The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for March 21st, 2007

Dupes or Frauds: My Conversations with Anti-War Protestors

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

This week I had several conversations with those who call themselves “peace activists” including those who set up a table in Wiekamp Hall. I have been shocked at the vacuity of the statements and arguments made by those claiming the mantle of “peace”. The conversations mostly consisted of the following:

Activist: Pull the troops out now!

Norton: If we pull the troops out now the millions of people like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani who threw their hat in with us will get their throats cut. To pull out now would be grossly irresponsible.

Activist: So why don’t you sign up for the military and go fight yourself?

Norton: [Noticing that the activist just dodged the argument and is now making it about me] I am a veteran and now medically I cannot go or I would but that is not the point. We have civilian control of our military and no American needs to serve in Iraq to have a voice in military policy. The only reason you said that is because you know that your argument has no merit and you are seeking to disqualify me from the debate, but since you are so into taking action, did you go to Iraq to be a human shield to try and stop the war?

Activist: What’s a human shield?

Activist: Why should we be over there fighting their civil war?

Norton: Because there is no civil war. There is some sectarian violence in Iraq that has been going on since the end of the Ottoman Empire but that is not a civil war. For the first time in Iraq there is an elected government that contains Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurdish parties that are working in a coalition government.

Activist: So what do you call the American Civil War; do you think that we can have a civil war and they cannot?

Norton: Our Civil War was real and not about sectarian violence, it was one government that became two and slugged it out. Such is not the case in Iraq. By the way, many say that the Clinton-ordered operation in Kosovo was and is a civil war. Yet I see no signs or protests about that and we are still there, but don’t tell me… since Clinton is a Democrat, he gets a pass right?

Activist: [dodging that question too] Look at the number of Americans who have died in Iraq.

Norton: By all means let’s [at this point I am getting aggravated because I can NEVER seem get one of these people to answer an inconvenient question or fact with any kind of real substance]. We have lost 3,000 Americans in Iraq over four years, in a country much larger than Germany. In comparison we lost 10,945 men on June 6th 1944 taking a beach, we lost 6,825 in the Battle of Iwo Jima; we lost over 620,000 in our Civil War. Speaking strictly in military terms considering the scale of the operation, this has been one of the least costly in the history of warfare. So why don’t you put those numbers on your display?

Activist: Even one person dying in a war is too many.

Norton: Any war?

Activist: Any war.

Norton: So by that rationale we should not have opposed Japan and Germany in WWII because if it costs just one life it is not worth it.

Activist: Well, that’s different.

Norton: Do you think that we should go into Darfur and stop the genocide there?

Activist: Yes [no activist I have asked has ever answered no to this question when I have asked it].

Norton: Well, if we went there way more than one person is certain to die.

Activist: Well, that’s different because innocent people are dying there.

Norton: Saddam was responsible for killing way more people than have died in Darfur, what makes Iraqis any less deserving of some kind of rescue [apparently Kurds and Marsh Arabs being wiped out is ok and it is only Africans that we should fight for]?

Activist: [dodging yet another tough one] We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Norton: Why?

Activist: Because Bush lied.

Norton: Are you saying that the President rigged the intelligence to get us into war?

Activist: That is exactly what he did.

Norton: Than how can you explain that almost every leader in the Democratic Party including
Hillary said that same thing about Saddam that Bush did well before he even ran for president? How do you explain that the UN, Egypt, Russia, France and so many other countries in the world said the same thing?

Activist: Bush lied.

Norton: Are you supporting Hillary for President?

Activist: Anyone but Bush [aha! I think we are finally getting somewhere].

Norton: What do you think Iran will do if we pull out too soon?

Activist: Why, Iran has nothing to do with Iraq [amazing that two out of the three I talked to said this].

Norton: Let me fill you in on what happens when we don’t finish the job. We didn’t finish the job in Korea and we let people like you get your way to stop the war before the job was done and now we have a North Korea that is a one-man nuclear psycho state where people go hungry.

Look at Vietnam where we gave peace a chance, didn’t finish the job, and divided the country in half. So what did the communists do? They reinvaded and killed 1 MILLION Vietnamese and 2 MILLION Cambodians.

Activist: We shouldn’t have been in those places either [hmmm, don’t tell the South Koreans that]!

