Next season: exploiting tragedy
Television and movies can do incredible things.
134 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Television and movies can do incredible things.
A group in Manhattan is attempting to change conversation and thought around addiction.
Gun violence and gun control issues aren’t going to fix themselves.
Co-founder and former vice president of marketing of the popular ?app Tinder Whitney Wolfe is ?suing the company for sexual harassment and sex ?discrimination.
“Good Wolf Dead Wolf” is a Facebook community that posts graphic pictures of hunted and killed wolves, celebrating each picture with the declaration “the only good wolf is a dead wolf.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs has been through the ringer.
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Good Wolf Dead Wolf” is a Facebook community that posts graphic pictures of hunted and killed wolves, celebrating each picture with the declaration “the only good wolf is a dead wolf.” The community’s existence and the encouragement of this behavior is problematic. Most of the hunters appear inexperienced, given the grisly state of their kill.Hunting, I believe, is perfectly fine when done properly. We’ve seen it work in Bloomington with the Griffy Lake deer surplus. It controls animal populations and protects the environment. It can provide food or money for the hunters.What’s disturbing is the manner in which these wolves are hunted. The wolves are allegedly caught in traps, where they are choked to death or shot, sometimes what appears to be a combination of both. There is an unsettling air of nonchalance to the way in which the wolves are dispatched. Wolves were only recently re-introduced into northern American ecosystems, much to the dissatisfaction of the ranch and farm owners that lived there. Their concerns were, of course, legitimate. Ranchers didn’t want their sheep or cattle eaten or their land threatened. But it seems this group has decided to take matters into its own hands. This inhumane treatment of these animals and the disregard for environmental impact not only gives hunting a bad name, but severely damages the well-being of an ecosystem and a species.Wolves, while not yet an endangered species, are extremely rare. They are stigmatized and threatened. They are an extremely controversial animal.To just barrel through and kill packs of wolves at will is dangerous and destructive. Not only that, but it shines a very negative light on advocates of hunting and gun ownership and safety.This page, and pages like it, must be taken down. They encourage dangerous behavior and threaten discussion with local government about local concerns. It is disgusting, and it needs to be stopped. ewenning@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Americans put more emphasis on boobs than we need to. For example, Rihanna showed up to the Council of Fashion Designers of America awards ceremony in a completely sheer dress made of crystals — without a bra.I thought she looked great.As with any celebrity appearance, the reviews have been mixed.It was either praise, condemnation or snide innuendos on a website or blog about the singer’s boobs.The idea that the female body has been unfairly sexualized has become more and more central as rape prevention has really started to enter the public sphere.The objectification of women often becomes a clichéd and overused phrase.However, it defines cultural phenomena that harms a large percentage of the population. The correlation between rape and the objectification of women is only facilitated by a media market heavily driven by the male gaze.Women are often presented as sums of parts, not whole people.Breasts, of course, have been a highly sexualized commodity.And when the media focuses on them, it only makes the problem worse.Now, women have begun to protest. The objectification of women creates a dangerous environment that presents them as things to be taken advantage of — hence, rape culture.However, given the scores of feedback on Rihanna’s dress, maybe we are blowing boobs out of proportion.When I went abroad, I saw boobs everywhere. And everything else.Beaches were full of nudity. Television wasn’t censored. One the first nights I was in Spain, I turned on the television to a naked bike race and saw way more than I ever thought I would.The point is, when people stopped caring about their bodies, when they stopped worrying so much, a lot of pressure was suddenly taken off.There, I didn’t feel as if I was being held to a standard.Many demand women be allowed to show their breasts as men are allowed to walk around shirtless.That necessarily doesn’t have to happen.Boobs are a body part like every other body part.Rather than battling about their sexuality, we should recognize that they serve a purpose no more glamorous than your hand or your foot.If we all quit caring a little bit, we would find gender inequalities and body standardizations about who is allowed to wear what suddenly go out the window. We are able to create a more forgiving body image culture.And, I hope, a less dangerous one.ewenning@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Maren Sanchez was stabbed to death in April for rejecting a young man who asked her to prom.The teen who stabbed her confessed and was later admitted to a psychiatric ward.The death has led to interesting debate and commentary about male rage and violence against women. I am 100 percent behind the idea of women’s health and safety becoming more present in national thought. However, I think one of the most compelling dialogues has centered around the lack of opportunities for young men with mental health problems to seek treatment.During the spring semester I commented on the benefits of programs like Men Against Rape and the Representation Project.Now, more than ever, their messages apply and need to be heard.Maren Sanchez’s death was tragic and wrong. However, when the media covered the story, they wound up beating a dead horse.Again and again I heard about how violence against women has escalated, how the young teenager’s death is a harbinger of violence to come.No one, anywhere, was offering a solution.After her killer’s admittance to a psychiatric ward, I began to think. In the past few years, there have been untold tragedies, mostly at the hands of unstable young men with weapons.Schools and movie theaters, shopping malls and campuses have all been stages for brutality and death.In the aftermath of these events, I want to see more programs and movements work toward helping young men.I want there to be a renewed focus on men’s health, because it is so necessary to ensuring the success of women’s health, and vice versa.I’m beginning to see some changes that I applaud and hope succeed.President Obama has begun to take a serious look at the causes of rape and assault on college campuses.Violence against women has begun to finally take center stage.But in order to come full circle, we must recognize men are in desperate need of help, too. As the Representation Project reported, boys are constantly stunted and frustrated by the need to “be a man,” which means anything from not being afraid to fight to killing someone if needed.In order to truly appreciate Maren Sanchez’s life, we must recognize the significance of her death, and I hope we learn from it.Her tragedy could potentially save lives if we are able to focus on the root cause of the violence — cries for help. If we can do that, we can start enacting real change and stop future violence and heartbreak. ewenning@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Recent studies have shown that we’re all a little more optimistic than we should be. About jobs, I mean.The Pew Research Center conducted a survey to find out how young adults entering the workforce feel about their prospects and the lack of offers in the job market.Eighty-eight percent said they feel great. I hesitate to join them. There are huge economic problems right now, not to mention all the issues we’re beginning to face with Social Security and the Baby Boomers.It doesn’t feel like my generation, nor the few coming before or after mine, really understand what it is we’re getting ourselves into.The way the market is right now, there’s simply not enough room for all of us.The other issue is that Millennials, and I’m using the term extremely broadly, have become used to the idea that they will find a job in their field immediately.I see many of my friends struggling to come to terms with the idea that they might have to accept a receptionist position here or there to make ends meet.However, I don’t necessarily think that this shift in the market is a bad thing.I’ve said before that Millennials and Baby Boomers live in two very different worlds. I think in the job market this is truer than ever.With fast-paced technology, the change in the value of the dollar and new and emerging fields, Millennials are changing the landscape of the job market and the economy.However, they must be careful.With the recession still fresh in our minds, many of us know first-hand the consequences of credit and inflation.I believe instead of optimistic, the term should be realistic. We must be realistic about our expectations. We must start learning to work our way up a job ladder, not be handed the perfect job on our first try.And we must not be afraid to fail. So many times Millennials feel the mounting pressure of needing to be successful. With a college degree and the opportunities out there, most of us have room to experiment and start from the beginning a time or two before we really figure it out.The global landscape is changing, and we can change with it, but only if we are smart enough to figure it out.ewenning@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Insulting someone based on their sexuality is possibly one of the easiest ways to question a person’s character and debase their sense of self. Obvious.Recently, though, I got first-hand experience of what that was like.A friend of mine told me a few weeks ago she had thought I was a lesbian because she had been told so by some unsavory parties.Of course I laughed it off and told her it wasn’t true. I’m heterosexual and very comfortable with that.But the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. Not because it was a rumor about me specifically, but because of how easy the insult was. If you don’t like somebody, just bring into question their sexuality. And it happens every day.It was the kind of stuff I remember doing in middle school, when I was an idiot and didn’t have enough knowledge or cultural awareness to know what I was saying. It made me realize just how deeply set homophobia is. In Bloomington, I and many others I’ve spoken to about this feel we live in a happy bubble where there’s at least one gay person in your classes and many of your professors and friends advocate gay rights.It makes you forget about the constant hate crimes, deaths and homophobic violence that take place every day.Calling someone gay can still be perceived as an insult — a way in which to bring into question a person’s character and moral values.Since I first found out about it, the question of it has been on the back of my mind for a while. I know enough about the subject and myself to find being called a lesbian highly uneventful, but I also know that many other people would be upset and hurt — not because they were homophobic but because sexuality is extremely sensitive and extremely easy to insult.It is a part of what makes us who we are. When it is called into question, it does not just elicit a few snickers and petty behavior but some real conversations about who and what a person is and stands for.This is what many homosexual and queer persons are faced with every single day. Of course I’m an advocate for gay rights, but I don’t think I fully understood what I was standing up for until it happened to me directly.It means standing up for the moral characters of people, believing that just because a person’s sexuality is different from your own does not make them “bad,” “less” or “morally wrong.”If I didn’t before, I now realize just how important standing up for another person’s rights is.I hope that I can and will continue to do so. ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We said so long and good luck last Friday to my predecessors and people who have inspired me and motivated me since my freshman feet landed at the doors of the Indiana Daily Student. Now, two years later, I get to fill their shoes.This upcoming fall, I, with my fellow veteran columnist Lexia Banks, will be editing the IDS opinion section. Though there are many plans she and I have and many things we want to see done, for now I’ll just say I couldn’t be more excited.Though the IDS is not financially or editorially dependent on IU, it’s a massive proponent and avenue for student voice and activism, and nowhere is that more present than in the Opinion section.Columnists receive meaningful and thought-provoking emails and commentary about their columns, and many feel when they reach out to an IDS writer they reach out to their University. It is a chance for them to be heard. As editor, that means I facilitate that interaction. I hope it grows next semester. I want to create an environment that fosters meaningful dialogue between the University and its students, between the IDS and its readers. This paper has the incredibly powerful ability to make and manipulate change. As editors, myself and those at supervising the other desks are personally responsible for making sure students are heard, and that the things they care about are given their due.The IDS is extremely important to me. It’s where I’ve learned and grown the most as a writer, professional, team member and person. As I watched the seniors I’ve come to love and respect say their goodbye’s last Friday, I was suddenly struck by the fact we have a finite amount of time in which to make our mark.If we seize opportunities, surround ourselves with supporters and give ourselves the chance to grow and learn, then we’ll not only make a mark, but we’ll make deep and lasting impressions.I feel that as a columnist, I have a responsibility to not only voice my opinions, but to make sure the student voice is heard and appreciated. As an editor, I get the power to do so. I get the power to foster talent, to make good people better and, hopefully, to see real change. We have an enormous responsibility while we are here on this campus to be the best representatives of this University and to make it better for the next generation of students.I hope next semester Lexia and I will not only make our marks, but also give others the same opportunity afforded to us – the chance to leave a mark of their own. If we can accomplish that, then I will consider myself a successful editor of the Opinion section of this publication. ewenning@indian.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve been a long-time follower of the cultural appropriation debate ever since Gwen Stefani decided to hire an ensemble of Asian women for her Harajuku girl persona.It’s become relevant again, especially recently when pop stars like Miley Cyrus and Avril Lavigne are teetering on a dangerous line between edgy and offensive, funny and racist. However, I think there is someone who somehow consistently gets away with her borderline offensive antics and needs to finally be called into question: Katy Perry.Her new music video for “Birthday” features the star playing a variety of birthday performers. One of them is a Jewish comedian who makes circumcision and money jokes. This isn’t the first time Perry has crossed a line. Let us not forget her Geisha costume during her “Unconditionally” performance at the American Music Awards that raised some eyebrows. In her music video for “Dark Horse” she plays what amounts to be a caricature of an ancient Egyptian queen in a neon throne room blasting failed potential suitors with a Styrofoam ankh. As the Indiana Daily Student Editorial Board discussed earlier this week, racism does not come about via intention, but result. I see her getting progressively more daring, and the end result is crossing more and more into politically and racially charged territory. Perry, like Miley Cyrus with her grills, twerking and general ridiculousness, is only using the parts of these cultures that she deems aesthetically pleasing or useful. Then she uses them wrong.The Egyptian ankh denotes religious significance. Much like the average white girl wearing a Native American headdress or an Indian bindi at Coachella, she turns a cultural symbol into a meaningless accessory. Even though many minority fans of Perry might not find her actions offensive, at the end of the day they make her look like an idiot. And it reflects poorly on many of her peers.Because Perry does not understand the cultures whose paraphernalia she so readily uses, it is easy to assume everyone like her believes they can also pick and choose which symbols they can accessorize with.In short, pop stars using cultural stereotypes to promote a song needs to stop.Learn about other cultures, try to become more globally aware and attempt to teach others about the complexities of the human experience.But don’t just build on offensive and racist images and stereotypes or base an entire concert series around a culture because you like the aesthetic.It’s disrespectful and can be insulting to the native culture. It makes you look stupid. ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Darren Aronofsky’s newest movie, “Noah,” is generating some unexpected controversy because it is more about saving the environment than it is about religion.I heard somewhere Aronofsky said he was proud of the movie’s near-complete lack of religion. But in researching the movie’s production story I could find nothing that would back up that claim.Still, I think it’s an interesting question. If a movie is going to be about a biblical figure or if a movie is going to discuss metaphysical concepts, it does not necessarily have to name God. In an era where we’re so deepely divided, religious movies across the board have been highly polarizing. People either find them completely ludicrous or spiritually inspiring.While many are up-in-arms about “Noah,” I don’t think the movie’s lack of religion is necessarily a bad thing.I do think Aronofsky himself may have been a bit abrasive when he decided to leave God out of the movie’s primary themes. Much like Roland Emmerich’s glee at destroying the Vatican in 2009’s “2012,” Aronofsky seemed a little too pleased with his decision. I don’t think making choices to spite a group of people is the best way to go about doing things. However, I think he might inadvertently introduce many to what he wanted to avoid.Leaving God out of the movies allows people who would rather avoid religious subjects the chance to experience it without feeling like they are making a huge spiritual commitment. In fact, it opens up interesting channels of debate and conversation.Instead of ostracizing certain groups, it could potentially present a biblical story from an objective angle and allow many who feel like they couldn’t say anything to discuss the story from both a religious and secular perspective.While “Noah” might not have been a box-office hit, I have high hopes for the trends this movie could potentially ignite. I’d be interested to see religious movies become secular again, like they were when Charlton Heston was around.You rarely find someone watching “Passion of the Christ” on a relaxing night in. But they might just watch “Noah.”ewenning@indiana.edu
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After a security leak, hacking and the Heartbleed Internet bug, it seems like the cybersecurity system is falling apart.New reports say the NSA may have been exploiting the Heartbleed bug to gain access to private information. While the NSA has denied these allegations and, personally, I think it sounds like a conspiracy theory, one thing has become abundantly clear — no matter who had access to what, cybersecurity has to become a bigger priority.The seemingly constant stream of leakage and information misuse is starting to become extreme, to the point where I no longer trust putting information on any website anywhere.What is unfortunate, and scary, is that we are well into the digital age. We are all online, our information can be found and hacked and companies require that we create profiles to use their services without creating a secure system that lasts longer than three years.Private organizations and institutions like IU and Target and programmers of source software such as OpenSSL need to recognize first and foremost that relying on outdated services is not going to protect their consumers. Instead of sending everyone new debit and credit cards and releasing passive warnings after the exposure occurred, there needs to be an in-depth understanding of what the dangers of the web are and how we can address them. IU students didn’t find out about web crawlers until after three had seen our information.Target didn’t discover the security breach until after customers were affected. If we are using these massive tools, we need to understand the potential dangers of them first.To shop for anything online, the consumer is required to create a profile and provide their address, payment info and other personal information. These accounts are locked into place, they do not disappear after a set amount of time and they are essentially sitting ducks for identity thieves. OpenSSL, the security program affected by the Heartbleed bug, is linked to two-thirds of servers in the U.S., used by all of them to ensure cybersecurity.It boggles the mind that no one realized this would be a prime target for hackers, and thus might have led someone to make it stronger or at least limit the amount of information that could be leaked.In short, more needs to be done. The fact that security organizations and big companies cannot protect their clients and customers indicates the technology is changing, and the security needs to change with it. The next time I have to change my passphrase, I want it to be the last.ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As the sun set Saturday, the crowd grew restless and excited. Mac DeMarco was preparing to perform at Culture Shock, WIUX’s annual concert. The artist, an unassuming figure in a white baseball cap, appeared without much of a fuss. He greeted the cheering crowd, then played his more well-known songs, including “Ode to Viceroy.” Event-goers climbed on each others’ shoulders to get a good view of the artist, whose toothy grin was recently illustrated on T-shirts and posters mimicking Alfred E. Neuman, the famous cartoon mascot of MAD magazine.Demarco has been described as a “blue wave” or “slacker-rock” artist likened to groups such as Pavement, Kurt Vile and Beck. His sound puts a new, softer twist on grunge without forgetting the certain twang that has become signature of the flannel-wearing artist.But DeMarco wasn’t the only attraction at Culture Shock.The event, which concluded IU’s Culture of Care Week, raised awareness about local Bloomington artists and businesses. It also supported anti-bullying groups.DeMarco, the headline of the show, played at 9 p.m. — the end of the six-hour mini-festival of Bloomington bands and student musicians. As students and locals rounded the corner of Dunn Meadow, they were greeted by music, barking dogs and a sky filled with white kites. Tables where local businesses and artists sold food, jewelry and art lined Dunn Meadow. I asked a few vendors why they participated in the event, and their answers varied.“We decided to participate in Culture Shock this year because it’s a really great community event,” said Shelby Everett of Fair Trade Bloomington and Global Gifts. “It’s great exposure for local vendors and food places and Global Gifts this year, and obviously great exposure for WIUX.” Her booth sold fair-trade jewelry and products, and it raised awareness for local fair-trade markets.The Culture Shock table sold T-shirts and kites and allowed attendees to enter raffles and win prizes. In the middle of the meadow, attendees were able to decorate a huge plywood board in support of the event. One attendee painted an elaborate wolf head, while others simply painted the wooden board. Some even smeared paint on their friends. Many milled around with flower crowns or paintings of sunsets.As the event carried on, more and more attendees joined. People relaxed on the grass and watched as the more daring wrestled with the wind to get their kites into the air.The featured bounce house attracted young Bloomington kids and, to my excitement, IU students who raced up and down the slides.Artists set up booths to help support the event. Karen Heminger, whose artist name is “Midwest Waves,” sold refurbished wood pieces with intricate carved designs. Others sold oil paintings.Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard raised funds for a new tool-share program for families without access to proper equipment.Senior Elisa Shrack, a human development and family studies major, attended with friends.“I came to Culture Shock because I wanted to become more aware of different organizations in Bloomington and to actually interact with them in order to learn more about them,” she said.She had come to the right place.
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When Beyoncé’s surprise album dropped a few months ago, the reviews were glimmering and golden.Now that her music videos have come out on YouTube, that’s sort of stopped. As Beyoncé leaned her cat-suit clad frame across tables and stair rails, many began questioning her media image and feminist philosophy, most notably figures like Fox News and Bill O’Reilly. We all know where that’s going to lead us, but it’s good to address this criticism regardless of however extreme the news outlet.With a track like “Flawless (feat. Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche),” it became easy to see Beyoncé’s message as hypocritical. People asked how she could fight for women’s rights and equality when she dresses up in diamond body suits and talks about having consensual, marital sex with her husband.Well, actually, she can.Beyoncé represents, for me, a new wave of feminism. It is not about trying to gain the sexual freedom of a man, or express oneself the way a man would. It’s about celebrating the feminine genius.Beyoncé also joined forces with Condoleezza Rice and Jane Lynch for Sheryl Sandberg’s “Ban Bossy” campaign, which addresses stereotypes and stigmas that hold women back — a campaign I am also totally behind. She wants people to realize women do not have to lose their femininity or sex appeal to gain equality or positions of power. The new fight must be fighting for femininity.Even if being a woman means others discriminate against her and prevents her from gaining human rights, women should not have to give up their womanhood. Oppressors must change their points of view. It’s this strange, wishy-washy middle ground of feminism that makes more sense to me than the extreme feminist views of the 60s and 70s, or the polarizing actions of radical groups like Femen.I, for one, don’t really feel the need to paint derogatory sayings across my stomach, run onto catwalks, assault and insult models and scream at the attending crowd that I need rights because I need them.I don’t really think acting absolutely insane is going to do much for my movement. Beyoncé, however, is exactly the direction I want to be moving in.Instead of saying women must be equal in the way that men are equal, that women must be able to sleep with whoever they want and avoid marriage and children and become as ruthless as the nearest business magnate, she wants to turn the discussion to one that celebrates what women have done and will do.Femininity must be celebrated, not stigmatized. With more figures like Beyoncé in the media, that is what will, hopefully, happen.ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As more and more private and religious institutions are required to provide birth control to their employees and staff members, it has become apparent the culture of thought about birth control needs to change.The name itself implies a certain degree of immorality. It frames the argument into a question of how can we be so careless to think we can play God and control this natural human function.And it is exactly this kind of thinking that is extremely harmful to women’s health.Women suffer from a range of health problems relating to menstruation and hormone imbalance and production.I can honestly say I have met maybe one or two women older than 20 who are taking birth control for the sole purpose of preventing conception. It always has to do with acne, hormones, weight, bone problems, physical pain — the list goes on.There needs to be a separation between using birth control for pregnancy prevention and using birth control as hormone therapy or medication. Saying birth control only functions as a contraceptive repositions it as a hot-button moral issue. It creates massive problems for religious companies and institutions that do not believe in its use. It forces places like Hobby Lobby and Notre Dame to provide a service that compromises their own policies. If they choose not to, or to fight it, they harm the employees that actually need it.There is little knowledge about the health benefits of birth control and the different reasons women use it. Companies only have the contraceptive context, not medical. It becomes a massive vicious cycle around what is really a semantics issue.Therefore, the nature of how we think about birth control must change. Rather than being the umbrella term for all women’s medication that regulates hormone production and health issues stemming from menstruation, it must be an aspect of women’s health. A better term would be “hormone therapy” or “women’s medication,” something that does not condemn itself when it is spoken out loud.It would also allow women who do not take birth control because of religious reasons, but seriously need it, the opportunity to seek medical help. Birth control and contraception might never be resolved in our lifetime. But the conversation needs to change. By changing a few terms and educating companies on its actual usage, we might be able to see some real progress in both women’s health and health care in the United States. ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Representation Project, the team behind the award-winning “Miss Representation” documentary, is gearing up for another project.The film in question is an in-depth analysis of the mental health of young men in America. This documentary is one of the first real attempts I’ve seen in a long time to understand and appreciate the development of the young adult male in the United States. The film, “The Mask You Live In,” argues the three most destructive words you can say to a young boy are, “Be a man.” This phrase implies that young men must constantly prove themselves. Showing they are a “man,” according to what we have defined men to be — big, strong, not prone to emotion or sensitivity, willing to fight and unable to form attachments — is what the phrase embodies in our society. If a boy is not given the approval he needs, if he cannot fulfill his role or if he seems in any way emotional, sensitive or anything else we have made inherently “effeminate,” he has failed in his role. This vicious cycle can lead to health problems, violence and death.I wrote a column a few weeks ago about the benefits of the Men Against Rape program, which teaches members of the greek community about sexual assault and violence.I think this film is another excellent way in which we can create a dialogue about men’s mental health. It allows us to explore the underlying causes of violence perpetrated by young men, and it helps us understand how to help and better the problem.Right now, the issue is very much a lack of real education and discussion. A lot of the focus is on young women — and for good reason. But boys, it seems, are not the priority. When there is a lack of education, there is a lack of problem-solving.The answer then becomes jail, community service or juvenile detention.These programs and institutions, while beneficial, are easy ways out. Programs do not do the hard work right at the start, which could include mental health programs, a renewed focus on men’s health and teaching boys about how to avoid violence.We wait until they explode and commit a crime, and then we punish them.I hope this film begins to create an equal discussion around of both men’s and women’s health. The two issues are equally important. If we can begin looking at them without gender bias and sexism, we can start to tackle and hopefully change some important issues.I’ll be keeping my eye on the Representation Project.ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The new welfare law allowing random drug testing is a step in the right direction, even if it hasn’t totally been thought through. Yes, it is harsh. It is pro-war-on-drugs, which in and of itself has many problems. I can tell you now it will most definitely need modification. But here’s the issue — drug addicts have a different kind of need than people who need basic government assistance. And we haven’t made sure we have the resources in place to deal with an addict’s needs. Enacting these harsh laws was probably not the smartest idea without work done to make sure we are actually treating drug addiction, not just condemning it. They need to be directed to rehab programs, doctors or some institution that would be able to help them. Drug testing people and then cutting them off entirely if they are found to still have an addiction would only increase the problem. Plus, it sounds like something out of a Charles Dickens novel. Singling out people with a past, or people who have been to rehab, reeks of discrimination and could easily be the reason the law is demolished.It also would allow addicts who have not been caught to slip through the cracks.We must separate the two entirely. If people are found to be using drugs and receiving welfare, the nature of the assistance given to them needs to change. We have done nothing to either create assistance or strengthen already existing programs. These new laws do some good, though. They recognize that if people are found to be on drugs, quite simply, they can no longer be trusted to provide for themselves or their families, if they have them. It is a recognition that, in giving them welfare, the government inadvertently fuels a dangerous lifestyle.But for the government to actually be able to reach the families and children in need, and to address some serious corruption in and exploitation of government assistance, it is exactly what the system needs.Private staffing agencies and job sites need to test all applicants for drugs. Those who test positively are told to come back in a year. It would be more beneficial to say everyone who receives welfare must be drug tested.We can’t cut them off, either. We need to set a limit to the amount of times someone can test positively —a three-chances system, or something similar.We also shouldn’t test randomly. It should be while people are applying, and then if they pass we don’t worry about it. Let them have their assistance. For those who test positively, we need to have steps and systems in place to help them.In short, the new law is far from perfect. It will need to be processed, there will be trials and there will be errors. But it’s a step in the right direction. ewenning@indiana.edu@EmmaWenninger