104 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/03/10 12:07am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he is willing to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians “at any time and at any place.”He’s not the only one — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is trying to sell peace to the Palestinians, and the U.S. is helping with the talks.And yet, for all the positives — Netanyahu stopped building projects in the West Bank while the Arab League is endorsing talks — I can’t help but look at this skeptically.How many times have we been close to peace between Israel and Palestine? Oslo Accords, anyone? What about the turmoil after the Camp David Accords? And yet, Yasser Arafat continued to allow guerilla attacks, Menachem Begin started housing projects in the West Bank and Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat were both assassinated.Every time peace talks happen, agreements are signed, or leaders take the step of shaking each others’ hands, and then something goes wrong. No peace has ever lasted.Even if Netanyahu and Abbas want peace, even if they’re generally supported by the Knesset and the Arab League, there are powerful groups that are definitely against it. Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group that took control of the Gaza Strip in summer 2007, regularly sends bombs over the border and insists that peace talks are only a “cover” for Israel to commit crimes against the Palestinians. The right-wing Jewish group Shas makes up an important part of Netanyahu’s support in the Knesset — it was a Shas official who announced the East Jerusalem building project without Netanyahu’s knowledge during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s visit in March. These two groups, at least, don’t trust the other side enough to condone peace talks.It would be nice if Netanyahu and Abbas were able to work out their issues and come to some agreement, if they made the decision to stop antagonizing each other and making unrealistic demands, if they could forge a peace despite religious extremist opponents on both sides.But every time peace talks are attempted, something goes wrong. Every American president for decades has hoped to help create a lasting peace, and none of them have done it. It has been predicted that World War III will start in the Middle East. Pre-World War I Balkans was the “Powder Keg of Europe.” Now, the Middle East is that powder keg — ready to blow at any second. One wrong move by any group — the Israelis, the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria — and all hell will break loose.I try to be an optimist and hope with all my heart that this time, at least, there will be peace. But there are so many things that can go wrong, so many factions that have an abiding hate for each other, that it’s hard to believe that peace will come this time.Even if the governments are willing to work together, there are still the Israelis and Palestinians, many of whom will oppose the compromises that the other side demands.After all, Rabin and Sadat were assassinated by their own people. E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(04/26/10 10:37pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Going away to college is a big step. Living “on your own” and having to take care of your own schedule and study habits is supposed to teach responsibility (emphasis on “supposed to”). But what better way to teach responsibility than to have to care for someone else?IU doesn’t allow students to keep any pets in dorms except goldfish (so exciting). But many students, especially those who are living without their furry friends for the first time, would love to have something else.Dogs might not be the best pets to keep in a dorm, but cats and rabbits generally don’t make too much noise. They don’t need to be walked, and they don’t need too much room to run around, but they do provide companionship to first-year students who are lonely or stressed.In fact, pets can help reduce stress. They snuggle, listen to woes with a sympathetic ear and do some pretty amusing things. In fact, simply petting an animal can reduce one’s heart rate and blood pressure. Students who are lonely being far away from home would benefit from having a pet’s unconditional love and affection.Even if it’s a bad idea to allow individual students to have a pet, floor pets would be a good way to provide people with access to animals. Need a furry friend? Grab the floor cat from the lounge for an hour.Some might say students who miss their pets should get an apartment instead of staying in the dorms. However, (almost all) freshmen are required to live on campus, and they would benefit greatly from having access to pets. Roommates could always be required to sign off on pets, so people who are afraid of gerbils don’t have to live with them. As for allergies ... well, this is Bloomington. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t been able to breathe through my nose for a month anyway. There are always ways of designating some dorms pet-friendly and forbidding them from others, so students who don’t want to be around animals can ask to be placed in a dorm where pets aren’t allowed.Many students would love to have access to pets, and studies have shown that college students benefit from having pets around. “Many students said that their pets fulfill a significant role that is missing in their lives,” said Sara Staats, professor emeritus of psychology at Ohio State University. “The pets are not a substitute for human social interaction and support, but they do provide important interaction for these kids who might otherwise feel isolated from their current environment.”Having constant access to pets, whether they’re individually owned or belong to a floor, would help students relieve stress and fight back loneliness. Allowing them in dorms for freshmen who don’t have the option of living in a pet-friendly off-campus apartment would be extremely beneficial. E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(04/21/10 12:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Technology can be a dangerous thing.It can be very helpful — college students don’t need a reminder of how necessary computers are to everyday life. But it can also be hurtful — and I don’t mean simply crashing three days before your not-backed-up research paper is due (thank you, HP). New technology means new ways of communicating, and for some people, that’s not a good thing.Take, for instance, underage sexting. During the past couple years, high school and even middle school students have faced criminal charges for possession and distribution of child pornography when they’ve been caught sexting, that is, taking nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and sending them to others. Last week, students at Pyle Middle School in Bethesda, Md., were caught with such images.Is sexting child pornography? An attorney who defended several high school students in a separate case last year said it shouldn’t be. The attorney, Patrick Artur, said the child pornography laws were put in place to stop “dirty old men in raincoats,” not teenagers having some fun.A study on sexting found that most photos are sent to a partner or a crush. What these kids don’t seem to realize is that the photos get spread around. The case at Pyle Middle School involves a boy who rented out his iPod so others could look at photos of girls at the school.Police are still trying to identify the girls but are having trouble since many of the photos don’t show heads. There have been other heartbreaking cases — last year, a high school girl committed suicide after she was tormented by other students who had received copies of sexted photos she’d sent her boyfriend.What would drive kids to do that? Is it because of peer pressure or just for fun? Studies have shown that it’s a bit of both. But you would think today’s tech-savvy teenagers would know the consequences — once the photos are out, they’re out, and they can be sent around a school or posted on the Internet.People are searching for a solution, but it’s not that easy. People do stupid things, even when they know they could get in huge trouble — how many people are going to spend Sunday paying $400 or doing community service after being caught drinking underage at Little 500 festivities?Talking to kids about the legal and social consequences of sexting helps. It won’t stop everyone, but if a few kids see what’s happened to others their age who sext and decide not to, then it’s worth it.Regardless of whether it should be considered child pornography, it is harmful. Once the photos are sent, anyone can see them. That’s a quick way to earn a bad reputation — or for the photos to fall into the wrong hands and become really dangerous.Proactive school administrators and parents can only help stop the phenomenon. Pyle Middle School Principal Michael Zarchin ordered a police investigation after he learned about the sexting at his school to make sure there were no adults involved and informed parents of the steps he was taking. He talked to his students about Internet safety and encouraged them to support the girls involved with the situation.People like that and anyone who makes an effort to stop underage sexting should be commended. It’s become a huge problem during the past couple years. It might seem harmless, but if the photos get out to those who bully others — or people who would physically harm them — there can be serious consequences.