55 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/30/14 7:54pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For years, the No. 1 debate against same-sex marriage has been religiously based, but a group of local religious leaders from North Carolina turned this debate on its head. They filed a suit claiming the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The clergy members of the United Church of Christ, who are leading the suit along with same-sex couples of the surrounding area, said they aren’t looking to change people’s minds in order to conform to their beliefs. They just want the same religious protection under the law that the opposition receives. The clergy and couples said they want only to “assert their right to freely preform religious services and ceremonies consistent with their beliefs and practices.” They intend to argue in the same vein as Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, which struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. They said that same-sex marriage bans stigmatize not only couples, and families, but also religious affiliations. This suit is only one of 66 legal challenges to state legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage (three of which are in North Carolina).It is, however, the first and only to cite the First Amendment’s declaration of freedom of religion. This new angle of looking at equal rights addresses an inconsistency I feel has been present in this conflict from the beginning. Many of those opposing same-sex marriage do so because they believe it is a violation of their religion to recognize marriage between anyone other than strictly a man and a woman.The inconsistency lies in this: their religion is not representative of the entire population. Those of differing religious beliefs (i.e. Secularists, the United Church of Christ, and individuals of any denomination having a personal belief in equality) are forced to adhere to the bigoted religious preferences of an uninformed majority. The United Church of Christ has reminded us of what we have been overlooking — the constitution and the structure of our government are meant to support the minority from marginalization. The First Amendment in particular serves this purpose. I do not believe the First Amendment was meant to use state laws, constitutions and supreme courts to force the religious practices of rural protestant America on to those who do not wish to adhere to it.Instead, I believe it was intended to do exactly as it says — prevent the government from interfering in religious practices that do not concern said government. How the marriage of two consenting adults concerns the government is an argument no one has been able to convincingly make. Even if this new angle proves unsuccessful in the fight for equality in the less progressive states, it predicts a certain turn of tide that should not be underestimated. If anything, it shows the direction this country is ultimately heading. If religious leaders are going to start promoting marriage equality and progressive acceptance of people who have been shunned in the past, then I for one think we are finally headed in the right direction. jordrile@indiana.edu@riledupIDS
(04/29/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For years, the No. 1 debate against same-sex marriage has been religiously based, but a group of local religious leaders from North Carolina turned this debate on its head. They filed a suit claiming the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The clergy members of the United Church of Christ, who are leading the suit along with same-sex couples of the surrounding area, said they aren’t looking to change people’s minds in order to conform to their beliefs. They just want the same religious protection under the law that the opposition receives. The clergy and couples said they want only to “assert their right to freely preform religious services and ceremonies consistent with their beliefs and practices.” They intend to argue in the same vein as Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, which struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. They said that same-sex marriage bans stigmatize not only couples, and families, but also religious affiliations. This suit is only one of 66 legal challenges to state legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage (three of which are in North Carolina).It is, however, the first and only to cite the First Amendment’s declaration of freedom of religion. This new angle of looking at equal rights addresses an inconsistency I feel has been present in this conflict from the beginning. Many of those opposing same-sex marriage do so because they believe it is a violation of their religion to recognize marriage between anyone other than strictly a man and a woman.The inconsistency lies in this: their religion is not representative of the entire population. Those of differing religious beliefs (i.e. Secularists, the United Church of Christ, and individuals of any denomination having a personal belief in equality) are forced to adhere to the bigoted religious preferences of an uninformed majority. The United Church of Christ has reminded us of what we have been overlooking — the constitution and the structure of our government are meant to support the minority from marginalization. The First Amendment in particular serves this purpose. I do not believe the First Amendment was meant to use state laws, constitutions and supreme courts to force the religious practices of rural protestant America on to those who do not wish to adhere to it.Instead, I believe it was intended to do exactly as it says — prevent the government from interfering in religious practices that do not concern said government. How the marriage of two consenting adults concerns the government is an argument no one has been able to convincingly make. Even if this new angle proves unsuccessful in the fight for equality in the less progressive states, it predicts a certain turn of tide that should not be underestimated. If anything, it shows the direction this country is ultimately heading. If religious leaders are going to start promoting marriage equality and progressive acceptance of people who have been shunned in the past, then I for one think we are finally headed in the right direction. jordrile@indiana.edu@riledupIDS
(04/22/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>One of the first things you hear about this generation is that people put their whole lives online.Due to the recent online security mishap known as Heartbleed, everyone’s password for just about everything has potentially been compromised. Everyone from your favorite news source, to your favorite aunt has been telling you the changing your passwords will make you safe, but “ethical hacker” David Kennedy has a much better idea. I don’t know a lot about computer science but after some web searching here are the basics of what I learned: Heartbleed was a mistake in programming in a project called OpenSSL. OpenSSL was created in the ’90s to prevent uninvited third parties from accessing personal information submitted to websites. The “Open” in OpenSSL is supposed to mean that any programmer can work on the project—the idea is that people will add to it, and others will double check it.What it really means is that this project has one full time programmer, and a few volunteers, overseeing a program run on two-thirds of all websites on the Internet.Sites like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Tumblr all fell victim to this vulnerability. Even the FBI was at risk, which does not exactly inspire confidence in the security of the nation. The bug was added and distributed to the software over two years ago, and only discovered on April 7, leaving website users (i.e. you) extremely vulnerable. All the information you submit to these website, under the guise of security and protection, were actually open for anyone smart enough to find them to see.The problem is there are a lot of people smart enough to find them, and not all of them could be described as “ethical.” There are too many people who know more about this technology than I do for me to continue to blindly trust that my information is being kept safe. If even government agencies are vulnerable to faceless criminals armed with nothing but a laptop, how secure are any of us?This is where David Kennedy steps in. He says that the code isn’t the problem, it’s the passwords. We trust a single code word to protect our out entire lives? Kennedy says they are an antiquated way of protecting our information, and I believe it. Especially given the tendency people have to name everything after their childhood pet.In a world where everything is on the Internet, and anyone with know-how can access all of it, we need to keep our security separate. Apparently, there are new technologies that allow much more extensive procedures in order to access personal information online. One example is as simple as an online and cell phone text confirmation. Another is as sci-fi as a bracelet that identifies the users heart beat. Resorting to these measures may seem like something out of “The Matrix,” but honestly, with the government conspiracies and evil genius hackers already surrounding the Heartbleed debacle, I already feel like I accidentally took the red pill. We all need to wake up to the realities of the digital world we live in, and be better prepared for them. jordrile@indiana.edu@RiledUpIDS
(04/15/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A United Nations panel focused on climate change released reports on the state of the environment and, not surprisingly, found governments are not taking the steps necessary to avoid disaster. The report states, as a global community, we need to make extensive changes to cut down on carbon emissions in order to keep atmospheric temperatures at a livable level without breaking the bank.In 15 years, the question will no longer be about what we can do for the future but about how we are going to undo the past. The report states we will be forced to rely on expensive technology that does not exist yet — and very well might not exist in the future — to remove toxic gasses from the air. Instead of looking forward to that gamble, I’d rather cut out many of the toxic gases as we can now so we don’t have to reverse them later. This is the third report to come out in the last few months concerning climate change. The other two mentioned in the New York Times also state facts I thought we already knew, like the undeniable connection between the actions of humans and global warming and the increasing danger and frequency of the effects of global warming already being felt. The report suggests that the most cost-effective way to promote low-carbon energy is to tax carbon-heavy industries that rely on burning coal. This will create an incentive to invest in more climate friendly options, which are now more effective and cheaper than ever. Changes made to stop, or at least slow, the broiling of our planet will of course cost money. The report finds climate-friendly technologies currently available are becoming increasingly cost-efficient. We can afford to make the changes in the next 15 years that need to be made.What we can’t afford is to wait any longer and be forced to rely on pipe dream technologies that will be completely out of our price range. With the increase in natural disasters and the melting Arctic ice, as well as general increase in yearlong temperatures, it seems crazy to me that people are still denying this. Continued ignorance on the subject will result in serious and likely irreversible effects for everyone. The truth is, sooner or later everyone is going to feel the effects of climate change. If we wait any longer, it’s going to cost a lot more to stop it, if we can at all. Establishing global and government-instituted changes is the most cost-effective solution for now and could help avoid playing catch-up later. jordrile@indiana.edu@RiledUpIDS
(04/08/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Media can be a mirror for reality. People take what they see and apply it to their lives. It’s where behavioral norms in our culture are established, but that isn’t always a good thing. The casual and unsafe depictions of sex in most media could have real-world consequences. In the real world, there has been more talk about what constitutes an appropriate sexual encounter — including consent and protection. The importance of both should be obvious. Obtaining consent before entering into a sexual encounter with someone is paramount. Explicitly knowing the comfort level of everyone involved relieves any possibility of accidentally crossing boundaries. Listening to your partner’s wants and feelings about the situation is the only way to be respectful and appropriate in vulnerable situations. As for being safe and healthy in these situations, protection is important as well. Sexually transmitted infections are a scary and growing problem among college students. One in every four college students has an STI, while only 54 percent of students use condoms regularly. The lack of media representation of healthy sexual practices can lead people to believe that asking for consent or protection is not sexy. It perpetuates the myth that they ruin the romantic mood portrayed on screen in Hollywood films or TV shows. People look to these media outlets as an escape, and it’s unfair to assume people can’t separate what’s on screen from what needs to be done in real life.But it is also naïve to assume what happens on screen doesn’t affect how people see the world around them. People look toward these media outlets as reflective of the culture around them, and right now the media is telling them there is no room for safe sex in the romantics’ bedroom. Try to think of the last fictionalized television show you watched that didn’t involve a sexual situation.Personally, I’m drawing a blank. More than 67 percent of television shows talk about or show sex. The number of television shows that promote safe-sex practices only amounts to 15 percent. This means the majority of sexual situations depicted on television are done without reference to healthy and mature sexual practices.Both consent and protection are extremely important to the health of every sexual partner. That is why it is so important to get rid of the stigmas surrounding the obtaining of both. It’s not that asking isn’t sexy, it’s just that the media hasn’t been including it in its depictions of sex. If the media are so dedicated to portraying these situations and have a vested interest in remaining the mirror to our culture, it needs to start getting conversations about sex right. jordrile@indiana.edu
(04/01/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It is amazing how nonchalant some people are when it comes to addressing the horrible act of rape. One in five high school aged girls in Indiana have been sexually assaulted, and yet there continues to be an attitude of victim distrust and predator coddling. The Indiana Supreme Court just decided upon a case that, while unfathomable to me, perfectly embodies this attitude. When a 16-year-old student came to her principal minutes after being sexually assaulted on school grounds, he neglected to call the police because he was didn’t believe her. According to a March 31 IDS article, he found time to look at hours of security footage, search both students’ lockers and demand a written statement from the victim before someone else had to insist that she be taken to the hospital. Even though protocol and human decency insist the principal call the police immediately, he refused to do so. He later claimed he was unaware he had to contact the police directly. Perhaps he was hoping to rely on the police force’s psychic powers. On top of his blatant disregard for the wellbeing of the victim in his care, he also handled the predator with a lax and sympathetic hand, even though the victim was certain and clear that he was her attacker. The school’s athletic director was even invited to sit in, showing the lack of serious intent. When students are in school, they are under the guardianship of the principal and the authority structure of that school. How can students be expected to feel safe when their wellbeing is so clearly disregarded by those authorities? How can female students be expected to feel protected when their schools don’t take their claims or safety seriously? This nonchalance toward high school sexual assault must be addressed because it puts students at risk. It not only teaches young people that if they are attacked the authorities may be unwilling to help or sympathize with them, but that also being a sexual predator is not a big deal and will not be treated harshly.I’m sure everyone remembers the Stuebenville case. News reporters were much more concerned with the injustice against the young rapists then those against the actual victim. This is exactly the kind of attitude that breeds predators. No other crime of this caliber would have the perpetrators being painted as victims. No other situation would have high school principles treating the victims as the untrustworthy party. This state, and American society as a whole, needs to reassess its attitude towards rape and its victims, especially as it affects minors. Sexual assault is not typical teenage behavior. It’s time administrators wake up to the fact that it is happening and the harm it does. It’s time they stop treating victims like liars and rapists like naughty children. We need to put the blame where it belongs, and help the victims where we can. Maybe this change in attitude can change the statistics. jordile@indiana.edu
(03/25/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There is a stigma that comes with TV programs that, I think, is mostly unfair. The idea of “the idiot’s lantern” that regulates television to being a time waster for lazy people is outdated. And yet, some people still proudly declare their ignorance of anything displayed on the silver screen. These people are so frustrating to me because no other medium is rejected with such pride. You don’t hear hipsters smugly stating “I don’t watch films” or “I don’t own any books.” While there might have been a time to differentiate between the artistic and intellectual differences between these mediums, that time is past.We, as viewers and as a society, are currently enjoying what could be considered a golden age of television. The stories are more complex and compelling, and there are more distributors than ever before. Our television is more expensive, more pensive and more entertaining, and yet it is still being denied the credit it deserves.No other medium is going through the cultural renaissance that television is currently experiencing. The quality of movies — generally considered to have intellectual and cultural value by the same pseudo-intellectuals who throw shade on television — has actually gone down in recent years with influxes of sequels and clichés. On the other hand, television is the most widely used media device in the United States.Perhaps it is this mainstream appeal that repels some people. But willfully ignoring such a large and stimulating aspect of culture does not make a person seem impossibly intellectual, posh and busy. It just makes them out of touch. Shows like “House of Cards” and “Game of Thrones” are offering engaging social commentaries on our political system and the drug-like effects of power on the human psyche, respectively. By choosing to not to engage in this conversation, people miss relevant observations about the world around them and are left behind. They are also missing out on some incredible entertainment.The idea of entertainment for entertainment’s sake is perhaps another reason people hold disdain for the medium. These people should keep in mind that even intellectual darlings like Shakespeare were considered low culture in their time. It offers the longest exposure time to interesting and complicated characters, like Walter White and Don Draper, giving the audience more time to digest, dissect and draw conclusions in a way that is impossible in a two-hour time frame. Its timely creation and distribution spanning multiple years also gives it the ability to reflect real time cultural issues with commentary.On top of its political, social and cultural affects, it is also really fun to watch. So when I make a simple reference, and someone hoping to seem smarter than me smugly replies, “Oh, I don’t watch television,” they should know that I’m not impressed. That person hasn’t excluded themselves from the vapid entrapments of lesser folk, but instead revealed themselves to be hopelessly removed from the very thing they are trying to project — culture. jordrile@indiana.edu@RiledUpIDS
(03/11/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>ll, Mattel’s Barbie, turned 55 this week, though you would never know it by looking at her. Considering how long she has been around, it’s no surprise the doll has caused a bit of trouble — mostly surrounding her figure. Fortunately, an independent toy maker has offered a more realistic alternative. If Barbie were a real girl, the constant attention to her unhealthy proportions would be annoying and insulting. However, she isn’t flesh and blood. The unhealthy lifestyle isn’t something she is doing to herself — it’s something her influence is doing to her child consumers. Everybody that has ever heard of Barbie knows about the doll’s crazy unrealistic proportions. If she were real, she wouldn’t be able to support her own weight and would have to crawl on her hands and knees. Not that her hands would be any big support, seeing as her wrists would only be 3.5 inches around. It’s not hard to make the connection that the millions of young girls who see Barbie as a role model see her literally unattainable body type as the ideal. It’s equally easy to make the connection to the growing rates of eating disorders occurring in children younger than 12. The doll’s latest occupation as the cover girl on the annual swimsuit addition of Sports Illustrated has caused quite the scandal. The cover is notoriously reserved for the world’s sexiest women to be scantily clad and ogled. Choosing to have a children’s toy fill this roll sends the wrong message both the consumers of the magazine and to the consumers of Barbie dolls. The magazine has over-sexualized a doll. Barbie’s main function is as a stand in for children’s imaginative versions of themselves. That’s creepy.Fortunately, there is another side to Barbie’s perpetual controversy. Last year, a digital rendering of a “realistic Barbie” went viral. The image shows the typical Mattel Barbie standing next to a shorter, wider doll, whose proportions are congruent with the average measurements of a 19-year-old woman in the United States. Since then, creator Nickolay Lamm launched a successful Kickstarter campaign to create his line of dolls with the same average measurements. Lamm will create a line of what he calls “Lammily” dolls. The dolls will also have bendable arms, wrists, knees and feet, so the doll has a wider range of mobility, allowing for a wider range of sports and activities. His idea is if the toy companies won’t change to accommodate concerns as to negative effects of their toys, then people should create toys that send better messages. The project has already tripled the goal amount of the crowdfunding campaign — the public seems almost desperate for this doll. Barbie’s 55th birthday has proved to be a polarizing one. One side of the reaction shows how far society still has to come against over sexualization of young girls, and acceptance of realistic body standards. The other side of society proves to be more progressive and empowering to young girls, accepting that “average is beautiful,” as Lamm’s campaign tells us.After 55 years, it’s time for Barbie’s toy queen successor. Between being a doctor and an astronaut, you know Barbie must have worked up quite a retirement fund.jordrile@indiana.edu@RiledUpIDS
(03/04/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This semester, I have to spend a lot of time in Ballantine Hall. There are some reasons this sucks — the confusing ground floor vs. first floor and the general high school/prison vibe the building gives off, for instance. But I’ve begun noticing something pretty cool about Ballantine as well.Throughout the girl’s bathrooms, someone has written a political manifesto, calling for the rebellion of the underprivileged. Someone else has written a short encouraging note about getting through tough times. Lots of people have written snarky rebuttals to both of these messages, and more. They are removed pretty quickly, and new messages are rewritten even quicker and funnier than before. Though each note is eventually painted over in the attempt to keep the bathrooms looking clean and academic, since it’s against the rules to deface school property, I love that these words get to be shared even briefly. So much of women’s speech is controlled by someone other than themselves. Self-publishing for anyone has got to be liberating, but especially for women. Even though women represent a little more than half the population, they are continuously underrepresented in the media. Women own less than 7 percent of all television and radio station licenses. Generally, women’s words have to, at some point, be examined and pass through a male gaze to make it through to the rest of the world. Whether it’s through an editor or a critic, a man’s perspective will be considered when determining whether her words are valid. It is this public standard that makes the girl’s room graffiti so interesting. These words won’t be judged by a male perspective. Only women can write them, and only women can read them. The authors of the stall sonnets are free from having to consider what a male critic might say to her anonymous confession. She can’t be censored or judged by the male gaze, which is a rare space for women.Within the confines of typical society, which tends to lean towards a man’s perspective, women are often perceived as catty toward each other. In main forms of media, they are rarely seen as interacting at all. However, on the walls of our restrooms, we generally seem to lean toward supporting each other. Even when comments are about hating math, responses will let the author know she’s not alone.Most comments veer towards funny, but almost all have an inclusionary feel. Women are free to talk about real emotions where no one will judge them. The sisterhood is real on the anonymous stall walls. I think it’s interesting that, when removed from a society that projects negative tropes like pettiness and competitiveness, none of those characteristics are exhibited. It might be impossible for women to have freedom from the male gaze anywhere else, but I take comfort that free-thinking, slightly delinquent women will always have a place on the wall in bathroom stalls. jordrile@indiana.edu@RiledUp IDS
(02/25/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Campus Strategic Plan, drafted by Provost Lauren Robel, is supposed to usher in a new era of programs and strategies for improving the University in the future.What’s unclear is how these changes will actually affect student life. The vagueness of the plan, and the relative ineffectiveness of previous changes, make me skeptical as to how these changes will matter. A draft of the plan was released to the public, supposedly for the students to read and submit revisions of the policies. The report starts with a list of additions and improvements that have already been added to campus since 2011. This list can be used as an example of how this future plan will be implemented. For starters, I noticed only a handful of these changes before reading them the plan. The multiple combinations of different majors to create more diverse and inclusive schools were a major theme of the last improvement plan. Perhaps it’s because I am not involved in some of the fields directly affected, but I had heard of only a few of these changes prior to seeing them listed. Of the few new schools I have heard of, I saw little elaboration regarding their future. The Media School — a combination of journalism and the departments of telecommunications and communication and culture — is notoriously mysterious.Students remain unclear as to what the combination of these majors into a new school will entail for them, and there has been negligible effort to inform them. Regardless of this lack of information, the idea of it remains unpopular. As for the School of Public Health, the only change I’ve been able to ascertain is that I have to be corrected every time I say I’m going to the HPER. As for the other school collaborations, I know even less about them. And that, as you can tell, means I know nothing about them. The plan itself didn’t help, either.These changes, from what I can tell, have not had a profound affect on student life because students remain unaware of them and of their purpose. This lack of publicized information about these supposedly large and successful leaps forward for the University does not bode well for the Strategic Plan. The especially vague wording doesn’t do the plan any favors either. Most of the objectives seem to affect attitudes rather than concrete institutions. Phrases like “(we) will esteem” and “we will inspire” populate the Undergraduate objectives. What concrete actions do these phrases suggest? Will any of these changes actually have a noticeable affect on student life, or will the only difference be noticed when identified in next year’s plan?If your asking for revisions, my one request would be, in specific and clear terms, to answer this question: What does this plan actually do for students?— jordrile@indiana.eduFollow columnist Jordan Riley on Twitter @RiledUpIDS.
(02/18/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As a student, I spend quite a bit of time online. From Facebook to Amazon to Google, I endure ads specifically aimed at me. At first glance, this may seem helpful, but it is actually kind of creepy and potentially dangerous. Especially when you begin to consider these methods aren’t just used for ads. Facebook and a number of other sites use tracking cookies to monitor what you browse online, and then use this data to determine what ads would be most relevant to you. They do this to maximize the likelihood you will buy a product, and the worth of their advertisement space will increase because it yields sales. However, I have a couple problems with this method. First of all, it’s kind of creepy. A website installs something on my browser I barely notice is there, and they receive all kinds of information about me without even trying. It’s not like I’m Googling homemade murder weapons, but still, it feels like an invasion of privacy. This information is kept and shared with multiple businesses and online entities, which only makes it worse. Google searches or impulse clicks I forget about 10 seconds after I close the tab are eternally remembered, shared and later used against me. The second problem I have with this method is the pigeon hole it puts me in. Some people have more varied interests than others, but these cookies take your interests — or what it knows of your interests — and simplify them into a handful of stores and products. We are lucky enough to have access to the widest container of information ever known. These ads confine us to tiny corners of this virtual world, and you would have no way of knowing. When you only ever see one thing, it is hard to believe there is anything different out there. That is what makes these cookies and targeted advertisements dangerous. They lock people in homogeneous bubbles. They keep people one dimensional and make it harder for them to break out of their predetermined destinations by never letting them see the Internet past what’s been chosen for them. Online stores like Amazon use algorithms created from this basic principle in order to showcase book preferences to customers. News sites often do the same thing to recommend articles. This is potentially the scariest outcome of all because this isn’t just shoes, it’s information. We live in a world of hundreds of opposing voices and views, but these algorithms potentially limit people to one viewpoint or topic because they don’t bother to diversify the suggestions past what they think the customer wants to see. When there is no challenge to the information, no other side to an argument, the customer gains a false sense of understanding about the topic — and, with no contradiction, may think the rest of the world agrees. In the age of the Internet, we should be more open and receptive to information from all viewpoints and focuses, not just those we prefer. The web was supposed to broaden our horizons, not invent clever ways to isolate ourselves.— jordrile@indiana.edu
(02/11/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Conservatives have developed a ridiculous habit of endorsing legislation under farcical pretensions, and it is insulting to their constituents to think we don’t see through them. The latest charade is Senate Bill 292, making its way through Indiana legislature. As the IDS reported earlier this week, this bill requires physicians who provide abortions to obtain admitting privileges from a local hospital and to send proof of these privileges to the state department of health, potentially making them public record. It will also require supporting physicians to be on call in case of a medical emergency.Admitting privileges are basically an agreement between a physician and a hospital, which allows the physician to send a certain number of patients to that hospital. The problem with making these privileges public is a lot of people like to harass and attack people and places affiliated with abortion procedures. The fact that physicians even have to have admitting privileges is what is called a TRAP law, a targeted regulation of abortion providers. These laws are being supported in heavily anti-choice states because they attempt to eliminate abortion by circumventing the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. By potentially making physicians names public, these laws ensure fewer physicians will be willing to perform these procedures. Even fewer will be willing to be the supporting physician.And because of the extreme harassment and violence shown by pro-life activists towards pretty much anyone within 50 feet of a Planned Parenthood, it’s not unreasonable for these physicians to fear for their safety and pull their resources.Safety should be the number one concern while undergoing any sort of medical procedure. However, less than one percent of women who have this procedure ever need follow up medical attention. Therefore, even the need for admitting privileges is miniscule, let alone the need to advertise to who and where they pertain. This is an obvious attempt to limit women’s access to procedures they have every right under the law to obtain. Procedures, in some cases, can save lives, and in all cases represent the choice and decision of the women seeking them. The most disgusting part of this is the condescending cover of concern for women’s health that conservatives use to dress up these TRAPs.Sen. John Waterman, R-35th District, said he wrote the bill to “provide a safety net for women who have abortions” — a ridiculous claim, because all he has really done is made it that much harder for the women he claims to be helping. The bill obviously attempts to decrease abortion accessibility, and it is insulting to continue to pretend otherwise. It is even more insulting to use women’s health as the cause for a politician’s blatant disregard for women’s ability to make their own decisions concerning their bodies. If conservatives were to call this law what it is — a provision against abortion — it would be illegal, which is a pretty good indicator it’s not a good thing. Conservatives aren’t fooling anyone here, because if they were really concerned about women’s health, they would be on the other side of the debate. — jordrile@indiana.eduFollow columnist Jordan Riley on Twitter @riledup_IDS.
(02/05/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Dylan Farrow, Mia Farrow’s daughter, has recently released an open letter in The New York Times that confirms old accusations that Woody Allen sexually assaulted her as a child. Her letter is brave, heartbreaking and completely correct in her condemnation, not only of Woody Allen for his abuse but also of the society that would willing turn a blind eye to protect a favorite. Some people’s first response to this discovery could be to doubt what she is saying. Woody Allen is a beloved film director and cemented pop culture icon. When you hear about such awful acts coming from such an admired person, the first response is often backlash. This is, of course, insulting to rape and abuse victims everywhere. Our society has always been overly eager to assume that the victim is lying or that it is somehow his or her fault, and this is one of the biggest reasons that so many acts of sexual violence go unreported. Our first response to news like this should always be support and understanding toward the victim. The added complication of this particular case is the emotional connection Allen’s fans feel not only to his movies but also to him.I struggled with my own attachment to his work when I heard the news. After all, it isn’t as if his movies are suddenly bad. Once you have accepted art into your life and into your heart, there is a certain ownership that is hard to let go. I felt conflicted as to whether it was right for me to still appreciate his movies.That is until I actually read Dylan Farrow’s open letter. Her story was pointed and heartbreaking. When I finished reading it, I actually felt nauseated. It was at this point that I realized how selfish my reaction to her confession had been. The fact that Annie Hall is forever tainted now is hardly the biggest tragedy of this story. A young girl was sexually and emotionally abused, and she was made to feel, by an entire industry and fan base, that her struggle was less important than a slew of popular movies. The only excuse I can see for this is that people don’t want to condemn stories they love. This philosophy, however, is making a tragedy about you, the viewer, when it could not be less about you.The real victim here is a 7-year-old girl who was abused by a trusted father figure and pressured to keep silent for 21 years as the rest of the world worshiped her abuser. We were wrong to ignore it in the past — not just with Woody Allen but also with every public figure guilty of crimes that have other men rotting in prison without a thought of forgiveness. We would be even worse to ignore it again. The only thing the public can do now is to do as Farrow asks: acknowledge her struggle, adjust our idols and be more receptive in the future. — jordile@indiana.eduFollow columnist Jordan Riley on Twitter @RiledUpIDS.
(01/28/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Magazines have been Photoshopping pictures of women as long as they have had the technology. Backlash for this insulting practice has been happening for almost just as long. Obviously, the idea that woman aren’t beautiful enough as they are is not a positive message. People have pushed back against the idea that they have to be thinner, taller or whiter to be considered beautiful.Recently, Mindy Kaling was featured on the cover of respected fashion magazine Elle and Lena Dunham for Vogue. Both covers sparked controversy over how each woman was portrayed. However, the real insult here was in the response both women had to the controversy. Two sets of photos from Dunham’s Vogue photo shoot are available online, pre- and post-Photoshop. The differences are small — a thinner waist, a longer neck — but they are still noticeable. Even worse, her partner in the photo shoot, Adam Driver, is untouched other than the overall lighting changes. Kaling’s cover of Elle raised controversy because it was part of a series that featured three other thin, white women. While the other women had full body covers that were in color, Kaling’s cover cuts off at her bust and is in black and white. Her cover is so obviously different from the others that it is ridiculous to think the magazine didn’t mean to single her out. Both covers had feminist bloggers in a rage over the magazines’ attempt to streamline two women who supposedly take pride in their bodies despite not being the unrealistic ideal sold to women by those same fashion magazines. Kaling’s cover was found to be especially offensive, as the black and white turn was seen as an attempt to disguise her skin color.Instead of standing up for themselves, or their previous messages of body acceptance, both women denied seeing the problem with their covers. They claimed they were just happy to be featured on the cover of a fashion magazine. Both Dunham and Kaling are writers, producers and lead actors of successful prime-time comedies. Both series focus on young, smart woman living in New York, neither of whom would be considered the ideal body type — an issue both writers have used as material for jokes and satire on their shows. Dunham became notorious for showing her naked body all over the first two seasons of “Girls.” And although there is less nudity on “The Mindy Project,” Kaling still frequently addresses body image issues in a hilarious, yet human, way. Both of these women have used their shows to satirically examine the fallacies of female body expectations. That is why it is so frustrating that both women turned their back on realism and body acceptance as soon as a fashion magazine retouched photos to make them more conventionally pretty. Dunham claimed the outcry confuses her, because women should be glad “a woman who is different than the typical Vogue cover girl” was even allowed to be on the cover. What she fails to realize is it no longer counts as different once you have been digitally altered to be the same. Kaling’s response is even more disappointing. She said the backlash is more offensive than the cover because it is the controversy that implies her body is unequal. It isn’t the people complaining who have drawn attention to the fact Kaling looks different from the other women on magazine covers. Elle accomplished that when it blatantly tried to disguise everything about Kaling that didn’t fit into their fashion-mag version of a woman — from her hips to her ethnicity. It’s a no-brainer that fashion magazines promote unhealthy and unrealistic images of the female body. I don’t need to say it — everybody knows it. That is why it is so frustrating that even when two women who promote a positive image of body acceptance are finally depicted on these magazines, their message is skewed and their credibility as role models is damaged. Instead of being able to focus on how much these two amazing young women have accomplished, we are once again forced to fight a battle against mainstream media.At crunch time, these women have deserted the fight in favor of looking beautiful by fashion magazine standards. Way to fall into the very body-shaming trap we thought you were against. Honestly, I like both of these women, and both of their shows. I’m glad they like their magazine covers. I just wish they could like covers that showed their bodies looking the way they actually do. I wish they had used this opportunity to stand up for themselves because, no, they don’t look like the usual women on magazine covers. But no one does. That’s the point. — jordrile@indiana.eduFollow columnist Jordan Riley on Twitter @RiledUpIDS.
(01/22/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Utah recently proved once again that the simplest solution is often the best by coming up with a genius plan to solve their homelessness issue — providing houses for homeless people. They crunched the numbers and found the cost of medical bills and arrests for homeless people is actually $5,670 more than simply housing them.Most states have been blaming and punishing people for their homelessness. Utah has instituted a plan that will actually solve the problem, instead of shifting blame. Most cities set restrictions on homeless individuals, such as where they can be and for how long. Some states have even restricted other people from feeding homeless people, likening them to pigeons and other pests. These policies have so far been ineffective. It turns out that even when you arrest these people, wake them up or tell them to move, they remain homeless. You haven’t really changed anything.People still rely on these policies because of the stigma that homeless people are on the street because they choose to be, because they are lazy drug addicts that refuse to help themselves. What should be obvious is that no one would actively choose to live on the street. Once there, however, one might be more concerned with exposure, not getting arrested and keeping themselves and their belongings safe — instead of making sure they aren’t an eyesore to the more fortunate.Significant portions of homeless people are afflicted with mental or physical disabilities that make it hard for them to find and keep work. Others are blindsided by extreme circumstances, and find that once they are on the streets, it becomes significantly harder to get back on their feet. The prejudice and victim blaming directed at homeless people contribute to this. It’s true that addiction is another contributor to homelessness.Instead of blaming those who have succumbed to this, Utah’s policy addresses this problem as well. Utah’s new policy gives the homeless a safe place to live as well as providing each person a social worker focused on helping them become self-sufficient. Utah’s government has created one of the first humane and effective solutions to a problem that most U.S. cities deal with, including Bloomington. Bloomington has a homeless population noticeable to anyone glancing down Kirkwood Avenue, and no one really seems to be doing anything that helps. Last December, 24-year-old Ian Stark froze to death in Bloomington. This tragedy incited many Bloomington natives to march on the mayor’s office, as well as a few less-legal displays of unrest . If Bloomington can adopt the same progressive and cost effective approach as Utah, then everybody wins. Downtown areas look cleaner, and the homeless get to change the only truly offensive thing about them — the suffix of their title. — jordile@indiana.eduFollow columnist Jordan Riley on Twitter @RiledUpIDS.