70 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/02/07 2:32am)
The secret is out. I'd hoped my people would keep it under wraps a little bit longer, but unfortunately James Rutz, the founder and chairman of Open Church Ministries, let the cat out of the bag. The all-powerful weapon for advancing the gay agenda is soy.\nSoy is apparently a pretty potent plant. Rutz said it's a "slow poison" that "severely damages" our children and even worse, threatens to "tear apart our culture." It seems that for Rutz, soybeans bring new meaning to the term "bioterror" (which means the soybean has now officially become a member of the axis of evil).\nHere's how soy works: It's rainbow magic (at least in Mr. Rutz's world). Soybean products are feminizing because they contain chemicals that the body treats like estrogen. Eating large amounts of soy products is apparently the equivalent to flooding your body with estrogen. So for men, this estrogen surplus "suppresses masculinity" and stimulates our "female side," thereby making us gay.\nIf estrogen is the evil soy substance that feminizes men, then Rutz doesn't explain sufficiently where lesbians come from. Certainly he must believe that the extra boost of "femininity" from soy would be detrimental to lesbian formation! Perhaps he'll soon report that rather than eating tofu with a side of soy milk, lesbians eat too much beef and pork and maybe munch an occasional buffalo testicle as an afternoon snack for an extra dose of testosterone.\nBut Rutz's primary concern over the evils of soy -- and its power to destroy the country -- centers on soy converting men, not women, to the pink side. Maybe he's just one of those homophobes who doesn't mind as much if he has to watch two women kissing.\nReading his alarmist warning, I wondered where I fit into his little theory. I grew up on a very meat and potatoes kind of diet. I'm quite sure the words "soy" or "tofu" were never uttered in my house until well after I went to college. Nevertheless, here I am chasing boys. Interestingly, I only switched to a largely soy-based diet seven years after I came out. So which came first? The soy or the gay?\nBut we have precious little time to ponder this question because the threat doesn't end with male homosexuality (although that is presumably the primary factor that will "tear apart" culture as we know it). Soybean products also lead to a "decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion," and a diminished sex drive. And here we were thinking foolishly that our major social problems were an unjust war, poverty and global warming. I, for one, am thankful that Rutz has called our attention to this serious threat.\nSo please, check the ingredient list on your energy bars and think twice before you order your next soy latte or pad thai with tofu. The future of our culture rests on your decision!\nAnd for my sake, choose the soy.
(01/26/07 1:02am)
Someday my prince will come -- but if my 3-year-old niece has any say, I won't be dancing with him at the ball.\nMy niece loves Cinderella, and on a recent trip to visit my family, she instructed us to pretend that we were all attending Cinderella's ball. So I asked, "Can Uncle Jonathan have a turn dancing with the prince?"\nShe swiftly responded with an emphatic "No!" I asked why I couldn't, and she told me, very matter-of-factly, "Because you are not a princess. Only princesses may dance with a prince." (I wondered if her response would have been different if she'd seen me in Miss Gay IU two years ago.)\nIn her defense, it's not her fault she's only 3 and already teeming with heterosexism. Nor is anyone else in the family responsible for filling her with such silly ideas of exclusion. During pregnancy my sister wore a T-shirt that proclaimed "Gay Friendly Womb," accompanied by a big rainbow. My parents serve on the planning committee for the Gay Pride Parade in their city. My niece is fully aware she will have four fabulous uncles (my brother is gay, too). In short, she is immediately surrounded by overwhelming acceptance and inclusive messages about sexuality.\nIf any little girl would let me dance with the prince, my niece would ... except that she's an unwitting victim of a heterosexist culture. And clearly the socialization has already worked its magic.\nAfter all, she's grown up watching Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora, Jasmine and others fall for their respective princes. She's watched Donald and Daisy, Mickey and Minnie, even Maria and Luis on "Sesame Street." My niece already internalized messages about what counts as a normal relationship or who should be dancing with whom. Most strikingly, she has learned to make negative judgments about supposed deviations from the status quo, as evidenced by her strong "No!" to my request for a slow dance with Prince Charming.\nFortunately, I'm not worried about my niece. She's in extremely good hands -- amazing parents and grandparents (and a gaggle of gay uncles) who will teach her acceptance, love and inclusion.\nSadly, not everyone receives lessons in how to resist heterosexist programming -- and many still stand by narrow worldview in which Aladdin would never take me on a magic ride and later show me a whole new world. But thankfully, occasions for such tales and romances are on the rise. This weekend, Bloomington's PRIDE Film Festival taking place at the Buskirk-Chumley Theater will offer our largely heterosexist culture a nice slap in the face.\nGay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender film festivals offer valuable sites for both resistance to heterosexism and celebration of sexuality. A place where Snow White and Sleeping Beauty can snuggle together in the same bed in the castle, while the princes bump and grind to a divalicious dance remix of "Once Upon a Dream."\nI can't wait to take my niece to such a film festival one day. And I'll even let her cut in for one waltz with my prince.
(01/19/07 7:06pm)
"(Saddam Hussein) was given justice. The thousands of people he killed were not."\nGeorge W. Bush's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans -- that a tyrant and murderer was brought to "justice" on Dec. 30 as he dangled from the end of a rope for the world to see.\nBut I'm not sure that's justice. Vengeful retribution? Yes. Officially sanctioned murder? Yes. Barbarism? I think so.\nJustice? The jury's still out.\nMerriam-Webster defines justice as "the quality of being just, impartial or fair; the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action." Well, impartiality is already out the door based on the celebratory smugness with which many greeted the news of Saddam's death. And right action? Well, we killed a man in large part because he killed others. The eye-for-an-eye logic of the death penalty may seem "fair," but is it ethical and moral action -- or hypocritical?\nSo what makes the execution just? The fact that Saddam appeared in court before a judge and jury? Certainly that can't be the universal measure of what counts for justice. I don't remember many (white) Americans who thought justice was served when a jury acquitted O. J. Simpson, or many Republicans who thought Clinton was given justice when he remained in office after his impeachment trial.\nIs it just because it is retributive -- we gave him what he was due? And then is it always "just" to do "good" for our friends and harm our enemies? Not if we have the sense to understand that there are multiple perspectives to every issue and that justice and injustice are often two sides of the same coin. For example, we're happy to "repay" Afghanistan with bombs to bring them "justice" for harboring terrorists. But start suggesting we pay reparations to black Americans for slavery and many people see nothing just about it.\nOr consider this: There is a blurry line between the "justice" of two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and the "injustice" of two planes flown into the World Trade Center.\nIn my mind, the concept of justice ought to be linked to human liberation and freedom from oppression, but instead we often allow it to validate an oppressive status quo, to reproduce the very wrongdoing we try to correct, to rationalize the denial of humanity. The version of "justice" that authorizes Saddam's execution leads right back to injustice and ethical transgressions. I hear no justice in saying we're "better off" with Saddam dead. I see only the seeds of the same disregard for human life for which he was on trial.\nCan justice be a progressive and transformational tool that makes the world more humane? In time, I think so. But at a minimum that requires a radical belief that justice is never served through dehumanization, through devaluation of human life -- no matter how much we abhor one's actions.
(01/19/07 4:53pm)
This year's Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration theme was "The Power of One," a slogan which reminds us that the capacity for change, for improving our world, rests within each of us. Working for equity, justice, peace and understanding in our communities, our country or simply at our University is not the responsibility of a great leader -- we've all got a hand in the action.\nBut many of us are awfully busy being a little self-absorbed and disinterested. So first, what not to do:\nI've heard numerous white students dismiss the recognition of MLK Day as a "black holiday" in which they have no desire to participate (oddly, the same students often claim to be "colorblind"). But race and racism in this country are everyone's problem. Perhaps no white American students alive today owned slaves or directly participated in the legal racism of the 20th century, but we've all inherited the same country with its overtly racist history that has shaped our communities today. As long as people are still negatively judged, marginalized and excluded on the basis of race, we will all have a stake in remedying the problem, at least if we want to claim that we're just, moral people.\nIt is equal in comparison to other forms of oppression in the U.S. Take sexism: It's not just a "women's issue" that they still earn less than men. I certainly don't have to be a woman to be upset about this inequity. Rather, I need to be a concerned citizen with a moral conscience.\nOr, for example, it's neither a "black issue" nor a "women's issue" that the burning question of next year's presidential election is already: "Is America ready for a black (or female) president?" The fact that we even pose the question betrays ugly realities for our land of freedom and supposedly unlimited opportunity (notice no one ever asks, "Is America ready for another heterosexual, white, Christian male president?" Although that's a more appropriate question). The continuing reality of exclusion and social inequality is an issue for which we are all responsible.\nWhat do you need to channel this power?\n• Awareness and compassion for the people around you. Unless you're an isolated hermit, you are part of community that is much greater than you. Therefore, we must all negotiate our needs, problems and wants collectively -- with an eye toward consequences and ramifications. We must also be willing to act on behalf of those with whom we share a community; prove we are trustworthy citizens and friends through our actions.\n• A person with a moral consciousness that doesn't understand others deserves to be stripped of humanity or human dignity. Morality that dictates individual gain should not produce harm and suffering for others.\n• A clear sense of responsibility and accountability that prevents you from claiming, "That is someone else's problem!"\nThis may not be the magic recipe, but it's a starting point to embrace and enact the "power of one"
(12/07/06 3:39am)
The Mathers Museum of World Cultures and the Native American Graduate Students Association hosted the annual Celebrating Kids and Culture event last Sunday. I'm sure it was a fun day for the kids, one that taught them extremely valuable lessons, such as how "Dances With Wolves" does not represent all American Indians. Or even better, Rebecca Riall, co-chairwoman of the Native American Graduate Students Association, said: "We want people to see us as humans that are still alive. We're modern people that can have a good time, and you can be around us without being scalped."\nThat's what I call rich cultural awareness.\nOne goal of the event was to dispel stereotypes while "having a good time." It was about both "fun and awareness." Planners wanted participants to know that American Indians have not been "wiped out" but are still a part of everyday society. \nI question how much good these token events really do. We're all familiar with programs such as "Diversity Dinners" where we eat egg rolls, flautas and baklava and then believe that somehow we're culturally enriched.\nOr, for example, IU's CultureFest each fall, where we get to watch flamenco dancers, black soul singers and drag queens take the stage while we eat "ethnic" cuisine. In the end we've somehow absorbed more rich cultural knowledge and become kinder and more accepting.\nDon't get me wrong, I suppose these events are a good starting point for people who have limited (or no) exposure to anything outside their narrow cultural experience. But unfortunately, these "diversity" programs stop significantly short of true cultural learning. For example, food is a very important part of every culture, but simply eating it only educates my taste buds about new flavors. Deeper learning comes from discussions about sociological and anthropological significance of meal time, how food is prepared or why certain ingredients are used.\nThat's just one extra layer that is often ignored in these so-called cultural-awareness programs. But even more frequently we leave out the particularly ugly bits of cultural learning. Just a guess, but I bet the American Indian program made no mention of arguably the worst genocide in world history, when European settlers quickly destroyed the population of native dwellers after "discovering" the country. Dennis Lamenti, co-chairman of the Native American Graduate Students Association, said that "it's about living in the world with other people." \nBut there is more to learn from the parts we always omit -- the unfortunate historical lessons that point to our inability to live in the world with others (American Indian genocide, slavery, racism). Learning how to make a pot may be fun, but that won't teach me how to navigate and confront cultural difference.\nSurface-level diversity is comfortable yet empty. We've got to scratch deep below the surface to make a meaningful difference.
(11/30/06 3:32am)
What do you call a comedian who tells a couple of black men in an audience, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a ... fork up your ass!"?\nApparently not a racist, at least if we are to believe Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer from "Seinfeld"). In a comedy routine at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, Richards verbally attacked a group of men with racist statements and repeatedly called them racist names. The two men appeared on "The Today Show" Nov. 22 and reported that he continued with even more attacks that weren't caught on film. For example: "When I wake up in the morning, I'll still be rich. When you wake up, you'll still be a nigger." \nSince his on-stage meltdown and tirade, Richards has blitzed the media with apologies. He appeared on David Letterman a few days later to say he was "deeply sorry" for the hurt he caused. He spoke to Rev. Al Sharpton and offered yet another apology on Rev. Jesse Jackson's radio show last Sunday. He has called his outburst crap, horrible and disgusting. He described the rage that lives within him and claimed he's going to see a psychiatrist to work on it.\nIt's wonderful that Michael Richards embraced some accountability for his racist tirade (that's better than the "I was drunk, and I'm going to rehab" dismissal). Now if only he would also own up to the racism that he's internalized by living in a society where the pervasive racism of the past still very much lingers in the present.\nUnfortunately, despite all his apologies and atonement, Richards remains adamant: "I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this." On his radio show, Jesse Jackson asked Richards again, "Do you consider yourself a racist?" Michael Richards firmly replied again: "No."\nFunny how that works. Richards spewed more than two-and-a-half minutes of racist epithets and degrading comments at black men in the audience, but don't dare imply he's a racist.\nWe saw the same thing during election season. The recently ousted Sen. George Allen from Virginia -- the one who was photographed with the segregationist Council of Conservative Citizens, flew Confederate flags and derisively welcomed to America an Indian American he nicknamed "Macaca" -- also was very quick to explain that he was not a racist.\n"Racist" is about as ugly and unspeakable to most white people as the n-word is to black Americans. But just because we don't like to hear it, much less recognize how racism touches each of our lives in some ugly way, doesn't mean it's not present.\nIn the end, I suppose it matters little whether we label Michael Richards a racist, a bigot or a fool. Rather, it's important to let his horrifying racial tirade point to the fact that there's probably a little racism that lives in all of us. Time to start owning that fact and, like Richards, do some soul-searching as to how to correct the problem that we find all to easy to ignore.
(11/16/06 3:57am)
Ground has been broken for the Martin Luther King Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. It is a well-deserved monument but one that may further fetishize King and strip power and urgency away from his incomplete work.\nKing has been widely reduced to his happy dream of an equitable world. At the ground-breaking event Oprah Winfrey said, "I've lived the dream. ... It is because of Dr. King that I stand, that I have a voice to be heard."\nIt's wonderful that Oprah, like many other black people, has "lived the dream." But there is more to memorialize than an unrealized dream. We remember his stirring words as the "I Have a Dream" speech because it's the warm and fuzzy part that makes us feel good about ourselves and our world. But the point of his speech was not to dream, but to call direct attention to injustices that limited opportunities for black Americans and demand action to correct those injustices.\n"We have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition," King said during his famous 1963 oration. The "bank of justice" wrote a bad check to black people, and it was time to "make justice a reality for all God's children." \nYet today, we face the uncomfortable realization that the "shameful conditions" that troubled King more than 40 years ago still persist. For example, according to a report released by the Census Bureau, white household incomes were two-thirds higher than blacks' and 40 percent higher than Hispanics' in 2005. White people are also more likely to have college degrees and own homes and less likely to live in poverty, according to the report. The easy (and uninformed) justification is to attribute the disparities to differences in ability and work ethic. But these continued injustices are largely residual effects of discriminatory policies and programs that consistently placed many white Americans in a privileged position, especially financially.\nAt the ground-breaking ceremony, President George W. Bush acknowledged, "Honoring Dr. King's legacy requires more than building a monument. It requires the ongoing commitment of every American. So we will continue to work for the day when the dignity and humanity of every person is respected and the American promise is denied to no one." \nUnfortunately, not every American is committed to honoring the legacy -- like the more than 2.1 million Michigan voters who opted last week to outlaw affirmative action programs in the state. The cleverly misnamed Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ignores the injustice in judging people on "merit" when major discrepancies exist in opportunity and privilege in the first place.\nAppropriately King will be honored on the National Mall. But let's not simply offer excessive reverence to the great leader as though he magically ushered in an age of civil rights and justice. That monument should remind us that King's vision is still nothing more than a distant dream. \n"Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children"
(11/09/06 3:25am)
You might have heard of the book and movie "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Unfortunately, fear and loathing have spread well beyond Sin City -- just ask Rev. Ted Haggard.\nLast week, allegations of meth use and extramarital sex were brought against the recently dismissed leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. Supposedly, Haggard met a male escort each month for "massages," drugs and sex. Haggard initially denied all accusations but later confessed that he had to be removed as pastor because of "sexual immorality."\nNow, it looks like Haggard's monthly massages might have had "happy endings." It's a pity his life story isn't headed in the same direction.\nHaggard is clearly filled with fear and self-loathing. His "confession" to his former congregation stated: "There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life." The letter continued: "For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom ... Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface." Because he couldn't communicate his "problems," "the darkness increased and finally dominated" him. \nDirt. Repulsion. Dominated by darkness. At war with oneself. Those are ugly words to describe an intrinsic part of one's identity. They signal the extreme desperation Haggard must have felt living a life hiding in the miserable and psychologically destructive closet that his loving church home helped create and that he actively bolstered. \nHaggard's evangelical buddies have done their part to build a confining closet for gay parishioners, too. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, gave a scary Halloween radio address about the haunting and horrific possibility of "same-sex marriage in places all over the country" in order to spook his followers to the polls. Dobson fails to realize that the homophobia he imparts is the real demon.\nBut the chorus of fear and loathing becomes more haunting when led by people like Haggard. Filled with self-hatred, they often preach a little louder in hopes of suppressing and denying their own unchanging reality.\nRoss Parsley, Haggard's interim replacement at New Life Church, told his congregation Sunday: "We all feel worse today than we did a week ago, but we were worse off a week ago," and, "You're watching healing and restoration start to occur as we go through this process."\nHe's exactly right. They were worse off before this happened. Not because the "evil" truth about Haggard was hidden, but because the destructive consequence of their homophobia was unrevealed.\nAnd they should feel worse. Not because their spiritual leader has "fallen," but because they were complicit in the culture that taught him to hate and punish himself.\nUnfortunately, Parsley has a different idea of "healing and restoration" that likely involves Haggard's rehabilitation and continued repression. True healing and spiritual rebirth will not occur until we abandon a culture of fear and loathing that constructs isolating, destructive closets in which tormented souls like Haggard feel compelled to hide.
(11/02/06 4:39am)
On Monday, Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel, spoke at the IU Auditorium. His take-home message stressed that nothing should weaken our resolve and sense of purpose in our mission to defeat terrorists unconditionally. Then he added a more humanitarian dimension -- we must never forget the "poor of the Earth," those suffering with AIDS, those without access to education or basic human needs, those on the other side of the gap in living conditions. For Barak, not only must we fight terrorists, we must develop a "world community" characterized by trust and cooperation and help those who are left behind. \nI whole-heartedly agree with the first part of his message. Terrorism and the mindless killing of innocents (or any human life for that matter) is wrong.\nBut rather than separating the call to remember the poor of the Earth and foster worldwide civility and community as a different task, I believe we need a stronger link between these charges for the world's leading nations.\nPut simply, the best way to fight terrorists is not to "fight" at all.\nBarak repeated war supporters' favorite fear message: If we're not careful, the terrorists will destroy our freedom, liberty and democracy ... they threaten our way of life ... our children and their futures are at risk of perilous danger. But honestly, is the world's richest, most militarily powerful country truly on the brink of disaster or destruction thanks to actions of a handful of extremists in the world? No.\nWe should not simply carry on our business naively thinking terrorists are figments of our imagination. But the true threat to our way of life, democracy, freedom and "the children" is the cycle of violence in which we participate. The side we label "terrorists" are not the only ones committing acts of terror. As long as we perpetuate violence, we will be stuck fighting the so-called war on terror as participants in the terror.\nRather than responding with violence, what if we responded with compassion? What if, as Barak said, we were willing to lift up other people's children as we lift up our own? That would be a radical switch from treating other nations' dead children as "collateral damage" in the struggle for freedom and democracy. What if instead of training the young minds of our armed forces to see the "other" people as evil things to be eradicated at any cost, we taught them to value life and to cultivate hope and trust through humanitarian missions?\nBuilding schools and hospitals, not destroying vital infrastructure. Feeding the hungry, not terrorizing communities with raids and bombs. What better way to subvert violent dictators, terrorists and unfavorable regimes than with such compassion and benevolence?\nUndoubtedly, we'd persuade more people to the side of justice and freedom if we didn't simply claim the title of "good guys," but we acted like the "good guys," like stewards of good will and trust rather than veiled terrorists behind the mask of democracy.
(10/26/06 8:13pm)
After an ugly, college football brawl on Oct. 14 between players from the University of Miami and Florida International University, the public outcry and hasty judgments from several sports reporters was almost as disconcerting as the fight itself.\nThe bench-clearing brawl included a player swinging a helmet at an opposing player, another swinging his crutches and plenty of cleat-stomping and fist-swinging in the tangle of bodies. The scene was certainly disturbing -- an embarrassing absence of sportsmanship. Undoubtedly, those who participated should be held accountable for their actions.\nBut I was appalled reading and listening to analysis of the incident.\nOne ESPN.com analyst, Bill Curry, offered brash character judgments. He described players who "ran into the fray looking for someone to maim" as "sociopaths" for whom "there are no innocents." He surmised that these players would be just as likely to swing at women and children (His journalism school also offered an arm-chair psychologist degree). Another ESPN.com columnist laced his commentary with coded racial language. The scene represented "horrifying football gang warfare," cheap shots that escalated to "street fighting." He likened the helmet swinging player to someone wielding a "medieval weapon" and branded it obscene "criminal conduct." Furthermore, several sports analysts have dubbed the school "Thug U."\nBut is it easier to classify the fight as "gang warfare" and "criminal conduct" when it features predominantly 18 to 21-year-old, black students? Are we prone to write them off as thugs from whom this behavior is expected?\nThe fight was inexcusable, but to blame the "thugs" on the field is to oversimplify the incident. We need a deeper analysis than the quick-to-condemn sound bytes that commentators and sports writers threw around.\nAt 18 or 19, we like to think we're at the peak of emotional maturity -- I certainly believed that -- but the reality is we are still figuring out how to manage our emotions, and in the heat of an adrenaline-charged football game, many of us might have made poor judgments. Was it stupid to rush the pile and swing a helmet? Yes. Was it criminal conduct? Questionable.\nFurthermore, before criticizing the students, we should reflect on a culture of sports violence in general as a root cause. Hockey is professional violence on ice. Pitchers regularly beam opponents intentionally. Off the field, parents model uncivil behavior for their children. A father in Pennsylvania recently pulled a gun on his son's coach over a playing time dispute.\nIn light of youthful emotions and violence at every turn, it seems a little rash to peg these students as "sociopaths." Anthony Reddick, the helmet-swinger, publicly apologized: "My behavior was a disgrace to my school, my family and my friends, especially the young kids who look up to me as their role model. I do understand that what I did was wrong."\nThat doesn't sound like someone who would also pummel women and children. That sounds like a young student who made a foolish judgment and learned a valuable lesson.\nI think almost anyone can relate to that ... except these snap judgment sports reporters.
(10/19/06 1:33am)
Did you wake up Tuesday and feel a little claustrophobic? According to U.S. Census Bureau estimations, our population passed the 300 million mark Tuesday at 7:46 a.m.\nThere wasn't a big fanfare for this milestone as there was in 1967 when we hit 200 million. At that time the achievement was overwhelmingly positive, a signal of our rise to global power. This time, census officials expected nothing more than cake and punch to commemorate the "populometer" rolling over to eight zeroes once again.\nThe impact of this landmark figure is not immediate -- I haven't noticed streets flooded with people yet. Nevertheless, breaking 300 million offers an occasion to consider the long-term ramifications of our ever-growing population on the environment, economy and social services.\nEnvironmentalists are particularly concerned that Americans already consume over 25 percent of the world's energy and resources; more Americans means more consumption. We develop land at twice the speed the population grows. Consequently, about 1,000 plant and animal species are endangered from overdevelopment. Water resources are strained or depleted in the fastest growing regions in the western United States, while air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions contribute to health problems and ozone destruction. On average, Americans produce five pounds of trash every day. Without greater environmental consciousness, our growing population will only exacerbate these consequences.\nWe must also consider potentially serious economic pitfalls. A widening gap between the richest 1 percent of the population and the ever-growing lower class, coupled with popular belief that taxes are a terrible burden we shouldn't suffer (especially not the rich), will not lead to the ample funding for social support services that some economists predict. We've heard for several years now that Social Security funds could be depleted as the Baby Boomers retire. Clearly a growing population hasn't provided the means to correct this deficiency.\nIn addition, about 46 million Americans lack health care coverage, and current policymakers are resistant to universal coverage. No doubt it's hard to ensure 300 million people are guaranteed basic health care, but better to solve the problem now before the number becomes even more daunting.\nMeanwhile, funding for education is decreasing, and students receive less financial support for higher education. If an increasing proportion of our growing population cannot afford higher education, we likely won't end up with a wealthy workforce to bolster the economy and correct this deficiency. It will only worsen.\nThe point is not to be alarmist or fearful of growth. Now is the time to consider future ramifications and mend the weak spots with serious changes in lifestyle and public policy. In my world, we'd outlaw Hummers and other gas guzzlers, invest heavily in "green" research and allocate more funding for health care, education and other social services.\nWhatever we do, the 300 million mark must be a signal to plan for the future. Waiting until we burst at the seams to address the concerns will be too late.
(10/12/06 2:45am)
Wednesday was the 19th annual National Coming Out Day, a celebration to empower gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to live openly, honestly and proudly. Since Oct. 11, 1987, when half a million people joined the second major March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, the official National Coming Out Day has spread and grown around the country.\nThe theme of this year's National Coming Out Day was "Talk About It." I'm always more than happy to tell my story of coming out, share my experiences as a gay man or talk about issues of sex, politics, and religion and homosexuality; but rather than regale readers with my favorite, fabulous gay anecdotes, today I want the attention of the approximately 80 percent to 90 percent of the IU community that identifies as straight (in my estimation). National Coming Out Day must be about you, too -- "come out" as a straight ally and "Talk About It."\nWhat does it mean to come out as an ally? What difference can a straight person make on National Coming Out Day (and every other day of the year)?\nYou could advocate for everyone to be able to enjoy the rights you have. For example, both Charlize Theron and Brad Pitt have vowed they will not marry their respective partners until all couples, gay or straight, can legally marry in this country. Their stands alone might not change society, but they are taking brave steps to signal concern and support for the queer community.\nDon't want to give up your dream wedding? Instead, you could advocate for domestic partner benefits at your first job if you end up with a company that doesn't offer those perks.\nWhat else can allies do? Speak up every time you encounter homophobia or heterosexism. For example, if your organization is planning a couples' dinner or dance, make sure the advertising doesn't feature ONLY straight couples or be sure it is clear that same-sex couples are welcome and would experience a safe environment.\nNext time you hear someone in your residence hall or class joking about "fags" or talking disparagingly about someone's sexuality, don't just awkwardly pretend you didn't hear or half-heartedly chuckle and hope the moment passes soon. Speak out against such ignorance.\nThere's no question that we can "Talk About It" more today than when I came out more than 10 years ago, but we certainly have more steps to take to ensure no one is oppressed and/or marginalized because of his or her sexual orientation. And we'll never get there without straight allies advocating forcefully for acceptance, inclusion and equal rights. Sometimes the message is more powerful and meaningful when it comes from someone who doesn't have quite the same stake in the issue.\nSo don't worry if you missed the official National Coming Out Day on Wednesday because you thought it was just for the GLBT community. You have plenty more days to come out as an ally and start talking.
(10/05/06 2:52am)
Terror alert! Why haven't the Department of Homeland Security and George W. Bush raised our terror alert level to RED over the new menace to our American way of life: the gun-wielding, white men who are shooting up our public schools?\nAfter three school shootings in one week -- in Colorado, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania's Amish country -- maybe we should be more concerned about the quiet, keeps-to-himself, white male next door who might decide to act on some repressed aggression and go out in Columbine-style infamy. Add to recent events the school shooting in Montreal, the 2005 rampage in Minnesota and the 2001 incident in Santee, Calif., and suddenly the threat of terror in public schools seems a little more menacing, unpredictable and significantly more likely than the threat of "Islamo-fascists" taking down another tall building or a plane.\nUnfortunately, since the Sept. 11 attacks, many Americans seem to think that in the interest of national security, racial profiling of people who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent is justified as a counter-terrorist effort. A USA Today opinion column claimed that racial profiling is "one discretionary investigative tool among many," and it is simply "unfortunate that loyal Muslims or Arabs might be burdened because of terrorists who share their race, nationality or religion." I guess all the Muslims in America just need to suck it up and take one for the team.\nIf we're going to call for increased surveillance of mosques and Muslim communities and if brown-skinned men should just expect to be screened at airports because they might look similar to Mohammed Atta, then why don't we also call for increased surveillance and searches of NRA conventions, white, suburban, gated communities or white men who wear trench coats?\nIf you think it's justified to feel a little uneasy when an Arab American sits next to you on the plane, why don't you feel a little skittish when a disheveled white boy slouches sullenly in the back corner of your public speaking class?\nThe problem with racial profiling is that it's so easy for white folks to target the "brown-skinned others" -- from Japanese internment camps to "driving while black" to "flying while Arab" -- but white people rarely consider the inconsistencies and incongruities. Start talking about the need to profile every sketchy white guy with a chip on his shoulder, and maybe we would comprehend the absurdity in claiming that racial profiling is ever justified.\nI am a very strong opponent of racial profiling. But if you insist on the patriotic necessity of this questionable (and racist) practice, then at least try to be consistent. The next time you smugly approve of the Muslim passenger getting wanded at airport security, be sure to look over your other shoulder and scan the room for crazy white guys. You never know when Timothy McVeigh II might make a farce of the battle cry that we don't want to fight terrorists on our own streets.
(09/28/06 2:45am)
If you plan to visit the Indiana Statehouse next year, leave your gun at home -- unless you're an elected state senator or representative. Lawmakers are welcome to come to work packing heat.\nOne never knows when congressional debates might get out of hand, I suppose.\nIn an effort to increase security measures at the Indiana Statehouse, metal detectors will be installed next year and ordinary citizens will have to give up their concealed firearms at the door if they wish to enter the building. Gun-toting Indiana lawmakers and judges may register their weapons with the Indiana State Police and carry their guns to work, but no other Statehouse employees are eligible for this exemption. \nState Senator Thomas Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, explained that lawmakers and judges are exempt from the weapons restriction to "minimize the people who might oppose what we were trying to do" and block the security efforts. \nSo for everyone to agree with enhanced security measures at the Statehouse, congressional members had to be exempt from the rules? This seems like a local version of national security policies. For our safety, we don't want other nations to have weapons of mass destruction, but it's quite alright for the United States to produce them. We demand that countries disarm, yet we boast the most advanced military power in the world. For us to be secure from attack, we simply attack first. It would seem we have a new, unspoken constitutional right: the right to ignore our own security measures, and, if needed, strike "preemptively." Don't bomb us, we'll bomb you.\nOr in the case of a few Indiana lawmakers: Leave your gun at home, but understand that I could still cap you in the head.\nAt issue is the glaring lack of trust at the core of these hypocritical exemptions. As you have likely experienced among friends, you have to demonstrate that you are trustworthy and reciprocate trust in order to build honest relationships. I can't demand that a friend meet standards that I would personally reject and then expect a healthy interaction.\nBuilding on this aspect of friendship, Danielle Allen, a political scientist from the University of Chicago, suggests that all citizens, even strangers, are "political friends" who must learn to trust one another even as we riskily demonstrate our willingness to trust each other.\nWhile they might not be our best friends forever, lawmakers are public servants who should be in the business of fostering public bonds of trust. But they're doing a pitiful job of reciprocating trust, as this firearm security exemption demonstrates at a local level.\nRather than continuing with paranoia, suspicion and fear, we would do well to cultivate trust and "political friendship." And that begins with recognizing that in public life we all have to make a few sacrifices for the greater good.\nJust don't ask state lawmakers to sacrifice their God-given right to bear arms in the Statehouse. You might get plugged -- Dick Cheney-style.
(09/21/06 2:22am)
This week students across the state of Indiana begun the yearly Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus exams. About 700,000 students between grades three and 10 will take these standardized exams to test their abilities in math and language (some grades have science exams as well). Supposedly these exams prove how much students are learning and measure student and teacher accountability. \nIn my opinion, these exams prove nothing beyond the fact that some students can be taught to pass a multiple-choice test. The reliability of these tests should be further questioned because of their narrow method of quantifying success, intelligence and progress. The United States is the only economically advanced nation to rely so heavily on multiple-choice tests, thanks in part to the No Child Left Behind Act. We privilege students' ability to pick (or guess) a letter or "none of the above" over performance-based assessment tools that evaluate student essays, projects and activities. School curricula are so focused on teaching to the tests that valuable critical-thinking skills are "left behind," along with the students who are cheated out of a richer education beyond bubble-in answer sheets.\nThe racial and cultural bias of standardized tests has been well researched and documented. But this year, yet another obvious bias caught my attention. The Indiana Department of Education offers profound advice that students get plenty of sleep and consume healthy meals before the test. Specifically, it suggests that parents feed their children nutritious breakfasts rich in protein, which might help student performance on ISTEP. The department also recommends that children get plenty of exercise and stay healthy. An administrator from Fort Wayne emphasized that students must be kept "happy" and "stress-free" because if they are worried about issues at home, they will not be able to focus on these important tests. \nSo what do these recommendations mean for the 18.5 percent of children under the age of 18 who live in poverty in this state? I guess they should ignore the likely stress at home over paying bills and buying basic necessities. Instead, they must toughen up and be "happy" for the sake of the tests. And what about the 35.3 percent of students who qualify for free or reduced lunches in Indiana (and 27.3 percent in Monroe County)? At least a portion of those students won't be able to load up on a balanced breakfast rich in protein before sitting down for several hours of testing. And the estimated 143,000 children in Indiana who live without health insurance? They'd better hope they stay extraordinarily healthy during the testing period.\nOur educational institutions and policymakers insist on forcing students through this high-stakes series of tests with seemingly little regard for the biases and inequalities that will undoubtedly affect student performance. They believe one's ability to bubble-in letters on tests measures educational excellence.\nAs long as standardized tests like ISTEP are the so-called "best" answers for measuring progress and accountability, the right answer always will be "none of the above"
(09/14/06 2:57am)
The Bush administration has recently blitzed the media with a wave of justifications for the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in order to convince the public of the non-existent connection between the two. But in all the unsatisfying explanations, Bush fails to mention that we're not fighting a war on terror ... we're engaging in our own form of terrorism.\nBush tirelessly frames this war as a battle between good and evil -- the holy land of the free versus the freedom-hating enemy. Alluding to our glorious struggles against "evil" in 20th century wars, Bush said, "... America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it."\nBut then I wonder -- was evil defeated or perpetuated when more than 200,000 Japanese (mostly civilians) were killed by our atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who should we call "evil" when innocent Vietnamese men, women and children were killed by napalm bombs that burned through to their muscles and bones?\nAnd today, when we destroy cities, national infrastructures and valued natural resources; when we "accidentally" kill civilians; when a few members of our freedom defenders rape and kill women and children because our troops are taught not to see the enemy others as human; then our war becomes evil versus evil. Nothing justifies dehumanization and death.\nTrust me, I'm not trying to sympathize with the enemy. But our country would be stronger, bolder and more just with a refusal to counter death with death, terror with terror. Imagine how much stronger and safer we'd be if the billions of dollars we've spent on bombs and war expenses were diverted to securing our airports, our sea ports, our defense systems?\nMany call this perspective "soft" -- or with a more sexist dismissal, some call mine an "effeminate" worldview. "We can't negotiate with terrorists," some argue, so the only solution is to go on the offensive: hit them before they hit us. In other words, we don't like it when people who disagree with our ideologies attack us, kill our citizens and disrupt our way of life. In fact, we dislike it so much that we will attack and kill all of them for their ideologies and disrupt the lives of innocent citizens in countries around the world.\nBush stubbornly cries, "The war ... will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious." They kill us or we kill them. Interesting how we spread democracy with such an anti-democratic philosophy. "Kill every last one of 'em" sounds more like our own brand of terrorism.\nTotal eradication of one side is not the solution. What Bush fails to acknowledge is that there will always be an "other," an "extremist" whose views don't jive with ours. Negotiation, diplomacy, sanctions and other alternatives may be difficult and lengthy journeys, but to claim that our war of terror, death and destruction is the only solution simply mirrors the rigid, extremist philosophies we oppose.
(09/06/06 2:22am)
Cathy Small, an anthropology professor at Northern Arizona University, was troubled by undergraduate student behavior. \nWhy don't students take advantage of office hours? she wondered. Why do many students seem disinterested in learning? Why are many students seemingly unprepared for college life?\nSo Small decided to go "undercover" and put her anthropology research skills to work. She enrolled as a freshman at Northern Arizona, lived in a residence hall and navigated the ins and outs of advising, tutoring, campus bus systems and social networks. Her experiences, observations and reflections were published in "My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student" under the pseudonym Rebekah Nathan.\nCentral to professor Small's work is the question, what is the purpose of your educational experience at a college or university? (Or more, specifically for us, why are you at IU?)\nArguably the most important outcome of your education is not getting a job and a paycheck, but learning how to be a responsible citizen who can interact skillfully with both friends and strangers in our communities. But you will only maximize these skills if you refuse to check your curiosity at the door, expand your social spheres and build bridges between the academic and the world outside the classroom.\nProfessor Small found an abiding lack of curiosity among today's college students. Small saw that students infrequently mix with people unlike themselves. As much as universities have emphasized the importance of diverse communities, she noticed that many students are indifferent to diversity and fearful of branching out of their comfort zone, thereby limiting their educational potential. For example, throughout her research project, very few students questioned Small -- a 50-something woman with graying curls who could almost be a grandmother to many of the freshmen -- about her personal life or why she was back in college. The most personal questions she encountered were about her major, and she was primarily made to feel like an outsider, forced to forge connections among other "strangers" including transfer and international students. \nI've seen a similar suppression of curiosity among students I've taught, and I remember that feeling of discomfort as an undergraduate when asked to explore new social spheres that might challenge or undermine my previous experiences. But think of the possibilities and the vast learning potential if we let our innate curiosity flow and moved beyond the cliché identifiers of hometown, major and where you live.\nFrequently, it appears that many students want simply to acquire skills and participate in activities that translate directly into jobs and a salary after graduation, believing academic and intellectual pursuits are unrelated to these goals. Students in Small's study, for example, spent more time bragging about pulling off assignments with minimal effort than participating in political or philosophical discussions. The "serious stuff" interfered with efforts to fit in to campus culture and manage other commitments, such as organizations and jobs.\nHowever, I'm not convinced that learning for the sake of learning is completely passé. We just need to recognize that the "serious stuff" and its social and political implications are just as important and valuable for future success.\nFor students, college is about "fun, sociability and practicality," a place where the most valuable learning takes place outside of class. Small reported that nearly two-thirds of what students learn comes from lessons external to the classroom -- at work, in relationships, in living situations and in student organizations. But many faculty and administrators believe that academics must be central to student life, and they disregard or diminish the other life lessons occurring in student lives.\nRather than maintaining such a sharp division between the "academic" and the "extracurricular," students and faculty alike might consider how to marry the two apparently disconnected realms of learning in order to view other activities as co-curricular -- as vital complements to the classroom experience that must be incorporated to the "intellectual" learning process. Maybe this would help many students think of education as more than just a boring, static accumulation of facts to memorize. The entire educational package might be seen as dynamic and valuable to everyday life and community participation.\nYour challenges this academic year, no matter what your role at the University, are these: What will you do to maximize your learning outcome, express your natural curiosity and reach beyond the familiar and comfortable? How will you bridge the lessons from life experience to lessons in the classroom? And more importantly, how will you challenge yourself to "talk to strangers" and foster relationships that will both enrich your educational experience and enhance your ability to be an active community member -- rather than a civic couch potato?
(09/05/06 2:47am)
Andre Agassi played his final professional match last weekend at the U.S. Open. During the long standing ovation he received and his brief, eloquent farewell speech, I couldn't stop the tears from flowing. It was sad to see such a remarkable tennis icon step off the court for the final time. But more than anything, I was moved by witnessing this last public chapter in Andre's amazing maturation from arrogant, aimless youth to selfless, philanthropic hero.\nAs I soaked up every tribute I could find about Agassi's career after his loss, it struck me how beneficial his perspective on life might be for navigating through college life. So in honor of his brilliant career, I compiled some "Agassi wisdom" to consider through your IU experience.\n"I don't take pride in my accomplishments," he said. "I take pride in the striving." He added: "The pride I take in everything I've experienced has to do with what I've poured into it, not necessarily what that experience was." Undoubtedly the college experience will be filled with ups and downs, with accomplishments and a few less-than-desirable outcomes. Be it essays or exams, relationships or organizational events, whatever the outcome, will you be proud that you poured yourself wholly into the experience?\nIn his post-match interview, Agassi said, "I think we can find excuses in life or we can find inspirations. I've always tried to find inspirations." It's often easier to find excuses, to shun responsibility. But rather than shunning accountability in a search for futile excuses, why not look for positive inspiration in yourself and others to help address and overcome any shortcomings and keep striving for improvements?\n"The scoreboard said I lost today, but what the scoreboard doesn't say is what it is I have found ... I have found loyalty ... I've found inspiration ... And I've found generosity," Agassi said between sobs in an emotional farewell speech. "You have given me your shoulders to stand on to reach for my dreams, dreams I could have never reached without you." But you don't have to be a tennis star to find such fan support. The IU community is stocked full of resources to help you reach your goals: fellow students, faculty, support services, RAs. Open yourself up to finding those resources and embracing their support.\nAnd finally, describing his relationship with tennis, Agassi said, "For me, it's been about trying to give more than I take." It's impossible to move through your time at IU without taking some remarkable lessons, but at the end of the journey, will you be able to say you've given as much, if not more, to the community?\nThanks, Andre, for 20 years of tennis memories and for setting an example for us to follow in all areas of life.
(08/31/06 3:07am)
Remember Katherine Harris? \nIn case you didn't vote in the 2000 elections, let me remind you: She was the Florida secretary of state who proudly declared George W. Bush the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes in November 2000. Now she's a U.S. representative from Florida, and she's making waves again.\nIn an interview published in the journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, Katherine Harris proclaimed, "If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin." All the good Jewish and Muslim citizens and people of other faith traditions can worship freely in this country, but the nation is doomed if they get into public office.\nScary, eh? It gets worse:\n• "If we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our Founding Fathers intended and that's certainly isn't what God intended." (A nation of secular laws sounds great to me! Did God sit down with the Founding Fathers to hammer out the plans?)\n• Harris claims the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told." (Those Founding Fathers must've been really confused. They didn't intend to have secular laws, but they created a vicious lie to ensure we did.)\n• Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers." (I suppose it was God, not Harris, who eliminated over 55,000 eligible voters -- mainly Democrats -- from the voting rosters in Florida six months before the 2000 elections. Or maybe Harris and God were working together to ensure that the better Christian got into office -- the Christian who would hear God demand, "Go to war with Iraq!")\nHarris tried to smooth things over after the interview, but she stopped short of an apology. She claimed, "It breaks my heart" that people were offended -- probably about as much as it breaks my heart that this gaffe might cost her the election. \nApparently she only suggested that Christians were suitable for running the country because, according to Harris, her "comments were specifically directed toward a Christian group." Of course! That clears things up. Maybe the next time she addresses an all-white audience, she'll say that white people are the only ones equipped to govern the country. That's excusable if she's trying to craft a message suitable for her audience, right?\nRepublican and Democratic leaders have denounced her remarks. Yet her snafu glaringly reveals how deeply our national elections are influenced by religiously inspired division over issues like gay marriage, instead of more humane -- and, one could argue, more Christian -- issues like a failing education system, poverty and the fact that many Americans don't receive basic needs such as health care. Personally, I'd like to get back to government that looks more like a democracy instead of the theocracy Harris envisions.
(08/25/06 3:30am)
I love the reality show "Survivor." \nI've watched every season. I was absolutely giddy when "Survivor: All-Stars" aired. I even applied for the second edition in Australia.\nBut this season promises to be the best ever. The show is tackling not only social politics, but also racial politics more explicitly than ever before.\n"Survivor" has been criticized for reinforcing negative racial stereotypes and its predominantly white castaways, so producer Mark Burnett confronted this critique head-on. This fall, 20 cast members will be split into four race-based tribes: Asian, Hispanic, black, and white.\nHost Jeff Probst claims this will take the show to a "completely different level." I have no doubt it will. The question is: Will this be positive or detrimental? My guess is a little of both -- but it's worth the risk.\nInitial reactions to the announcement Wednesday have been unfavorable. Some fear it will lead viewers to mistakenly think that five people represent a whole group of diverse individuals. Others believe this will reinforce ugly stereotypes or prejudices. Robert Thompson of the Center for the Study of Popular Television claimed, "It's like a return back to segregated leagues in sports."\nFurthermore, it reinforces very rigid classifications for extremely wooly, socially constructed categories. Do tribe members whose family lineage links them to Puerto Rico, Mexico and Brazil have anything in common just because they're Hispanic? How light would a person have to be to "pass" as white? And multiracial people don't fit neatly into this tribe structure without forcing them to choose one identity.\nBut in my opinion, this is the closest to reality that "Survivor" has ever come. Most of America lives in fairly segregated neighborhoods and towns, especially in cities with a fair amount of racial diversity. Think of your circle of friends (especially white folks). How many people do you count as close friends who are not of the same race? We work together in some settings, pass each other on campus and then spend social time largely with people of the same race. Survivor is just translating that reality to "reality TV."\nIt's funny how a segregated game show ruffles people's feathers, while a largely segregated world goes uncritiqued.\nI'm excited (and optimistic) about the conversations this "racy" move might spark. Many people -- especially white people -- don't like to talk about race and racism. It's safer not to address such a sensitive subject. Many believe in the myth of a "colorblind" world or find false comfort in the belief that racism ended a long time ago. But the truth is that race still very much influences our lives, our social interactions, our opportunities and our attitudes. Hopefully the producers will take advantage of this opportunity to address these racial realities without falling back on stereotypes. \nI trust that "Survivor's" move has the potential to trigger productive discussions about our "racialized" world -- which is much better than the troubling habit of ignoring it.