Riding the bus

Thank you for your excellent article “I Waited” and for being brave enough to get some firsthand experience with our transit system (Cover, “Missing the Bus,” Feb. 18-25). I am transit dependent and work every day, so I can understand your confusion — I haven’t been able to figure it out in 60 years.

I hope you will continue to ride at least now and then, but I always recommend that anyone planning to use IndyGo first call the Transit Store info, 635-3344, and get a live person to help you plan your trip. It is not infallible (I was left stranded at 96th and Meridian last summer due to incorrect info), but it usually does work. Of course, you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers. You should be prepared to give them a detailed description of where and when you need to go somewhere so they help you get there. Do not assume that because you saw a bus going down the street yesterday morning that it will be going the same way every time.

IndyGo (formerly Metro) does try to accommodate as many riders as possible and adjusts their routes based to some degree on public input. Over the years, many routes have become extremely complicated by compromising to offer service to more people for the same or less money. My neighborhood Route 24/MarsHill goes one way through West Indianapolis in the morning, another way in the afternoon, and still another on Saturday, with no Sunday or holiday service on this “low ridership” route, and usually alternate trips down Holt Road or Tibbs Avenue south of Morris Street, with occasional trips to Ameriplex industrial park (per their request) way down Kentucky Avenue in Decatur Township.

Since you seem to realize the social/community benefits of riding the bus, I would like to recommend a book to you: Riding the Bus With My Sister by Rachel Simon. This little gem details a journey made by the author when she agreed to ride buses with her adult “retarded” sister to learn how she could better help her in her independent lifestyle. Like me, she learned a great deal more about herself and society in general by this experience.

I’m sure I am a more understanding, patient, tolerant person because of all the people I have met and the neighborhoods I have seen from the bus. It has enriched my life immeasurably. Now, if it could just get me where I need to go when I need to be there, I would be very happy.
Thanks again for your article.

Joanne Hamilton
Indianapolis

I usually agree with what you say and I’ve even decided to cut you some slack on the smoking thing (you’ll die before I do ...) BUT I must protest your phrasing in this week’s column (Hammer, “Why Change Our Clocks?” Feb. 18-25). After several inches of entirely appropriate and on-target Bush bashing, you say, “After he gets re-elected, he can … “

PUHLEEZE! George W. Bush was not “elected” to the office he now occupies, he was “S-elected” by the Supreme Court. It is unlike you to be so careless with precise language and accurate characterization. I think you owe your readers an apology and correction. And it wouldn’t hurt to make the point again — and again — that the man was not “elected” so he can’t be “RE-elected.”

Love your regular pushing of voter registration, too! Keep up the good work!

Ellen Crosby
Indianapolis

I was pleasantly surprised by your article on the “Patriot Act” (Public Interest” “Nothing Patriot-ic About It,” Feb. 4-11). We actually agree on something — although I do think it is reasonable to hold enemy POWs for the duration of the war (like Yemeni members of al Qaeda captured in Afghanistan). However, I think that there is more to be said on the subject of over-reaching government taking our freedom in the name of protecting us.

Assaults on our freedom are coming from the “left” and the “right.” The violations of the right to due-process and privacy by the “Patriot Act” are extensions of the encroachments made in the name of the “war-on-drugs” — “This is the GOP, step away from the Constitution with your hands in the air, we’re here to make you safe!” On the other hand, the Democrats and their token Republican have brought us “campaign finance reform,” which not only prevents us from putting our money where our politics are, but presumes to say that the associations we join to get a voice that will be listened to (ACLU, unions, NRA, etc.) can’t name candidates or use the common name of bills with their names on it (like McCain/Feingold) 60 days before an election!

I can hear it now: “That’s a collective right, you have your elected representatives to assemble and speak for you. You can’t trust just anybody with the responsibilities of political speech, leave that to professionals.” It’s the same BS they say about the right to keep and bear arms. Some of them have even been hawking “gun control” as “home-land security.” If you don’t have the right to be armed in self defense against criminals and the occasional terrorist then what kind of security have you got? Your right to life and limb has been taken and held in proxy by the government! Compounding the damage, the courts often uphold this crap. Then again, they used to uphold Jim-Crow laws, too.

Of course, it’s too easy and unfair to put all of the blame on judges and legislators, they still have to get elected here — for now. As long as the public accepts the premise that government officials condescend to grant us our rights, instead of viewing the Constitution as a contract under whose terms WE grant the government the authority to govern, we will continue to lose our freedom. The public even seems to clamor for nanny-government to solve minor nuisances like prohibiting telemarketing, inviting government to hyper-regulate our lives just as long as we can financially maintain our “lifestyle.” As a result our rights have become those proverbial pearls thrown before swine: “Hey this stuff is hard to chew, can you throw corn instead?”

I believe Ben Franklin said, “Those who would surrender freedom to gain the illusion of security, deserve neither freedom nor security!”

David Harper
Indianapolis

I was disappointed that once again politics entered into women’s health concerns when it was recently announced that the FDA is delaying the approval of a form of emergency contraception for over-the-counter use.

Emergency contraception is an FDA-approved safe and effective medication, and a critical tool in preventing unintended pregnancy. In the case of rape, incest or unprotected intercourse, emergency contraception works to prevent the unintended pregnancies that often end in abortion.

Is the FDA choosing to side with politics over science?

Emergency contraception meets all FDA criteria for over-the-counter availability. A joint hearing by the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees voted overwhelmingly (24 to 3) in December to approve over-the-counter status. At the time, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson was quoted saying that science will be the basis of the decision. I guess somebody forgot to tell him that politics trumps science far too often in cases of women’s health these days.

Virtually all major medical and health care organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, support the move. So why did the FDA postpone the decision about making emergency contraception available over the counter?

Widespread availability of EC could prevent up to 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year in the United States. The FDA’s decision only delays the possibility of meeting this essential and laudable goal. It should move quickly to approve emergency contraception for over-the-counter access. Public health demands no less.

When will politicians stop using women’s health care to further their political agendas?

Betty Cockrum
President and CEO, Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana