28 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/24/11 10:29pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I am a proud conservative who believes in the principles of limited government and individual freedom. But there are times when I have to reconcile with members of my own ideology and political party on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage.In the Indiana General Assembly, the legislature is currently considering whether to allow Hoosier voters to decide on whether marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman in our state constitution. My first problem with this proposed amendment is that marriage is already defined as between one man and one woman in state statute. The proponents of the amendment say it would somehow add a layer of protection to “traditional marriage.” In my own thinking, it is just one of the few reasons that certain members of my party use to defend their positions. I would even consider the current state law unconstitutional because of my own interpretation of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana State Constitution. It simply states “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” How you decide to interpret Section 23 is up to you. But it seems that by singling out individuals based on who can marry is worthy of another serious debate in the legislature with Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution in mind.Why our state legislators want to send a civil right to the ballot makes no sense to me. It is a salient issue that will hopefully become a non-issue in the near future. Proponents of the amendment will argue that public opinion is in support of the issue. State Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, was a sponsor of the amendment and said “30 states where voters have approved the bans, the average vote in favor was 68 percent.” But a recent poll in Indiana released March 23 shows that 47 percent, or a “plurality of Hoosiers,” opposed the amendment versus the 44 percent who support it. To better understand the debate, I think it is important to examine the “generational gap” of support on this issue. This is exemplified in a CNN poll from 2009 that showed 58 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 believe same-sex marriage should be legal versus the 42 percent of Americans between the ages of 35 and 49 who support legalization. I respect the deeply held religious convictions of many who support the amendment because I share them. But I also am mindful that my religious convictions should not dictate the way other people decide to lead their lives. I am politely reminded of history in times like these when great debates surrounding civil liberties occur. Thomas Jefferson warned our leaders to take heed on issues like these when they did come up. He said “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”— cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(03/08/11 2:45am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Following their counterparts in Wisconsin, Democratic Leader Pat Bauer and virtually all members of his caucus in the Indiana House of Representatives have been on a hiatus in Urbana, Ill., for nearly two weeks. The House Democrats fled the state in protest of the Republican majority’s agenda, which includes education and labor reforms. In a sort of quid-pro-quo fashion, the Democrats sent the Republicans a list of demands, including several bills they wanted dropped before they would agree to return, including many of the proposed education reforms by Gov. Mitch Daniels. House Speaker Brian Bosma has showed no signs of giving in, and I hope that he continues to hold strong. While I respect the Democrats’ list of demands, quite frankly it goes too far.The catalyst that upset the Democrats the most was the right-to-work legislation that was proposed. While Daniels has not highlighted this as a top priority, House Republicans saw this as a huge move that would make Indiana’s business climate more competitive. I have to agree.My friends on the Left frame RTW as an attack on unions or the rights of labor to organize. But in truth, it does neither.One of the largest proponents of the RTW legislation in the state is the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. It describes the legislation succinctly: RTW “aims to forbid the compulsory payment requirement of union dues (or union membership itself) as a condition of employment ... (and) clearly would protect the individual liberties of workers who do not wish to associate with labor unions.” My hopes are still high that House Republicans can push forward with their education reform agenda. The governor’s education agenda is modeled after reforms made by former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush. President Barack Obama commended Bush on Saturday, calling him a “champion of education reform.” Bush faced much of the same criticism from Democrats that Daniels seems to be facing from our Indiana House Democrats.Whatever their issue with the governor’s proposed education reform is, the fact remains that Indiana’s schools are consistently failing across the board. I happen to agree with Albert Einstein that the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If the Democrats do not return to work they will be fined $250 per day for each absent member starting March 7. This was a move by Republicans to get Democrats out of their hotel rooms in Urbana and back to the table where the voters expect them to be. We can sabre rattle all that we want about what needs to be dropped, but the fact remains clear: Indiana House Democrats need to get back to work. In the words of House Speaker Bosma, the boycott has reached “the point of absurdity.” E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(03/03/11 9:41pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With a buzz phrase like “government debt” floating around the airwaves, we are all aware of the political pressures on both sides to close the federal budget deficit. Some tough questions on how to close that budget gap will have to be addressed in the coming months, and no politician wants to be the one who says no.Now, after long spending binges from both parties, our leaders in Washington, D.C. find themselves at the crossroads of deciding what is necessary and what is not. An issue that is politically popular at the moment is cutting foreign aid. In a Rasmussen poll released just last week, 58 percent of Americans believe foreign aid to the Middle East should come to an end. However, there was one exception. In the same poll, 51 percent of