60 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/21/05 4:11am)
In Wednesday's IDS, the political parties vying in this week's IUSA election gave their positions regarding the $30 athletics fee. Some parties, citing the fact that we get nothing in return for the money except (hopefully) $2 million worth of gratitude from the athletics department, suggest T-shirts for compensation. Others, noting that the fee was imposed on IU students without sufficient consultation or due process, are pressing for more "dialogue" next time around.\nT-shirts? Dialogue? \nWith all due respect: Bugger that! We're talking about $2 million here -- possibly more in the future. If this were Vegas, thumbs would break. \nNo, the athletics department OWES us. Not "owes" us -- OWES us. And given that $30 represents 62 percent of my monthly salary (just kidding -- only 48 percent), I want something better than a T-shirt. \nBut I also want to see IU athletics continue to excel in its areas of greatness (for instance, in the rest of the world's football) and improve its areas of not-so-greatness (our country's version). \nThus, here are a few ways the athletics department could either provide services for students or raise new funds, all with little monetary expense:\nCall Rick. Too drunk to drive home? Driveway snowed in? Dog needs shampooing? Just feeling lonely and need to talk? Call Athletics Director Rick Greenspan -- any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- available at a rate of 50 cents a minute. See, when your program is facing a $2 million deficit, and your annual salary is $275,000 (that is, 75 grand more than the president of the United States'), you shouldn't be above a bit of leaf-raking. But there are only so many hours in the day and so much one person can do. Therefore, how about drafting Terry Clapacs and everyone who helmed athletics as it went into the red? And what's Myles Brand's number, while we're at it?\nAthletic Escorts. Nothing sleazy or illegal, mind you -- this isn't the University of Colorado -- but wouldn't it be cool to get your $30 back by going out to dinner with an athlete of your choice? Sure, it's easy to imagine the blokes drooling over taking out a volleyball player -- but ladies, what better way to tell an ex-boyfriend "buzz off" than going clubbing with a defensive lineman? If you want to pick up members of the opposite sex, why not take along a golfer in full kit? You'll look cooler by comparison (one assumes).\nEquip Thyself. Bats, balls, helmets, padding -- in between practices and games, all this stuff just sits there. When it isn't in use, why not allow the rest of us to borrow it, perhaps at an hourly rate charged against the debt? Me, I call dibs on a field hockey stick. I want it handy at the start of next semester for when I have to buy textbooks. Wait in the queue, indeed ...\nNaming Facilities. The Denver Post reported Tuesday that Boston's FleetCenter, home to the Celtics (and supposedly the Bruins -- although everyone knows professional ice hockey's a myth, like unicorns) was offering one-day naming rights to the highest bidder. The rights for Feb. 28 were bought by news/humor Web site www.Fark.com, which was going to call it the "Fark.com Duke Sucks Center" until vetoed by the Center's owners. Thankfully for us, the athletics department is too desperate to veto. To me, this seems like an ideal way for athletics to raise funds without much effort. I can't help but think there are students and alumni willing to pony up cash to rename Assembly Hall the "Davis Sucks Center."\nWe don't have to just hold our noses and accept this fee as-is. Demand something better. \nI want my bloody hockey stick.
(02/16/05 4:34am)
Humanities professors might be more "liberal" than the general public, but we don't need affirmative action for conservative professors. \nAs long as professors don't bully students, they have the right to lead their classes unassailed by political crusades supported by a "bill of rights" that lets students whine if they are taught about ideas they disagree with. If they are bullying students, then that is a performance issue; if they intentionally omit pertinent information in their lectures, then that's a competency issue. The University should hire and fire employees based on merit and ability rather than political persuasion.\nNo department would be immune to this bill, and the University would spend more time trying to be "politically balanced" than seeking the highest scholarship for its students. There are enough administrative tangles at IU and most other universities without adding political opinion exams to the hiring process.\nFurthermore, classes are not captive audiences. Most requisite classes have multiple sections. If students disagree so strongly with a professor's politics that it hinders learning, then they can take the class with another professor. Your college, your major and your classes are choices. \nTo say that students cannot discern fact from opinion and that they will be bamboozled into the beliefs of their professors insults us. On the contrary, lectures that challenge your belief system are an integral part of a well-rounded education. \nCollege professors are not necessarily supposed to reflect the belief system of the general public. University education is not about the lowest common denominator. Rather, it's about rising above cultural stereotypes and learning the intricacies in a chosen field. Professors are supposed to profess opinions about their topic of expertise.\nThe Academic Bill of Rights is a bad idea. Assuming it can be enforced, the bill could allow whoever holds the state legislature to bias university education in their favor.\nNevertheless, its support arises from legitimate concerns about academic diversity and freedom of expression. It exists because there are conservative students who feel questioning lecturers' assertions will subject them to humiliation or reprisal, who believe lecturers are stunting their education by substituting polemics for subject matter and who fear, upon reporting such unprofessional behavior, administrative authorities will prove unsympathetic. \nThese concerns must be investigated as closely as they would for any other campus demographic group. They strike at the University's core purpose. More important than any course's subject matter is the teaching of critical thinking: awareness of contrasting views, the weighing of evidence, the formulation of one's own stance. These are the tools that foster creativity, drive scientific inquiry, promote understanding, challenge dogmas and give rise to new ideas.\nFor faculty and administration, the temptation to reject any criticism will be great -- but this would be a mistake. To steal a phrase from Charlie Nelms, IU's vice president for student development and diversity, this issue represents a teachable moment for faculty, administration and students all.
(02/14/05 4:55am)
Tired of stodgy, old Valentine's Day poems? To better reflect the reality of love in the 21st century, I've modernized a few classics:\n"22" by Emily Dickenson:\nI gave myself to him / And took himself for pay.\nThe solemn contract for a life / Was ratified this way.\nFor his return from work, / I was all-anticipation;\nNot knowing his assistant's skill / In oral-based dic-tation.\nToday the house is mine. / To a condo he is gone.\nNow to get that cute neighbor boy / To come and mow my lawn.\n"Life in a Love" by Robert Browning:\nEscape me? / Never -- / Beloved!\nWhile I am I, and you are you, / So long as the world contains us both,\nMe the loving and you the loth, / While the one eludes, must the other pursue.\nAnd I have the night-vision goggle ...\n"Bright Star, Would I Were Steadfast as Thou Art" by John Keats:\nBright star, would I were steadfast as thou art -- / Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night,\nAnd watching, you gripped my heart, / Like an Australian his jar of Vegemite,\nThe moving waters at their priestlike duty / Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,\nOf gazing on the snow-white booty / Of choirboy bent down to scrub the floors;\nNo -- yet still steadfast, still unchangeable, / Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,\nTo feel for ever its soft fall and swell, / Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,\nListen, listen and death itself shall hold no fear, / For I, lucky sod -- have silicone press'd to my ear.\n"Love's Philosophy" by Percy Bysshe Shelley:\nThe fountains mingle with the river / And the rivers with the ocean;\nWho knew you'd get all a-quiver / To Aerosmith's "Sweet Emotion?"\nNothing in the world is single; / Okay, you've heard that line.\nBabe, it's just, you make me tingle -- / 'Cause mama, you're supa-fine.\nSee the mountains kiss high heaven, / And the waves clasp one another;\nNo-sister flower would be forgiven / If it disdain'd its brother:\nWell, not in West Virginia, anyway.\n"Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer's Day?" by William Shakespeare:\nShall I compare thee to a summer's day? / Thou are more lovely and more temperate.\nRough winds do shake the darling buds of May, / And summer's lease hath all too short a date.\nSometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines, / And oft replace'd by night as dark as coal;\nAnd every fair from fair sometimes declines: / Say honey, have I always had this mole?\n"She Walks in Beauty" by Lord Byron:\n1 / She walks in beauty, like the night / Of cloudless climes and starry skies;\nGod almighty that dress is tight! / Focus, keep contact with her eyes:\nSeems by yon faint disco light / She could crack a walnut with those thighs.\n2 / Now that was impossible to guess, / She's coming towards me, 'tis no joke\nBlonde streaks in every raven tress, / Hark, methinks that she just spoke;\n'Tis a joy I cannot express / What's that darling? -- AHHH! You're a bloke!\n"Marriage Morning" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson:\nLight, so low upon earth, / You send a flash to the sun.\nHere is the golden close of love, / All my wooing is done.\nOh, the woods and the meadows, / Woods where we hid from the wet,\nStiles where we stay'd to be kind, / Meadows in which we met!\nLight, so low in the vale / You brighten as if 'twere day\nFor this is the golden morning of love, / Yet "Baa!" is all you say.\nAhh, what a romantic age we live in ...
(02/07/05 4:50am)
I think I received the following e-mail by mistake. I'm not sure what to make of it.\nTo: The Grand High Council of the Illuminati\nFrom: Agent 237, Washington D.C. Branch\nSubject: Progress Report on Latest Efforts at World Domination\nMost Excellent Illuminated Ones,\nI am pleased to report that our latest undertaking is proceeding well, despite its accidental exposure Jan. 28 by C/Net www.news.com.. \nIn the U.S. Congress, the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has suggested that the government consider imposing a three percent tax on "'all data communications services to end users,' including broadband; dial-up; fiber; cable modems; cellular; and DSL links." Thanks to our congressional operatives' diabolical genius, this tax on the Internet would be an extension of an over 100-year-old "luxury" tax on telephones, originally created to pay for the Spanish American War. Ha! At last, our vengeance for the loss of Guam!\nWhile you Illuminated Ones, of course, are all-knowing, please pardon my humble attempt to summarize the significance of this development. The U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on Internet access for its everyday activity. In fact, according to the 2004 United Nations Human Development Report, the America has the highest proportion of Internet users to population of any country in the world. If passed, this extension will put a tax on all Internet use. That means a tax on a cornerstone of the U.S. economy. That means a tax on a key element of what makes the U.S. economy, according to prestigious business school IMD International, the most productive in the world. \nWell, after Luxembourg -- but, as we all know, they're only first through our intervention. \nThus, we are achieving the initial step in our plan for Gradual Oppression through Advancing Taxes to Stagnate the Economy (GOATSE). \nHowever, a mere three percent tax on Internet use is not enough to bring down the largest national economy in the world. No, we must begin to consider what steps to take next. If I might make a few suggestions:\n1. A tax on all participants in chatroom flamewars. This source of revenue should be exceedingly easy to collect: one need only have agents go from room to room typing in "Bush administration," then sit back and let things take their course.\n2. A tax on all spam recipients REFUSING to have their mortgages refinanced, earn a degree from a prestigious non-accredited university, or have their penises enlarged by at least 50 percent.\n3. A tax on all Internet users not conversing in leetspeak, the dialect of online hacker-wannabes. Besides sewing general confusion, this will ensure the takeover of all Internet commerce by 13-year-old skater-punks and 30-something "Lord of the Rings" fanatics who live in their parents' basements. \nT|-|e n3t s|-|a11 b3 pwn3d!!!\n4. The establishment of unique, tax-free savings accounts. Available only if one transfers all one's material assets into Nigerian banks.\n5. A tax on all businesses WITHOUT Webcams in the bathrooms.\n6. A tax to make all advertising conform to Web page standards. Those who do not perish from epileptic seizures will spend all their time hitting monkeys for the chance to win an iPod.\n7. A tax on anyone refusing to join a LISTSERV that sends out a birthday announcement for each individual in the whole world.\n8. A tax on anyone reading www.idsnews.com (In leetspeak: teh I[)S i$ teh ghey).\nBy the time we have taxed the Internet-dependent American economy into submission, our army of laser-guided cyborg penguins will be amassed at their borders, waiting to strike. And you all know what happens next.\nOh yes, all their base are belong to us!
(01/31/05 4:23am)
Every week, letters roll in for us columnists -- letters of support, letters of criticism, letters that say "I have your dog, now give me back my riding lawn mower" -- and the IDS duly reprints them for your perusal.\nBut do any letters for THIS column get reprinted? Sadly, no. \nIt's always the same reasons: "that letter didn't make any sense," or "we don't have enough space," or "we can't print letters from imaginary people."\nWell, this week, nonsensical or not, imaginary or not, my column will reply to three of these forgotten correspondents -- and thereby defend the American right to free and open dialogue with people existing only in our heads.\nLetter #1:\nDear Brian,\nI've read allegations about columnists getting paid to endorse political programs. Has anyone paid you to take their side?\n-- Penny Lucre\nPenny is referring to reports that the Department of Education paid right-wing columnist Armstrong Williams to publicly support the "No Child Left Behind" program, while columnist Maggie Williams was contracted to write press materials for a Health and Human Services program that she also advocated (Editor and Publisher, Jan. 26). Also, Zephyr Teachout, former head of the Howard Dean campaign's "internet outreach," has said that left-wing blogger DailyKos was hired by the campaign to secure his endorsement (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 14).\nSo, has anyone paid me to take his side? \nNo. Taking bribes for columns is unethical, immoral and wrong. And, worst of all, I haven't gotten any offers. This is a weekly column with massive circulation, people. Free papers spread throughout the IU campus and Bloomington, and my rates are very reasonable.\nFurthermore, if it means payola or free stuff, I am quite willing to endorse the products I use to create this column. So, if anyone from Apple Computers, Microsoft, Grounds for Thought Coffee or Dr. Titan's Vibrating Rectal Thermometers is reading, give me a ring.\nLetter #2:\nDear Brian,\nOn behalf of the Day Lily Commune, Alternative Habitat and Organic Soybean Farm, I am writing to you about a grave injustice -- monumental acts of theft perpetrated at the highest levels of the American government.\nFor years, my brothers and sisters and I have stood in front of courthouses with our signs and guitars -- sometimes for over two hours, sometimes in the rain -- to press the authorities to stand up for democracy, human rights, tolerance, racial and gender equality, funding for HIV/AIDS research, fighting poverty and other worthy causes.\nWell, first, the Republicans establish fledgling democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Ukraine. Then they pledge $15 billion over five years to combat AIDS abroad (The Associated Press, Jan. 27). Next they allocate $1 billion to faith-based charities in 2003 (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 18). And now they confirm an black woman as secretary of state. \nThey're stealing our causes!\nWhat should we do? We're down to same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, and if we lose those, we'll ... we'll ... be conservatives!\nSincerely,\nLovebug Moonglow\nDon't worry, Lovebug, there's still plenty of progressive causes out there. Why, you can criticize the Republicans for the out-of-control federal deficit, advocate fiscal responsibility and push them to reduce government involvement in the economy ... Oh, wait, that came out wrong. How about this: you promote free love by supporting same-sex marriage, because nothing encourages free love more than legally-enforceable monogamy ... Oh, hang on here ... Uh, sorry Lovebug, you're on your own.\nFinally, letter #3:\nDear Brian,\nWhy do you suck?\nSincerely,\nSk8trPunk153\nWell, Sk8trPunk153 -- because I need the money.\nThanks to all the fictional readers for contributing. If any real readers are out there, feel free to write in. We value your input, even if we columnists can only find intellectual equals by talking to ourselves ...\nQuit snickering.
(01/10/05 4:42am)
Last week, a run-on sentence and a severely mixed metaphor followed by a cascade of dangling participles led to the tragic collapse of this column, afflicting dozens with eye strain and a widespread sense of confusion.\nBut today, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egbeater announced that the United Nations has developed a four-point plan for responding to this crisis. This plan, entitled "Preparation for Assistance in Emergency Column Help" (Preparation-AECH), upon proper application, will decrease readers' irritation and provide soothing relief to the Opinion page's affected region. Preparation-AECH comprises the following:\n• Diplomatic representatives from countries wishing to assist in applying Preparation-AECH will meet with U.N. officials at a special conference in Vienna, where the representatives will be asked to draw up a statement of intent, indicating that they will consider the possibility of holding a symposium on the potential use of fact-finding missions to examine the implications of organizing a summit at which the collected leaders may evaluate the prospect of convening an assembly for the discussion of options inherent in the creation of a temporary group for the organization of talks on the precursory discussions involved in the preparation for the planning of emergency aid efforts. This conference will take place in six months, or upon a date for which all the representatives have no scheduling conflicts. And not on a Sunday, unless "Desperate Housewives" is a repeat.\n• Once the initial preparations have been made, the coordination of the aid effort will be headed by an experienced and trusted U.N. official: Benon DaTake, former director of Iraq's Oil-for-Food program. The U.S. government has accused Mr. DaTake of accepting oil as payment from the Saddam Hussein regime -- but such charges are unsubstantiated. "The Americans have undertaken a witch hunt against me," Mr. DaTake has said, "because they can't compete with my low, low prices! Come on down to Crazy Benon's and get some crude for your brood!"\n• The United Nations has recently come under criticism for its handling of charges of sexual harassment against senior officials. This criticism is false and unfounded, of course, but we are nevertheless concerned about the organization's image. Thus, former U.N. High-Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Luvvin will head a Health and Occupational Regulations, New Investigations (HOR-NI) unit for the column reconstruction program. "My unit has experience with probing deeply into sensitive areas before they become inflamed," Mr. Luvvin has said, "and will serve as a tool for handling any gaps between regulation and practice that the U.N. needs filled."\n• To guarantee the highest standards of integrity and freedom of expression, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has selected a committee to oversee this column's content until the IDS is prepared to resume full sovereignty. Members of the Content Committee include delegates from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria. The chair of the committee, the honorable delegate from Syria, assures readers that "we will be as fair and honest regarding this column's content as we would in our own newspapers. And besides," the delegate adds, "if anything goes wrong, it's Israel's fault."\nSuch bold action is not cheap. To ensure that the reconstruction of this column is a lasting success, Mr. Egbeater has issued an appeal for $124 million -- a low estimate, and certainly within the reach of stingy, developed (particularly English-speaking, non-Canadian) countries. The American government may believe it is doing well by sending a new word processor; Australia may think a copy of "Blimey, It's Grammar, Mate!" is enough -- but the world knows differently.
(07/29/04 1:00am)
I was going to write about something important this week, like the New York Post's revelation that Ashlee Simpson can belch the alphabet (July 27). But my evil editor said that if I didn't comment on the Democratic National Convention, he'd cut my Indiana Daily Student dental plan. \nAnd I need my novocaine, dammit. \nSo here are a few observations following Monday and Tuesday's coverage: \n• The purposes of the convention\nA political convention's traditional purpose is to unify the party behind a single candidate. But since the 1950s, state primaries have rendered this moot. Now the goals, besides convention nookie, are publicity for the candidate and deciding on a party platform. \nSo, how's the publicity? Not good. According to The New York Times, ratings declined by 907,000 households for the start of this year's convention relative to last year's -- almost a 4.2 percent drop (July 27). And the major networks cut their coverage to three hours over four nights (The New York Times, July 25, 27).\nOn the platform, the Dems were more successful. In fact, they squeezed it down to one simple plank: We hate Bush. \nNo, that's not true. There was a second plank: You can have whatever you want. Apparently you can have more environmental regulation; more jobs and more competitive companies; more protection from imports and outsourcing but better relations with other countries; more government-provided health care and more funding for education; and lower deficits and lower corporate tax rates (BusinessWeek, Aug. 2) -- all with no trade-offs. I just wish I knew how.\n• Jimmy Carter's speech.\nHearing Jimmy comment on foreign policy is like reading a Cosmo article on "Ten Tips for Great Oral Sex" written by the Pope. I guess the Dems couldn't find a worse "expert," Woodrow Wilson being dead. \nI have trouble taking seriously quotes like, "We cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy ... the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs" after seeing photos of Jimmy shaking hands with Castro.\nI hear you say: "Camp David." I'll add three words: Iranian hostage crisis.\nAnd how about four more: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It all equals one: disaster.\n• Bill Clinton's speech\nWho else could slash intelligence funding while in office, then deride the current administration for reducing funds for police officers? Or claim a cruise missile attack on one al-Qaida compound represented "strong efforts against terror?" Or accuse the current administration of putting America at China's mercy by issuing government bonds on international markets, after he himself further opened the U.S. market to cheap Chinese imports? \nWhen Bill left office, we lost a maestro in the art of hypocrisy.\n• Barack Obama's speech\nObama is a Senate candidate from Illinois who gave Tuesday night's keynote speech. He is telegenic, charismatic, intelligent and radiates a sincere idealism that is downright eerie. \nClearly, he must get his act together.\nIf he has any sense of American history, by the time he reaches the presidency he needs to be a) adulterous, b) corrupt or c) assassinated. \nHell, JFK was all three.\n• Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech\nOK, she's his wife. So, why didn't she give us an insight into Kerry the bloke? You know, the guy who tells dumb jokes (or not), the guy who loves Led Zeppelin (or not), the guy who once ate a brine shrimp on a bet (or not). We have his resume -- senator, Vietnam vet -- but we still don't know who he is. \nHowever, we did learn that she doesn't like being called opinionated -- probably because of the word's association with opinion columnists. \nAt least she has taste.
(07/01/04 1:19am)
While poking around the library the other day, I found an old parchment stuffed in a book of 18th century customs records. On examination, I realized I had discovered one of the most important documents in American history: a transcript of the first Fourth of July celebration.\nThe author is unknown, but on July 4, 1777, the founding fathers held a secret meeting somewhere in Virginia at an "estate renowned for a pool of bluest water gracing the back garden." There they had "a most genial time in their discourses and feasted upon victuals roasted over an iron grill."\nThus, to honor our country's upcoming 228th birthday, I have published the text here. Sadly, it is incomplete. Nevertheless, I believe it will enrich the story of our nation's origins.\n(John Adams has undertaken the roasting.)\nAlexander Hamilton: Mmm, meat's looking good, John.\nJohn Adams: Thanks.\nThomas Jefferson: Perhaps you should let me have a turn at the roasting?\nHamilton: Naw, leave him alone. We're better off with only one roast-meister.\nJefferson: But it is too much to entrust to one man! Shall all the meat be done to merely one man's liking? Why, each man should be in charge of his own roasting!\nHamilton: What's the matter, TJ? Not dark enough?\nJefferson: What was that?\nThomas Paine: Hey fellas, look what Ben Franklin sent me from Paris! It came with a note that reads "For Your Amusement -- Ben." (Opens a wooden box.)\nHamilton: What is it? Sex toys?\nPaine: No, it's firecrackers! You light them and they explode!\nAll: Cool!\nAdams: Ooh! Light that small black tab! It looks deadly! \nPaine: OK. (Lights it.) There it goes! … And it's going! … And it's, uh, sort of an ash snake.\nHamilton: Oh man, that was weak! Try another.\nPaine: (Lights a small red ball.) It's, uh, smoking.\nHamilton: (Cough, cough.) You think?\nJefferson: Damn these abominable firecrackers! Are there none that explode?\nPaine: Hmmm … These ones pop when you pull the string … And these ones crack when thrown against cobble stones…\nHamilton: Hey, look, a cigar!\nPaine: Naw, that one doesn't look cool … Wonder what this does? (Holds a thin iron rod over the flame.) Wow! Look at it spark! I'm going to run around the yard with it! (Hands the box to Hamilton.)\nAdams: Be careful, Tom!\nPaine: Ow! My eye!\nAdams: That Tom Paine, no common sense.\nGeorge Washington: Hi guys! Sorry I'm late! I had to, like, fight a war.\nHamilton: No prob. Here George, have a cigar.\nWashington: Thanks! (Lights the cigar.)\nCigar: BOOM!\nWashington: Ow! My teef! Na ah'm gonna havta geh wuddin teef!\nAll: Ha! Ha!\nWashington: Hamiltuh, ya are a dih!\nAll: Ha! Ha!\nSamuel Adams: Hi everyone!\nAll: Sam!\nPaine: Sam, did you bring the beer?\nSamuel Adams: Actually, I brought something better! My latest invention: the wine cooler! Here, try one! (Hands them out. The others drink.) So, what do you think?\nAll: (Silence.)\nSamuel Adams: Well, do you like them? They're strawberry-kiwi flavored!\nJefferson: It's very … um … sweet.\nSamuel Adams: I knew you'd like them! My daughter Sicily loves them. So much so that we've taken to calling them "Sissy drinks."\nJohn Adams: OK, everybody, soup's on!\nHamilton: First, one more firecracker! (Removes a firecracker from the box.)\nPaine: Hey, what's that say on the side?\nHamilton: Hmmm … "'M' and four-score." Here Tom, hold it while I light it.\n(Parchment ends.)
(02/10/04 10:42pm)
This Saturday is Valentine's Day, but do you honestly know where Valentine's Day comes from? While we've all heard the holiday has something to do with a "St. Valentine," few people realize the holiday's origin is a bit of a mystery. \nIn fact, historians believe it is the culmination of various traditions that emerged during the last 2,700 years.\nThe earliest element contributing to modern Valentine's Day was the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia. Every Feb. 15, the Romans would go out to a cave in the Palatine Hill called the Lupercal to feast and dance and sacrifice goats. To this day, goats do not celebrate Valentine's Day. The highlight of the festival was when two teams of naked men would race around the hill hitting people with goat-hide whips. Women struck by the whips were said to become fertile. This tradition holds today, except, of course, it is the guys who end up whipped.\nIn the third century A.D., "St. Valentine" made his historical debut. Actually, there were two St. Valentines, one a Roman priest and doctor, the other the bishop of Turni, a town near Rome. In a show of bureaucratic redundancy, the Romans executed both. As legend has it, Emperor Claudius II whacked one for violating an imperial order by conducting secret marriages for soldiers. \nClaudius apparently thought marriage made his soldiers into sissies, whereas leather skirts were dead butch. Besides being the patron saint of lovers, St. Valentine (either one, presumably) is invoked to cure epilepsy. This is why so much of Valentine's Day is spent in the hope of swallowing a tongue.\nIt was also in Roman times that Cupid, the son of Venus, became a symbol of love -- because, of course, nothing says love like a projectile-weapon toting, bare-arsed flying baby. According to myth, Cupid flies around invisibly, shooting people with gold-tipped arrows, which makes them fall in love, or shooting them with lead-tipped arrows, which makes them die of lead poisoning.\nAn English tradition, dating back to the time of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, holds that Valentine's Day was a holiday of love because it happened to be the day birds chose their mates. One can only wonder how the English learned this. The 14th century must have been a very slow century indeed.\nBy the 1700s, a variety of Valentine's Day-related customs had emerged. According to the 2003 World Book Encyclopedia, young women hoping to summon their true loves would circle their church at midnight chanting things like "I sow hempseed. / Hempseed I sow. / He that loves me best, / Come after me now." \nToday, this tradition finds expression in the work of the contemporary poet, Mr. Snoop Dogg: "A-ha, niggaz be brown-nosing these hoes and shit. / Takin bitches out to eat, and spendin money on these hoes knowwhatI'msayin?" ("Chronic Break"). Amazing how little has changed over the \ncenturies.\n The 19th century saw the emergence of mass-produced valentines. While some decry the commercialism that has crept into Valentine's Day ever since, I personally think this development was a boon for humanity. After all, shelling out $2.99 for a card of a teddy bear that says "I wuv you" is often far less costly than telling someone what you really think of them.
(01/27/04 4:16am)
Forget parenthood, the greatest joy in life is being an opinion columnist in a presidential election year. Like a Shakespearean tragedy with multiple heroes, there is hyperbole, treachery, misfortune, madness and bizarre twists of fate -- and we columnists get to play the Fools to the candidates' Lears.\nAt what other time, except, perhaps, while playing drunken foosball, would an adult claim he had "Joementum?" When else would the governor of Vermont's bloodcurdling scream be turned into 57 techno remixes and counting (according to my last check of deangoesnuts.com)? What other event could make the most powerful man in America, much less the world, take time to warn Congress about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases? Not that the warning wasn't good for them ... \nIn short, if you're not paying attention to this race, you're missing out on the greatest reality TV show in years, perhaps ever. By comparison, "Survivor" is a pale, asthmatic choir boy with flabby arms, and "Fear Factor" plays with dollies. But there is always room for improvement, particularly with so much of the season left to go. So I would like to suggest some more twists to make the race all the more compelling:\nBush is found to be an android -- all the mispronunciation and grammatical errors were because of his having an MS-DOS operating system. The 2003 State of the Union line about yellowcake uranium was a "type 53" error.\nAt a campaign rally, Joe Lieberman starts speaking in tongues, bringing a sudden boost to his poll numbers in Alabama. Locals report to journalists it was the first speech they'd understood in years.\nJohn Kerry rips off his latex mask to reveal he is actually John Edwards. Edwards rips off his latex mask to reveal he is actually Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich rips off his latex mask to reveal he is actually Wesley Clark. Clark rips off his latex mask to reveal he is actually Joe Lieberman. Lieberman rips off his latex mask to reveal he is actually Howard Dean. Dean rips off his latex mask to reveal he is actually George Bush. Bush rips off his latex mask to reveal he is John Kerry. Al Sharpton rips off his latex mask to reveal he is the reunited 80s new-wave band Flock of Seagulls.\nThe General Accounting Office wins its suit to open the records of Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group meetings. It turns out they were practicing the Mikado. Disgraced former Enron CEO Ken Lay was to play Ko-Ko.\nJohn Edwards is Keyser Soze.\nWesley Clark changes his name to "Butch," because no terrorist would ever surrender to a president named "Wesley."\nHaving shut down all machines for 15 minutes to warn the world about atomic weapons, Dennis Kucinich and robot companion Gort climb back in their flying saucer and go home.\nThe night before the Democratic convention, Howard Dean shoots J.R. Ewing -- but it is all just a dream.\nOnce the victor wins, they find Dick Gephardt's picture in the White House presidential portrait gallery. After dropping out of the race, he went back in time to beat Eisenhower in the 1952 election, when union endorsements still mattered.\nSeriously, this stuff is exciting. Tonight, get some friends together, have a couple of beers (if of legal age) and watch the New Hampshire results come in -- as if you needed the excuse to drink on a weeknight.
(01/13/04 5:15am)
One day, near the end of last semester, I had a strange encounter on the bus home from the office. Three stops before mine, a passenger bumped into me on the way out. As he passed, I saw he was older, say about 30, skinny, disheveled, with a gray face that made him look thoroughly beaten. His receding hairline suggested that he was a fellow graduate student. We locked eyes for a moment. His held a wild intensity that was somewhat disturbing. And then he was gone.\nWhen I got home, I found that a couple sheets of folded paper had been shoved into my jacket pocket. It was a manifesto of sorts, typewritten, anonymous, titled "The Machiavellian's Guide to Graduate Study: Things Grad-Student Kind Was Not Meant to Know." Perhaps the guy had recognized me from my IDS mug shot, or perhaps he was handing them to people at random. It might not have even come from him. But as soon as I read it, I knew it had to be published. \nThe guide is composed of ten rules for success and happiness in one's graduate career at the cost of any higher ideals -- such as the advancement of knowledge -- or, to a degree, the success and happiness of others. Being a conscientious, dedicated and moral grad student myself, I personally disavow it. By exposing it to the light of public scrutiny, however, I hope others will write in to confront and ultimately defeat its cynical prescriptions. Of course, I understand this means making it available to grad students, prospective grad students or even undergraduates of such low character that they might actually find it useful. But I prefer to believe that my peers' better natures will win out.\nThe Machiavellian's Guide to Graduate Study:\nRule #1: When a sane person cannot handle it, go insane. Haven't you noticed graduate students and/or professors sometimes wander around muttering to themselves? Academia runs according to its own rules, divorced from reality -- learn them in order to bend them.\nRule #2: Procrastination breeds efficiency. In the business world, people get rich through "just-in-time" production. Nothing breeds novel solutions like having an assignment due in 20 minutes.\nRule #3: Take anything seriously, and it will cripple you. Why worry? Let others do it for you.\nRule #4: The brighter the candle, the quicker it melts. Graduate study is a long, hard slog, like marching into Russia in winter. Best not to be Napoleon.\nRule#5: A conscience only complicates grading. Remember that your funding is not based on the opinions of your students. And they are only rarely armed.\nRule #6: It is easier to fake effort than brilliance, and often more rewarding. In fact, the longer you make a paper, the more revenge you heap upon your professors.\nRule #7: Lies can be uncovered, but interpretations can only be debated. There is always some other nutty person who will believe you. This is how schools of theory are born.\nRule #8: Never ruin a good theory with facts. Most of the people on the New York Times Non-Fiction List don't do it, why should you?\nRule #9: Consulting a professor is like praying to a strange, primitive god: do it only when you are desperate or when what you say will appease it. You have a place in the academic universe, and it is just above sea cucumbers.\nRule #10: Regarding gods and faculty, know that the intervention of either requires a sacrifice.\nNow that they're out, I'm sure you see the fallacy of these rules. Right? Right?
(11/24/03 5:22am)
Last month, Interim Public Access Counselor for the State of Indiana, Sandra Bowman, issued an opinion stating that e-mails sent by IU employees via university accounts can be disclosed to the public through the 1984 Indiana Access to Public Records Act (IDS, Nov. 20).\nAs this means that e-mails to and from my account could be matters of public record, I felt it necessary to explain and clarify some items of correspondence that, upon release to the public, could be, well, misinterpreted. Given space constraints, I cannot reprint the text of the messages here. But I have provided the dates and subject lines, in order that this column might serve as a key to their original intent.
(11/11/03 5:31am)
As I understand it, President Herbert is looking for a new IU-Bloomington Chancellor. Well, I just want to say, "Hey, I'm available."\nNow, I'll admit that I'm not exactly your typical choice for chancellor. For one thing, I haven't achieved my doctorate yet. But, you see, that's a strength. After all, how better could an administrator come to understand his or her university than by being down in the trenches, neck-deep in the steaming bowels of the institution? And I'm no ivory tower elitist. Rather, I know what it's like to trip over the bodies of students sleeping on sidewalks and staircases because callous Registrar's office bureaucrats refuse to consider Axis' 5 cent draft night when scheduling classes. I know your pain.\nNor do I have an Ivy League education. Instead, I had to pull myself up by my bootstraps. My alma mater, the College of Wooster, was no $40,000-a-year prep school (as of fall 2003, the comprehensive fee is only $31,300). There was only one coffee bar. And with as many as 40 students in a class at times, you had to struggle to distinguish yourself from the pack. It was rough, but it built character. \nFurthermore, I may have no administrative experience, or even know off-hand where the chancellor's office is, but this is also in my favor. I'm an outsider. I bring a new perspective. I'll be a fresh breeze blowing out the old ideas. A cyclone shaking up the system. Give me a chance, and I'll give the University wind.\nNow, you may be wondering what a chancellor does. To be honest, it took me awhile to figure that out myself. Based on the job title, one can assume that a chancellor is responsible for chanceling the chancellees. But that's hardly revealing.\nThe Web site for the Office of the Chancellor does not provide a description, and President Herbert is planning to change the chancellor's role, anyway (IDS, Oct. 31).\nThe most concise description I could find came from the University of Alaska, Anchorage (www.uaa.alaska.edu/chancellorsearch). I'll explain my "vision" line by line.\n"The chancellor is the chief executive officer of the (university) and reports to the president of the (university)."\nI have absolutely no problem with being subordinate to the president. Indeed, were the trustees to offer me a 2004 Jaguar XJ to entice me into the job, I would insist the president get one, too. Except I'd demand that his have leather seats instead of vinyl. Better yet, were I given a sedan chair and servants to carry me around campus (much more environmentally friendly than a golf cart), I'd make sure his sedan chair had twice as many servants, and a mini-bar. There's no room for egos in this business.\n"Within the scope of Regents' Policy and University Regulation, the chancellor exercises very broad delegated authority and is responsible for all aspects of (the) administration."\nI am perfectly happy to delegate authority. Indeed, the more delegated the authority, the more effective I become. I would even hire someone to go into the office for me. Above all, I'm a team player.\nFinally, "the chancellor works with all university, state, community and private constituencies to develop support for the institution."\nWere I chancellor, I would work around the clock building support among IUB's constituencies. We especially need to reach out to our constituencies in far-flung corners of the world like Tahiti and the Virgin Islands. They have been too long ignored by the university administration. In fact, I'm willing to go meet with them personally, just to let them know how much they matter.
(10/15/03 7:22am)
This week, perhaps as early as tomorrow, the government of the People's Republic of China will make its first attempt to send a man into space in the Shenzhou 5 from Dongfeng Space City in the Gobi Desert. But it is just a small step in a larger plan. \nAccording to CNN's Joe Havely, the mission is seen as a stepping stone toward "the establishment of a Chinese space station(,) ... sending manned missions to the moon and eventually establishing a permanent Chinese lunar base" (CNN, Oct. 10). In a November 2000 White Paper, the PRC government makes clear that its interest in space is not purely altruistic: "The exploration and utilization of space resources shall meet a wide range of demands of economic construction, state security, science and technology development and social progress, and contribute to the strengthening of the comprehensive national strength."\nNote that "strength" bit.\nHaving grown up in front of the television set, like most Americans, I find that the upcoming Shenzhou 5 mission evokes two distinct sets of TV images.\nThe first is the grainy black-and-white footage of the July 20, 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing. Little guys in bulky white suits, bouncing around on the moon's gray rocky surface with the earth hanging above them, slightly goofy but still utterly amazing.\nThe second is footage from nearly 20 years later, June 4, 1989, of the PRC government unleashing columns of mechanized infantry against unarmed students in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. While the actual number of casualties remains uncertain, a declassified State Department report, sent June 9 from the Beijing embassy to Washington, estimates that 2,600 were killed and around 7,000 wounded, with Chinese democracy among the dead.\nThus, from these two streams, a single question: are we going to sit back and let the world's most powerful autocracy overtake us in space?\nGranted, the PRC is only just approaching a feat that the Soviet Union's Yuri Gagarin achieved 42 years ago, and NASA is busy reforming after the Columbia Shuttle disaster. \nBut it's disturbing that the bold plans for human kind's progress toward the stars are not coming from visionary scientists supported by the democratic peoples of the world, but from a brutal oligarchy seeking influence abroad and legitimacy at home. Compare the PRC's lunar ambitions with this description of current NASA thinking by journalist Ralph Vartabedian: "In a departure from the ambitious goals it has set since the dawn of the Space Age, NASA wants a modest system that will break no new technological barriers, but instead reduce costs and improve safety -- perhaps by adding a crew escape system, for example" (Montreal Gazette, April 19). \nOh, wow.\nAs the European Space Agency is consumed with plinking communications satellites into orbit and the Russian Space Agency is one budget-cut away from building capsules out of paper maché, NASA is the world's best bet for ensuring that the night sky becomes no one's empire -- especially the empire of an undemocratic power that might decide space-based weapons are a nifty way to get Taiwan back. \nAs President John F. Kennedy said in the 1961 speech that launched the race to the moon: "Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share"
(09/16/03 5:19am)
Lately, my Democratic friends seem listless, apathetic, demoralized. A great sadness has come over the tribe, and I believe it comes from disappointment with the nine Democratic presidential candidates. This is understandable, as the options range from unrealistic (Al Sharpton), to boring (Bob Graham), to difficult to spell (Dennis Kucinich). Perhaps Gen. Wesley Clark will throw his hat into the ring this week and reinvigorate the faithful, but perhaps not. Thus, I have taken it upon myself, in the spirit of fair play and humanitarianism, to suggest five new, more exciting Democratic candidates.\nTommy Chong (of Cheech & Chong): entrepreneur, entertainer, craftsman, convict. At the NAACP's annual convention in July, a discussion of restoring voting rights for felons created a competition between Al Sharpton and John Kerry. Sharpton claimed that he was the only candidate who had spent time in jail, but Kerry contradicted him, claiming that he too had been in jail (one night, after a Vietnam War protest) (Washington Post, July 15). Currently facing nine months in prison for manufacturing bongs, Tommy Chong could top both of them, yet still be out in time for the inauguration. Plus his claim to have beaten his marijuana problem through salsa dancing was far better than Clinton's "I didn't inhale." As Chong explained the power of salsa to U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab: "It's a Latin American dance that's awesome," (The Associated Press, Thursday).\nLucky the Leprechaun: cereal spokes-elf. Lucky is independently wealthy and has been vocal on protectionist policies for years ("Can't get me Lucky Charms!"). He could face questions regarding his citizenship and the fact that he's fictional, although the latter has never been a weakness in American politics. Lucky would be the perfect running mate for Dick Gephardt, given that Gephardt's plan to provide universal health insurance and balance the federal budget will require magic and a huge pot o' gold. He could also bring Gephardt the endorsement of the Universal Brotherhood of Keebler Elves.\nTed Williams: baseball legend, fighter pilot, TV dinner. After dying and being cryogenically frozen, the political appeal of the Red Sox hall-of-famer has only increased. He's a particular challenge for John Kerry. He's from Massachusetts, like Kerry. He's an athlete, like Kerry. He has on-screen charm, like Kerry. He's a war hero, like Kerry. And he's cold and stiff, like Kerry.\nSaddam Hussein: bloodthirsty tyrant, successful novelist ("Zabibah and the King"). Granted, his lack of democratic values and tendency to murder anyone who gets in his way might alienate the party core … and the swing voters … and everyone else, but Saddam does bring a couple of cards to the table -- with his face on them, no less. He shares the only quality that the current candidates have in common: He despises George W. Bush. He is also a patron of the arts, notably paintings of busty women threatened by mythological beasts (New York Daily News, Apr. 15). And, after all, he was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq.\n Newt Gingrich: former politician, pundit, desperately seeking attention. Recently Dick Gephardt accused Howard Dean of supporting the changes to Medicare pushed by Gingrich in 1995 (Washington Post, Saturday). \nGiven Dean's growing popularity, this begs the question -- what if you put the real Newt on the ticket? He has been critical of the Bush administration -- that is, if the Department of State still counts (The New York Times, June 17). And his love affairs, most recently with Congressional aide Callista Bisek (now his third wife), practically make Newt a Kennedy (Washington Post, Dec. 18, 1999). Best of all, the GOP would never see it coming.
(09/02/03 5:17am)
It has been about three and a half months since I became a member of the media, and the experience has generally been rewarding. But there has been one considerable disappointment: I have neither been invited to join the "liberal elite," nor the "vast right-wing conspiracy." I have seen no secret handshakes, no passwords and no hidden tattoos. No one has offered me a furry hammer-and-sickle-bearing hat or a pointy white hood and certainly no dinero from special-interest groups or shadowy political think-tanks. \nI feel like a wallflower at a junior-high dance.\nLately, conservative Ann Coulter and liberal Eric Alterman have gained attention for tackling the bias issue. Or, rather, for accusing their adversaries of bias. In "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," Coulter declares the right is outnumbered: "The public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda. … The spirit of the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob." In "What Liberal Media? The Truth About 'Bias' and the News," Alterman warns the left is outmatched: "Even the genuine liberal media is not so liberal. And it is no match -- either in size, ferocity, or commitment for the massive conservative media structure that, more than ever, determines the shape and scope of our political agenda."\nEach has their rogues' gallery. Coulter's includes NBC's "Today" show, the New York Times, Time Magazine and CBS' News and "Early Show," to name but a few. For Alterman, it's "Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, New York Post, American Spectator, Weekly Standard, New York Sun, National Review, Commentary and so on."\nWhat's really going on? \nWell, over a century ago, Oscar Wilde observed this of the press: \n" … The unhealthy conditions under which their occupation is carried on oblige them to supply the public with what the public wants, and to compete with other journalists in making that supply as full and satisfying to the gross popular appetite as possible." \nWilde was complaining about the press's fixation on celebrity scandal (gee, can't imagine why). But this argument holds for phenomena like the "human-interest story," the "trial of the century" or other media events which command great attention with little relevance to the audience-members' lives.\nAnd it biases political reporting, as well. \nIt is no longer enough for national news organizations, whether in the form of newspapers, magazines, radio, television or Web sites, to argue that they are a greater source of timely, pertinent and/or reliable information. The wide amount of information available today has made this advantage moot. You can just change the channel or double click a new Web link.\nHow, then, can a source gain a competitive advantage? \nSimple: Let your audience feel like it's right, particularly through confirming it's fears. \nWhy is the Fox News Channel the most popular cable news channel in America (The Weekend Australian, August 16)? Why did Lichter's Center for Media and Public Affairs find that: "Coverage of the Bush administration's consideration of a military strike against Iraq, as seen in the network newscasts and in front-page New York Times stories from … July 1 through Aug. 25, was 72 percent negative" (The Washington Post, Dece. 18, 2002)? Why could Marina Jimenez report "There are two wars in progress over Iraq. The one on CNN bears no resemblance to the one on its Arab equivalent, Al Jazeera …" (Ottawa Citizen, April 1)? \nThink about it, if you don't agree with an opinion column, do you read the whole thing or skip it and move on to something else?\nObjectivity no longer pays. Weigh the facts. Make up your own mind. Don't trust people to do it for you. \nExcept me, of course.
(08/07/03 1:27am)
It's almost that time of year again. The bees are buzzing, the sun is shining between downpours, the last of this summer's prospective-student families are lumbering across campus, and I just paid half a month's salary to cover what IU vaguely describes as "fees." Soon, the rest of IU-Bloomington's nearly 39,000 students will return in a tsunami of people and cars and boxes and furniture, filling up every parking lot and sprawling on every flat or quasi-flat surface. Around 17 percent of this flood will be freshmen and they'll be brimming with questions. As I'm now facing my seventh year in college, and have not yet been committed to a psychiatric institution, I figure I can provide some answers.\nWill college help me get a good job? \nThis depends on your definition of a good job. If you mean a job where you don't have to compete with 13-year-olds in Guatemala, then the answer is "probably." Although, you might want to think hard before pursuing that degree in philosophy. \nIf you mean a job with a high salary, the answer is "maybe." It most likely will mean taking classes that involve math, such as economics, physics or accounting. This requires a degree of masochism. Thus, it might be easier, and more lucrative, to let people pay to beat you with a rubber hose. \nIf you mean a job that's personally fulfilling, then you should get back on the mother-ship. However, with all the recruiters that come to campus, you won't lack for options. Last year, IU students even managed to break into the adult film and nude modeling sectors.\nIs it true that IU students party a lot?\nA "lot" is a highly relative term. For example, if we compare the average number of hours spent partying in any given week to the average number of hours spent, say, shearing sheep, the amount of partying will naturally seem huge. However, when compared to other activities, that amount might look tiny. I suspect that when compared to the amount of time IU students spend sleeping, the amount of time spent partying appears very small indeed.\nWill college prepare me for the real world? \nLet me put it this way. Jerry Springer is running for the U.S. Senate. An opera based on his show is a smash in London, while a musical called "Urinetown" is drawing critical acclaim on Broadway. Last week, a Pentagon research group proposed (then retracted) a system for betting on international crises. The Associated Press reported Sunday that a half-dozen Indiana lawmakers pack heat while debating in the state capital. And last Thursday, Fox aired back-to-back programs about insect bites and foreign objects pulled from people's bodies. \nTherefore, my answer is no. College is too sane to prepare you for the real world. However, with the planet's movers and shakers behaving as if they've been gargling absinthe, college will provide a nice place to hide out for four years. Nine, if you go on to graduate school.\nWill I make it?\nYou likely will. By my observation, it takes a special kind of laziness to flunk out of college. It takes commitment, dedication, long hours spent at the game console finding all the secret characters, days memorizing every guest star on Gilligan's Island and weeks of sleeping through class. Not everyone has this ability. It requires a special gift, a genius for idleness. For most of us, flunking out is simply not worth the effort. It's no wonder serious failures so often turn to drugs and alcohol. They get burned out.\nIn conclusion, let me welcome you to Bloomington. It's a special place. Nowhere else will you find more Tibetan restaurants than empty downtown parking spaces.
(07/24/03 1:09am)
Before I go further, let's make something clear. I'm a Republican. I voted for Bush. I believe in free-markets, small government, personal responsibility and making sure the world's tyrants see U.S. Marines in their nightmares. I am not one of the "liberal academics" that pundits would have you believe are teaching their students to smoke banana peels as a prelude to socialist revolution. That said, this week's column is directed at my own party and the attitude its officials are taking toward sex and related matters.\nBack in April, Sen. Rick Santorum, R.-Pa., stirred some hornets when he equated gay sex with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery in an interview with The Associated Press. However, in their rush to stamp "bigot" on his forehead, the press and the Democrats missed the really sinister part of the interview. Explaining an article in which he blamed liberalism for sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, Santorum said, "(The problem within the Church) goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this 'right to privacy,' then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get."\nFeel a cold shiver go down your spine? Santorum's comments are a riff in an eerie drumbeat coming from the Republican right flank. And more GOP officials are dancing to the tune. Santorum won a Triple Crown of support from the party leadership: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (AP, April 29), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 23) and President Bush (Washington Post, April 26). Last year, Justice Secretary John Ashcroft spent $7,750 in his compulsion to cover up an aluminum booby (London Daily Telegraph, Jan. 29). And recently, Rep. Patrick Toomey's, R-Pa., attempt to prevent the National Institutes of Health from funding research on sexual behavior, including the Kinsey Institute's study on sexual risk-taking, failed by only two votes (IDS, July 14). Next, the officials will order that all table legs must be covered. \nThis Puritanism arises less out of ideological conviction than a "devil's bargain" for electoral support. The party's ideology dictates that "Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality of opportunity for all and favoritism for none" (preamble, Rules of the Republican Party). \nIndeed, senators Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Gordon Smith and Olympia Snowe, as well as the Republican Unity Coalition and the Log Cabin Republicans, went on record against Santorum's position (Washington Post, April 26; AP, April 29). However, electoral number crunchers consider the religious right indispensable. A poll by Quinnipiac University found that "43 percent of those polled -- and 61 percent of those who said they attend religious services every week or almost every week -- thought religion should have more influence (on politics and public policy)" (Hartford Courant, June 13). And since they like belching fire and brimstone terms like "sodomites" and "fornication," the rest of us tolerate it to win elections. What else can we do?\nGeorge Orwell wrote of Big Brother's sexual policy in "1984," saying, "Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it ... The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party." \nWe're the party of individual liberty, not Big Brother. Let the religious right vote for the Democrats.
(07/10/03 1:03am)
If there were such a thing as an architectural crime against humanity, Paris' Charles De Gaulle Airport would be one. After struggling through the bottleneck-plagued circular check-in room, you take a moving walkway through a plastic tube the color and texture of a giant intestine to a floor of insipid duty-free shops.\nUp a level, get through security, and you find yourself trapped in a Plexiglas box like those authorities on "The X-Files" use to cage shape-shifting mutants or carriers of extraterrestrial diseases. All to spend hours in a cramped, overheated cylinder watching the latest Martin Lawrence movie; eating food that doubles as a floatation device; appeasing flight attendants, gate personnel, security guards, customs officers and countless other petty dictators. \nAt such a time, most folks just sigh and pray for their luggage. I realized that after nagging you to leave the comfortable certainties of home and undergo the expense, discomfort and risk of traveling to a continent where air conditioning is rare and not everyone speaks English, I never addressed the most basic question involved. So, for this final article about crossing the sea, I'll attempt it: what does Europe hold for 21st century Americans anyway?\nIn 1867, Mark Twain took a trip to Europe and the Middle East, later chronicled in his classic "The Innocents Abroad." Twain does not mince words about the trip, calling it "a funeral excursion without a corpse," yet he recommends that all Americans go abroad because "travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts." \nWise words, but today we require more justification.\nFirst reason: the fact that the rest of the world's doings eventually end up on our doorstep. In his time, Twain could report "that a good many foreigners had hardly ever heard of America, and that a good many more knew it only as a barbarous province away off somewhere." This was mainly because policy and geography made America isolationist and isolated, but thanks to modern technology, politics and economics, neither is possible. And with populous industrial powers, advanced technology, languages regularly translated into English and centuries of relations with the U.S., Europe is better situated to monkey with your life than any continent except our own. \nThen there's the fact that modern Europe is one of the greatest achievements in the history of politics. Think about it. Until the late 20th century, Europe was a land of autocratic rulers and brutal conflicts. Twain's description of France's Napoleon III paints the portrait of the time: "Above all things, he has taken the sole control of the empire of France into his hands and made it a tolerably free land -- for people who will not attempt to go too far in meddling with government affairs." \nYet today's Europe is free, peaceful, prosperous, increasingly bound by common laws and values. This is a miracle, something that could one day change humanity, and something that Americans should take as much pride in as Europeans. After all, modern Europe might use local ingredients, but in representative democracy, we supplied the recipe (and if they let me back in after that line, they're not reading this column).\nLastly, you can't understand your American identity without going to Europe. For all our internal divisions, we as a whole are different, and this becomes clearest in the continent so many of our ancestors left behind. As Twain puts it, "Many a simple community in the Eastern Hemisphere ... will remember for years the incursion of the strange horde ... that called themselves Americans and seemed to imagine in some unaccountable way that they had a right to be proud of it"
(06/26/03 1:13am)
The French city of Strasbourg might not be Europe's heart, but it's at least a ventricle. Walking distance from the Franco-German border; headquarters of the European Parliament; home to medieval, half-timbered houses and global corporations, it provides an ideal vantage point from which to observe the face of the new and improved Europe as it enters the 21st century. So, for the past three-and-a-half weeks, I've been acting as your mine canary, gathering information to help you (and other Americans) come out from your hidey-holes. My goal, to help return to Europe's cobbled streets that age-old cry: "DO-YOU-SPEAK-ENGLISH?"\nThis week's advice is a bit of a warning, something you should know about before you come over. No, it's not about anti-Americanism. Hell, thanks to a series of civil service strikes, the French are back to combating their greatest traditional enemy: themselves. Instead, I am going to let you in on what I have seen to be the No. 1 cultural difference between Americans and Europeans: the pace of life.\nSure, there are plenty of differences between American culture and cultures of Europe's individual countries, just as there are between the European cultures themselves. In fact, according to the latest European Union-sponsored Eurobarometer public opinion survey (March 2003), respondents who favored their European over their national identity amounted to a measly 7 percent, while those poor strange creatures who feel solely European came to a mere 3 percent. For sake of reference, the latter is about the same percentage Ralph Nader won in the 2000 presidential election.\nYet, what do you find on a sunny Saturday afternoon in Brussels, Luxembourg City, Munich, Strasbourg or any European city? Hundreds, even thousands of people at outdoor tables in front of sidewalk cafes, roosting like puffins. They sit, and they chat, and they sit, and they drink a little, and they sit, and they smoke, and they sit, and they eat a little, and they sit, and they sit, and they sit, and they sit ... And, as an American, I honestly don't know how they do it. \nIf you sat for that long in the states without doing anything, someone would come along and bury you. Furthermore, with nearly all the shops closed Sundays, sitting becomes the continental pastime. After awhile, one becomes aware of one's own need for activity, one's own need for constant stimulation; one's own need to do something at any given time. No wonder otherwise normal Americans felt the need to venture off into the vast wilderness of a mysterious continent -- we're hyperactive.\nNowhere is this more apparent than in dealing with restaurants. The general idea over here, of course, is that a meal is an event. Dinner is supposed to be a two-hour, multi-act performance, with the main dish as the glorious climax -- have no doubt, dining is serious business. This sounds pretty good in the abstract, and it is for the first couple of times. But for post-modern Americans, who know that microwaves only achieve top speed when encouraged by a steady flow of foul language, the two-hour dinner quickly becomes a grueling experience of absentee waiters and wallpaper scrutinized more thoroughly than the Mona Lisa's smile. Before long, a region's ancient culinary arts are exchanged for the siren's song of the kebob or, God help you, the Golden Arches.\nThanks to its cultural roots, the American need for haste generally manifests itself with little reflection or conscious thought. It just slips up behind you and starts pushing like a schoolyard bully. But what are we rushing off to anyway? Why the hurry? I already have my hands full with one continent, so I'll leave that to you to figure out. Just don't take too long.