No one expects the modern media
Our professors at IU certainly have to balance being on the job with their personal lives.
45 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Our professors at IU certainly have to balance being on the job with their personal lives.
It was 2011, and there was a tide of revolution across the Arab world.
Michael Brown’s tragic death certainly does not speak well of my hometown. But beyond all of the fuss, I believe that protesters may end up hurting their cause when rage and frustration take precedence against understanding and empathy.
The downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is tragic, but even more so when compounded by the death of Karlijn Keijzer, a graduate student at IU who was aboard the ill-fated plane.
Today’s market is flexible, fluid and free. We expect consumers to vote with their wallets when ?deciding which products are worth their time.
Friday marks the 238th birthday of the nation that we know as the United States of America.
We are now seven months into the lifespans of the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4 and more than 18 months into the Wii U’s release.
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It does not take much to look at the fraying situation in Iraq, the cesspool that is the Syrian Civil War and Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian puppet show and conclude that it is just too much. It seems to be the time to cut our losses and “avoid recommit(ting) to the same mistakes” of the past, in the words of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.It would be foolish of me to disagree. Public opinion is clearly in Sen. Paul’s favor, while President Obama searches for a way to appear resolute without actually committing military resources.On the part of the President, these token gestures just make him look hesitant. Of course, in the delicate world of international diplomacy, one cannot so easily and simply state intentions as in the Senate. But because of policy flip-flops from the administration and half-hearted answers to pleas for help from potential allies, we’ve caused struggling nations to look to our geopolitical rivals for aid.America’s failure to help push Bashar Al-Assad past the breaking point has sent Syrian rebels scurrying to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar for arms and ammunition and has energized Islamic extremism within that movement. The ever-deteriorating situation in Iraq has driven Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki to ask Iran for assistance.Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko still fights to regain control of his country after tanks appeared in the hands of pro-Russian militants.Are these days the final ones for the supposed warmongers and blubbering idiots like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.? Is it time for neoconservatives to shut up and finally become deader than disco? I would contend not.The nature of politics is cyclical, and Americans’ attitudes towards the world around us shift constantly.We were steadfastly isolationist in the 1930s to become interventionist during the Cold War, only to move away in the 1990s to reenter in the 2000s.Some figures in the Obama Administration have this view, chief among them Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power who argues for intervention on humanitarian grounds.Unless we are content to plug our ears, shout “la la la” at the top of our lungs and coldly watch the Balkanization of the Middle East, the United States will continue to be involved, either militarily or geopolitically. The world is continuing to work out its conflicts and disagreements, sometimes through force and sometimes by negotiation. Is it too much to hope that the U.S. can play a positive role in world affairs as the sole global superpower? I do not believe so at all.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Bowe Bergdahl exchange continues to fester amid a storm of controversy for the Administration on a number of points. Two of the objections to the exchange were mentioned by my colleague Sydney Raftery in her column June 9. The first was a violation of the United States’ longstanding policy to not negotiate with terrorists.The second objection noted President Obama ignoring regulation stating that Congress must be notified 30 days prior to any transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. The third objection was mysteriously ignored, which was the issue of who the Bergdahl Five are and what they would do once their one-year parole was up.Raftery offers a dismissal of the first two objections on the grounds that the President is empowered to do what he wishes under the broad guise of Commander in Chief. “What’s the point of electing someone to lead us if he can’t make decisions on his own when necessary?” Raftery asks. This argument runs into a major problem: checks and balances designed by the Constitution. The check on the President’s powers primarily comes from the two-thirds super majority of Congress needed to approve a declaration of war. Though some of my Libertarian friends think that this should still be the case, the fast pace of modern war no longer allows for votes. But the fact the Constitution delegated Congress the power of declaring war is a point that the President’s war powers are not unlimited. Congress has limited the President’s power numerous times, as with the Neutrality Acts before World War II. “These ‘rules,’” Raftery writes, “basically fly out the window when it comes to war.” The logic falls apart when it comes to uncomfortable extensions of Executive power such as the Japanese internment or the USA PATRIOT Act, which were asked by the Executive from Congress. The Supreme Court even ruled the Japanese internment constitutional under Korematsu v. U.S. The argument that Raftery forgets is perhaps the most dangerous one. The Bergdahl Five include some of the most dangerous men in Guantanamo Bay from when the Taliban ran Afghanistan. It is a safe bet we will see them at the other end of a Predator camera soon enough. If what Raftery says is indeed true, then why did President Obama dive for political cover by punting the question of whether to strike Syria to Congress even after his Secretary of State made the rounds on the morning talk shows saying that it was necessary? If this is the case, then Raftery’s reasoning is more representative of the Reagan view of unilateral foreign policy, rather than the supposedly more inclusive Obama Doctrine.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today marks the beginning of one of the most exciting times to be a gamer. The Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles, otherwise known as E3, starts today. It’s the industry’s largest showcase for the major gaming companies, which reveal upcoming games for the Christmas season and beyond.Microsoft Corp. will lead off the conference.Though the launch of the Xbox One was by no means a failure, it still lags behind the PlayStation 4, despite a price cut in some areas and the bundling of what was supposed to be its killer app, “Titanfall.”The new head of Xbox, Phil Spencer, has announced his intention to rebrand the Xbox One as a gaming console by removing the Kinect Sensor and selling the console itself at $399. Emphasis will be placed on the AAA exclusives, such as “Quantum Break,” “Forza Horizon 2” and, of course, “Halo 5: Guardians.” Electronic Arts will go next.Word from the Twitterverse is that EA will show off six new games. One of these, “Battlefield: Hardline,” is already confirmed. We can also expect emphasis on its cash cow franchises, “Madden 15” and “FIFA 15.”The other potential jackpots from EA could be “Star Wars: Battlefront,” which is being developed by Battlefield developer DICE, or BioWare’s latest entry in the “Dragon Age” franchise.Ubisoft’s conferences have always been interesting. Aisha Tyler will emcee the ceremony, as Yves Guillmont and his heavy French accent will once again lead the charge for the French-Canadian developer. Games confirmed for this year include yet another “Assassin’s Creed”, “Far Cry 4” and “Tom Clancy’s The Division.” Ubisoft has usually ended its conference with a Steve Jobs-style “one more thing,” which has always excited the press and the gaming community.Sony will anchor the conference as it, like Microsoft, will try to prove that its console is the one to buy this Christmas. Unlike Microsoft, Sony has been keeping its cards closer to its chest. As a result, Sony’s games are a bit harder to predict.We do know for certain that “The Last of Us: Remastered,” “DriveClub,” “The Order: 1886” and third-party titles “Assasssin’s Creed: Unity” and “Destiny” will almost certainly be displayed in some form. But we can only guess what we’ll see for the rest of the conference.Nintendo will have another Nintendo Direct the day after the conference, where rumors say we will finally get a glimpse at a new “Super Smash Bros,” as well as a much anticipated “Legend of Zelda” title for the Wii U. Bethesda will likely appear at either Microsoft or Sony’s conference in some capacity, but an announcement of “Fallout 4” is unlikely. Finally, Rockstar has not traditionally appeared at E3, but it could make a surprise appearance.Get ready for some great games.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In the world of geopolitics, seemingly innocent news can have great consequences.Take the Arab Spring, which began when a Tunisian vendor immolated himself after he was told he would lose his livelihood.Or consider the seemingly innocuous miscommunication between East German authorities that culminated in the reunification of Germany in 1989.But one event that foreshadows something rather troubling is the recent deal between Russia and the People’s Republic of China for a $400 billion pipeline between the Caucasus Mountains and Vladivostok, Russia, which will ensure a steady supply of liquefied natural gas into Asia.The agreement also includes Russian LNG flowing into China for 30 years.Despite his passive-aggressive antics in Ukraine, Russian president Vladimir Putin has been busy securing a future market for his petrodollars, which could even further jeopardize Western efforts to maintain security in a volatile region.With the environmental concerns of coal burning quite apparent in China, and with a massive nuclear backlash thanks to the Fukushima-Daiichi meltdown in Japan, East Asian demand for natural gas is high because it burns much cleaner than coal, and it is cheaper than nuclear energy.Add to this the sad reality that American LNG is more expensive to transport by tanker across an ocean, and the current ban on exporting the gas means Japan might soon have to take the Russian option.Though I am loath to spell out doom-and-gloom scenarios, we must not forget what has happened to Germany in regard to the latest instability in Ukraine.About 36 percent of Germany’s natural gas comes from Russia. This leaves German Prime Minister Angela Merkel in a bind because confronting Putin could result in further desperate searching for ore energy.The country is steadily transitioning away from nuclear power.The frustrating reality is that nearly any tool can be used as a geopolitical bludgeon.The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries once tried this tactic on the United States in 1973 after we supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War.The embargo stopped once the cartel began to disagree.But when there is only one chef in the kitchen, Putin will simply export his gas to whomever is willing to pay, despite international condemnation and no one to tell him to stop.What the U.S. should do is learn from Putin’s example and seek to employ, as President Barack Obama has stated, “an all-of-the-above approach.”To counter Mr. Putin’s LNG brute-force diplomacy, the U.S. can begin exporting its own LNG to Europe and Asia.Of course, it may not be as efficient as the Gazprom pipelines, but it does give Europe a breather from the threat of Putin controlling the gas valves.Additionally, more impactful sanctions, such as the ones applied to South Africa and enforced quite heartily during the Carter Administration, will have more of an effect than slaps on the wrist to government officials who frankly could not care less if some of their bank accounts in the U.S. are frozen while others in Switzerland are perfectly valid.It has been months since the Russian maskirovka takeover of Crimea, yet Putin is emboldened by the half-hearted Western response.A Chinese pipeline connects Russia’s east and west, and this little story is emblematic of Putin’s geopolitical velvet glove.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every time we fill up at the gas station in the United States, we’re met with a seemingly innocuous notice.A message informs us that the gasoline we are paying for is not really pure gasoline.“Contains up to 10% ethanol,” the sticker reads.The result of this rather frustrating yet well-intentioned policy, turbocharged by Congressional subsidies, has been bad. It has negatively affected both the consumers and the environment.Initially promoted as a way to rid America of reliance on Middle Eastern petroleum, ethanol was promoted as a home-grown solution for American energy independence.Supporters often cite Brazil’s use of sugarcane for ethanol as a positive example of how ethanol can revolutionize the economy.Sadly, this seemingly noble goal has not only been subverted, but it has been turned into an albatross around the necks of Americans as well.The difference in American and Brazilian production of ethanol is important. The ethanol yield of sugarcane far exceeds that of corn. This, in conjunction with ethanol subsidies and production quotas, has resulted in inflated corn prices during the past 10 years. Though inflation and a sagging economy might be to blame, the price of corn in particular has risen to astronomical levels. Corn on the cob is a summer classic. But corn is particularly vital to many other foodstuffs, such as meat, where it is used as feed.So rising prices in corn contribute to rising overall food prices.To make matters worse, ethanol is no white knight here to save us from the evils of gasoline. Consumer Reports conducted a series of tests with a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, which is a flex-fuel vehicle. It used both standard gasoline and an 85 percent-ethanol, 15 percent-gasoline blend. The results were fairly stark. Though smog-forming nitrogen oxides were reduced compared to the normal blend of gasoline, E85 resulted in regular losses of six to nine miles per gallon.As a result, the price for removing smog emissions is filling up on gasoline more frequently.To add insult to injury, this loss in efficiency makes E85 more costly than purchasing regular gasoline.What’s funny about the whole situation is that the government encourages it through both subsidies and regulation.Car manufacturers get to count vehicles that run on ethanol at 1.67 times their actual fuel economy toward their Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. This is a crutch some brands are relying on in the wake of recent increases of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Furthermore, ethanol blenders receive $0.51 per gallon in tax credits to encourage corn farmers to have more of their crop converted into ethanol rather than for consumption.This leads to rising overall food prices as described above.The people who really benefit from these policies aren’t Americans strapped for cash or concerned with the environment.They’re the farm lobby and corn growers. As a citizen of Missouri, a corn-growing state like Indiana, I sympathize with farmers who defied the doom-and-gloomers who once said we would hit peak food a long time ago. But these policies reverberate across the entire American economy, and I fear for the worse.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The inexorable march of technology has always been on the minds of our creative artists through the generations.Therefore, I will address the concerns of the majority opinion using concepts from a movie, a video game and a book.The movie “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is a superhero film masquerading as a political thriller.The allusions the film makes to our current geopolitical situation are clear.Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Nick Fury, justifies launching a trio of computer-controlled Helicarriers with enough firepower to level a city to Steve Rogers as necessary.