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 the ‘Volume 4, Issue 3’ Category

Volume 4, Issue 3 Game Page Answers

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

If you would like to see the solutions to the fun and games section of Volume 4, Issue 3 simply click the image below.

Thanks for playing!

Posted in Game Page Answers, Volume 4, Issue 3 | Leave a Comment »

Welcome to the U.S., Mahmoud. Now Go Away.

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

By the time you read this, one of the most catastrophic blunders in the history of US diplomacy and homeland security will have taken place. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the Iranian president who for years has been one of the most outspoken and vitriolic enemies of the United States, will have been allowed to enter American soil to address the United Nations General Assembly. And while the UN is technically not considered American sovereign territory, I’m sure Mr. Ahmedinejad will go for a stroll through the streets of New York City to grab a bite to eat at some of their world-renowned delis, while being guarded by dozens of Secret Service agents — paid for by the graces and auspices of American taxpayers to provide security for a man who hates this country with every breath he can muster.

To add insult to injury, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been invited by Columbia University in New York to deliver a speech as part of their World Leaders Forum, addressing faculty and students alike. The university, under the guise of academic integrity and freedom, thumbs their nose at America in a despicable elitist demonstration of disrespect that boggles the mind and defies logic. In a town with such a large Jewish community such as New York, the man who claims that the holocaust was “a myth” and wishes Israel was “wiped off the map” is received with open arms by the intellectual pseudo-elites of that magnificent brick-and-mortar monument to moral relativism.

It may sound strange to some of you, but I actually defend Columbia’s decision to allow Ahmedinejad to speak. No – defend is perhaps too strong a word. It implies that I have a vested commitment in some level to their decision, which I do not. My position is more of indifference than support, of ‘un-amusement’ than outrage. The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming barrage of leftist rhetoric that oozes from academia nowadays demonstrates their complete and utter disregard for the morals and worldview of the majority of Middle-America, which they despise for their lack of finesse and acculturation. To somehow demand that they uphold our national interest in a higher degree would be an exercise in futility. So the outcry is that Columbia University should cancel Ahmedinejad’s appearance and listen to the voice of common sense on the issue. My reply is, they have yet to behave in such a way, so why start now?

But not all ears are shut to the voices of reason: the NYPD Chief of Police has warned Ahmedinejad that he is not welcome to pay a visit to Ground Zero, which the Iranian president had planned to do. Even more defiantly ironic was Ahmedinejad’s plan to lay a wreath of flowers at the site. I believe I am not alone in saying this, but the world will be a better place when a wreath of flowers lays over Ahmedinejad’s grave.

Ed Lima

Posted in Ed Lima, Israel, Volume 4, Issue 3 | 5 Comments »

Petraeus Report: A Military and Political Equation

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

The report that the country has been waiting for has arrived. General Petraeus has made his report and item number on his list- the surge is working, the military objectives have been met. General Petraeus reported that attacks and civilian deaths are down, and it is because of the surge. His report also stated that the military would be able to reduce the troop force levels to pre-surge levels by late summer next year. Two thousand troops will begin to come home from Iraq by the end of this month.  The main decrease will start in January. What are the areas of improvement in Iraq? Not military objectives, but political objectives and political stability.

The government is in a paralytic state, unable to govern itself effectively due in large part to the relations, or lack thereof between Sunni and Shiite’s. This is something we have been hearing about for some time, it seems that strong leadership and compromise between these two groups is the only answer. A summary of the most important part of the report, the military is doing great, they are achieving their objectives, but General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker need more time to assess the political side of the equation.

Reactions to this report have been mixed. I would like to think that the majority of Americans would feel good about hearing that the surge is working, and that the military has been very successful, it’s just the political side of the equation that needs more work. Still this positive news did not stop the group and the New York Times from attempting to turn this into a failure for America. As General Petraeus was presenting his report last week printed an ad in the New York Times portraying Petraeus as General “Betray Us”.  This was a gross and disgusting act by this group.

Here is how it should be, this is America- disagree with whoever you want. Intellectual debate is what it is all about. We all have opinions, and we all see the world differently. My point is that disagreeing with the General’s assessment is one thing, but slandering him and questioning his integrity is another. I am humbled by the service of all the men and women in our armed forces past and present.  Those who serve have my respect, gratitude, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. Those who attack anyone who served in our armed forces (like deserve nothing and should be regarded as the scum of society.

