Armed but dangerous
A recent episode of CNN’s new program titled “The CNN Guns Project” profiles a small school district in Harrold, Texas that has recently begun arming teachers in anticipation of another catastrophic school shooting.
60 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
A recent episode of CNN’s new program titled “The CNN Guns Project” profiles a small school district in Harrold, Texas that has recently begun arming teachers in anticipation of another catastrophic school shooting.
In this country, women are left at a distinct professional disadvantage because they can become pregnant and give birth.
President Obama announced Saturday the United States will contribute $3 billion to an effort to fight climate change.
Last Tuesday’s election was a disappointment.
This year, some frightening things were circulating the Internet.
Ordinarily, I look out into the world for inspiration: local, national and international current events, controversies and culture compel me to start a conversation among students and citizens in Bloomington that encourages us to see ourselves in the context of the larger global picture.
For the past several weeks, Pope Francis and many international bishops have been engaged in a synod regarding the handling of family matters by the Catholic church.
HuffPost Women blogger Carol Bysiek published an open letter to the NFL on Thursday.
Since Pope Francis’ innaguration in March 2013 , the Holy Father has unflinchingly addressed controversial topics that have historically been indisputable within the Catholic Church.
Yes means yes.
Instances of violence against women have dominated the news media since Ray Rice’s horrible crimes came to light.
With the start of a new school year, a new set of preconceived notions and their accompanying judgments of one of the many facets of my life as a student have begun to rear their ugly heads.
Feminism is a dirty word.
In the past few years, it has become fashionable for a business to declare its stance on gay marriage and create a media storm surrounding the revelation.
Two more innocent citizens joined the ranks of victims of American gun violence Monday.
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Spoiler alert: Republicans are still trying to dictate the choices women make about their bodies in all the least-productive ways. On Tuesday, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) signed into law a bill that authorizes the arrest and incarceration of women who use drugs while pregnant, despite strong opposition and encouragement to veto from reproductive and civil rights advocates.When the law goes into effect July 1 of this year, it will allow a woman to be prosecuted for assault, a misdemeanor, if she takes a narcotic while pregnant and the child is born harmed or addicted or perishes as a result. These women can avoid criminal charges, however, if they complete a treatment program offered by the state.This bill, flawed in countless ways, is primarily counterproductive: it will directly harm the unborn children it seeks to protect. Rather than discouraging women to use narcotics while pregnant, it will discourage those already addicted from seeking prenatal care for fear of prosecution. The state of Tennessee is ranked ninth in the nation for instances of teen pregnancy, and a study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found more than half of the teenaged women admitted for prenatal care had reported drug use within the last month. Instead of incarcerating moms-to-be when they seek medical support and heedlessly exacerbating the issue — the law makes no mention of treatment being offered while prosecuted women are behind bars — Tennessee should be directing those funds to making a host of resources more readily available, including comprehensive information on the consequences of drug use on oneself and one’s developing fetus. This new law does not in any way assist low-income mothers — another high-risk group for drug use — who might be unable to take time away from their jobs or families or both to seek treatment. Only two of Tennessee’s 177 addiction treatment facilities provide prenatal care and allow mothers to bring older children with them to appointments. There’s also a distinctly racist tint to the bill’s condemnation of narcotics, which was pointed out by the Drug Policy Alliance: “The bill unfairly targets poor women and women of color by singling out street drugs in lieu of more common drugs, like alcohol or prescription pills.” Based on the bill’s unequal condemnation of substances and demographics alike and the total absence of any semblance of framework to actually help women who are pregnant and addicted, it’s clear that little dedicated thought or research contributed to its authorship. Also clearly evident is Haslam’s intent to enact characteristically “conservative” legislation that will superficially please constituents but which epically fails to assist — in fact, actively antagonizes — struggling women in his state. It’s no wonder this law is the first of its kind in the nation. It is ill-informed, uneven in its targets, counterproductive and racist. Based on the vocal, passionate opposition, it is my sincere hope that Haslam will develop a true sensitivity to the needs of expecting mothers in his state and repeal the law immediately. sbkissel@indiana.edu@QueSarahSarah_
