1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/16/06 3:45am)
By Jennifer Loven\nThe Associated Press\nMOSCOW -- President Bush, eager for Russian help in ongoing nuclear disputes with North Korea and Iran, tended to the sometimes frosty Washington-Moscow relationship Wednesday by paying a quick call on President Vladimir Putin.\nBush paused to visit the Russian leader for an hour and a half at an airport stopover on his way to Asia for an eight-day trip that includes stays in Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia. Bush has meetings scheduled with several important allies, including Putin, on the sidelines of a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Hanoi, Vietnam, later this week. But only Putin rated a social call as well.\nRussian news agencies quoted Kremlin spokesman Alexei Gromov as saying the two presidents discussed the Iranian nuclear program, the situation in the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation.\nGromov also confirmed that a bilateral agreement on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization was being readied for signing in Hanoi.\nNational security adviser Stephen Hadley, talking to reporters aboard Air Force One after Bush left, said the president's get-together with Putin "was a social meeting as we said it would be. This was a refueling stop."\nBut Hadley also said that they "talked a little bit about proliferation generally" with regards to Iran and North Korea. He also said that he spoke with his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, about efforts to find an agreement on a new U.N. security resolution on Iran.\n"We had a good discussion about that," Hadley said. "I think basically the strategy that all of the countries who are working on this is to come up with a resolution themselves. I think the Russians think it's sound."\nWhen Bush and his wife, Laura, landed, they were greeted on a red carpet on the tarmac by Putin and his wife, Lyudmila. The Russian president presented Mrs. Bush with a bouquet of yellow, orange and red flowers and the foursome exchanged kisses.
(11/16/06 3:44am)
WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress on Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, putting him at odds with resurgent Democrats pressing President Bush to start pulling out of the violence-torn country.\nGen. John Abizaid spoke as the Senate Armed Services Committee began re-examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's elections, which gave Democrats control of Congress starting next year and was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's war policies.\nDemocrats have been coalescing around a call for beginning a U.S. withdrawal in coming months. In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.\n"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," Abizaid said.\nAsked directly what effect he foresaw on sectarian violence if Congress legislated a phased U.S. withdrawal starting in four to six months, Abizaid replied, "I believe it would increase."\n"It seems to me that the prudent course ahead is to keep the troop levels about where they are," Abizaid said, while placing larger teams of U.S. military advisers inside Iraqi army and police units. He said that increased emphasis on advising Iraqi units might be accomplished without significantly increasing the total U.S. force in the country.\nWith voters expressing overwhelming opposition to the war, the day after the election Bush expressed a willingness to consider fresh approaches to Iraq policy and announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had become a symbol of the unpopular war.\nAbizaid said he believes U.S. troop levels, now at about 141,000, should stay steady but might have to rise temporarily to train and advise Iraqi military units. No reductions are advisable until the Iraqi security forces become more capable of dealing with the insurgency, securing Baghdad and dealing with the Shiite militia problem, he said.\n"Our troop posture needs to stay where it is" for the time being, he said.\nIn one of the day's most contentious clashes, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., challenged Abizaid on his analysis of the situation and complained that he was advocating no major changes in U.S. policy. McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has called for adding thousands more U.S. combat troops in Iraq to help fight the insurgency and halt sectarian violence in Baghdad.\n"I'm of course disappointed that basically you're advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition," McCain said.\nIn response, Abizaid said he was not arguing for the status quo. He said the key change that is needed now is to place more U.S. troops inside the Iraqi army and police units to train and advise these forces in planning and executing missions.\nPressed by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., on how much time the U.S. and Iraqi government have to reduce the violence in Baghdad before it spirals beyond control, Abizaid said, "four to six months."\nDeveloping a "capable, independent" Iraqi government and armed forces "will set the conditions for withdrawal" of U.S. forces, Abazaid said. He offered no timetable for reaching that point. But he said earlier, "I remain optimistic we can stabilize Iraq."\nHe also acknowledged under questioning that Anbar province, where the Sunni insurgency is strongest, "is not under control." Nonetheless, he said, the main U.S. military effort needs to be in Baghdad rather than Anbar.\nReflecting the division of opinion on how to proceed in Iraq, the next chairman of the committee said the administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months in order to force them to take responsibility for their own future.\n"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
(11/16/06 3:42am)
A high school basketball coach was charged with stealing nearly $3,000 from the proceeds of a football game, authorities said.\nColumbus North basketball coach Barry Huckeby, who had been suspended with pay from the Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp., told police he took some money but did not confess to stealing the whole amount, according to a probable cause affidavit filed this week.\nColumbus police officer Jay Frederick said Huckeby told him that he took two bills from the proceeds of the Oct. 20 game, and that the coach thought they were $50 bills.\nHuckeby, 33, a math teacher, told police that in his duties as assistant athletic director, he counted that night's ticket sales totaling more than $5,000, which he prepared for a bank deposit, the affidavit said.\nHuckeby's attorney, Richard Eynon, said he was disappointed the felony theft charge was filed and that his client maintains his innocence.\n"There's an explanation for everything that happened through the whole process," Eynon said.\nHuckeby was arrested Tuesday and released from the Bartholomew County Jail after posting $15,000 bond. If convicted, he could face a prison sentence of six months to three years.\nHuckeby was hired in May to coach the boys' basketball team, and school officials said they have begun the process of firing him.\nSuperintendent John Quick declined to comment on Huckeby's arrest.
(11/16/06 3:40am)
ELKHART, Ind. -- Four young children whose bodies were found in the basement of their home suffocated to death, and their mother remained hospitalized under sedation, police said Wednesday.\nDetectives were reviewing previous police calls to the home involving custody disputes between the woman and the father of the two oldest children but were not focusing yet on a particular suspect in the attack, police Capt. Steven Mock said.\nNo arrests were immediately made, but the deaths of the two girls and two boys were ruled homicides, and detectives had interviewed the father of the older children, he said.\nInvestigators did not know of any reports of violence during those police calls and were working to determine how many and how recent those calls were, Mock said.\n"We have not excluded any person or persons of interest in this case," he said.\nPolice identified the children as Jennifer Lopez, 8, Gonzalo Lopez, 6, Daniel Valdez, 4, and Jessica Valdez, 2. Their bodies and their unconscious mother, Angelica Alvarez, were discovered Tuesday night by Fernando Valdez, who police said was the father of the two youngest children.\nAutopsies Wednesday determined the children died of asphyxia, but Mock would not disclose how they were killed.\nAlvarez was being treated at Elkhart General Hospital, but Mock would not describe her injuries. He said investigators found no signs that she caused the children's deaths.\nAmbulances that had left the home Tuesday night in the city 15 miles east of South Bend were called back 45 minutes later after Alvarez was found to have a faint pulse, police Sgt. Bill Wargo said.\nFirefighters said tests for carbon monoxide came up negative.\nYellow police tape still was around the small, white house on a corner of a working-class neighborhood Wednesday as an officer investigated inside. A red minivan and white pickup truck were in the driveway, and two small bicycles with training wheels were near the back door.\nMartha Williams, who lives behind the family's home, said she first heard the report of the deaths on her police scanner. She had just seen the children playing in the leaves around their home.\n"They're sweet little kids, or they were," she said. "They didn't bother anyone."\nAt Woodland Elementary, where Jennifer and Gonzalo were students, classmates decorated their desks with drawings, poems, flowers and teddy bears, said Ellen Moore, a spokeswoman for the Elkhart Community Schools.\n"People who understand grief in children tell us it helps for them to have something to do to help deal with the powerlessness they feel when something like this happens," Moore said.
(11/15/06 8:08pm)
"Fire John L. Smith, please."\nBig banner. Large letters. Couldn't miss it. The demands of a sizable chunk of the visiting Michigan State Spartan fans regarding their visiting coach could be made out from an airplane thousands of feet above Memorial Stadium during Saturday's homecoming victory.\nAfter a Michigan State fumble led to another Kellen Lewis touchdown pass in the final minute of the first half, the banner quickly unfurled, rattled in the wind for a few minutes and disappeared into the crowd. The scoreboard should have read: IU: 30, John L. Smith: toast.\nBut that's beside the point.\nKudos to the MSU fans for getting their message out -- even if it is one of frustration. It took planning, deception and execution to get your banner out there. This columnist salutes you.\nHomemade signs and banners have been a staple of sporting events since, well, at least since the beginning of the ESPN era. Through them, fans have expressed their affection and their anguish, their pride and their pangs. Plus, banners give you a shot at being on TV.\nAlas, here at IU, we discourage such creative words on cardboard. If the IU athletic department came up with its own ESPN acronym, it would read: "Every Sign Poisons the miNd." \nThe list of prohibited items at Memorial Stadium includes such nuisances as dogs, bottles and umbrellas (kites, too, as I found out the hard way). Last year, banners and signs became the newest no-no in stadium accessories. These policies have been implemented "in order to keep Hoosier football games enjoyable for all," according to the 2006 IU football fan guide. Isn't it possible to have a safe, fan-friendly environment with signs? After all, other colleges and professional franchises seem to be able to handle their presence.\nBanners and signs are one of the great things about college sports. You can tout your star quarterback for the Heisman, rip on your in-state rival or support (or call for the head of) your embattled coach. The limits of acronyms have been proven to stretch to infinity and beyond thanks to broadcast networks and clever sports fans. These messages spark discussion, demand reaction and contribute significantly to the game atmosphere. \nAt IU football and basketball games, you must be sneakier than a jewel thief to get your sign in the air for longer than a minute before some crusty usher confiscates your work of art. Corporate sponsors and University propaganda seem to be the only allowable displays. \nThe enforcement of this policy, which went into effect during basketball season last year, has been spotty at best. During Hoosier Hysteria, several signs supporting the announcement that top recruit Eric Gordon would sign with IU were visible. Signs were also on display at September home football games in support of IU coach Terry Hoeppner during his recovery from brain surgery.