Invisible Children

I am glad that our money is going to help this cause.  I saw on their site that while they have all of theses supporters and people helping them that there are still projects that are left totally unfunded.  the unfunded projects are the things that matter the most, we can set up a radio tower in one place and fund that, but that tower as part of a warning system is useless unless there are other warning towers somewhere else.  I believe that once everything is up and running that this will be an effective non violent way to combat the LRA and their efforts in capturing the childeren of Uganda.

Ghosts of War

"War is hell, but war is also paradise.  War encompasses all that we are, all that we were, and all that we will be. I look at war and see past the blood and guts and bullets and bombs. I see the soft things that hide inside the casings of a bullet.  I see the devils inside the dust.  I see the hunters being hunted. And the moon dancing on the waves, the sun dancing on the dust. I see the ghosts of war."  Smithson, after suffering from night terrors every night a month since he got home, was given a chance to stop the suffering of waking up thinking that someone was out there to kill him while he was sleeping in his bed with his wife beside him.  He went to college and in a creative writing class was given the prompt, write about a time when you witnessed something destroyed.  He did not want to talk about the war he wanted to keep it to himself, all the things he saw, but then realized that the thing he saw destroyed in the war wasn't all of the death and towns and roads, it was himself.  So he wrote a story of an ambush he was in titled "The town that Achmed Built", soldiers that come home from war have trouble talking about the things they saw, Smithson wrote this three page essay in twelve pages and could not stop writing.  his teacher read it and asked of he was going to therapy to help with the things that he witnessed and Smithson responded that, that was his therapy, being able to tell his story.   In American Studies class last year we heard from a man named Scheaffer (spelling may be off), the reasons he talks to people about his experiences in vietnam is because that is his therapy he wants to make sure that people knew what was happening over there much like Smithson looked at america knowing that they do not know a thing about the war unless he told them about it.  "The Town that Achmed Built" is the ninth chapter in the book of mini essays that Smithson wrote for english class in his second semester of college titled "Ghosts of War."
The book not only deals with the way soldiers have to deal with what they saw in the war when they come home, but also mostly focuses on how little America actually knows about the war and what its about.  Once he started fighting the war it wasn't about the weapons of mass destruction or capturing terrorists, it was about the people he saw on the sides of the roads when his convoy drove past, it was about the villages that get burned or villagers who get killed in the night by insurgents.  The war became about the people in his family, not back home, but with him, his extended family in his platoon, his brothers and sisters, who were more than that to him, of whom he fought with and ran missions with.  The book showed how little he actually knew about why he even went off to join the military, it wasn't for the twin towers or for revenge or safety of america, it was for the boy in the town that achmed built who gave him a stick with hair and drawings on it, the kid that told him that this stick was supposed to be a bazoona, a cat.  He went to war to fight for the kid that gave him a good luck charm and taught him a few words in Arabic, a kid he did not know existed until he was in Iraq, helping his village fight off nightly attacks from people who wanted to do harm to their family.  There is a beauty in war that people in america don't see, "And know I see that I am grateful for war, for the ghosts. Im grateful for the worst in humanity, because its the closest I'll ever get to understanding the best in humanity. Im grateful for my moments of insanity, because its the closest I'll ever get to being sane." "This place is beautiful. This place is war." The american news only shows the destruction and the insanity of it all.  instead of pointing out the people like Ryan who drove bulldozers and filled in potholes and helped villages they'd rather focus on the soldiers who they believe kill people for no reason in a war that america should not have been involved in; they never show the beauty that Smithson saw in it five years after his tour in Iraq, and america may never see it. That is why he had to write his book and that is why Scheaffer had to tell his story when he came to American Studies.


*All quotes are taken from excerpts of the story, "Ghosts of War, the true story of a 19 year old GI" by Ryan Smithson

Regarding the below mishap and "accidental" use of words that are not words

I often get sidetracked and cannot stay on topic due to something...(His mind slowly drifts off into a faraway land of procrastination). I can do the given assignment but cannot bring myself to do it today, at this moment because i just cannot type things coherently without being side tracked a little by something.
So, for abortion and the issue at hand; I believe that women should not be getting abortions, I never said shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions but after being in class for a while and learning about this topic and all of its controversy from both the pro-life and pro-choice sides i have decided like in other cases that the government should not really get involved in some things.  Is killing a "baby" or fetus or any other living organism wrong? Yes, but people hunt for fun and others kill the people that perform the abortions and a lot of people fight in wars. Is it the woman’s body? Also yes and they should be able to choose whether or not they should go through pregnancy.  The argument that in cases of rape and incest, abortion is a valid option...True; or in other words i agree that this would present a valid reason to have an abortion. In cases of consent by the woman to have sex with a man and then disregard the consequences because they can always just never go through with the pregnancy is not a valid reason to just go out and have and abortion.  If the woman consented and fully knew that a consequence to sex was possibly pregnancy then she should have the baby and then if she wants to, give it up for adoption. That being said there should be no real legalization or illegalization of abortion because women should be able to have control over their bodies. So should we be running around just aborting babies, no, but there is always a reason regarding why that person is getting an abortion and most likely it is a valid one for the woman that is receiving the operation.  I am sort of linking this to the case about McDonalds and the state of California; the state said that McDonalds can no longer sell Happy Meals with a toy to the kids because the burgers and fries were making them unhealthy.  The parents agreed because the toy was an incentive for the kid to want a happy meal and for them to buy it for the kid. The parent decides for the kid about what they eat so eliminating the toy is a dumb argument saying that we don’t have control over what we do and our bodies.

uf rt hsd ojhdsfihu hfuhgid paoisdj ufdhg ufhg t9df hsudhs uosduh udisufh sdufh sdufh ufid sdiuh suh hsuid dush sduh sd sdui sdu sidhuf

sdfaijeapdi fhwui ih sfj hvjk vijbvjbjv  vhxcjv jvb kjbv xjvbhug uhf  fhui.

Fight for freedoms: to choose or not to choose

Just from looking at the sites the prochoice site as information and what their mission is right when you click on the site.  The prolife site brings me to a bunch of links within their site and does not really tell me any information right from the site.  The information on the prochoice site was generally more proven it was backed with facts and scientific information as well as stories from women.  It did a good job at explaining their position while still given information on the other choice, one women on their blog said that she kept her baby and she never regretted the consequences. while the prolife side argues religious reasons and federal reasons (these being laws that they helped get created and into practice) the pro-lifers argue the un safeness of the procedure, this being because of the laws that the pro-lifers put into place that may have made abortion less safe. While the techniques are relatively unsafe, the people that do abortions in the medical field know how to solve those issues or have a hospital or doctor on staff who can in case of an emergence.  While prolife is winning the battle because of all the people who think that it is wrong and all the laws against it that are in or are trying to get in to practice that prevent or make it hard for doctors to do abortions among other things.   The approach that they are taking on the prolife side is the prohibition type approach, it is not illegal to drink alcohol just illegal to own make or sell it, it is not illegal to have an abortion in some states just illegal to give out or maintain or give out information about the abortions.  my opinion on this has not changed because of the site and that is mainly because of my biases leaning towards prochoice, also based on the site the prochoice side has a better site with information easy to read and available while pro life's site has millions of things to click on and is graphically uninteresting.

Ghost of War post 4

"When your traveling in uniform, especially a desert uniform, all you want is anonymity. But the pilot makes a big deal out of it, and people stare..."(161). On Smithson's leave from Iraq he gets on a plane to Albany (home); on the way the pilot bumps him and a fellow soldier up to the two extra first class seats on the plane.  He does not want to be given special treatment, "If it were up to me, I'd sit in the middle of the plane like everyone else."(161).  I found this interesting because after all that time spent working hard for the other soldiers in your unit as well as the rest of the armed forces that he would not want to tell people about the work that he has done.  However the last thing he wanted to do is hear peoples opinions on the war and why it was such a bad idea to get involved in, he just wanted to have peace on the way home. " People think that because I'm in uniform I want to talk about it. truth is I don't"(162).
Everyone is necessary in the military no matter how small the job may seem they carry out their mission so others can successfully carry out theirs.  The person sitting next to him on the plane works in mail he mentions that getting their mail is what keeps them going all day, and his job repairing roads keeps her job going.  The bullets fly and people lose their lives, although he has never lost anyone in his company, the soldier next to him has she talked about how one of them never got to see his new born child, days before he was supposed to go home on leave.  these situations cause stress and other symptoms, Smithson mentions,  "I can leave Iraq, but Iraq can never leave me."(167).  Smithson, during his sisters high school graduation party, goes to the garage to get a beer, at his parents house in New York, he hears a gunshot coming from the direction of the garage and immediately Smithson is on the ground and alert.  He yells at the nearest person asking what that was, a ballon popped in the backyard. Soldiers have to live with this fear even when they are safe at home, a ballon going pop could be mistaken for a gunshot and then people look at him as though he is crazy, like on the plane ride home, no one understands the war unless they've fought in it.

