1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/16/07 5:50pm)
A University of Minnesota professor has proposed a draft of all "adults ages 18 to 65, excluding parents of young children" and "a two-year mandatory public-service requirement for 18-year-olds in an organization such as the Peace Corps" (Minnesota Daily, Feb. 6).\nIn the Jan. 23 Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune, Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs associate professor Barbara Crosby wrote that a universal draft would ease military families' burden, and told the Minnesota Daily that it would make U.S. citizens "more likely to question the validity of armed intervention." According to her Star Tribune column, older draftees "could work on nation-building endeavors, such as microfinance projects or educational programs."\nLikewise, the 18-year-olds in mandatory public service "might do much to improve conditions that spawn hopelessness (and prime the terrorist recruitment pipeline) in the poorest parts of the world today." Her Humphrey Institute colleague, Dennis Donovan, praised this latter idea, saying that "It changes a culture of 'me first.'"\nPerhaps -- but either plan replaces this "culture of 'me first'" with a culture of "do our bidding or we'll throw you in jail."\nWe're all for helping the less fortunate, and we feel for military families bearing the brunt of our conflicts abroad, but what's more repressive than forcing 180 million Americans (62.5 percent of the population) to carry out government projects? Even mandatory service for 18-year-olds would take fundamental freedoms away from about 7 million U.S. citizens, violating the 13th Amendment's prohibition against slavery and "involuntary servitude." Nothing short of an existential threat to the nation -- and, hence, all our freedoms -- could justify such a profound violation of human rights. \nAnd this is not to mention that our entire military is based around volunteer service, with Pentagon officials and most military experts saying that a draft would be wasteful, even harmful to our armed forces. (Here's a novel idea: How about attracting recruits by raising salaries and benefits?)\nThis is less about concern for military families or good works, than the authoritarian whimsy of those who want to control your life "for your own good."\nDissent: Draft would benefit society\nIf we as a public have become so uninterested in maintaining democratic principles that America is in need of a political ploy like reinstating the draft, perhaps a serious re-evaluation is in order.\nIf our nation has reached this theoretical apathetic state, the personal threat a draft creates not only forces policymakers into thorough deliberation; it forces currently unconcerned Americans to seriously consider their roles in society.\nA draft demands support. Support through involvement in the democratic process or support signifying that current policy is an accurate representation and preparation to fight for said policies.\nConsider the underlying political implications. Whether the public reacts with vigor or fury, it is public expression that has allowed our country to sculpt a system of liberties that allows us to claim we are above forced service to that system. It's simple: People will protect what they value whether it's their lives or our political system.\n--Rachel Fullmer
(02/15/07 5:00am)
In regards to “‘Girls Gone Wild’ event canceled,” Jan. 25 Since when did America join the ranks of oppressive censoring nations such as Cuba, China and the former Soviet Union? I’m not a bright guy so I may be mistaken, but I thought the United States had a constitution, and that it upheld its citizens’ rights to freedom of expression.\nSure, “Girls Gone Wild” isn’t the classiest business in the world, but what they do is legal. If there are protests for everything that isn’t 100 percent moral, we can say goodbye to pretty much everything in the civilized world. If one has a problem with something avoidable, why not avoid it? Would it really have been that onerous for these “protesters” to stay away from Jake’s Nightclub when “GGW” was there? Of course not. Instead they felt it necessary to petition the mayor and owner of Jake’s. Obviously, under duress and fearing negative publicity, the owner of a bar will cancel a controversial show to protect his or her business. So, in essence, these protesters manifested censorship of a legal act. But it’s OK, who cares about white-collar terrorism when there are exigent issues like girls lifting their shirts.\nThe IDS article published two Thursdays ago concerning this matter had valid points; however, it was extremely biased. These “activists” were portrayed to be much more pure than is actually the case. The Facebook group alluded to defames Joe Francis of “GGW” by calling him a rapist, which is completely invalid. Francis has never been convicted of anything except not keeping documented proof of all the girls’ ages (which does not mean the girls were under 18). The article also failed to mention the full name of the Facebook group, which is “Joe Francis is a Rapist: Fuck GGW and Mantra Entertainment.” The creator and members of this group also used derogatory terms about homosexuals and negatively stereotyped “fratboys” as being closet members of that sexual orientation. Apparently freedom of expression is alright when it involves written vulgarities and slurs, but not when it involves other forms of vulgarities; isn’t that hypocrisy?\nI’m not saying “GGW” is a good thing, but if protests are causing breakdowns in our fundamental rights (directly or indirectly), something must be done before we find ourselves on a slippery slope we cannot recover from. After all, this is America, land of the free, is it not?\nKevin Danilo\nJunior
(02/15/07 5:00am)
I skimmed the Jordan River Forum of the Feb. 8 IDS and saw several letters responding to a column on homosexual adoption by Abram Hess (“Fathers and mothers,” Feb. 1), so I made a point to read the column before I read the criticisms more closely. Mr. Hess certainly didn’t mince words, so the torrent of responses was expected.\nFirst, let me congratulate Mr. Hess for having the courage of his convictions. It is not easy to stand up for Biblical sexual morality in the city of Bloomington, and it is less easy to do so on a university campus so dominated by “tolerant” leftists, some of whom do things like vandalize the automobiles of IDS columnists who publish “offensive” commentaries. (This has happened to Mr. Hess, by the way.)\nFour of the letters responding to Mr. Hess were a productive extension of the dialogue, responding directly to the arguments presented in the “Fathers and mothers” column. Jim Johnson and Charles Pearce, however, took the unfortunate step of calling for censorship of views they do not like. Apparently, for Mr. Pearce and Mr. Johnson, the fact that the IU campus is a very welcoming place for homosexuals is not enough; opinions in agreement with centuries-old sacred texts must be banished from the student newspaper.\nAs a private entity, the IDS can choose to publish or not publish whatever it wants. The IDS would do a disservice to the free exchange of ideas and the state of political discourse, however, by refusing to print future columns by Mr. Hess.\nI can predict the knee-jerk response to my letter: Would the IDS print a column advocating white supremacist or Nazi beliefs? This is where the common-sense alarm should go off, but usually doesn’t: Behavior is not the same as skin pigmentation, ethnicity, national origin or other immutable characteristics. At its core, the debate over whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children is a debate over whether people who engage in certain behaviors (sodomy) should be permitted to adopt children.\nAt an institution of higher learning, faculty, staff and students should expect to be confronted with ideas they disagree with or find offensive. Insulating the IDS readership from minority opinions does not contribute to preparing folks for the real world. Ideological diversity is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing.\nScott Tibbs\nAlumnus
(02/15/07 5:00am)
Indiana University is encroaching upon the rights of students, faculty, staff and anyone visiting Big Brother style. That’s right: A campuswide smoking ban is going into effect in October of this year. My guess is that pretty soon we will all be told what to eat!\nWhile perhaps that is a rather drastic conclusion to make, it makes as much sense as banning smoking. Currently IU limits smoking to be at least 30 feet away from any building entrance or ventilation system. I must admit that I have broken this regulation often. I would, however, be in favor of stricter enforcement of this regulation as opposed to a general ban.\nMany people would claim that secondhand smoke is reason enough to ban smoking from campus. While I would agree that smoking inside can create definite health hazards, the smoke created by smoking outside poses hardly any risk to others if it is done within the regulated area and nonsmokers stay away from these areas. I would say that the biggest offender, when it comes to outside respiratory hazards, are fossil-fuel-burning vehicles (big shocker!). So what I propose is a ban on any vehicle on campus that runs on gasoline or other petroleum-derived fuel.\nAlso, if the school’s administration is truly concerned for the health of its students, then all fast-food restaurants on campus should be banned. In addition to this, overweight students should not attend IU. All students should fall within weight boundaries that are considered healthy for their height and body type. In fact, I propose that these guidelines not only be imposed upon the student body, but upon every person at IU. That’s right, members of the board of trustees and the administration: You all had better lose some weight, or you’re all outta here, fatties. And while we’re controlling what people at IU put in to their body, caffeine should be banned from campus, citations issued to those caught consuming it, and random tests conducted to catch caffeinated offenders. It makes about as much sense as banning smoking from campus. So, why not?\nCliff Gagliardo\nSophomore
