16 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/22/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Hoosier state will soon be graced by tens of thousands of fervent supporters of the Second Amendment. They will flock to Indianapolis this weekend for the 2014 NRA National Convention.As a proud American, I have no problem with the Second Amendment. I think people should be able to own guns to protect their homes, to go hunting or for other recreational purposes like skeet shooting — which I know from experience is ridiculously fun.What I do have a problem with is the NRA’s gross politicization of the Second Amendment, and its blatant refusal to act on behalf of its members’ wishes when it comes to gun policy. The NRA proudly asserts itself as a grassroots organization, touting its nearly 4 million-person membership. On its website, it claims that it is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. So, you’d think that the NRA’s focus on its members would result in the NRA supporting gun policies that its members support. However, after the 2012 shootings in Aurora, Colo., a poll was conducted of NRA members asking for their opinions on gun control legislation. The poll results showed 74 percent supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun and 79 percent supported requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees to ensure they are not felons. Instead of taking the opinions of an overwhelming majority of its members seriously, the NRA vigorously and relentlessly lobbied against any meaningful and common sense gun control legislation. That seems like a strange thing to do for an organization that claims to care about its members. Perhaps the NRA sees itself as accountable to groups other than the average American or NRA member.Between 2004 and 2010, the gun industry increased its contributions to the NRA from $46.3 million to a whopping $71 million. Between 2005 — when the NRA started its “Ring of Freedom” donation program, designed to ask wealthy members for donations — and 2011, the firearms industry donated upwards of $38.9 million, according to the Violence Policy Center. According to its tax returns, the NRA gathered $228 million in revenue in 2010, $106 million of which came from membership dues. So, it begs the question about who is behind the rest of the NRA’s revenues, and to whom the NRA is actually accountable. I submit that the NRA, just like every other large organization that is powered by corporate interests, cares more about the opinions of gun manufacturers and its big-money donors than it does about those of its members. Therefore, based solely on what I know about how the NRA treats the opinions of its members, I find it reprehensible that Indianapolis will be welcoming the group for its convention. I’m sure some people will have a nice time playing at the convention, and that Indianapolis will enjoy the estimated $55 million in business the convention is predicted to rake in for the city. However, I want to let every person who is planning to attend the convention this weekend know that paying money to attend NRA events is giving money to an organization that actively works against your own policy interests.sydhoffe@indiana.edu@squidhoff10
(04/22/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Hoosier state will soon be graced by tens of thousands of fervent supporters of the Second Amendment. They will flock to Indianapolis this weekend for the 2014 NRA National Convention.As a proud American, I have no problem with the Second Amendment. I think people should be able to own guns to protect their homes, to go hunting or for other recreational purposes like skeet shooting — which I know from experience is ridiculously fun.What I do have a problem with is the NRA’s gross politicization of the Second Amendment, and its blatant refusal to act on behalf of its members’ wishes when it comes to gun policy.The NRA proudly asserts itself as a grassroots organization, touting its nearly 4 million-person membership. On its website, it claims that it is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. So, you’d think that the NRA’s focus on its members would result in the NRA supporting gun policies that its members support.However, after the 2012 shootings in Aurora, Colo., a poll was conducted of NRA members asking for their opinions on gun control legislation. The poll results showed 74 percent supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun and 79 percent supported requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees to ensure they are not felons.Instead of taking the opinions of an overwhelming majority of its members seriously, the NRA vigorously and relentlessly lobbied against any meaningful and common sense gun control legislation. That seems like a strange thing to do for an organization that claims to care about its members.Perhaps the NRA sees itself as accountable to groups other than the average American or NRA member.Between 2004 and 2010, the gun industry increased its contributions to the NRA from $46.3 million to a whopping $71 million. Between 2005 — when the NRA started its “Ring of Freedom” donation program, designed to ask wealthy members for donations — and 2011, the firearms industry donated upwards of $38.9 million, according to the Violence Policy Center. According to its tax returns, the NRA gathered $228 million in revenue in 2010, $106 million of which came from membership dues. So, it begs the question about who is behind the rest of the NRA’s revenues, and to whom the NRA is actually accountable. I submit that the NRA, just like every other large organization that is powered by corporate interests, cares more about the opinions of gun manufacturers and its big-money donors than it does about those of its members.Therefore, based solely on what I know about how the NRA treats the opinions of its members, I find it reprehensible that Indianapolis will be welcoming the group for its convention. I’m sure some people will have a nice time playing at the convention.Indianapolis will enjoy the estimated $55 million in business the convention is predicted to rake in for the city. However, I want to let every person who is planning to attend the convention this weekend know that paying money to attend NRA events is giving money to an organization that actively works against your own policy interests.sydhoffe@indiana.edu@squidhoff10
(04/21/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you didn’t already know, the United States is the largest jailer in the world. With 2.2 million Americans behind bars, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.PBS’ Frontline documentary “Solitary Nation” will air this week. It focuses on the use of solitary confinement of prisoners in the U.S., a practice that isolates inmates from virtually any human contact for 22-24 hours per day, lasting anywhere from days to decades.According to reports released in 2005, anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 inmates are held in solitary confinement. The exact number is unknown. Prisoners are sometimes allowed “recreation,” which the Center for Constitutional Rights says “involves being taken, often in handcuffs and shackles, to another solitary cell where prisoners can pace alone for an hour before being returned to their cell.” Solitary confinement is used to protect prisoners and prison guards from especially violent inmates, according to corrections officials. The American Friends Service Committee argues there are other far less compelling reasons to use solitary confinement, including using it as “punishment while (prisoners) are under investigation; as a mechanism for behavior modification; as retribution for political activism; or to fill expensive, empty beds, to name but a few.”As I’m sure you can imagine, the mental consequences of solitary confinement on prisoners is devastating. It is considered to be a form of torture by the international community, and it is a blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.Unfortunately, the way the U.S. uses solitary confinement as a casual way to lock prisoners up does not surprise me. But the widespread cynicism towards our criminal justice system should not keep us from rejecting and protesting the flaws within it. It is both hypocritical and perverted that the U.S. uses such a brutal and cruel system to deal with its prisoners, many of whom are mentally ill in the first place and need mental health treatment, not mental torture.I look forward to watching “Solitary Nation.” One man filmed in the preview of the documentary shared his feelings about solitary.“It’s like being buried alive,” he said. “You can’t conduct yourself like a human being when you’re being treated like an animal.” Indeed, if society wants to rehabilitate and change prisoners for the better through the criminal justice system, the use of torture through solitary confinement is the last thing we should be doing. Unless we start treating prisoners like human beings and not like animals, our criminal “justice” system will continue to perpetrate injustice towards the millions of people who are incarcerated, failing both to protect society and to protect these prisoners from torture. sydhoffe@indiana.edu@squidhoff10
(04/07/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I am a foodie. I was raised in a family of foodies. But my hometown is South Bend, which doesn’t happen to have a very vibrant food culture. So when I came to IU as a freshman four years ago, I was ecstatic to try all of the delicious food that Bloomington has to offer.Naturally, the freshman fifteen came and went, and over the years I have grown to love the diverse offerings of the restaurants and various food establishments in Bloomington. But the thing I love the most, even more than the delicious burritos at Laughing Planet or the heavenly chocolate and cupcakes at BluBoy chocolates, is the Bloomington Farmer’s Market in the spring and summer. This Saturday was the first day of the 40th season of the Bloomington Farmer’s Market, and I was excited to go. Cash and reusable grocery bag in hand, I walked to the market in the brisk sunshine with a smile on my face. From over a block away I could already hear the music and people chattering. There are several reasons why I love the farmer’s market here: the friendly farmers, the lovely selection of produce and flowers and honey and soaps and salsas and eggs and cheese and other wonderful things for sale. The live music at various points in the market, and the smell of coffee and baked goods wafting from the vendor’s tents. Still, I think my favorite part of to the farmer’s market is its sense of community. I inevitably run into at least one of my friends there, and even if I don’t, I am overcome with a sense of solidarity with the people there. Everyone who goes to the farmer’s market goes because they love food, and because they want to support the local economy. I love being a part of that. If you are thinking about visiting the farmer’s market for the first time, here are a couple of tips: It is open from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., but try to get there in the morning — that way you will have the largest selection of produce to choose from.Bring cash. Most of the vendors don’t take credit or debit cards.Bring one or two reusable grocery bags to carry your goodies. The prices are so reasonable that I have left the farmer’s market many times with both arms loaded with produce.Finally, come hungry. There are vendors selling coffee, tamales, crepes, muffins, scones and other brunch foods to sample.The farmer’s market is located at 401 N. Morton Street, right next to the City Hall building downtown. Now that it’s open for the rest of the summer, there’s no excuse not to visit and soak up all of the love and foodie fun that it has to offer. If you’re a student at IU, put it on your bucket list to visit the farmer’s market. You won’t regret it.sydhoffe@indiana.edu@squidhoff10
(03/24/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you’re not familiar with America’s reputation as the world’s largest jailer, you’re about to be. There are 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest total number of prisoners in the world. Of all prisoners worldwide, the U.S. jails 25 percent of them. There is also widespread racial disparity among the prison population in the U.S. One in three black men will be imprisoned at some point in his lifetime, compared to one in six Latino men and only one in 17 white men. In Indiana, the black to white prisoner ratio is 5.5 to one. Recently, a report written by Christopher Petrella, a University of California, Berkeley graduate student, adds another depressing layer of detail to the complex prison system in the U.S. Petrella found that, among the private prison population, young racial minorities are overrepresented. Monetizing and incentivizing locking people up sounds like a crazy idea. But some ideas are never crazy enough for our legislators to back it up, on both the state and federal levels.According to an ACLU report, private prisons house “six percent of state prisoners, 16 percent of federal prisoners ... and nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government.” “In 2010, the two largest private prison companies alone received nearly $3 billion in revenue, and their top executives, according to one source, each received annual compensation packages worth well over $3 million,” according to the ACLU.I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that putting a profit motive behind locking people up is a bad idea. If all people currently behind bars today were indeed violent offenders or real criminals, it would be more justified. However, today’s drug laws and overreaching mandatory minimum sentences lead me to believe that a substantial number of people behind bars today should be set free.Not only does mass incarceration ruin the lives and families of each individual prisoner, it also destroys communities and towns. There are countless ways to reform the prison system we have today. For one thing, we could get rid of mandatory minimum drug sentences and re-examine the war on drugs mentality. Removing the financial incentive behind incarceration that comes with for-profit prisons would also be a big step in the right direction of de-incentivizing locking people up.I don’t really care how the reform starts, but I do care that it happens now. As someone who cares about the reputation and stature of our country, I see this issue as a critical one in our ability to stand as a moral beacon for the rest of the world. The U.S. cannot rightfully be both the “Land of the Free” and the largest jailer in the world.sydhoffe@indiana.edu@squidhoff10
(03/03/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s not news that Republicans have made some pretty horribly sexist and/or ignorant comments about women in the past few years. No one can forget Todd Akin, then a Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri, and his “legitimate rape” fiasco. Or let’s remember the countless off-color comments about Hillary Clinton’s weight, as if it actually affected her ability to lead in any way. Most recently, let’s not forget the nickname of Wendy “Abortion Barbie” Davis, Democratic candidate for governor in Texas. The fundraising machine on the left has found a way, using targeted social media campaigns, to monetize the public’s outrage over sexist comments by urging people to make a contribution to win the political battle against whomever made the most recent unsavory remark.As a progressive, I think it is good these candidates are punished for their ignorance and bias against women. However, as someone who wants to see a more honest and informed political conversation in this country, I am a little unsettled at the idea of cashing in on flimsy and temporary Internet outrage. This quick turn-around of quotes for cash perpetuates an inability to focus on topics that are substantive. Rather than simply repeating an offensive quote and then asking people for money, the fundraising machine should explain why the quote matters. Instead of cashing in on people’s ignorance, it is necessary to explain the consequences of a candidate saying there is such a thing as “legitimate rape.” Dig into both the political and the policy implications instead of dumbing down the conversation.The American people deserve a better political conversation, and I believe there’s a way to improve it. Take, for instance the fact that more state abortion restrictions were passed between 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade, according to the Guttemacher Institute. If abortion rights are something you care about, and a Republican politician says something offensive about women’s rights, explain the consequences of his line of thinking. Turn to the facts of the matter — ignorance and ideological biases about women’s health lead to bad policies that hurt women. Explain the details and consequences of passing restrictive abortion laws and then let people choose to give money to your cause or not, instead of taking advantage of peoples through emotionally charged mass email.Then, the tone of political conversations would revolve less around the latest ignorant comment a Republican politician made about pregnant women being mere “hosts” for their babies, and more around actual laws being passed with serious consequences for women.Although I’m a supporter of punishing lawmakers and their surrogates for saying mean and sexist things, I’m uneasy about the prospect of churning their political bile into money while ignoring the more important underlying consequences — laws that are bad for women and bad for the American people.sydhoffe@indiana.edu@squidhoff10
