Vol. 1 . No.
“Content Deemed Somewhat Reliable”
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
MORE INSIDE ON :
THE PURDUE REVIEW
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
Surrounded By Wintering Indiana Fields of Corn, Straight From Purdue... Welcome From the Purdue Review
To our readers, Thank you for taking the time to pick up a copy of our little publication. And, especially thanks to those of you bothering to read the text on our ﬁrst page, let alone any text at all! Of course, I don’t mind those of you who picked up our paper but are not reading this section – since you are probably just going straight to the Campus Diversions section (which is really my specialty). This does seem quite paradoxical though… if a student writes a note of thanks a person who does not read his writing, is he really eliminating dead space? We will leave the philosophy for another day. You are probably reading this to gain a better insight as to the nature of our beloved publication, so I will just go ahead and ﬁll you in. In each issue of The Purdue Review you will ﬁnd three features: news analysis, opinions and Campus Diversions. News analysis is our primary feature because we want to take an in-depth look at the issues and events happening around Purdue and our community. There are already several other ﬁne daily publications that report regular news stories (not to mention the ever-increasing RSS feeds). So our goal is to investigate further and deeper into the story, so that our readers can have a better idea of why and not just how current events develop. Opinions are like babies, when they get loud in public people want you to shut them up! But at The Review, we believe that every baby is special… er, I mean, that your opinions should have a fair chance to be heard. Since our editorial board is somewhat right-of-center we are strictly antiabortion, not in regards to being pro-life but in the fact that we will publish every “Letter to the Editor” we receive unless it is too vulgar. If we run out of space on the newsprint, they can be found on our web-site. Campus Diversions; ﬁnally we have the real reason you will pick up our publication when it is printed. Why bother taking notes in that back row of CL50, when you can just download the PPT ﬁles later? Instead take a stab at our Sudoku, check out our crossword, and don’t forget to use a #2 pencil when the TA passes out attendance sheets. If you think that you could make a good comic, we may even feature one of your strips. Don’t worry folks, we won’t let your parents see the pictures we develop. So please: sit back, relax, and enjoy our fun little periodical. We don’t take ourselves too serious, so neither should you. Like us or hate us, feel free to let us know! On behalf of the staff, Adam Rusch Managing Editor
Please send all comments and letters to PurdueReview@gmail.com. Once again, thanks for your input. Snail mail will reach us at: Purdue Review P.O. Box 3851 West Lafayette, IN 47996
NATHAN ARNOLD Editor-in-Chief ADAM RUSCH Managing Editor JEFF SCHULTZ Features Editor SCOTT SOWERS Layout Editor NEAL EVANS Staff Writer BROCK HUGHES Staff Writer JARED BOND Staff Writer ADAM DOERR Staff Writer KRIS KNIGGA Staff Writer MIKE TRYBULA Staff Writer RACHEL SEMMEL Staff Writer JOSH TEASDALE Staff Writer NATHAN ARNOLD Layout Designer COLLIN LEWIS Graphic Designer TRACY BRIDGE Graphic Artist NEAL EVANS Photography CHASE SLAUGHTER Publisher
Picture of the Month
MISSION STATEMENT The editorial staff at The Purdue Review will utilize the medium of print to entertain, educate and enlighten the student body at Purdue University as well as the entire Greater Lafayette community
DISCLAIMER The views expressed within these pages are the views held expressly by each respective writer. The opinions of these writers do not necessarily reﬂect the opinions of any of the other writers in this publication nor by Purdue University. This paper is in not afﬁliated with Purdue University; however, the staff is comprised entirely of Purdue students We would also like to extend our most gracious appreciation to the loggers who felled the magestic old growth redwood trees that comprise the substance of these pages. - Godbless
Hovde Hall : Purdue University , Photo by Neal Evans
The Purdue Review
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
Monthly Featuring of a Little Known Student Group : The Purdue Speech and Debate Club
By Adam Doerr Are you one of those people whose no. 1 fear is public speaking? Or have you engaged in a debate with other classmates but have felt that the wrong words came at the wrong times? If you have felt this way you’re not alone. But there is no reason why you necessarily have to feel this way. On the contrary there are a variety of ways that you can overcome this particular fear. Probably the best way is experience, and if experience is what you’re looking for, then the Purdue Speech and Debate Club has what you need. The Purdue Speech and Debate club focuses primarily on preparing teams of debaters and speakers to go to speech and debate meets that take place around the country. At all of those meets you will have plenty of opportunities to speak in front of qualiﬁed judges who will be able to help you improve in your speaking and arguing skills. Probably one of the reasons that the club is so hard to ﬁnd is that its ofﬁcial name is the C. Petticrew Speech and Debate Club. If you ever go to SSINFO you’ll have to make sure you look under C, not S, D, or P like I did. However, what that name does bring is an endowment given by Mr. Petticrew who generously donated an endowment in 1989 to help the club cover the important costs that come with running a speech and debate club, which include transportation and lodging costs. Currently the club is funded simply by the interest that comes from the money. All of this is important because the main thing the Speech and Debate Club is involved in is going to Speech and Debate tournaments that are held all over the country at university campuses in places such as California, Utah, and Oregon, as well as tournaments in Kentucky and Michigan. At these tournaments, debate and speech teams come from a wide variety of other universities large and small. All of this traveling takes a serious time commitment, and usually means that students miss their Friday class. But the large amount of traveling also means that the debate club members are able to develop deep relationships because of the amount of time they spend together. The main event that the Speech and Debate Club engages in is called Parliamentary Debate. Two teams of two members each debate a resolution given out ﬁfteen minutes before the round is supposed to start. One side, called the government team, has to come up with a case to uphold the resolution. The resolutions vary, and mainly come in the form of something like, “This house believes that the music has died.” Or “This house believes that when in conﬂict, privacy should take precedent over security.” The government can come up with a policy case, such as passing a privacy amendment to the constitution, a value case, such as arguing why privacy is the best value, and lastly a fact case, showing that something has indeed taken place. The other side, called the opposition, tries to refute the case that the government tries to bring forward. The rounds are very fast, and require quick thinking and good reasoning skills. The opposition team rarely knows what the government team is going to run, and has to come up with good arguments as the government speaker is speaking. No printed materials other than your notepad are allowed in the room with you, no evidence, or anything else like that. All of this makes for a debate that is much more focused on logical reasoning and sound arguments. All of this can seem intimidating at ﬁrst, but fortunately, for the members the two graduate student coaches have a lot of experience. Both were national champions in parliamentary debate and among the best speakers in the nation. They have been with the club for two years and plan to continue leading the club for another year to come. All of this experience means that they have the ability and the knowledge to train successful debaters. With a fast moving, quick form of debate, and experienced coaches the members of the speech and debate club have all of the tools necessary to develop critical thinking skills, an ability to analyze arguments on the ﬂy, and a better communication skills. All of these are skills are necessary in the workforce, and will help you do a better job. All you need to develop those skills is yourself. The club meets weekly on Thursdays at 6 o’clock in the basement of Beering Hall. The club is small with about ten regular members. However this makes for a very close knit atmosphere in which all the members are good friends and new people quickly feel right at home. The club is always open to new members and the leaders are very willing to answer any concerns that you might have. While the debating season is coming to a close this semester with the last tournament they are going to being the national tournament that starts on March 25. But even though you may not be able to go on a tournament this year, you should still check out the forum. If there is one thing that you will hear from your professors and other people who give advice about what you should do to prepare for your career, you will always be told that you should have a number of extra-curricular activities on your resume. With over 700 activities to choose you have a lot of options available. But as you decide which activities to be a part of ask yourself, why not get involved with an activity that will help you to develop skills that you will need in the workplace? Sure it may take a little more time involvement than say the Classics society, but you will never regret the decision you made. Contact Adam at email@example.com
A Little Reminder of Where You Are No Longer...
Back to the wonderful Indiana weather!!
Courtesy of weather.com
THE PURDUE REVIEW
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
What Really is Major Moves... ?
By Rachel Semmel Jared Bond With the Indiana state debt at nearly $2.8 billion, Gov. Mitch Daniels has proposed an initiative which promises to eliminate the state debt, help fund major road projects, and bring nearly 130,000 jobs to Indiana over the next decade. This initiative, which Daniels has titled Major Moves, was proposed last September and has created much debate in the General Assembly ever since. Democrats, perhaps the biggest critics of the plan, say Daniels is trying to sell off state assets. “Selling our state’s assests to the highest bidder is shortsighted and ﬁscally irresponsible,” said House Democratic Leader, Patrick Bauer, (D-South Bend). Democrats have proposed their own plan which calls for borrowing against future tolls and federal funds. Their plan however only generates $1.6 billion, only a third of the revenue needed. The other two-thirds of the money would come from loans paid for by Hoosier tax dollars. Major Moves calls for the Indiana Toll Road in northern Indiana to be leased for 75 years to a private company for $3.85 billion. This “loaning” of the toll road would improve toll road conditions. Improvements range from pot-hole repair every 24 hours to removing dead animals every eight hours, to increasing state police presence without increasing cost to the state. Major Moves has drawn many critics from both sides of the aisle. Democrats argue that the toll road will be owned by a foreign company and thus outsourcing Hoosier jobs. State Representative Sheila Klinker (D-Lafayette) said, “Many of our people feel that toll roads should be directed by the state folks and not by an out-of-state or foreign investor.” Supporters of the bill stress that the company will only operate the road and that the state will still have ownership of the road. They also point out that the bill dictates the company’s spending at least ninety percent of its money though Indiana companies with an initiative called “Buy Indiana.” A second argument critics have centers around what to do with the $3.85 billion raised from the lease. Democrats would like to see the money used to fund education in the state. The governor has proposed that the money be directed towards transportation projects that have been delayed because of lack of funds. These projects include I-69 in southwestern Indiana, U.S. 31 between Indianapolis and South Bend, and the Hoosier Heartland Corridor that would link Lafayette and Fort Wayne. However, the third and perhaps biggest argument is Hoosier spending. Many people suspect that with the new operation tolls will increase. The bill provides a set toll rate until 2010, and any increases after are limited to no more than a two percent increase a year. You maybe asking how this affects you as a Hoosier and more importantly as a Purdue student. As stated before, the state will receive $3.85 billion dollars; of that Tippecanoe County will receive over $116 million in revenue for new roads, like the Hoosier Heartland Corridor. This in turn will affect Purdue University by bringing new jobs to the county and added sources of income. As an agricultural based community, these new roads, paid for by Major Moves, would help farmers transport their goods to markets around the state and country much easier. This project will also bring many new engineering job to our area with the increased demand for new roads. With Indiana currently ranked 50th in the nation in the retention and employment of college graduates, this will take strides to bring Indiana back into competition with other leading states and secure our place in the global market. Overall Major Moves will help make our state stronger in building a more stable economy, by getting us out of debt, and providing more jobs in the area. These objectives, however, will take time and cannot be solved over night. However, Major Moves will speed up this process of growth and development and will help pave the way to a brighter future for Indiana. As Governor Daniels stated, “Indiana is the Crossroad of America. We need to ﬁx the pothole in the intersection.” Contact Rachel at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Purdue Review
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
Spotlight On Academia :
By Tracy M. Bridge In an effort to be a balanced publication we chose Harry Targ as our spotlight professor for our second edition. Unfortunately Harry Targ refused to be interviewed by our publication and give response to David Horowitz’s assertion that Targ ranks among the worst professors in America. So what follows isa proﬁle based on the sources available so students can form their own opinion. David Horowitz a conservative author and lecturer, is the author of the book, The ProFessors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Horowitz included Targ in his book. Horowitz maintains that Targ is a Communist that indoctrinates rather than teaches. Targ responded by saying that Horowitz was making “an attack on the free ﬂow of ideas at the university and on peace studies as a program.” Remember this article is compiled from public sources, and is not a direct statement from Harry Targ who “prefered not to comment” when asked to interview. Where did Prof. Targ receive education? Targ received his B.S. (1961) in communications and his M.A. (1962) in political Science from the University of Illinois. He received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University in political science in 1967. His career Purdue. at
Profiling Professor Harry Targ
“Prof. seems anti-American and may have Marxist-Leninist leanings. Enjoyable man, but he could be indoctrinating rather than teaching.” “Targ hides his Socialist views well. Good lecturer, strong command of content. Pretty liberal, has distain for all things G.O.P.” “Good class. Really made us think and required projects. He’s a socialist, but he does a good job giving both sides.” What follows are some of Harry Targ’s publications...The titles might be indicative of Targ’s politics. 1996. Co-edited Marxism Today. 1992 Cuba and the USA: A new World Order 1989 People’s Nicaragua 1975. Co-edited Planning Alternative World Futures. According to Horowitz How did such a leftist professor end up working a Purdue University, one of the most conservative campuses in the Big Ten? Horowitz that assignments involving antiAmerican speakers or Farenheit 9/11 are controversial and unnecessary...I also agree with the Purdue provost, Sally Mason. Sally Mason said in a statement to the Journal and Courier that is the students’ responsibility “to evaluate all the sources presented.” The only grounds for dismissal of a tenured professor are: violating laws and Purdue policies on sexual harassment and anti-discrimination or a dereliction of their academic duty by failing to teach their course to academic standards, either by presenting irrelevant material or otherwise.