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(04/14/10 12:25am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last Wednesday, 145 years after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell declared April to be “Confederate History Month.” He did so as part of a campaign promise to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.Virginia isn’t the only state holding onto its Confederate past. Several states, including South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia, celebrate Confederate Memorial Day, on which state offices and, oftentimes, businesses are closed.It’s a Southern tradition, and several states fly the Confederate flag hanging over government buildings on occasion. This tends to cause a huge uproar, mostly because of the Civil War’s ties to slavery.Was slavery the cause of the Civil War? That’s what we were taught in fourth grade — after all, Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation (well, he declared them free, and only some of them).During AP U.S. History, I preferred to cite the issues of states’ rights, industrial technology versus rural farming and anger at Presidents James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln, at least for the people involved in making the “war or no war” decisions.Mostly, I was just irritated that Lincoln always got so much credit when the Emancipation Proclamation was little more than bluster at the time he gave it.The truth is that all those reasons contributed to the Civil War. Singling out one over the others doesn’t take into account the true political and economic climate of the time. And it isn’t fair to say the South fought in the Civil War to keep slavery around. Despite what some people think, there were plenty of Confederate soldiers who fought for the idea of states’ rights or to keep their homes and families safe.I think it’s a bit silly to hang Confederate flags. The Civil War seems very far removed — or at least it does from central Indiana. There are wars closer to the present day — the one we’re in right now, the one when I grew up, for instance.In the history of the United States, 145 years is a long time. No one who saw that war is alive today, nor are their children. Plus, the South lost that war. Why is it so important that they’re hanging on?That question bugged me for a while, until I thought about the wars I’ll still want my grandchildren to remember. World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors still speak to schoolchildren and adults alike. People honor 109-year-old Frank Buckles, the last surviving American World War I veteran. A memorial in Washington, D.C., lists the names of those lost in Vietnam. Visitors watch the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.And that doesn’t even take into account the stories of the people who have fought and died, and are still fighting and dying, in Iraq and Afghanistan today.I’ll want my grandchildren to remember these wars that they didn’t live through, that I didn’t live through. I’ll want them to respect the sacrifices people made and the courage and honor they showed. In my lifetime, and in my parents’ and grandparents’, those soldiers fought those wars to secure peace.Even if I don’t agree with the reasons the government declared some of those wars, I can’t fault the people who fought to protect their families and their homes. Even if my children’s children and their children are more than a century removed from the conflicts close to my heart, I won’t want them to ever forget that people fought and died for their freedom.That makes it easier to see why former Confederate states still raise their flag.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(04/06/10 10:39pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A year and a half ago, Sarah Palin walked across a stage and her image scrolled across my news site. She was the Republican candidate for vice president.I was curious. I’d never heard of her and I didn’t even know how to pronounce her name until my J-200 professor said it was ‘Pay-lin,’ not ‘Paa-lin.’Her clothes were catchy, she was new on the scene and she was more interesting than Joe Biden — or anyone else in the campaign. Soon, she was getting more media attention than her running mate.And then came the jokes. Tina Fey did a perfect impression of her on “Saturday Night Live,” coming back for a special intro just to play her. But it wasn’t just SNL — as Palin said more stupid things, more people made fun of her.I heard a lot of people worry that John McCain, if elected president, would die in office, and then we’d be stuck with her (not that I don’t live in fear of being stuck with Biden).This woman never seemed to know what she was talking about. Scandal followed her everywhere, from her pregnant daughter to her expensive wardrobe, though at least she didn’t knock up a campaign worker and have her assistant take the fall. Yes, John Edwards, I’m looking at you.And then came my overwhelming relief that the Republicans had lost the election and that she would go back to Alaska and be forgotten.Wrong.Despite the fact that McCain was obviously glad to be rid of her and that her time in the spotlight appeared to be finished, she kept coming back.First it was giving up the governorship of Alaska in the middle of her term (and ditching her responsibilities — how professional). Then it was her book, “Going Rogue.”Now it’s her TV deals — a gig on Fox News Channel, the quarterly star of “Real American Stories” and a new series called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”Why won’t this woman go away?I don’t understand what’s appealing about her. Yes, she’s a strong woman, not afraid to go out into the nasty world of politics and show America that men aren’t the only players — but so was Hillary Clinton, who was criticized for not being feminine enough. And...well, that’s it.What does Palin really bring to the table? She was a woman who ran for high office — so was Hillary. She’s not afraid to give her opinion on issues — the IDS would be scrambling to fill the opinion page five days a week if she were that unique.She looks good in red — so do my friends. I understand what isn’t appealing about her. She was against teaching sex ed in school and her teenage daughter was pregnant. She gave up on her responsibility to see her term as governor through.She walked away when it stopped being something she wanted. I’d say something about her political views and world knowledge — or lack thereof — but I think anyone who watched her interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson remembers.After all, she can see Russia from her house.