(02/15/07 5:00am)
Reflecting on one of Brian Stewart’s recent columns (“Vulture politics”, Jan. 30), I must say I am pleasantly surprised to read that he is such a big George Orwell fan. Perhaps he can pull “1984” down from the shelf. Sadly, given Stewart’s blind loyalty toward authoritarians like Bush and Cheney, I suspect that he most likely admired the tactics of Big Brother.\nBut sticking with the essay Stewart has chosen, he quotes Orwell’s assertion that “(These positions) can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face.” So let’s take Stewart’s advice and speak in “honest terms” while we figure out how we got into the mess we are in now (and, more importantly, how we get out). We can freely discuss the British breakup of the Ottoman Empire, or the 1953 U.S.-led coup that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran. There are no more barriers in bringing up the CIA’s support for the Baath Party that produced Saddam Hussein (whom the U.S. eventually armed while he battled East Asia ... I mean Eurasia ... er, Iraq ... no, Iran!).\nStewart contemptuously dismisses Democratic resolution opposing the escalation as he describes that “flippancy and light-mindedness are injected in the place of seriousness”. Let me just say that since Stewart’s neoconservative heroes have been so spectacularly wrong about every aspect of this war, maybe we should give “flippant, light-minded” ideas a chance. Especially since Bush’s father chose not to occupy Iraq for the exact reasons we are bogged down there now.\nStewart laments, “Politics and the English language have remained so degraded since Orwell.” I will ignore many memorable quotes made by George W. Bush in the past six years, although I wish the only thing he tortured was the English language. But recent statements have been made in language that can only be described as Orwellean: “We were welcomed (in Iraq), it just wasn’t a peaceful welcome”. Or “There is no express grant of habeas (corpus) in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.” Or my personal favorite (regarding the failure to capture Bin Laden): “It’s a success that hasn’t occurred yet.”\nBob Piercy\nEmployee IU HRMS Java Team
(02/15/07 5:00am)
I want to thank Edward Delp for his column on homelessness (“War on the homeless” Feb. 8). His issues confront a problem most people want to ignore. I hope he had been able to reach the hearts and minds of many. Many people who are homeless do have jobs, but they do not make enough to pay any rent. No one can predict how their life unfolds, and many homeless, when asked, never dreamed they would be in this condition. Each time I see a homeless person, I remind myself that but for the grace of God that could easily be me.\nDebbie Friend\nMulberry, Ind.
(02/15/07 5:00am)
I want to thank you for the very humorous editorial column from Jonathan Rossing (“That’s ‘soy’ gay!,” Feb. 2). Not only do I agree with Rossing’s opinion about this whole soy nonsense, I think he is one of your more promising writers. This entire year, I have been consistently disappointed with some of your writers, such as Teri Rosenbaum . I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to read some of the rubbish that gets published in the IDS. Rossing has renewed my faith in myself in that I am not becoming a prude and that there are still brilliant writers on your staff. Keep up the good work.\nMandy Yates\nGraduate student
(02/15/07 5:00am)
I am very disappointed in the latest article by Abram Hess, “Fathers and mothers,” (Feb. 1), as it is filled with such hate and cruelty. While I very strongly disagree with the opinion of Mr. Hess that two men should not be able to adopt a child, I find it saddening that he chose to express his opinion with such hateful words.\nI am a firm believer that one can acquire a vast knowledge and education through learning about other’s cultures, religions and sexual orientations, and that learning from others can provide a form of education not available in the classroom environment. I welcome other’s opinions and morals and values, and while I regularly disagree with many editorials published in the Opinion section of the IDS, I enjoy reading the columns and then reflecting on the views of others.\nHowever, what comes across in the column by Mr. Hess is not an opinion, but an article dedicated to the hate he feels toward a group of people. The words he chooses to share his opinion are inappropriate and unclassy. Regardless of what your goal is in this column, or in life, I don’t think you will ever get there if you can’t treat people with the respect you would want you, your family or your friends to receive.\nEmily Barter\nGraduate student