Tracy’s Opinion Academic Tenure exists to protect academic freedom and to allow professors to conduct research, unfettered by the policies of the University. However, professors like Supreme Court justices can use this insulation from the opinions of majorities to enact policies disagreeable to the masses. In defense of Harry Targ, which I never thought I would do since I honestly agree with McCarthyism and that treason and communism are often synonymous, We as students should be smart enough to ﬁgure out a professors biases. I believe the only people in danger of being indoctrinated are those that blindly follow without checking new information against a system of morals and ideals. These people are so at risk of being indoctrinated that if Harry Targ doesn’t do it someone else will. They are Lemmings that can’t decide which cliff to jump off of. So as students of Purdue it’s up to you. Is Harry Targ a communist? Is he dangerous? Is the Peace Studies Program legitimate? I assure you both Harry Targ and Peace Studies are well protected by Purdue by-laws therefore you as an educated and responsible student are left with a few options... Don’t take his courses; if you do you should evaluate what he says. No student should take the assertions of any professor as the Gospel. They are all fallible and all
Professor Harry Targ
have their own biases. Also, maintain vigilance, if any professor commits violations of their tenure it is you who need to report them. The Purdue provost admits she has never attended on of Targ’s lectures, but she assumes he presents all viewpoints “including I’m sure his own, in a very reasonable fashion.”
-Professor of Political Science and American Studies -Founded the Peace Studies Committee -Coedited “Marxism Today”
According to Purdue’s provost, Sally Mason, Purdue cannot ask about political ideologies of individual professors in the hiring process or any employment review boards in concordance with federal law. Horowitz says Targ deserves to be dissmissed... While this write would agree with
Contact Tracy at email@example.com
If you have any of your own opinions on Professor Harry Targ or would like to reccommend a professor for an interview please write to: The Purdue Review P.O. Box 3851 West Lafayette, In 47996 Or email at: PurdueReview@gmail.com
Targ began working for the university in 1967. The same year he received his Ph.D. He is a professor of political science and American studies. He founded the Peace Studies committee and is currently a coordinator for that committee. What is Peace Studies at Purdue? Purdue offers a peace minor. It is a 15 credit hour course of study and its requirements can be found at http://tholian.sla. purdue.edu/advising/pdf/PEACEMIN. pdf. Is Peace Studies indoctrination or teaching? Horowitz claims that Peace Studies is indoctrination into a communist way of thinking and is not a legitimate course of study. The Purdue provost admits that the Peace Studies program developed out of a political movement, but maintains that signiﬁcant academia has developed around it. What do students have to say about Targ’s teaching? Sourced from RateMyProfessor.com
CAUGHT YA LOOKING!
SEE? PEOPLE DO READ ADS!
THE PURDUE REVIEW
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
A Boy Named Oscar Walks the Line Of Politics
Or How the West Was Lost
By Jeff Schultz In the ﬁnal moments of the 78th Academy Awards Ceremony, Ang Lee was on top of the world. After being nominated twice, once before in 2001, he now held in his hands the top honor that any movie director could have wished for. He quickly dried his tears before he would have to be back on stage to accept another golden statuette for his ﬁlm, Brokeback Mountain. People around the world had their index ﬁngers geared up to turn the power off on their remote controls waiting for the inevitable to happen. They knew that by divine right Brokeback Mountain would win Best Picture of the Year. It was all in God’s great plan. Viewers kept from pushing their remotes when they saw Jack Nicholson walk on stage. “Okay,” they thought to themselves, “I might as well keep watching just to see Jack Nicholson. I’ve seen and loved all his ﬁlms. Even The Little Shop of Horrors.” Our pulses didn’t even get above 70 when Nicholson iterated those ever so famous words, “And the Oscar goes to….” In the next two seconds, not one heart listening was in rhythm when Jacky said just one word, “Crash.” Grab the Q-Tips! Were we hearing this correctly? Read it again, Jack, maybe sitting next to Keira Knightly all night got you a little ﬂustered. Maybe he was just replaying the part of The Joker. More appropriately, Nicholson was playing Col. Nathan R. Jessep silently saying, “You can’t handle the truth!” So much for winning those free movie tickets for a year in your local theatre’s Match the Winners contest. The moment was deemed to be one of the greatest upsets in Hollywood history. For land’s sake, it wasn’t like he announced Son of the Mask as Best Picture! Stop acting like he did. Just think of the positives. One thing we can say is now we have the best title for a sequel, Heartbroke Mountain. And just think, we now live in a world where Ludacris stars in a ﬁlm honored best picture of the year. Pretty cool in my opinion. But why so much anguish? Experts are now analyzing theories as to why this upset took place. Maybe it was the voters who felt closer to Crash’s theme of race and isolation instead of the pro-gay themes of Brokeback. Maybe Academy voters were just not ready to support a ﬁlm about gay love (as incredulous as that sounds). Maybe they were just tired of all the month long hype Brokeback produced. Here’s a thought. Maybe it’s simply because Crash was a better movie!!! All other theories look at the political aspects. The big question we should ask ourselves as movie lovers is should we include political messages as an attribute to what makes a movie great. There is no denying that Hollywood has its politics. Moviemaking is a business and every business has them. But to the public, movies are not just a business. Why do we go to the movies? Since the dawn of cinema, the main reason we go is movies allow us to experience stories on many different levels. They allow us to escape from reality and enlighten our senses. We rely on ﬁlms and television for our daily release. It’s more than entertainment. It’s part of our culture. We never go through a day without quoting Anchorman or thinking that we might actually live in a society controlled by machines blinding us from the truth like The Matrix. These are our ﬁlms too, not just the ﬁlmmakers’. We should have an opinion about what we like and dislike. It is truly the audience that makes a ﬁlm prevail, not the politics. Now don’t get me wrong. Brokeback Mountain is a good movie. It has an amazing amount of talent working in it. The performances by Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Anne Hathaway, and Michelle Williams are wonderful thanks in part to the brilliant direction by Ang Lee. But overall, there were a few problems with the pacing of the story. Even co-written by one of my favorite writers Larry at one point) somehow managed to surpass bankable shoe-ins like Walk the Line and Cinderella Man. A surprise? Sure. A few surprises are what the Academy Awards are all about. At least that was the ﬁrst impression. If you really play Tinsletown detective closely, you might see a pattern amongst these movies they all seem to share. Homosexuality, racism, the death penalty, anti-anticommunism, antiantiterrorism, prevail throughout, not to mention a lot of cigarette smoking (thanks to David Strathairn and Phillip Seymour Hoffman). They all share the themes of Hollywood’s liberal monopoly of politics. Quite a bit more so than last year’s lineup: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray, and Sideways. Their approaches to these messages are admirable, but let us not forget that there are some other good ﬁlms out there that were given the old Hollywood slam, “We’re just that political ﬁlms could be proﬁtable and gave ﬁlmmakers the green light to express their true feelings. Even though the ﬁlm Fahrenheit 9/11 won no nominations at last year’s Academy Awards, it’s offspring has made up for it in due course. But with Crash beating out Brokeback, this might have been the ﬁrst sign that this trend is dying out. One of the reasons this trend is declining is in part that Hollywood politicians carry their ﬁre too quickly from one leader to another. First it was Sean Penn, then Moore, and now the