Equality, Balance and Illegal Immigration

(In their quests for balance, some people inadvertently tip the scale. This means that they add so much to one side that the previously higher one soon drops below the median...)

If you take a literal look at the distribution of weight in America, white people are by far the most privileged group. However, I do not think that advocates for racial equality have ever cared about adding pounds, their goals always favor a more figurative sense of the word.

During the Jim Crow era, black people were restricted to certain public facilities, all separate from and inferior to the ones for white people. Therefore, blacks did not have as much "weight" under the law as whites. However, it is safe to say that the scale is now more even between these groups.

But what about the rapidly growing Hispanic population in America--where do they weigh in?

I would argue that these people have more density in this society than its own citizens. Why? Because they have somehow become immune to our laws.

They are here, and many are illegal. But that's okay.

Now, I know that lawmakers have voiced discontent with illegal immigration, but nothing substantial has been done to fix the problem. So it's time to start taking action--ignoring the more than twelve million people who have crossed into our borders and become exempt from our laws is not just tipping the scale, it's jumping to the other side.

Indiana Senator Mike Delph, R-Carmel, has made an attempt to the level these measurements --but he's just one man, and he is not heavy. He needs help, and I do not understand why it is so hard for us to join his efforts.

The United States emphasizes rule of law, the principle that no one is above the law. Still, it overlooks the fact that an entire group of people is living and working in our country without being subject to its rules.

Arguments have been made for the positive impact illegal immigration has had on our economy--these people are taking the jobs we do not want, and for less. But how can we feel good about taking advantage of such aliens?

Rule of law was created to prevent tyranny, and with further disregard, our nation might end up "shooting itself in the foot."

Besides, helping Senator Delph could help the immigrants as well. Maybe they would actually gain legal identities, thereby having more opportunity and more money in addition to lives no longer kept in secret.

We're not saying we do not want them here--the U.S. prides itself in its melting pot status --we just want them here legally.

If that isn't too much to ask, then stand with Senator Delph and help move the scale.

Liberal (Arts) Education?

Before attending Franklin College, I did not know the meaning of the phrase, "liberal arts education." It has since been pounded into my head that the term describes a curriculum that mandates a variety of general courses for all students.

However, it is easier for me to see a different meaning. Reflecting on the past four years, I have decided that I could simply delete the word "arts" from the phrase and say that I have received a "liberal education."

I'm not alone in this statement--it rings true for all college students.

Franklin College has a relatively conservative student body, but many of its courses, some of which are required, promote liberal ideas.

I am currently enrolled in "WST 101," Women's Studies, the only class that fit both an elective requirement and already packed schedule. Although the professor began with the usual "embracement of all opinions" speech, it is easy to see that conservative ideas are not welcome in her classroom.

Therefore, I have been forced to read and write about topics that I do not agree with; I have had to pretend to accept feminist ideas in order to do well.

Last week, I was assigned the reading of chapter five from "Feminism is for Everybody" by Bell Hooks. In it, she writes, "Women of all classes must continue to make abortions safe, legal, and affordable."

I did not agree with this in the slightest, but I had to swallow the vomit ascending to the back of my throat and keep reading.

Why? Because as a conservative, I know the importance of education, the importance of a diploma.

I know that I am strong enough to reject all inconsistencies with my belief system. But I have seen that most young adults are easily swayed. It is therefore unfair for professors to drill certain viewpoints into their heads without a real openness to objection.

I sometimes wonder whether the overwhelming support among 18-29 year olds for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the result of such liberal educations. If opinions at the academies were more balanced, would the support for each party be better proportioned?

Teachers say that they want to make a difference in the lives of their students, but this difference is not positive when it does not allow us to think for ourselves.

I hope that universities and colleges can learn to see through these biased efforts and focus on providing more objective educations. Maybe the word "arts" can someday find its way back into our liberal curriculums.

Reasons Bob Knight could beat Hillary Clinton in presidential race

Two people were fighting to be the topic of my first blog, and I don't enjoy useless conflict. So I chose to discuss both. Don't worry--it's not like I'm going to stretch the limits of appropriate blogging and compare politics to athletics. Or am I...?

Actually, that is exactly what I am about to do. This blog is likely to be the only hit that results from an improbable google search request for both "Bob Knight" and "Hillary Clinton" in one article. So why would I even consider placing the two very different personalities side by side on this computer screen? It is because, political and athletic interests aside, I have spent much time studying these two people. I have noted their differences and come to a conclusion.

Bob Knight has made it known that he does not care what people think of him, yet he draws a good-sized fan base from all over the country; and Hillary Clinton is perpetually conscious of her public image, yet she draws an equally good-sized hater base from all over the country.

It seems that people would rather have Bob Knight tell them to kiss his ass than have Hillary Clinton kiss theirs.

Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of all Knight fans or Hillary haters. Still, I can point out that the public is not stupid, and the difference seems to be a matter of genuineness. Bob Knight is real, and people like that; Hillary only acts real, and people see through it.

During the time for which he is best known--his years at Indiana University--Bob Knight did not tell the administration, his players, the press or fans what they wanted to hear. He was the poster face for blunt comments and his list of questionable remarks is lengthy.

In Indianapolis Monthly in December, 1982, he says: "I fortunately have never worried about irritating people."


It cannot be argued that Knight was an aggressive coach, demanding excellence both on the court and in life. His expectations were high, and his athletes were pushed to work harder than they ever had and probably ever would. The IU administration alleged that his determination for success led to unnecessary physical sanctions towards players, and he was asked to leave the university. Knight did not disguise his frustration withMyles Brand's decision, and neither did the thousands who gathered to protest outside Assembly Hall or hang banners around campus that read "Bob Knight is God" or "Mr. Knight 4 Prez."

Knight did not rally these troops, they formed on their own in support of The General, a man who was real. They respected his authenticity.

"I guess that people are attracted, or whatever, to a no bullshit guy who tells people to shove it up their ass when he thinks it's appropriate," Knight told Esquire, March 1988.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has devoted her entire self to popularity and is always willing to change her appearance or ideas for a stronger supportive base. This has been evident over and over again, starting with a sudden emphasis in femininity that came directly after constituent criticisms that she appeared too masculine to be First Lady. It could be said that within a day, Clinton was able to become more of a woman and demonstrate a more caring, maternal side that previously had been hidden (if it even existed). Clinton has learned that voters prefer this feminine strategy and therefore has devoted much of her presidential campaign to the theme "Women Changing America."


After winning the New Hampshire primary on January 8, Clinton told supporters: "I come here tonight with a very full heart. I have listened to you and in the process I found my own voice."

How did she find such inner qualities through the help of strangers?

She didn't. But she is willing to do and say almost anything to be liked--when the war was popular, she supported it; when it wasn't, she denied such support. The constant changes in her hairstyle, dress and recent botox injections all indicate a conscious effort towards public approval.

Knight wouldn't change for IU officials even after given a zero-tolerance policy, but Clinton would change for just about anyone. And you sure as hell wouldn't hear her tell anyone, at least in public, to "shove it." So do we appreciate that Hillary is so willing to adapt for us? Overwhelmingly, the answer is no, because in doing so she becomes a mystery, and noone can be certain who Hillary Clinton really is.

She is fake, he is real. People know the difference. Maybe Knight should run for president--at least we'd know who we were voting for.