(02/15/07 5:00am)
The Feb. 1 article titled “Fathers and mothers” in the IDS saddens me. While one could refute the article from a theological, scientific or social perspective, I will simply tell a story. My aunt and her life partner (whom I wish I could legally refer to as my aunt) have adopted three children right here in the good old USA. They did not choose easy children either. All three were adopted from inner-city environments, the offspring of parents who faced more hardships in a single week than the author of the previously mentioned article has faced his entire lifetime. One of the children is even autistic.\nNow I ask those who have read that column, which of the following circumstances is better for a young child? A life in a downtown ghetto influenced by drug and gang culture, a childhood with a single parent who didn’t want the child in the first place, or a home with everything essential to a child provided in abundance, especially love? Now, I think any two parents are capable of raising a child that they wanted and they devote their life to caring about. Single parents are also capable. Children will grow and develop with love from their guardians.\nParents who do not want a child to love would obviously choose not to adopt a child. “Two men dedicated to having sex with each other” would obviously not adopt a child. I do not see how one gets by with advocating that heterosexual parents will do a better job than homosexual parents. Many heterosexual parents will divorce, never get married in the first place or simply neglect the child. Homosexual parents who want a child obvious will obviously dedicate themselves (as my aunts have) to the child (rather than a dedication to sex) because of the legal battle and the hatred that they will face as a family.\nAs of now, my aunts’ oldest child is 9 and she is a perfectly normal 9-year-old. I’ll let you know if anything changes, but I wouldn’t suggest holding your breath.\nEli Major\nFreshman
(02/15/07 5:00am)
After reading the article “Restrooms for everybody” (Feb. 8), I felt I had to throw in my two cents.\n“Gender-neutral” bathrooms? Come on. Fine, transsexuals feel they need a place to go (literally ...), where they feel safe from the judging eyes and mouths of people who disagree with their lifestyle, although I fail to see why the restroom of their assumed gender is not sufficient. After all, this is college, not junior high; rarely if ever do people act openly hateful or intolerant. I admit I am not a member of any group that is typically targeted by haters, but I just don’t see it happening on campus. But hey, whatever. If they think that allowing both genders to use the same bathroom is going to somehow reduce the nasty stares they get from those that find them distasteful, then all power to them. I happen to disagree, but the RPS bathroom task force didn’t ask me what I think.\nThe real reason I’m writing this letter is that one quote in the article that was particularly unsettling to me: “Some people ... don’t feel as comfortable with that (male or female) label.” Wow. That statement makes about as much sense as saying, “Don’t call my red car red. It isn’t comfortable with that label.” Some things just are what they are. This isn’t 1955. Nobody told anyone that they have to use a different bathroom because they are black, or gay, or any other racial or social minority. No, some bigot hundreds of years ago decided that maybe, just maybe, people might be more comfortable going to the restroom with other people of their gender. Some things just are the way they are. Biology is indisputable. If you have a penis, you are male; if you have a vagina, you are female. There is nothing to be uncomfortable about, especially now, when gender equality is a social priority.\nThis is akin to those “activists” who found some of the slapstick Super Bowl commercials “violent.” Some things just are not offensive, no matter how they are looked at. Separate water fountains for blacks and whites? Definitely offensive. Prohibiting couples from getting married because they happen to both have the same equipment? Definitely offensive. Asking people to use the bathroom only with members of their gender? Not offensive at all. Grow up, America.\nDave Dawson\nSenior
(02/15/07 5:00am)