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(03/29/10 11:07pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As his days as a U.S. senator wind down, Evan Bayh, D-Ind., is in the market for a new career. We follow Bayh as he tries out a new job every week, from cutting hair to serving coffee, to see if it’s going to be his next claim to fame.This week’s episode: Queer Eye for Evan Bayh.Bayh goes to work at Macy’s New York as a personal shopper. He has to learn to pick out clothes that suit his clients’ needs during the rush of Christmas week while remembering that black and brown don’t go together. He has to serve multiple clients at a time after the manager quits and he’s given a sudden promotion. He turns out to have a unique style of his own and enough fashion sense to know that your belt always has to match your shoes. Could this be the job he’s been looking for?But complications arise when his newest client turns out to be none other than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Can he find her an outfit that fits her style while she gives him a piece of her mind about his abrupt departure from Congress? Or will she cause trouble for his future at Macy’s?E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(03/29/10 10:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Google is certainly no hero.Well, it might be my hero, as I sit at my computer on a weekend, trying to find articles for a research paper. Or search for internships. Or release dates. Or, actually, a lot of things.OK, I use Google every day, and so do millions of others. I can’t imagine life without it. And lately, the news has been covering the company’s latest move — refusing to serve China unless it releases its censorship stranglehold. But that doesn’t make the company a paragon of virtue.China’s “Great Firewall” has been around for years, and so has Google China. The company was willing to give in and provide the search engine with censorship restrictions until this year. Google stopped censoring content last Monday because it was hacked by someone in China.Good for Google — the authoritarian government in China takes censorship way too far. “Protecting its people” — yeah, right. The government is trying to keep political unrest (and porn) at bay. They’re full of it, and everyone knows it.It’s about time someone stood up to them, though a Chinese search engine, Baidu, actually gets almost twice as much business as Google in China, so Google’s departure won’t hurt China badly; it’ll just be a political statement. But Google isn’t making its stand for humanitarian reasons.They were hacked from within China, so now they’re pissed off, though no one seems to be sure who did the hacking. The government is denying it, but it also denies the crackdown in Tiananmen Square, among other things, so it is not exactly trustworthy. Google has been lying down and accepting the censorship for years. They’re only willing to act and not accept being controlled when they’re fed up with doing business. Where has their moral compass been all these years? In their bank account.Google still wants to do some business in China, though it will stop supplying the search engine. They get their statement but they still try to bring in some revenue from one of the biggest and fastest-growing nations in the world. They can still operate freely in Hong Kong, and the rest of the world thinks they’re doing the right thing.They are doing the right thing, but it’s too little, too late. They’re not standing up to China for the right reasons. They’re not standing up for the rights of Chinese citizens.Does that mean what they’re doing isn’t good? No, it is — it’s about time someone stood up to the Communist Party, for whatever reason. But while Google is right in finally taking a stand, it’s not for the people, and it’s not going to help the people.It makes Google good. It doesn’t make it a hero. E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(03/24/10 12:51am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>John Grisham is the latest of many authors who have made their titles available in electronic format. Grisham’s 23 books will be converted into e-book format, publisher Knopf Doubleday announced last Tuesday.E-book readership is growing, and it’s becoming an ever-larger share of book sales, though still nowhere near that of hard copies. E-books are a big enough deal that several companies, such as Sony and Amazon, are coming out with their own e-readers, and Amazon and Macmillan recently had a spat over e-book price control.I’ll admit, the idea of an e-reader attracts me. I’m a huge bookworm, and I carry at least one book everywhere I go (and intentionally buy purses large enough to stick a paperback in). The idea of carrying around an e-reader instead and getting to choose what I want to read at any given moment, instead of picking up a random book that might or might not still be interesting after an hour-long break between classes, is appealing. Plus, there’s the whole environmentally-good-because-it-uses-less-paper thing ...Okay, I’m not kidding anyone who knows me. I just want instant access to all my books.But every time I think about mentioning this to my parents in a nudge-nudge-birthday-present way, something holds me back — the book that’s sitting on my desk, whatever it happens to be at any given moment (right now it’s Sharon Shinn’s “Mystic and Rider,” if you’re wondering).I love books. I love the way they catch my eye sitting on a shelf in the bookstore (even if the cover art sometimes leaves a lot to be desired — but hey, I can’t draw, so who am I to talk?). I love walking out of a bookstore or library with something (or somethings, as is usually the case) I’ve been waiting for. I love the way they feel in my hands and look on my bookshelf. I love my copy of “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” which has a spine so broken it’s almost falling apart but is the sign of a well-loved book.And if I had an e-reader, I’d be giving all that up.What would I gain by having an e-reader? For starters, paying more for books. E-books, especially after Macmillan forced Amazon to cave, could cost up to $15. Even now, they’re at $9.99 each. Regular paperbacks, though expensive (especially considering the page count of many of the new releases), still cost less.Then there’s the screen business. It might be easy to read, but reading a screen for hours still takes a toll, and I already spend hours a day obsessively checking my e-mail, writing papers and being a Facebook addict.And the idea of having textbooks on the Kindle, as Amazon is trying with several colleges? While I love the idea of not having to carry around textbooks, current e-book prices suggest that these expensive purchases wouldn’t be bargains. And it’s pretty hard to highlight a screen.So although I may look longingly at articles about e-readers and crave the space savings, I think I’ll wait — at least until they cost less than a car payment.My parents already know I want a Borders gift card for my birthday anyway.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(03/09/10 11:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>People don’t like guns.Not all people, obviously, or the National Rifle Association wouldn’t have the backing it does. But plenty of people are uncomfortable with them, especially when they see strangers carrying them in public places.Across California, advocates of concealed carry permits have been staging open carry meet-ups — a group of gun owners go to places like Starbucks or California Pizza Kitchen with their guns visible on their hips. They don’t protest, they just eat. The meet-ups have been making people uncomfortable. And that’s the point.California has strict laws about concealed carry permits, and this group wants to open them up a little. They believe people who are uncomfortable seeing guns on peoples’ hips would support loosening the concealed carry laws so they don’t have to see the guns.I don’t think it’s going to work like that.People don’t like guns because of what guns can do. In an age in which parents send their children away to college scared that their child’s school will be the next Virginia Tech and in which many gun owners don’t have to take a test or get a permit to own a gun, firearms are a touchy subject — and people are rightfully scared. People aren’t going to feel more comfortable if gun owners can hide their weapons in restaurants. They just want people to leave them at home.Several of the establishments where gun owners have had meet-ups don’t permit guns, such as Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen. Starbucks decided to allow the guns and let the protestors be, and the company has taken flak for it.The group is not even supported by the NRA, and many gun rights advocates don’t approve of its methods.“I’m all for open-carry laws,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy organization in Washington state, according to the New York Times. “But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”It does scare people, and making people nervous about seeing guns in public isn’t going to push anyone to support concealed carry permits. Instead, it’s going to push people to fight the NRA and gun rights advocates, and to vote for anti-gun laws.It doesn’t matter that most people who carry guns are harmless. Stories about gun owners who do nothing with their weapons except maybe a little hunting don’t make the news. People see children shooting other children at Columbine High School. They see 33 people dead at Virginia Tech. Two weeks ago, a teacher was killed at an elementary school.It’s understandable that people get scared when they see guns on anyone who isn’t in uniform. Some might see a gun in a coffee shop and be fine. Others remember four Seattle police officers who were killed last November.It might be legal to have open-carry meet-ups, but the organizers should think things through — scaring the public isn’t the way to get people to help their cause. It’s a way to create more opponents.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(03/01/10 10:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve never had swollen ankles and morning sickness and raging hormones and a stomach the size of Alaska. I’ve never had to push a human being out of my body. And I’ve never had to deal with what comes after pregnancy.I can see why some women, especially underage girls, would not be able to handle the task of raising a child. I understand that adoption, or even abortion, is a better choice sometimes.But really, at some point, you have to make a decision. You’re pregnant and don’t want the child. So which is it going to be — abortion or carrying the child to term?Last May, a 17 year-old girl in Utah paid a man to beat her up in the hopes of aborting her baby. She was in her seventh month, when abortion is illegal.As a result, the Utah state legislature put forth a bill that would criminalize illegal late-term abortions. It would clear up a lot of gray areas in abortion law. In doing so, it gets rid of much of the case-by-case stuff — which isn’t always good.Many states already have laws in place covering fetal homicide, which bring extra charges against people who assault or murder pregnant women and harm their unborn children. This law provides extra coverage but also creates more for government overreaching.“Prosecutors have a lot of discretion, and miscarriage is a sad but common event in connection with pregnancy,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.“This bill would cast suspicion, potentially, on every single miscarriage.”The loophole in the Utah law — seeking abortion is not illegal, so the girl wasn’t technically in the wrong for trying to get one — should be closed. It is illegal to have an abortion in the third trimester.The baby is often big enough to live on its own at that point. It’s a person at that point. If the girl didn’t want the baby, then she should have given it up for adoption — she only had a couple months left, after all, and if she wanted an abortion, she should have had one earlier.Her baby survived and was adopted by a Utah couple. That girl was in the wrong and does not deserve protection under the Utah law.But other mothers do. While the idea of closing a loophole is a good one, turning a gray area to a black-and-white area isn’t. According to the Times, critics contend that this was a freak case, but now “local prosecutors (have) huge new powers to inquire about a woman’s intentions toward her unborn child.” Utah — or any state — should be careful about abortion legislation. Too many restrictions and codified penalties could end up hurting innocent mothers whose only crime was to trip down the stairs.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(02/24/10 1:22am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., there is a billboard advertisement with a photo of former President George W. Bush and the message “Miss Me Yet?”The billboard, despite some theories, isn’t Internet trickery; it’s a real billboard, paid for by a small, anonymous group of small business owners who feel they’re being screwed over by Washington.“Miss Me Yet?” Nope.President Obama may not be the great savior his loyal fans thought he would be. He hasn’t fulfilled many of his campaign promises, the health care fiasco is still in shambles, and Congress can’t stop bickering long enough to pass anything.But that doesn’t make me miss Bush.I was 10 when Bush was elected, too young to know much about Clinton other than that he was the president and he’d lied about something, and adults I knew thought he should be impeached (I learned what “impeached” meant). I was too young to know why I “supported” Gore, and that was too long ago for me to remember if I actually knew anything about the candidates other than that Gore wanted to put everything in a “lockbox,” or if I was basing my preferences on who had better hair.So my real knowledge of the presidency came during the next eight years, with George W. Bush – who is rated by historians as one of the worst presidents in history.Those eight years weren’t easy – two wars that still haven’t ended, a terrible economy that eventually crashed, a natural disaster that left thousands dead and homeless, and in the end, a Congress that couldn’t do anything. Not all of that was Bush’s fault (as far as I know, he can’t actually cause hurricanes), but plenty of it was. He made horrible decisions, got into situations by not having enough information, and couldn’t pronounce the word “nuclear.”Not that Obama’s been awesome, but I figure I’ll give him a year or two before I pass judgment. No one ever gets anything of importance done in a year (yes, IUSA, I am looking at you).Whether or not you hate Obama, whether or not you blame a lot on Bush, you have to admit the country was a wreck – one Bush caused or at least didn’t fix, which got him record-low ratings in the polls. The public sang a round of “na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye” as the helicopter flew him away.And that’s how I learned about the presidency – under a man I thought (and still think) was a complete moron.It took me a while to stop automatically thinking of Bush every time someone said “the president.” It took me even longer to stop blaming him for things. The country is still a mess, and things still aren’t getting done, and in the end not everything was Bush’s fault. Partisan politics divide the country, and Congress is too busy bickering Democrat versus Republican to get anything of substance done. The economy still sucks, the wars are still on, and groups are still going down to New Orleans to rebuild.But do I miss Bush yet? Definitely not.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(02/17/10 2:40am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There are some very stupid people in the world.Take, for instance, the missionaries who are currently being held in a Haitian jail for the attempted kidnapping of 33 children abandoned or orphaned in the wake of the earthquake. They claim they had the correct papers and had set up a place in the Dominican Republic to take the children until their relatives could be found or someone could adopt them.They only forgot one thing. To take children out of a country, you have to have the correct papers from that country. The missionaries, most of whom are from two Idaho churches, were trying to do a good thing — take care of the children and get them to safety. I highly doubt they were really trying to kidnap the kids.My mother will probably laugh at me for trying to lecture someone about having common sense, but these people need a serious dose of it.Foreigners coming into a country after a devastating event, taking children and sending them to another country — without proper documentation? These kids don’t have family or anyone else who would notice them missing — or be able to find them if the group really did have nefarious intentions. If you were the Haitian government, what would it look like to you?Eight of the 10 missionaries in jail slipped a letter to an NBC journalist saying they feared for their lives. That may or may not be an overreaction to the situation, but it’s not a good one to be in, especially for the missionary who just turned 18.But the bad news doesn’t stop there. Edwin Coq, the group’s former Haitian-provided defense attorney, has said eight of the group weren’t knowingly involved with something illegal but that group leader Laura Silsby knew they didn’t have permission to take the children to the Dominican Republic.Okay, they didn’t know. But why on earth wouldn’t you inform yourself? Haiti really isn’t the place you want to be stuck in jail, especially now. Not knowing everything about a situation you’re involved in is just stupid.As for Silsby, taking the children and knowing they didn’t have the right documents was monumentally stupid. Why would she risk getting caught? Or risk U.S./Haitian relations if they did get the kids across and the government found out later? She should have taken the time to work out the situation. And the fun doesn’t stop there. Coq was fired after allegedly taking bribes. He demanded $60,000 from the families of the missionaries and supposedly tried to bribe their way out of jail.He says the money was his fee (an awfully hefty fee, if you ask me) and that he didn’t try to bribe anyone. But why would you even put yourself in a situation in which you could be accused of something like that?The whole situation is a complete mess. In a time when everyone should be doing everything they can to help victims of the disaster, money, time and attention are instead going to a bunch of idiots.
(02/17/10 2:23am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There are some very stupid people in the world.Take, for instance, the missionaries who are currently being held in a Haitian jail for the attempted kidnapping of 33 children abandoned or orphaned in the wake of the earthquake. They claim they had the correct papers and had set up a place in the Dominican Republic to take the children until their relatives could be found or someone could adopt them.They only forgot one thing. To take children out of a country, you have to have the correct papers from that country. The missionaries, most of whom are from two Idaho churches, were trying to do a good thing — take care of the children and get them to safety. I highly doubt they were really trying to kidnap the kids.My mother will probably laugh at me for trying to lecture someone about having common sense, but these people need a serious dose of it.Foreigners coming into a country after a devastating event, taking children and sending them to another country — without proper documentation? These kids don’t have family or anyone else who would notice them missing — or be able to find them if the group really did have nefarious intentions. If you were the Haitian government, what would it look like to you?Eight of the 10 missionaries in jail slipped a letter to an NBC journalist saying they feared for their lives. That may or may not be an overreaction to the situation, but it’s not a good one to be in, especially for the missionary who just turned 18.But the bad news doesn’t stop there. Edwin Coq, the group’s former Haitian-provided defense attorney, has said eight of the group weren’t knowingly involved with something illegal but that group leader Laura Silsby knew they didn’t have permission to take the children to the Dominican Republic.Okay, they didn’t know. But why on earth wouldn’t you inform yourself? Haiti really isn’t the place you want to be stuck in jail, especially now. Not knowing everything about a situation you’re involved in is just stupid.As for Silsby, taking the children and knowing they didn’t have the right documents was monumentally stupid. Why would she risk getting caught? Or risk U.S./Haitian relations if they did get the kids across and the government found out later? She should have taken the time to work out the situation. And the fun doesn’t stop there. Coq was fired after allegedly taking bribes. He demanded $60,000 from the families of the missionaries and supposedly tried to bribe their way out of jail.He says the money was his fee (an awfully hefty fee, if you ask me) and that he didn’t try to bribe anyone. But why would you even put yourself in a situation in which you could be accused of something like that?The whole situation is a complete mess. In a time when everyone should be doing everything they can to help victims of the disaster, money, time and attention are instead going to a bunch of idiots.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(02/08/10 11:37pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Amazon is the online bookstore giant. It sells everything, and tons of people use it. Well, not anymore. Weekend before last, Amazon and publisher Macmillan got into a spat about e-book prices. Macmillan, who signed a deal with Apple and iPad, wants to raise the price of some of its e-books to up to $15 from the $10 Amazon had been charging. Amazon refused, they both got mad at each other, and then Amazon decided to not just stop selling Macmillan e-books – it pulled all of them.And thus we have AmazonFail.Amazon didn’t give a warning. It didn’t try to hold it over Macmillan’s head as a threat. It did piss off a lot of authors – Macmillan, which includes the publishing company TOR, is one of the Big Six publishing companies.Needless to say, the authors were surprised – and angry. A lot of their sales occur online, and suddenly no one can get their books from the biggest online distributor. They’re especially irritated that they’re being dragged into a fight that has nothing to do with them. Amazon and Macmillan battle, and the authors lose.“Amazon apparently forgot that when it moved against Macmillan, it also moved against Macmillan’s authors,” author John Scalzi said on his blog.You’d think that after a weekend of authors tweeting, blogging, and generally doing enough Internet ranting that all their fans were pissed off too that Amazon would do something. Nope.Macmillan’s CEO sent out a professional-sounding press release, but Amazon did nothing. Well, not quite nothing. There was a forum post from the Kindle team that said Amazon would have to give up because “Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles.”Let that statement sink in for a minute. Macmillan has a monopoly over its titles? Terrible. And Hostess should give up its exclusive right to Twinkies, too.So, let’s recap: Amazon, pissed off at Macmillan, pulled all Macmillan’s books, regardless of the fact that it was about a sixth of its stock – without warning. It didn’t release any comment from CEO Jeff Bezos or any other high-ranking Amazon official, but instead let the Kindle Team post an idiotic statement on its forum.Meanwhile, a week and a half later, where are the books?Some are back as of Monday morning – Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson’s “The Gathering Storm” is available, as is L. E. Modesitt, Jr.’s latest book. But John Scalzi’s books still aren’t back.Amazon did a crappy thing, but the ones who really felt it were the authors. “For those of us who had book launches before the holidays, most of you who want our books already have them,” Sanderson said on his blog. “But think of Steven Erikson, who had a new book come out a couple of weeks ago. Or heck, Ben Bova, Charlie Stross and L. E. Modesitt Jr. had books come out today. First week sales, as everyone knows, are very important for a book’s future. What Amazon did to me was annoying; what it did to these folks was downright nasty.”Some think Amazon, as the distributor, has the right to sell what it wants. I think its executives are idiots – they pulled a sixth of their stock without warning, pissed off a lot of people and screwed over a bunch of authors who had nothing to do with the fight between Amazon and Macmillan. Very classy, Amazon.
(02/02/10 11:53pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>John Edwards is a world-class schmuck.Oh, he didn’t cheat on his wife while she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Woohoo, give the guy a medal. He waited until she wasn’t fighting a life-threatening disease before he set his eyes (among other things) on another woman.Edwards is just another in a long line of political sex scandals these days. Forget Bill Clinton – in the last couple of years, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer had sex with prostitutes and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford disappeared without a word and flew down to Argentina to have an affair. It’s been one affair after another, and they sparked the hit CBS drama ‘The Good Wife’ about the wife of a politician caught in a sex scandal (which by the way, is very good).Everyone is all over these guys – with good reason. People want the dirty little details of the scandal, and the people involved are more than willing to oblige. Spitzer’s girl was happy to get her 15 minutes of fame. Andrew Young, the man who claimed paternity of Rielle Hunter and John Edwards’ daughter, just released a tell-all. Elizabeth Edwards published an autobiography last May.Why is this so fascinating? Do we enjoy seeing self-righteous people fall? Is it nice to think that politicians are just like the rest of us? Are the titillating bits of information about the nature of the scandal just too amazing to be true?Regardless, it hooks us all – don’t pretend you didn’t talk about Spitzer and Sanford or that you don’t know Edwards recently publicly claimed Hunter’s daughter. For whatever reason, these peoples’ lives and mistakes are riveting.In the end, they’re just normal people. Okay, normal people don’t sleep with hookers or hop on a plane to South America to get some. And I’m far from defending them – as far as I’m concerned, the negative attention and potentially losing their wives is completely deserved.But why the hell do the people involved feel the need to make such a public deal about it? If you were involved, why would you want people to know all the details?I don’t blame Elizabeth Edwards for wanting to share her side of the story. But it’s not anyone’s business. The contents of Andrew Young’s book, which supposedly has a bit about him watching a sex tape of Edwards, certainly isn’t.There’s no doubt Edwards and the others deserve negative press, but the attention has an effect on someone besides the politicians and their wives. What does 27-year-old Cate Edwards think about all of this? In 20 years, what will Frances Hunter think about being photographed by paparazzi just for being born?The children of politicians won’t be able to go anywhere without everyone knowing what their fathers did. And if the others involved in the situation had any decency, they’d make it easier on these children, who had something to do with it and are involved anyway – they’d keep the details private.E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu
(01/27/10 12:40am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In driver education, they throw a lot of videos at you about what can happen if you’re not careful when you drive. Most of the horror stories involve drunk driving, but over the last few years they’ve been warning about using cell phones while driving, too.It’s not just about talking on a phone while driving, though. Now there’s texting while driving, and it’s dangerous enough that 19 states have already banned texting while driving. Anti-texting laws are being considered in 23 other states as well.Is texting really all that dangerous that it has to be singled out specifically? People already talk on cell phones, eat and deal with kids in the backseat while driving. There’s plenty of distracted driving out there; it’s not just texting.Texting is dangerous, even more than talking on a cell phone. Yes, talking on a phone while driving is distracting and has caused accidents, but at least when people talk and drive they’re theoretically still looking at the road. When people text they’re looking at a phone, not where they’re going.Is texting so important that you feel the need to do it right then? It can’t wait? Chances are the text isn’t an emergency – if something is really wrong, people will likely just call you. If it really is that important, then pull off the road into a gas station or restaurant and sit in the parking lot. Worried that you’re going to be late for class or work if you take the time to do that? You’re going to be really late if you run your car into a tree while you’re fumbling with your phone.Some of the states that have passed a no-texting law are only able to do it for the under-18 crowd, but that’s not enough. New drivers have less experience and are more likely to crash, but a 30-year-old who’s paying more attention to typing a message than to other cars is also likely to cause a wreck. Let’s not discriminate against the feared teenage drivers; texting bans should apply to everyone.And pretty soon, they might. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a federal anti-texting bill, the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers (or “ALERT Drivers”) Act, which includes a stipulation of cutting state highway funding 25 percent for states that don’t uphold it. The bill is currently in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and there is no word on when a vote will take place.Indiana does not currently have an anti-texting law, but Sen. Timothy Lane, D-Anderson, proposed one that, if passed, would make it a Class-C misdemeanor and mean that offenders could face a $500 fine or an additional jail time of up to six months – and that’s only for first-time offenders in accidents that don’t cause injury or death.Anti-texting laws are being considered across the nation. It’s not just a fad or an attempt to win political support. Texting while driving is dangerous: Is sending a message to your friend worth potentially losing your life?
(01/20/10 4:26am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We do not negotiate with terrorists.After the last decade, most Americans know that phrase very well. It’s common sense – we don’t want to give any edge to people who would harm us, and we don’t want to encourage terrorists by capitulating. The United States certainly isn’t the only country that follows that policy. In fact, any country with a strong military used to fighting terrorist groups wouldn’t dream of negotiating. Right?Wrong.Israel, which is famous for its well-trained military and mandatory service, is willing to negotiate. Not just for a prime minister or other high-ranking official, not just for a whole unit captured in battle. It will negotiate for one man.This man’s name is Gilad Shalit.Shalit was serving his military time when he was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists three years ago. Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is offering an exchange. The group wants hundreds of its members, all convicted of killing or planning to kill Israeli citizens, to be released from Israeli prisons in exchange for this one young man. And the Israeli government is considering it.It seems to go against everything a country in a dangerous region surrounded by enemies would do. Why release hundreds of terrorists for one regular, low-ranking soldier?The Israeli government is considering more than what a simple exchange would mean. It is the Jewish state, and one of the most important acts in Judaismis to bring Jews, alive or dead, back home, no matter the cost. In fact, Israel is still trying to negotiate with Syria for the release of the body of Eli Cohen, who was instrumental in allowing Israel to take the Golan Heights. He was executed in 1965, and, 45 years later, Israel is still interested in his body’s return.So imagine the lengths they’re going to to get Gilad Shalit – a living person – back. Specific numbers have not been released, but Israel is reportedly willing to give back hundreds of terrorists.As someone who grew up in a post-Sept. 11 America, even considering the exchange makes no sense to me. I understand the desire to bring a young man home, but not at that cost. The hundreds of men Hamas wants back have killed hundreds more Israelis. There is no guarantee they won’t continue their work once they’re freed. They could, and probably would, hurt more people.The message the negotiations send to Hamas is that Israel is willing to give back prisoners for one young kidnapped soldier. What’s to stop Hamas from kidnapping more if the exchange works this time? It’s practically an invitation to abduct more Israeli soldiers and citizens – because Israel will hand over terrorists to get them back.Israel has held its own through multiple wars and even more bombing campaigns since its inception in 1948, but in this case, it needs to take a lesson from its Western ally for the sake of its continued survival.Email: hanns@indiana.edu
(12/09/09 7:53pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The votes have been tallied and the list is almost out. No one can dispute that this decade has seen a lot of top-notch movies and a lot of really terrible ones, and in my opinion, both made it to the best movies of the decade list. But my biggest beef isn’t what made it to the list, it’s what didn’t – four major players, some of the biggest movies of the decade, got left off. Here’s a list of what they are and why they should have been included: "Star Wars": "Episodes II" and "III" were released in 2002 and 2005, respectively. They kinda sucked, there’s no getting around it, especially compared to the brilliant original trilogy. However, they still drew a big crowd – who wouldn’t go see "Star Wars?" – but more importantly, it’s "Star Wars." Not everything belonging to the franchise gets a pass (yes, animated "Clone Wars" TV series, I’m looking at you) but the main movies deserve a nod for both drawing millions to see them and well, drawing millions to see them after they’d seen "Episode I" seems like enough, forget box office records. But even without the money that was made or the technology that Lucas used, the beginnings of the story of Anakin Skywalker and the rise of Darth Vader are culturally important enough to score at least some place on the list. "Star Trek": Unlike "Star Wars," this deserves to be on the list not just for franchise value, but because it was actually pretty good. Not only that, but it is relaunching the "Star Trek" franchise and creating a new base of fans in a way the franchise hasn’t done in decades. It went from being a nothing movie that no one had heard about until a month prior to the release to a huge money-maker, and unarguably one of the best movies of 2009. Original star Trek fans might be confused and possibly annoyed by the alternate timeline, but the movie has a whole cast of great characters who can, if not completely fill the shoes of the original actors, create a fanbase of a younger generation. Quality and franchise – how did this get missed? "Harry Potter": This decade, just those two words should say it all. Did some of the movies suck? Yes. Did they all fail as adaptations? Yes. Does that matter? Apparently not, based on the fact that everyone sees them anyway. J. K. Rowling’s best-selling series is equally as money-making as the movies based off of them. No one can argue that they’ve garnered a lot of attention and launched the actors to stardom. The movies have actually been getting better, too, as "Half Blood Prince" was actually enjoyable. But, as with "Star Wars," quality isn’t the only barometer – the box office and popular culture speak, and both have spoken for these movies. This is the Harry Potter decade. Where are the Harry Potter movies? "Pirates of the Caribbean": Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate’s life for Johnny Depp and his co-stars – and everyone who went to see the movies. The trilogy launched Keira Knightly’s career (what there is of it) and solidified Depp and Orlando Bloom’s places as megastars. Pirate mania swept popular culture and evidence of the movies’ influence was everywhere. Not only that, but they were damn good movies (well, the first one was; I personally think the other two were not as good, but I’m probably in the minority, especially about the third). Regardless of their diminishing quality, they were huge draws. Who knew that a movie based off a freaking ride would get that much attention? And would stay in the minds of the general public. Is box office draw the only reason a movie should be chosen? Not alone, but franchise value and influence on popular culture certainly are, and these movies had all three. Regardless of individual quality – some were good and some were most definitely not – they were all influential and relevant, very major forces in the decade. All four deserve nods, and places somewhere on the list.
(12/07/09 11:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Between “Twilight” and “Harry Potter,” it seems fantasy has ruled the last 10 years. But other genres also blossomed, and below are some that will stick in our mind for years to come.Fantasy fictionThe “Twilight” series by Stephanie Meyer: It’s the series that launched the vampire craze. Even before the movies were released, teenage girls — and not-so-teenage girls — were screaming over Edward, the vampire who falls in love with a human girl. Slightly tacky? Depends on who you ask, but there’s no question that Meyer’s series captivated millions.The “Harry Potter” series by J. K. Rowling: The final four books in the series were released, and as with “Twilight,” they all get a combined nod. They’re some of the best-selling books in history. This decade saw Harry’s final and long-awaited defeat of Voldemort and the end of an era of speculation and anticipation.“The Gathering Storm” by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson: Non-fantasy fans are probably going “huh?” and critics will cringe since the book was just released at the end of October. However, its significance isn’t its content (though it’s a great book and one of the best in the series), but its authors: Jordan died in 2007, so the part of the book that he wrote is the last, besides the final two books in the series, that we’ll see of his writing. Sanderson was a newer and fairly unknown author; getting asked to finish the series really launched his career and paved the way for his future works.“Eragon” by Christopher Paolini: This boy wonder wrote a book when he was 16. The Inheritance Cycle (now expanded from a trilogy to four parts) is losing momentum and audience, but when the first book was released, it was a hit — whether it deserved it or not. Paolini’s career might not go anywhere after this, but “Eragon” definitely had an impact on up-and-coming fantasy lovers.Historical fiction“The Other Boleyn Girl” by Philippa Gregory: By far the best and most famous of her books, “The Other Boleyn Girl” launched Gregory to historical fiction stardom — and it was well deserved, since the book does an amazing job of taking an unknown historical figure and bringing her to life. It shows not only the machinations of the court of Henry VIII but a young woman’s struggle to find her place and defy her powerful family — and escape the shadow of Anne, the other Boleyn girl.“World Without End” by Ken Follett: It’s the sequel to Follett’s “The Pillars of the Earth,” written over a decade and a half later, and its publication brought both books to fame. “World Without End” tells the stories of the descendants of the Pillars characters set against the background of the Hundred Years’ War and the Black Death.“The Historian” by Elizabeth Kostova: Kostova’s freshman novel tells three intertwined stories: That of professor Bartholomew Rossi, who researched the story of Vlad Tepes the Impaler and tracked his legend halfway across the world; that of his daughter, Helen, who with Rossi’s student Paul begins a journey in search of her father; and that of Paul and Helen’s daughter, who tracks her father across Europe when he too disappears. Kostova weaves the three stories together through letters from Rossi and Paul, and sets the story against the legends of Tepes — the basis of the story of Count Dracula.“The Crimson Petal and the White” by Michael Faber: Faber’s story about a prostitute in the underbelly of London who rises through the obsession of a rich man who sleeps with her is unconventional, but contains sharp depictions of her life. Unlike many popular historical fiction novels, it doesn’t revolve around royalty or anyone affected by major events of the times, and manages to portray London at its grittiest. Faber gets his point across without being lewd, and though the ending is controversial, his storytelling style has garnered attention.Mystery“The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown: There is no question that Brown shook the world with his novel. Love it or hate it, despite its historical inaccuracies (intentional, according to the author), Brown weaves a compelling tale — compelling enough to sell millions of copies and inspire a movie.John Grisham: There isn’t a particular book of his that sticks out. Grisham gets a nod for both quality and quantity — he had at least one, sometimes two, books on the list of the 10 best-selling books every year of the decade — which is pretty impressive. Grisham’s mysteries are still singular and compelling, not to mention popular.“Daddy’s Little Girl” by Mary Higgins Clark: One of her many mysteries, “Daddy’s Little Girl” tells the story of a woman searching for her sister’s killer and vowing to keep the man she believes did it behind bars. Clark, who has written dozens of mysteries, is one of the grand ladies of the genre.“S is for Silence” by Sue Grafton: One of her most famous of the decade, Grafton’s novel continues the story of Kinsey Millhone, a private eye. The novel topped the best seller list for a while, sold over a million copies and broke the usual “Alphabet” series trend by putting part of the focus in the past.Fiction“The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini: It’s the story of a young man who escapes Afghanistan — and then goes back to save the son of his best friend and secret brother. Hosseini’s story is touching and gives an insight into the Afghani culture in a decade where, after Sept. 11, 2001, America was trying to understand it.“The Lovely Bones” by Alice Sebold: It might look like a teenage novel, but it’s not for the faint of heart. “Bones” is the story of Susie, who was brutally raped and murdered, who watches from the netherworld as her family tries to heal and the killer tries to evade the law and go after another girl. Creepy, but important, and it stayed on the best seller list for over a year.“The Five People You Meet in Heaven” by Mitch Albom: The “Tuesdays with Morrie” authors follows his first success up with another. “Five People” is the story of Eddie, who gets to Heaven and meets five people who influenced his life in ways he never knew. The story touched many and remains popular to this day.“The Thirteenth Tale” by Diane Setterfield: Perhaps not as well known as the others, but still popular, this is the story of a young woman who is asked to write the biography of an author she adores, and is excited until she learns the twisted story of the woman’s past. The story sticks out not just because of its originality, but also because of the fairytale-esque style of writing.Science fiction“The Road” by Cormac McCarthy: One of McCarthy’s most famous novels, it’s set in a post-apocalyptic world where a man and his son are struggling to survive and reach someplace they’ll be safe. The novel shows a terrifying aspect of human nature and the spirit of human endurance. With the popularity of zombies and disaster stories over the last few years, it’s no surprise “The Road” is a hit."Ilium" by Dan Simmons: It’s the battle of Troy all over again — but this time, on Mars. A resurrected Homeric scholar tells the story of events that happen far in the future but eerily mirror “The Iliad.” As with “The Road,” it is no surprise, given the trends of the decade, that a novel centering around Greek legends gained popularity and awards."Prey" by Michael Crichton: Though most famous for writing “Jurassic Park”, Crichton wrote many best-selling novels this decade. “Prey” is one of the most popular, and one of the most relevant to the times: It is a cautionary tale about the use of nanotechnology and other scientific advances.“The Time Traveler’s Wife” by Audrey Niffenegger: It gained popularity everywhere and is one of those books people don’t stop talking about. This story of a man who time travels without being able to control it and the woman who spends her whole life loving him reached the best-seller list and, more importantly, the hearts of millions of readers.Non-fiction“The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama: As with “The Gathering Storm,” it is not just the significance of the book but the significance of the author that earns it the spot: Barack Obama. The first black man to become president made waves in history, and his book made waves in literature. It captured the then-presidential candidate’s style and spread his message, and helped launch him as the person who would bring hope back to the American people.“Freakonomics” by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt: It’s surprising that an economic book would garner so much popularity, but Dubner and Levitt, both New York Times columnists, pulled it off and sold millions of copies. Their success lies in the fact that they applied economics to unusual subjects, such as sumo wrestlers and the Ku Klux Klan.“Eat, Pray, Love” by Elizabeth Gilbert: One woman’s journey to rediscover herself was read by many. Gilbert got the money in advance in return for writing the book, but the story in genuine. She tells her personal story of finding peace and it has captivated readers since its release.“Marley & Me” by John Grogan: Though almost more famous for being a Jennifer Aniston movie, Marley and Me is the real story of a young couple, their dog and the trials and tribulations they went through as they raised him and their family. Grogan, a columnist, said that his eulogy for Marley when the dog finally died received more comments than any of his previous columns.Romance“Suzanne’s Diary for Nicholas” by James Patterson: It’s the diary of a mother, written for her son but given by her husband to a new girlfriend. “Suzanne’s Diary” is Patterson’s first romance novel — very different from his usual style, but popular nonetheless. The book is loosely based on his life.“Nights in Rodanthe” by Nicholas Sparks: Sparks is famous for tear-jerking romances, “The Notebook” and “A Walk to Remember” being the most well known. “Nights in Rodanthe” is along the same lines; lovers finally come together and find themselves, only to be torn apart. The book was also made into a movie.“Hot Six” by Janet Evanovich: This is the first of Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum books to make it to best-seller status, and the first one published this decade. It’s got all of Stephanie Plum’s quirky humor as she tries to be the best bounty hunter she can — or at least get her man. Plum has written 15 full-length Plum novels to date.Nora Roberts: As with John Grisham, there isn’t one particular work of hers that stands out, but she stands out. She is one of the grand ladies of romance, and she’s written dozens of best-selling books over several decades. Her name continues to be cemented in popular culture as a legendary romance author.
(05/04/09 3:26am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s not every day that people get to see a talking, moving robot. But many had the chance to do so during the Robotics Open House on Friday.People packed into the open house on the eighth floor of Eigenmann Hall, where the cognitive science offices are located. The robots were research projects on cognitive science created by graduate students. One of the research groups used the robots to test embodied cognitive science while the other group used the project to study human and robot interactions.The robots displayed weren’t just the typical human-shaped ones people might expect after watching science-fiction movies. Children crowded around two robots that looked like little green-and-yellow dinosaur toys. They moved their legs and tails and were able to hold fake leaves in their mouths to look like they were eating. Randall Beer, one of the event coordinators, was pleased with the children’s reactions.“It’s fun to see a lot of the kids. They really enjoy it,” Beer said. “It’s going really well.” Mike Brady is working on a robot with artificial vocal cords. The robot makes noises that sound like vowels. It will eventually be able to mimic the speech patterns of recordings of itself and the voices of the humans around.IU graduate student Jenett Tillotson’s robot was an experiment in optic flow. It moved along a wire and was automated to see when an object was close and would stop a particular distance from it. She said she was concentrating on changes in visual images and learning how to apply the knowledge she gained to learn how people react to their environments. Another unusual robot was a mechanical Elvis head. The head, which was built by the Robotics Club, can move its eyes and blink. The biggest robot was CRAMER, which was in a separate room. CRAMER is a boxy, human-size red robot that can move its arm and head. Visitors were impressed by the robots at the open house.“It’s fun – kinda different,” said senior Grace Lee, an Eigenmann Hall resident assistant. She said she had been directing people who had been looking for the open house for a while and got interested, so she decided to come see what it was like. “There’s a lot of good stuff happening,” graduate student Eric Nichols said.