4
I N D I A N A D A I LY S T U D E N T | W E D N E S D AY, O C T. 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 | I D S N E W S . C O M
OPINION
EDITORS: LEXIA BANKS & EMMA WENNINGER | OPINION@IDSNEWS.COM
OUR CHANGED WORLD
Holy guacamole, Taco Bell went dark Folks woke this morning to find Taco Bell’s social media accounts out for the count and, in fajita the moment, worried the fast food chain was gone forever. But this is nacho worst nightmare coming
true. The social media blackout was all part of a campaign to launch the Taco Bell app, on which you will be able to order your crunch wrap supremes without talking to a single human. Taco ‘bout a win-win situation.
WHIZZES AND BANGS
IDS EDITORIAL BOARD
That blood is pretty gay
Who is Tom Steyer? MICHAEL SU is a junior in violin performance.
Environmental concerns are crucial at IU, but it appears some people’s efforts are rewarded far more than others. Off of the heels of a story in USA Today, Tom Steyer, founder of Farallon Capital Management, has done a remarkable about-face since his days as a hedge fund manager apostate. Now he seeks to make his mark on history through exercising his constitutional right to free speech, investing portions of his roughly $1.5 billion net worth, according to Forbes, in a campaign to build a Super PAC called NextGen Climate Action. In the aftermath of 2010’s Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, an absolute torrent of money came flooding into elections. Most of the criticism of the decision came from the political left, with liberals screaming that the decision benefited the Koch brothers and the Koch brothers alone. It did, but it also empowered many others, such as fellow hedge fund activist George Soros, to pour even more of their money into the political space. Enter Steyer, who has taken pages from the Koch brothers in unleashing massive ad buys to smear opponents. The New York Times details the millions of dollars that NextGen Climate Action is pouring into the Florida gubernatorial race in opposition of incumbent Gov. Rick Scott on the grounds that the state will be the hardest hit by rising oceans. Therefore it is most deserving of NextGen’s money. This is a necessary donation, and it will hopefully resolve a great many problems. But whatever the reasons for his Road to Damascus experience, it is very striking to me that liberals will disparage their own prime methods for victory in elections, considering that labor unions, the other prime donors of the Democratic Party, also benefited quite generously from these new rules. It’s not beneficial to a cause you believe in to deny its furthering because the money comes from a man who’s politics don’t reflect your own. And when it comes to the environment, we all need to be working together. The next generation of climate crusaders is being increasingly bankrolled by big money figures — far from the grassroots movements that activists would like to portray. So now partisans of both sides can have parity when claiming one side’s volunteers are being AstroTurfed or not. So while it is definitely good to work on reasonable and sustainable conservation measures to reduce environmental changes, as we are starting to do at IU, the best lesson we can learn from examples such as Steyer is to make as much money as fiendishly possible and hope that our fortunes will be enough to buy our absolution from the carbon-producing days of old. mjsu@indiana.edu
TRACY JOHNSON is a senior in English.
ILLUSTRATION BY ALDEA SULLIVAN | IDS
Show me some ID WE SAY: Make photo IDs accessible to voters Indiana officials are discussing a new policy that would allow Indiana voters to vote without showing photo ID at the polls, according to an Indiana Daily Student article published on Oct. 22. Indiana voters are currently required by law to show identification when voting for government officials. Though this law was created to prevent voter fraud and to ensure that officials are elected out of choice by citizens who are registered, it also disenfranchises certain populations that have difficulty obtaining a photo ID. Everyone hates waiting in line at the BMV. Multiply that by bus routes, walking and long lines, and it becomes undesirable, and in some cases impossible, to obtain a driver’s license or a state ID. Certain populations of older voters whose IDs have long expired are not able to vote, even if they are registered. If we are going to require photo identification at the polls, we need to create easier channels to acquire it. Or we need to allow people to vote
without showing photo identification. Moreover, the government needs to realize that other tactics are used for voter fraud besides the lack of identification. In states with more lenient absentee voting policies, opportunities for voter fraud are multiplied. If people are able to submit absentee votes but are still required to show photo identification if they do go to the polls, there’s an odd double-standard in identification law that should be reviewed. We want people to show valid ID at the polls and we want our government to prevent voter fraud. But we cannot nix other forms of identification that could be used at the polls, such as a social security card or a birth certificate. Every person is required to have one anyway, and these forms are usually kept in a safe place. This way those without a photo ID could still vote, but it would still limit the chances of voting fraud. The government also needs to make an effort to accommodate people who
don’t speak English. If non-English speaking people go to the BMV only to discover no one there can speak their language, it just adds more difficulties to the process of obtaining an ID. The frustration of these situations may drive those populations away, which prevents them from voting. The BMV should employ bilingual workers to assist minority populations in obtaining identification to vote. Photo identification can be distributed when someone registers to vote. A person is not allowed to vote without registration. This way, they simply obtain a photo ID when signing the registration forms. This might allow more disenfranchised populations to vote. The voter identification law does disenfranchise certain populations. However, voting without any type of identification heightens the chances of voter fraud. A sound solution would be to make obtaining photo identification more accessible to disenfranchised populations.