After reading the article “Restrooms for everybody” (Feb. 8), I felt I had to throw in my two cents.\n“Gender-neutral” bathrooms? Come on. Fine, transsexuals feel they need a place to go (literally ...), where they feel safe from the judging eyes and mouths of people who disagree with their lifestyle, although I fail to see why the restroom of their assumed gender is not sufficient. After all, this is college, not junior high; rarely if ever do people act openly hateful or intolerant. I admit I am not a member of any group that is typically targeted by haters, but I just don’t see it happening on campus. But hey, whatever. If they think that allowing both genders to use the same bathroom is going to somehow reduce the nasty stares they get from those that find them distasteful, then all power to them. I happen to disagree, but the RPS bathroom task force didn’t ask me what I think.\nThe real reason I’m writing this letter is that one quote in the article that was particularly unsettling to me: “Some people ... don’t feel as comfortable with that (male or female) label.” Wow. That statement makes about as much sense as saying, “Don’t call my red car red. It isn’t comfortable with that label.” Some things just are what they are. This isn’t 1955. Nobody told anyone that they have to use a different bathroom because they are black, or gay, or any other racial or social minority. No, some bigot hundreds of years ago decided that maybe, just maybe, people might be more comfortable going to the restroom with other people of their gender. Some things just are the way they are. Biology is indisputable. If you have a penis, you are male; if you have a vagina, you are female. There is nothing to be uncomfortable about, especially now, when gender equality is a social priority.\nThis is akin to those “activists” who found some of the slapstick Super Bowl commercials “violent.” Some things just are not offensive, no matter how they are looked at. Separate water fountains for blacks and whites? Definitely offensive. Prohibiting couples from getting married because they happen to both have the same equipment? Definitely offensive. Asking people to use the bathroom only with members of their gender? Not offensive at all. Grow up, America.\nDave Dawson\nSenior
(02/15/07 2:52am)
A recent uproar at Central Connecticut State University has sparked nationwide concern to draw a line as to what is acceptable in mainstream journalism. An opinion columnist for the university's student newspaper has, judging by public backlash, shown us an example of what is decidedly not acceptable of this nature.\nWith his article "Rape only hurts if you fight it," John Petroski said he wrote a satirical piece, geared toward awareness of rape being sensationalized in the media.\nIt was received as offensive and taboo enough to hit headline news shortly thereafter, leaving all asking the question: "What was he thinking?"\nWe're opinion columnists, so we understand the impact of satire. And we're college kids, meaning we also understand that some genres of comedy bear a heftier shock value than others. Not unfamiliar to the college scene is shock-comic George Carlin, who similarly traversed the line of appropriateness in a section of his book "Napalm & Silly Putty" that yielded insight on "The humorous side of rape."\nThe integral difference is that Carlin is an audience-selective comedian with his humor notoriously mounted in taboo. If people find it funny, it's there -- and his fan base proves that such senses of humor are alive and kicking. But for the majority of individuals who finds such statements too offensive to be laughed at, there's certainly nothing compelling them to tune in. \nOne problem with Petroski's article is that a university newspaper is hardly catering to a selective audience. It's clear the column was written as satire. But when dealing with a mainstream audience, that unstated "line of appropriateness" apparently deems that certain topics are simply too controversial to even joke about. Rape, if anything, qualifies.\nSecond, to be in the position to exploit taboo humor, it's consistent that those who "get away with it" are in the groups from whom offense might be taken. Dave Chappelle, for example, made "Chapelle's Show" a huge hit based on exploiting racial stereotypes. And as an African-American, Chappelle would be in a much better position to poke fun at what's been an ugly history of racism -- much more so than a white comedian. Carlos Mencia is on a similar track, with dialogue from his show, "Mind of Mencia," pushing the racial envelope in every episode, geared this time toward stereotypes of Hispanics.\nBoth shows retain blatantly racist undertones. But they are much more easily swallowed coming from minorities who have been historically discriminated against.\nBut rape victims? There's certainly not an open community of them, as there is of any given race. There's no communal bonding ground. The point is that, when executed by the right individuals, society has advanced to a point where humor can be found about racism, even on a mainstream level. Rape? There's just nothing there to laugh at. \nMuch can be inferred about society by what's able to be joked about. Even more can be inferred from what's not able to be joked about.