In an attempt to ad injury to insult, the New York Times assisted post the ad by cutting the price of the ad by more than half.  The New York Post reported, “A spokesman for confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad – a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.” This was no surprise, the New York Times has a political agenda and they are very blunt about it. They are so far left that the majority of their editorials cannot be trusted. I truly believe in our armed forces, I have friends and family currently serving and I will not waste my time reading garbage that mocks them. I hope you all do the same.

As should be expected the Senate voted to condemn the ad with a 72-25 vote. It is interesting to note that Senator Clinton and Dodd voted against this measure, while Obama and Biden did not vote.  Republican Presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Sam Brownback joined every other Republican senator in condemning the advertisement. I read this as Clinton and Obama showing their true colors. Clinton supports the left wing of the Democratic Party more than the military and Obama trying to use the same strategy that helped him with the original vote to support the Iraq war, not having made a vote at all.

In the end it is uplifting to see that America’s military has once again succeeded. Let’s all just pray and hope that the political environment can catch up. It is also good to see some of America’s finest be able to come home and enjoy some much deserved rest. Expect to hear more in March 2008 as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker return for an update from Iraq. 

Marcus Vigil

Posted in Marcus Vigil, Volume 4, Issue 3 | Leave a Comment »

Throw the Bums Out!

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

Last summer we saw the American people rise up and put an end to the amnesty bill that was up before Congress. The overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats polled made it clear that most people did not want amnesty for illegal aliens. After that long battle, “our betters” in Washington D.C. have been trying to sneak amnesty back into various bills.

The latest attempt is with a bill called “The Dream Act”. This bill would allow an illegal alien, no matter how old, to claim without verification that they have been in the country since they were 16. If they signed up to go to college they would get a temporary immigration card and after two years that card is eligible to become permanent. The obvious problem is that someone could have walked across the border yesterday and today claim that they have been here since they were 16. The result would be more waves of people crossing our border illegally. This would also allow those same illegal aliens to receive subsidized in-state tuition rates.

According to Kris W. Kobach, Professor of Law at the University of Missouri, this amnesty works in four main ways:
There is no upper age limit. Any illegal alien can walk into a U.S. Customs and Immigration Ser­vices office and declare that he is eligible. For example, a 45 year old can claim that he illegally entered the United States 30 years ago at the age of 15.

  • There is no requirement that the alien prove that he entered the United States at the claimed time by providing particular documents. The DREAM Act’s Section 4(a) merely requires him to “demonstrate” that he is eligible—which in practice could mean simply making a sworn statement to that effect. Thus, it is an invitation for just about every illegal alien to fraudulently claim the amnesty.
  • The alien then has six years to adjust his status from a conditional green card holder to a non-conditional one. To do so, he need only complete two years of study at an institution of higher edu­cation. If the alien has already completed two years of study, he can convert to non-conditional status immediately (and use his green card as a platform to bring in family members). As an alternative to two years of study, he can enlist in the U.S. military and spend two years there. This provision allows Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to claim that the DREAM Act is somehow germane to a defense authorization bill.
  • An illegal alien who applies for the DREAM Act amnesty gets to count his years under “condi­tional” green card status toward the five years needed for citizenship. (Section 5(e)) On top of that, the illegal alien could claim “retroactive benefits” and start the clock running the day that the DREAM Act is enacted. (Section 6) In combi­nation, these two provisions put illegal aliens on a high-speed track to U.S. citizenship—moving from illegal alien to U.S. citizen in as little as five years. Lawfully present aliens, meanwhile, must follow a slower path to citizenship.
  • It would be absurdly easy for just about any ille­gal alien—even one who does not qualify for the amnesty—to evade the law. According to Section 4(f) of the DREAM Act, once an alien files an application—any application, no matter how ridiculous—the federal government is prohib­ited from deporting him. Moreover, with few exceptions, federal officers are prohibited from either using information from the application to deport the alien or sharing that information with another federal agency, under threat of up to a $10,000 fine. Thus, an alien’s admission that he has violated federal immigration law cannot be used against him—even if he never had any chance of qualifying for the DREAM Act amnesty in the first place.

These repeated attempts to buck the will of the American people have me totally fed up with both parties. The parties simply don’t respect the will of the people and now they are trying to sneak things passed and hope we are not looking. Enough is enough; it is time for a purge of both political parties to get some new blood in D.C. The latest approval polls put Congress at 11% which is the lowest in recorded history so they claim. Throw the bums out.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Chuck Norton, Volume 4, Issue 3 | 32 Comments »

Dear Chuck Norton: A Reader’s Response

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

Dear Chuck,

It is unfortunate that your “editorial” opened with commentary concerning an incident that was an attack on an unfortunate fellow male’s ego, (Who was this poor unfortunate fellow? You? Maybe?) by a decidedly “uncivil” act perpetrated by an obviously immature, poorly educated, ill mannered, egocentric, young “lady” ( “young” is an assumption, since I cannot imagine a mature women acting like this, and “lady” is used in deference to the over used description of a female dog usually embraced by these so-called ladies ).

Chuck you asked, “What is it with so many people today?” I guess maybe the answer is whether you only see the ones like the aforementioned young lady or the ones who unlike her go out of their way to be nice to their fellow human beings. I would prefer that we see and hear about those whom return smiles and have a nice thing to say to the clerks at the local super market, or to passersby on the sidewalks of campus. Then again that was not the intent of your editorial now was it? No your editorial became a rant against the so-called left-wing. A description used to label any person who is not in line with the ideologies of the right-wing activists.

You use the word “tolerant”, a blatant dig at those whom you call left-wing activists, when you make the claim that, “…the more “tolerant” among us repeatedly vandalized it.” “It” being the College Republican display board. You have made an assumption that only those with left leanings would “defile” the said board, the implication being that a “heavy” burden was put upon the College Republicans. I do not know what was done to the board but your “vandalism” may have been the perpetrator’s version of the “right to free speech”, a tenet of the U.S. Constitution the “Vision” rightfully spoke up about and defended in its first edition. I in no way condone vandalism of a destructive nature but if a specific branch of the so-called left-wing were to acquire their own display board I am sure they would have to put up with “extremists” of the right-wing “vandalizing” it.

Chuck you then spoke to us about the “hate mail” you receive that spews, “…a litany of warm and fuzzies…” and “…the myriad of colorful metaphors…” WAHH!! (read here’s your pacifier). I don’t want to read about your whining because people are sending you hate mail, if you continue to write exclusively right leaning dogma expect those who disagree with you to write emails full of vitriol back. What I care about is the infinite number of email that piles up in my “spam” file of Viagra ads, Nigerian scam lotteries and the like. Why doesn’t somebody filter these before they get into my email files? My Yahoo account does not seem to have a problem doing that? Oh, and by the way, isn’t suspending the posting privileges of any person to the Vision a form of restricting their right to free speech? (I know, I know I’m arguing semantics here.)

It was unfortunate that your editorial became a rant against the media and even though you did not come out and say it, the “liberal” media. Right, Chuck? I noted this at your displeasure of the awarding of a Pulitzer to the AP. You stated, that an AP reporter was only a few feet away from the murder of three Iraqi election workers by insurgents. Before I am willing to fully accept your version of the events described I would have like to know your source for the information that the AP was tipped off and were in complete safety. You imply that the AP reporter should have done something to prevent the atrocity, but you did not say what it was he should have done. Should they have alerted the U.S. military to the actions of the insurgents? As a journalist, are you saying if you were in that particular reporters position you would have alerted the military? Do we know the full story about the how’s and why’s the reporter did not tip off the military? You mentioned previously that newspapers, “argued in a lively manner as to why their point of view was correct and the other papers were wrong.” Resulting in the, “average citizen that was exposed to debate…with an applied critical thinking process…” Then you expect me to take at face value your displeasure of the actions of a AP reporter. Where’s the other side of the story?

Chuck and in an almost ironic twist, your last narrative is about a professor who was censured by Ashland University where he was employed because of his work, writings, etc. related to his research concerning objectivism. But yet you expound about the suspension of the posting privileges of a professor on this campus. (I know, I know we have already gone here.)

