29 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/07/12 5:00am)
America
elected Barack Obama in 2008 with a mandate to repair its broken economy and
restore its international standing. Obama won that election by a comfortable
margin. The enthusiasm for his candidacy was infectious. But a lackluster John
McCain and a questionably capable Sarah Palin contributed handily to his victory.
(11/05/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>No matter who wins Tuesday, in another four years we’ll still be one of those countries in which people prepare for Election Day by stocking up on beer and chips rather than canned food and ammunition. We’ve come to expect vicious campaigns and nail-bitingly close elections. But if our guy loses, we sulk quietly for four years and then have another go at it. On the whole, we’re actually in good shape. That doesn’t mean we don’t have serious problems.Our two-party system seems to have one main benefit: parties are unlikely to veer into the depths of insanity because they must appeal to a wide base to win elections. Unfortunately, this also means we feel forced to accept a bickering duopoly and corner ourselves into one of two poorly defined camps. It’s a system that is stable but also muffles bold and courageous people and ideas. I voted for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson rather than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney this year. I know Johnson won’t win, but I believe if Johnson takes enough votes away from Romney, the GOP will see it needs to change its message.Presidential election turnout hasn’t passed 70 percent in more than a century even though it has never been easier to vote. Get-out-the-vote efforts solve only half the problem with voters. Just because lots of people are voting doesn’t mean they have any rudimentary concept of what they vote for. If you’re voting for your candidate because you like his policy propositions, realize that those propositions might never see the light of day due to the congressional climate and other limiting factors. Party label matters. You should know in what direction your candidate will move in matters in which he has direct control — for instance, when issuing federal mandates or making appointments. If you’re voting for your candidate because you agree with his party ideology, consider that you could be wrong. If you’re voting for your candidate because he looks like a good guy to have a beer or diet Sprite with, consider getting more information or sitting this one out.Don’t just vote on Tuesday. Know exactly what you’re voting for, and think about how you can use your vote. Our democracy is like our quality of life. It is outstanding relative to the rest of the world but in vast and constant need of maintenance.— danoconn@indiana.edu
(10/29/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As we approach Halloween, we expect nights of fun as well as underage drinking, sirens and arrests. This week, I hope both students and law enforcement officers will conduct themselves responsibly.Students: if you make the decision to drink, be responsible about it. If you need to get home, take a cab, a bus or call a sober friend. It’s not a good time to walk home alone. If you or a friend has a medical emergency, and you need to call an ambulance, remember the Lifeline Law and Hoosier PACT provide a degree of immunity from legal and University disciplinary action in many situations. Risking someone’s life is far worse than any legal or disciplinary consequences you may face.To police officers, especially excise: I hope you keep in mind there are many ways to enforce Indiana’s drinking laws, and I hope you will consider the consequences of the avenues of enforcement you choose. Some lead to respect and appreciation, while others lead to resentment and distrust.You are indispensable to public safety. You patrol for drunk drivers, stop rowdy partiers from getting out of hand and help save lives during medical emergencies. But, let’s be frank, you have a bit of a reputation in this town for pulling over designated drivers and passengers making responsible decisions for specious reasons.A busted license plate light, driving barely more than the speed limit, flinging a cigarette out the window, the appearance of too many people in the backseat, claiming to smell alcohol in a car while standing outside the vehicle and speaking to a driver who hasn’t had a drop all night — your ability to find probable cause is pretty unbelievable in the truest sense of the word.Walking home alone from a party can be dangerous. Let’s make the option to be a designated driver more secure and focus on those lawbreakers who pose a legitimate danger to other people.I would like to remind you that, per a new state law, you cannot arrest people for public intoxication if they do not pose a danger to themselves or others. Responsible students and respectful law enforcement are essential to a safe Halloween in Bloomington this week and a safe community in the future.— danoconn@indiana.edu
(10/22/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney penned pieces concerning higher education reform in Time Magazine last week. Unfortunately, neither candidate addressed the reform part. The bulk of the president’s piece centered on a plan to invest more money in public schools and hire more teachers. Our public education system is broken, but throwing more federal dollars at it is not reform. Federal spending per student has doubled since the 1970s, but test scores have remained flat.When the president talks about college, the results are unimpressive. Obama praises his decision to “cut big banks out of the student loan program,” as though restricting private enterprise is something to be proud of. He boasts he’s stopped student loan interest rates from doubling, handed out scholarships to 4 million students and invested in community colleges, but federal aid is a bandage on the financial wound that is skyrocketing tuition. In fact, the two seem to feed each other. A business is likely to raise its prices if it knows the government is covering its customers. Politicians are likely to please their constituents with more aid when they are hit by higher prices.But enough about the president. Let’s have a look at Romney.Romney talks about how we must not only “adapt, compete and innovate” but also “address costs.” He pretty much leaves it at that. Hope is not a strategy. Neither are flashy words. I would agree with Romney’s statement that “endless government support only fuels skyrocketing tuition.” But what neither candidate really tells us is that the president and Congress lack direct control of many other tuition drivers: administrative bloat, needless construction and beautification projects, ratings competition and decreasing state funding. In 2011, only 18 percent of IU’s funding was provided by the state. It’s on track to fall below 10 percent by 2020. IU’s attempts to deal with rising tuition have been dismal. In a guest column last week, IU Student Association Congressman Sydney Fletcher noted that IU President Michael McRobbie’s proposals to rein in tuition have been inadequate or unproven, and avenues for student input remain insufficient.That said, we can find some good advice in Romney’s piece. He noted that only half of college graduates are able to find jobs that match their degrees. If you’re a current student, think hard about what you’re studying and how it’s going to pay off for you. College is an increasingly expensive investment, and, right now, you aren’t getting much help from anyone in charge.— danoconn@indiana.edu
(10/16/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Peace Prize to the European Union this year has confirmed my fear that the venerable organization has fallen into the unfortunate habit of using the award for political well-wishing. What they should do is honor individuals who are actively making meaningful contributions toward conflict resolution, the alleviation of human suffering and the promotion of human rights.Alfred Nobel created the prize in part to promote ongoing peace efforts. The prize was first awarded in 1901 to pacifist Frédéric Passy and Jean Henry Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross. Since then it has been awarded to Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel and other remarkable individuals who have risked life and limb and devoted years of work to their causes. It seems that the Nobel Committee has forgotten this, and sadly this isn’t the first time the committee took a turn for the absurd. Who can forget 2009 when the prize went to President Barack Obama? The president was freshly sworn-in and with barely a single accomplishment to his name. The committee chairman, who hoped to give the president a commitment toward peace, admitted that the award “may not bear fruit at all.” How prescient. This year, the committee said that the EU has contributed to the “advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” The timing belies the intent. I can’t help but envision the EU as a man on a ledge with the Nobel committee below shouting “But think of all the good you’ve done.” If there was ever a time to give the prize to a pan-European organization, it would have been in 1957. At that time six countries formed the European Economic Community to promote trade and unity among them. In all kinds of troubled and impoverished corners of the world, there are activists and courageous local politicians who have gone above and beyond expectations and deserve international recognition to continue their efforts. Meanwhile, just as getting a Nobel Prize didn’t prevent Obama from sending more troops to Afghanistan and bypassing the congressional representatives of the American people to intervene militarily in Libya, it is unlikely to faze either Athenian rioters or German austerity advocates.— danoconn@indiana.edu
(10/01/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“If you believe in freedom, liberty, self determination, free
enterprise, I don’t care if you’re a Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic,
Christian, gay, straight, Latino, black, white, Irish, whatever. Join
us.” Those are beautiful words from Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan.
If only it was that simple. A 2012 Washington Post/Kaiser Family
Foundation survey showed that fiscally conservative, socially liberal
voters constitute a significant and persuadable voting bloc. A
Reason poll released this year showed that 60 percent of Americans aged
18 to 29 would be open to electing a president reflecting such values.
And while those Americans are not the voting majority today, they will
inevitably be in the future. The sorry shape of the economy is of utmost
importance in this election. But money isn’t everything. Listening
to the GOP talk about freedom, liberty and self determination can be a
lot like listening to President Barack Obama talk about transparency,
peace and prosperity shortly before he invokes executive privilege to
protect his attorney general, kills an American citizen with a flying
robot and runs up a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.
Which voters might be tempted to vote Republican but have serious reservations about the GOP’s stance on social issues? Nearly every group that Ryan mentioned. I have a few ideas to help the GOP win the future.
First, repudiate the idiotic drug laws that help put one in three black
men in jeopardy of incarceration at some point in their lives, many for
victimless offenses, and that essentially criminalize half of Americans.
Second, stop suggesting the federal government restrict marriage, a
melding of personal relationships and legal contracts, between
consenting adults. Whether you’re for or against same-sex marriage, the
idea that the federal government could prohibit such a personal and
controversial activity across the board should repulse those wary of big
government.
Third, for the sake of both immigrants and business owners, let’s
actually have a discussion about having a regulated but fundamentally
open labor market in which healthy foreigners without criminal histories
can work here temporarily with ease.
There are a lot of people who would like to vote for the GOP, but there
are some serious roadblocks in the way of getting those votes. Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Ryan can make this election
about economic freedom and responsibility all they want.
But taking the right tack on economic issues does not relieve them of addressing others. — danoconn@indiana.edu
(09/24/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Mitt Romney’s recent statement — “These are people who pay no income tax. My job is not to worry about those people” — has attracted criticism from figures on the left. They charge him with labeling half the country as shiftless moochers. Romney’s message should attract criticism from the right, as well, because it is wrong and self-defeating. Economic freedom — the freedom to prosper in whatever way seems best to you — is inseparable from personal freedom.This is a core tenet of the Republican Party. For a man who has had a successful business career, Romney is doing a poor job of selling that message. Romney is factually correct. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.But not all of those people are dependent on government. Tax breaks are only government subsidies if you believe you do not own your labor. Some of that 47 percent have no tax liability but receive no government money. Some are welfare-dependent urbanites who will vote Democrat without much thought. Some are farm-subsidy dependent rural Americans who will vote Republican with a similar amount of consideration. Many probably despise picking up welfare checks, though it would be economically irrational not to. Many would probably love nothing more than to move into a higher tax bracket, though not for the pleasure of paying taxes.The long-term political game for the GOP is as complex as our electorate. My fellow IDS opinion columnist Will Gryna wrote last week that “too many Americans envision our federal government as a crutch on which to survive.” He’s right. But too many is not all. The answer isn’t just to cut these people off. The answer is to change their minds about the right path to prosperity. This is because a significant number of people will not vote for someone “no matter what.” According to a CNN exit poll, 25 percent of those earning fewer than $15,000 voted for John McCain in 2008. If this election is as close as predicted, Romney can’t write off any segment of voters.People can and do change their minds. Making a convincing case that the free movement of capital, labor, goods and services is better at creating widespread prosperity than manufactured work and handouts is a good way to win votes. Condensing people into groups and make sweeping statements about them is not. This election should be about selling a particular path to recovery and prosperity.Ron Paul said this of those who pay no income taxes: “We are halfway there.” That’s the kind of message a candidate who believes in free enterprise should be spreading. — danoconn@indiana.edu
(09/17/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Do you hear that rattling noise? It’s the First Amendment on our campus. You can trap it in the pages of the Code of Student Rights, shove it in a drawer at Residential Programs and Services and bury it under Dunn Meadow, but it’s going to haunt you until it is set free.Yes, this public university — accountable to the Indiana and federal constitutions — regulates speech and often does so in vague and subjective terms.It begins in the Preamble to the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct, which states a harmless-sounding requirement that students agree to treat others with “civility and understanding.” I am willing to bet a lot of money that nearly every person on campus has, in someone’s eyes, violated that agreement at one time or another. In 2007, a federal judge struck down a similar policy of the California State University system precisely because it is overly broad and has a chilling effect on speech. Less facially innocuous is a requirement in the Apartment Housing Rules and Regulations prohibiting “offensive” or “inappropriate” speech on dry erase boards and other public areas. Who judges when expression meets that criteria? I hope it’s someone with thick skin. It’s funny that in a place where people are supposed to learn to function as independent adults, some think it proper to protect them from that which may shock and offend.How about the fact that, according to the Student Organizations Handbook, Dunn Meadow is the only place on campus designated by the Board of Trustees as a “spontaneous free speech area?” To be fair, universities can implement reasonable limits on when, where and how demonstrations are performed. In fact, they have considerable leeway in doing so because people have to learn, work and sleep on campus. If you’ve walked around this campus, you know it’s huge and has a lot of open space. Penning demonstrators into one area may be convenient for the University, but it just doesn’t pass the most rudimentary of plausibility tests for reasonable time, manner and place restrictions. This is why a federal court struck down a similar policy at the University of Cincinnati this year. These three policies are a sample of IU’s constitutionally questionable rules and regulations. In the code, IU claims “in accordance with the state and federal Constitution ... the University recognizes the rights of all students to ... express thoughts ... without University interference or fear of University disciplinary action.” That’s a great guarantee, in theory. We can do a lot better in practice. — danoconn@indiana.edu
(08/31/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>IU prides itself for maintaining a campus judicial system that is educational, fair and respectful of those who wind up going through it. From teaching students found responsible for academic misconduct to assigning personal misconduct offenders to programs that help them learn from their actions, judicial officers make an effort to educate rather than punish when possible. One area in which IU falls short of this image is how it treats students who are charged with minor first-time alcohol violations. These students are offered a chance to clear their records by admitting to the charges and attending the Alternative Alcohol Intervention Program in which they complete an alcohol use survey and meet with a counselor to discuss their drinking habits. This sounds reasonable until one considers that students assigned to AAIP are charged the same $200 fee as students assigned to a similar program.The program called Successfully Managing Alcohol Responsibly and Together, which is reserved for repeat offenses, drunk driving and other serious alcohol-related incidents. In short, IU charges the same hefty fee to a student who endangers human life as it does to a student unfortunate enough to be spotted sipping a Keystone Light in front of a resident assistant. Underage drinking occurs on college campuses with regularity, and most offenders are never caught. With the Lifeline Law and Hoosier PACT, IU moves toward a smarter, more reasonable philosophy of harm reduction. Our drinking age is wildly hypocritical. Few countries give an entire class of citizens the vote, draft and death penalty but not drink. Making an activity illegal does not make it inherently wrong. AAIP balances the legal and practical realities of underage drinking. Both AAIP and SMART at one time cost $25, a plausible administrative fee. The programs’ current cost resembles a punitive fine. A $200 fee seems reasonable when applied to a student charged with drunk driving. It is disproportionate when imposed upon a freshman written a ticket at a Welcome Week dorm party, especially as peers just a few years older drink legally across the street in Willkie Quad.IU has a great opportunity in AAIP to be a fair and realistic adjudicator of drinking violations, one that educates while reserving punishment for those who use alcohol irresponsibly regardless of age.By charging students outlandishly for the program, the University fails to seize that opportunity while giving accused students less incentive to be honest about their actions.— danoconn@imail.iu.edu