(02/17/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For the sake of transparency, I’ll admit I’m not a huge fan of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken. I disagree with his policies, ranging from health care to gun control to women’s health issues. However, I admire his recently-filed lawsuit against the Obama administration regarding the Naional Security Agency surveillance program, with one large exception: he should have made it a bipartisan affair.Paul filed the suit with Ken Cuccinelli, the former Republican attorney general of Virginia who came under fire after receiving thousands of dollars worth of improper gifts while in office, and Matt Kibbe, president of the conservative group FreedomWorks.Originally, earlier drafts of the suit included Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., as a plaintiff with Paul. However, the final draft of the suit removed Sen. Udall and replaced him with the president of FreedomWorks. The motives behind that move were undoubtedly political.In fact, the politics behind the filing of this lawsuit don’t stop there. Well-known constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein accused Paul of plagiarizing the lawsuit. Paul had hired Fein, at a discounted rate, to write the suit. However, in the final draft of the lawsuit, Fein’s name was removed completely and replaced with Cuccinelli’s. Of course, the plagiarism accusation would be less serious if the final “Cuccinelli” draft of the suit wasn’t virtually identical to Fein’s original work. With little contrast, Cuccinelli’s version says, “Since the MATP was publicly disclosed, public opinion polls showed widespread opposition to the dragnet collection, storage, retention and search of telephone metadata collected on every domestic or international phone call made or received by citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States.” while Fein’s is identical with the exception of the word “when,” while Fein’s version has “since” instead. In order to make a more powerful, lasting and meaningful statement with this lawsuit, Paul should have refrained from playing politics. He should have worked with Democrats as well as Republicans to make this lawsuit happen. There is opposition to the NSA surveillance program on both sides of the aisle, and the lawsuit calls for a simple and logical reform of the program. It seeks to require warrants to obtain peoples’ metadata, thereby falling within the Fourth Amendment’s scope. The convincing plagiarism accusation does not help Paul’s case here, and it thoroughly cripples a seemingly valiant attempt to fix a serious problem in our nation’s approach to national security.If Rand Paul were truly the libertarian champion of freedom he claims to be, he would not have played politics with this opportunity to reform the NSA’s surveillance program. Then again, maybe Paul isn’t as interested in reform as he his in politics — he is a politician himself, after all.— sydhoffe@indiana.edu
(02/03/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Freelance journalist Amanda Hess kicked off the New Year with a fiery essay in the Pacific Standard magazine about her experience with online harassment.She recounted an instance during which she received a series of sexual and hostile tweets, culminating in this threat — “You are going to die and I am the one who is going to kill you. I promise you this.”When I read Hess’ article for the first time, I was horrified and completely taken by surprise. I know that misogynistic creeps lurk around the Internet, and sometimes they stalk and harass people. However, I had never considered the possibility that this harassment could lead to threats of violence, rape and even death. Of all the people who experience online harassment, the vast majority are women. A whopping 72.5 percent of people who reported online abuse between 2000 and 2012 were women. Most high-profile victims of online harassment are female journalists, reporters, bloggers and editors. However, other women in the public sphere are not free from the attention of these creeps, either. Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, received a particularly vile string of tweets from the former Executive Director of South Carolina’s Republican Party, Todd Kincannon. Included in the barrage of insults was “The best thing about the Wendy Davis fiasco is this: It proves that you can still call a whore a whore. Feminazis ain’t won yet, my friends.” And “In other news, Wendy Davis took a short break from blowing ‘campaign contributors’ today to condemn remarks made by Mike Huckabee ...” Vitriol expressed toward women is nothing new, and name-calling and hateful language has been around since we can remember. However, that doesn’t make it acceptable for society to tell the victims of online harassment to just “ignore” threatening or offensive comments or tweets they receive.Unfortunately, that is exactly the response Amanda Hess received after reporting her experience of harassment on Twitter to the authorities.Back in the days before the Internet, when people made threats to rape or kill someone, it was usually possible to get a restraining order against them. But because the legal system has yet to evolve with the technology and figure out a way to respond productively to anonymous online threats, victims of harassment on the Internet are especially vulnerable.Misogynistic slime on the Internet comes from deep, dark and isolated crevices that breed hatred and choke out tolerance. It’s our job in an interconnected society to shine a light on this scum and make it widely known that harassing people online, female or otherwise, is unacceptable. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”I want to be part of an Internet that doesn’t accept harassment as a fact of life. I want to feel safe and comfortable having a public online presence, even though I am a woman. In order for these things to happen, we have to shine our collective high beam headlights on the creeps, and watch the sunlight disinfect the Internet of its intolerance and hatred. —sydhoffe@indiana.eduFollow columnist Sydney Hofferth on Twitter @squidhoff10.