\nIt seems the content of the message matters as to whether stadium officials will turn a blind eye to the no sign policy. An era of fan censorship is at hand. \nNever was the sign ban more visible than at the beginning of last February's men's basketball game against the University of Connecticut. Floor-level ushers turned into the poster police, accumulating enough poster board from the student body for every science fair entrant in the Bloomington area. Many of the messages scrawled in marker made reference to Huskies point guard Marcus Williams, who had been suspended earlier in the season for stealing laptop computers.\nThe assumption is that IU officials did not want such messages on display. Not to be deterred, however, students began their own "Where's my laptop?" chant as the teams warmed up. It looks like weakening vocal chords should be the next step in neutering fan expression. For now, it is up to the cheerleaders to divide and scatter the mouths of the misguided. Whenever a perceived bad call leads to the "bullshit!" chant from the student section, you can be sure the cheerleaders will retaliate with a peppy cheer of their own.\nHomespun cheers and wacky costumes seem to be the last bastion of fan expression at IU. If you can't write what you want to say, then dress like it and shout it at the top of your lungs. Unfortunately, yelling "UConn sucks!" just doesn't carry the same weight as a poster bearing the words "UConn't beat IU!" in big red letters. \nThe power of the written pun has been taken from the Hoosier faithful.
(11/15/06 5:06am)
LUBBOCK, Texas -- Texas Tech coach Bob Knight says there were times he was wrong when his hot temper got the best of him on a basketball court. Not this time, however.\nThis time, everyone from the player he confronted to the player's mother and school officials say what Knight did was no big deal.\nIt all started Monday night when Knight went after Michael Prince, forcefully pushing his chin upward and telling him to look him in the eye during a timeout late in the Red Raiders' 86-74 victory over Gardner-Webb.\nAthletic director Gerald Myers defended Knight on Tuesday, saying he did nothing wrong when he "quickly lifted" Prince's chin. The president of the school's faculty senate, James H. Smith, said Knight's action was not "physical abuse or violence."\nKnight, with a history of chair-throwing, referee baiting and run-ins with school officials, was not available for comment to The Associated Press before Tuesday night's home game against Arkansas-Little Rock.\n"I'm sure there were some cases where I have been wrong, but (Monday night) wasn't one of them," Knight told ESPN.com. "I was trying to help a kid, and I think I did.\n"I flipped his chin up and told him to look me right in the eye so he could do the job we want. I said, 'Can you?' And he said, 'Yes,' and I said, 'OK, sit down and let's go.' If that's an issue, then I'm living in the wrong country."\nPrince told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal after Monday's game that what happened with the coach "was nothing."\n"He was trying to teach me, and I had my head down, so he raised my chin up," said Prince, who was seen moving his jaw around as he sat on the bench after the confrontation. "He was telling me to go out there and don't be afraid to make mistakes. He said I was being too hard on myself"
(11/15/06 5:03am)
I was totally focused on beating the Penn State Nittany Lions in the semifinals of the Big Ten Tournament last Friday. They had defeated us three times in a row, and we were out for revenge. Beating them would end their season, and that would be almost as satisfying as winning the Big Ten Tournament.\n Once the game started, it was clear that we were the better team. Penn State never really threatened us defensively because the team sat in its own half for most of the game. Darren Yeagle scored a great goal from 20 yards out 10 minutes into the second half, ripping a shot just inside the far post. When the final whistle blew, our whole team was very excited, not only because we avenged our past losses to the Nittany Lions, but because we would have a chance to play for the Big Ten title Sunday.\nWe had a light practice early Saturday afternoon, where we did some shooting drills and worked on possession. After going out to lunch, most of the guys on the team decided to go see "Borat." Eric Alexander was particularly excited, and the movie itself did not disappoint. For the rest of the weekend, you couldn't go five minutes without hearing someone say "Nice," "High-five" or "I like." After dinner, we went back to the hotel and got to bed early.\nWe woke up early the next day and were ready to play in the final against the host team, Ohio State. We had defeated the Buckeyes earlier in the season, 1-0, but we knew Sunday's final would be a tougher game because Ohio State needed a win in order to get into the NCAA Tournament. As we expected, it was a very physical game. Brian Ackley scored the only goal of the game. Josh Tudela's free kick bounced off the crossbar, but Ackley was there to knock in the rebound with his head. \nIn the second half, Ohio State put the pressure on, launching many high balls in the box in an attempt to use their size to get an equalizer. Chay Cain and the rest of the defense played an outstanding game and kept the shutout going. \nOnce the final whistle blew, we all ran onto the field to celebrate. We hadn't won the Big Ten Tournament in two years, so it was a great feeling to finally win another title. We feel confident heading into our first game of the NCAA Tournament and are looking forward to playing in front of the best fans in the country. \nThe weekend, as Borat might say, was "very nice"
(11/15/06 4:58am)
[ THE FACTS ] On Nov. 7, the American people elected the Democratic Party into control of both the House and Senate. According to the party's Web site, the Democrats are committed to "lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies."" What effect will the newly Democratic Congress have on U.S. security policy?
