104 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/31/11 8:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>During the last decade, airports across the world have been tightening security and implementing new measures to prevent repeats of armed terrorists hijacking planes. Security measures have gone overboard in the U.S., with invasive scanners and increased Transportation Security Administration pat-downs.Now, the Indianapolis International Airport is among the first to start scaling back in an attempt to provide security without infringing on flyers’ privacy. Over the next few weeks, the airport will install full-body scanners with less revealing images. The new scanners, which have Automated Targeting Recognition, will still be able to spot abnormalities and suspicious items, but the images of peoples’ bodies will be less detailed. Except for the trial-run airports, which received the new scanners in February, Indianapolis is the first airport to implement them. TSA spokesman Jim Fotenos sees the benefits of the new system. Not only are the scanners less invasive, he said, but they are also as accurate as the old scanners and even faster. Fotenos believes this will cut down on long lines and huge waiting times at airports. Though some flyers have expressed concern about the images showing less, as long as they’re still as accurate as the old scanners, this is an improvement. There is a certain level of understandable discomfort about very revealing full-body scans. And if the scans do speed up waiting time, the better. After the outcry last fall about the “new and improved” scanners, it’s nice to see the TSA is listening to people’s concerns and making an effort to upgrade machines without compromising passenger safety. Many people feel the old scanners are too intrusive, and so they chose a time consuming pat-down as an alternative, which slowed the process and held up lines. The new scanners will hopefully put an end to flyer concerns and line delays.Other airports across the world have implemented measures to protect against terrorist threats. At the Gatwick Airport in London, passengers are required to remove boots and umbrellas for separate scanning. At Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, passengers are questioned about their luggage and their stay before being allowed to board.After the attempted attack on a Detroit airline in December 2009 and the terrorist bombing in Norway, people should be more concerned about security. But there is a limit to how far airports can go without violating privacy. Luckily, the TSA seems to have found a compromise that’s just as safe as the “invasive” scanners without being so revealing.Kudos to the TSA for putting technology to work and doing their best to maintain a safe environment.— hanns@indiana.edu
(07/24/11 8:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Indianapolis is home to one of the biggest drug companies in the country: Eli Lilly and Company. But even though Lilly’s presence is a huge benefit to the city, there are some ways in which Lilly and its competitors cross the line. Specifically with their drug advertising.Lilly does important work; and to get the money it needs for research, the “lesser” drugs need to bring in the big bucks — that requires people using them. And what better way to get the word out than to tell people about it?The thing is, advertising doesn’t inform people about medicines as well as a doctor can. And with the large percent of medical mistakes that are made, it’s important patients fully discuss with their doctors any drugs and their potential side effects. Just because a drug is supposed to treat a certain condition doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.People who see commercials full of happy and carefree people, who have supposedly reached that emotional state by taking whatever it is the commercial is hawking, go to their doctors and specifically ask for it. It takes out the doctor’s professional opinion.Granted, doctors who give patients whatever medicine they want without fully discussing options are equally at fault. But the advertisers aren’t doing the right thing, either.Though it’s easier to connect directly to patients, who often don’t have the necessary knowledge to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong for them, drug companies should be reaching out to the doctors. The doctors are the ones who can really determine what’s right and what’s wrong for their patients.Drug companies have their pocketbooks and their own needs foremost on their minds. While it’s understandable — and not unusual — in an industry that deals with peoples’ health, companies need to be more careful. There’s too much at stake.Consumers need to be more careful, too. Advertisements are aimed at selling the meds. They don’t discuss everything: potential side effects, why people with certain conditions should take them, etc. They don’t present a realistic view of who should be taking a drug. Only a doctor can really make that determination.But it’s hard to educate the general populace as people fall victim to ads. Yet, the advertisers know that. That’s how they sell products. So, while people should take responsibility for doing research before they decide they want medicine, some responsibility falls on the advertisers themselves to present a realistic view of their product — or better yet, to market to the right people.All three groups are at fault: Companies market their drugs directly to consumers, consumers don’t do their research and doctors sometimes give patients the drug they request rather than following their own instincts.Everyone in this cycle needs to take responsibility for their actions, but it has to start somewhere. And what better place to start than with the people who make the product?— hanns@indiana.edu
(07/24/11 8:33pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Indianapolis is home to one of the biggest drug companies in the country: Eli Lilly and Company. But even though Lilly’s presence is a huge benefit to the city, there are some ways in which Lilly and its competitors cross the line. Specifically with their drug advertising.Lilly does important work; and to get the money it needs for research, the “lesser” drugs need to bring in the big bucks — that requires people using them. And what better way to get the word out than to tell people about it?The thing is, advertising doesn’t inform people about medicines as well as a doctor can. And with the large percent of medical mistakes that are made, it’s important patients fully discuss with their doctors any drugs and their potential side effects. Just because a drug is supposed to treat a certain condition doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.People who see commercials full of happy and carefree people, who have supposedly reached that emotional state by taking whatever it is the commercial is hawking, go to their doctors and specifically ask for it. It takes out