(01/22/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Jan. 9, a company in West Virginia devastated the lives of 300,000 citizens.Freedom Industries stores a chemical called 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, that is used to wash coal.A leak was found in Freedom Industries’ chemical storage facility, and 7,500 gallons of MCHM were released into a major water supply in the Elk River in West Virginia.About 300,000 people in West Virginia were unable to drink, bathe in or clean with their tap water for five days.They were forced to buy bottled water or to drive to nearby towns to shower and clean themselves during the chemical spill.Most recently, Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy late last week.This bankruptcy is unrelated to the chemical spill, but it is a result of a $10 million company debt. The most criminal and unfair aspect of this story is the fact that, because it has filed for bankruptcy, Freedom Industries will effectively be able to dodge the federal investigations and 20 lawsuits it is currently facing related to the West Virginia chemical spill.Put aside the fact that Freedom Industries was most recently thoroughly inspected more than 20 years ago, and forget the 300,000 people who had to live without tap water for fear of sickness for nearly a week.The real issue with Freedom Industries is that it represents a larger, more complex and serious conflict within our political system.Lawmakers in West Virginia and around the country rely on political contributions to get re-elected.The largest industry in West Virginia happens to be coal, and it makes political contributions in order to keep regulations off the books.Therefore, the politicians who are being elected are financially more interested in keeping the coal industry happy and less interested in promoting the public good.When our politicians are more interested in pleasing their corporate overlords than looking out for the common citizen and her ability to function in society without worrying about having clean drinking water, we have a problem. The only freedom that Freedom Industries has achieved thus far is freedom from public accountability.I hope and pray that federal and state lawmakers will put an end to that, in the name of the innocent West Virginians who fell victim to this negligent crime.— sydhoffe@indiana.eduFollow columnist Sydney Hofferth on Twitter @squidhoff10.
(11/09/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>During this election cycle, one’s ability to vote for his or her elected official became far more complicated and difficult. Voter ID laws cropped up across the country this year in Republican states, and several of them were enacted too close to Election Day to allow voters to comply.Early voting hours were cut down, and because of shrinking state budgets, less time and fewer resources were allocated to handling historically long lines at the polls on Election Day especially in battleground states.This all happened under the guise of protecting the “integrity” of the vote, on the surface a nonpartisan and noncontroversial thing to do. I wanted to believe it was an honest attempt to streamline our voting process, but last-minute moves made by Republican lawmakers in Ohio and Florida during the past week have convinced me otherwise. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted issued a directive the Friday before elections that changed how one should submit provisional ballots. Basically, the directive requires voters to correctly describe the form of ID used to vote on the form. The only problem is that if anyone filled out the form incorrectly, Husted ordered that those votes not be counted, and be thrown out.A few weeks ago, Husted tried to limit early voting hours in Ohio, but was unsuccessful after losing a lawsuit brought against him by President Barack Obama’s campaign. Why might a Republican secretary of state want to eliminate early voting in a battleground state? Because early voters tend to lean Democratic, and Husted does not want Obama to win Ohio. Too bad for him.In Florida, we saw a similar situation. On Saturday, in response to Floridians waiting in line for more than seven hours to vote, Republican election officials extended early voting hours on Sunday. However, the extension of early voting was made available only for the most Republican district in the state and for no others.Florida saw its fair share of voting problems this year. Absentee ballots were not sent to people who requested them weeks ahead of time, and early voting hours were not extended in the midst of about three hour long lines at the polls.There is no legitimate, nonpartisan reason to do what they did in Ohio and Florida only days before the election. Let’s not forget that voting is a right, not a privilege, and that it should be available for everyone who qualifies under the law. If lawmakers want to protect the “integrity” of the vote, how about they make sure they don’t disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters from doing so in the process? I can respect an honest attempt to eliminate the little voter fraud that exists in this country, but the recent actions taken by Republican state legislators are nothing but blatant partisanship.— sydhoffe@umail.iu.edu
(10/30/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve spent this semester in Washington, D.C., and I have to say it’s been an amazing experience. I have an internship, take classes and have had the opportunity to meet students from across the country who are just as obsessed with politics as I am. When talking with people, my Midwest origins do not often come up in the discussion. However, my Hoosier roots did spark more exciting conversations last week. I’m sure you’ve all heard about Republican State Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s response during a debate last week when asked about his position about abortion in the case of rape. Here’s how he responded: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” I think it is safe to assume that Mourdock did not mean that the act of rape is something God intends to happen, because it is a terrible and violent crime that goes against everything I learned during my 12 years of Catholic school and what any other human being with a brain and a conscience has learned in life. However, it was extremely revealing in one important sense as he approached this sensitive, emotionally charged issue with no sense of empathy for rape victims. A few of his fellow Republicans have been just as not eloquent. Let us not forget Rep. Todd Akin’s, R-Mo., “legitimate rape” debacle, and Wisconsin state lawmaker Roger Rivard stating that “some girls rape easy.”Politicians have been using rape as a cheap talking point to score with their constituents when talking about abortion and religion, and it needs to stop. The word is thrown around with such lightness that people forget that it’s one of the most heinous crimes someone could commit.Unfortunately, the use of sensitive and emotionally charged issues as talking points for politicians is not exclusive to rape. The same is done in our national discussions surrounding undocumented immigrants, welfare recipients, minorities, and many other groups.Politicians are making extremely important decisions about the fate of our country and the fates of the millions of diverse people who live in it. This makes zero sense for them to do so without even attempting to understand the true human impact of their decisions. I invite you all to be better than our politicians and the talking heads in the media. Before you talk about anything controversial, take a few seconds to think about the lives and victims behind the issue. Put a human face on things, instead of just throwing around buzzwords and pet issues. Don’t use words and ideas without understanding that there are always human consequences to what you say. After all, you don’t want to end up becoming the next Mourdock, coming up in conversations across the country for all the wrong reasons.— sydhoffe@indiana.edu
(10/16/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The vice presidential debate last Thursday was far more exciting and refreshing than I had anticipated. Vice President Joe Biden came ready to brawl, and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., was typically well-spoken.Several important issues ranging from abortion to Afghanistan were discussed and each man outlined his ticket’s policy ideas.The main disappointment of the night was what was ignored during the debate. Three issues that are extremely important, relevant and in desperate need of a national discussion went untouched on Thursday: global warming, immigration and gun laws. Climate change is happening. The science isn’t fuzzy about the issue, and there isn’t a “Great Debate” within the scientific community about whether global warming is being caused by human activity. It’s a proven, studied fact, and yet one would not have given it a second thought as a political issue after the debate last week. Neither candidate was pressed about how they would curb carbon dioxide emissions or how they would prepare our nation for a changing climate and the resulting change in our economy. I felt the same way after the presidential debate two weeks ago. People are simply ignoring this issue, pretending that it’s far less serious than it actually is.The next topic that should have been discussed is immigration. After President Barack Obama’s executive order about deferred action during the summer, the failed passage of the DREAM act and the discussion of immigration during the Republican primaries, it seems as though no one wants to talk about it anymore. The reality is there are millions of undocumented immigrants in this country, working and making lives for themselves, and our politicians are choosing to ignore them. To top it all off, the bloc of voting-age Latino citizens is growing quickly, and their eyes are set on the immigration issue. As long as our politicians keep beating around the bush, both citizens and non-citizens will be unhappy, and the number of undocumented immigrants in this country will grow.Finally, gun laws. The topic has been untouched for years, what with the lobbying authority of the National Rifle Association. The refusal to discuss the issue has doubled down with the Tea Party movement that shamelessly supports the Second Amendment with zero historical context or concern for public safety. In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colo., shooting during the summer, and with tens of thousands of people killed or injured as a result of gun violence this past year, we can’t keep ignoring the issue. We deserve to know where the candidates stand on gun control because it impacts the lives of so many Americans every day. Hopefully more will be revealed about the presidential candidates tonight and next week during the last two debates because there are important and controversial issues that have yet to be discussed. As voters, we have every right to know where the candidates stand on every issue, and we have been denied that right as of yet.— sydhoffe@indiana.edu
(10/09/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As I’m sure you know, President Barack Obama lost last week’s debate to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He didn’t have any huge flubs or missteps, but at times he seemed as though he would rather be anywhere but onstage.Romney, on the other hand, went to the debate ready to strike — and strike he did. He was energetic and assertive, and that enthusiasm seemed even more intense when standing beside the president and his lackluster performance.The day after the debates, Romney’s campaign was visibly more energetic and confident than usual. Now that they had the solid momentum of a debate victory to work with for a while, Romney was poised to take full advantage of it. The campaign wanted to take full charge of this energy and transform the candidate’s performance into better poll numbers and more votes in November.On Friday, the number of jobs created number for September were released, and they effectively eliminated a crucial and important line of attack used by the Romney campaign: 114,000 jobs were added in September, lowering the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. The argument that we’ve had 43 straight months of unemployment more than 8 percent is no longer a viable attack against the president.This is the lowest the unemployment rate has been since Obama took office four years ago.Although this number may seem like average economic news, it is actually quite important and may play a large role in this year’s election.For one thing, if unemployment remains at 8 percent or higher through Election Day, and if Obama wins in November, he will be the first president since former President Franklin D. Roosevelt to be re-elected with those numbers.So, in the context of Obama finally seeing positive jobs numbers and Romney charging forward with one debate win under his belt, the response to the unemployment rate was predictable.Romney and his campaign have chosen to tackle the jobs figure by saying that it’s not good enough. In response to the report on Friday, Romney said, “this is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August and fewer jobs in August than in July. The choice in this election is clear. With Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. “If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone,” Romney said.Romney has used this line before and as the presidential candidate, he really has no other choice but to promise that he will do better as chief executive to create more jobs for Americans. However, seeing that Obama was already leading Romney in the polls when the unemployment rate was more than 8 percent, it seems as though Romney may be facing a closer battle than he had hoped for after his blowout performance in the debate on Wednesday.— sydhoffe@indiana.edu
(10/02/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As we prepare for the presidential and vice presidential debates that start Wednesday, I thought it might be a good time to talk about the “v” word.That’s right: voting.Voting has become politicized during the past few years, with the new voter ID laws that were passed and are now being challenged in the courts in several swing states like Pennsylvania, Texas and Florida. Whether you think that these laws should have been implemented long ago to prevent voter fraud, or whether you think that they are designed to prevent certain groups from voting because they traditionally vote for a certain party, voting in general is an important thing. As a college student, I know that there’s a lot on the line this November. In order for me to be able to sleep soundly and look myself in the mirror after Nov. 6, I will have to vote.A lack of time, a lack of transportation and a lack of knowledge are just a few of the many barriers that college students face when voting. It’s difficult even to choose whether to vote as a resident of Bloomington or to vote absentee and cast your ballot in your home district. Here are a few tips for voting as a college student in Indiana.Get informedThere are countless websites that list the different steps you need to take to cast your ballot. You may need an ID when you go to vote, you do if you’re voting in Indiana, but your student ID might not qualify as a valid source of identification. You probably don’t know the deadline for registering to vote or for sending in your absentee ballot in your district. Maybe you’ve already registered but you’ve changed addresses since last voting cycle and now you need to re-register. How do you overcome all of this confusion? Visit these websites to help you get informed and get started: everyvotecounts2012.org, ourvoiceourvote.org, fairelections.com, and rockthevote.com.Make it funWhen you go to vote in November, invite your friends. Print out a few extra registration forms for your friends to fill out so that you’re all able to cast your ballots together. And when Election Day comes, carpool to the polling place and make a social event out of it. You won’t be bored out of your mind while waiting in line and more young people will be recognized in our democracy. Hooray.Spread the wordTell all of your friends when and where you plan on voting, and invite them to vote in November.If you are involved in student groups or organizations on campus, suggest going to vote together. Share important voting information with your social media networks and inform your friends about the laws and deadlines surrounding voting. Be the person who nags her friends and acquaintances about registering to vote, and share your excitement about participating in our democratic process.— sydhoffe@indiana.edu
