On Saturday, members of Alabamians for Compassionate Care¬ — a group that supports the use and legalization of medical marijuana — marched from Caldwell Park to the fountain at Five Points west.

They were there to support the Michael Phillips Compassionate Care Act. They expect the bill will be introduced to the state legislature sometime in March. It is modeled after the laws that are in effect in 14 other states and the District of Columbia, and it would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to patients who suffer from seizures, have chronic pain or have been diagnosed with cancer.

Continue Reading

This is a breaking news story. Updates will continue throughout the week.

Domestic partners will receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples beginning January 2010.
The new policy will cover both dependent adult and sponsored dependent child insurances.
“Effective Oct.1, 2009, UAB faculty and staff were able to enroll eligible sponsored adult and child dependents in medical, dental and vision plans. The university made the decision to expand its benefit eligibility categories in the context of one of our strategic goals,” a UAB spokesperson said.
University president Carol Garrison said last week UAB is striving to maintain excellence in the fields of academics and research, but to do this the university had to modify employee benefits to attract a better pool of faculty applicants.
“We strive to create a positive, supportive and diverse work environment in which faculty and staff can excel. We believe this change will help us remain competitive from an employee recruiting standpoint,” the spokesperson said.
Other universities across the nation competing with UAB in many fields such as medicine have adopted similar policies to acquire faculty members.
“We were not able to offer the families of potential faculty, staff and researchers access to the same sorts of benefits packages comparable to those of our top NIH-funded medical school peer group, which includes Vanderbilt, Duke, Johns Hopkins and others.
Jade Delisle, director of “One Closed Door After Another,” a film that addresses the lack of availability of domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees at UAB has spent time talking to UAB faculty who cited personnel losses due to the old policy.
“A lot of people left for this reason,” Delisle said.
Delisle also notes that UAB is one of the top 20 universities on the list of the American Research Universities. Of the top 20 only three of them did not offer domestic partner benefits.
“UAB was one of those three universities,” she said. “UAB employees did not have access to the same healthcare for their partner and children even though they paid the same money.”
The plan outlines an eligible partner as someone who “shares a primary residence, not as a renter, tenant or employee, with the covered UAB employee, and has lived with UAB employee at least 12 months prior to effective date of coverage, is at least 19 years old, the age of majority in Alabama, is not a relative and is not married,” according to the university’s human resources benefits website.

For more information visit http://www.hrm.uab.edu/main/benefits. To watch “One Closed Door After Another” click here.

Lindsey Little
Staff Writer
lklittle@uab.edu

Alyssa Mitchell
Editor in Chief
editor@insideuab.com

Forever 21 shoes $6

As college students, words like “budget” and “frugal” are commonplace to us. With the money woes looming in addition to academic performance concerns, it’s easy to have an elevated stress level while pushing through the four to six years required to earn a degree. As if those two factors weren’t troublesome enough, there is still the pressure to look good after nights of late-night studying, working and/or partying. For all you thrifty kids out there forced to nervously check the bank statement while longing for a hot new outfit, here is a list of stores that have killer clothes at prices that won’t hurt your wallet:

1)      Target

Target has long been a personal favorite in the way of cheap, well-made clothing. In recent years, they have started promoting famous designers by selling catwalk-worthy clothes at affordable prices. Currently, Anna Sui is the featured designer. With her “Gossip Girl” inspired line of Upper East Side chic dresses and headbands, the Blair Waldorf look is available only a short drive down 280. In addition to the designer specials, Mossimo and Converse have deals with Target. Mossimo’s trendy t-shirts and comfortable cable knits are ever changing to keep up with what’s hot in the fashion world and will not break your bank. An insider tip: Look for the orange sale stickers! You can save anywhere from 25% to 75% on Target’s trendy styles just by being a sale rack enthusiast.

2)      Wal-Mart

As a high school kid, I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a Wal-Mart ensemble. It just wasn’t cool. However, necessity mixed with an updated flair for fashion on behalf of Wally World has bred a new outlook. With Ocean Pacific (OP) as a standout brand adorning the racks of the store that has almost everything, it’s easy to exude California cool no matter what the temperature outside may be. In addition to the surfer chic styles of the ’70s throwback brand, Taylor Swift and L.E.I. clothing have a line inspired by Swift’s own personal style. With sundresses and seemingly worn jeans, the casual country look offered by the fashion merger is appropriate for everything from a roll in the hay to a stroll down the sidewalks of campus.

3)      Kohl’s

While not all of Kohl’s clothing is on the pennywise end of the spectrum, the department store offers some excellent options for the mindful spender who seeks fashionista status. Always up to par with the latest looks, Kohl’s racks are a plethora of plaids and boho patterns right now. Again, always check the sale racks to avoid dropping more cash than you planned as this store has plenty of deals at any given moment. Recently, Kohl’s brought Lauren Conrad and her new clothing line, The Lauren Conrad Collection, aboard. With reasonably-priced jeans, leggings, dresses and tops, the reality television icon displays her sizzling Hollywood fashion sense without any of the drama.

4)      Ross

The tagline isn’t “Dress for Less” without cause. This store specializes in brand name apparel and accessories without the elevated designer prices. With overstock items and slightly irregular pieces being shipped in every single day, the experience of shopping at Ross is like a treasure hunt for the ultimate clothes horse. Everything from DKNY and Juicy Couture to Hurley and Hollister are present if the time to peruse is taken. Allot at least an hour to scan the cluttered racks. While you may find yourself frustrated at the lack of organization, the steals are definitely worth the hassle.

5)      Plato’s Closet

The consignment style store accepts only gently used, brand name items. It’s like being in Goodwill or Salvation Army without having to sift through armpit stained t-shirts and ’80s shoulder pad sweaters. Used clothing prices with clothes not actually appearing used is the philosophy Plato’s Closet subscribes to. The jeans are particularly ideal there as they have been worn just enough to keep you from doing squats or the frog hop to stretch them to perfection. The best part? You can take your gently used closet space suckers there and get paid if they’re in presentable condition. Profit and then spend, baby. This is capitalism at its pinnacle.

Aaron Graf

The religious beliefs that people hold (even Atheism) are meant for personal, not political life.  When the founding fathers created our nation, they did not have a “Christian” nation in mind, but rather a nation in which Christians and non-Christians could live in peace with each other.

Obviously, Christianity is the predominant religion in our nation, but mixing a specific religion, such as Christianity, with legal code can be dangerous. The tenets of every religion are interpreted and reinterpreted in many ways. These subjective interpretations are what make mixing religious dogma with social law and order troubling, particularly in a society that is as religiously diverse as ours.

In the past, induction of religious law into the legal code has resulted in things like fines, wars, bigotry, sexism, censorship, heresy trials, witch-burnings, torture, and genocide.

The United States was not founded on Christian values. “In God We Trust” was not put on our currency until 1864.  The Founders didn’t even have a pledge of allegiance; the pledge itself didn’t emerge until 1892, and has been modified four times since.  It wasn’t until 1954, during the constitution shredding days of the McCarthy Era, that “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance.

I’ve heard several televangelists say that nowhere in the constitution or in the declaration of independence is there a clause about the separation of church and state.  This claim is misguided and downright fallacious.  The First Amendment is more than enough to refute such unsupportable claims:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Declaration of Independence also very clearly states why no one has any reason to institutionalize their religious dogma:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“Nature’s God,” “Supreme Judge,” “Divine Providence,” and “Creator” are not referring to the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic version of God at all.  “Nature’s God” refers specifically to the being that created nature; this is not the scriptural God so many mistake it to be.  This was actually in reference to the Deist form of God, which is what a majority of the Founders believed in.  Many of them were openly hostile towards organized religion.

George Washington was a Deist as well, but many Christian historians have concocted stories saying he was a Christian.  The biggest propagandist of Washington’s alleged Christianity was the Reverend Mason Locke Weems, who was also the man who preached of the ridiculous cherry tree story.

The truth is that Washington was a Deist, just as Madison, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson were.  The words of the founders on organized religion clearly proved they were founding a secular state.  Weems claims that Washington put his hand over his breast and said for God to take him away as he was dying.  Seems like a convincing argument until one realizes that Mason Locke Weems was not even at Washington’s deathbed. Tobias Lear, who was present at Washington’s death bed, states that he had no last minute repentance, but rather died without a sigh.

Below are some quotes I think clearly demonstrate the Founders’ intentions for a secular society:

“Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

-George Washington

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

“How many observe Christ’s birthday! How few, his precepts! O! ‘Tis easier to keep holidays than commandments.”

-Benjamin Franklin

“Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government.”

-James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.”

-John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

In our nation, people should be allowed to believe what they want, without having government impede upon them or their personal values. Mixing religion with state in the hopes of achieving virtue is the equivalent of using alcohol to put out a fire-it results in chaos and unnecessary injury.

Christopher W. Reuther

Blazer ID: Pleiades

In today’s world, we hear the word terrorism all the time. We hear it when we turn on our televisions, we hear it when we listen to the radio, and it reaches us through the Internet. Not only does it reach us constantly through the media, but as our technology progresses so rapidly, the realities of terrorism hit us closer to home, visually, in much of its violence and bloodiness.

In this day and age more than any other, terrorism reaches places thousands of miles a way, not just through images and sounds, but also through emotions like fear, which is dangerous enough, as Franklin Roosevelt once pointed out. It is through these emotions that terrorism has such a profound effect on the politics of countries around the world, especially the one we live in. When it reaches us, it provokes us to action.

We cannot afford not to study terrorism at the very least, which leads us to try to solve the problem of terrorism. Using history, we can take examples of people who fought for righteousness in the past and apply those examples to the present, not only in the case of terrorism but also in the case of many other problems. Today, terrorism is just one of the problems facing the human race.

We have come farther than ever before, but that progress has a price. In addition to terrorism, we face global warming, the repression of human rights by dictatorial regimes, and even genocide in places like Darfur. Though there are many dangers, Chinese wisdom offers us the solution of how to confront them. In Chinese, the word for crisis is is “危机,” or wei ji. The first character means danger, but the second character means opportunity.

Every great figure has their challenge to overcome, and today we have a wealth of challenges. But we also have the opportunity, through the dangers we face, to apply the wisdom passed down from Gandhi and Martin Luther King and to improve ourselves instead of complacently ignoring them so as to pass them on to our children. Therefore the philosophies of Gandhi and King are extremely relevant, and indeed their wisdom may be the only thing we have to confront our present dangers. If we can even be shadows of the people before us, we will win a better tomorrow for our children today.

As King himself said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” a statement that is extremely relevant in an interconnected world. Therefore, it may also be said that all forms of injustice, including terrorism, are a threat to all forms of justice. From this statement, we can see that no problem can be ignored. When we see pollution threaten health around the world or tearing apart ecosystems, we have a duty as members of the human race to take a stand for everyone. Recognizing the dangers we face is the first thing that such historical figures have taught us. We must look for those problems and pay attention to them because one day they will hit us closer to home.

We need to speak out when we see anything that isn’t right, no matter what the cause. Nothing that anyone today says is more relevant than this, because paying attention is the first step.

The second step is clearly action, and action requires courage. In the case of both Gandhi and King, resistance without violence was how they acted. In both cases they had dreams, and in both cases their dreams became reality. However action must go on even when you stare defeat in the face. Both of them went to jail because they refused to stop fighting the good fight. But they never used violence because they believed violence was never justified - no matter what it would never lead to a good end.

For Gandhi and King, the ends didn’t justify the means if the means were violent. They contended that violence is an end in and of itself, and spreading violence was not their goal. They went straight to the heart of the matter, by acting as examples and persuading people instead of forcing them. Their opponents who employed violence never accomplished their goals through that violence. Terrorists can use violence, but they won’t accomplish any of their goals if we don’t allow them into scaring us into submission. Their violence is useless and it contradicts Muhammad’s teaching.

Lastly, the third step for solving such problems includes not only the result of the action but also the aftermath. Even if there is no success, the problem is brought to everyone’s attention and everyone wins because someone else will probably take up the cause. So the only way you can lose is when you fail to act. And in the aftermath of success, there is no greater danger than to quit acting to combat injustice because that success might be attacked, or forgotten, and the injustice that was fought off will only return. King preached right up to the point that he was assassinated, and Gandhi continued to advocate positions in which he believed even when the British were gone. Today, it is hard to imagine that any of the terrorists, the rich people who profit from ruining the environment or the Janjaweed militias will ever back down. The rest of the human race shouldn’t back down either in the fight for justice.

The human race is the heir to the wisdom of people like these two men, and in studying this wisdom, we can overcome our present dangers like terrorism. We must identify the problems that surround us instead of living our lives poorly with them. We must participate in government and speak out, because without participating in society, we will have no input as we suffer any injustice that affects us, injustices that we don’t have to put up with. And we shouldn’t stop with success because there are always injustices and dangers in the world that will never sleep or leave us alone. The examples set by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are very relevant in a world where truth never becomes outdated.

By Ian Hoppe

I am a smoker.

A smoker of Camel Filters to be specific. And, apart from its obvious health effects, I enjoy it.

There are lots of people, some of them reading this now I’m sure, who like to preach against smoking. They wail endlessly about the horrible consequences, and the widespread genocide propagated by the evil tobacco companies. They get together and orchestrate these big public events where they assemble outside an office building and simultaneously fall down, or they hire a guy in a cowboy hat to sing a catchy jingle through his voice box (”no you don’t always die from tobacco”). Most of you would recognize this campaign: TheTruth.com, a fear-based marketing organization that uses forms of death and disfigurement to scare you away from tobacco.

They seem like a fairly successful advocacy group. Their eye-catching ads are all over mainstream television and other prominent media outlets. They have a cool, interactive Web site targeting our demographic, and they directly attack CEOs of major corporations. Despite their candid persona and commitment to facts, they generally forget to tell you a big one: TheTruth.com is funded directly by “Big Tobacco,” the very people they decry.

At this juncture, most people are asking why an industry in a free market would blatantly advertise against itself.

First of all, you need to abandon the idea that we have any semblance of a free market. That went out the window a long time ago.