abortion

On this issue I honestly do not see why the women cannot choose to abort the baby because it is their baby and their body. The argument as to whether or not the fetus is a person is not really an argument because person or not the fetus has not developed memory or knows nothing better than the world it is in.  the last abortion clinic movie I believe is not really bias, while the film shows more of the argument from the pro life side, the pro lifers in the film are mostly arguing life because of religion and god will condemn them to hell for killing the fetus.  They harass the people going to get an abortion yet at the same time we get the sense that the pro lifers don't really care if it is medical reason that they are getting an abortion like baby and mother may die during birth; the pro lifers would say that they don't care, the baby should at least have a chance of living even at the expense of the mother.  Also arguing killing baby killers is justifiable however we cannot justify that people arguing that killing is wrong, and then killing people (someone else's child) is the right way to deal with things.  Therefore the film is not bias because it shows both sides of the argument and still leaves room for the person watching to decide what they believe for themselves.

Ghost of war third post

Each part seems to focus on a different subject this part being camaraderie between fellow soldiers as well as the things that the soldiers need to survive.  While they don't necessarily need some of the things that people send to them, they all appreciate it.  in the book an elementary school sends letters and basic wants.  Simthson notes that they can go to any storage facility on base and get a bar of soap and any other toiletries he needs but the soap sent by the kid is appreciated.  He also mentioned in this chapter how soldiers get used to the bombings and the explosions so much that they almost stop hearing all the wooshes and pops of the mortars that fly over their heads.  While he walks to dinner a mortar flies over his head and lands on the base about 600 feet away from him and he just walks to dinner;  his motto being at this point "I cannot control a mortar and stop it from blowing up right on top of me, but I can control when I run" He does not run he continues walking until another mortar hits a lot closer to his position.  Is it wrong for someone to get so used to war and violence and also not care about their own well being enough to walk when they should be running?

Last death penalty post: Ryan Vs death

While I have mixed feelings on the death penalty and capital punishment in general, because whether someone lives or dies depends heavily on the law of the state the crime was committed and on the crime itself.  Due to the flaws and various problems presented with not only the laws, but also the defense, jury selection, and other cases of improper trial procedures and forced confessions, I believe the suspension and commutation of death sentences in Illinois was just.

            In Governor Ryan’s speech, Ryan, after holding conferences with many different parties with different views on the death penalty decided to suspend the death penalty in Illinois.  Governor Ryan does this because, “Thirty-three of the death row inmates were represented at trial by an attorney who had later been disbarred or at some point suspended from practicing law.” This means that the trials of most of the death row inmates were faulty because the defense of the murder was either not adequate or sneaky and bad to the point of losing their law license.  Governor Ryan mentioned that Illinois had an issue with race and the jury in most cases where the defendant was black, the jury was all white and they sentenced the defendant to death.  The jury was not of the defendant’s peers nor was it mixed with even the slightest bit of color. With these mistakes and unfair trials, this being before the death penalty was declared unconstitutional under the eighth amendment; Ryan mentioned that 33 people, all of whom executed, were innocent of their crime.  Ryan then states, “Since we reinstated the death penalty there are also 93 people - 93 - where our criminal justice system imposed the most severe sanction and later rescinded the sentence or even released them from custody because they were innocent.” This meaning that the system of justice was so faulty that before anyone else on death row gets executed something had to be done right away, and the only thing to do or the only right thing to do was to stop the executions before more innocent people find themselves with a needle in the arm, dying for a crime someone else committed, and is still out committing (if the real person who committed the crime was an idiot). In the newspaper article  James McKay, chief of capital legislation task force of Cook County, mentioned, "With the death penalty off the table, there'll be even more trials. There'll be no incentive to plead guilty. I do not believe for one second that taking the death penalty off the table will save the state of Illinois any money whatsoever."  The death penalty should not have been abolished because now it would no longer deter people from committing capital crimes.  McKay mentions money, but it I do not believe that the reasoning behind killing the death penalty was money; the reason  was the many innocent people who were corrupted, or forced by corruption, by our justice system this leading to an unfair and unjust trial that lead to an unjust sentence for the crime they did not do. There would be more cases and trails where the defendant is only facing life in prison if the defendant believes he or she deserves to die for their crimes then they would not have any reason to plea guilt. Also the jury would have no real incentive to verdict guilt either because it is no longer life or death, it is life in prison or out. McKay also claims that based off of statistics in a previous death penalty case, in a decision of 10 to 2, death was sentenced telling him that juries and the people of Illinois want the death sentence and getting rid of it was wrong.  Ryan knew that he was going to be criticized by others about his decision because there are people who defiantly want the death penalty and there are people who deserve it, but what if that 10 to 2 vote to execute someone was on an innocent person.  Governor Ryan was worrying about that scenario when he correctly and justifiably suspended and executed the death penalty.  