Norton: So let me get this straight, stopping Germany and Japan when they try to take over by force is ok, but stopping Soviet-backed communists from doing the same thing that is wrong. Well at least it’s good to know where your true sympathies are.

Norton: So what do you think will happen if we pull out of Iraq now?

Activist: If we leave now everyone will happy and it will be fine [an odd position to take for someone who just tried to convince me that Iraq was in the middle of a horrible civil war].

Joshua Sparling, a disabled Iraq War veteran, attended a recent “peace protest” in Washington to try and tell them the good that is happening in Iraq. Says Sparling, “I think I saw more fingers that day than any in my life. At first they told me that it was all about the veterans and when I told them that I am a veteran then they told me to go back to Iraq and that I should have stayed there. For the most part there were people lining the fence screaming at us and trying to get at us. A group was waiting for us with clubs and tried to get at me and the police had to stop them from bull-rushing us on the sidewalk.”

The Vision reported that some IUSB Students joined a recent anti-war protest in Washington. One of the primary sponsors for the event was a group called United for Peace and Justice. A list of the groups that have joined together to make United for Peace and Justice is on their website, and here are some of the highlights.

Young Koreans United USA is an organization that supports Kim Jong-Il, the brutal North Korean dictator who starves his own people and has made a nuclear weapon in violation of treaty.

National Network on Cuba is another communist organization that supports Fidel Castro and his brutal regime. I wonder if his brother Raul, who is acting dictator, will let those librarians out of jail who dared to keep banned books.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Remember these guys? Members of this group had plans to assassinate Senators who supported the Vietnam War. They also featured “vets” who said that they had committed horrible war crimes in the name of the United States only to find out later that many of them had actually never served in the military.

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. This group is actively opposing a bill that would prohibit the United States from funding groups unless they break all ties with terrorists. No large anti-war protest is complete without a few anti-Semitic hate groups. The big protests often feature the most grotesque anti-Semitic displays I have ever seen. I have video from several of these protests that demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt. They will tell you that they aren’t anti-Semitic even though they profess much of the same propaganda as those who want Jews dead.

Here are more of the groups listed: Communist Party USA, Young Democratic Socialists of America, Young Communist League, Socialist Party USA, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, International Socialist Organization, Freedom Socialist Party and the Black Radical Congress.

Most of these groups have acted as apologists for the former Soviet Union and other communist regimes. These are the types of groups that make up United for Peace.
I ask you; was the USSR a regime that supported peace? Was Castro supporting peace when he slaughtered all of those who opposed him and was he anti-war when he invited nukes into Cuba? Were Pol Pot, who killed two million people, and Chairman Mao anti-war? Is Hugo Chavez a peaceful, anti-war guy? North Korea regularly threatens to wipe out South Korea and exports weapons of mass death to rogue regimes.

Are they anti-war or are they anti-American, anti-capitalism, and anti-freedom groups masquerading as peaceniks? They are doing what radical leftists often do. They exploit gender, race, economics, the environment, what ever it takes. This time they are using the war just like they did in Vietnam, as a political tool to defeat liberty because the United States is the bastion of liberty that threatens their centralized model of control and if you think that this is just my opinion then you had better think again.

Two women who have escaped Islamic terror and wrote books about their experiences have had much to say on this very subject.

Brigitte Gabriel – Author of “Because They Hate” stated, “They (the Democrats) are giving aid and comfort to our enemy and this should be considered treason. You should see how they are talking on the jihadist websites today. They are saying that they (Democrats) are defeatists; they will withdraw just like they did in Vietnam, just like they did in Lebanon and just like they did in Somalia; and this is the last message that we want to send to our enemy, that we are not united and that we are working against our government and against our President. Here we take one step forward and the Democrats take us ten steps backward….They (jihadists) were saying all along that the Democrats are our ally in the war against America and the Democrats just proved them right.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the best seller “Infidel”, said it succinctly. “It is easy to hate Bush because he is not going to come and cut your head off.”

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Israel, Leftist Hate in Action | 71 Comments »

Latin America Turning “Red” with Anger

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

Motivated by nationalistic pride, a sense of economic exclusion, and even anti-USA sentiment, a handful of South American countries are experiencing a dramatic political shift towards the left. Feeling disenfranchised by years of domination by rightist regimes, voters have granted an unprecedented mandate to these elected leftist leaders to veer their countries towards economic and social development.