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The month of April has been designated Sexual Assault Awareness Month in the United States since it was proclaimed by President Obama in 2009. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s website describes the goal of SAAM as “to raise public awareness about sexual violence and to educate communities and individuals on how to prevent sexual violence.” RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and America’s largest anti-sexual violence organization, reports that 237,868 sexual assaults occur annually in the U.S., which translates to a rape about every two minutes. Only 40 percent of sexual assaults are reported to police, and a whopping 97 percent of rapists will never spend a day in jail. With that kind of national landscape, I was enraged but not surprised to hear of two criminally negligent sexual assault sentences that were handed down this week. The first was in connection with the 2012 Steubenville case. CNN reported Matt Belardine, a volunteer coach at Steubenville High School, was sentenced to 10 days in jail Tuesday after being found guilty of two misdemeanors: serving alcohol to minors and making a false statement. Those charges typically carry six-month sentences each, but after almost two years, I suppose we should be grateful that he is being held responsible at all. Belardine was the only adult present at the party at which two of his players raped a severely intoxicated 16-year-old girl. He’s also the first adult to be charged with anything in connection to her assault. Even more infuriating that the paltry 240 hours he’ll spend in jail is the statement Belardine made alongside his sentencing: “It’s very unfortunate the events that transpired that night, you know, with the girl and everything.” Yeah. With the girl and everything. We know. The Steubenville case has become an icon of the horrifically maligned priorities in innumerable American communities where sports and crime are concerned. In addition to the sexual assault, multiple adults — coaches, school administrators — lied to authorities about the situation to protect the school’s football program. Belardine was an accomplice in a hideous crime and should spend more than the length of a Disney Cruise behind bars. Outrageously, a similar theme has been echoed in Montana. Stacey Rambold, a former high school teacher who served one month for raping a 14-year-old girl, was released last Thursday. The judge is now the target of national outrage for handing down such a lenient sentence to a crime with a mandatory minimum sentence of two to 10 years. In the last 20 years, 4.2 million Americans have been victims of sexual assault. However, the rate is falling. According to RAINN, had the 1993 rate held steady, that number would be 9.7 million. Awareness, education and empowerment have spared 5.5 million Americans in the last two decades. Observe what’s left of Sexual Assault Awareness Month by remaining diligently cognizant of high-risk situations and the presence of consent. A little awareness and responsibility can go a long way toward eliminating the silent epidemic of sexual violence in America.sbkissel@indiana.edu@QueSarahSarah_
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I couldn’t oppose guns more vehemently if I tried. Civilians should not carry weapons designed to kill people. Period. The second amendment explicitly limits that right to a well-organized militia, which we have: the United States military. Far too many innocent lives have been lost at gunpoint to justify an assault rifle hobby anymore.With that in mind, it grieves me to oppose New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $50 million donation meant to deter the National Rifle Association’s efforts to minimize gun control, but I do.It’s the same predicament that has sparked national debates for decades on campaign finance and donation caps for corporations: is it constitutional to regulate the amount of money a single person or corporation can donate to a candidate?Those waters are murky. It’s easy to feel as though our nation’s laws are being written by the rich, rather than the people. There are those who assert that Bloomberg’s actions are justifiable because the $50 million is drawn from his personal fortune.But the sheer quantity of the donation and the enormous amount of anti-gun labor it will enable cannot be ignored. The money will fund a grassroots operation that includes two activism groups, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Bloomberg hopes to tap into the middle-aged, family-friendly constituency by emphasizing the danger guns pose to children.Obviously, activist groups are part of what makes America strong. Organizing passionate citizens around a cause that’s relevant to them and enacting change is certainly free speech. Enormous monetary donations, however, are a different story. CNN reports that “influencing those in charge of writing gun policy will be the ultimate goal of the organizations,” which means that essentially Bloomberg’s vast wealth allots him more influence — easily translated into votes — than the average citizen.Therein lies the injustice. Bloomberg is also seeking 501(c)(4) status for his organizations, which, if achieved, would allow them to raise unlimited amounts of money to influence voters and motivate them to vote in November. I despise the ways in which gun violence has torn our country apart, especially in recent decades. I believe the true tragedy lies in the preventable nature of these crimes. I vehemently oppose the NRA and would be more than willing to join a political action committee to stop them. But well-intentioned though it may be, Bloomberg’s massive donation and grassroots fundraising efforts are so large, they misrepresent the American people. We cannot support unlimited campaign donations solely when we side with those receiving the money. I feel compelled to denounce Bloomberg’s $50 million because I feel uneasy that one wealthy citizen has the financial power to shape legislation despite the popular opinion. Until the rest of America gets on board with gun control, we will simply have to count on background checks a little longer. sbkissel@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience,” opens a memo posted by the online dating website. “Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.” Promoting