Americans favored continued U.S. support for military assistance to Israel. And this is for a good reason. First, let’s define exactly what foreign aid to Israel means. According to a Bloomberg article that Congressman Steve Rothman, D-N.J., wrote last April, Israel receives “military aid only ... (and) there is no economic aid ... other than loan guarantees that continue to be rapid in full and on time.” In the same article, Rothman states the argument against American military aid to Israel “is not only erroneous, (but) hurts the national security interests of this country and threatens the survival of Israel.” Secondly, the arguments for continued American military aid are quite clear and backed up by fact. To put it in perspective, the total U.S. foreign aid budget of $58.5 billion accounts for roughly 1 percent of the overall federal budget for this fiscal year. Three billion of that goes to security assistance for Israel as part of a 10-year agreement that was signed in 2007. And President Obama has shown no sign of giving up his support of the security of the Jewish state. On March 1, the president told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that he “will continue to support the annual U.S. aid to Israel” and that it remains a top priority “in light of the major budget cuts battle underway between Democrats and Republicans.” While this budget battle continues to be waged in Washington, I find it alarming that people within my own political party are leading the charge to cut the aid. Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been quite clear about his position that “all aid to foreign countries should be eliminated.” Quite frankly, U.S. aid to Israel is a very small part of the overall federal budget and yields dividends that far exceed the initial investment. In numerous publications, the irrefutable fact is that 75 percent of the military aid is used by the Israeli government to purchase American military equipment. The purchase of American military equipment equals support for the U.S. defense industry, and it seems quite clear that anyone who argues for the elimination of this aid also wants to eliminate those American jobs.Whatever lens through which we look at military aid to Israel, the underlying premise of cutting our closest Middle Eastern ally short is quite disturbing. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee makes good arguments in their memos on continued American support for Israel. One of their arguments seems quite apparent in that “spending a little more than one penny of every federal dollar on preventing wars and the spread of terrorism, disease and poverty is a wise investment.” Alternatively, support for Israel is truly equated to preserving peace in the Middle East. Another AIPA memo states that U.S. support for Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur War has helped deter conflict. History does not lie, and there has not been one major outbreak of a multinational war involving Israel since. Whatever the case, it seems evident that the writing is on the wall. If we are going to pull our support from Israel, we better be ready to stand up and fight a much more costly battle in the very near future. E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(02/17/11 11:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Feb. 8, our IU Student Association Student Body Congress passed a resolution affirming support for Israel, one of America’s closest friends and allies. While debate on the resolution was heated, the resolution was overwhelmingly approved with a 26-5 vote. After that important vote, IU became the second university in the country to send a strong message to our nation’s leaders that the U.S.-Israel relationship is an important issue to students. Your student leaders recognize that strong American support for Israel means a lasting peace can be achieved in the Middle East. The close relationship between the United States and Israel is exemplified by the overwhelming popular support of the American public that, according to a Gallup poll, stands at 63 percent. This helps us understand that much of the American public recognizes both the cultural and strategic relationship the state of Israel offers. I hope to cast a little light on why continued American support for this country is vital.Continued American support for Israel is crucial in many ways for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated his support for a two-state solution which would allow for independent Jewish and Palestinian states. While the two-state solution sounds good on paper, the negotiations need to take place in direct dialogue between Israel and Palestine and not through some unilateral institution like the United Nations. The problem with having a unilateral institution like the U.N. broker the negotiations is that it would undermine the true aspirations of peace. This was evident in 1988 when the U.N. passed a resolution declaring support for a Palestinian state. Against U.S. and Israeli opposition, the resolution hurt any trust or progress that had been achieved in developing a lasting peace. The United States’ support for the peace process through bilateral negotiations has not changed. In an Oct. 20 speech last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion ... (and) that is the only path that will lead to the fulfillment of the Palestinian national aspirations and the necessary outcome of two states for two peoples.” According to a memo released by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Nov. 15, bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine are the only way to lasting peace. The memo states that “while there are significant gaps between the parties on fundamental issues, rejecting negotiations and threatening alternative approaches will guarantee failure.” The memo also points out that unilateral negotiations fail to address the issues “at the heart of the dispute,” which includes addressing “borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements and water.” According to the same memo, Prime Minister Netanyahu has already made serious proposals to restart negotiations. He has recently “implemented a 10-month moratorium on housing starts in the West Bank and taken dramatic action to improve the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians.” Support from the United States can come in many ways, including consistent policy positions as well as foreign aid. President Obama indicated his support for a memorandum that will provide $30 billion in U.S. foreign aid for 10 years that will help Israel maintain its military