The Tale of Two Lefts

Perhaps the strength of these new leaders lies on their ability to adapt the socialist model of their platforms to their own national conditions. In a continent of such cultural diversity and differences, the traits of a one-size-fits-all socialist doctrine simply cannot apply — if it aims at governing with at least minimal consensus. In an effort to garner this consensus, some regimes are being forced to appeal to the opposition for help, and the rate of compromising under which a leftist government is willing to operate has created a virtual socialist divide. On one side, moderate socialists like Chile’s Michelle Brachelet and Brazil’s Luis Inácio Lula da Silva have sought support from social democrats and right-centrists in their rise to power. On another, radical populists like Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez have banked on the discontent of the poor and downtrodden and their disdain for the elitist rich to solidify their leadership. While the ties that bind these regimes together are certainly pro-social reform, pro-education, and in favor of administering and controlling their natural resources, there are palpable differences between them.

The Centrist Approach

Still healing the wounds of Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet’s tyrannical and oppressive 17-year reign of terror, Chile elected left-centrist Michelle Brachelet to the country’s highest office. The first woman to ever ascend to that post, Brachelet defeated rightist billionaire businessman Sebastián Piñera in the 2006 presidential election runoff, and did so under the auspices of a coalition that included parties with very distinct political inclinations — albeit socialist in essence — like the Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democrat Radical Party. Promising widespread educational reform, better distribution of wealth, and free health care for the elderly, Brachelet has remained loyal to the socialist ideal that has been a part of her family since it was sent to exile following Pinochet’s coup d’état. Nevertheless, her support of free trade markets has drawn criticism from sectors of the economy and from fellow socialist presidents. As it stands, President Brachelet’s challenges run the gamut of socio-economical issues that oppress most of South America. Her success will reside on her ability to mobilize not only her opposing parties, but also the country as a whole.

Elected to the presidency of the largest Latin American nation in 2002 after three unsuccessful attempts, Brazil’s Luis Inácio Lula da Silva inherited the reins of a country disillusioned by four consecutive right and right-centrist governments that did a formidable job at steering the country away from military dictatorship, but did very little to resolve the ever-growing problem of social disparity. A former press operator who lost one of the fingers in his left hand while operating a lathe, President Lula ascended to power as ‘the candidate of the poor with a rhetoric marked by populist discourse and inflamed accusations against “the elites”. However, President Lula has quickly realized the difference between telling how things should be done and actually doing them: his promises of a clean and lean government have yet to be fulfilled, and he has been both praised and vilified by his constant reaching out to centrists in order to further his domestic policies. The Worker’s Party, the political entity that catapulted Lula into political prominence, has struggled with political scandals and accusations of betraying the ideals that made it a favorite with the poor. While Lula’s attempts at rallying both the left and the right around his plans for social reform are praiseworthy, the reluctance he has encountered from within his own party may pose as one of his greatest obstacles. And in the meantime, Brazil continues to be a country of contrasts and dichotomies: while it possesses the 10th largest GDP, no other country in the planet shows a more abysmal chasm between the “haves” and “have-nots”. Coupled with a stagnant economy — 2006 economic growth was second-to-last in all Latin America — President Lula will have to maneuver the country and the government machine with great resolve if he plans to leave any lasting impact in Brazil’s ability of overcoming its many woes.

Populist Demagogy

One of the poorest countries in Latin America, Bolivia became the latest entrant in the arena of socialist-bent nations when it elected Evo Morales to the presidency in 2005. Proclaiming himself the first-ever person of indigenous descent to become president (despite being himself a mestizo), the former coca farmer gained the support of other radical socialists such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro almost immediately when he fostered a nationalistic and populist approach in his presidential campaigning. This aroused the interest of voters in this mostly native nation and he won the 2005 election with an absolute majority of the votes. Despite a vast wealth of natural resources, especially hydrocarbons and natural gas, Bolivia has suffered through decades of rampant inflation and poverty caused by foreign exploitation and domestic corruption. As one of the first measures as newly-elected president, Morales made good of his promise to re-nationalize Bolivia’s natural resources by placing national troops inside all major foreign natural gas refineries while demanding re-negotiations in natural gas exploration contracts. Ironically, this measure placed President Morales at odds with yet another pro-leftist government: as Bolivia’s largest natural gas customer, Brazil’s state-owned Petrobrás saw several of its own Bolivian operating installations seized by the Morales regime and created a momentary impasse in the relations between both countries. Whether Morales initiatives to expropriate the exploration of natural gas will be advantageous to Bolivia in the long run, the decision to regain control of the nation’s natural gas production played squarely into Morales’ efforts to appeal to the indigenous part of the population, who for years suffered with misrepresentation and disenfranchisement.