itself as the “best free dating site on Earth,” OkCupid has chosen to raise awareness among users about the allegiances of Mozilla’s new CEO and provide them with different options when accessing the site, including Google Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer. The OkCupid memo cites Eich’s $1,000 contribution to support California’s Proposition 8 as the basis for their boycott, according to CNN. “Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure,” it reads. Naturally, I couldn’t agree with OkCupid’s directors more. I, too, consider myself the enemy of anyone who seeks to deny love and enforce all those terrible things they mention. What complicates OkCupid’s rationale is that Eich is more on their side than they realize. Shortly after his promotion, Brendan Eich blogged an apology to all whom he may have “caused pain.” He promised to shape Mozilla as an inclusive, supportive environment. He also actively encourages public vigilance.“I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability,” he said. “I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. I fully expect you all to do so.” Contradictory though it may be, in this age of heated social activism, it is apparently possible for someone to support inclusivity and professional equality without affirming — for personal, religious or a myriad other reasons — the right of same-sex couples to legally marry. It’s a frustratingly popular double-standard — one I cannot wait to see laid to rest — but we have to work around it to enact lasting change. I’m thrilled that the professional community has gotten involved in this social debate so adamantly. The equality battles are being fought in shopping aisles and drive-thrus as well as courtrooms and picket lines. I take issue not with OkCupid’s initiative in posting the memo, and especially not with the content of the memo, but with the solution proposed. We don’t want Eich to resign — we need people like him. Based on the extensively regretful and cooperative nature of his blog post, his promotion and influence are actually a step forward, not backward. I’m willing to wager there are many CEOs who haven’t contributed financially to anti-marriage equality campaigns but harbor far more destructively discriminatory workplace policies. Rather than boycott Firefox, let’s ask that Eich revoke his support of Proposition 8 or make a donation to the Human Rights Campaign. Either of the above would be more productive ways to move the equality campaign forward than removing Eich from his position. Eventually, I’m convinced, love will win. sbkissel@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As Gloria Steinem’s 80th birthday passed Tuesday, a multitude of columnists sought to take America’s temperature on gender equality and comment on the progress we have or have not made since Steinem first became active in the women’s liberation movement in the early 1960s. Among them was Peggy Drexler, assistant professor of psychology at Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University and author of “Raising Boys Without Men.”CNN published a piece of hers expressing frustration that Loyola Law School in Los Angeles recently issued a memo to students articulating very specific dos and don’ts for female fashion in the courtroom, including low-cut tops and stiletto heels. “Your reputation in the legal community starts now!” the memo reads. “The legal community is small in L.A. and judges, lawyers who have unprofessional experiences with externs talk freely amongst themselves about the experiences. It can be embarrassing.” Drexler expresses annoyance that the memo was directed exclusively at women, arguing the memo implies “there’s a relationship between how women look and how well they do their jobs, and that it’s OK to judge a woman on her appearance.” In the spirit of true gender equality, let’s back this up for a moment.It is not remotely unreasonable or unprecedented for professional organizations to require that their employees dress professionally. A standard for courtroom wear — or any workplace wear, for that matter — is not uncommon, and in fact is in everyone’s best interest. If employees are all held to the same expectations, it fosters equality both in policy and in perception.I, personally, would be much more offended if my female colleagues were dressing skimpily at work and the issue went unaddressed. It would imply that my supervisors either enjoyed the view or simply didn’t care, two prospects that would undermine the equality effort far more than a wear-this-not-that PowerPoint. What gives this all an admittedly Mad Men-esque flavor is the absence of guidelines for male attire in the presentation, but I’m still on the boss’s side. It’s pretty difficult for a guy to appear unprofessional or sexually provocative at work without ditching the suit for some tight briefs and a bowtie. Men’s fashion doesn’t possess the same capacity for variety. A suit is a suit, it covers everything and there’s not much room for error when it comes to silhouette or skin exposure. Later in her column, Dexler illustrates the opposite consequence of her complaint that professional women are being judged by their appearances. In addition to the perception that fashionable women are professionally weaker than their male counterparts, she cites research by Daniel Hamermesh that reveals attractive women get paid more. Admittedly, we have a prevalent double-standard about dress in the workplace, but Loyola’s memo is not to blame. A reminder that women must be cognizant of their unprofessional or provocative attire is in our best interest as a nation. It means that efforts are being made to level the playing field in yet another way. In honor of Steinem’s birthday, let’s respect each other enough to look polished at work and wait to fight the real gender battles until we see them. sbkissel@indiana.edu