“We’re going to neutralize a lot of threats before they even happen,” he says.Rogers responds with, “I thought the punishment usually came after the crime.” This is one of the major criticisms of the CIA’s drone program, where the United States goes to ridiculous lengths to prosecute supposed threats before they materialize. But when enemy combatants resort to tactics not covered by the Geneva Convention, we must make do with what we have.This is not preemption. The drone campaign in Pakistan and Yemen is made specifically to root out terrorism and take down Al Qaeda with the President’s enemies list carefully vetted. These are not random trigger-happy video game players who have control of these drones and are given carte blanche to blow up blocks indiscriminately.Speaking of which, a video game mentality is the majority’s primary concern with the use of drones.The concern is that viewing the carnage and horrors of war through a screen is somehow different from viewing the carnage and horrors of war through eyes.However, nothing could be further from the truth. It is fallacious to assume that acts of war committed from a secret base in Nevada or Colorado are somehow more detached than deployment to Afghanistan. On the surface, this would appear to be the case, but the truth of the matter is that “playing” this most dangerous game is just as involved.As much press as drones get for causing collateral damage, their primary use is for surveillance and reconnaissance rather than raining down rockets. Thus, drone operators see the suspected terrorists quite a lot as they go about their daily lives.In our quest to minimize civilian casualties, drones are a least–worse option that must be carefully weighed against more traditional military action. Mark Bowden’s “Black Hawk Down” provides a perfect example of a snatch-and-grab operation in Mogadishu, Somalia, gone horribly wrong.Drones are much safer and reduce the chances of embarrassing incidents where American troops or operators are caught in a dangerous situation. Furthermore, the tragedy of civilian casualties is greatly reduced with drones, which is especially useful when the realities of modern warfare require precision weaponry. In fact, arms manufactures have jumped to deliver munitions that hit softer, but much more precisely, as a consequence of the prevalence of drones and their efficacy.Though they might seem like Orwellian sentinels ready to strike at the whim of eggheads in Langley, drones are actually not the menaces they seem to be.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As we approach yet another Electronic Entertainment Expo, colloquially known in the gaming circles as E3, now might be a good time to take stock of current trends in video games.One of the most disturbing and irritating is the newfound prevalence of microtransactions.A microtransaction is simply a small payment.In the context of gaming, it refers to a small sum of money that is paid in order to unlock additional content or, in some cases, make it easier to win.Some believe microtransactions are perfectly OK, others believe they should be cautiously used, and some believe they are not acceptable under any circumstances.Some of the most visible examples of this practice can be found on games such as “Candy Crush Saga” and “Clash of Clans,” where players can pay money in order to speed up timers or give extra lives that allow them to keep playing. However, such games are widely given a pass, as they are free to play.The rage starts when $60 games are included with microtransactions on the basis that users should not have to pay money to use content they already bought.Alternatively, when microtransactions enable progress faster than usual, such as in “Forza 5” or “Gran Turismo 6,” the result is a product that seems to suck more money out of customers.Even more infuriating are games seemingly designed around such tactics.Tactics such as progression at a snail’s pace without paying extra money, mechanics and gameplay “features” shoehorned to facilitate users coughing up more money, and, perhaps most offensively, “downloadable” content locked on the disc that users already paid for.In context, this is very much a first-world problem.The political instability in Ukraine, a battered global economy counterintuitively crawling out of recession, and the ephemeral poltergeist of climate change are all threatening to immolate us.But video game players are still consumers, and they do not generally enjoy being asked to pay for things that used to be free or being asked to pay more than once for certain content. In short, while the microtransaction still exists as a temptation for game developers — already hamstrung between declining sales and persistently increasing costs for making the big-budget video games we crave — it might not pay off in the long run.But in conjunction with a litany of other practices, such as season passes and timed exclusive deals that seem anti-consumer at best and greedy at worst, some have said it is only a matter of time before the whole structure collapses on itself.Game developers and publishers, like every other enterprise, must make a profit in order to survive.With the incredible growth during the past few years, the video game industry shall continue to remain strong for the foreseeable future.Still, there is always the concern that overzealous profiting, currently led by the microtransaction, could frustrate rather than innovate the industry.And that is not a situation gamers want to see.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Wednesday, Sam Ostrowski’s column made the fairly damning charge of institutionalized racism in one of IU’s most prestigious departments. Ostrowski would do well to examine the history and the heritage of the art form of which he claims to have thoroughly unmasked a seedy, racist underbelly.Ironically, his own ethnocentrism blinds him to the reality of opera and classical music in general. The reality is that opera is a product of its culture and its time. This is no different than any other musical tradition or any sort of artistic tradition. Irish fiddling was primarily developed by white people, for white people.But instead of being racist, it is considered preserving heritage to perform Irish fiddling. The same could be said of traditional Asian and African music, which some argue is expressly developed to preserve the rich lore and traditions of specific ethnic groups. In a different context, it could sound like drivel from the Traditionalist Youth Network. Art cannot be solely interpreted in Ostrowski’s own terms, as it results in drawing links where none exist. To think of opera as anything but an evolution of folk tradition is to ironically embrace the idea that Western art transcends the traditions of other cultures and periods.In that respect, Ostrowski’s English major suffers from the same shortcomings as classical music. Most literary works studied by English majors are written by, in his own words, “dead white men.” The written masterworks of the past suffer from the same tropes that were prevalent in music, among them Orientalism, sexism and nationalism. Though a work such as Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” is arguably racist, it’s still one of the most widely taught pieces of literature. And Giuseppe Verdi’s “Aida,” rooted in Orientalism, is one of the most widely performed operas in the world. The final straw in Ostrowski’s poorly reasoned article is his assertion of a vast racist conspiracy, where the works of Rossini, Verdi and Wagner systematically oppress others through ticket sales and all-white casts. Apparently not understanding how economics and arts programming work, Ostrowski said he believes political and racial concerns cannot be divorced from the actual content of art itself. Though the images of Richard Wagner’s music being synonymous with Nazi Germany might never fade, when we hear “Parsifal,” many can appreciate the work for what it is — a story of brotherhood, heroism, redemption and renewal with sublime music — rather than what it supposedly represents. The Jacobs School of Music is proud to be a diverse institution and selects its singers based on talent. Just like in Hollywood, Jacobs casts on ability, not appearance.Though I might not be as dispassionate as Ostrowski about classical music, having studied it for 16-and-a-half years, I firmly believe opera is not the racist institution that he perceives. It is an expressive art form that stands alongside the more supposedly politically correct disciplines.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Wednesday, Sam Ostrowski’s column made the fairly damning charge of institutionalized racism in one of IU’s most prestigious departments. Ostrowski would do well to examine the history and the heritage of the art form of which he claims to have thoroughly unmasked a seedy, racist underbelly.Ironically, his own ethnocentrism blinds him to the reality of opera and classical music in general. The reality is that opera is a product of its culture and its time. This is no different than any other musical tradition or any sort of artistic tradition. Irish fiddling was primarily developed by white people, for white people.But instead of being racist, it is considered preserving heritage to perform Irish fiddling. The same could be said of traditional Asian and African music, which some argue is expressly developed to preserve the rich lore and traditions of specific ethnic groups. In a different context, it could sound like drivel from the Traditionalist Youth Network. Art cannot be solely interpreted in Ostrowski’s own terms, as it results in drawing links where none exist. To think of opera as anything but an evolution of folk tradition is to ironically embrace the idea that Western art transcends the traditions of other cultures and periods.In that respect, Ostrowski’s English major suffers from the same shortcomings as classical music. Most literary works studied by English majors are written by, in his own words, “dead white men.” The written masterworks of the past suffer from the same tropes that were prevalent in music, among them Orientalism, sexism and nationalism. Though a work such as Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” is arguably racist, it’s still one of the most widely taught pieces of literature. And Giuseppe Verdi’s “Aida,” rooted in Orientalism, is one of the most widely performed operas in the world. The final straw in Ostrowski’s poorly reasoned article is his assertion of a vast racist conspiracy, where the works of Rossini, Verdi and Wagner systematically oppress others through ticket sales and all-white casts. Apparently not understanding how economics and arts programming work, Ostrowski said he believes political and racial concerns cannot be divorced from the actual content of art itself. Though the images of Richard Wagner’s music being synonymous with Nazi Germany might never fade, when we hear “Parsifal,” many can appreciate the work for what it is — a story of brotherhood, heroism, redemption and renewal with sublime music — rather than what it supposedly represents. The Jacobs School of Music is proud to be a diverse institution and selects its singers based on talent. Just like in Hollywood, Jacobs casts on ability, not appearance.Though I might not be as dispassionate as Ostrowski about classical music, having studied it for 16-and-a-half years, I firmly believe opera is not the racist institution that he perceives. It is an expressive art form that stands alongside the more supposedly politically correct disciplines.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week I wrote about the National Rifle Association’s right to exist. Today, I defend guns, which are not the Antichrist so many claim them to be.What is lost in the public furor about mass gun violence is the realization that guns are not the only sources of violence. In past years, knife incidents have also commanded public attention. The deaths and injuries that have resulted are no less of a factor. But the disproportionate amount of national controversy regarding school stabbings versus school shootings cannot be ignored. For understandable reasons, guns have been at the center of this controversy. As the specter of the military-industrial complex continues to captivate the public imagination, the unrelenting evolution of the firearm might lend credence to the idea that they are increasingly dangerous and no longer fit for public distribution. But for all the advances in weapons technology and adaptations toward it, we must remember one thing — guns are just tools.The critics of groups like the NRA often misconstrue arguments against them into the counterintuitive statement that the solution to gun violence is more guns. This is oversimplification at its finest. The less politically expedient but more nuanced position is a gun is still inherently a tool used for two purposes. The first is for defense against attack, of course, but the second is inherently for deterrence. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, but continues to beat out perennial favorites like Detroit and St. Louis for aggregate murder capital of the country. Though the regretful reality of gun crime in these major metropolitan areas is that it is a commonplace occurrence, many more muggings, hold-ups and assaults could be prevented by having those who abide by the law have the means to defend themselves. One historical example is the Colfax Massacre, during which a hundred black people were defenseless against a gun-toting mob of white people angry at the result of state legislature elections. And to make the issue worse, the Supreme Court upheld the arms restrictions by pro-white state legislatures as constitutional in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Cruikshank.In a supposedly post-Cold War world, the concept of mutually assured destruction now seems little more than a thought exercise. But the problems that well-intentioned politicians intend to solve through gun control may have long-term consequences. When law-abiding citizens of this nation are prevented from obtaining weapons for self-defense, criminals and thugs will continue to acquire arms to allow their insidious enterprises to flourish. The argument that guns should be regulated because they are nothing more than instruments solely made for killing runs face-first into an inherent logical flaw. Two-handed swords like claymores or zweihanders are made with the express intent of killing, yet there is not nearly as much controversy over the possession or distribution of these implements.Ultimately, the American people will speak to the efficacy of gun restrictions through their efforts both in grassroots campaigns, online petitions and voting patterns. Before we slip into the mindset that firearm ownership is simply the providence of irrational and paranoid conspiracy theorists, we must recognize our own history and current condition to guide our views today.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With the National Rifle Association’s convention coming to Indianapolis next Friday, I believe it would be in the best interest of this publication for me to preemptively air my thoughts on the matter.As the inventors of gunpowder, the Chinese were the first to figure out that a projectile propelled by the explosion could do serious harm to one’s enemies. Though the first guns that made their way to Western Europe lacked many of the accoutrements of today’s modern assault rifles, it was only a matter of time before they became indispensable weapons of war. To the European colonists in America, a musket was essential to living.The prevalence of civilian militias during the Revolutionary War further cemented the idea that guns were part of a citizen’s rights. George Washington’s Continental Army could not be everywhere at once, and a large deal of the colonial forces were indeed militia members called upon at a minute’s notice to fight against the British. This was the principle of self-defense that continues to inform judicial opinions to this day.After the war, the Founding Fathers believed so strongly in the right to self-defense it was included in the Bill of Rights. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the Second Amendment to the Constitution states.This eventuality is provided for in the case United States v. Miller, where Justice McReynolds cited state statues dating from the early days of the United States requiring able-bodied male citizens to procure weapons and ammunition for the explicit purpose of self-defense.This principle of self-defense still carries today, and is indeed one of the primary arguments toward looser gun regulations. The recent court case Heller v. District of Columbia is proof that the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., violates this principle. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued in the majority opinion. “(Washington D.C.’s) handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute.” This hinges on the fact that handguns are still among the most popular weapons registered in the U.S. Illinois’ introduction of a “concealed carry” law last year is evidence of this growing trend among states.Before we immediately turn our noses up at the goings-on in Indianapolis in a weeks’ time, I ask the students of this campus to remember there are legitimate reasons for the NRA’s actions despite its current unpopularity. Ad hominem attacks against the organization do nothing to change its stance or force it to shut down.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Though it may not look like it, the recent Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v. FEC has done the First Amendment a good service by striking down unconstitutional barriers against free speech.As with all legal cases, a decent understanding of the facts is necessary for understanding the jurisprudence behind the case. Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, sought to donate money to various Republican candidates: 28 to be precise. He did so by donating a combined $33,088 to 16 Republican candidates, though in doing so, he was prevented from donating to 12 more because of the Federal Election Commission’s biannual aggregate limit.In other words, McCutcheon could not pay more money during that election cycle. McCutcheon filed suit, arguing that the biannual aggregate limit was unconstitutional as it abridged his right of free speech. Naturally, coming off of the heels of the intensely bitter debate from Citizens United v. FEC, there was great dismay when the Court struck down the biannual limit as unconstitutional.The Court’s basis for doing so was the basic premise that spending money towards one goal is indeed a form of speech. “To require one person to contribute at lower levels because he wants to support more candidates or causes is to penalize that individual for ‘robustly exercis(ing)’ his First Amendment rights,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote citing Davis v. Federal Election Commission. So, to limit contributing to candidates is unconstitutional. Roberts did leave the individual campaign contribution limits alone, saying that the government’s compelling interest was avoiding the appearance of corruption.As a result, someone can give money to as many campaigns as he or she desires, as long as it does not result in quid-pro-quo corruption or the appearance of such.Naturally, Roberts’ logic runs counter to the views of many people in these pages. But I cannot fault Chief Justice Roberts’ logic here. All that this case has done was to remove the top cap on how many campaigns a person could contribute to.To those who would say that this is blatantly corrupt, I would argue that the precedent set by Buckley v. Valeo, which allows for personally funded presidential campaigns, could lead to the exact same “corruption” that many will bemoan in light of the Roberts’ Court steps to lift restrictions on citizens exercising their rights to spend their money to support their causes.Lifting individual caps on donations will result in much more temptation for officeholders to shut out the interests of their constituents in favor of big donors who could pretty much fund entire campaigns themselves, which would be contrary to the intent of the First Amendment, crowding out free speech elsewhere.But that does not mean that politics and money will never mix without the Court’s decision. In fact, by relaxing these restrictions, this could allow citizens to give money to candidates as they see fit, without resorting to PACs or any other organizations.And I believe this certainly makes for a less toxic landscape.mjsu@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There is a picture in the Indiana Memorial Union hanging across from the East Lounge. It depicts Alma Mater, a character representing of the University, spiriting away knowledge from Ignorance, portrayed as a dragon. While this admittedly fanciful artwork might not result in us going out to literally try to slay ignorance as pictured, there are many pundits in the mainstream media who see themselves doing just that. You might have seen them, read their literature, or heard their opinions. They believe themselves the last defense against the ever-expanding tide of the unenlightened, standing stalwart and unyielding against the great unwashed. The true guardians of knowledge and sanity against the likes of the great enemy. Or so they believe.Though adopting such a secretive and proud mind-set may work wonders for group cohesion, it comes at a great cost. Debate and rhetoric immediately shuts down when one side heralds its message with the bombast of a victory parade and an air of smug superiority. This is not to discount the importance of standing on principle, as history has proven once-lunatics right on many an occasion. Before the development of the transistor, no one would have thought that a computer could be miniaturized to a device that could fit into a pocket. Our smartphones say otherwise. Our days as a oil-producing nation were seemingly finished until hydraulic fracturing unlocked billions of cubic feet of natural gas, making it a viable bridge fuel towards long-term energy solutions like nuclear fusion, high-efficiency solar panels and hydrogen-powered cars. Having the courage to buck conventional wisdom should always be commended, but to live in an ivory tower cannot be similarly lauded.To take a stand on an issue is to invite attack and ridicule, but to be unable to defend why we say what we say with solid principles and logical arguments invites an even worse reaction — apathy. Shouting from our soapboxes is not the way to convince others of the merits of our positions, but it is undeniably satisfying when we can single out others to be cast into the fires of our own righteous vitriol. There’s not much to do when the accusations and the mud-flinging reaches a near fever pitch, when partisans rattle off insults and condemnation and stain those who question with cries of heresy. But highly spirited discourse can be productive and provoke insights as it allows for conversations that promote tolerance and understanding. When emotions and condescension get in the way, we may drive people away from the topics that we love and into the apathetic camp, which does nothing to promote diversity of thought here on campus.We as columnists are not completely innocent of this failing, either. But before activists declare who is beyond redemption and begin preaching to the choir, they should ask if they seek to advance their cause or to pride themselves on being an idyllic order.mjsu@indiana.edu