the doctor’s professional opinion.Granted, doctors who give patients whatever medicine they want without fully discussing options are equally at fault. But the advertisers aren’t doing the right thing, either.Though it’s easier to connect directly to patients, who often don’t have the necessary knowledge to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong for them, drug companies should be reaching out to the doctors. The doctors are the ones who can really determine what’s right and what’s wrong for their patients.Drug companies have their pocketbooks and their own needs foremost on their minds. While it’s understandable — and not unusual — in an industry that deals with peoples’ health, companies need to be more careful. There’s too much at stake.Consumers need to be more careful, too. Advertisements are aimed at selling the meds. They don’t discuss everything: potential side effects, why people with certain conditions should take them, etc. They don’t present a realistic view of who should be taking a drug. Only a doctor can really make that determination.But it’s hard to educate the general populace as people fall victim to ads. Yet, the advertisers know that. That’s how they sell products. So, while people should take responsibility for doing research before they decide they want medicine, some responsibility falls on the advertisers themselves to present a realistic view of their product — or better yet, to market to the right people.All three groups are at fault: Companies market their drugs directly to consumers, consumers don’t do their research and doctors sometimes give patients the drug they request rather than following their own instincts.Everyone in this cycle needs to take responsibility for their actions, but it has to start somewhere. And what better place to start than with the people who make the product?— hanns@indiana.edu
(07/17/11 7:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I usually don’t bother with midnight showings. The film will still be there a few days later when the crowds have died down. But for the last Harry Potter movie, the experience was definitely worth it.The theater I went to the night of July 14 had 12 screens, all of which were playing “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.” And all of the 12 screens were completely sold out. This is Harry Potter weekend; I’m surprised anything else would try to compete with it — though I suppose the new Winnie the Pooh movie draws a different crowd.The other movie being released in Indianapolis this weekend? “The Undefeated,” the Sarah Palin movie.The movie is on limited release, and after premiering in Iowa, it opened in 10 cities with strong tea party connections. I’m not even going to try for a joke about how the movie’s title is “The Undefeated,” and Palin is most famous for being the losing vice president candidate in 2008.I’m just going to say that whoever is running this show won’t be in charge of the next Batman movie.Specifically Steven Bannon, the man behind the documentary. “It’s pretty extraordinary to put a film like this opposite ‘Harry Potter,’” he said. No, it’s not. It’s idiotic. Nothing is going to compete with Harry Potter. Most people are not going to see two movies in one weekend, so who is going to choose Sarah Palin over the last Harry Potter movie? Bannon said of his movie, “It’s really good versus evil.” Okay, it’s a movie about Sarah Palin produced by a guy who thinks he can compete with Harry Potter. But Palin isn’t Potter and her opponent isn’t Voldemort. In the real world, things aren’t so clearly delineated. Well, one might say Mother Teresa was good and Hitler was evil. But Palin isn’t Mother Teresa, and she isn’t Hitler. But to present Palin as a bastion of “good” and degrade her opponents as “evil” villains? Evil is a very strong word, and it shouldn’t be tossed around lightly. Someone who rapes and murders children is evil. Someone in the media who criticizes a political figure isn’t evil, or even bad; or even, possibly, wrong.Harry Potter is the only good versus evil adventure here. Potter’s opponent actually kills people.I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I don’t understand the Palin phenomenon. I also don’t particularly like her. She might or might not be an idiot, but she definitely needs public speaking lessons.People can make whatever movies they want. They can make a movie about an evil wizard trying to take over the world, or they can make a movie about a former vice presidential candidate. It’s a free country, right?And to be honest here, the Palin documentary is a series of clips and interviews about the 2008 race that purposely show Palin in a good light and her opponents in a bad one. It’s not going to appeal to all viewers because it’s not unbiased and because lots of people don’t like Sarah Palin. It’s not going to provide good competition to Harry Potter because nothing will ever compete with Harry Potter and come out looking good. The franchise is just too popular.If Sarah Palin is your thing, whatever. It’s none of my business. But don’t try to present the movie as something it’s not.— hanns@indiana.edu
(07/10/11 9:09pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>People get drunk.It’s just a fact of life. At a college known for its partying, all IU students know this.The smart ones know how to deal with it — if it’s too far to walk at night, you bring along a designated driver. It’s the right way to have fun and stay safe. Some bars, particularly on big drinking days such as New Year’s Eve, reward designated drivers with free soft drinks in an effort to make sure that people get home safely.Now, that’s apparently not good enough. The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that passengers in cars going along public roads are considered to be in public — so if passengers are drunk, they can be arrested for public intoxication. In this particular case, Brenda Moore, who had a bit too much to drink, asked a friend to drive her home so she wouldn’t be driving drunk. An Indianapolis police officer pulled the friend over because the license plate light on the car was out. The friend, who told the officer he didn’t have a valid license, got in trouble, but so did Moore. The court was following the letter of the law and cannot really be held at fault here. However, the law needs to be changed to allow drunk passengers to be taken home safely without being arrested for public intoxication.Moore — and others like her — did the right thing. Knowing she was drunk, she didn’t get behind the wheel and seriously injure or kill herself or others. She had a sober friend drive her. Aside from the fact that the friend didn’t have a license, which Moore apparently didn’t know at the time, this was the right move.So many of us college students are told to do the same thing: drink responsibly. That means if we have to take a car home, then we need a sober driver. It’s the smart thing to do.The law is sending a message that it doesn’t matter if we did the right thing and didn’t drive; we can still get in trouble. Even if we don’t have open alcohol containers in the car, even if we’re not being unruly, we can still be arrested and convicted.That’s the wrong message to send.People like Brenda Moore should be rewarded for having the good sense to get a sober driver, not convicted. Cases like this don’t encourage people to get a sober driver; they send the message that they can still get in trouble, so why bother?Indiana lawmakers, take note. Maybe during the next session, you can make yourselves useful and take a stand that could save human lives. Repeal this law. Reward people for getting a sober driver rather than punishing them.Encouraging people to get a sober driver saves lives. — hanns@indiana.edu
(07/06/11 9:09pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I don’t own a gun and I don’t plan to. Klutzes shouldn’t have firearms, nor should a lot of other people. Yes, I know about the second amendment.But sometimes common sense should prevail. Not everyone is qualified to own a weapon that can take down a lot of people in a short amount of time. This group of people includes but is not limited to: people with psychological disorders, people with criminal history and people who don’t know how to use them properly. These people are as likely to take out an innocent bystander (or themselves) as to stop another crazed maniac. Even people who are qualified to own and use a gun shouldn’t have unlimited permission. At least, according to me.The Indiana state legislature seems to have a different opinion because our senators and representatives passed a law that said local government can’t regulate where people can and cannot take firearms. There are some exceptions — people still can’t take guns into courthouses, schools and hospitals with convicts — but overall, the state has taken control.This, among many other recent laws, is ridiculous. I get it, people can own guns. No need to flaunt it. People don’t need to be packing heat at all times unless they have a badge.Local governments know a lot more about their areas than the idiots up at a far away statehouse. They should be allowed to determine if there are areas where people shouldn’t have guns. For all the cries that big government has gone crazy with power and is overbearing in its mandates, those same people are butting into peoples’ lives right here at home. The statehouse is no different from the Capitol; it just has a smaller reach. And if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s a hypocrite.Seriously, state legislators: what are you thinking? Just because guns are legal doesn’t mean they should be everywhere. Have a little trust in local governments to make regulations in their towns.Guns don’t kill people; people kill people with guns because we allow people to take their guns just about anywhere they please.Some people say there aren’t enough public defenders on the streets so we have to go around with guns in hopes of stopping crime ourselves.But maybe we should be spending more time on figuring out how to get more police officers hired and trained. That seems like a much better idea than vigilantism. We can’t all be Batman. And for those who feel the need to always have a gun: why? Is it because you really think you’ll be able to stop a crime? Chances are slim a crime would happen in front of you; and given regulations on gun ownership. And the chances are even slimmer that you’ve had proper training and are a good enough shot to hit the right person. Or is it because you feel since you can carry it that you need to?That’s just silly logic, and I doubt the judicial system will put an injunction on this one.— hanns@indiana.edu
(06/26/11 9:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Indiana legislature had a wealth of setbacks lately.In addition to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt that put an injunction on an Indiana law which blocks federal aid from reaching Planned Parenthood. U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker is blocking the state’s new immigration law.The new law, which was to go into effect July 1, allowed police to arrest people whose immigration status was “questionable.” The law also disallowed the use of consular identification cards. Barker said Indiana’s “seriously flawed” law violated the search and seizure laws, due process and other provisions that ran afoul of the laws laid out in the Constitution. She also said the section of the law barring the use of consulate ID cards violates federal law.The ALCU has won another battle — for now. Though many legal scholars believe the judge’s halting of the bill means it won’t survive long, its supporters like Indiana Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, disagree. However, with a district judge ruling that two major sections of the bill are unconstitutional, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out judges further up the food chain will agree. The current state legislature seems to be letting power go to its collective head and passing laws right and left the feds now have to snack down. Indiana certainly isn’t the first state to try to pass immigration laws — we’ve all seen what happened in Arizona — but the legislators need to take a deep breath, relax and let the federal government do its job in controlling immigration.Many believe the federal government hasn’t been doing its job, which is why the state decided to step in. However, it’s not the state’s job.Yes, the state does have some jurisdiction, but it can’t supersede federal rulings and it shouldn’t try to.It seems that some of the state senators could use a little lesson in federal law, since they keep making laws that violate it. They need to be more concerned about protecting Indiana residents than pushing their own agendas. A few people up there seem to have their hearts in the right place. The part of the immigration law that denied tax breaks to businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants was a good step to protecting residents’ jobs and the ALCU didn’t challenge that portion.Now the legislators should concentrate on other immediate problems, such as the economy. Get people more jobs. Keep large companies like Lilly and Cummins happy so they’ll stay — and that stab at amending the Indiana constitution to say that marriage is between one man and one woman certainly didn’t make them happy.Legislators: Put your own personal beliefs about abortion, about gay marriage and about everything else aside, and try to do some good in this state.— hanns@indiana.edu