Ghost of war post 2

The book brings up issues revolving around the war, but specifically the military not having the supplies needed to get the job done.  Spec. Smithson (the main character and author) is part of and engineering and equipment maintains platoon which has just been deployed in Iraq to build barracks, repair bridges and transport supplies.  the trucks that they had when deployed had little to no armor the base they stayed at was promised tents, but never got any we cannot fight a war with insufficient equipment.  While Smithson and the rest of the platoon is on a mission (building stuff) he talks about the part of the war no one in America ever sees on the news and in movies and TV shows and how its "the half of the truth that sells newspapers... The only people who understand [the war] are stuck here with us."(94).  Before this line he tells us of children who come up to the convoy holding brown water with specs of stuff floating in it, the kid says that it is his drinking water.  Someone in the platoon throws the kid a bottle of his water and tells the kid that this is what water is supposed to look like if it is to be drank.  During the drive into Iraq the soldiers threw packets of food into the street for the kids who lined the side of the road with their families, but nobody sees this part of the war; nobody sees the people who built the barracks so that others can sleep, America does not see the soldiers protecting a small town from slaughter in the middle of the night and no one sees the Iraqi people of that village celebrating and giving food they don't have to the soldiers who protected them.  The media is bias, Smithson mentioned that CNN was against the war, they wouldn't show these kids being helped, they would show these kids being shot at by soldiers (according to the book it is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to shoot at children who start throwing rocks at the convoys).  They wouldn't show the food packets being tossed out the windows of the convoy to the kids on the road, instead, they would show another truck running over the kid as the kid goes for the food (SOP says the soldiers cannot throw food to the villagers not because soldiers are mean and don't want to help them, but because they've had incidents of children getting hit be cars while running to claim the food; the soldiers do it any way, but they make sure the food gets thrown away from the road).  So how does America get its fair news? Where can we see the big picture of what is going on with out the media only showing the side they support to sway opinion towards them? the media is all about ratings, if the population is against the war they are going to show only the footage that supports, or builds on, the majorities opinion of the war to get more views. They would show the unjustness of it and the unprepared state which the army throws its' soldiers into war rarely do they ever show or speak of the good the soldiers were doing there.

The Death penalty and Dexter

Because of our justice system, Dexter, if caught would be sentenced to death because some of the people he kills are people who were guilty, but proven innocent and therefore is innocent.  also a murder is a murder whether it is to kill others who kill or not.  The death penalty itself is legal in some states because it is executing a person found guilty beyond reasonable doubt the way. Dexter carries out his own death penalty is not legal it is execution people he finds guilty beyond reasonable doubt not the justice system.  What he is doing is just in his eyes but isn't it just to some of the other murders in the show who killed for a reason, they don't expect to get caught as much as Dexter.  The excuse of him not being able to control it is not a mitigating factor and neither is his life growing up torturing animals because he cannot control his impulse.