(11/15/06 4:57am)
[ THE FACTS ] On Nov. 7, the American people elected the Democratic Party into control of both the House and Senate. According to the party's Web site, the Democrats are committed to "lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies."" What effect will the newly Democratic Congress have on U.S. security policy?
(11/15/06 4:55am)
A column's introduction is designed to hook the reader, so we want to know what it would take to get you to turn away. Maybe big-breasted women licking whipped cream off each others chests? Or an interracial couple seducing their 18-year-old babysitter? What about the lead cheerleader "entertaining" the entire basketball team? Or a Cleveland Steamer? A Dirty Sanchez? A Rusty Trombone? An Eponymous Squeegee? (OK, we made that last one up.)\nClearly, the average person can tolerate much more than the government and a vocal "anti-smut" minority believe he or she can -- because you're still reading. These people say porn marginalizes women's sexuality and leads to dangerous and anti-social behavior. What they neglect to explain is that pornography is used as an outlet for expression. There is a significant portion of the population that gets off to bondage, discipline, sado-masochism and mock violence, along with fetishes as common as feet, armpits and lingerie. Without a safe, private place to entertain one's own fantasies, these people might satiate their sexual appetites in improper, socially destructive ways.\nPornography's opponents also neglect the First Amendment. As offensive as interracial she-men or shaved Brazilians doing as nature may or may not have intended can be, the government has no right, nor should it have the authority, to remove the choice to view such material. \nObviously, 6-year-olds should not be learning about four-inch diameter, double-sided dildos. Nor should anyone be forced to do anything against their will. However, pornography is, when legally regulated, a constitutionally protected form of speech. And if there is any appropriate place to experience alternate forms of expression, it should be a university setting, the quintessential open marketplace of ideas.\nAs an 18-year-old, if you're mature enough to stare down an Iraqi insurgent as you put an M-16 round between his eyes, we're pretty sure you're psychologically prepared for any way in which Jenna Jameson might employ a banana.
(11/15/06 4:53am)
In generations past, pornography was a dirty magazine in a brown paper bag. The Internet revolution has turned every computer into a discreet paper bag, making pornography more accessible and removing the stigma once attached to it.\nBetween 1998 and 2003, there was an 1,800 percent increase in the number of Web sites offering pornography, according to the N2H2/Secure Computing Corp. With the increase in availability, it can only be assumed that an increase in use follows. This increase includes a disturbing 37 percent of 18- to 24-year-old males who admit to visiting pornographic Web sites, according to a poll by Zogby International. \nIt is obvious that Internet pornography is a selfish and solitary pursuit. The antithesis of this is a relationship with a live, flesh-and-blood human being. Any relationship, romantic or otherwise, requires a level of selflessness on the part of both parties involved; it is judged that companionship is worth the compromise necessary to gain it. The romantic relationship is perhaps the most selfless of all. This selflessness is generally unnatural at first, but a few thousand years of human experience seem to indicate that most of the species think it's worth the effort.\nPornography divorces the selflessness of a romantic relationship from the sexual fulfillment found therein. It wraps the most intense of human passions and emotions in the package of a self-serving sexual rush and nullifies the most powerful impetus drawing men and women together. The man who can solitarily satisfy himself with airbrushed photos has no need for a real relationship with a real woman. Pornography trains the user to be comfortable and satisfied while unplugged from reality.\nPornography leaves the user with an unrealistic view of how relationships should work and ultimately contributes to unstable relationships and marriages. Since many people meet their spouses while at college, pornography use at IU must be recognized as the lurking menace that it is.