ball is in George Clooney’s court, but it seems like he is neglecting his duty as a point guard. Moore created quite a stir up accepting his Oscar in 2003 for his ﬁlm Bowling for Columbine by wailing on President Bush, so much that he was pushed off the stage. When Clooney picked up his Best Supporting Actor award for Syriana, the only person he really wailed on was himself, making fun of the fact he played Batman in 1997. Perhaps his political ambitions are not as large as we have made them out to be. Maybe he is too busy prepping to play Danny Ocean again in Ocean’s 13 (already in preproduction) or putting on 35 pounds and then taking it off wore him out too much. It was pretty amazing just how calm the Kodak Theatre really was despite everyone’s expectations, not to mention the fact that political commentator/comedian John Stewart was hosting. What was he doing there? I don’t know. But at least they had someone with talent to make the Bush jokes. Sorry Whoopi, maybe next year. Despite his talent, Stewart received mixed praises and disappointment from critics. Some felt his holding back hurt ratings while Ted Johnson of Dailey Variety compared his admiration for Stewart’s “right down the middle approach” to past emcee Bob Hope. I think it was more surprising to see the political restraint than Crash winning. It was a nice surprise to see Hollywood “walk the line of politics” instead of crossing it. It was just a shame that not enough people saw it. Ratings were down about 10 percent from last year. Politics or not, something was to blame for this year’s low ratings, although analysts were expecting the dip to be a lot more steep. It might be connected to the fact that people just aren’t going to the movies anymore. It is a problem that the Motion Picture Association of America (more commonly referred to as the MPAA) is desperate to solve. Theatre attendance has been down 9 percent since last year, the lowest it’s been since 1997 (Does anybody remember seeing a movie that year besides Men In Black?). A lot has been blamed due to DVDs, reality TV, and video games. Being that the majority of ﬁlmgoers are teenagers, maybe Hollywood is losing touch with marketing these ﬁlms to the younger generation. I can just see the MPAA saying it now: “Kids, turn off your X-Box and your Kanye West CDs and let’s go see a ﬁlm about McCarthyism. It’s only rated PG, so you take your little 4-year-old sister Suzie with you! If all of you see it twice, we’ll have Jack Johnson sing you a song about Fred Friendly.” I’m sure the youth of America are ready to eat these movies up like pizza rolls right out of the toaster oven (please note sarcasm). Maybe politics are to blame for low the-
- Maybe it’s simply because Crash was a better movie!!! - Where is Herbie: Fully Loaded? - It was all started by a little ol’ fat man with ﬁve o’clock shadow producing a ﬁlm called Fahrenheit 9/11.
McMurty, who wrote one of the greatest ﬁlms of the 1970’s The Last Picture Show about life in a fading Texas town, the script had certain lulls throughout it. The themes might have been daring but not the story. It had some wonderful and gorgeously ﬁlmed scenes but overall, Brokeback just doesn’t live up to all the hype that critics gave it. It could be because if they didn’t praise it ceremoniously, they would be in danger of being called homophobic. See what politics do? They control by fear the judgments we make because of the judgments others will make about us, which should not be when critiquing movies. I, on the other hand, am not afraid to call it overrated. It’s my opinion and I respect everyone’s right to disagree with me. I am just saying Brokeback didn’t deserve the best picture award. In saying that, I guess that makes me a homophobe. Now that Crash has won instead, I am glad to see that there are other “homophobes” who will agree with me. So what about the other ﬁlms? Do they deserve their nominations too? Of course they do. They are all great movies. But let’s look at the lineup for Best Picture one last time: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Crash, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Munich. No one on January 31 was expecting a combination like this. Come on! Where is Herbie: Fully Loaded? It’s Herbie the Love Bug and Lindsay Lohan, you can’t go wrong! Even though number 53 didn’t pass the ﬁnish line, a few unexpected dark horses like Munich and even Crash (yes, it was considered an underdog not interested in this right now,” leaving ﬁlms like Walk the Line singing “It Ain’t Me, Babe.” Have no fear my fellow movie lovers (and Joaquin Phoenix). This is what we call a trend. A trend is a series of objects or ideas, movies in this case, that model themselves from an original idea that proved to be extremely successful. It’s basically whatever is “hot” right now. When The Exorcist came out in 1973, every movie that year after had to have either Ellen Burstyn or a shaking bed in it or both. The world has given birth to eleven Jason Voorhees movies starting in 1980 and Michael Myers was the father. We are measuring our years in love rather than 525,600 minutes because Chicago took home the Best Picture Oscar in 2003. Tim Allen is now turning into a Bratislavian Sheepdog because he made $145 million turning into Santa Claus. Today, it’s politics. Tomorrow, who knows? It might be singing elephants (FYI: The Jungle Book was a big hit back in 1967, musical pachyderms could make a proﬁtable comeback.) Hollywood relies on these trends like a cub and mama bear in order to survive. How did this trend of politics in movies come to be? It was all started by a little ol’ fat man with ﬁve o’clock shadow producing a ﬁlm called Fahrenheit 9/11. He returned a proﬁt of more than a $100 million to convince America that the war against terror is all lies. Hollywood said, “Shoot, if Michael Moore can return a proﬁt like that, so can we. Let’s start making all of our ﬁlms like this.” It certainly proved
The Purdue Review
atre attendance? It’s like what was said before. We go to these ﬁlms because the story appeals to us. We don’t go to be rallied at. As far as the Oscars go, we want to tune in to the Academy Awards, not the 2006 Democratic National Convention as it appeared to be. The concern right now for ﬁlms is not about the present but about the future. It seems that ﬁlms are changing in a big way. Steven Soderberg’s ﬁlm Bubble was released this January simultaneously in theatres, DVD, and HDTV for the ﬁrst time. DVD sales went beyond the gross it made in theatres, proving that ﬁlmgoers would rather spend money on the DVD rather than see it on the big screen. Soon, as speculation states, there will be no more movie theatres, only DVD. This is practically the truth already. Just last year, the average time it took a ﬁlm to come from the theatres to DVD was 4 to 6 months. Now for some unexplained reason, the layover time has been cut down to only 3 to 4 months. Movies that came to theatres in November and December like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Walk the Line, and King Kong are already out on DVD. The studios make more money off DVDs than they do theatrical distribution, so that could be a reason. Why would you pay $8.50 to see a movie when you can rent it for half the price three months later? People have ﬁgured this out already, so please, MPAA, take notice and save our time honored tradition of going to the movies. What does this all have to do with politics? With the absence of theatres, there will no longer be mainstream ﬁlms. It will all be independent ﬁlms, which are tradi-