Chuck if you must rant about the “wonderful” life of the right-wing, do not couch it in an article supposedly about the incivility of society. Society is not uncivil albeit there are individuals within society whom are uncivil and as such do need to be reported, reprimanded, etc. by their fellow human beings and they must be reminded that we are a community of people and as  such

“C’mon people now 
Smile on your brother   
Ev’rybody get together
Try to love one another right now Right now, right now.”
– Youngbloods
Or is that too liberal for ya?

Rick Kiefer

For the record and in the interests of full disclosure there is no Rick Kiefer enrolled at IUSB this school year – IUSBVision

Posted in Contributors, Volume 4, Issue 3 | 10 Comments »

Do Not Be Ashamed, Your Faith is Taboo.

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

Faith in the 20th century carries with it a strong degree of shame. This is not only implied in the medium of the Christian faith. The notion of a higher being has become a terribly uncomfortable topic to discuss. The seriousness of this cannot be emphasized enough. The existence or non-existence of God is very important to each individual; it can be the crux of an individual’s entire existence. 

Let us evaluate for a moment the question “Does God exist?” It is a complex question and has been asked in the entirety of human history, yet is rarely discussed even with best friends and family. If the answer to the question is “Yes” then some new questions will need to be asked. Who is this God? What does he want? Why did he make us? What happens when we die?  Does he judge us? Does he care what we do at all? If the questions are not asked, then one cannot possibly live their life according to the one who created it. To never know the one who created man may have eternal consequences. That is, of course, if the answer to the question was “Yes”.

The issue, really, is that exploration of personal faith is dead. If it is not dead, it is extremely taboo. If an individual is exploring their faith it should be celebrated. Questions should be freely and happily answered and received. After all, the answer to such a question has the capacity to change a person’s life forever. Christians who scoff at those reading or attempting to understand their faith and others do not remember where they once were. At any given point in life, a Christian can doubt the accuracy and truths of the Christian faith. This is typically the process of exploring faith: one faces trials, they get questions or doubt, then they look for answers and the answers should hold true over time. If the answers do not hold true, then one must re-evaluate where the answers came from or perhaps explore the answers further. If we as Christians believe our faith to be the truth, then we ought to have faith that those truly looking for the truth will find it in Christ. When we do not, our lack of faith tends to intervene with God’s work.

More often than not the Christian believes they are in the business of saving people. What is easily forgotten is God is the one who saves. Perhaps it is better illustrated that Christ is in the business of salvation and Christians are simply his employees. The Christian does not create the product; he simply learns all he can to explain what it is and does his best to use it himself. Many times they need to return to the manual and the business owner for more information. If people see the product results in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness… (Galatians 5:22), they will find far more interest in it, and be more inclined to seek out the business owner to get it for themselves. The Christian represents God in everything they do. Because of the human condition, many times this results in shame and poor representation. No longer should one be ashamed if they possess questions about faith.  Take comfort in knowing they have been asked for thousands of years.

Craig Chamberlin

Posted in Craig Chamberlin, Volume 4, Issue 3 | Leave a Comment »

Simply Sydney: Is it Worth Losing A Friend?

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

Recently, a friend and I were hanging out and discussing what is going on around town and she mentioned that one of her friends had recently com out, acknowledging, accepting, and appreciating one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. After giving this topic so thought I decided to look into maintaining relationships after a friend comes out.

The first step is for people to remember that, in actuality, very little has changed. The person has not mutated into an unrecognizable form. The only difference is that now more information is known about the friend. Also consider that your friend has just admitted something very personal to you. They, obviously, felt as though they could trust you with this information and that you would not judge them harshly while they are just trying to be open and honest with you. They are probably feeling a little insecure or vulnerable at this point.

The second step is to acknowledge your own feelings. A friendship is a two-way street. If something makes you uncomfortable with the situation talk to your friend about it. Often you will realize you were worried over nothing. Often people do not even know that they have an issue with sexuality and/or gender identity until they are confronted with it. Nevertheless, do not jump to conclusions about the friend. For example, coming out is not saying they have a crush on you. There are many rumors and myths that are out in society about this topic that are fictitious or over stretched to the point of being false.

