Indiana Daily Student
4
OPINION
Thursday, Feb 16, 2017 idsnews.com
COLIN’S COLUMN
Editors Dylan Moore and Zack Chambers opinion@idsnews.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
Don’t walk back Wall Street regulation For an opinion columnist Donald Trump’s presidency might seem like a boon. His every action makes for constant material, and he’s so easy to criticize. However, to be honest, I actively avoid writing about him because so many other writers cover him. However, recently he’s suggested something that I can’t ignore. He’s promised to “dismantle the DoddFrank Act.” Already, this Tuesday he signed a bill repealing disclosure provisions on oil and gas companies. Most people don’t know what the Dodd-Frank Act is. As a result, Trump’s push to remove it is all the more dangerous because there won’t be protests or public backlash, like there was with the travel ban. This is why it’s so important that we keep informed about this. For a little background, the Dodd-Frank Act was put into place after the 2008 stock market crash. It’s a collection of regulations and policies aimed at increasing transparency and accountability for banks. Basically a second GlassSteagall act, which was put in place to prevent another Great Depression, DoddFrank is in place to help prevent speculation that could prove dangerous to the United States economy. I have very few issues that I’m extremely passionate about, but one of them is market stability, and DoddFrank is an excellent tool for ensuring this sort of security. In fact, I believe we need stronger measures, not weaker ones, constraining banks. Most major financial downturns are caused by banks overstepping their bounds, which is why despite how important they are, we need to keep them under control. This was one of the main reasons I supported Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont. I found some of his other policies a bit unrealistic, but I knew he would keep our banks in check. However, Trump is
COLIN DOMBROWSKI is a freshman in advertising
considering dismantling legislation which keeps us from falling into another big recession, but the most egregious affront is his reasoning. Trump’s reasoning and the reason for my fear that he’ll repeal and not revise it is captured by Trump’s own words. As reported by the Atlantic, Trump spoke at a briefing earlier this month. Before meeting with his economic advisory council, he stated, “I have so many people, friends of mine, with nice businesses — they can’t borrow money, because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations and Dodd-Frank.” Likewise, Trump is also taking his cues from Wall Street here. The Atlantic also quotes Trump as having said, “There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie,” referring to the current Chief Executive Officer of megabank J.P. Morgan, Jamie Dimon. These regulations against his Wall Street friends are the exact reason for the existence of the Dodd-Frank Act. The regulations ensure the integrity of our financial structure and help prevent our economy from ending up like one of Trump’s failed business ventures. We cannot allow the entire economy to run like a Trump casino. To many, this might seem secondary to other issues, like Trump’s immigration ban or Betsy DeVos as his education secretary, but for me, this is at the forefront. This sort of regulation is what keeps our nation from economic turmoil, and if we face another recession, that’s thousands of Americans who lose their jobs, lose their livelihoods and lose their security. That’s why we cannot allow Trump to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act. In doing so he would be enriching his friends at the expense of the American people. ctdombro@umail.iu.edu @doctorthaddeus
ILLUSTRATION BY AUSTIN VANSCOIK | IDS
Asset forfeiture is abused Civil asset forfeiture procedures are open to abuse by police Life has probably taught you by now that even if you don’t do anything wrong, you’re not necessarily protected from harm. For example, even if you are not charged or convicted with a crime, police officers can still seize any of your assets — property, cash, cars, etc. — that they suspect is connected to criminal activity. Furthermore, you would have to file a civil suit to reclaim what you lost. However, you would not have the right to an attorney because your court case would not concern an actual crime. This practice is called civil asset forfeiture, and it originated in the Prohibition era when police wanted to seize and resell vehicles used for transporting bootlegged alcohol. Since then, profits from seized assets have become a important source of funding for police departments, and critics of civil asset forfeiture argue that it encourages corruption. The Editorial Board
stands firmly among those critics and believes reform is necessary to protect citizens’ rights from potential abuse by law enforcement agencies. These agencies claim that, particularly with drug dealing, financial consequences can be easier and more effective in impeding dealers than actual arrests. However, as the Huffington Post reports, Robert Johnson, an attorney for the Institute of Justice, notes, “civil forfeiture creates a financial incentive to go after the financial target rather than the real criminal.” The Institute of Justice is a public interest law firm, and part of its argument against civil asset forfeiture is the lack of transparency in records of seized assets. Last year, the institute released a nationwide report on state records and found that 31 states could not pass its evaluation. Indiana, for example, satisfied only eight out of 20 requirements for sufficient
record-keeping. Among the information Indiana’s records omitted was the estimated value of property seized, the crime for which a suspect was charged — if any — and the outcome of the suspect’s case. Public opinion, as measured in a nationwide poll taken by the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, in 2016 shows an 84% disapproval rating for civil asset forfeiture, and there are currently fifteen states — including Indiana — that are introducing legislature for reform. Indiana Senate Bill 8 proposes that seized property will be “forfeited to the state only if the owner of the property has been convicted of a criminal offense,” as well as that this property will no longer be turned over to the federal government. If passed, SB8 will ensure innocent citizens cannot lose their possessions unjustly, and it will encourage police departments to focus on addressing crime instead
of abusing their powers to turn a profit. Other reforms, including Senate Bill 113, proposing an annual report of forfeitures, and House Bill 1123, forming committees to find funds to replace what would be lost in forfeitures, are under consideration for the 120th General Assembly, and the Editorial Board fully endorses all of these measures. Innocent citizens should not be punished because police departments are struggling with their budgets. Civil asset forfeiture places an unfair burden on all of us, especially lower income individuals who do not have the resources to win their possessions back in court. In light of its facilitation of corruption and its disapproval among constituents, civil asset forfeiture demands reform, and the Editorial Board urges the Indiana Senate to enact such reform.