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006 tionally political. All of the Best Picture This is your last chance this summer to nominees, with the exception of Munich, see Johnny Depp ﬁght off cursed pirates. would all be considered inThe next installment of Pidependent ﬁlms. There will rates of the Caribbean will no longer be ﬁlms featuring have him swashbuckling characters like Frodo, James Condoleezza Rice instead. Bond, Darth Vader, Indiana Personally, I would love to Jones, or Ron Burgundy for see Hillary Clinton walk the that matter. Even George plank myself. But is Lucas’ Lucas announced this last prediction accurate? How month that “the blockbustcome some very decent er is dead.” It’s especially movies like Walk the Line ironic this coming from and Batman Begins have the guy who made the bigmade $119 and $205 million gest series of blockbusters individually and none of this ever ﬁlmed. “The market year’s nominees have made forces that exist today make it past the $100 million it unrealistic to spend $200 mark. Maybe he just wants million on a movie. Those to reign forever as emperor movies can’t make their (no pun intended) of the money back anymore. Look blockbuster. Of course I reat what happened with King ally can’t blame him. There Kong. I think it’s great that certainly have been some the major Oscar nominamainstream ﬁlms out that tions have gone to indepenare just a waste of money dent ﬁlms. Is that good for (Catwoman, Date Movie, the business? No - it’s bad Alone in the Dark). But for the business. But moviethere have also been some making isn’t about business. of the smaller independent It’s about art. In the future, ﬁlms that have been just as almost everything that gets unwatchable. Anyone who shown in theaters will be has seen Hostel will know indie movies. I predict that what I’m talking about. by 2025 the average movie Probably the best answer will cost only $15 million,” to getting people back into Lucas told the New York the theatres is not to stop Daily News. the politics, but stop makAcademy Award So there you have it, by Lucas’ ing bad movies. Audiences can tell when prediction, we’ll only see ﬁlms fueled with a movie is bad and when it is good. Why political propaganda. Hurry everybody! can’t Hollywood?
7 There are so many things that make a movie great. Even though it might seem easy, making a good movie is tough. Therefore, the people that make the best movies should be commended. We should not be shocked when a movie with all the reasons to win actually does. Just because some themes are more relevant and daring than the next does not achieve the quality of greatness. We as ﬁlm lovers and Americans should not be afraid to voice our opinions. We love these ﬁlms for those qualities and not because of the terms they deal with. It is those very same terms that are threatening the future of those qualities we love so much. Hollywood has some problems that need to be ﬁxed and they can if they for once put aside their political biases and see ﬁlms as art instead. Even though there have been some alarming statements in this article by myself and from my examples, I believe that the ﬁlm industry will prevail. Movies are too much a part of who we are to completely abandon. But from the way Oscar was dressed all in black on March 5, it looked like he was going to a funeral. Maybe he was.
Contact Jeff at firstname.lastname@example.org.
And the Winner is...
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
George Clooney SYRIANA
Achievement in Sound Mixing
KING KONG Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek
Achievement in Visual Effects
KING KONG Joe Letteri, Brian Van’t Hul, Christian Rivers and Richard Taylor
Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song)
“IT’S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP” FROM HUSTLE & FLOW Music and Lyric by Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
WALLACE & GROMIT IN THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT Nick Park and Steve Box
Achievement in Sound Editing
KING KONG Mike Hopkins and Ethan Van der Ryn
Best Live Action Short Film
SIX SHOOTER Martin McDonagh
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
TSOTSI South Africa
Best Animated Short Film
THE MOON AND THE SON: AN IMAGINED CONVERSATION John Canemaker and Peggy Stern
Achievement in Film Editing
CRASH Hughes Winborne
Achievement in Costume Design
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA Colleen Atwood
Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Philip Seymour Hoffman CAPOTE
Achievement in Makeup
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE Howard Berger and Tami Lane
Achievement in Cinematography
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA Dion Beebe
Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Reese Witherspoon WALK THE LINE
Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Rachel Weisz THE CONSTANT GARDENER
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN Screenplay by Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana
Best Documentary Short Subject
A NOTE OF TRIUMPH: THE GOLDEN AGE OF NORMAN CORWIN Corinne Marrinan and Eric Simonson
CRASH Screenplay by Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco; Story by Paul Haggis
Best Documentary Feature
MARCH OF THE PENGUINS Luc Jacquet and Yves Darondeau
Achievement in Directing
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN Ang Lee
Achievement in Art Direction
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA John Myhre (Art Direction); Gretchen Rau (Set Decoration)
Best Motion Picture of the Year
CRASH Paul Haggis and Cathy Schulman
Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score)
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN Gustavo Santaolalla
THE PURDUE REVIEW
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
Military’s Role in Modern American Society
By Brock T. Hughes During the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games, I, as did many others, heard the story of the American Buffalo Soldiers of World War II, an AfricanAmerican infantry squadron that was near obliterated defending northern Italy from Hitler’s Nazis, and it got me thinking. American soldiers in the past 50 years have not been given the respect and treatment they deserve, just like the Buffalo Soldiers, whose survivors and exemplary soldiers were not given their proper recognition until the Clinton Administration. At the end of the World War II, most American Soldiers returning home came to parades, and ceremonies. However, that seemed to be the end of the glory of the American soldier. After the Korean War, in order to create more awareness of the American Military, and after the success of a military T.V. show, G.I. Joe was created. The early 60’s then led to a decade of peace loving, happiness, and the civil rights movement. Then when the Vietnam War broke out, the movement of praising the American soldier was put to a halt. After years of protests and ill contempt against the war, soldiers came home to ﬁnd that they were rejected more than celebrated. Some even returned to only have objects thrown at them and be ridiculed. Some say, that this sentiment only occurred in some places, and that may be true, however it did occur and that is a travesty. In fact, it is still occurring today and it has occurred right on our doorstep. A month ago, a local soldier died during his call of duty. During his funeral a group of constituents of a Baptist church in Topeka, who have traveled the country to picket and protest at funerals of fallen American soldiers, protested by waving signs saying that the reason American Soldiers are dying, the reason he died, is because America has become tolerant of gays. Where did the love of the American soldier go? America wasn’t always like this; it was considered a privilege to ﬁght for your country. In fact America is the ﬁrst country to have a successful army comprised of volunteers. Only in a few crucial times have Americans been asked to go to war against their will. This is what has made the America forces so strong, is that they know what they are ﬁghting for. They are ﬁghting for freedom, hope, family, and America. A recipient of the Medal of Honor summed up this passion in a short phrase, “People believe that freedom is free … freedom is not free, but a gift worth dying for.” There are hundreds of quotes such as this that give a taste of the spirit of an American soldier. Americans revered that these soldiers went to ﬁght, and die, for them. American newspapers wrote of the victories, as well as the losses, of the American military. There was a romantic feeling over being an American soldier. Now with the creation of new technology, and wars ﬁghting for the freedom of others, not Americans; this resentment was born. Americans have to think about what it would be like to live in a country where you can express yourself without worrying about conviction. That is what our soldiers remember and that is why they join, the world’s strongest volunteer army. When all Americans remember this, I truly believe we will return to the days of thanking our American soldiers. I wish to start this trend by giving my thanks, and by quoting the words of a great American on the subject of the sacriﬁces of our American soldiers and our duty as Americans to those soldiers, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unﬁnished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” - Abraham Lincoln Contact Brock at email@example.com.
