Jazzed About Break

No, I'm not going to any exotic locales, ski resorts, or family lakehouses. Instead, this break I get to spend time on a few things that fall to the wayside during school. . .

First, I'm going to heat things up a bit. That's right, I'm finally reading Dante's Inferno.
Second, this break won't mean a thing if it 'aint got that swing. I'm going to work on my jazz improvisation and listen to some good 'ol standards (and maybe some Roy Hargrove too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxeb0cwjE8U )

And of course I'll be spending quality time with friends and family.
Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, Happy Winter Solstice, and Merry Festivus to all.

Sights Unseen

Every year my high school takes the opportunity to help one organization with a school-wide fundraiser spanning the length of three weeks. We call it School Chest, and have raised thousands upon thousands every year for worthy organizations. This year the beneficiary is Invisible Children, an organization dedicated to ending the violence of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. The LRA is run by the warlord Joseph Kony, and abducts children from remote villages and towns. The soldiers force the children to murder their families, then brainwash, abuse, and murder the children themselves, all the while training an army of 5-11 year old killers. Ugandan children (and those living in neighboring countries harassed by the LRA) live in a state of constant fear. They flock from their homes to sleep on the floors of city buildings in great heaps, all of them deathly afraid of abduction. They have no supervision, no food, no beds, nothing.

The crisis is ongoing, and the developed world remains in the dark. Invisible Children is a social action group that uses young people's voices to bring the invisible children of Uganda to the forefront of American sight. They lobby, fund raise, and document relentlessly.

One of the major goals of Invisible Children is the prevention of abductions and murders in villages. Their early warning radio network serves to alert villages (who normally have little outside communication) of LRA risks in their area and enables them to call for help. If my high school raises enough money, we could fund a radio tower and save the lives of children and those living in remote communities.

I am intensely impressed with the dedication of the Invisible Children volunteers and with the dedication of my peers to this cause. I believe they deserve every penny that we earn this school chest, and I am proud to be a part of ending the conflict in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Help make these children visible. Please support school chest and the Invisible Children movement. See the links below for more information on the cause, and for ways to help!

http://invisiblechildren.com/homepage   http://www.stayclassy.org/fundraise/ic?fcid=171955

The Pits

There's a certain camaraderie that comes from sitting in the dark, in what is effectively a pen, for roughly 16 hours in one week. It's cramped with metal stands and chairs, with papers and empty water bottles littering the ground, and instruments aiming in every direction. Its too hot or too cold, there's a shattered black light releasing it's fumes into the trumpet section, and a box of cookies has spilled somewhere by the mellophones. It's the pit, and at least twice a year, it's the dining room table, the homework desk, and the band/orchestra room to the many musicians involved in student musical productions.

This past week was STUNTS, the student-orchestrated talent show, which includes sketch comedy, musical theater numbers, original acts like magic and bands, and of course, the pit. We play familiar popular tunes like Day Tripper and the theme from Pirates of the Caribbean and when we're not playing we're watching the show. Again and again and again. Sometimes we're doing our french or calculus homework, or grabbing a quick bite of Chipotle, but most of the time, we're sitting, watching, and waiting for our chance to play. Sometimes, however, the pit comes to the rescue. When an act has a glitch, when technical difficulties arise, the pit is there to play Mah Nah Mah Nah and Baila Me with enough fervor to distract the impatient audience.

Though we may not always receive the appreciation we deserve, the pit is the place to be for any production. It's the best seat in the house, with music, magazines, and cookies, and of course, a whole lot of fun.

