of undocumented immigrants’ labor, but also from their tax contributions to the social services they themselves cannot claim. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between one-half and two-thirds of undocumented workers in the United States “pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, file tax returns, or do both.”Economists and business leaders unequivocally agree that, were it possible, driving undocumented workers from the United States would be extremely detrimental and perhaps even catastrophic.Removing 5 percent of the workforce, many of whom perform jobs that current legal residents are unwilling to accept, would produce damaging labor shortages.So en masse deportation, or any plan that intends to banish undocumented immigrants, is not a real solution.In addition to the inestimable costs of forgoing the services provided by undocumented workers, a forced deportation would be costly if not impossible. Estimates indicate that mass deportation would require a $300 billion commitment over a period of five years.The human costs would be equally, if not more, severe.How should the American citizen children of undocumented immigrants be handled? Neither deporting these American citizens with their parents nor separating them from their families provides an acceptable course of action.Because we cannot enforce current laws, we are faced with the choice of either changing or ignoring them. Currently, we are stuck doing the latter. Those who oppose amnesty have no substantive alternative. This subjects immigrants and their families to an arbitrary execution of the law.Deportations will not — and cannot — be enforced uniformly, so a relatively small number of undocumented immigrants are detained and deported to give the law an aura of success. This must change.Our society has collectively benefited from the labor of undocumented immigrants, and it is beyond time to recognize them as full participants in the civic and economic life of this nation. Accordingly, they deserve to live without fear of being tossed out as if they were worthless or, worse, dangerous and scheming criminals. Elected representatives and the American public alike should support amnesty. It is not every day that we have the opportunity to make choices that are both morally and economically sound.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(01/09/11 10:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As I followed anti-Semitic hate crimes that shattered the snowy peacefulness of campus in the days before Chanukah, I was fairly certain the perpetrator could not have been a member of the IU community.Much less did I imagine the criminal to be someone with whom I had ever communicated.Those thoughts changed when I heard that IU police had issued a warrant for Mark Zacharias, scholarships coordinator for the Hutton Honors College. The police allege that Zacharias broke the Jewish Studies Program’s display case in Goodbody Hall. It is not known whether he will be charged in connection with other cases, but he has additionally been accused of stealing $300 from an employee of the Ellettsville Dollar General.When the name sounded familiar, a quick search of my e-mail inbox identified a number of messages from Zacharias. I instantly remembered one from September 1, 2010.Unlike typical messages from the Honors College and campus administrators, this one was hostile and, quite frankly, rude.The subject line benignly announced, “Hutton Honors College Communications Guidelines.”But then, in an all-bold, all-caps font the message disintegrated into a hostile rant warning that any student who removed his or her e-mail from the HHC list serve would be immediately thrown out of the Honors College.The September 2010 message actually was an improvement over the same message from Zacharias in September 2009, when the same passages were even more eye-popping in their italicized, bold, red and all-capitalized font.Ironically, it seems Zacharias himself is in need of some communication guidelines.As a community, our adherence to two simple guidelines would go a long way in cultivating a more peaceful and tolerant campus climate.Guideline number one — rethink hateful attitudes.Hate crimes start with words.Before someone could launch a limestone brick through an apartment above Chabad house or urinate on sacred Hebrew texts in the stacks of the Herman B Wells Library, hateful words “rationalized” that violent course of action.Zacharias, it was revealed after his arrest, had a history of publishing letters in the Indiana Daily Student that reveal a tendency to believe the worst about religious minorities. Notably, in 2005 he suggested in a letter that the Muslim community had perhaps attempted to set fire to its own mosque.Hate crimes are serious, and people must confront them as such rather than quickly blame victims.Neither words that marginalize communities nor words that, however obliquely, suggest violence against opponents are acceptable in civil discourse — a lesson painfully hammered home this weekend in the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.Though the shooter’s motives are not yet clear, Gifford’s district had been depicted under the crosshairs of a gun scope on Sarah Palin’s map of incumbent Democrats to “target.”Lethal violence is always an unacceptable metaphor to use when talking about political opponents.Guideline number two — respond to others’ hateful attitudes.Students cannot abdicate the responsibility to administrators.Hateful rants do an immense disservice to the free and civil exchange of ideas that is the bedrock of campus culture. When we hear them, we must confront them for the physical protection of whatever group is targeted and, just as importantly, for our collective integrity.We are not voiceless bystanders, and when hate speaks, we all have a responsibility to address it.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(12/12/10 11:55pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>What if you lived in a country that taxes its wealthiest citizens 92 percent of their income? Because the country’s tax system is extraordinarily progressive, there are more than 20 different marginal tax rates. But those making less also have to surrender a substantial amount of their income.Someone earning roughly $250,000 in 2009 dollars would turnover 68 percent of their earnings. The name of this unfamiliar place is not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.Nor is it a Scandinavian social democracy, one of the oft-derided “nanny states.”Even so, many Americans would surely not want to live in such a country. The Tea Party would shout 18th-Century anti-tax slogans while making plans to “take back” America.Glenn Beck already says we’re on “the road to socialism,” and capitalism is in its last throes because banks bailed out by taxpayer dollars are forced to limit executive compensation.In fact, it is none other than the United States of America itself.The year was 1953, and taxes were sky-high. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower assumed the presidency in January. Taxes remained consistently high throughout his presidency.Despite the current conservative notion that more taxes will be the downfall of personal liberty and a capitalist society, Americans in the 1950s apparently saw little contradiction in paying taxes and embracing capitalism.Americans in the ’50s would have been shocked to learn that they could be considered even vaguely socialist. Communists were hardly considered friends and, at the height of McCarthyism, they were persecuted enemies.In 1953, Senator Joe McCarthy conducted his famous hearings to uncover an alleged communist spying ring in the U.S. Army.But today’s Republicans are apparently hoping Americans will forget most of the 20th Century, even the Republican Eisenhower Presidency. They are increasingly appropriating this country’s history even as they warp it to support an entirely modern agenda.Rick Barber, running for Alabama’s second congressional seat in the past elections, released a commercial in which he appears sitting in a rustic tavern suggesting that the IRS’s progressive income tax system violates the Constitution.The commercial’s rather unconvincing George Washington dramatically lends his support, instructing the potential congressman to “gather your armies.”But this vision of a low-tax America ignores the linear historical development of this country. It conveniently forgets that the modern era of low income taxes only began in the last three decades.When Reagan came into office, he cut taxes by a massive 25 percent.It would seem nearly insignificant if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire, raising marginal tax rates 3 to 5 percent.So, why has the Tea Party been so successful in their historical heist?Our generation might be particularly susceptible to misinformation. We are the first generation born after the Reagan Revolution, and we have no personal memory of a time when the American middle class flourished because personal income taxes were used as a tool for creating social equality.With a little 20th Century history, however, we can challenge the Tea Party to rethink their implicit claim that “the Greatest Generation” was somehow un-American.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(12/06/10 12:32am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There’s a typical narrative about marriage: Throughout time, people who originally loved each other somehow run out of steam. Throughout the years, they morph from a caring couple into distant and uncomfortable housemates. Raising children, they become business partners focused on the same taxing enterprise. I don’t know how accurate that story is, but one thing is for sure: A lot of marriages fall apart. Though the widely heralded “50 percent divorce rate” has been shown to be based on statistical flaws, many partners go their separate ways. No one knows how many married couples keep the legal knot tied even after separating.I don’t normally dish out relationship advice. This is because I tend not to worry about other people’s relationships. You won’t find me sentimentally lamenting divorce: Some people are better apart. If two people are going to make a relationship work, they’re probably the only ones who will be able to sort through all the emotions and details.Adults, I assume, know what works best for them. But this week, I strangely and suddenly found myself in need of a marriage counselor. Being roommates with your best friend can be a lot like a marriage. Because there are less societal pressures to keep the relationship functional, it can quickly come to resemble the distant peers we so often imagine long-term married couples to be.Between homework and different friend groups, it’s easy to start leading two separate lives. Since neither of us are morning people, bumping into each other at 8:45 a.m. while eating a bowl of cereal is more often an occasion for antipathy than good feeling.Sometime in between jostling for spots in the bathroom and telling each other good night before passing out writing another paper, we’d forgotten what was most important about each other.I felt snubbed by a lack of conversation, and she wished I were more perceptive in conversation. When it came to actually confronting a relationship problem of my own, I was nothing like the self-reliant adult I’d always imagined I’d be. Pressed for time and emotionally exhausted, there seemed to be little more that either of us could contribute to the relationship.So we started thinking like a marriage counselor. Somehow, we had to escape the emotionally deadening routine of our daily lives. Like the stressed owners of a marriage certificate, we had to make time to go on a date.We needed to see each other from eyes not stained by the daily grind. It can be embarrassing to follow somewhat stereotypical advice, but the solution meant that after a few tense moments and some professions of mutual love, we were back on the same page. What page exactly? One that tells us how to live happily or never hurt the other person? Unfortunately neither of us have reached that level of enlightenment yet. But at least we got another lesson in how to apologize and forgive. So next time we screw up, maybe it will be a little easier.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(11/29/10 12:45am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As a viewer of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” I thought it was about time that I discovered what Palin does when not clubbing halibut with baseball bats or shooting clay pigeons.So this Thanksgiving break I sat down with “America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag” and “Going Rogue: An American Life.”The recently released “America by Heart” is a slimmer volume than Palin’s first book. It seems more hastily assembled as well. If “Going Rogue” is the story of Sarah Palin’s heart, “America by Heart” is, somewhat misleadingly, the story of America by mind.Unlike “Going Rogue,” it offers only minimal comment on Palin’s private life. The book only resembles a reality show when she digresses briefly to slam Levi Johnston for not showing up until the last moments of Bristol’s labor. Rather, it attempts to present Palin as a reflective essayist who weaves together long citations from Tocqueville, Reagan and John McCain to present a candidate’s optimistic argument for American exceptionalism.As in “Going Rogue,” Palin is at her best when writing about gender discrimination. The anecdotes tend to be less humorous and trailblazing than her “Going Rogue” accounts of trouncing Alaska’s good old boy league. Still, she rightly takes the mainstream media to task for asking her, but not male candidates, how they would balance care for their young families with official duties. She admirably attempts to set colonial American women on equal footing with the Tea Party’s much-revered Founding Fathers. She profusely praises Abigail Adams, though her use of Adams turns out to be questionable. According to Palin, the Constitution protects families because the Revolutionary generation’s family values, she alleges, were basically the same as those of conservative 21st century Americans. While Palin tries to escape essentialist feminism, she has ironically become a spokesperson for a new brand of self-proclaimed feminism. She rejects traditional issues such as abortion rights even while challenging the workplace sexism of the glass ceiling. Though Palin admits her skin has been toughened by the personal attacks she has faced as a political figure, she’s clearly still sensitive to charges that racism motivates many Tea Partiers.In “America by Heart,” Palin wrestles with the inadequacy of constitutional literalism to confront the Founding Father’s most egregious failure: slavery. Judging by the frequency with which the topic arises throughout the book, Palin is haunted by the legacy of race and slavery.She ties herself in knots trying to prove that following the original intent of the Constitution’s authors would have led us to abolish slavery and end Jim Crow.“We believe it’s a good thing that we came so far in achieving racial justice while keeping faith with our Constitution,” Palin writes. The careful expression “keeping faith” conveniently conceals the contradiction of simultaneously claiming that the original intent of the Constitution cannot be literally followed with regards to slavery even as it must be followed literally without exception.The obvious holes in the argument aren’t likely to win over many moderate or left-leaning voters. Then again, that probably isn’t her intent.Palin isn’t looking to preach. “America by Heart” sets out to convince those who already ascribe to her world view that she’s capable of being the Tea Party’s intellectual standard-bearer.It attempts to present her as a political figure in maturation.Unlike the Palin of the 2008 campaign and “Going Rogue,” we no longer hear insistences that serving as a small-town executive amounts to better experience than Obama’s eloquent speechmaking and legislative career.To position herself as the anti-Obama, Palin instead grounds her refudiation of the president in the past and present of American exceptionalist thought, offering herself as the spokesperson for unabashed American supremacy.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(11/21/10 11:59pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Pope still doesn’t want you to use condoms, but he just might excuse it — if you’re a male prostitute. In a surprising reversal of Church teaching, Benedict XVI’s statements in a new book of interviews will reportedly declare condoms a little less taboo. This semi-authorization leads to some sticky moral puzzles, but the announcement is most significant because it marks a new relationship between the Church and scientific fact.When the Pope traveled to Cameroon in March 2009, he raised international ire when he told an audience that condoms could not solve the HIV/AIDS epidemic and could “even increase the problem.”As long as the Church had provided a more ambiguous justification for its basically unfounded opposition to condoms, people who don’t turn to the Church for ultimate moral guidance had merely considered it hypocritical that the Pope failed to leverage his influential voice and substantial wealth to do something for “the least of these.” But the infamous Cameroon comments marked a turning point. Benedict, it seemed, was no longer content to justify his anti-condom policies on moral grounds. On a continent ravished by HIV/AIDS, he found for himself the authority to rewrite scientific fact.The Church has a long history of maintaining that its statements explain the world better than science. When Galileo contradicted the Church by supporting a heliocentric view of the universe, he was tried by the Holy Office, in what would become known as the Inquisition. It took until 2000 and the papacy of John Paul II for the Church to muster a plea for forgiveness for Galileo’s persecution and a litany of other atrocities, including sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples. As a part of his public apology, John Paul II promised “never again.” Too bad his successor has been quick to rip a page from his book.On a practical level, we can hope that Benedict’s newfound permissiveness may create an environment in which condom use is somewhat less taboo. But if he has really decided to commit himself to stopping the spread of HIV, Benedict still has some work to do.It’s impossible to determine the number of people who would forego condom use because the Pope tells them it is morally wrong or practically ineffective.But for anyone who does subscribe to the Pope’s worldview, it’s hard to imagine that this statement will do much to slow the spread of HIV.By saying that condoms may be acceptable in extremely limited situations, such as for male prostitutes, the Pope is really only saying that condom use is acceptable for ‘unacceptable’ people.If the Pope wants to have any real credibility as a humanitarian in the 21st century, he’ll have to explain why most people risk their souls to protect their and their partner’s bodies.Tell us, why exactly is it impermissible for heterosexuals to protect themselves from contracting HIV by using something that also functions as a contraceptive?The Pope might have taken a first step, but God knows it’s easy to make improvements when you have a lot to change.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(11/14/10 11:58pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Whispers about a Palin reality show have been floating around for some time. Perhaps I dismissed them because Levi’s angsty music video was such a flop. “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” on the other hand, promises eight weeks of family drama, politics and outdoor living.In some respects, the show seems unlikely to offer surprises. Trailers suggest it will be carefully edited to reinforce Palin’s public image.When taking a break from outdoor sports and mothering, Palin seems happy to transmit a bit of her political philosophy to the audience. Taped in the state she recently abandoned governing, the show gives Palin quite a few opportunities to introduce viewers in the Lower 48 to her Alaskan-inspired world view.When the Palins go on a fishing trip, Sarah offers some predictable commentary about the grizzly bears that the family’s boat nearly drifts to before Todd Palin decides it prudent to retreat to the center of the lake.Mother grizzlies, she said after seeing the bears fight on the bank of the lake, are a lesson that a mom would do anything for her children. Palin’s proclamation that “family comes first” meshes nicely with the scene to embellish an image of Palin’s ‘mama grizzly’ conservative female candidates as aligned with family-values traditionalists.The previews suggest Palin derives most of her views about life and society from the gorgeous Alaskan landscape.On a Palin family four wheeling expedition, this nature-inspired world view becomes overtly political. During a scene in which a helmeted Sarah drives an ATV, Palin narrates her thoughts on the significance of the trip.“I’d rather be doin’ this than in some stuffy ol’ political office,” Palin said. “I’d rather be out here bein’ free.”Palin doesn’t miss an opportunity to contrast government and freedom. Without a doubt there is something charming about the scene. After all, who wouldn’t want to escape a confining office job to be a celebrity in a life that looks to be an extended family vacation?Yet we shouldn’t quickly discard the reality that underlies the show’s edited portrayal of the Palins. Sarah’s four wheeling recreation seems unlikely to translate into substantial solutions in the political realm. If a marathon of kayaking, flying small planes and rock climbing vacations define political freedom, then few Americans can afford to be free.The show’s previews lead us to believe that Sarah’s comments about politics are secondary to glimpses of Palin family life and amazing panoramas of Alaskan landscape unadulterated by disappearing glaciers or oil rigs.Capturing a glimpse of that last celebrated frontier is one of the reasons I’m drawn to the show. The irony of Sarah’s introduction to natural Alaska is that preserving those wonderful landscapes is such a small priority for the spokesperson of “Drill baby, drill.”“Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is the story of a person lifted from the doldrums of quotidian modern existence by the surprising fortune of her vice-presidential nomination. But while she invites us to join in the thrill of her good fortune through a reality show, viewers must remember that the policies she represents are unlikely to promote social mobility for the rest of us, and they might very well irreversibly mar America’s last wild places.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(11/08/10 3:59pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Imagine if your city sold its sidewalks to private investors.To make the investment worthwhile, the buyers would charge fees to use the walkways. At first, drivers might be happy to be rid of paying taxes to build and maintain sidewalks. “The cost of sidewalks will now be borne directly by their users!” they would celebrate.City government would proclaim the efficiency of the deal, reminding voters that they are no longer taxed for sidewalk maintenance. Elected officials would reiterate that the company paid the city a few million dollars to lease the sidewalks for decades.But slowly cracks would appear in this story of utopian efficiency. Pedestrians would find themselves paying higher fees each year. Motivated only by profit, the sidewalks’ new owners would not take long to realize they could collect payments from drivers to cross from their homes to their cars.In short, private ownership of sidewalks could quickly make life in a city unlivable. Yet privatization increasingly defines Indiana governments’ strategies for managing public infrastructure.In 2006, Indiana became the first state to sell a major highway. In the last four years, users of the Northern Indiana toll road have watched tolls double.Indianapolis officials are now negotiating the final details of a 50-year lease of the city’s street parking, apparently not considering the climbing toll rates a warning.Because private companies, unlike governments, make investments in order to generate profit for themselves, we should be highly skeptical of the efficiency of infrastructure leases.A company tells the government: We’ll give you an upfront payment and then a yearly leasing fee so you can pay us to use the place that you own. But like any private business, we don’t work for free. So we won’t return to you all the money we collect. We’ll keep some of that money for ourselves.The fact that these leases amount to government giving away profit to select private owners somehow gets lost in the celebration of the deals’ supposedly business-like efficiency.Take Arizona, for example. The state put its Capitol Building up for sale. Lawmakers announced the move as a way to fix the annual budget, seemingly forgetting that the sale will only increase expenses in the long run.While lacking the hyperbolic symbolism of Arizona’s folly, Indianapolis’ parking lease might be worse in effect.Roads and sidewalks make all private property possible. Streets link us together, allowing us to freely patronize each other’s businesses. Restaurants and shops would not thrive long if they could only cater to neighbors with adjoining properties.Indiana governments have confused becoming more business-like with giving away lucrative assets. In fact, no successful business would consider operating this way.Transportation infrastructure was built by the public, and we benefit tremendously from owning it, so it’s a mystery why Indiana has become so eager to discard its most valuable assets.With increasingly less public infrastructure, I’m left hoping my sidewalk isn’t sold next.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu
(11/07/10 11:19pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Imagine if your city sold its sidewalks to private investors.To make the investment worthwhile, the buyers would charge fees to use the walkways. At first, drivers might be happy to be rid of paying taxes to build and maintain sidewalks. “The cost of sidewalks will now be borne directly by their users!” they would celebrate.City government would proclaim the efficiency of the deal, reminding voters that they are no longer taxed for sidewalk maintenance. Elected officials would reiterate that the company paid the city a few million dollars to lease the sidewalks for decades.But slowly cracks would appear in this story of utopian efficiency. Pedestrians would find themselves paying higher fees each year. Motivated only by profit, the sidewalks’ new owners would not take long to realize they could collect payments from drivers to cross from their homes to their cars.In short, private ownership of sidewalks could quickly make life in a city unlivable. Yet privatization increasingly defines Indiana governments’ strategies for managing public infrastructure.In 2006, Indiana became the first state to sell a major highway. In the last four years, users of the Northern Indiana toll road have watched tolls double.Indianapolis officials are now negotiating the final details of a 50-year lease of the city’s street parking, apparently not considering the climbing toll rates a warning.Because private companies, unlike governments, make investments in order to generate profit for themselves, we should be highly skeptical of the efficiency of infrastructure leases.A company tells the government: We’ll give you an upfront payment and then a yearly leasing fee so you can pay us to use the place that you own. But like any private business, we don’t work for free. So we won’t return to you all the money we collect. We’ll keep some of that money for ourselves.The fact that these leases amount to government giving away profit to select private owners somehow gets lost in the celebration of the deals’ supposedly business-like efficiency.Take Arizona, for example. The state put its Capitol Building up for sale. Lawmakers announced the move as a way to fix the annual budget, seemingly forgetting that the sale will only increase expenses in the long run.While lacking the hyperbolic symbolism of Arizona’s folly, Indianapolis’ parking lease might be worse in effect.Roads and sidewalks make all private property possible. Streets link us together, allowing us to freely patronize each other’s businesses. Restaurants and shops would not thrive long if they could only cater to neighbors with adjoining properties.Indiana governments have confused becoming more business-like with giving away lucrative assets. In fact, no successful business would consider operating this way.Transportation infrastructure was built by the public, and we benefit tremendously from owning it, so it’s a mystery why Indiana has become so eager to discard its most valuable assets.With increasingly less public infrastructure, I’m left hoping my sidewalk isn’t sold next.E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu