57 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/30/12 4:00am)
Vehicle traffic was so heinous on 10th Street the other day that the driver of my number six bus took out his Sudoku and started penciling in answers.I couldn’t make something like that up if I tried.We all know the time of day when it’s faster to walk up 10th Street than ride.I avoid it any time I can. I can’t blame my bus driver, who doesn’t have any choice but to sit there, for trying to find some activity that’s more entertaining than contemplating the vanity license plate in front of him.During this time I end up spending sitting in 10th Street traffic, I’ve had a lot of time to consider why this specific traffic jam happens every day. And I think I figured it out.It’s all because of that crosswalk in front of the Kelley School of Business. You can tell because traffic is backed up from that crosswalk to the west as far as the eye can see. But from the crosswalk east traffic is virtually nonexistent.Once people start crossing the street there, all of 10th Street becomes complete anarchy. Cars and buses have to shoot the gap between students just to make it to the library.Once they finally make it through the floodgate, drivers are clearly not happy. They rip up the remainder of 10th Street like pent up animals that have finally been freed from captivity.There’s a motorcycle that usually pops a wheelie in celebration as he crests the hill at 10th Street and Jordan Avenue, leaving all those pesky pedestrians in the dust.Here’s the deal. This crosswalk is supposed to make crossing 10th Street to get from Kelley to Herman B Wells Library safer. That’s clearly a laudable goal. But does it really help?When the flow of students is light enough that cars can yield to them, let them cross, and then proceed on their way, it probably does.But how is it so much safer to have cars dodge through an impenetrable stream of students and then roar up the remainder of 10th Street at breakneck speed? At this rate, it’s only a matter of time until something tragic happens.But there is a solution.The crosswalk at the stadium uses a system of lights to stop traffic and let pedestrians cross. It’s like a traffic light, but the cross-traffic is pedestrian instead of being vehicular.Implementing something like that light would be a perfect solution for the misguided, slow crosswalk that was placed on 10th Street. It caters to the needs of both students and bikers, bus drivers, and cars.It would divide the current pedestrian-dominated anarchy into clearly defined times for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and it could be timed with the light at 10th Street and Fee Lane for maximum efficiency. Students using all forms of transportation could get to class on time, and everyone, epsecially the pedestrians that dominate this campus, would be that much safer for it. It’s a simple, elegant, and easily implemented solution to an unnecessary annoyance. Then maybe my bus driver could leave the Sudoku puzzles at home.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(10/23/12 4:00am)
Libertarianism seems to be experiencing a Renaissance at this campus, but not necessarily one it deserves.Unlike being a Democrat or a Republican, Libertarianism is based about specific principles. Libertarians believe that government should exist only to guard against force and fraud and provide for the national defense in a very restricted sense. They oppose any law or program that could possibly infringe on the rights of an individual.That may sound appealing until you realize what it would eliminate. Things like government subsidized student loans, public education, social security, drug laws, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, gun control and most market regulation – none of them would exist in a Libertarian state.When I meet someone who claims to be a Libertarian, I would expect him or her to at least have a basic understanding of these ideals.But more often than not when I ask someone why they are a Libertarian, their reply is more a discussion of how much they hate the established political parties and their candidates than a conversation about the merits of Libertarianism itself.I really like grapes, but if I were to tell someone that the reason I like grapes so much is that I really hate apples and oranges, they would think I was crazy.But when it comes to politics, for some reason we readily accept that same flawed logic as a legitimate reason for being a Libertarian.I’m certainly one to always encourage political activity, but I have a problem with this.So much of what these people are upset about in established party politics in this country is that people who participate in party politics do so blindly, without really taking the time to inform themselves about their party and the issues.So, as a remedy for that, these neo-Libertarians have gone and blindly subscribed to another political party without taking the time to inform themselves about that party or the issues.It’s not a remedy at all. It’s another form of the problem.To rail against the established system of ignorance by making yourself a marginally disenfranchised part of that ignorance is not the behavior of a political ideologue. It’s the mindset of a hipster.Frustration with the party system of American politics is a great reason to be an independent.But it shouldn’t be a reason to vote Libertarian.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(10/15/12 4:00am)
One word could sum up the Indiana gubernatorial debate last Wednesday in Zionsville, Ind. Predictable.Honestly, it was a bit comedic. Consider the tropes: The primped Republican with the comfortable lead who spouts buzzwords and colorful anecdotes. The down-home Democrat far behind in the polls who screams about his history of bipartisanship and job creation. The token Libertarian who is constantly skipped.It was like a skit on Saturday Night Live.With a hefty lead in virtually every poll conducted so far, Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th District, really didn’t have to do much at this debate other than show up. In fact, on multiple occasions, Pence couldn’t even be bothered to present his own facts and plans. Instead, he encouraged viewers to research them in his online “Roadmap for Indiana.” He frequently used his opponents’ answers as his own.When you have a double-digit lead, you have the luxury of co-opting your oppositions’ stances.In contrast, Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Gregg — the guy with the mustache — needed to do quite a bit more. Gregg was on the offensive throughout the debate, casting himself as a local Democrat with experience in creating jobs and bipartisan consensus. He presented his opponent as a radical who can’t reach across the aisle and wasn’t willing to save auto industry jobs.Rupert Boneham, the Libertarian candidate of “Survivor” fame, faced an uphill battle. With single-digit polling, his candidacy won’t be much more than a token. Moderator Dennis Ryerson seemed to know it. He skipped Boneham on multiple occasions, forcing the candidate to contend not only with his opponents but also with a moderator who seemed unable to follow his own rules. Boneham’s response, “That’s what happens to a third party,” pretty thoroughly summarized his debate experience.What can Indiana voters take away from this highly entertaining but politically vapid experience? Mainly what we already knew. Pence is in a strong position to claim the governor’s office in November. Third party candidates still face the flack they’ve been dealing with for years.And if you’re hankering to see some beautiful facial hair in the governor’s chair, you’ll probably have to wait at least four more years.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(10/09/12 4:00am)
IU football leaves a lot to be desired. That’s no secret.I don’t think I know more than maybe three people who actually went to that Homecoming game. So imagine my surprise about Homecoming weekend when I was invited to tailgating parties as early as seven in the morning. As if people actually intended to go to the game.I usually consider myself a morning person. But by morning I mean like 9:30 a.m. on any given weekday, and never, ever before 8 a.m.Classes at 8 a.m. are like snipes. People say they exist, but can you ever be truly sure if they do or not? How could anyone possibly survive getting up that early? Are they just pulling your leg? Or could something that heinous actually occur in real life? And then you meet someone who claims to have one. Immediately you adopt that hushed, nursing home voice you might use during a conversation with a terminally ill patient.So why on earth would I want to be up to tailgate at 7 a.m.? I’m not going to come home early Friday night just so I don’t die when my alarm wakes me up to go out Saturday morning.For reference’s sake, the sun didn’t even officially rise on Saturday until 7:47 a.m., which means people expected me to be out of bed and raging predawn. I don’t rage before the sun.Cheap beer doesn’t taste any better at 7 a.m. than at 1 p.m., nor am I any better at beer pong. Cornhole is still a dumb game, and you can’t get up early enough to drink an IU football game into something less than pitiful. And I can see my breath when I’m outside that early in October. What genius dreamt this up?Bottom line, if we’re not going to the game, which most of the people I know don’t do anyway, then a tailgate is just like any other party. And if anyone had a normal party at 7 a.m., they’d be laughed out of town.So if we’re just going to drink and eat and pass out at about 2 p.m., why do we drag ourselves out of bed at all? In the future, if you invite me to your crack-of-dawn tailgate, expect me to show up well-rested and a few beers in around 2 p.m.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(10/02/12 4:00am)
I’m an absolute fashion nut. I’ve spent the last few weeks glued to the collections being presented in New York, London, Milan and Paris.But a portion of the works presented by the Dolce & Gabbana bore representations of, according to its own statement, “‘Moorish’ figures” that have been deemed by many to be racist. Dolce has since defended the images in an online statement. I naturally oppose racism, but I think American culture is a bit hypersensitive to it, especially in situations like these. And I think the term needs a bit of an overhaul.In my opinion, racism is two-fold. Obviously, racism requires ignorance, but I don’t think ignorance on its own constitutes racism. I think real racism also requires malicious intent.For example, when my cousin was 5, my father and I took him to a Pacers’ game. At one point, he looked at me and said, “I can’t tell the difference between the players. They’re all black men with no hair.”Obviously that was an ignorant comment, and we corrected him immediately. But it wasn’t malicious, and I don’t think it was truly racist. He was 5 years old. He didn’t really know what he was saying. People are not born racist any more than they are born Democrats or Christians. Racists don’t crop up out of thin air.Years ago, when truly malicious racism was much more common than it is today, a crusade against it was absolutely necessary.But I view that movement as having reached critical mass. Now, this highly active crusade probably does more to propagate, rather than eliminate, racist thought.Absolute racism in the wider sense, what I would call ignorance, still exists. Even my definition of racism, with malicious intent, still exists in this country.But the kind of overreaction that rises up to meet things like the images displayed in the Dolce & Gabbana collection does more to perpetuate the stereotypes that it contained than the original display of those stereotypes ever would have.If our goal is to eliminate racism and ignorance, then I think we need to reevaluate our priorities.I believe that racism in this country is already spontaneously on its way out. When James Holmes killed 16 people during a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” there was a movement among journalists to boycott the use of his name. The intent was to avoid giving Holmes what he wanted, press. His intentions needed attention to survive. The current state of American racism is the same. To survive, it needs us to continue to remind the American public that it exists. — drlreed@indiana.edu
(10/02/12 2:44am)
I honestly don’t know why I remember this, but my first exposure to a hickey was the 1996 Disney Channel movie “Wish Upon a Star,” starring, most notably, Katherine Heigl.Like any other pop culture representation of a hickey, this one was intensely negative. After the main character, played by Heigl, receives a hickey from her boyfriend, her sister uses it as blackmail.It’s no secret that pop culture has very strict rules about sex. It’s why we giggle knowingly at Bree Van de Kamp in “Desperate Housewives” when she attempts to refuse her husband’s offer of oral sex.“I’m a Republican,” she says. Recently, I spent a morning digging through my closet looking for enough scarves and high-necked sweaters to feasibly make it through a week of class. The weather may have gotten colder, but the real motivation behind my change of wardrobe was a little more sensitive.Like Heigl’s character, I had a hickey. It’s not a terribly uncommon occurrence, for me or for any college student. But this time the judgmental looks and comments made me think.Why do we apologize for meeting a basic, human, even animalistic, need for sexual expression?Maybe the term “animalistic” has a negative connotation. If it does, let me be clearer.Human beings are animals. Animals are sexual. In fact, to a degree, all life is sexual in some basic capacity.It is probably the most factual of all facts that you and I exist primarily because of literally trillions upon trillions of compounded iterations of the sexual act.My hickey, and indeed any hickey, is just a physical manifestation of this most human of activities.So here it is, my hickey manifesto.I believe:1. A fundamental aspect of humanity is sexuality. Sexual health is just as important as mental and physical health.2. Our sexual similarities and differences, along with intimacy itself, should be celebrated openly, not relegated to the bedroom or wherever else your escapades may take you.3. The decision to participate or abstain from sexual activity to any degree is personal, and respect for it is necessary in civilized society. As such, terms like whore, slut, prude and others undermine our ability to function as a community.4. As a responsible and safe sexual partner, I refuse to apologize for my sexual experiences. Far from making me a slut, I consider a hickey to be not only a mark of affection, but also a badge of humanity.Sometimes sex is awesome. And sometimes sex sucks. But in both cases, I can’t think of anything more truly human, and I could never be ashamed of that.So let’s reclaim the hickey. Next time I have one, I’ll be framing it with a lovely low-cut V-neck tee.Next time I’m lucky enough to get lucky, I plan on displaying the evidence loud and proud. Join me.My name is Drake Reed, and I have hickey pride.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(09/25/12 4:00am)
Beyonce might say it’s girls, but I say it’s Google.In his bestselling book “Bowling Alone,” Robert Putnam, professor of public policy at Harvard University, cites screen time as one of the leading causes of a decline in social connectedness in this country since the 1960s.The book was written in 2000, long before the iPhone and devices like it devoured our attention even further.I don’t know if I necessarily agree with Putnam that there is something fundamentally inferior about the social connections electronic interactions create, but I do think there’s an important difference to point out.When we have traditional social contact, there’s only you and me and our words and perhaps an activity. But when communities interact electronically, there’s an intermediary.Companies like Google, Apple and Facebook are the invisible messengers that carry this social contact from my phone to yours. Invisible as they are, it’s very easy to forget they are participating in that interaction.Sometimes that interaction is a price of admission. Most everyone knows, and at least implicitly has come to terms with the fact, that Facebook uses your personal information and interactions to advertise to you.Facebook may be monetarily free, but we still “pay” with our privacy to use it.In fact, privacy seems to be the currency of the modern day. If you want an iPhone, you have to be willing to let Apple track your locations. If you want to use Facebook or Google, information about you and what you click on most is going to be pimped out.These are the gatekeepers of information in the information age, and the toll must be paid.Google recently blocked access in certain countries to the YouTube video mocking the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It’s when we are faced with situations like this that our lack of privacy begins to feel fishy.When that invisible social intermediary is already there, and people are in real danger, it seems almost irresponsible for a company like Google not to remove access to that material. But the implied message of this action to the protesters is that violence is a viable means of affecting change.Are we satisfied with Google’s decision in this case?Do we trust them and companies like them to responsibly make these social decisions for us in the future? Most importantly, do we have any choice? Those are questions to which I don’t really have any answers yet.But what worries me most? I haven’t heard very many people asking them.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(09/18/12 4:00am)
A lot of really important things happened recently. An ambassador was killed abroad. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-6th District of Minnesota, called our president “the most dangerous one we’ve ever had on foreign policy.” I’m sure the mayor of Carmel, Ind., is still behaving like a child.This week I’m going to take a break from talking about all these things to tell you something I’ve realized is infinitely more important.Since my family moved four states away last fall, I’ve become the sole member of the Reed clan in the area besides my grandparents.When my grandma called me two weeks ago to ask if I would come for the weekend, I was resentful, to say the least.So resentful, in fact, that when I left Bloomington to go to my grandparents’, I did so more than an hour late. I was in no hurry to cut short a coffee shop conversation I was having. I wouldn’t say I’m proud of it.Throughout the weekend, Don and Bobbie Reed have reminded me that they are by far the wisest people I know.That includes professors with doctorates from some of the most prestigious universities in the world with more awards than I could possibly list in the paltry 400 words my editors give me.While devouring questionable Mexican food and delicious cupcakes, we talked politics, philosophy, history and the complexities of social structure. They proved on every topic to be not only impeccably informed, but astoundingly open-minded and clever. I found it tough to keep up with them.My grandparents don’t have college degrees, and I don’t think they would describe themselves as heavy readers. But they pay attention, and between the two of them, they’ve been paying attention for more than 130 years.As I write this, I’m sitting in the recliner usually reserved for my grandpa in the living room of their tidy Greene County home. My grandpa has had many chairs in my lifetime, but they’ve all smelled the same. This one is no different.It smells just like the interior of the bright blue ’84 GMC Sierra pickup truck sitting in their driveway.That truck is older than I am.It has smelled the same from the first day I remember riding in it all the way up until the last time I drove it, the day I put a dent in the fender moving into my new apartment a month ago.My grandparents’ simple wisdom, infinite humility and boundless generosity refocus my concentration on what is truly important.Every time I see them, I am astonished at how quickly I forgot the lessons they taught me during my previous visit.Grandma, I promise to never resent a weekend spent in your company — or be late for one — ever again.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(09/11/12 4:00am)
I’m a gushy big-government liberal. But fiscal fiascoes like the one currently taking place in Carmel, Ind., make me sympathize a bit with the tea partiers I usually hate. Just a little bit.Last November, after already having borrowed more than $260 million to pay for massive redevelopment projects, the Carmel Redevelopment Commission approved another $15 million worth of debt to allow itself to continue running. That money is projected to dry up before the end of this year.During the last four years, the commission has been the golden child of the civic planning community. Its work within the City of Carmel is frequently called one of the most ambitious and effective redevelopment projects in the country.But according to city documents, the commission, which represents a partnership between public appointees and private ventures, engaged in multiple questionable practices to finance this success.The commission engaged in risky loan practices and developed a $6.4 million operating budget without ever identifying a permanent source of funding for it by exploiting a loophole in the law governing their financial activities.This all happened because Mayor Jim Brainard said he knew he didn’t have the backing on the city council to get funding.Now, Brainard and his commission need a favor from a city council they have snubbed for the past four years just to stay afloat.The foolish actions of Brainard and this commission are sure to become fodder for the cannons of small-government proponents everywhere.I do see their point. Brainard has done what they accuse liberals everywhere of doing. He and the commission have been optimistically rubber-stamping spending programs without giving a thought to how they could possibly pay for it.Worse, Brainard did it by dodging a portion of the democratic process designed to allow the people of Carmel to have their say.Technically, the actions of Brainard and the commission were legal. Rather than floating municipal bonds, which required city council approval, the commission merely allowed contractors to take out loans backed by public funds. The debt was technically acquired by the contractor and not outside the scope of the commission’s abilities. But the contracts and loans were backed entirely by the commission and appeared on the city’s books as its own debt.Brainard’s willingness to so blatantly and intensely sidestep a process meant to place restrictions on the power of appointed officials is a clear indicator of his flawed moral character.And, as we all know, legality and morality are two very different things. — drlreed@indiana.edu
(09/04/12 4:00am)
Beginning this week, a Terre Haute prisoner will bring his struggle for equal rights to a federal courtroom in Indianapolis. John Walker Lindh, an American-born Taliban fighter, rightly claims that his right to practice his religion has been violated by a prison policy that prohibits group prayer.Lindh’s particular branch of Islam requires group prayer five times daily, but the prison allows for only one group prayer session a week.The American Civil Liberties Union’s chapter in Indiana, which represents Lindh, claims this policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The act, passed in 1993, requires that policies touching on religion represent a “compelling government interest” and be the “least restrictive means” of accomplishing that goal. Opponents of Lindh’s request claim the policy protects corrections officials and ensures the security of the facility. And if the prisoners were already kept separate for most of the day out of a concern for security, this point would at least be logical.But Lindh’s interactions with his fellow inmates are not restricted in any other way.During the day, the unit is open, and inmates can mingle, talk, play games and watch television.The only thing that keeps Lindh and his fellow Muslims from coming together to pray during this time is the policy of the prison that explicitly forbids their worship.Even if the prison were truly concerned about security in this case, Lindh’s basic human right would still be violated.Contrary to the idea of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, basic human rights should always supersede a compelling government interest.As satisfying and cathartic as it may be to strip an individual of his humanity based on his inhumane actions, the fact remains that we have a responsibility to respect the inherent dignity of our fellow man.Terrorists, saints and the rest of us all have at least one thing in common. We’re all human. Incarceration takes away a lot of what reminds us of that fact.This prison’s cold attempt at a cost-benefit calculation with respect to the lawful practice of religion represents a disregard for the basic right of human beings to do so in the first place.This prison has no right to determine what level of human dignity these individuals are entitled to. They are entitled, by virtue of the fact that they exist, to the full and equitable practice of their religion, regardless of their actions or circumstances.It is the duty of the prison and a democratic state to oversee that practice, not regulate it. — drlreed@indiana.edu
(08/28/12 4:00am)
Alana Thompson, cast member of “Toddlers and Tiaras,” child pageant star and the Honey Boo Boo Child YouTube sensation, has her own reality television show. Wednesday nights on TLC are home to the riveting redneck antics of the Thompson family. From cheese puffs for breakfast to trawling the aptly-named “Kuntry Stoe,” the Thompson family’s success represents our current fascination with being better than everyone else.The opening title says it better than my words ever could. The camera calmly pans across a smiling, cheerful family. Suddenly a loud fart rents the air, and the illusion is destroyed as everyone in the family clearly smells it but denies having dealt it.They make fools of themselves, and I’m sure they are paid very good money for it. And why shouldn’t they? If I could be paid to fart and eat cheese puffs, I would.In exchange for cash, the Thompson family willingly validates the destructive lifestyle of the typical American family.But the idea that the Thompson family is somehow being fooled by its producers into looking like idiots against their will is an insult to what intelligence they do have. Being comfortable with one’s lifestyle is not the same as being ignorant of the way the rest of the country lives.Of course the Thompsons know how they look to the rest of the world. If they didn’t, they would fail to understand why anyone would pay to see their hilarious lives in the first place.The difference, both to the Thompsons and to any other reality show family, must be that they simply don’t care. And for that, they should be commended.If nothing else, reality television shows should remind us that we, like the Thompsons, are far from perfect, and we should take pride in that imperfection. Alana’s mom, June, says it best in one of the show’s first episodes. “You either like us, or you don’t like us. Either way, we don’t care.”If I’m being entirely honest, June, I don’t like you or the life you have built for your children very much at all. However entertaining you may be, a cheese puff has never been considered a balanced breakfast. Spelling and math are clearly not your strong points. And I won’t even touch the lifelong self-image issues you have ingrained in your pageant-crazed daughters.But, like you said, you don’t care. And I think that’s something this country could use a lot more of.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(08/21/12 4:00am)
It’s late at night. You are bored and probably alone for the evening. You may even be a little inebriated and you want something, or someone, to do. The college hookup beckons. We’ve all seen it. Most of us have probably done it.If you, like me, are a man who identifies as gay or any other number greater than zero on the Kinsey scale chances are your resource of choice is Grindr.For those unfamiliar with it, Grindr is an app that advertises itself as a “discrete all-male location-based social networking app.” But, real talk, it’s a way to find horny guys close to you.It’s not fancy, sleek or in any way dignified. In fact, at times it’s barely functional. But when the need arises, so to speak, it gets the job done.Recently I became aware of a planned update for Grindr. One of the expected new features? A way to filter potential nearby “candidates” based on their identification with one of a number of gay stereotypes. If, for instance, I was only interested in people who identified as “jocks,” I could choose to see only those people who had described themselves as such.I have never been terribly thrilled with Grindr’s tacit philosophy, but up until now, I have accepted it as the natural progression of my community’s sexual history. What was once cruising in public restrooms has become streamlined by the internet and the smart phone into a discrete, convenient and safer process.Like providing sterile needles to heroin addicts to curb the spread of AIDS, Grindr and apps like it offer those with a margin of common sense and the foresight to practice safe sex a less dangerous and more controlled environment in which to do so.But what was once perhaps a badly organized take-out menu will now become a simplified and streamlined all-you-can-eat buffet. Lukewarm, overcooked men in harsh lighting wait in clearly delineated stainless steel tubs to be scooped onto a plate and taken to bed.Asking gay men to place themselves into a box reinforces the notion that stereotypes within the gay community are our most efficient means of identifying and evaluating each other. Furthermore, they encourage gay youth entering the community, whose first same-sex sexual encounters often occur as a result of these kind of apps, to evaluate themselves based on some notion of self-worth tied to these stereotypes.Gay men should not consider themselves twinks, jocks or bears any more than women should consider themselves MILFs or prudes. They are, and should consider themselves, individuals above and beyond the objectification of their sexual acts.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(04/18/12 8:50pm)
While most of us were celebrating the beginning of the world’s greatest college week, our president was in Cartagena, Colombia. At the Sixth Summit of the Americas, President Barack Obama fended off claims that the United States has failed in its war on drugs. When pressed by President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos, Obama replied that legalization was not a solution his administration was willing to consider.There are few things on which I disagree with Barack Obama, but this might just be one of them.Economic activity, like water, follows the path of least resistance. If there is a market for drugs in this country, drugs will find a way in. Heroine addicts do not kick the habit just because prices go sky-high. Drugs are here to stay; the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can start solving the actual issue.Drugs present what we in economics call an externality problem. They have costs to society that are not fully represented in their market price. For drugs, these costs include things such as health care provided to a cocaine addict, AIDS epidemics caused by hypodermic needles or theft done to pay for meth.Notice, none of these costs goes away just because drugs are made illegal.In economics we try to solve this problem by first applying a tax to reduce consumption, and then using that taxation income to pay for things such as health care for that cocaine addict. And in a perfect world, society essentially breaks even.But when the only politically feasible solution to a drug problem is prohibition, society becomes deep in the red.Difficulty in smuggling drugs illegally might result in prices high enough to still curb some consumption, but the end result is the same.Drugs still get used and society is stuck with the bill for their costs without a way to pay for it.Forcing the drug trade underground by making them illegal accomplishes one thing and one thing only: It makes a select handful of criminals extremely rich.These represent some of the most dangerous people in the country. And ever since drug prohibition policies first hit the books in 1914, it has been the policy of the U.S. government to guarantee these junkies a steady and massive stream of income.Makes sense, right?Tripped out wackos + nearly unlimited resources = public safety. And the American public has swallowed this story gladly for almost a century.Bringing the drug trade back into the realm of legitimate activity allows the communities in which it takes place to regulate and control it. The current policy of stamping it out wherever it goes only looks like control. In truth, it just forces the uncontrolled out of sight, like sweeping dirt under the rug.The harder and harder this nation’s government grinds the drug trade into the ground, the more dangerous and rich the people involved with it are going to grow.This is not a solution, just a giant downward spiral.Listen to your South American counterparts, President Obama, and have the courage to approach this problem with a fresh and open mind. No longer should this country continue failed policies out of a sense of morality. Legalizing and regulating drugs will do much more good for the economy and the people of the American continents than this misguided “war” ever has.After all, economic activity, like water, follows the path of least resistance. And it is much easier to get water to go where you want it than to seal it out altogether.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(04/03/12 11:27pm)
I will never forget the look on the face of the Swiss exchange student next to me in my high-school government class on the day our teacher told us about all of the advantages of being an American.America is the greatest country in the world. Apparently, she was unaware.I am sick of hearing these words drip from the lips of contemporary politicians. To most people, this kind of patriotism is a trait to be admired. I am not one of those people.As a pacifist, I see patriotism as one of the most damaging forces in existence. Most military conflicts can eventually be traced back to moments of ill-advised national pride compounded again and again.Pride is, by nature, exclusionary. It is based on one’s ability to differentiate between multiple states of being and praise one at the expense of the others. How was this ever an acceptable method of international relations?I challenge this country to continue its press forward rather than stagnate in this self-congratulation. We have a storied history, absolutely, but patting ourselves on the back for things we personally did not even accomplish is self-indulgent and lazy — precisely what citizens of other countries despise us for.The greatest country in the world would foster the existence of love wherever it was, not question its legitimacy in certain forms. That country would not spread economic risk wide across the population while compounding the reward among a select few. That country would not deny people in other nations access to basic food and water out of some twisted idea of national defense.But most importantly, that country would never call itself the greatest country in the world.America is not the greatest country in the world, and our ability to acknowledge that is precisely where the remaining beauty of this nation lies.Pandering to those who live in an imaginary world where the needs and goals of the United States still reign supreme is an antiquated and imperialist world-view. Today, the world is no longer a place that can be dominated by any one country. If the United States wants to remain welcome in that world, it must embrace its own flaws.Free expression is one of the most fundamental human rights and is something this country once stood for. Calling this country flawed is a return to that original value of free expression, not the radical, un-American leftist agenda some might dismiss it as. It is one of the most truly American acts possible.So think for a moment about who is more true to that original idea of America.Is it the masses that swoon when someone preaches about the shimmering glory of the United States or the Swiss exchange student rolling her eyes in the front row of my small-townhigh school.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(03/22/12 4:00am)
The ability to automatically draw attention to issues just by showing up on a red carpet is something most celebrities probably take for granted. And I have to admit, I always counted George Clooney among those flighty celebrities who flock to issues that tug at their empathy, all while avoiding getting their hands dirtier than is required to throw an A-list fundraiser.But last Friday, Clooney and his father, along with several other public figures, were arrested outside of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C. Their arrest was apparently planned to raise awareness in connection to a protest of the actions of the Sudanese government, which has allegedly committed war crimes against its people.To hear that Clooney was willing to become enveloped in a cause is heartening, regardless of his effectiveness or true understanding of the issue.Clooney has done much more than just be arrested for the cause. In fact, he has made six trips to Sudan and spent most of last week testifying before Congress and meeting with President Barack Obama. Social issues tend to trend through America like slap bracelets or the George Foreman Grill.KONY 2012 is a perfect example. Arguably, so was Occupy. Sudanese issues have had their time to trend, as well. I remember organizations in high school that sold T-shirts that were all the rage for about two weeks.If you look hard enough, you can find something wrong with just about any social issue, including Clooney’s.But is it more important to do something, or to point out all the faults in what is being done?Most important, I think, is to try to help people in the first place.Here’s the real question: Is the net change in the world positive? Maybe our aid could have been more efficient or been done in less corrupt fashion. But you will never be able to achieve humanitarian perfection. Demanding it of every organization or effort will ultimately do more harm to the people who need the help.I think, most of the time, people have good intentions. And most of the time, those good intentions lead to that net positive change we need to look for.Too often we get caught up in the “what if” questions about how good of a job we did. Of course it is important to constantly self-evaluate to make sure our humanitarian efforts improve. But it is much more important not to let those questions keep us from trying in the first place.I have much more respect for those people who feel passionate about an issue and do something about it, even if they fail to do an amazing job, than I do for the people who criticize them for their work yet never do any themselves.Because, as Clooney found out firsthand, no good deed goes unpunished.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(02/29/12 10:56pm)
Florida seems to be awash with racist teenage girls.In mid-February, two Florida high-school students posted a video rant about their school and their blatantly racist perceptions of students who went there. The video includes disgusting statements and assumptions, as well as language that can only be described as foul. It’s a doozy. Here’s a smattering of what is clean enough to print.“(Black people) are not forced into living conditions by white people. They bring that upon themselves by not getting jobs, not graduating, that’s why they live in crappy places in town. Because they don’t know how to make money.”“Most of the crime here is done by black people, so there’s nothing to stereotype.”Naturally, the video went viral immediately. Weeks later, another video was posted by two girls from a different Florida high school. They somehow managed to pack the same amount of idiocy into four minutes rather than 14, like the previous one. But there has to be a bigger lesson we can learn from this. I am not going to waste your time by telling you that racism and arrogant teenage girls are dumb.The first two girls are no longer attending their Gainesville, Fla., high school due to death threats. The second pair is under review for disciplinary action from their school in Lantana, Fla.Good thing, too. I am a huge proponent of free speech, and I love that people are able to share their thoughts and ideas instantly on YouTube and websites like it. But the conundrum of the 21st century so far has been, “How far does free speech go in a world when I can share my thoughts with millions at the stroke of a key?”I think the answer is that we must dissect free speech further. One absolutely has the right to express oneself today, but free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility after it has left your mouth.Free means you can say the words. It does not mean you do not have to back them up afterward.These girls were disturbed, young, naïve and starved for attention in a world in which YouTube videos make children half their age into celebrities overnight. When followers and statuses define the quality of one’s life and it is encouraged to describe complex emotion in 140 characters, such situations are bound to happen.These girls will probably live with the choices they made this past month for the rest of their lives. If they had made a passing comment to a friend at the lunch table, this probably would have ended there. Instead, evidence of their stupidity will continue to exist online forever.It is simple to`use our right to free speech to say things that sound cool in the moment. It is less easy to remember to say things we are willing to be reminded of for the rest of our lives.You never know who has a camera.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(02/15/12 11:55pm)
Amanda Knox accomplished something pretty difficult in America these days. Last fall, she managed to disappear from swarms of journalists who were obsessed with her. This after being acquitted on appeal in the murder of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, who was found in their Italian apartment with her throat cut. Now she is back, this time to pitch a book to publishers that she said will be an honest representation of the happenings surrounding that death.Preliminary estimates put the book’s advance well within seven-figure territory. Meanwhile, Kercher’s parents insinuate that they did not buy her acquittal.But Knox spent four years of her prime adulthood languishing in an Italian prison while her family sustained massive debts for legal bills. Her parents drained their retirement accounts to spend time flying back and forth to Italy to be with their daughter. In one instance, her grandmother took out a $250,000 mortgage to assist in her defense.So how much would you expect to be paid to spend four years of your life in prison? I certainly would not consider even seven figures to be nearly enough.As a rule, I refuse to make overt statements about guilt in public trials. I do so mainly because I am about the most removed as anyone could be from trials such as Knox’s. Who am I to make a claim as to innocence or guilt for a case I know absolutely nothing about except what I see in the media?In the end, I make no assumptions about Knox’s involvement in that crime. In a way, I choose to believe that she is innocent, just as I choose to believe that Casey Anthony did not kill her daughter or Jerry Sandusky did not molest small children. I choose, when at all possible, to believe that people are not capable of doing the kinds of things that prosecutors like to pin on them.But this column is not about whether Knox is guilty. It is about whether she has the right to tell her story as she sees fits and make a bit of money in the process.Can anyone blame her for wanting to?Think about who you were, where you were, what was important to you and who you loved — every smile, scream, laugh and tear from four years ago all the way up to this moment.And delete them all.Everything that has happened between then and now is gone, replaced with one giant void of apprehension, terror and loneliness spent staring at the bunk above yours.Now grin and bear it when I hand you a bill for a million dollars and tell you to go home and live your life.— drlreed@indiana.edu