Ghosts of War

While the book has just started there are certain mentalities of this high school student who was sitting in class when the planes hit the towers.  He knew that the country was going to war over this but that was when he decided that he was going to join the military.  "If I don't do it, then who will." this is probably what many people in that age group was thinking after the towers fell that if they do not act then nobody else will.  Why does a student who could go into many other fields of study in college decide that, knowing that a massive war is going to breakout at some point, join the military reserves? Nationalism,  when something happens to the country we live in, some people feel like the military is the only option. In american studies we read an article by Barbara Kingsolver that said nationalism destroys countries and people as soon as muslims were targeted, a man went out shooting at other neighbors who were foreign born. Is this situation the same? Is he going into the Army to protect the country or to seek vengeance against the people who did this crime?

death penalty 2

Race and Class

Everyone no matter how much they may say that they are not racist, have their prejudices.  In some cases this effects the case and the whole saying that “justice is blind” because people are not blind (unless they are in which case a jury of blind men and women would be the best jury if no one told them race or ethnicity).  I believe that our justice system does a pretty good job at making sure only guilty people do go to prison, but we are human and we do make mistakes and we do make judgments of people whether it is based off of race or other reasons.  Part of a first impression is the silence before anyone starts talking, judgment unfortunately happens and that “wrongful” judgment could result in a major wrong doing.

Law and Politics

People in this country and elsewhere had early laws, if a person is caught stealing they get their hands cut off, this effectively stopping them from stealing.  We come from these laws and roots, people think that an eye for an eye would bring out a lesson to others thinking of carrying out the same crime.  Also many families know that murdering the murderer won’t do anything to bring back their loved ones, but they feel like killing the accused would make them believe the killer got what s/he deserved.

The Bigger Picture

There is no possible way for any state to come up with a foolproof plan on who gets the death penalty and who does not.  Every crime is different and carried out in different ways; therefore, all people of the jury and the United States would feel different about every case. Some would say the death penalty is needed for all murders and rapes, others would say it is not and, others still would say it depends on if the person in question murdered two people or one or if the suspect tortured them before killing them, etc. There cannot be one single answer to everyone’s problems because everyone thinks differently.  A margin of error is acceptable because that means the justice system came close to perfecting the conviction rate of innocent people and less than 1% of people sentenced to death being innocent would be a somewhat acceptable number because it is relatively low and the innocent can still plea their innocence through the clemency process.

Death penalty class work

In the case of capital punishment (the death penalty) there exists many steps the accused and the state must go through that are designed to protect the individual on trial. The Grand Jury has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence in the case for the suspect to even go to a trial that would determine a guilty/innocent verdict.  After that the trail then goes to the death/ no death trails, a trail to determine the penalty for the crime.

The steps involving the grand jury help to protect the accused by determining the validity of the evidence the police and investigators found. Then during the guilty phase the jury is well vetted and asked whether or not they could provide a fair decision by determining based off of testimony the guilt of the defendant. Then the penalty phase has the death or life in prison decision in which the aggravating factors vs. the mitigating factors are weighed against each other, once done the jury recommends life or death then the judge formally states the sentence, to protect the defendant some states allow the judge to reverse the jury’s decision and in others the judge must do what the jury says (this does not help the defendant).

 From this point in the process to getting a death penalty sentence I do not believe to be sufficient.  In the beginning of the article it said that a capital case that would warrant the death penalty is usually a case that has a lot of people in the town the crime was committed very upset and desperate to find the killer.  The case might even have national coverage and then people may still be hurried to sentence someone to death.  Therefore, if a jury really wanted to they could get past all these safe guards and despite innocent’s sentence a suspect who did not do the crime to death.  

The next steps after the guilty verdict allows for the guilty to prove through other evidence that there was some sort of mistake in the procedure that carried out the sentence on him.  However with limits in some states on how long after the sentence new evidence can be submitted I do not see how this might help.  If I was a police officer arrest a murderer who was later found guilty and sentenced to death, then that case is done I found the guy, he was guilty and given a punishment why would I search for new evidence saying I was wrong about the guy I caught.

The next step reviews the case and the punishment if something in the process of the trials were wrong, i.e. the prosecutor did something to screw with the case or a juror was not a fair choice in the decision a retrial could be scheduled. Clemency allows the death row inmate to be re considered for a lesser sentence.  

While I believe that there is always a way to defeat the system as a whole I believe at this ending point in the procedures before the execution is given I also believe that there is enough opportunity for an “out” from the death penalty for the accused to be sufficiently protected in certain states. Because different states have different rules and protections.

In Methods I believe that the lethal injection is the most humane because the prisoner is put to sleep before the injection is given.  The gas chamber, hanging, electric chair, and firing squad are inhuman as the prisoner could get injured without dyeing instantly in the hanging there is too much room for error despite the rehearsal that they do before. The electric chair does not insure a painless death and the gas chamber takes to long.  Anything that takes to long to execute the prisoners with pain is cruel to make the prisoner suffer for a while before.  In the lethal injection the prisoner feels nothing.

The results are mixed there is no evidence that deterrence works in the death penalty.  The crime rate is lowest in the states that have little to no executions which means that the death penalty does not work to deter people from committing acts of murder.  This means that people would commit murders even if they know that s/he would be killed for it.

death penalty

I personally think that the death penalty has more pros then it does cons.

Pros:
gets a convicted murderer or rapist off of the streets for good with no chance of escape or coming back.
the tax payers do not need to pay for the convict to have three meals a day and for the general up keep of the persons living conditions until time of death.

cons:
It is murdering someone for murdering someone which follows Gandhi's saying, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" which to me is making the supporters of the death penalty openly and support the death of every inmate sentenced might make the person as worse as the murderer, morally.

I think this brings into questions is one mans death necessary for the good of others effected by a serial killer? and if we can morally carry out this sentence.  From a money perspective I honestly rather have the government pay for one lethal injections rather than hundreds of meals for someone who may just die in prison never actually leading a life outside of prison for years.  From a different perspective i also think it is wrong.  I guess it depends on the situation. Boggess seems like he has changed however he did murder two people for money and admits that he enjoyed it I cannot really chose a side because of my conflicted beliefs in the matter.

Students right to privacy

The court says that students should not expect any right to privacy while on school grounds.  They claim that the Fourth Amendment "Does not require a finding of individualized suspicion." meaning that drug test can be done on everyone even without reasonable cause to test; and individualizing the test to suspicious student would make the teachers jobs harder because they need to teach and look out for students who seem to be under the influence of controlled substances. The need to get rid of drugs in schools outweighs the students right to privacy "The safety interests furthered by drug testing is UNDOUBTEDLY substantial for ALL children, athletes and nonathletes alike." whether a student is competitive or in choir the need for drug testing in the school was substantial enough to show that this drug testing is constitutional. Both Acton and Earls ruled in favor of drug tests on students.

Both cases state that "due to the minimally intrusive procedures..." they find "the invasion of students' privacy is not significant."  I do not believe that this is the case while the procedure is relatively private because no one is watching while the sample is being produced, the principle of the matter is if the person getting tested never does drugs and all they want to do is sing in choir and others are assuming that the person in question is doing drugs; if it were me I would be offended.  So while I agree with the court that if there is a large drug problem and it needs to be taken care of immediately then go ahead and test me, but as far as the procedure being annoying and just rude to assume that I would do drugs because everyone else in the school might also be doing them is just a waste of my time if all I want to do after school is build and paint things for a theater production. 

Overall I am glade that we have a right to not be strip searched without reasonable cause.  I do however think that dogs in school would be a good idea if everyone in the world were not allergic to them or if they did not cost the school 500$ a dog.

Anti gay shirt conflict

i believe that the shirt should be allowed in the school because homosexual students get to give their view on the day of scilence and if that offends him and his religion then he should also have is view point stated.  from a legal stand point the school has speechcodes that allow them to tell the student, Harper, to remove the shirt because of the wide varity of people in the school that do support homosexuality and the struggles they go through enough to be extremly offended.  I see both points and I do not know which side to agree with.

Hate Speech

In the pictures everyone looks like they are having fun. However if there was pictures of black students attending the parties and having fun as well then I would assume that the parties where just fun and games where the black students know that they are being made fun of and I might assume that the white students did not mean anything by their action.  since none such photos exist I can assume that, although they claim no harm was meant, I don't see how dressing up as KKK members and hanging students in black could not be seen as offensive.  schools are an environment to promote learning if I were black and heard about these parties I would start to worry less about academic work and more about personal safety.  I would question my decision about the school i chose and would not feel welcomed.  so I believe these actions should be restricted on campuses because it threatens the safety of a group of students however i would go no further than educating students involved about what the symbolism of a fake lynching or KKK hood means to the large population of black students on that campus.