(06/19/11 9:12pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Many today are pushing for a smaller government. They don’t like the Feds stepping in to bail out companies, change health care or tell them what they can and can’t do in their own homes.Yet it is many of these same people who are telling others what they can and can’t do — get married. Or more accurately, who can and can’t get married.What goes on in people’s beds between two consenting adults is none of anyone’s business. Why do people care so much about others’ lifestyles that they’re trying to push hurtful laws through the legislature?Indiana politicians are guilty of such hypocrisy. This state is one of 12 that actively prohibits gay marriage, and legislatures are trying to add that marriage can only be between a man and a woman to the state constitution. Why does it matter to people that others want to be married? To have the same rights as everyone else? To have equality this country blathers about but doesn’t actually offer?Gay people deserve the same as everyone else. They should be able to adopt children into loving homes. They should be able to share insurance. They should be able to visit each other in the hospital and make decisions should the worst happen.They should be able to get married.Civil unions, which aren’t legal here either, aren’t enough. One religion — or two or three — doesn’t have the word “marriage” trademarked. If going to the courthouse and standing in front of a judge is called “marriage” for heterosexual couples, it should be the same for homosexual couples. A religious ceremony has nothing to do with it.Studies show a growing number of people agree with me. Not only are Indiana-based companies, such as Lilly and Emmis Communications, speaking out against the state’s constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions, but according to the Pew Center, more and more people support gay rights. Public opinion is about the equally divided, whereas a mere 10 years ago, a “solid majority” was against gay rights. This trend toward acceptance is especially strong among the “millennials,” or those born within the last 30 years; two-thirds of this group supports gay equality. If I had to guess, I’d say when my generation is the dominant group in power, things will change — if they don’t before then.What does legislating people’s personal lives bring except a lot of pain? Do people feel satisfaction by forcing their religious beliefs on others? It would make me feel dirty.If certain groups really want to change the way government operates — smaller government, less invasive — they should start by changing their own actions and stop being hypocrites.— hanns@indiana.edu
(06/05/11 10:11pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“I must not tell lies.”It seems appropriate to break out a Harry Potter reference. Also one of my least favorite parts in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is when Professor Umbrigde forces Harry to write those words in his own blood.Especially when he isn’t telling lies to begin with.It’s a situation eerily similar to what I imagine doctors across Indiana must soon have to deal with, except without the child abuse.With the passage of HEA 1210, medical professionals are required to tell women seeking abortions that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks or before. However, that’s not all doctors are required to do. They must also tell their patients “that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” Is this true? Some doctors say no, yet they are being told by the state they must relate this information even if they believe it is false.When does life start? That should be up to the medical profession to determine, not the state. If doctors are willing to perform abortions, which are legal, then the state has no right to interfere. What passes between a doctor and a patient is private and confidential. For the state to determine what doctors must and must not say is a violation of privacy. Apparently Big Brother is watching you.Luckily, the Feds are stopping Gov. Mitch Daniels and his ilk in their tracks, at least in part. According to the United States government, the law that bars Medicaid from paying for Planned Parenthood services is illegal.As the government has previously noted, it is illegal for Medicaid patients within federal law to be denied their choice of health care provider. If HEA 1210 isn’t changed, Indiana could lose all of its Medicaid funding.Hopefully the risk of losing so much makes the state legislature change its mind and continue to allow Medicaid to pay for non-abortion Planned Parenthood services.But the new developments don’t help the fact that doctors are being ordered to lie to their patients.“Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that forcing doctors to give information that they believe is false and misleading violates the First Amendment protection of free speech.” The lawmakers can’t play God. It is not up to them to determine when life begins. It is not up to them to force their beliefs on others. If the tables were turned, if they were the ones who were having someone else’s religious beliefs forced upon them, they would be furious too.As the old saying goes, “What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.” The laws of this country were created to defend the minority: Those who believe in what is not always popular. Hopefully those laws will protect doctors so they do not have to lie.As Dumbledore once said, “It is my belief... that the truth is generally preferable to lies.”— hanns@indiana.edu
(05/31/11 6:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>IU does more than just educate students. The various branches of the school also help Indiana residents, especially in health care areas.Recently, the University has been lauded for its Seal Indiana program, run by the IU School of Dentistry, which “provides mobile dental care each year to about 2,000 low-income children within 120 miles of Indianapolis,” according to the Indianapolis Star. This is a big step for the state which just received an F for children’s dental health, according to the Pew Center. “Dental health care is the biggest unmet health care need among children,” Shelly Gehshan, director of the Pew Children’s Dental Campaign, said.Why did Indiana rank so low, despite the fact that nearly 95 percent of residents drink fluoridated water? Many are blaming Medicaid, whose reimbursement rates are below the national average for the fall from Indiana’s D grade of last year. But even though Indiana has once again proven that Medicaid isn’t enough, that isn’t the only problem. The distribution of dentists throughout the state is also a big problem. Though Hamilton County has one dentist for every 999 people, areas such as Ripley County in southeastern Indiana have one dentist for every 14,000 people. Indiana clearly isn’t placing dental resources appropriately.IU is determined to make a difference. Karen Yoder, director of the division of community dentistry at the Indiana University School of Dentistry, is concerned about the amount of children who have dental health issues. According to Yoder, about half the children treated through the Seal Indiana program have untreated decaying teeth, and 15 percent have an “urgent need for dental care.” Though dental health may not seem serious, lack of proper tooth care can be deadly, as one state discovered. A few years ago, a Maryland boy died when an abscessed tooth spread an infection to his brain. The tragic event made Maryland take a long, hard look at its statewide dental care. This year, Maryland received an A from the Pew Center, one of seven states across the country. Indiana needs to do the same before tragedy strikes here. Oral hygiene is about much more than not having yellow teeth. Dental issues can lead to other health issues, and low-income children are at risk. The state needs to step up to the plate and take care of its children. Fluoride in water is a great step, but it isn’t enough.Additionally, the government can’t do it alone. It’s nice to have a practice in Indianapolis or Carmel, but too many areas of the state are without dentists. More dental professionals should donate their time, even a couple weeks every year, to give dental care to those who desperately need it.Seal Indiana is a great program, but more is needed. If every dentist gave a couple weeks of their time every year to those who need their care, think of all the good that could be done in this state.— hanns@indiana.edu
(05/22/11 9:00pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It seems that every year IU students are being told to reach a bit deeper into their wallets to pay for education. In fact, IU-Bloomington is one of several IU campuses that are raising tuition this year. Bloomington students can expect to see a 5.5 percent increase for the coming year, 2 percent higher than the increase recommended by the Commission of Higher Education. IU President Michael McRobbie said the increased tuition and other expense-cutting measures, such as the closing of the School of Continuing Studies, are going to “repair and maintenance projects” for IU’s buildings, some of which are more than 100 years old and need money for upkeep. The blame for increased costs can’t be completely placed on McRobbie and IU. New state legislation has cut IU’s budget, removing $10.4 million. Yet, students and parents should not be asked to dig deeper into their wallets to make up the funds.In a letter, McRobbie expressed concern about how Indiana ranks low among state graduation rates. In 2009, the state-wide four-year graduation rate was 29 percent. However, IU is doing well. The Bloomington campus has a 71 percent graduation rate. But there is little room for growth, and state funding is currently being given based on growth, McRobbie said. For a state that wants to see more college graduates, Indiana is making it difficult for students to complete their studies. A 5.5 percent increase isn’t very large, but for some, every dollar counts, especially when students then have to pay for expensive — and in freshmen’s case, mandatory — dorms with an expensive meal plan and a ridiculous amount for textbooks. Any price increase is also going to raise the number of students who can no longer afford to attend.If Indiana lawmakers want to see more college graduates, the best thing they can do is to give more money directly to students. State scholarships for students with good grades and low income will encourage more people to attend and graduate college. Putting more financial burden on students is just going to make it more difficult for them to finish. The entire economy is in the pits. The state doesn’t have enough money to move forward with all its projects or pay for everything it would like. And along with other schools, IU is increasing tuition past the recommended amount.Although, if the state isn’t giving students any financial help, it shouldn’t complain about low graduation rates. IU desperately needs money for everything: building upkeep, staff salaries, student scholarships, new projects and more. And though it’s a shame to see programs like the School of Continuing Studies close, the school should take responsibility for keeping student costs as low as possible.— hanns@indiana.edu
(05/16/11 3:18pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As anyone who’s ever spent five minutes with me can say, the things I love most — besides popcorn and my books — are babies. Possibly a little too much. And I can say for certain that if I become pregnant at any time in the near future, I’ll be keeping the baby.I’m lucky enough to be in a situation where I can do that. I’m not the next candidate for 16 and Pregnant. I’m almost 21, and with two semesters left of school and the potential of getting hired at a former internship, I can support myself and a kid. Not only that, but I’ve got great parents and an extensive network of family and built-in-babysitters to help me out.Not everyone is as lucky as I am. Keeping a baby isn’t always an option.That’s why I stand with Planned Parenthood, pro-choice activists and the Supreme Court. Abortion, while not a good thing, is sometimes very necessary.Gov. Mitch Daniels’ decision to sign into law a bill that bans Medicaid funds from being used for abortion at Planned Parenthood or any other organization is a dangerous step. Forget that Medicaid, which covers low-income families, pays for half the births in this state— which probably means a lot of the abortions, too. Ignore the fact that a woman who is desperate to end her pregnancy and can’t afford a doctor’s help might try by herself — with fatal results.No, think of all the women who are barely making minimum wage, don’t have access to decent birth control, and aren’t able to raise a baby. Those women can’t afford to pay for abortions by themselves and now won’t have help. Women who can’t support their kids are going to have no choice but to lean on the state.I hope you enjoy your budget-cutting measure, Daniels, because you’ve just given yourself more state dependents.Abortion is a tricky moral issue, and everyone has a right to choose for themselves. So says the highest court in the land. And while abortion remains a legal medical practice, the government needs to stop picking away at it until women are basically unable to get them. Daniels’ smart move (see: sarcasm) could cost Indiana a lot more than integrity. As a penalty, Indiana could lose $4 million a year in family planning services, which is going to seriously hurt Planned Parenthood and other organizations that help women deal with pregnancy both before and after it occurs. This moves smacks of religious motive. I’ve seldom heard an argument for cutting abortion availability that doesn’t involve the word “Jesus” (or similar holy figures). Apparently, Daniels really does want to run in 2012, because now our previously smart businessman governor, the envy of other states, is heading into government regulated morals, a favorite of any super-conservative pundit who wants to gain attention — and votes.I don’t like Daniels and haven’t since that Daylight Savings Time business, but I really thought he was above all of this nonsense.Stick to balancing the budget, Mitch, and stay out of our wombs.
(05/06/11 6:41am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The votes are in: incumbent Mayor Mark Kruzan won the Democratic primary, and is currently unchallenged for the November election. Unless the Republicans put forth a candidate, Kruzan will remain mayor until 2015, 12 years after he took office.After meeting with both Kruzan and his challenger, Mark Hamilton, I must say that I was actually impressed with both, starting with the fact that they were willing to talk to a college newspaper in hopes of gaining our endorsement. I also liked options from both of their platforms, though I did make a choice when the board voted.Now that Kruzan is almost guaranteed another term in office, there are some things I’d like to see in Bloomington.The hospital is a huge issue. While Kruzan has been in talks with Bloomington Hospital to see if it will stay, I think there is more he can do. Learn exactly what it wants, exactly what he can offer to get it to stay in Bloomington, and then make the offer. The hospital is too important to Bloomington; if it moves to Ellettsville, it will hurt our city.Secondly, it’s always good to go green. There’s no shame in taking a page out of your opponent’s handbook; John Hamilton, among others, had some good ideas for improving the environment. One idea that particularly struck me was his plan to stop sewage from leaking into the rivers in Bloomington. Mayor Kruzan’s plan to stop the leaks altogether takes money, and time, but Hamilton has a cheap way of slowing it while the city gets the money together: plant reeds and other plants where the leaks are happening. It’s cheap, it’s fairly effective and it’s a good short-term solution.The third thing I’d like to see is Mayor Kruzan making an effort to reach out to IU students. As the candidates cited, Bloomington has 80,000 residents, and half of them are IU students. Talking to the editorial board was a great step, but there is more. Reaching out to Kelley and SPEA students to help tackle financial and environmental problems and implement solutions is a great way to get students involved in the community. Additionally, the mayor should connect more with IU’s College Democrats group. From what friends have said, I gather that they rarely hear from him.Many students only stay in Bloomington for the four years it takes to earn a degree, and then they leave. Mark Kruzan was once one of those students—but he came back, and now he’s mayor of the city. He’s been on our end, which should give him insight into the way IU students operate.But even though many of us are only four-year residents, plenty of IU students are registered to vote in Monroe County. Students live off-campus in Bloomington houses and apartments, take Bloomington public transportation, use the Monroe County Public Library, eat at Bloomington restaurants, work in Bloomington stores, and are a part of the city. Even though many IU students are insular, we all in some small way—even if it’s just hitting bars on Kirkwood on a Saturday night—participate.Reaching out to us and giving us opportunities to be involved would only help student-resident relations, and it could help the government as well. And who knows? Maybe in a few years, other IU students could return to Bloomington for good.
(05/01/11 10:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Good friends, good food, good times. For many people, studying abroad is more about having fun than actually learning. People save their “joke” classes or elective credits for their semester abroad; studying less means more time to party where the alcohol is legal and to travel to places they’ve only read about.But studying abroad is more than just a way to have fun. It’s a great look into a different culture.How different your semester home is depends on where you are. I compared my experience in London to a friend’s time in Jordan and found them radically different. Nevertheless, English culture does differ from American, and I thought it was a valuable experience.Study abroad programs differ, even within a city. Want to spend a semester abroad but don’t want to pay the outrageous fees just to take nothing classes? IU co-sponsors a program with Arcadia University that sends students to London for a semester to not only take classes, but also get internship experience.More than anything, working in an office in the center of London taught me a lot more than taking a couple classes did. All emails are to be addressed very formally; even inter-office emails between colleagues are proper. Once an hour or so, someone jumps up and gets everyone a round of tea. But it wasn’t just office customs that gave me insight into the Brits; talking to my co-workers taught me a lot more — everything from why Queen Elizabeth’s husband is a prince rather than a king to the political and social as well as religious importance of the Christmas season. Working in a foreign country was an invaluable experience. I was completely immersed in another culture. News from home seemed very far away. Except for Facebook and Skype, I was completely set apart from home. And it was incredible.Many people feel that the American culture (if one can even define a specific culture from the hodgepodge that is our many peoples) is the greatest in the world. Patriotism is commendable, but what’s even better is the opportunity to learn about how other people live — the good and the bad — to really appreciate how great our system is — and to see all the wonderful things we could do.To me, studying abroad was an opportunity to travel — to see art on my slide list and visit the sites of important events. I didn’t expect to learn so much about my host country. It made me miss the States and never want to go back at the same time.Studying abroad is an experience every university student should have. The prices are ridiculous (depending on the program, it could be twice what a semester in Bloomington costs). However, there are scholarships for students spending a semester out of the country; some are even available to specific departments. Everyone should get to immerse themselves in another culture. What better way to form connections around the world and bring the people of this planet together? — hanns@indiana.edu
(04/24/11 11:12pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>One of my friends recently described this fortnight as one of the two worst times of the year.Finals time.Across IU, students are rushing through final papers and cramming for exams. We’re saying goodbye to friends, looking for summer jobs and trying to soak up a little bit of sun. Most of us are stressed out and not eating well as the pressure starts to get to us.Some of it is our own fault — we knew these papers were coming, and we put them off until the last minute. But a lot of blame should be laid on the system. So much is piled on us that we stay up all night trying to get everything done, and after exams, we’ll just crash and need four months to recover until we come back and do it all again.I’ve never been a fan of exams, and not just because I don’t enjoy taking them. I really think there are better ways to ensure that we’ve actually learned the material covered in class. What do exams really accomplish? They allow professors to give large, important grades. They cover a lot of material. They satisfy requirements laid down by individual departments and the University at large.But what do they do? Do good exam scores give professors the satisfaction that we’ve learned the course material?I don’t think so. In all my semesters at IU, I’ve never once had all of my classes give final exams. In fact, the more high-level courses I take, the less often I have exams. The professors recognize that having us spend 75 minutes writing every single scrap of information we can on any given topic doesn’t prove we actually learned the material. It proves that we crammed the information and memorized a few key dates and names to throw in.More and more professors are turning to practical applications of knowledge (often in the form of papers or projects) to prove that we understand and can apply what we learned.That isn’t feasible in every class. The 300-person lectures in low-level required lectures are going to have a harder time getting creative than a 20-person upper-level seminar. A lot of times, it’s just easier to give a test and be done with it, especially in classes where the professor is aware that students are just enrolled to fulfill a requirement and they’re not actually going into that field.But when professors are able to give a different sort of final assignment, they should. Many have found unique ways to test what their students have learned. A class on analyzing sixth-century art? Students write an analysis of an unknown piece of sixth-century art. A class on magazine creation? Students create and edit their own magazines. A class on cathedrals? Students design their own cathedrals.It’s much more fulfilling to prove you can apply knowledge than to prove you can spit out numbers and dates in a timed, stressful environment. Papers and projects aren’t for everyone or for every class, but they are often a better way to discover what students have actually learned than to have them sit through an exam.— hanns@indiana.edu
(04/17/11 11:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Obama administration and its allies have begun quietly seeking a new country to host Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The plan is to give the hopefully soon-to-be ex-president a new place to live after he leaves or is ousted.What about the Netherlands? Specifically, a nice little cell in The Hague?The search is being conducted in countries that did not sign the treaty requiring them to turn over criminals to the court as an incentive for the Libyan dictator to give up and leave. The African Union is quietly probing countries on the continent, though it hasn’t publicized any names.There are three big problems with this scheme — besides the fact that Qaddafi says he has no intention of leaving.Qaddafi is a war criminal. He doesn’t deserve a cushy little palace in another country; he deserves a cell while he awaits trial in international court. Reports say that not only would The Hague try him for crimes against his people, but he would also be indicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in Scotland.The practice of buying off dictators in the hopes that a few million dollars and a house in a country that flies under the radar will get them out of everyone’s hair needs to end. These men have done illegal and horrible things, and they need to be punished, not rewarded. Though it is important to save as many lives as possible — and if a dictator leaves, stopping a war, many lives are saved — people shouldn’t get away free.The second problem is that setting him up and leaving him alone is a recipe for disaster. This is a guy who doesn’t want to leave. Giving him a bunch of cash that he can use to return home — and putting him in Africa, the same continent as his beleaguered country — just gives him the means to make a return as soon as the crisis starts to settle.The third problem is the burden on the host country. While many countries, notably in South America, have been willing to host previous dictators, it isn’t a burden they should be asked to take.The United States did not sign the treaty; technically, we are as eligible for being host to an ex-dictator without extradition by the courts. But it is doubtful that any Americans would want him on our soil. Why, then, should another country be asked to bear a burden we will not?The whole situation is a mess, but one thing is clear: Qaddafi is not a nice man. To be specific, he is a mass murderer. The rest of the world has a duty as human beings to protect the Libyan people and bring Qaddafi to justice.If we were in the same position, we would want the world to help us.Qaddafi shouldn’t be rewarded for his crimes with more money than most Americans will ever see in their lifetimes. The Hague doesn’t execute criminals. But it can put Qaddafi away for so many lifetimes, he’ll never again see the light of day — and never again be able to harm another person.— hanns@indiana.edu
(04/12/11 8:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If something is despicable, is it automatically illegal? We don’t think so. Phillip Greaves was sentenced in Florida to two years of probation for distributing a self-published book titled “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct,” a guide that attempts to make the case that pedophiles are misunderstood by society and offers advice to them on how to stay within the constraints of the law. While this is obviously a contemptible concept, there is nothing constitutionally different from it and what the Westboro Baptist Church (otherwise known as the “God hates fags” church) does on a regular basis. The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the church are constitutionally protected free speech, and we believe that the same should hold true for Greaves’ book. There is also little constitutionally different from publishing or distributing “The Anarchist’s Cookbook,” an instruction manual on how to make homemade explosives and that encourages rebellion against the government. If it’s not illegal to provide people with information on how to kill people and encouraging them to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal to provide the type of information that Greaves provided, regardless of how vile it is. There is no law against writing a book providing legal advice to people on how to avoid breaking a particular law, and there shouldn’t be. But this is exactly what Greaves’ book purports to do.We all can and should agree that pedophiles should be caught and prosecuted for sexually abusing children, and we all can and should agree that pedophilia is an extremely psychologically harmful and reprehensible social phenomenon. It is not, in spite of this, possible for a society that values freedom of speech as much as we do to outlaw the dissemination of publications simply because they contain information that makes people uncomfortable, even if that discomfort is highly justifiable. Greaves’ book, while loathsome and disgusting, should be protected under our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. DISSENT BY SARAH HANNPhillip R. Greaves II deserves more than two years of probation for his book “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct.” The book encourages an illegal act and discusses how best to go about committing a crime without being arrested.Even though that in and of itself is dangerous, the truly harmful part is the particular crime. Pedophilia is a horrible act, and Greaves clearly states that he is instructing others on how to touch children inappropriately.The initial controversy about the book arose when Greaves self-published it in e-book format on Amazon; the company later yanked the book. Greaves told CNN, when describing his views on pedophilia, “Penetration is out. You can’t do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don’t think is that big of a problem.” Mike Harris, the Jefferson County district attorney’s investigator, summed it up best when he said that “he’s in favor of freedom of speech — up to a point.”“When it fuels the motive for people on how to approach kids, how to find kids, how to touch kids and sexually abuse them, that’s just wrong,” Harris said.Any book that encourages people to sexually abuse children and tells people how to go about doing it without going to jail should absolutely be illegal. The content is obscene and illegal, and it has incredibly frightening implications for innocent children.I am fervently opposed to censorship and book burning, but there is a line, and Greaves has crossed it.— Sarah Hann, hanns@indiana.edu
(04/10/11 10:55pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It seems these days, e-books are everywhere.You can see ads for them on everything from subway walls to packaged lunch meat. Even the bookstore in the Indiana Memorial Union is promoting them as an alternative to paying the ridiculous prices for actual textbooks.I’m a big proponent of e-books, and I know the advantages to encouraging them on college campuses: Not printing all that paper helps the environment, carrying around a small e-reader instead of a backpack full of textbooks helps students not get back problems and setting the prices so low makes them much more affordable.Those are all great reasons for encouraging campus to go digital. Unfortunately, there are also some big reasons not to.In 2009, Amazon tested the Kindle DX at schools across the country. The results were grim. While students liked being able to carry everything on one small e-reader and they liked using the Kindle for pleasure reading, 75 percent of the test group at University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business wouldn’t recommend it to incoming students. At Princeton, another test school, researchers found students didn’t like the Kindle “Because it was difficult to take notes on the Kindle, because PDF documents could not be annotated or highlighted at all and because it was hard to look at more than one document at once.” They also didn’t like being unable to open multiple texts at one time.All of those are valid points. It is harder to take in material when reading from a screen instead of from a printed page, and it can also be hard to absorb material or to go back and study later without the use of a highlighter.E-books are definitely cheaper than hardcopy texts. And for college students, the price may outweigh other disadvantages. An Arizona State University professor whose two-semester class requires books that usually total to about $500 said students found that buying e-books instead of their dead tree counterparts saved them about 75 percent. Since college students often pay as much as $200 for a single textbook, having an option for that much savings might be worth the challenges.But there is another reason to worry about trusting fate to electronics: How far can you trust the online store?During the past two years, Amazon has become the reigning monarch of the e-book world. The Kindle is its biggest seller, and the online giant sells more e-books than printed books, though it does not release specific sales figures. Even though going digital seems like a great idea on the surface, the drawbacks make me wary of purchasing an e-reader and going to town. Future upgrades and different types of e-readers, or even tablets such as the iPad, might solve many of the difficulties students face. And history shows that enough pressure can be brought on the retailers to make them reverse some disastrous choices.However, the time when e-books benefit more than students’ pocketbooks still seems to be a few years away.— hanns@indiana.edu
(04/05/11 1:44am)
It’s a sad day for women.
(04/03/11 9:50pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Fall scheduling is just around the corner. (In fact, for some, it’s already happened.) The academic advisers have days jam-packed with appointments from students who are making sure they’ll have the credits they need to graduate and don’t have any idea what to take.It’s a stressful time, especially for the soon-to-be seniors who are facing their last fall on campus and don’t want to miss out on any good classes they won’t have the chance to take again.Luckily, with students being able to take up to 19 credits, there’s room for a little fun with all the requirements.For students whose idea of fun isn’t loading up on extra history courses, the Physical Activity Instruction Program is a great way to blow off a little steam and learn something fun. These usually one-credit courses are offered through the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation and are usually only a couple of hours per week.HPER has too many dance and hand-to-hand classes to list, but for those looking for something a little less exerting, why not try a bowling class? Ever wanted to take tai-chi or yoga? Well, now’s your chance.You do have to show up, participate and take the quizzes (these classes are for credit, after all). But it’s generally in a relaxing environment where the instructor’s main goal is to see you improve at whatever you’re doing.Taking a couple hours a week to force yourself to do something fun is a great way to relieve stress, whether you’re a freshman just learning about college life or a senior concentrating on finding a job. And since most classes are only one credit, they’re perfect for students who are taking five or six classes already and don’t want to go over the allotted full-time student hours. Some of the classes do require a small extra fee, but most are free with student tuition. It’s a far better deal than whatever the yoga studios in town are going to offer. My choice for a PAIP class was billiards, which I took with a friend. It was two 50-minute sessions a week in the Indiana Memorial Union with a fun undergrad instructor. We learned different games that are classified as “billiards,” as well as how to get the ball into the pocket without scratching on the eight or taking out someone’s eye. It was a great way to blow off steam before my law class and spend some quality time with a friend doing a fun activity.HPER offers everything from sports to dance to more sedentary activities, but there’s something for everyone on the list (which can be found at www.indiana.edu/~kines/academics/elective.shtml). Before you register, why not take the time to check out some of the offerings? You never know if you might find something interesting or unexpected that catches your eye. Many of the classes are offered multiple times a week, so you’re sure to find something that fits in neatly with your schedule.I highly encourage everyone to make the most of all the fun, unique things IU has to offer, and the PAIP classes are an excellent way to start.— hanns@indiana.edu