edge in a volatile part of the world. Seventy-five percent of this aid is spent by Israel in the United States to support areas like the American defense industry. Addressing the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a heated debate in any circle. In American politics, it is truly the one bipartisan issue most Democrats and Republicans can agree on. This is witnessed in the passing of the IUSA resolution last week as both the College Democrats and College Republicans signed on as sponsors. Whatever the final peace solution, the United States of America must stand strong in its solidarity with Israel and support bilateral negotiations to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(02/09/11 12:21am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The economic downturn has plagued the United States and the world. With jobs shed and savings nearly eradicated, the social safety nets of many countries have been put to the test.One of the staples of our social safety net is the access to food stamps. And in the past few years, the number of people who have been forced onto food stamps has dramatically increased. In short, the number has increased by nearly 14 percent in the last year and will probably start to flatten as the economic recovery takes hold. With the estimated 43 million people who benefit from this program, it is something that most politicians do not want to touch or even talk about. But in the grand scheme of things, as we emerge from this recession and start to address the serious budget problems of the U.S. federal government, no line in the budget should be off limits. Former Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., stated just last week that “food stamps should be on the table along with farm subsidies” to address the fiscal budget crisis. Addressing food stamp structural reform is sort of two-fold. On one side, we have the fiscal argument that the food stamp program costs simply too much. On the other, an argument that the food stamp program only affords some the ability to purchase cheaper, unhealthier foods.I will express agreement with both sides to some extent. I agree with the fiscal side of the argument in that no line item should be off the table in regards to addressing the fiscal problems of the U.S. federal government. And on the other, I will agree that the program does affect the ability of people to access certain foods.It is going to be a hard balance to strike and one that will be a hot political issue. The one reform proposal that I would favor comes from a reaction to something that I personally experienced. When I worked as a cashier in high school at Walmart, a few of those who use food stamps could exchange the food stamps for cash. They were then free to use that cash in whatever way they pleased, including the purchase of cigarettes. I am not sure what curve the regulators are currently considering, but this is just a recommendation that I would make if offered to present an argument. Whatever the policy remedy is, I hope it is one that better delivers on the affordability and accountability we expect as taxpayers. E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(02/08/11 2:58am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The recent uprising in Egypt has dominated headlines the past few weeks, and as the landscape continually changes in the Middle East, our leaders in Washington are trying to figure out what to do.I think a pretty clear margin of support demands that Hosni Mubarak leave. But the big question now is: What does this mean for the United States?Embattled Egyptian president Mubarak has long been a regional ally of the United States and willing to cooperate with things like the Middle East peace process with Israel. The main concern now is what sort of political vacuum this will leave for Egypt with Mubarak’s legitimacy all but nonexistent. Since 1981 when Mubarak took office, his relationship with the U.S. has been unique. For example, in an interview just a little less than two years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her personal friendship with the Egyptian president. She said, “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.” In an interview with Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama reaffirmed his strong stance on the issue. The president admitted that “the United States can’t absolutely dictate” what happens, but “what we can do is that we can say the time is now to start making a change in that country.” I have to express complete agreement with the president on this point, but his characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood, a political group that supports Islamic sharia law and has a violent past, concerns me to an extent. He stated in the same interview that the Muslim Brotherhood is just “one faction” but admitted there were “strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S.” I agree with this, but he then frames the crisis as a movement of a majority of Egyptian people who are young moderate Egyptians who just want democracy. I personally think the administration needs to urge extreme caution in the very near future regarding this matter. This same thinking was what led to the overthrow of the Iranian Shah in 1979 and to the rise of an anti-American regime in Tehran. The Iranian Revolution started out as a youth movement, but then a radical faction that did not necessarily have popular support was able to seize power. I understand it is difficult and probably not the most popular comparison to make, but a lot of parallels exist in both cases. The uncertainty surrounding the Egyptian uprising creates international speculation. I am not usually this cynical, but there needs to be some serious consideration of the next move by the administration.I do hope that I am wrong and the president is right in that a safe, peaceful transition of power takes place between Egypt’s next leaders and Mubarak. E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(02/03/11 11:48pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Many of the policies at IU that govern our free speech rights as students are prohibitive. You may not agree with what I am about to say, but chances are you may not even know the free speech policies that IU has because I didn’t. When we enter as freshmen at IU, we are required to sign the Code of Students Rights and Responsibilities (referred to herein as simply “the Code”).I am not being presumptuous here, but let’s be real — how many of us actually read it cover-to-cover? We may thumb through it for a few minutes, toss it in a drawer and then