(09/25/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has made comments about the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay income tax. He said they are people who are “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” This has really stuck with me. I was not only shocked to learn that a huge portion of our population is not paying their fair share of taxes, but also to learn they are all lazy, taking advantage of the government handouts and living lives of dependency. At least, that is what Romney said.Who exactly falls into this category of moochers who don’t pay income taxes? According to the Tax Policy Center, those who make less than $20,000 annually don’t pay income taxes. Of the non-income tax payers, about two-thirds of those people pay payroll taxes. If you’re a single parent with kids and your income falls below a certain threshold, you don’t have to pay income taxes. If you’re a student working a job and you don’t make more than $20,000 a year, you don’t have to pay income taxes. If you’re elderly and work part time and you don’t make more than $20,000 a year, you don’t have to pay income taxes. Does that make the elderly, the working poor and students dependent on government? Do all of these people believe the government has a responsibility to care for them from the cradle to the grave?Romney said yes. I don’t think that just because you don’t make a certain amount of money in a given year, you can’t take care of yourself. It doesn’t mean that you are dependent on government to solve every one of your life’s problems. It certainly doesn’t mean you are playing the victim and feel entitled to benefits and government handouts.In fact, Romney’s own father was on welfare during his early years in the United States. Romney’s mother, Lenore, described her husband’s situation, saying “he was a refugee from Mexico. He was on relief — welfare relief — for the first years of his life. But this great country gave him opportunities.”As a recipient of welfare benefits as a poor citizen, Romney’s father was not dependent. He was not a moocher who felt entitled to government benefits. George Romney worked hard and took advantage of the government assistance to create opportunities for himself and his family. He went on to become the Michigan governor and an extremely successful person.Perhaps Romney should learn more about his own family’s relationship with poverty before he passes judgment on 47 percent of Americans who find themselves in a difficult situation. — sydhoffe@indiana.edu
(09/11/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m sure I’m not the only one coming down from the high of two consecutive weeks of political conventions. It hasn’t been easy, but I’m learning to cope with the lack of balloon drops and crazy red, white and blue pins. Let’s take a look back at these past two weeks and reminisce, shall we?The Republican National Convention, which took place two weeks ago in Tampa, Fla., featured big-name Republican politicians such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Sen. Rick Santorum; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.There was constant talk of how hard their parents or grandparents worked as immigrants in coal mines to achieve the American Dream. With an overarching theme of “We Built It,” referring to a misquote from President Barack Obama, the RNC focused heavily on the ideas of personal responsibility, entrepreneurship and small government. Republicans also made a point to ask people if they are better off today than they were four years ago, obviously expecting an answer of “no.”Overall, the convention went quite smoothly until Clint Eastwood came out as the surprise guest speaker and went on to chat with a chair that apparently held an invisible version of Obama. It was an odd and uncomfortable 15 minutes.Then, the Democratic National Convention took place last week in Charlotte, N.C. North Carolina was an interesting location for the DNC because it is a right-to-work state, extremely hostile to labor rights and has the lowest percentage of unionized workers in the country at 2.9 percent. Traditionally, organized labor has been one of the Democratic Party’s biggest fundraisers, so the choice of North Carolina to be the convention’s host state was a slap in the face for them.Notable speeches at the DNC came from first lady Michelle Obama, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, U.S. Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, former President Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The DNC’s themes focused on personal responsibility and hard work, community building and ensuring every American has an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream. Barack Obama argued that we are better off today than we were four years ago. He also said with more time in office, he will continue to make us better off and move us “Forward,” the slogan of Obama’s 2012 campaign, rather than the “change” of 2008.These past two weeks have been every political junkie’s dream. I’ll be honest that I’m going to miss every single teleprompted minute of it dearly. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, though: only 22 days until the first presidential debate.— sydhoffe@indiana.edu