Step three involves educating yourself. Look into the Human Rights Campaign and articles related to this issue. If you do read articles make certain that they are from scholarly sources. Do not assume that just because something was published that it is a fact or valid in the modern world. Before the Kinsey Institute there were probably people that believed certain “immoral” acts caused natural disasters. There are many other steps to consider but it is best to start with these three.

Remember that companionship is an important aspect of being human. A friendship should not be lost over a difference such as this. The sign of a strong friendship is continuing to maintain it instead of letting it end.

On a different note, if you have questions email It is completely private. Any question asked may be featured in future columns.

Sydney Chase

Posted in Sydney Chase, Volume 4, Issue 3 | Leave a Comment »

Local Businesses Help IUSB Students Succeed

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

Have you ever considered the possibility that you may be an entrepreneur? Over the past four weeks and over the next two months, Indiana University South Bend has the privilege to have local entrepreneurs come in and speak of their experiences in the process of their business development. The second seminar included Mark Turner himself, the president of South Bend Chocolate.  On top of the fantastic lecture, he actually brought everyone in the room chocolate. Even though some of these highly successful entrepreneurs did not require a graduate degree, they have contributed thousands of dollars to the local community, created jobs and now are driven to inspire local students to do the same.

The series, presented by Lake City Bank, is held every Thursday at 7:00 PM in room 1001 of Weikamp Hall. It is open to the public and the series will continue all the way through November 11th. Each speaker is specially chosen to illustrate a different aspect of the growth, plans, organization, daily struggles, personal life and contributions to the development of their business and to the development of themselves and entrepreneurs. The IUSB website describes the series as follows: “Get tips on setting up a business plan, finances or a business strategy at an Entrepreneurship Lecture Series sponsored by Indiana University South Bend’s School of Business and Economics.”

I’ve personally had the opportunity to attend the first four seminars of this series, and have found the information presented within it is priceless to any student considering an involvement in the business environment. Even if one has no interest in creating a business, they can get a better understanding of how the decision making process is done from the presidential and managerial level.   The series also allows a significant opportunity for students considering startups to learn local networking skills from people who have done it themselves for years.

In the first week of the series the topic of systems re-engineering was discussed. The entrepreneur brought the students through his experience of restructuring an inefficient inventory based system within his company as well as implementing a micro-managing strategy for his workers on the factory floor. The inefficient system was made efficient by the use of a scanning technology which would track all parts that were used and checked out from stock and re-ordering parts once they have reached a certain level. The micro-managing strategy was giving his workers on the factory floor more autonomy to work as a team and manage their particular quotas for the day together instead of through the use of a manager. Both systems turned out to be highly successful after overcoming several expected setbacks.

In week two, Mark Turner from South Bend Chocolate discussed the importance of an entrepreneur’s ability to network. He had not realized early on in his career how much he networked with his clients and how this had affected his business. Mark is a very personal networker, and writes hand written letters to his clients thanking them for their patronage. These are just a few of the many unique business practices students can pick up by attending this fantastic series.

A person interested in the creation of their own business needs to anticipate all of the possible setbacks within their control they may experience during the process of development and growth.  There is no better way to learn than to learn from the mistakes of those who have been through it themselves. If one goes through the same struggles and must attempt to discover their own way out, it is no different than re-inventing the wheel. If you are remotely interested, this is a must see.

All lectures are followed by a question and answer session. Students are more than encouraged by guest speakers to participate in the discussion as much as possible. They sometimes are so excited about the subject that they will go on for a long time giving the student the answer they may have been looking for. Afterwards, they are very receptive to students giving their thoughts and opinions on the information presented within the lecture.

There are some things that can be learned out of a book, and there are some things that cannot.  Learning how to juggle personal life, family, friends and loved ones is one of those things. Many involved in the series are happily married with children while maintaining a business with accumulated worth of up to millions of dollars. They serve as an example to students who are getting involved in the world of business that it is possible through hard work and dedication. I hope to see you all there!

For more information contact Christine Pochert by e-mail at, Linda Shedd at (574)237-4133 or by fax at (574) 237-4866 or Staci Brettin at

Craig Chamberlin

Posted in Craig Chamberlin, Volume 4, Issue 3 | Leave a Comment »