never see it again. I would hedge my bets that there is only a one in 10 chance of us ever reading it again because we’re curious or we violated one of the policies in it and were caught. Only then do we realize there is a problem with the Code itself. The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, also known as FIRE, recently published a memo on the issue of the University’s policies regarding free speech. The memo points out a lot of the vagueness and contradictions of University policy in accordance with the case law that has developed through the years regarding free speech at public universities. First, let us define free speech. According to the Supreme Court’s definition in 1949 in Terminiello v. Chicago, “speech is often provocative and challenging ... (and) may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling affects.” IU’s definition of speech is a little different. It contains the vague term of using “civility” in regard to treating others with our speech. In another decision specifically regarding a public university, a judge deemed that “the word ‘civil’ is broad and elastic — and its reach is unpredictable” with respect to free speech. My problem with the free speech policies in the Code, as pointed out by FIRE in the Memorandum, is not that IU is encouraging us to act with “civility” to one another but that it is requiring us. The Supreme Court addressed speech specifically on public university campuses in the 1973 case Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri. In this case, the Court stated that “the mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’” Another major issue I take with the University’s policies on free speech is the areas designated as free-speech zones. Currently as students we are only allowed to organize protests and express freely in two areas of campus: Dunn Meadow and the Sample Gates. Even more disheartening is the fact that the only place we can “spontaneously” assemble and express our opinions is Dunn Meadow, and we even have to register with IU to do so. This is in direct contradiction with case law that was established by a federal judge back in 2004 in Roberts v. Haragan. The judge held with respect to a free speech zone on a public university that “to the extent the campus has park areas, sidewalks, streets or other similar common areas, these areas are public forums, at least for the university’s students, irrespective of whether the university has so designated them or not.” We can agree that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater poses “a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil,” as in the Court’s test in Terminiello v. Chicago.But if the University has policies similar to ones that have been deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land, then they need to be changed. In my own opinion, the French Enlightenment thinker Voltaire had it right a few hundred years ago. He said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu
(02/03/11 11:39pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Many of the policies at IU that govern our free speech rights as students are prohibitive. You may not agree with what I am about to say, but chances are you may not even know the free speech policies that IU has because I didn’t. When we enter as freshmen at IU, we are required to sign the Code of Students Rights and Responsibilities (referred to herein as simply “the Code”).I am not being presumptuous here, but let’s be real — how many of us actually read it cover-to-cover? We may thumb through it for a few minutes, toss it in a drawer and then never see it again. I would hedge my bets that there is only a one in 10 chance of us ever reading it again because we’re curious or we violated one of the policies in it and were caught. Only then do we realize there is a problem with the Code itself. The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, also known as FIRE, recently published a memo on the issue of the University’s policies regarding free speech. The memo points out a lot of the vagueness and contradictions of University policy in accordance with the case law that has developed through the years regarding free speech at public universities. First, let us define free speech. According to the Supreme Court’s definition in 1949 in Terminiello v. Chicago, “speech is often provocative and challenging ... (and) may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling affects.” IU’s definition of speech is a little different. It contains the vague term of using “civility” in regard to treating others with our speech. In another decision specifically regarding a public university, a judge deemed that “the word ‘civil’ is broad and elastic — and its reach is unpredictable” with respect to free speech. My problem with the free speech policies in the Code, as pointed out by FIRE in the Memorandum, is not that IU is encouraging us to act with “civility” to one another but that it is requiring us. The Supreme Court addressed speech specifically on public university campuses in the 1973 case Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri. In this case, the Court stated that “the mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’” Another major issue I take with the University’s policies on free speech is the areas designated as free-speech zones. Currently as students we are only allowed to organize protests and express freely in two areas of campus: Dunn Meadow and the Sample Gates. Even more disheartening is the fact that the only place we can “spontaneously” assemble and express our opinions is Dunn Meadow, and we even have to register with IU to do so. This is in direct contradiction with case law that was established by a federal judge back in 2004 in Roberts v. Haragan. The judge held with respect to a free speech zone on a public university that “to the extent the campus has park areas, sidewalks, streets or other similar common areas, these areas are public forums, at least for the university’s students, irrespective of whether the university has so designated them or not.” We can agree that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater poses “a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil,” as in the Court’s test in Terminiello v. Chicago.But if the University has policies similar to ones that have been deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land, then they need to be changed. In my own opinion, the French Enlightenment thinker Voltaire had it right a few hundred years ago. He said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”E-mail: cjcaudil@indiana.edu