The Freedom to Choose

The abortion is issue is about choice. Should women have the option to choose to terminate their pregnancy or should the state be in charge of women's bodies? Personally, I am pro-choice. I do not believe that the government should have the power to make such a personal, emotionally decision for its citizens. Eliminating the possibility of legal abortion will only lead to overcrowded adoption centers, dangerous "back alley" abortions, and children that do not receive proper care because they were unwanted/unplanned.
Having perused two websites, the NARAL Pro-Choice America site and the National Right to Life site, I am still pro-choice. I found the NARAL site to be informative and easy to navigate, with information on not only abortion but birth control, sex ed, and adoption possibilities. I found the Right to Life site nauseating. I appreciate the interest NARAL takes in helping women and their dedication to getting the care and information they need, no matter what they end up choosing for their individual pregnancy. On the right to life site, I could hardly read the information, having been distracted by hideous graphic images and nauseating descriptions of abortion. Unfortunately, it seems the anti-choice party is winning this debate in small but permanent steps of legislation and with emotionally wrenching imagery. Nevertheless, I still believe that the pro-choice argument is more convincing.
While I am pro-choice, I do believe that parents should have knowledge of whether or not their child is seeking an abortion. They should be able to offer their opinions to the minor. However, I still believe that the ultimate decision should be up to the pregnant woman. After all, it is her body and her risk. I feel the same way about paternal notification. The father of the child should be notified, but the decision should still rest with the mother. He is not the one who will have to make sacrifices, carry a child, and face health risks and pain that accompany pregnancy and delivery.
I agree with the law that states that refusal to administer an abortion cannot be cause for discrimination or criminal liability. This is a heated issue, laced with emotional and religious undertones. Persons should never be forced to perform something as potentially compromising as an abortion. However, other laws seem to blatantly deny women access to proper care. Similar to the previous law, another piece of legislation allows medical personnel to deny women access to information on all of their options, specifically abortion. These and other laws do not help women in any way.  While their name, TRAP laws, implies extreme bias towards the pro-choice movement, it cannot be denied that the laws restrict facilities where abortions could be provided, thus preventing women from getting the care they need  in their home town, city, or even state. IL laws on abortion place unnecessary burdens on women who need options.

Giving Thanks

This Thanksgiving we ordered a pizza. While many cooks and tradition enthusiasts would consider this a travesty, I consider it a victory. My family was responsible for the death of not a single turkey this holiday. We enjoyed not only grilled vegetables, baked mac n' cheese, and pizza, but a long conversation about the food industry and food philosophy. While my extended family may not leave the dark side any time soon, I appreciate their consideration of us vegetarian folk.

I am thankful for friends, family, good (cruelty-free) food, and the freedoms I have because I live in the USA. Happy belated Thanksgiving, I hope everyone enjoys a healthy, happy, holiday season.

Eating Animals: Makes Me Sick

This chapter, Foer discusses the role factory farm animals and livestock play in how humanity contracts diseases. He finds that their role is a massive one. While Foer lists the hundreds of ailments and horrific diseases that plague the creatures we eat, I'll focus on one here: influenza.

In 1918, the Spanish flu (so named for the press coverage the death tolls received in Spain), was a pandemic that covered the globe. "Whereas AIDS took roughly twenty-four years to kill 24 million people, the Spanish flu killed as many in twenty-four weeks" (124).  25% of Americans became ill, and not just the elderly and very young, but healthy middle-aged people. Today, a pandemic like the Spanish flu is the World Health Organization (WHO)'s worst nightmare. "Recent history has averaged a pandemic every 27 and a half years" which means we are long overdue (125). WHO predicts 2 million to 7.4 million deaths, conservatively. The disease, be it the predicted H5N1, or another, would ruthlessly destroy not only lives, but nations.

So where would this pending catastrophe originate? Our food. Specifically, the birds. Birds are responsible for carrying "the full spectrum of flu strains as categorized by today's science: H1 through . . . H16, N1 through N9" (128). While this may sound like some Alfred Hitchcock movie, the truth is that we, humans, are susceptible to several strains of avian-carried flu. So are pigs. When an avian virus mutates with a pig virus, it can create a disease that affects humans too. This is how H1N1, the swine flu, was born. Pigs are the only animals that are vulnerable to bird, pig, and human diseases. If they should mix, the possibility of H5N1 would be very real and highly threatening.

We've heard about the horrific living conditions of chickens, the most commonly consumed bird in the USA. We've heard about the cruel and messy business of their slaughter, and we've heard how they're packaged, inflated with salts and chemicals, covered in their own feces, and shipped to our friendly neighborhood groceries. So why it should come as a surprise that "50 billion sickly, drugged birds -- birds that are the primordial source of all flu viruses. . . [and] 500 million pigs with compromised immune systems in confinement facilities. . ." are causing mutations and widespread disease (138).

As Foer goes on to discuss other food borne illnesses, strains of E. Coli, etc. I wonder just what it is that's keeping people from giving up their precious meat, in favor of health. The pathogens and antibacterial medications that farmers are pumping into their animals are being rendered useless to humans, diseases are overcoming them. At what point will we stop, look around, and realize that there is not a single antibiotic left to treat human diseases? At what point will WHO's nightmare come to pass, and the world will be a few billion doses short of life-saving medicine for a disease that came from someone's chicken, or pig meat?

Oh wait, people can't give up disease-ridden, tortured animal flesh. Where would they get their protein?