No other figure in the current Latin American political sphere is as controversial as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Both persuasive and incendiary in his rhetoric, Chavez is a cunning, persuasive orator who masterfully orchestrates the media to further his socialist political agenda and to rally Venezuelans around his “anti-imperialist” discourse. His weekly TV talk show entitled Aló Presidente (think of a televised Fireside Chats to the sound of merengue while imbibing on aguardiente), his constant photo-ops with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Cindy Sheehan, and his regular condescending remarks towards President Bush and American foreign policy has placed him in a position of both admiration in infamy depending on who you ask. His admirers hail him as a liberator who will usher Venezuela to an era of economic self-sufficiency and progress. His detractors vilify him as a demagogue and Castrist communist who will eventually lead Venezuela into authoritarianism. Whatever the case may be, one thing cannot be denied: his skills as a politician have granted him some unique powers for a democratically elected president (he has campaigned in favor of allowing presidents to be reelected indefinitely, and in January of 2007 the Venezuelan congress has approved an act giving him the power to rule by decree for 18 months.). His landslide reelection in 2006 granted him a mandate and he plans to exercise this mandate while setting forth even more radical measures towards turning Venezuela into a de facto socialist country.

Overall, this shift towards the left is symbolic of a South American populace that has grown increasingly restless through years of rightist regimes that promised raising the standards of living and improved social policies but left them marred under what is widely perceived as the subjugation of capitalism — personified by U.S. foreign policy. Discontent ushers change, and in that aspect, this move towards socialism was almost inevitable. It is noteworthy that this shift has occurred by means of suffrage rather than arms, and this speaks volumes about the type of popular support enjoyed by these leftist regimes. In a region that is characterized by extremes — extreme poverty, extreme social inequality, extreme wealth imbalance — it was only a matter of time until these issues came to a head. South America is a hotbed emergent market, which will continue to attract foreign investment in various sectors of their economy. Whether these socialist regimes, radical or otherwise, will be able to capitalize on this emergence for the common good remains to be seen.

Ed Hellig

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | 6 Comments »

Focus on the Thinking

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

Recently, there was a media bonanza over Vice President Cheney’s refusal to respond to Focus on the Family’s opposition to the pregnancy of his openly lesbian daughter. While strong arguments have been made on both sides of this issue, one crucial element seems to have gone under the radar: not what but how that initial opposition was made. While the general public can spend their time debating on the Vice President, a student community could do well to discuss how we create arguments and how we justify them. It’s not about conception. It’s about conceptualization

On December 12, Time Magazine printed an article by Dr James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, titled “Two Mommies Is One Too Many” (,9171,1568485-1,00.html).

In it, it is stated that “Mary Cheney is starting a family. Let’s hope she doesn’t start a trend.” The article starts off with careful footing, politely trying to distance the issue from politics, and then quotes “30 years of social-science evidence”, an educational psychologist, and a book by a faculty member of the Yale Medical School. The research goes in support of the necessity of both mother and father in a healthy family environment. At this point, the article seems to be well-supported, and most importantly seems to place the welfare of children at the forefront.

If one is truly open-minded, whether one is straight or gay, it does at least give the common ground that this is an issue worth further study. I personally have considered one day being a single parent by way of adoption, and it would be selfish of me to not consider opinions that single-parenthood might not be the best for the child. So, thus far it merits a pause for thought. But within ten seconds from that moment, Dobson effectively sabotaged his own position. Apparently, three-quarters of a page is giving someone just enough rope. In a switch to fifth gear, Dobson says, “Traditional marriage is God’s design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth.”

Take that, Congress with your less-than-100 word resolution. That’s Focus on the Family with less than 15.

