Jordan River Forum

Represent both sides in resolution While I applaud the IU Student Association's efforts to formally denounce terrorism and other forms of violence in Israel and Palestine, it should be recognized that resolution 04-09-03 falls short of this goal. As worded, the declaration suggests that Israelis are the only people in the region who struggle with terrorism. Given the recent assassination of Ahmed Yassin by the Israeli military, we must acknowledge that both sides of the conflict are guilty of politically charged intimidation, coercion and murder. Thus, I urge the IUSA to change its resolution to read: "Let it be resolved, that the Indiana University Student Body Congress endorses an end to terror and a renewed effort for peace in the Middle East." Only when we reject all forms of terrorism will there be hope for sustained peace in this and other troubled parts of the world. Gordon Bennett
Bloomington Support for Support Our Troops Day I am writing this letter to convey the genuine sincerity behind the Support Our Troops Day hosted by Grand Old Cause. I have had the opportunity and great experience to have been a member of the group for nearly a year and a half and president of the group for about four months. Grand Old Cause, a non-partisan, conservative student group, organized the day's activities to demonstrate and stimulate support for all of our servicemen and women at this time and for all times. Beside hosting a cookout with some troops who actually served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we also handed out yellow ribbons in support of our troops and placed more than 700 miniature flags across campus. That being said, all of these activities were designed to bring students from all walks of the political spectrum together to recognize that we all share a commonality in the support of our troops and our great nation. Grand Old Cause, in a very non-partisan manner, invited College Democrats, College Republicans and College Libertarians to help participate in the day's activities. I agree with Cameron Moser when he said in last week's Jordan River Forum, "The support of American soldiers, abroad or at home, should not be used to advance political interests…" Still, I disagree that anything about Support Our Troops Day or the actions of Grand Old Cause represent that which we both condemn. Support Our Troops Day was a time to celebrate our nation and pay respect to all of those currently serving and who have ever served in our armed forces. Although Cameron believes I, along with Grand Old Cause, are political opportunists, I would just like to tell him "thank you," because despite his harsh criticism I still respect his service to our nation. I only hope someday he can see past his own political beliefs to understand what Support Our Troops Day was all about. I would like to express my deepest thanks and sincere appreciation to everyone who helped out and participated in the Support Our Troops Day. I would also like to thank all of those who are currently serving in our armed forces protecting this nation here and abroad. Your sacrifice does not go unnoticed! Chase Downham
Sophomore, President of Grand Old Cause Hot dogs, not politics This is in reply to Cameron Moser's letter about the GOC's event for Support Our Troops on March 26. As an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, along with other members of my unit, we are offended that another soldier would criticize an organization for sponsoring an event supporting troops, thinking it was out for political gain. First off, the GOC is a non-partisan group. Second, they only offered a handshake and a hot dog, not their political views. They welcomed folks to recognize the fact that we have soldiers serving overseas. Those of us who attended had a good time conversing with attendees and sharing our stories about our experiences overseas. It seems that some people might have gotten some good out of this and their minds changed on what is really happening over there. Mr. Moser needs to realize that the GOC was not looking for recognition for its group, but simply to raise awareness here on campus for our troops. Thanks again to the GOC for supporting our troops and to Rick Newkirk for covering the event in the IDS. Nathan Bobay
Senior, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran A modest proposal for IDS coverage Thanks so much for the informative feature "Bodies & Bucks" -- I'll bet most IU students never realized they were sitting on a potential gold mine of valuable bodily fluids and organs. While we're on the topic of selling one's body, may I suggest a related feature for a forthcoming issue of the Indiana Daily Student: "How to Prostitute Oneself for Fun and Profit." (Alternately, you could use a punchier title like, "Sex, Bodies & Bucks.") Not only is it a great way to meet new people, but unlike when you donate sperm or eggs, you don't have to worry about leaving behind a string of pesky biological offspring. Plus, prostitution offers great practice on how to "sell yourself" to prospective employers! Mica Hilson
Graduate student Defending the dialogue In considering the "dialogue" between Kris Thomas and Eric Wilson on the matter of gay marriage, I found it interesting to note the language Ms. Thomas used to characterize Mr. Wilson's column. Does she sincerely believe that Mr. Wilson is motivated by disrespect or even paranoia? It seems to me that a rebuttal discussing the facts would suffice. Such a response would recognize the possibility that Mr. Wilson is motivated by something greater. This raises the issue of dialogue. As community members, we embrace and promote the freedom to disagree on the issue of homosexuality. But are we really free to have divergent views? If those in opposition to gay marriage are informed people who genuinely believe that the reality of our existence speaks against such consecration and that an expression of true love is to point out this reality, can we grant them freedom to hold and share their view? Testimonies exist from homosexuals who speak of inner desire and personal experience that verify their sexuality. For the sake of openness, we consider this evidence. There are also many former homosexuals who have come out of the lifestyle (including a dear friend of mine). They (and he) also testify according to personal experience -- and the peace they have enjoyed through abstention from such activities. As I consider my friend, can I turn my back on his love-filled motivation to present others the same opportunity? Surely, for the sake of open-mindedness, freedom must be given to both sides of the dialogue. Perhaps, to avoid the vice of a closed debate in our community, we should encourage those, who, when propelled by love, bring diverse views to the table. J. Marty Cope
Graduate student You cook the books, you face the fire It's about time some University presidents were graded on their math and business -- because it seems at least a couple would flunk. The April 1 cover story by Adam VanOsdol regarding the athletic department's cooked books was a fine work of journalism. What VanOsdol uncovered, however, was the opposite of fine. And it seemed a couple details were left blank in the confined space of a single news story, though many readers probably caught the irony. During the years those fictitious accounts were reported to the NCAA, Myles Brand was president of IU. Now, Brand is president of the NCAA, the same body to which his administrators, if not he, were lying. If private industry used this model, Kenneth Lay would head the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Martha Stewart would chair the Fed. Furthermore, the idea of charging all IU students a $30 fee to save the mismanaged athletic system is outrageous. There is no reason public administrators should cook books, under-budget and over-spend with impunity while private executives are being fired and prosecuted for the same deeds. This proposed $30 charge is symbolic of the lack of credibility that pervades all public entities: when a public administrator goofs, they just bill the citizens more to make up for it. The athletics department should be held accountable for the mismanagement. Let them take pay cuts, face inquisitors and fire their own co-workers, just like Kmart, Enron or any other poorly managed enterprise. Sure, it will hurt for a little while. But it will create incentive for the department to make real changes to help everyone in the long run. Just like a deadbeat cousin, if you give them $30 to bail them out now, they'll need another $30 to bail them out later. If the athletic department needs more money, have Mike Davis sell IU water bottles in the basement of Ballantine Hall. It's not like he's doing much else to help the program. Sincerely, Bryan Harris
Logansport, Ind. No unconstitutional salary raises Republican Congressmen are once again playing their politics-of-resentment game of "Let's pretend we're going to amend the U.S. Constitution." The current ruse is just another in a long series of proposed reactionary amendments. It is ironic that the Republican Congress refuses to abide by the 27th Amendment, which is the most recent to be ratified. It reads, "No law, varying the compensation for the services Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." It plainly means that Congress cannot raise (or decrease) its pay during a term. However, the Republican Congress has routinely violated this Amendment through Congressional hocus-pocus. Congressional salary raises during a term are called "cost-of-living" increases and thereby somehow become permissible. The unconstitutional money grab has been supported by Congressman Buyer and is opposed by Senator Bayh and Democratic representatives from Indiana. Congressman Buyer feels he can get away with this because he thinks that no one is watching and that the voters won't hold him accountable. I believe he is wrong. I pledge that if I am elected to serve as U.S. Representative from the 4th Congressional District of the state of Indiana I will keep neither the most recent rise in salary nor any increase in Congressional pay granted in this unconstitutional fashion. It is essential that the U.S. Constitution receives the respect it deserves. David Sanders
Democratic candidate for U.S. representative
from the 4th Congressional District,
West Lafayette