(02/14/07 1:30am)
Certain things are simply symbolic of the American way -- apple pie, cowboys, 4th of July barbecues, square-dancing, Homer Simpson, the death penalty, Monica Lewinsky, rehab… the list goes on. \nImagine the horror we here at the IDS editorial board felt upon hearing the news that RPS has decided to obliterate the presence of another long-standing American cultural tradition from the IU campus. \nYes, folks, as of next year we will no longer have the good fortune to fill our greedy little bellies with the fine cuisine of the one and only McDonald's. At least not on campus with meal points anyway. \nAs of May, the McDonald's in Read will no longer have a contract with the University. As a result, RPS is surveying students about their opinions on various other eateries it's considering as replacements for the good ol' golden arches. \nThe alternatives being considered would accept meal points and maintain approximately the same hours of operation as McDonald's, which currently stays open until 1 a.m. The three options are IUHop -- which would serve breakfast all day, an Italian eatery called Pasta Works, or a Mexican dive called Ole'. \nIUHop is obviously a watered-down version of IHOP, complete with potential copyright infringement and all. But what about the others? Call us ignorant, but, outside of sub-par, overpriced, public-institution food courts and some other obscure eateries, so-called restaurants like Pasta Works and Ole' don't actually exist. \nBesides, Wright food court has Sbarro and Mexican Connection, while Gresham has Antonini's Italian Eatery and Taco John's. Pasta and tacos are nothing new to IU. \nFurther examination of these options eliminates any potential argument that McDonald's is being replaced in favor of a healthier option (interestingly considering the new concern with student health by the IU administration). Nachos, pancakes, nor fettucine alfredo are considered to be particularly healthy. \nWe're all in favor for healthy eating options in the food court. Currently, there exists little balance between burgers, oily Asian food and pizza versus eating cold, brown-on-the-edge lettuce leaves and slimy tofu out of the salad bar. To be honest, none of these are particularly appetizing. The very thought of them make us pity the poor freshman that are held under bureaucratic duress to purchase a minimum of $2,500 worth of meal points, leaving them forced to choose between processed, fried lard puffs with a side of cow grease or veritable rabbit food. \nTherefore, we think that if you're going to end the student body's long running love affair with McDonalds, at least replace it with a recognizable name. If students are going to eat greasy, unhealthy food, at least let them eat something the American public has demonstrated approval of. There's a reason nobody has heard of Pasta Works or Ole'. Arby's, Wendy's, Taco Bell -- anything would be better than no-name pseudo Italian. \nIf we're going to have lipids coursing through our veins, we want them to be brand-name designer lipids. \nWe recommend that RPS tries a new approach, instead of searching for artery-clogging pseudo-restaurants, how about looking for something healthy and recognizable?
(02/08/07 11:40pm)
Outsourcing. It's a word that has the power to make executives foam at the mouth with profit-envy, all the while making angry union organizers tout the necessity of keeping jobs on American soil.\nBut this word, no matter its amazing ability to feed thousands of overseas sweat-shop adolescents, does have a more homegrown and positive correlation. \nBy now you've likely heard about IU's intention to privatize several aspects of the IU Motor Pool operation. At its Feb. 2 meeting, the board of trustees praised the plan that is expected to generate about $3.6 million in freed capital, most of which will (in theory) be used to undertake much needed renovations of Ballantine and Franklin halls. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (the one's that will "pick you up," according to their advertisements) will assume operation of the University's daily rental-car fleet, allowing students 18 years of age to rent cars.\nIf you're aware of this plan, you're probably also aware of the opposition various people and groups voiced throughout the process. Issues of job security and potentially unfair employee treatment certainly (and understandably) fueled this opposition. \nWhile we sympathize with these concerns, our reaction to the plan, which was developed through an inclusive and fair review process, is positive.\nNot only will the University save a significant amount of money, but the fears of overt and unnecessary job loss have seemingly been allayed. Only four employee positions (three full-time) are expected to be affected, all of which will have the immediate (and we believe necessary) option of being reassigned within the University. If this truly is the case, we applaud the plan and its developers for their attention to minimizing the impact on people's livelihood.\nThe process of the plan deserves accolades as well. Along with a private consulting firm, Crowe Chizek, 10 University representatives, from administrators to professors to students, composed an evaluation committee that studied this issue. Undergraduates may have been shut out of the presidential search process, but their inclusion in this process is both noted and appreciated. \nHopefully, this indicates a trend.\nThis does not, however, grant a clean slate to the board of trustees and the rest of the administration to go hog wild in outsourcing. For all the benefits yielded by privatization efforts, there are shortfalls. Should the University become too complacent in its outsourcing agenda, it runs the risk of losing what distinguishes the public sector from the private: true accountability. Scholars and practitioners alike note privatization comes at a cost of losing control and oversight. We ask: How far is the University willing to go to gain money for capital improvements?\nThe next meeting of the board of trustees will bring yet another presentation on outsourcing, this time for the University's bookstore. Other services currently being considered include printing and food services. While there are certainly benefits that will be accrued from the outsourcing of these services, we offer one piece of advice: Proceed with caution. No amount of freed capital can replace the loss an employee's livelihood.