Second, as I’m sure you’ve realized, tobacco advertising dropped off dramatically at the end of the ’90s (NASCAR’s Winston Cup, for instance) and these antismoking campaigns came to light. This is all part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) instituted in November 1998. You can search and download the PDF at http://www.ag.ca.gov. The MSA came about when 46 states needed money to pay Medicare benefits (yes, a failed government program). They changed a couple of laws regarding evidence and sued the four major tobacco companies for a quarter trillion dollars in “damages” payable over the next 25 years. Part of this money went to the formation of the American Legacy Foundation, which produced the Truth campaign we all love so much.

It sounds like the tobacco companies got the short end of the stick here, doesn’t it? Before we start pitying multinational corporations, let’s look at the larger implications.

Corporations, especially those providing a basic product such as packaged tobacco, don’t pay taxes. What I mean by this is that when a $246 billion settlement is dropped on them, they just jack up the cost of my Camel Filters and the rest of their products. The settlement ultimately hurt the consumer. R.J. Reynolds is doing just fine. The agreement also allowed these four major companies certain protections against lawsuits and froze their place in the market, basically creating a government-sanctioned conglomerate.

Also, realize that this long-term bond agreement leads to counterintuitive allegiances. For instance, the states now have a steady annual income from Big Tobacco. Although they sued on the grounds of Medicare benefits, they are not required to allocate the funds there. In fact, the only requirement is that they spend a small percentage of their settlement on anti-tobacco propaganda, which the majority of states have failed to do.

After all, if tobacco companies lose too much revenue, the state doesn’t get that money they’ve come to depend on. In the next year, you may see a sharp decline in The Truth commercials. You see, as part of only the MSA, they get funding as long as the four major tobacco companies control 99.5% of the market. Their advertising campaign was so successful that they’ve effectively put themselves out of business.

These are just a couple of inconsistencies in an agreement of this type. The largest and most obvious, however, is that the individual who is supposedly entitled to “damages” never sees any money, especially those who are not Medicare recipients.

This fact above all, lends itself to the idea that this was a planned and executed settlement between big government and big business, and a prostitution of market ideals and government power.

When it comes right down to it, it is not in our government’s best interest to ban tobacco; they make way too much tax revenue off of it, and can use it as a tool when necessary.

How’s that for profit motive? And here I thought the government was above that.

Smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em!

Having been born and raised in Germany, my perspective of American alcohol intake has been jaded. To state it simply, Americans lack control over their alcohol consumption across the board.
The complete lack of control that college students have over the forbidden fruit makes my answer obvious: Lowering the drinking age is a laughable solution to a growing problem.

In Germany you could have a sip of Papa’s wine as soon as you could see over the bar. Upset babes were wooed to sleep with a spoonful of wine.

Alcohol intake was used for partying, but was also a common visitor to dinner each night. Its purpose was not seen as a race to drunkenness but rather quite the opposite.Alcohol was more of a gentle evening massage than a beeline to hysteria.

Some would suggest lowering the drinking age to 18; however, with most 18-year-olds undergoing major transitions and change (graduating high school, moving out of their parents house, etc.), alcohol is the last thing they need.

College is already a huge transition on its own. The massive change of pace between public high school and college is enough to throw any student into a culture shock.

Fending for yourself, making new friends, learning what studying actually means, and engaging in a much more demanding curriculumis quite enough change for one year.

Lowering the drinking age to a genre of students who are more prone to abuse the system than ease their way into the culture change is a recipe for disaster.

Eighteen-year-olds have by-no-means proven that they are able to handle alcohol and granting them easier access to it would be an enabler.

Twenty-one-year-olds are barely able to handle themselves, and it’s not until the mid-20s that most Americans even demonstrate the ability to use alcohol gently.

Pretending like things do not need to change is an enabler in itself. Simple things could be done such as actually enforcing the laws, having RA’s that explain alcohol use and encourage students to use it gently, or calling out the Greek system on its madness in peer pressure tendencies could be some healthy preventative measures.

The university should enforce some sort of punishment for the alcohol abuse that the fraternity and sorority systems seem to enforce on newbies after rush.

The drinking age is currently ineffective because it is not taken seriously.

Many people are against lowering the drinking age because it becomes ‘the forbidden fruit’. But the reality is, lowering the drinking age to 18 would just allow alcohol to become ‘the forbidden fruit’ for an even younger, more reckless age of students.

If 18-year-olds see drinking alcohol as some sort of controversial rite of passage into adulthood, what will happen to 16-year-olds when the drinking age is just out of grasp.

Drinking in high school is already on the rise, and creating laws that lower the drinking age would no doubt cause more drinking in high school. Not to mention the fact that many 18-year-olds are still in high school. Sounds like a fast track to making prom a night to legally forget.

Lowering the drinking age is like putting a tiny Band-aid over a huge problem. Education and proper law enforcement need to actually be carried out before any drastic, unaccountable
laws are made to address the problems at hand.