40 Acres and a Mule
by Neal Evans A new and divisive issue seems to be permeating American society today. The argument for slave reparations is becoming a valid one in the eyes of the media and much of the public. I have heard talk of descendants of slaves demanding money or land, or something in recompense for the time in our country when their families were subjected to slavery. I must admit that I dismissed this thought as ludicrous. I thought, who is expected to pay for this, and how will it be determined who receives these reparations? And isn’t this just emphasizing the division in our culture? Racism, as outdated as it is, is still present in society, and the repercussions of slavery are no doubt still echoing throughout the south and elsewhere. But this is not a valid solution. As a nation we need to move on, America cannot move forward by looking behind. The American dream isn’t about getting a check in the mail every month, about living off the prosperity of others. It is about making something from nothing, regardless of economic or social standing. While the color of one’s skin may have given them an advantage or disadvantage years ago, in a time of segregation or even slavery, that issue is becoming obsolete. The country needs to heal on its own. It is not the job of the government to make us see that skin color does not matter. It is something that everyone must see for him or herself. Equality is the main goal here, even behind the plan of reparations, so why should race be an issue? I am not a racist and I do not believe that we have attained true equality, but the taxpayers of this country cannot be expected to pay for the mistakes of plantation owners dead 200 years. Regarding the issue of taxes I quote Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States, “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” The radical ideas of a few cannot be funded by the federal government; that is not its purpose. There are millions of black Americans that are not related to past slaves, and millions of whites that did not proﬁt from slavery. To take tax money and distribute it according to race would only create a new feeling of separation in this country. One injustice cannot be corrected by another injustice. Contact Neal at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By Chase Slaughter When one thinks about what makes America great, many things come to mind. But, what sets this country apart, what our forefathers fought and died for is for our right to be involved in the political process. Not only just to vote, but to speak and to assemble for a common cause in support or in opposition to our government. It’s what makes this country different; it’s what makes the country great. The unfortunate thing is so many people take these rights for granted. Voter participation is so low in this country that it is pathetic. Our generation is among the least active generations when it comes to voting and taking an active role in our government. The question becomes, why is this? Why don’t we vote? Why don’t we assemble? Why don’t we take a stand? Well, some of us do and they should be commended regardless of the stances that they take. Do we not participate because we do not care? I certainly hope not. It is important to point out the long voting lines in the 2004 presidential elections all around the country, but especially right here on the campus of Purdue University. Voter apathy among the presidential races seems nonexistent (even though we still only saw about a sixty percent voter turnout nation-wide). What so many Americans don’t realize is that it is our local governments that affect us so much more than the federal governments. It is the local governments that maintain our roads, educate the youth, tax our homes and help to provide us with jobs. Yet, many people don’t vote in elections for county and local ofﬁcials and when asked why, the response is often, “I vote in the Presidential election.” I implore my fellow students to get active in their government. It is so easy to do today. It doesn’t take much time, energy or effort to register to vote. You can become an informed citizen simply by logging onto the internet or picking up one the free papers anywhere on campus. When it comes to voting, it doesn’t take long. Even if you don’t have time to do it on Election Day, you can go into the Election ofﬁce on the ﬁrst ﬂoor of the Courthouse (assuming that you are registered in Tippecanoe County) and vote anytime between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 29 days before the election. But more than voting, ﬁnd something that you believe in and let everyone know about it. Write to the paper, call your government ofﬁcials, volunteer for a campaign that you believe in. JUST GET INVOLVED! If you would like to register to vote, you can do it at the license branch or come into the voter registration ofﬁce in the Courthouse. You can print off a registration form from www.in.gov/sos and send it into the Registration ofﬁce at P.O. Box 619, Lafayette, IN 47902 (if you mail in your voter registration form, be sure to include proof of residency). But hurry, in order to vote in the pivotal May primary, you need to have your registration to the Election Board by April 3. If you have any questions, you can contact the Tippecanoe County Board of Elections and Registration at (765) 423-9303. When it comes to voting, there are new laws that are extremely important to point out. This year is the ﬁrst year that people will have to show an ID in order to vote. You can use any Indiana State or Federal government issued Identiﬁcation Card that has your picture, name and an expiration date. If you don’t have one of these (your student ID WILL NOT WORK), then you can get an ID for voting purposes at any license branch. More information about photo ID is available at photoid.in.gov. Once again, if you have any questions about what will or will not work, please contact the Board of Elections and Registration at (765) 423-9303. I don’t care who you vote for. I don’t care who you help. All I care about is that you use the right that your forefathers gave you and vote. Contact Chase at email@example.com.
Your Ad Could Go Here!
The Purdue Review
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
CAMPUS DIVERSIONS - FOR THAT BORING CLASS
College Daze by Tracy Bridge
College Daze By Tracy Bridge
Sudoku may seem difﬁcult at ﬁrst glance, but actually it is not as hard as it looks! The rules of Sudoku are that you should ﬁll a number in to every cell in the grid, using the numbers 1 to 9. The restriction is that you can only use each number once in each row, each column, and in each of the 3x3 boxes. For more Sudoku puzzles visit: http://www. sudokuoftheday.com
Crossword puzzles provided by BestCrosswords.com (http://www. bestcrosswords.com). Used with permission.
25. Norse god of thunder 26. Gasoline 29. Kingdom in SE Asia 33. Pertaining to birds 34. Blackbird 35. Sheltered, nautically 36. Bereft 37. Humped ruminant 38. Large village 39. Supplements, with “out” 40. Thick cord 41. Languishes with longing 42. Dire warning 44. Harsh 45. Basic monetary unit of Ghana 46. Long luxuriant hair 47. Carved image 50. Sudden assault 51. Covering for the head 54. Positions 55. Pipeﬁsh 58. Monetary unit of Portugal 59. Carbonized fuel 60. Water wheel 61. Small songbird 62. Catch a view of 63. Pay for
1. Lara of “Tomb Raider” 6. Edible mollusk 10. Separate by a sieve 14. Prophet 15. First-class 16. Manipulator
17. Stereoscopic vision 19. Entreaty 20. Deﬁnite article 21. Son of Zeus in Greek mythology 22. Fast 24. Nicholas II was the last Russian one
1. Stage crew 2. Batting Babe 3. Double curve 4. Fine hair 5. Federal crime 6. Escapade
7. A pitcher may take one 8. Black bird 9. Dining hall 10. Of the highest order 11. Wight or Man 12. Give eats 13. Salver 18. Spoken 23. Hawaiian food 24. Business agreement 25. Trio 26. More wan 27. Elicit 28. Exhausted 29. Entice 30. Isolated 31. More recent 32. Compact 34. New Zealand aboriginal 37. Belief 41. Suspended 43. Monetary unit of Romania 44. Travel on water 46. Insanely 47. Killed 48. Travel from place to place 49. Area of 4840 square yards 50. Gather, harvest 51. Bring on board 52. The most heavily populated continent on Earth 53. Yonder thing 54. Greek goddess of the dawn 57. In place of
THE PURDUE REVIEW
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
Featured Drink Specials
Rowdy’s Sunday Jake’s Road House $1.25 well drinks $1.50 domestic bottles $2.25 import bottles $3.25 domestic pitchers $5.25 import pitchers $6.50 Guinness pitchers $5 34oz Mega Mugs $2.50 Coors Light, Miller Lite, Bud, or Bud Light reﬁlls $3.25 domestic reﬁlls $4.50 import reﬁlls $3.50 well drinks $3.75 pint glass of Jack & Coke $2.75 Jack & Coke reﬁlls $3.25 domestic pitchers $5.25 import pitchers $6.50 Guinness pitchers $1.50 Coors Light bottles $1.25 well drinks $4.50 Miller Lite pitchers $6.50 Sam Adams pitchers $1.50 domestic bottles $2.25 import bottles $4.50 Coors Light pitchers $3.75 Bacardi ﬂavor drinks Wabash Yacht Club Dick’s Bodacious Bar-B-Q Bell’s draft $3/16oz, $3.75/23oz $2.75 Sam Adams bottles
$3.50 60oz domestic drafts $5 60oz import drafts $4 60oz well drinks $1 shots
$3.75 Bud Light pitchers
3 Floyd’s Robert the Bruce draft $3.50/16oz, $4.25/23oz Guinness draft $3.50/16oz, $4.25/23oz
$1.25 domestic drafts $2.25 import drafts $2 well drinks $1.50 frozen drinks
$2 domestic bottles Miller draft $2/16oz, $2.75/23oz $2.50 Corona bottles
$1 Rowdy Beer $2.50 domestic bottles $1 Rowdy Beer $2 domestic bottles $3 import bottles $1 shots $1 domestic drafts $2 Killian’s & Bass drafts $3 Guinness, Blue Moon, & Sam Adams Seasonal $2.50 Jager bombs $10 Miller Lite buckets $2.75 Sam Adams Seasonal $2 well drinks
$3.75 Bud Light pitchers
Blue Moon draft $3/16oz, $3.75/23oz $4 Foster’s 25oz Sam Adams draft $3/16oz, $3.75/23oz $2.50 Smirnoff bottles $2.50 Woodchuck bottles Killian’s draft $2.75/16oz, $3.50/23oz $2.75 Upland bottles
Dick’s Pale Ale draft $3/16oz, $3.75/23oz $2.75 Heineken bottles
with a parent.
Every month we will gather as many drink specials as we can ﬁnd from establishments near campus. We will then print a few of the specials we believe to be the most interesting. Check here every issue to get the most out of your drinking dollar. The establishments listed do have the right to change these specials at any time, so we are unable to guarantee that these prices will remain valid.
By Kris Knigga This semester Rowdy’s is the place to be. From pool to darts to arcade games to music to good, old-fashioned beer, Rowdy’s has everything a college student looking to take a break from scholastic endeavors could want. And the best part? No cover. Ever. Rowdy’s has earned its self a reputation for poor service and a never predictable schedule in the past, but new ownership is looking to change all of that. Rowdy’s changed hands near the beginning of this semester and a lot has changed. The days of waiting for an hour or more for service are over. Currently, Rowdy’s is open every weekday and Saturday for lunch. They offer American fare such as burgers, onion rings, hot dogs, and the like. Food service continues until 9 p.m. After that, only fried foods are available. Plans for a buffet are even in the works. Don’t have a lot of time for lunch? That’s no problem. Call ahead with your order and your food will be ready for you when you arrive. Persons 18 and over are allowed in to eat, all ages
The night life is where Rowdy’s really excels. No night is a bad night to visit. Rowdy’s has drink specials every night, as well as free hot dogs and chips with your ﬁrst drink purchase on Tuesday and Thursday nights. Whether you enjoy arcade gaming, dancing to the digital jukebox, shooting pool, or just hanging out with friends, there is always something to do. A live DJ is in the house most Friday nights for your musical entertainment, as well as the occasional live band. Keep an eye out for the Miller Girls every Wednesday this April for Miller swag and drink specials, too.
Where: Across Northwestern Ave. from Lambert Fieldhouse When: Weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays of Purdue games
Contact Kris at firstname.lastname@example.org
The Purdue Review
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
Two Groups Of People Face Each Other Screaming
By Josh Teasdale Two groups of people face each other screaming, chanting, praying, and preaching their message to each other as the news media look on. Sound familiar? Protests have become a common place occurrence throughout out country. I have always found watching two diametrically opposed sides protest each other to be quite pointless. They have no chance of convincing each other of anything and I can’t imagine any passer-bys on the street or TV watchers at home are anymore convinced by some of these people. What has brought this to my attention is the recent (or is it continuous) uproar about abortion. We now have two new Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have both been publicly praised as mainstream and what this country need in its justices. At the same time behind the scenes they are expected to be part of the ﬁnal push to overturn the three-decade-old Roe v. Wade Decision. But what exactly is Roe v. Wade? We all know it has something to do with abortion, but it’s a lot more complicated than that, and I doubt that after watching the screaming, chanting, praying, and preaching protesters anyone will have any more of an idea. In today’s age we like to simplify things to a one to two word chant with which we can pummel our dissenters. This is somewhat shallow of course and it’s much more important to understand what’s really going and debate the substance of the issues instead of the emotions and sound bites. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to abortion. It did so by expanding on a previously held right to privacy declared in a case call Griswold v. Connecticut. Now of course you can’t ﬁnd either the words “privacy” or “abortion” in the Constitution, so how could the Supreme Court come to these rulings? Well ever since the Supreme Court began ruling on constitutional issues it has taken the liberty to ﬁll in the gaps in the constitution and interpret it in a deﬁnitive way when there is a case or controversy involved. Furthermore the Constitution is not written in a manor that is easy to interpret one way or the other. Instead of ending controversies the text of the Constitution all too often starts them instead of resolving them. The court found in Roe for a variety of reasons, many controversial, than there was a right to abortion protected by the U.S. Constitution. In doing so the court sparked a controversy that has realigned the political parties of the country and placed the court in one of the biggest policy debates since slavery. There are a lot of misconceptions regarding the court’s decision in 1973. In order to understand it you have to understand that there is a difference between the legal questions regarding abortion and the moral questions regarding abortion. The two sets of questions, although intertwined, are nonetheless distinct from each other. Most of the people who oppose Roe v. Wade oppose it on more grounds. They believe that unborn children are human lives and diverse protection under the law. Those who support Roe believe that women need the right to abortions in order to enjoy full reproductive freedom. These are both important questions yet they are not strictly legal ones. It is possible for either or possible both to be true and for the law to be different. The question that was put to the court in 1973 was “Does the Constitution Embrace a women’s right to terminate a pregnancy by abortion?” The court ruled that it did. It did so by ﬁnding that the laws of the time did not recognize unborn fetuses as person with right, they are not counted in the census, and are not afforded a variety of other rights typically associated with individuals. Instead the court relied on medical evidence as the time to determine that there was not enough evidence to show that unborn children in the ﬁrst trimester could be protected, and therefore any law outlawing abortion in the ﬁrst trimester was unconstitutional, laws could only regulated abortion in the second trimester and they could restrict abortion in issues debated between the warring protesters on the steps of the Supreme Court however or the legal arguments that do exist against abortion. Instead of arguing that the decision to determine where life begins is a decision for the states as a moral issues and in originally enacting such statutes the states are acknowledging prenatal life, pro-life groups tend to rest on religious grounds, not to mention the pictures of dead fetuses. It is worth noting that there have been other rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as fundamental only to be abolished latter, the right to contract was recognized for year by the court. This right was used to strike down employment laws which restricted the workweek and set a minimum wage. Although upheld for years, the court eventually changed its mind abolishing the liberty to contract, just a year after it had afﬁrmed the decades-old doctrine. This occurred when President Roosevelt proposed the court packing plan and according to one of my professors, “scared the bleep, out of the court.” So judges are not completely isolated form the pressures of politics. It is rare that we see substantive debate on the issues. Far too often we only get hit with meaningless sound bites and hollow rhetoric. The law has never been a ﬁxed and rigid concept in our system in the United States. Instead both our constitutional law and statutory law are quite malleable. The Supreme Court will be the authority at least for the foreseeable future on the legality of abortion, but it will not make its decisions based on rhetoric and I very much doubt the Justices are listening too much to the protesters outside their door. The decisions that are made by our court are complex and based on legal reasoning and not rhetoric. Although our federal judges are not elected, they are not completely outside the inﬂuence of the public. The public participates in the judicial process by electing those who will appoint judges and to an extent through friend of the court, amicus curie, briefs ﬁled with the court. The courts are not swayed by rhetoric no matter how loud, but they may be swayed by intelligent and insightful minds. Law is not concrete; instead, it is quite malleable. Instead of having a debate of rhetoric between protestors we should concentrate our efforts and have a debate of ideas and reasoning inside the court, and for that matter inside the legislative chambers of our country as well. The questions arising around the legal status of abortion are unique but the challenges we face as a country when we debate such an issue are not. Instead of throwing rhetoric at each other we should do our best to engage in civil debate, not only on abortion but on all the issues that face our country. I know that it’s difﬁcult to communicate complex issues and ideas to people in our day of 30 second issue ads and instant news, but the current method of debating the issues will not lead to a better government. I challenge anyone who wants to debate the big controversies to educate themselves on the real issues Contact Josh at email@example.com.
U.S. Supreme Court - Firstgov.gov as human life, they are not counted in the the third trimester. census, abortions were accepted prior to Plenty of arguments have been made to “quickening” under the common law, and attack the legal basis of Roe. Its fundamenabortions have been present throughout tal basis of the right to privacy has no dihistory in several cultures. The court used rect textual support in the Constitution, the a variety of justiﬁcations in its decision, in court’s lack of recognition of unborn life the end expanding the right to privacy to for the entire term of the pregnancy could include abortion. be seen as a moral judgment reserved for The core of the argument Roe has been the states to make, and although the court built on is the right to privacy, which was did not ﬁnd unborn life to enjoy all the established in Griswold. The court found beneﬁts of the law, it could be argued the the right to privacy to be implicit in the very fact states were banning abortion was constitution when it guaranteed freedom a recognition of the status of the unborn of speech and freedom from illegal search as individuals. These arguments reﬂect a and seizure as well the right against self point of view that can be just as constant incrimination and the Ninth Amendment and legal as the point of view that has been which guarantees rights not speciﬁcally expressed by the court over the years since mentioned in the Constitution. Having Roe was decided. The difference is perestablished the right to privacy in previ- spective and philosophy. ous cases the court tackled the case of a Although the questions in Roe are legal pregnant woman who was denied an abor- and not moral, that is not to say it is correct tion. In order to justify an intrusion on the or concrete. Questions of law are often just women’s privacy the state would have had as hard to answer as questions of morals. to show to the court a legitimate state in- Laws can be interpreted in a variety of terest. ways, and often the end result is just as The court did not accept the arguments much dependant on the person or judge as that were presented to the state, ﬁnding in any other kind of debate. Certainly there that abortion laws were a relatively recent are compelling arguments for both sides of happening and there was no historical ba- many arguments. Should the Constitution sis for them, or for the status of the unborn be interpreted strictly as it was written as life which the state could protect. In- originally, or broadly as it may apply tostead the court found that for the most part day? These are difﬁcult questions. unborn life was not recognized by the law It is rare, however, to see either these
THE PURDUE REVIEW
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006