For someone who once enjoyed listening to short, warm, carefully-selected weekly radio segments by Dobson back in Malaysia, this was a disappointing development. If it isn’t already obvious, one cannot base an argument on one’s personal religious beliefs when it openly aims to change public policy. It sets a remarkably dangerous precedent of discrimination. If there is one thing Christian about the issue, it is to do onto others as you would want others to do onto you, and I doubt that anyone would want someone else to dictate choices based on his/her religious beliefs.

There will be those who say that, well, this is a democratic country and if the majority decides to employ biblical values into public policy, that is their choice and their right. The response is simple: that a democracy can not only be about pleasing majorities, but the protection of minorities as well. That is a stance that has been made against other countries, most obviously those under fundamentalist Islam. You cannot argue if adherents wish to practice any fundamentalist religion. But you can say quite a bit if they force it upon the minorities, or against any other people. As psychologist Wafa Sultan once said in that debate, “Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me.”

Dobson’s base on a “divine plan” placed all the points raised by previously referenced research down the drain. Even if that research was valid, it showed that Focus on the Family just doesn’t have the credibility to view research without bias. As it turns out, two of the researchers later voiced their opinion that their research was skewed in Dobson’s assertions. It also casts doubt as to whether the issue of child welfare is being used for a religious agenda.

The real “untested and far-reaching social experiment” is not Mary Cheney’s pregnancy. Nor is it her father’s choice to not speak on the issue. What it is, is the way, the mental process in which we form arguments, and the minorities we trudge on when we do so. In less one week, CNN brought up the plight of two of these: first, the homosexual community whom hip-hop artist Deadlee said that “it’s the one group of people that still it’s ok for people to hate”.

Actually, that’s unfortunately not entirely accurate – as CNN later reported on the second discriminated minority group: atheists. The real virtue of democracy must be that citizens do not all have to belong to either of these minorities – and by definition they do not – in order to believe in the protection of minorities. CNN did it in one week. James Dobson did the opposite in the space of ten seconds. Five if you speed read.

Religion can be a remarkable thing, and the Bible can be an effective personal guide for Christians, just as the Torah, Quran and the various Buddhist texts are for the faithful of other religions. It is only a fringe of any religion that indeed does throw stones, as it were, but they often have the most visibility. In my opinion, James Dobson’s article is one such example. To use the Bible as an instrument of concept enforcement, so to speak, tends to preach to the choir, alienate the rest, give a misunderstanding of the acceptance in Christianity, and invite others to find ways to skew the Bible in backlash. I met one such person recently who said that, “They call me a heathen, so I find ways to use their book against them.” An unfortunate position, and an unhealthy perspective, but one borne not of a vacuum, but out of discrimination. On the other hand, it has been rightly pointed out to me that the challenge for those on the other side is not to brand Christianity simply because of any individual, like James Dobson. Or for that matter, any religion based on any individual voice. The challenge for religious moderates is to distance themselves from the “heathen”-brander extreme and by doing so, help to heal rifts.

Should there be a focus on the children? Sure. That’s what public policy is for. Should there be biblical discussions? Absolutely. That’s what churches are for. But when in the public arena of social issues, let there be a focus on thinking about how we form our assertions, and whether we can do so without unfairly marginalizing others. And that should be what universities are for. It makes me sigh when I recall that James Dobson has a doctorate. And here I was, never thinking I’d miss Malaysian radio.

Andrew Filmer

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | 52 Comments »

President-elect Addresses IUSB

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

  Dear Colleagues:      Last week, the Trustees of IU provided one of the greatest honors of my life when they appointed me the 18th president of our university. To walk in the footsteps of IU’s remarkable leaders is an enormous privilege. I welcome this challenge and will dedicate my heart and mind to leading this great institution.     My vision for IU’s future is that it will emerge as one of the best universities of the 21st century. But this will not be easy. We face vigorous global competition for the best faculty, students and professional staff; reduced federal funding for research; change within the state, nation and world; and seriously constrained financial resources.

     However, these challenges should not discourage us. We have every reason to set our sights high and work hard to achieve our aspirations. We have every reason to believe that we can reach our goals for expanded research and creative activity right across the board, increased internationalization and diversity, a renewed commitment to IU’s great arts and humanities programs, and a blossoming of the Indiana Life Sciences Initiative. We have every reason to believe we can enable all of our campuses to achieve their full potential.     
I am fully aware that I cannot implement this vision alone.  Doing so will require the cooperation of dedicated staff members such as yourselves.
      From the gardeners who tend our beautifully landscaped grounds to the registrars who record our students’ progress toward their degrees to the vice chancellors and vice presidents who make our budgets work, IU is the remarkable place it is because our staff give a 100% effort to their jobs each and every day.