AN EMMA DILEMMA
Finding the solution to nature’s rubix cube For whatever reason, many people, even doctors, have a hard time understanding that the female orgasm comes from erogenous zones other than the vaginal canal. Some even believe that women don’t achieve orgasm at all, when really only 10 percent of females experience anorgasmia, the inability to have an orgasm. There’s even a popular term for the female anatomy: “nature’s rubix cube.” A 2012 Yale study performed by Dr. Amichai Kilchevsky, who is a man, and his colleagues, found that the female G-spot does not exist. It was reported by the Yale Daily News and reviewed 60 years of published work, examining 29 separate studies. The big problem here is that Kilchevsky, when he was presenting his research, interchangeably used “G-spot” with “orgasm” and “erogenous zone” with “vaginal canal.” I will allow whether or not an anatomical G-spot inside of the vagina exists
to remain in question. But in Kilchevsky’s findings, he seemed completely flabbergasted, as he researched, by the fact that women do not orgasm from intercourse every time. The language is loaded with questions about the connection between the female orgasm and the vaginal canal. I would argue that he was looking in the wrong spot. It is important to define the limits of the study. The G-spot, so named for German gynecologist Ernst Grafenberg, who first began studying the female orgasm in 1950, generally refers to a sensitive area in the anterior wall of the vagina, or the wall facing the stomach. Purportedly, there is a cluster of nerves there that stimulate orgasm. It was that specific cluster that Kilchevsky was looking for and could not find. Kilchevsky and those who worked on the study believe female sexual pleasure, but not orgasm, comes from the confluence of pressure
placed on the “genitally sensitive organs,” which I find extremely hard to believe, and that the “spot” is actually a larger area, which seems obvious. Kilchevsky said he believed the famed “G-spot” is actually just an extension of the clitoris inside the vagina. The female orgasm does not necessarily come from intercourse. In fact, according to womensday.com, 80 percent of women do not climax from intercourse alone, which is probably why Kilchevsky was having such a hard time finding women who achieved orgasm from putting “pressure” on their “genital organs,” which honestly sounds painful and clumsy. Rather, inside the clitoris resides a cluster of extremely sensitive nerves. According to Psychology Today, there are some 7,000 to 8,000 nerve endings in that spot alone. Look up common orgasm myths online, and you’ll find that almost all of them are
EMMA WENNINGER is a junior in English.
baffled by the fact that only 30 percent of women achieve vaginal orgasm. I have to ask why so many are obsessed with this seeming flaw in women but can’t understand that if you pull out and move two inches up, you may find what you’re looking for. To say that women cannot achieve vaginal orgasm without exploring separate avenues and other erogenous zones is to spread falsehoods and misinformation about the female body. This damages women’s perceptions of themselves and perpetuates not only the ridiculous idea that women biologically exist to please men, but has insidious rape culture overtones. Maybe next time they will hire a team of women to sort it all out. ewenning@indiana.edu
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 350 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, 120 Ernie Pyle Hall, 940 E. Seventh St., Bloomington, Ind., 47405. Submissions can also be sent via e-mail to letters@idsnews. com. Questions can be directed to the IDS 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.
By donating blood you can save someone’s life, or someone can save yours. There is a list of rules and regulations to determine eligibility to donate blood. The rules and requirements are in place to ensure the blood donations are of a high quality and without any kind of contamination, deficiency or disease. Among this extensive list of rules and requirements are the requirements that the individual donating blood must never have used intravenous drugs that were not prescribed by a doctor and must not be pregnant. However, there are certain policies that say that men who have had sex with other men are deferred from donating blood. These regulations specifically single out gay or bisexual men as not being able to donate blood under the pretext that the human immunodeficiency virus is most prevalent among the community of men who have had sex with other men. Statistically speaking, it is true that the largest community affected by HIV is the gay and bisexual community. However, that does not mean this is the only population affected by the disease. Moreover, it does not take into account the fact that many queer men practice safe sex and are regularly checked for STD’s. It was documented in 2009 that 52 percent of people living with HIV were men who have had sex with other men. That means that 48 percent of the population of people living with HIV are not men who have had sex with other men, which is not an insignificant percentage. Presumably, the 48 percent are women and men who have not had sex with other men — research has not made a distinction between homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual women. All of these populations of men and women are allowed to donate blood, even though they, too, are at risk for contracting HIV. Men who have had sex with other men are discriminated against in the blood donation process simply because they are part of a population that has statistically shown the highest instances of HIV infection. I understand the need for the policy, but I also think it needs to be reviewed and changed. Some might think this discrimination would make sense because if this population is at high risk for HIV, allowing them to donate blood would put recipients of blood donations at risk for contracting the disease. However, the Red Cross screens and tests every sample of blood collected for diseases, such as HIV. A large percentage of people are excluded from helping save lives, purely based on their sexual orientation. In all reality, sexual orientation does not factor into the situation. This discrimination needs to end so more lives can be saved. johnstra@indiana.edu