(02/08/07 5:00am)
On Thursday evening (Feb. 1), I participated in IU’s first drag king competition. I attempted to freestyle as my “talent,” but the microphone went out. The show went on, and I lost my voice.\nAfter the event, an opinion column from the day, Abram Hess’s “Fathers and mothers,” was brought to my attention. I reviewed the column and found my voice.\nThere is more than one religion in this world and just as many ways to practice each. I would never claim that I know all about any faith other than my own. Who can claim they understand how God expects children to be raised, or at least who to be raised by?\nI grew up in two homes; one parent to each. Would I have been better off with both parents, even if all I heard were fights? What about in an orphanage, or in foster care? Well, I’ve pretty much raised myself, and I’ve learned so much from inside and outside a home with an unstable foundation.\nIf one is powerful enough to claim a child is better off with no family than with one of a same-sex couple, then how does this make the children any less vulnerable? This could be more stable of an environment than any heterosexual home. If two men or women have the love to bring a child into their home, then that child’s opportunity should not be taken away. And if children were only meant for homes dedicated to a certain religion, then shouldn’t we take kids out of homes that don’t practice this religion, or any religion? That would be absurd!\nIn order to have children of our own, we have to pass tests, show financial stability and be confirmed that we can raise a child. Imagine how sane and safe heterosexual households would be if there were qualifications for conception.\nIf Peyton Manning could shake it better than he can throw, you better believe he wouldn’t be in the starting lineup. These comparisons to life are out of bounds. Life can have upsets and glory and be very entertaining. But this is no show. Take away the microphone; we won’t lose our voice.\nTina Barniak\nSenior
(02/08/07 5:00am)
Jacob Stewart wrote, “The apparent hatred between those of different races, those who hold different sexual preferences and those with varying political viewpoints is quite disturbing” (“The pursuit of happiness,” Feb. 5). How unfortunate that as Opinion editor he and his superiors would choose to publish “opinion columns” that serve no purpose other than to demonstrate and even encourage such hatred. I would hope opinion columns would instead serve to encourage thoughtful, reasoned debate.\nMr. Stewart goes on to “encourage members of the IU community to take a step back and look with an introspective eye at what makes them truly happy.” Here are a few of the things that make me happy: the palpable sense of community at the PRIDE film festival and dance party, a warm embrace from my husband, and seeing the positive effect we have on the children we foster.\nBy contrast, I am not happy to be called a sodomite, to be told that my relationship is a sham, to be told that I am a worse parent than the abusive and neglectful heterosexuals whose children we raise and with the assumption that our motive for parenting these children is a political ploy that takes advantage of them. These were the attacks leveled at my family and I by Abram Hess in his Feb. 1 column, “Fathers and mothers.”\nIf Mr. Stewart finds the hatred disturbing, he should not publish it. Absent the attacks, I would certainly be better able to focus on the things that make me truly happy.\nJim Johnson\nIU Employee
(02/08/07 5:00am)
I am a college student, and I stumbled across a new Facebook group touting that Abram Hess’s column (“Fathers and mothers,” Feb. 1) as “hate speech.” Out of curiosity, I read the column. I am not a student at IU, but I thought I would share my opinion anyway. You definitely made a bold point in the column. You did not kick around any “politically correct” phrases or cliches. The column was well-written, intelligent and gave personal experience testimony. It is my guess that the creators of this Facebook group are themselves homosexual and still ashamed of that fact. Even if they claim they would like to kick you in the balls for your “hate speech,” I commend the fact that you had the balls to stand up for what you believe in. Bravo!\nSusan Miller\nSouth Bend, Ind.
(02/08/07 5:00am)
Abram Hess’ views on the alleged unfitness of gays to adopt and raise children (“Fathers and mothers,” Feb. 1) are spectacularly uninformed and prejudiced. Adoption is a complex subject fraught with difficult decisions, yet for Hess, things are clear. Not only does he assert that every child “needs a father and a mother,” he then claims, “Homosexuals cannot be the parents every child was meant to have,” and goes on to speculate that “the impetus behind homosexual adoption” is to “lend legitimacy to the sham of gay marriages.”\nHow does he know? Has he ever talked to a gay couple with the desire to raise children (say, our vice president’s daughter and her partner)? Hess’ column shows confusion about many issues, and his invocation of God is shameful. But most flagrant is his faulty reasoning that because it takes a male and a female to reproduce, therefore only a man and a woman can be good parents. First off, the ability to have children obviously does not imply the ability to raise them, as countless teenage pregnancies attest each year. Vice versa, the inability to have children does not logically imply an inability to raise children either, as many dedicated single parents show as well.\nIn short, Hess is talking nonsense. Indeed, much more research is needed on child development and parenting by different-sex, single or same-sex parents, but Hess doesn’t bother to address that issue. Nor does he entertain the thought that, just maybe, the ability to show love and responsibility are more important than the biological make-up of a child’s parents. Instead, Hess ends by stating that a child would be better off in an orphanage than “in the hands of two men dedicated to having sex with each other.” Hess here employs the age-old discriminatory strategy of reducing gay men to their sexual activities. As if gay men (or lesbian women) were not humans with a full emotional and intellectual range; as if heterosexuals didn’t like sex just as much. I am afraid many Americans still share Hess’ reactionary views on gays. A scary thought.\nJohn Baesler\nDoctoral candidate
(02/08/07 5:00am)
I applaud Thomas Wachtel (“Talk English; you’re in America,” Feb. 1) for pointing out that many Americans are in a poor position to criticize immigrants for speaking foreign languages when they themselves too often “butcher their native tongue.” Unfortunately, Mr. Wachtel is himself guilty of the very offense he reproves in others when he says that “Fairly simple rules of the English language are constantly flaunted.” He confuses “flaunt” (to ostentatiously display) with “flout” (to intentionally disregard). But even if he had chosen the correct verb (“to flout”), he would still have used the language poorly because most people who break the “simple rules” of English do so in ignorance of the rules, not in a desire to flout or deliberately break them.\nCharles R. Forker\nIU faculty
(02/08/07 5:00am)
I must say I completely agree with Brittany Hite in the importance of the new HPV vaccine. Texas recently became the first state to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for schoolgirls. This move will not only decrease the 3,700 deaths caused by cervical cancer yearly, but it will ensure that lower-income Texans receive the health care necessary to prevent contracting HPV, the most common STD in the world.\nSome who oppose the vaccine say it promotes promiscuity. If the HPV vaccine promotes sexual activity, then what about condoms and birth control? Should we eliminate those also? Others say no parent should be forced to give their 9-year-old in pigtails a vaccine against an STD. But in Texas, parents can opt out of inoculations for religious or philosophical reasons.\nFor whatever reasons that Christian conservatives or parents have for opposing the HPV vaccine, the bottom line is that these “negatives” are less of an issue than the positives. With more than 6 million Americans infected with HPV yearly, a vaccine that is virtually risk-free and also protects against vaginal warts makes a whole lot of sense.\nWelcome to the 21st century. We now have the ability to heal, cure, vaccinate and completely eliminate a disease that kills women. Who would actually deny their own daughter this life-saving gift? Unfortunately, Christian conservatives seem to make medical decisions based on condemnatory personal beliefs rather than fact and science. Religious values should affect FDA approval no more than we should deny that teenagers make unwise decisions when it comes to sex.\nThe HPV vaccine may have a number of opponents, but in the end it’s our best shot in the fight against cervical cancer.\nAmanda Dorman\nStudent