I look forward to working with you when I take office July 1, and I welcome your perspective on how we can make IU an even stronger and better institution. I invite you to visit my Website at and to share your comments with me by writing to With all best wishes,Michael A. McRobbie


Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | Leave a Comment »

Microsoft Office 2007 Now Available Free on Campus

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

As some of you may already know, Microsoft has recently debuted both their new operation system Windows Vista and office management software Microsoft Office 2007.

As one would expect, Vista has had mixed reviews ranging from tolerable to worse. Microsoft Office, however, has been having good reviews from users both around campus and in the blogging community. Thanks to Indiana University’s IU Ware I have had the opportunity to delve into their newest release of their Office software, which works with both Windows XP and Vista.

I have chosen to review both Microsoft Word and Excel because they are the most widely used within the Office package both on campus and nation-wide.

The first noticeable difference in both Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Excel 2007 is the removal of the standard file menu in the upper left hand corner of the interface. No longer are options categorized into sub-menu options such as File, Tools or Insert. Instead, tabs point to the most relevant tools associated with a particular type of document one is editing. For example, the Home tab contains clipboard, font, paragraph and styling options while the Insert tab contains page, table, illustration, links, header and footer, text and symbol options. These functions are located in a great looking horizontal bar about an inch and a half tall using small graphics for each. The other tabs that exist include Page Layout, References, Mailings, Review and View.

Although it is inconvenient to re-learn the location of all these tools, their new locations eventually become both intuitive and comfortable. Overall the software is simply Microsoft Word 2003 and Microsoft Excel 2003 with a new interface and smarter auto-formatting. One downside that occurs with any new release of software is the lack of backwards compatibility with new saves. As a positive note to this, they both give you the option of saving as a ‘97 – 2003 Document’. I wouldn’t go out and purchase the new copy of Office 2007 at the retail price, but if you are a campus student I’d recommend jumping on IU Ware and download Office Enterprise Edition at no cost. Windows Vista is estimated to hit IU Ware in the summer of this year.

Craig Chamberlin

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | 1 Comment »

Celebrating Women’s History

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

It’s time to celebrate the women who have made American history. March is National Women’s History Month, and this year’s theme is “Generations of Women Moving History Forward.”
March was first implemented as Women’s History Month when the National Women’s History Project (NWHP) petitioned Congress in 1987 to expand what had previously been a week-long celebration of women’s history, according to the NWHP website.
The National Women’s History Project promotes training and education for educators, parents, and other organizations regarding the achievements of women throughout history.
The following four women, while only a few out of the thousands that could have been chosen, have made groundbreaking contributions to American history. We honor them and celebrate the achievements of all women, who have helped to make America great.

Harriet Tubman

Harriet Tubman was a “conductor” on the Underground Railroad. Her biography on the PBS website states “during a ten-year span she made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom…she never lost a single passenger.”
By 1856, Tubman had a $40,000 price on her head, and still continued her tireless work to end the slavery of the “travelers” she helped. She was, as John Brown said, “one of the bravest persons on this continent.”

Sandra Day O’Connor

“Society as a whole benefits immeasurably from a climate in which all persons, regardless of race or gender, may have the opportunity to earn respect, responsibility, advancement, and remuneration based on ability.”
Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female Supreme Court Justice in September, 1981, and spent her days on the court fighting for the values she espoused above.
Justice O’Connor was often admired for her ability to compromise, and while she often voted conservatively, she had the propensity to be fiercely independent on issues about which she felt strongly. She retired from the bench on July 1, 2005 after twenty four years of service.

Sally Ride

Dr. Sally Ride became the first American woman to orbit the Earth in the space shuttle Challenger, as a mission specialist in the astronaut corps. According to her biography on the NASA website, Ride was among over 8000 applicants to the space program that year, of which 35 were accepted and six were women.
Dr. Ride attended Stanford University, where she earned a B.A. in English and a B.S. in Physics; she then went on to receive a Master’s degree and a Doctorate in Physics.
Since 1989, Ride has been a member of the University of California at San Diego faculty, and serves as head of the California Space Institute.

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | Leave a Comment »

Addressing Charges of Plagiarism

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

Recently, on our weblog, incidents of plagiarism were brought to the attention of the Vision editorial staff. We took these claims seriously and conducted an in-house investigation into the claims.
The articles in question were turned over to the University and informal hearings took place to determine what plagiarism took place and what disciplinary actions were to take place. The Vision editorial staff has left the disciplinary actions to the University, but we have accepted the resignation of one writer.
We must address some of the claims that were made about our editor on the weblog. First, a claim was made that it was entirely the fault of the editor that plagiarism took place. While, we will admit that we could have been more diligent by using the Google search on every single sentence, such a request is unreasonable. Using the Google search on the first sentence of the articles did not reference the original source.
Secondly, there is a matter of trust. With the success of the Vision, many of our readers forget that we are just a student club. We are a student club and all our writers are volunteers. We count on our readers to help hold us accountable when an issue of plagiarism surfaces. We would like to personally thank one ambitious blogger named “Sam” who caught the errors.
As we had no knowledge that plagiarism was taking place, we can only be judged by how we handled the situation.
As soon as the allegations were made we began researching the claims. The evidence presented was overwhelming and the writer admitted to his mistake. The matter was then turned over to the University.
We met with Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Karen White to find out what precautions we can take to monitor articles more closely. We are working with Vice Chancellor White to put in further safeguards to keep this from happening. For example we will now have access to the software the university uses to catch plagiarism. We are also planning to put together a class on plagiarism for all who want to attend, including our writers.
We are setting the record straight by citing the original sources on our weblog. All sources for the articles that we have found to have been copied are available there. The participation of our readers, whether they agree with our publication or not, continues to help us in our endeavor to serve the IUSB community. We enjoy the free exchange of ideas and political banter that takes place on our weblog. Having many people on polar ends of the political spectrum helps in accountability.
We want to express our gratitude to Vice Chancellor White for assisting us in this maelstrom. We all must remember that the university is a place for learning. Many times, learning comes through making mistakes. When one falls off the horse, the only course of action is getting back on the horse and on the path. With the benefit of learning from the paths we have travelled, we at the Vision will continue to do our best in forging new ones ahead.

The Vision Editorial Staff

Social Spending

The Bush Economy is Failing Poor Families

Recent Report Gives Hope for Fixing Global Warming

Will Congressional Democrats Raise the Minimum Wage?

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | 2 Comments »

From the President’s Pen

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

Fellow Students:

Welcome back, I hope everyone had a great Spring Break. I wanted to tell all students about the Alternative Spring Break program that was put on by the Office of Student Life. It is a wonderful program that has operated in the last two years. It is a program where students have an opportunity to spend their spring break helping others. In the case of the last two years, ASB has helped to rebuild Biloxi, MS from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is the kind of selfless act made by those who truly commit to giving, and I wanted to send a big THANK YOU to all those who attended this year and to all of those who helped to contribute to make this program possible. It is truly a life changing experience, as I learned from going on the 2006 trip. I encourage all students to give back, or get involved in a program like this at least once in your college career.
Get on the Bus was a huge success and I thank all of the students, staff, faculty, administrators and alumni who attended the event. This is another great program that all IUSB students should attend as much as they can. Get on the Bus is a annual February trip to the Indiana State House to lobby for support and funding towards IU South Bend. It is a great time and I wanted to let you know that our efforts are paying off. The latest update I have is that 27 million was passed in the House budget to fund the renovations of our Associates Building on campus. The budget is now in the Senate for decisions. I know that our efforts produced a record-setting attendance this year, which certainly helped us to succeed, We will remain diligent until we have the funding fully passed and signed. I will keep you updated as things go along.
The Student Government Association Elections are around the corner in April and I to encourage you to apply and during the next few weeks there are flyers, posters, and chalked sidewalks poster, encouraging you to get involved in your government. The last two years have been a wonderful experience. Student Government is a way to get involved in Student Life, leading the way with volunteer trips like Alternative Spring Beak, and Get on the Bus. There are positions all through our Student Government for all people with interest. Last year the race was not so competitive in the Senate, contrary to the previous few years when there were up to 33 people running for 12 Senate seats. It is because of the importance of the tremendous responsibility of the Student Government Association, as well as the great opportunity it is, that I will be pushing for as many to get involved and to run in the election this year as possible. If anyone is interest in information please contact me at . I would be happy to help you get started.
Finally, I wanted to let everyone know that the SGA Budget Committee will be presenting the Student Activity Fee budget on March 23rd at the 4pm SGA meeting is in room SAC 225. This is where students, and anyone interested can see how their Activity Fee gets disbursed.

Marcus Vigil
SGA President

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | Leave a Comment »

The Cultural Stigma of “Wait”

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

Piles of snow walls start melting, warm wind blows, and flowers bloom. “For a fresh start, meet somebody new!” says a dating service advertisement and “People need to fall in love in spring!” says Geoffrey Chaucer. Maybe because of our genetics and our culture, spring is considered the “love” season.
If you are a man, you may look online at social places such as Facebook, Myspace, etc and you fantasize a perfect date with the ideal woman. Through the social spaces, you may have a selfish, one-sided communication about “love.” You may enjoy dating games and when you find a woman you get along with you may ask her out. However, if you are a woman, can you ask for a date with your “cute guy” or must you “wait” until he asks you out?
If a woman asks a guy out, people may think that she is aggressive. Some people may think that she is desperate and she needs the help of dating services such as eHarmony. Your friends may say, “Be patient. Wait until he comes.” Why do women always have to wait?
The idea of “women” and “waiting” may be the creation of cultural myths. The women may be victims of popular culture over centuries and centuries. Sleeping Beauty waited for Prince Charming for a hundred years while she just slept. If it really happens in our society, the beauty definitely becomes an uninteresting, dry, female mummy. In Victorian novels, main female characters always wait for their Mr. Right by overcoming emotional conflicts and eventually find true love. Even in twenty-first century TV shows like Sex and City, a successful modern woman waits for “Mr. Big” to hurt her fragile heart.
“Woman” and “wait” seem to be programmed in our brains. But if the women cannot be patient, what do they do? They may screw up every relationship because she may be “pushy” by moving towards a commitment too fast. Men seem to dislike this and lose interest in the woman. Again, the women cannot go against the universal rule of “wait.” The women have to wait until the men come with commitment.
Through the process of learning this rule, women may have a difficult time understanding what they need from their relationships. Experiences are very important to have in order to maintain ideal relationships, but those experiences may hurt. Step by step, women may be closer and closer to their perfect relationships. Even though some relationships hurt, close friends always heal broken hearts. Men may come and go, but friends and chocolates are forever, so think about the calories later.

Naoko Fujimoto

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | 1 Comment »

IUSB Wants Your Feedback on the Chancellor

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

President Adam Herbert appointed a committee in February of this year to conduct the five year review of Chancellor Una Mae Reck. The committee is chaired by F. C. Richardson, Chancellor Emeritus of IU Southeast. Other members of the committee are listed below.
The committee held its first meeting on March 5th to organize the review. President Herbert has asked us to complete the review before his terms ends on June 30th. A job description for the IU South Bend Chancellor is on General Reserve in the Schurz Library and may be viewed at any time during this process.
Opportunity will be provided for everyone on campus, alumni, and selected community leaders to have input into the review of Chancellor Reck. A confidential electronic survey will be made available in the coming weeks. Please complete the survey within the prescribed period of time in order to ensure your input into the review via this method. The Survey Research Center at IUPUI will distribute, collect and analyze the surveys and provide a report to the committee.
In addition, you will have the opportunity to share evaluative comments with the committee concerning the Chancellor’s performance. All written comments must be signed, in accordance with Board of Trustees policy guidelines for the review of chancellors. Unsigned statements cannot be considered by the review committee.
Finally, the committee has set aside April 9th-20th for individual interviews with members of the committee to provide verbal input into the process. The review committee will create small teams to conduct the scheduled interviews.
Please contact Marian Zuehlke at 520.4344 or to schedule an interview with a committee interview team.

Chancellor’s Review
Committee members:
Gretchen Anderson
Durleen Braasch
Cora Breckenridge
Nancy Colborn
Mark Eagan
Micheline Nilsen
F. C. Richardson, Chair
P. N. Saksena
Cynthia Sofhauser
Marcus Vigil
Julie Williams

Article Contributed by:
Chancellor Review

Posted in Vol. 3 Archives | Leave a Comment »