(11/15/06 4:50am)
See what's going on around the campus!
(11/15/06 3:53am)
In 1948, IU zoology professor Alfred Kinsey published a book broaching all social taboos surrounding the sexual activity of American men. That same year, renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead reviewed Kinsey's work, which became known as "The Kinsey Report," and commented, "In every society, sex patterns depend on a careful and meticulous balance between ignorance and knowledge, sophistication and naivete ... between the things we don't mention and the things we do." Mead lambasted Kinsey's report for upsetting this necessary and delicate balance, noting that "quite a good deal of our virtue has depended upon people not knowing what other people were doing."\nEvery Wednesday, the Indiana Daily Student publishes a small section of smut sandwiched between the comics and the crossword puzzle. The institute bearing Kinsey's name has continued his embarrassing crusade of upsetting the "meticulous balance" upon which our society depends and, on a weekly basis, assaults the readers of the IDS with its brazen turpitude.\n"But 'The Kinsey Confidential' delivers valuable information!"\nLook, I don't want to read about some girl's Pap test while I'm doing the Sudoku puzzle. In fact, I don't ever want to read about anyone's Pap test. Yes, I know a woman needs to be informed about that kind of stuff. That's why she goes to the gynecologist. Seriously, guys, I eat lunch while I read the paper.\nOf course, the above example is only the tamest of those gathered from a brief perusal of recent publications of "The Kinsey Confidential." Typical fare is invariably far more explicit and immodest. And what is the benefit to the reader? Why should we destroy the barrier between "the things we don't mention, and the things we do"? Didn't ignorance of some things used to be bliss? \nWe don't really want to be like Jeff Foxworthy when the lingerie catalogues come and declare, "Victoria doesn't have many secrets left!" The regular reader of "The Kinsey Confidential" might honestly report, "Ain't no woman got any secrets from me!" I think I can safely speak for the male population when I say we already spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about sex; we don't need to be ambushed by on the comics page.\nMargaret Mead was no prude. Her claims to fame included reports with titles such as "Male and Female," "Coming of Age in Samoa" and "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies." But where Mead simply wanted to understand society, Kinsey and his ilk are hell-bent on overturning it.\nRecently, in the Jordan River Forum, there has been a discussion regarding the newsworthiness of "The Kinsey Confidential." It's true that the weekly column is no more newsworthy than the comics, crosswords and my beloved Sudoku puzzles. However, the ghost of Margaret Mead would warn us that every topic has a time and place to be discussed. The time for "The Kinsey Confidential" is not lunchtime, and the place is not my newspaper.
(11/15/06 3:51am)
On Tuesday, the Washington Post published an extensive piece on the debate about the existence of Internet addiction. It placed particular emphasis on a recent study published in the neuropsychiatric journal CNS Spectrums that, having employed a telephone survey of more than 2,500 adults, is being touted as "the first large-scale look at excessive Internet use." According to this study, "Potential markers of problematic Internet use seem present in a sizeable proportion of adults," but it remained agnostic on whether the Internet is inherently addictive or whether "Internet addiction" is, instead, merely a compulsive behavior.\nSadly, I can't really give you a definitive answer on whether the Internet is addictive (I'm inclined to suspect it isn't, but the research is still embryonic and I'm not a neuropsychiatrist). However, as nearly all of us in the university community are Web geeks to some extent, I think it's worthwhile to highlight the study's findings on what it classifies as "problematic Internet use," especially since the Washington Post implies that this issue could be particularly important for college campuses. \nA director at the University of Maryland's counseling center, one of the first places to treat these problems, told the Post that "surveys of students who seek counseling show an increase in those reporting that 'they either always or often had trouble controlling themselves on the Internet,'" from about 2 percent to 3 percent in the late 1990s to about 13 percent in 2005-06.\nSo what should students watch out for? According to the CNS Spectrums study, among its respondents: "5.9 percent felt their relationships suffered as a result of excessive Internet use; 8.7 percent attempted to conceal nonessential Internet use, 3.7 percent felt preoccupied by the Internet when offline; 13.7 percent found it hard to stay away from the Internet for several days at a time; 8.2 percent utilized the Internet as a way to escape problems or relieve negative mood; 12.3 percent had tried to cut back on Internet use, of whom 93.8 percent were successful; and 12.4 percent stayed online longer than intended very often or often." (Note: Percentages are adjusted to make the sample more reflective of the general population). \nIU Counseling and Psychological Services says answering yes to any two of the following questions could be grounds for concern: "Are you spending three or more hours a day online? Are you online when you would normally sleep? Do you skip or delay eating so you can be online? Are you choosing to go online rather than spend time with friends face to face? Are you skipping class to go online? Do you ever spend more time online than you first intended to? Do you ever tell yourself, 'I'll just check my e-mail,' and then stay online? Are your grades slipping? Have you tried to stop and find you can't?"\nIf you're having problems, you may want to call CAPS at 855-5711 or visit its Web ... Scratch that. Just call them.
(11/15/06 3:49am)
It should be the easiest decision you'll ever have to make: Would you rather have the ability to fly or \na million dollars?\nLogically, you'll probably never have to make this decision. But it's like buying elephant stampede insurance. You never think it will happen to you -- no one ever does. But you need to be prepared. \nThe moment might come while you're sitting on your couch eating caramel corn, watching the latest episode of "Dancing with the Stars," when the Bizarre Choice Fairy busts through your wall, points a magic wand at you and demands to know: "Flying or a million bucks?" \nSo I've decided to help you make that decision. You'll thank me later.\nFirst of all, don't listen to Steve Miller Band's greatest hits when you're trying to make this decision. You'll only receive mixed messages telling you to both "Take the Money and Run" and "Fly Like an Eagle." You don't need that kind of pressure from Steve right now.\nWhile gathering information on what could be the biggest decision of my life, I stumbled upon an online forum where people discussed their answers to this question. Overwhelmingly, people chose flying over money.\nI found this deeply disturbing. What happened to our values system? Since when did flying effortlessly through the air by your own capacity, gaining a breathtaking aerial view of the world, overtake the desire for cold, hard cash?\nJust for a moment, let's pretend you chose the flying option. Congratulations, you're a freak. You have the ability to fly without the cumbersome aid of plane, helicopter, parasail or blimp. However, odds are you're the only person alive with this special power. The carnie folk want a piece of you.\nInitially, you resist the world of freak shows and cotton candy, but you can't run forever. Zelda, the bearded lady, is a good friend, but the hours are long and the pay is terrible. And one day, a black SUV with tinted windows drives up. A burly man asks, "Does this smell like chloroform to you?" and you wake up in a cage.\nYears of watching "The X-Files" have taught me that anyone with paranormal capabilities will inevitably be captured by the government for experimentation. So you lose contact with your friends and family. You lose your identity and become test subject No. 8576JXJK5, though some of the scientists have nicknamed you "Feathers."\nAnd then you die. \nObviously, you made the wrong choice. Take the cash!\nA million dollars is great for at least a million reasons. Money can buy you friends, happiness, love and "Saved by the Bell" on DVD.\nSome people think money has a bad reputation. The Notorious B.I.G. says mo' money, mo' problems. Others say a million dollars isn't a lot of money these days and it's easy to part with your moolah. But who cares if you blow it all at the dog track? Anything is better than drinking out of one of those suspended water bottles in a cage next to radioactive chinchillas.
(11/15/06 3:45am)
Last Wednesday, only hours after the final election results were in, Democratic leaders had already begun making promises to the public about what they intend to accomplish as the new majority in both houses. One in particular according included passing "legislation to make college more affordable for students and their families, to the Chronicle of Higher Education." \nBut this student-friendly agenda didn't just emerge after the ballots were in. Throughout the midterm election cycle, the issue of college affordability arose a surprising number of times. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic representative from California who will be the speaker of the House, released a statement declaring that in contrast to Republicans' having "raided federal student aid programs by $12 billion and raised interest rates on college loans for parents and students," the Democrats have pledged a "new approach" that includes increasing the maximum Pell Grant, cutting interest rates on student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent ("saving the average borrower $5,600 in interest payments alone") and increasing the tax deductibility of college tuition. On this, Pelosi said: "There is no tax cut or investment that we can make that brings more money to the federal treasury and grows the economy more than investing in you, our young people." \nWell, thanks for the love. But while some have "lavished praise" on Democratic leaders for this agenda, others are raising questions as to how these initiatives will be funded. In the days surrounding elections -- especially elections like these that have produced such massive gains for one party -- it is easy to see where big plans for future legislation might easily be forgotten long before Congress actually reconvenes. And assuming the Democrats are really committed to their plan to making college more affordable, the slicing up of that federal-budget pie can get awfully tricky. \nPerhaps the most important question is not simply whether the Democrats come through with the goods, but whether the constituents who would benefit from these plans -- namely college students and their families -- will actually hold their newly elected representatives to these campaign promises. Students must realize that we're in competition with other groups who will claim they deserve this money more than we do and that these promises might only go as far as concerned constituents want to push them. \nBecoming aware of how the congressional shift in power could affect you is extremely important if students are to expect any of these lofty goals to actually become beneficial legislation. As students, it is imperative that we hold our congressmen responsible for fulfilling these promises. So inform yourselves and stay engaged. Democracy takes more than just casting a ballot every two years.
(11/14/06 4:55pm)
The other night, it was storming heavily and, for a short time, I wondered if Bloomington was going to have a repeat of last November when we had two tornadoes. As I was worrying about whether I would soon be homeless, I decided to check out The Weather Channel. The only problem was instead of getting some kind of weather report, I found a program called "Animal Storm Stories." The show chronicles the unsung heroes of natural disasters: animals. \nDon't get me wrong. I love animals, and I think that having a show paying tribute to some of their heroic work in natural disasters is a great thing. But since the station calls itself The Weather Channel, I would at least expect to get some damn weather information when I turn to the channel -- especially if there is a bad storm in my area. I know they can't cover everything going on in the nation at once, but hell, they could at least try. They didn't even have a ticker at the bottom of the screen!\nIf The Weather Channel wants to have shows on its station not related to the type of coverage its name suggests, it should follow the examples set by MTV and ESPN: Make a Weather Channel 2. Then you could put whatever you wanted on it and people wouldn't have their expectations unmet. MTV, for example, doesn't even have real music, just junk. But now there's MTV2, which is kind of like a storage facility for MTV's junk. An equally good example of bad channel sequels is ESPN. While there might still be sports coverage on the regular channel, ESPN2 has things like the "World Series of Poker." It doesn't get more athletic than a bunch of losers playing cards. They could even make it an Olympic sport, so long as each player gets a gun and a knife because that's how it would be in a real game of poker with that kind of money involved.\nWhat kind of world do we live in when you can't even trust The Weather Channel to give you the weather? I guess watching The Weather Channel and expecting to get the weather is about as naive as watching CNN or Fox and expecting to get actual news. \nAnother program on The Weather Channel is called "Storm Stories." This show is about people telling real-life stories of bad storms. How about you give me a real storm story, Weather Channel: the one that's going on outside. If I want to see storm stories, I can watch the movie "Twister" or one of those storm-chaser shows. \nI'm sure The Weather Channel is just trying to boost its ratings a little bit. I mean, the channel is synonymous with boring. But weather is what it's supposed to cover. I just hope the next storm leaks rain through the studio ceiling and messes up its fake-looking weather girl's hair.
(11/14/06 1:10pm)
Large public institutions sometimes seem immune to controversy. In just this semester at IU-Bloomington, the Indiana Daily Student editorial board has highlighted the lack of a student vote on the General Education Committee, the many problems with Webmail, the lack of an undergraduate or Bloomington student representative in the IU presidential search and more. The response? Silence.\nThe IUPUI chapter of the Black Student Union can't let this happen to it, not if it is serious about a multicultural center, an African-American studies major and $78,000 to support campus initiatives. Two weeks ago, the Black Student Union gave the IUPUI an ultimatum: Provide the long-overdue resources listed above or face a lawsuit. The group's president, Dominic Dorsey, has since changed his approach, saying, "Dissatisfied minority students are not going to file a lawsuit" -- \nat least not immediately. \nAnd we agree with the Black Student Union on this, as a lawsuit is probably premature. Nevertheless, whether through petitions, demonstrations or editorials, students both at IUPUI and IUB need to make their voices heard by the IUPUI administration and officials of the IU system. \nIn response to the group's concerns, IUPUI officials have written that to "request for results is reasonable, and (they) are committed to working with (Dorsey) and with other fellow students, staff and faculty to respond." But the Black Student Union has rejected the administration's offer, calling it "unsatisfactory" and incomplete. Why? Dorsey explained to the IDS that the IUPUI administration "didn't properly outline a timeline to have all of their initiatives achieved, and they didn't address the issues of the cultural center or an African-American undergraduate studies degree or a definitive cultural initiative."\nAgain, we understand where Dorsey is coming from. Because the student body rotates so quickly, student organizations lack the institutional memory administrations have. Dorsey is already a senior, and the IUPUI administration might try to wait out the storm, banking that he will graduate and not be succeeded. This tactic has a well-proven track record in thwarting the demands of those student groups that are not sufficiently mobilized to achieve reforms quickly. \nHowever, there is no reason to believe that some proposed reforms could not be achieved quickly. A multicultural center might take a few years to build, but there seems little reason why an African-American studies major could not be arranged in the near future (we'd be very surprised if the faculty of IUPUI's African-American studies program put up a lot of resistance to offering a degree, for example). \nIndeed, IUPUI Black Student Union member Jocellyn Ford, a senior, indicated that the administration simply being involved in the organization's activities would be an improvement. \n"We don't see administrators at any of our educational functions, yet they are quick to go to the (Black Student Union) during one of our parties to make sure nothing's happening that's not supposed to be," she said. \nTomorrow is the administration's deadline, which the Black Student Union extended, to rethink its offer. If diversity is more than a word at IUPUI, the university will give the group's demands the full respect they deserve.
(11/14/06 5:06am)
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- The United Nations said Monday it has pledged about $77 million in personnel and equipment to help the overwhelmed African Union force in Darfur as Sudan blocks the world body from sending its own peacekeepers to the war-torn region.\nThe package includes military and police advisers, communications equipment and tools like night-vision goggles, said Hedi Annabi, the U.N. assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations. It will be given to the African Union as soon as possible.\nThe aid has been offered because of Sudan's refusal to allow a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur, Annabi told reporters.\n"That (willingness) is not there today (for a United Nations peacekeeping force), so in the meantime we are looking at ways in which we can move forward by reinforcing (the African Union Mission in Sudan) to enable it to go on with its tasks effectively," Annabi said.\nThe U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York said the Sudanese government initially agreed to allow the United Nations to provide the AU troops with a support package worth about $22 million. Annabi was able to secure the government's agreement to allow the rest of the $77 million aid package to go through in the last few days.\nAnnabi, who recently visited Sudan, said he will soon start discussions on another support package for the AU force, but he did not say how much that would be worth.\nAnnabi spoke after a meeting of the African Union, U.N. and Sudanese officials to discuss the deteriorating situation in Darfur with the AU's mandate due to expire on Dec. 31.\nThe U.N. Security Council voted in August to send more than 20,000 peacekeepers to Darfur to replace the ill-equipped and underfunded African Union force, but Sudan has rejected this.\nThe African Union currently has 7,000 troops in the violence-plagued region to monitor a shaky cease-fire signed earlier this year by the government and one rebel faction.\nThe announcement came as the U.N. reported nearly 40 civilian deaths in the last few days in attacks in Darfur by Arab militiamen -- some of whom were backed by Sudanese military vehicles.\nU.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the African Union also have invited representatives from the five permanent members of the Security Council, several African countries, the League of Arab States and the European Union to discuss the deteriorating situation in Darfur, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.\nDujarric said Annan would attend the meeting Thursday in Ethiopia, as would representatives from Sudan's government.\nThe African Union's peace and security commissioner Said Djinnit said the organization's peacekeeping mission needed even more donor support. Some pledged millions a few months ago, but little has been received, he said.\n"This is a matter of urgency," he said. "This ad hoc way of funding the mission is unsustainable."\nThe African Union force has been unable to curb violence in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced since the conflict began in February 2003, when ethnic African tribesmen took up arms against the Arab-led government in Khartoum.\nU.N. investigators and rights groups have blamed the worst atrocities on the Janjaweed, a pro-government militia that is widely accused of killing villagers and destroying their homes. The government denies supporting the militia.\n--Associated Press writer Justin Bergman at the United Nations contributed to this report.
(11/14/06 4:54am)
ROCHESTER HILLS, Mich. -- Indiana Pacers guard Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty Monday at his arraignment on a probation violation charge.\nMichigan prosecutors say Jackson violated his probation by allegedly firing a gun outside an Indianapolis strip club last month.\nJackson was serving probation after pleading no contest in September 2005 to misdemeanor assault and battery charges for his role in a 2004 brawl between Pacers players and fans at The Palace of Auburn Hills. He is charged in Indiana with felony criminal recklessness and misdemeanor counts of battery and disorderly conduct.\nJackson could face up to three months in jail if found guilty of violating the terms of his probation. His next court appearance in Michigan is scheduled for Jan. 26.\n"Feeling good, feeling good," Jackson said after his brief court appearance in Rochester Hills district court north of Detroit. "Just ready to get a workout in and get ready for our next game. That's my whole point: just getting back to basketball."\nPolice said Jackson fired a gun in the air at least five times during an Oct. 6 fight outside Club Rio. Jackson originally told police he fired the gun in self-defense, but Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Jackson retrieved his gun from his car and fired it before he was struck and injured by another car.\nDefense attorney James Burdick said Jackson had fully completed the terms of his 12-month probation earlier this year and therefore was not on probation at the time of his arrest in Indianapolis.\n"Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty because he is not guilty," Burdick said outside court. "He is doing great. He's a great guy who loves Indiana, loves the team, loves playing for the people of Indiana."\nHis trial is scheduled to start Jan. 8 in Indianapolis. The criminal recklessness charge carries a prison term of six months to three years.\n"Perhaps by the time of the violation (hearing), we'll know the outcome of that trial," Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor John Pietrofesa said.