MULLING IT OVER WITH MERM
SELON MOI
Stop being snobby about pop culture
You should remember the classics
Pop culture has taken a turn for the weird in the 2010s. Despite that, we love it. I pick which parts of pop culture I enjoy and which ones I don’t. However, even if I do not like a certain part of pop culture, I’m not about to shame someone for enjoying it. My Facebook feed Sunday night and last week inspired this article. I saw so many relatives and friends from high school griping and moaning about how they “just don’t get Beyoncé” or think they’re cool because they don’t like her. Before that, the same people were griping about Lady Gaga’s Super Bowl performance and saying she’s overrated. Yes, artists who are typically well known and liked are the ones chosen to perform at the Super Bowl. The point of pop culture is it is made up of popular things that will more than likely be overrated. There’s nothing wrong with
loving pop culture. There’s also nothing wrong with hating pop culture. I just wish people would stop being snobs about it. Our culture of consumerism and popularity has created a subculture of sorts that promotes shaming people for hopping on the trends. This is not to say that I do not appreciate people who critique pop culture. Being critical of the media we are presented with is important. When we are critical of it, it lets the creators know what we want and what we do not want. Things such as representation and portrayals are important concepts to be critiqued within pop culture. Linda Holmes, a blogger for National Public Radio, says it is important to study and ingest pop culture because the way we react to it reflects our interests in society as well. When seeing all of the complaining without substance
MIRANDA GARBACIAK is a junior in creative writing
on Facebook, I talked with my friends to find out what they thought about pop culture. I spoke with some of my friends about this issue and one had a particularly insightful take. To paraphrase her, pop culture is not just some fanciful thing we can ignore. The culture is the essence of our lives. Everyone has to live in this culture and interact with others every day that are influenced by it. Let’s be critical and constructive of the material we are consuming without shaming people for enjoying it. Let’s not shame people who don’t want to be critical and just want to enjoy pop culture. In essence, that is what pop culture is created for: enjoyment. mmgarbac@umail.iu.edu
People generally tend to connect with media they can relate to. Perhaps we see ourselves in the characters being portrayed. Because of this classic literature is often ignored, especially by our younger generations. These classic works are relatable, relevant and important in the modern world. For example, one of my favorite novels of all time is Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” written in 1862. It is an epic tale of redemption, love and revolution. It isn’t widely read by students today mostly because it is extremely long and contains long chapters tediously describing sewer systems. Despite that, it has incredibly important historical relevance. Classic literature is an immersive historical experience that keeps us connected and informed about events that shaped our modern day culture. On
top of that, classic literature can be just as enjoyable and relatable as contemporary forms of media. We see the same funny, interesting and complex characters in novels written in 1862 as we do in the novels written in 2017. Looking to Hugo again, his characters are surprisingly relatable to the modern day college student. One of our young heroes, Marius Pontmercy, sat for hours in the same park everyday to stare at the same girl he was too nervous to talk to, and when he finally did speak to her, he hit his head on a tree. Hugo’s tragic revolutionary characters that died in the rebellion were all college students, trying to make sense of everything from their law classes to their increasingly oppressive government, which feels all too familiar. So many classic works of literature have these
EMMA GETZ is a freshman in history.
striking relevancies to our lives, some not all that deep. In another one of my favorite novels, Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” the protagonist Pierre finds himself at a party binge drinking. Classic literature is important and teaches us many things about the foundations of history and culture that connect to our daily lives. But what people fail to realize is that it is also incredibly passionate and fun. Novels written by Tolstoy, Jane Austen, Oscar Wilde and F. Scott Fitzgerald can be just as exciting and entertaining as the television shows we are watching on Netflix. I encourage all of you to branch out and enjoy these books as a new source of entertainment. emmagetz@umail.iu.edu
A NOTE FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD The Editorial Board is made up of the Opinion section editors and columnists. Each editorial topic is selected and discussed by the Board until we reach a consensus, and a member of the board volunteers to write the article. The opinions expressed by the Editorial Board do not necessarily represent the opinions of the IDS news staff, student body, faculty or staff members or the Board of Trustees. SPRING 2017 EDITORIAL BOARD Dylan Moore, Zack Chambers, Kaitlynn Milvert, Miranda Garbaciak, Becca Dague, Neeta Patwari, Anna Groover, Maddy Klein, Emma Getz, Colin Dombrowski, Jessica Karl, Steven Reinoehl, Austin VanScoik, Julia Bourkland, Kathryn (Katie) Meier, Lucas Robinson, Sam Reynolds, Mercer Suppiger, Brian Gamache, Justin Sexton
LETTER TO THE EDITOR POLICY The IDS encourages and accepts letters to be printed daily from IU students, faculty and staff and the public. Letters should not exceed 500 words and may be edited for length and style. Submissions must include the person’s name, address and telephone number for verification.
Letters without those requirements will not be considered for publication. Letters can be mailed or dropped off at the IDS, 6011 E. Kirkwood Ave. Bloomington, IN 47405. Send submissions via e-mail to letters@idsnews.com. Call the IDS with questions at 855-0760.
Indiana Daily Student, Est. 1867 Website: idsnews.com The opinions expressed by the editorial board do not necessarily represent the opinions of the IDS news staff, student body, faculty or staff members or the Board of Trustees. The editorial board comprises columnists contributing to the Opinion page and the Opinion editors.