The speech codes at Illinois state is voted red I see why from the stand point of FIRE which seems to critique the schools on a radical scale. they have almost the same codes that DHS has so I say that this would not effect me as a prospective student.  as far as the legality of the codes FIRE says no they are not legal and they are intruding on our right to free speech, I would agree except i don't mind them being there.  ISU would react similarly to the way the universities in the rticle reacted they would be violating every code they made to prevent such a party from happening. While I agree with what FIRE is trying to point out it is not really going to efefct my decisions on where I apply.

flag burning

The flag is a symbol of our nation. I believe that there were other ways to protest the government than burning the symbol of peace and freedom in our nation that was fought for so many times by people who loved the flag and what it symbolized.  I understand that burning the flag was a protest against the war and fighting, but by lighting it on fire is spitting on the graves of those who fought to give people the right to burn the symbol they were dying for.  While the court did find that burning the flag was not an exception to the first amendment and that the right to burn a flag was protected under that amendment, I believe that a clause should be added trying to protect the symbol of the nation from being burned an disagree with the majority opinion of the supreme court.

9/11/2001

the documentary was very well made and very powerful. The images with the soundtrack were moving and astonishing.  The expression on the peoples faces, like the world stood.  Its sad that so many people lost their lives that day. It is hard to put into words. I could not imagine the terror on the upper floors that made the better option to jump something that nobody could possibly survive.  We should all thank and take time to remember all of the firefighters, paramedics and police officers who lost their lives and helped in the clean up of the two buildings.


In the article I read people who were living in apartment buildings near the towers where breathing in the white snowlike ash and dust.  breathing this in caused health problems down the road like asthma and other respiratory infections and problems.  they have to live with the attacks in a bigger way than any of us have to they have to take several medications every day and live with multiple chronic illnesses.  


because of the attacks people have to live with a nation considered to be no longer safe.  I do not know how life was before 9/11/2001 but we now live in a world with heightened security and a more concerned edgy nation. we can no longer take more than 8 oz. of water on a plane.  every thing with a point no matter how useless the object may be as a weapon has to get taken away by the TSA.  people are racially profiling others more than others and anyone that is muslim is a suspect.  the nation has lost touch with the fact that all muslims participated in the planing and doing of the attack a specific group of people did those attacks because of hate for america.  my family does not want to go on vacations anymore to places they cannot drive to not because they are afraid of flying or of someone taking over the plane, but because getting through airport security is a pain.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH in schools

  I do not believe that the freedom of speech is too restrictive, at least our dress code and freedoms at DHS.  If the court later decides to legalize marijuana I would not see any problem with symbols of a marijuana leaf in school.  I don't smoke or do marijuana, but i am not offended or drawn into doing marijuana by a picture of a plant.

 In the Fredrick v. Morse case I could definantly see the concern by the school, being a part of the government, being seen as supporting the use of marijuana by its students holding up a sign that includes drug references but in this case I have to agree with part of Justice Stevens dissent saying "...cannot justify disciplining Fredrick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement..." sometimes things left alone are not as bad as when someone steps in and deals with it. Instead of a 10 day suspension which does disrupt the learning of one student for 10 days the school, after hearing that it was meant as a joke could have probably explained that the school does not want to be held liable for the promotion of illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines I agree with the courts decision 100% the schools cannot anticipate whether something is going to cause a mass disruption for the learning environment.  If the school let the students participate in their demonstration against the war by wearing armbands there would potentially be no court case and no problem on the matter as long as a peaceful school day continued. However by teachers and administrates telling the students to take the armbands off and then suspending those who did not something small and innocent enough as wearing armbands became disruptive.  As to the hypothetical that we discused in class about someone in the school having a parent fighting in the war well i would think that they would want their father to come home and the war to stop as well.

A post on the movie Stand By Me

This movie is a really good adventure movie. It is filled with various problems and moral challenges that have to be faced by a group of four boys of a small town who go out in search of the body of a missing dead teenager who was hit by a train.  Gordie, Chris, Teddy and Vern all experience a moral dilemma with exploiting the body of a fallen friend because finding the missing child comes with a reward and fame.  I like the story because along the way the characters each find a way to solve their problems.  Gordie's parents ignore him after his brother, a big time football star died, because they expect Gordie to follow in his brothers footsteps, but he just wants to be a writer.  Chris is able to convince Gordie that he is a really good story teller and helps him psycholgy get over his fear of telling his parents of his future plans.  And although the group falls apart as everyone goes off in their own direction and there is a dead body I found the movie to be a sort of feel good movie. As the movie ends with a forty or fifty something year old Gordie writing the story of the time he went on an adventure with his friends.