If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me "but where do you get your protein?" I wouldn't need to get a job, or worry about student loans. However, I never mind answering truthfully: "plants." After reading this chapter, I can now go on to add that "excess animal protein intake is linked with osteoporosis, kidney disease, calcium stones in the urinary tract, and some cancers" (144). Eating animals is a recipe for disease, whether individually devastating, or of pandemic proportions.
I'm less worried about where I'm getting my protein from than what diseases the sick habits of this omnivorous nation have unleashed.

Addicted

I never thought it would happen. It started off harmless enough, an hour or so a day, no more. Then it become two hours, or three, and my homework started to fall to the wayside. I was losing sleep, unable to tear myself away from it.
I was addicted to that big, shiny box we call the TV.
Until now, I'd never been much of a television viewer. The occasional Discovery Channel special, or Project Runway episode when I was sick, and a movie or two when my friends were over. That was it. When people discussed reality television shows, I snorted at their silly fascination with other people's ridiculous lives. When they talked about Glee or some other plot-based show, I zoned out, failing to see the importance of a season finale or a maddening cliff-hanger.
Then a friend of mine introduced me to shows on Netflix. It started slow, with a few episodes of Big Bang Theory (the hilarious tale of a few socially inept physicist and their aspiring actress neighbor), then I got into harder stuff. Soon I was watching a season a day, and not just of Big Bang but of How I Met Your Mother, and even the occasional Better Off Ted (an older show about an optimistic single-dad and his job in a ruthless scientific research corporation).
Eventually, having run out of past seasons to catch up on, my addiction was limited to the occasional weekly episode. But how long will it be before the next relapse? That depends on whether or not there's another original idea on TV anytime soon. For now, the network is caught up in a slew of hospital dramas and law spin offs, all featuring doctors or detectives with quirky personalities. I'll pass on those. But if a network introduces a new pilot, something original and engaging, pass the remote. I'm jonesing for a new series.

Abolishing the Death Penalty

Society is never stagnant. It is forever learning, changing and evolving. As society becomes more advanced, why should the laws that protect it remain anchored in the past? The death penalty is a vivid example of the kind of legislation that society has simply outgrown, a fact that is being recognized by states across the nation, and in nations across the globe. This movement has made it clear that, in Illinois, there is no longer need for arbitrary, discriminatory, and excessively cruel punishments for capital offenses. The death penalty was unjust and uncivilized, and its end could not have come soon enough in Illinois. 

The death penalty has the potential to kill the innocent and is therefore intolerable. In the review of death row cases in Illinois lead by Governor George Ryan, no fewer than seventeen sentences people were exonerated. In his speech on the death penalty moratorium, Ryan called these findings “an absolute embarrassment” and went on to call the capital punishment system “nothing short of a catastrophic failure.” Seventeen innocent lives would have been taken by the State, had the governor not stepped in and examined the situation. In an article presented by Michigan State University and the Death Penalty Information Center, the author highlights the finality of capital punishment, stating that it “imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made.” The capital punishment system is by no means perfectly accurate, as is illustrated by the seventeen exonerated inmates, and a mistake would mean that the State killed an innocent person, an infringement of human rights that cannot be tolerated. One case in particular demonstrates how frighteningly close the state of Illinois has come to executing an innocent person. Governor Ryan mentions the case of Anthony Porter, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death by lethal injection, in his speech on the moratorium. In Porter’s case, students at Northwestern University, under the direction of Professor Dave Protess, examined and investigated the events, eventually finding Porter innocent. Porter was freed just 48 hours before the needle would have taken his life. In the article “What Killed Illinois’s Death Penalty,” author Steve Mills mentions Ryan’s reaction to the Porter case. He states that Ryan “wondered how a man could come within 50 hours of being executed, only to be set free by the efforts of a journalism professor, his students, and a private investigator.” The Porter case speaks volumes about the risks of the death penalty in Illinois. For the State to continue to unwittingly kill (or attempt to kill) innocent people is a travesty of justice, and clearly violates citizen’s rights to life as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. Abolishing the death penalty is the only way to protect that right with certainty, and is therefore just. 

Even if there was a way to ensure that only the guilty be executed, the death penalty is still faulty in its arbitrariness and discrimination. In the Furman v. Georgia decision, the Supreme Court concluded that “a punishment would be ‘cruel and unusual’     if it was to severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society’s sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty” as is stated in the article “Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America.” It cannot be denied that the death penalty is arbitrary and that it discriminates based on economic factors. The article “Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty,” states that the penalty “selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.” There are no set standards for applying the death penalty to cases and jurors are no doubt left confused about whether to apply a sentence of life without parole or execution. This decision could be based on anything, including poor counsel. Ryan mentions in his speech that “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.” Good counsel is expensive, and if a defendant cannot afford good counsel, they must use what the State provides them. Ryan describes the state’s defense lawyers as somewhat apathetic when he says “they often didn’t put much effort into fighting a death sentence.” This means that if one cannot afford good counsel, they are more likely to be executed because some lawyers simply do not care to make the effort to save their client’s lives. In the Deadline video, one exonerated man describes this phenomenon as the “rich man’s justice and the poor man’s justice.” Justice ought to be blind to economic status. Justice ought to be evenly applicable, not, as Justice Potter Stewart called it, “as freakish and arbitrary as who gets hit by a bolt of lightening.” The death penalty is arbitrary and distributed randomly, and is therefore unconstitutional. 

The death penalty is barbaric and society has out grown it. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the use of punishments that are cruel and unusual. The method of execution in Illinois was lethal injection, which may seem like the least cruel of the formerly accepted methods nationwide (methods such as execution by firing squad, hanging, electric chair, and the gas chamber). However, upon further inspection, lethal injection is a vile form of punishment and can be excruciating to the victim. According to the authors of Deathpenaltycurriculum.org, and the article on lethal injection, victims are injected with two needles. These contain anesthetics which put the victim to sleep, then a series of paralytic chemicals that stop breathing and the heart. If all of the procedures go smoothly, the victim will die of simultaneous cardiac and respiratory arrest. However, the procedures do not always work. Doctors cannot, due to ethical obligations, carry out executions, so inexperienced technicians are forced to complete the task. “If a member of the execution team injects the drugs into a muscle instead of a vein, or if the needle becomes clogged, extreme pain can result.” Extreme pain qualifies as cruel and unusual, and instances such as these are not at all uncommon. Capital punishment is cruel and uncivilized, and has been abandoned by, according to Ryan, “Europe, Canada, Mexico, and most of South and Central America.” Whereas the United States clings to it, along with, based on “Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America,” China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan. . .” The United States has policies in line with several third world countries, an odd circumstance, as the nation is currently a global superpower. Trop v. Dulles lead the Court to decide that “the Eighth Amendment contained an evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society.” As the global community aboandons capital punishment, so should the United States. Capital punishment should be banned in Illinois, with the hope that the rest of the nation will soon follow suit. The United states has no place using barbaric methods of punishment, when life without parole is equally deterring to criminals and is far less morally repugnant. 

Illinois’s death penalty system is flawed. It is morally objectionable, arbitrarily given, and runs the risk of committing the very crime it seeks to deter: the murder of innocent persons. It is not the role of the state of Illinois to “tinker with the machinery of death” as stated by Justice Blackmun and later Governor Ryan. It is the state’s role to punish offenders for crimes and protect society. Life without parole does this effectively and economically, leaving money to go to those who need it most: victim’s families. Illinois is correct in following the major developed countries of the world in abolishing the death penalty. It is another step towards national justice and societal progress. 

Deerest

I live on the edge of the woods. As a result, my backyard is frequented by enough woodland critters to clean Snow White's house eleven times over.  We get chubby raccoons, birds, the occasional coyote and deer. I must admit I'm partial to the deer. I like the bucks, their antlers rising like crowns out of their heads and the does with their big, communicative eyes and white tails; deer are pretty swell creatures to look at.
The rest of my household disagrees.
When I see deer with their faces smashed against the side of our bird-feeder, their long tongues flicking the seeds out of the slots made for jays and robins, I think "how clever!" My Mother thinks "Now I have to fill the feeder again." Then, when I catch them nibbling on the foliage in the makeshift-garden we have, I think "aww how cute!" The dog barks, and my mother comes running, trying to shoo them from the flowers. We're essentially torn on the deer issue in our house.
However, there is one component of the situation that we all agree on. Most of the deer in my area are tagged and collared. Why? Who knows. Population control? Scientific study? The reason is unclear. But whomever is doing the tagging has successfully united and horrified my entire household. Just yesterday, my mother and I saw a doe with not one, but both ears tagged, and a massive radio collar around her neck, thunking her head as she bent to munch on my mother's precious hosta. No one tried to shoo her.
I cannot understand why such excessive and cruel procedures need be taken. What is being learned from this? That deer have trouble running, eating and generally being deer when you punch holes in them and weigh them down with machinery?  There is no information of any kind on the township website, nor on any other site I've checked.
Though more research, I may one day find out by whom and for what the deer are suffering. For now, though, I'll be refilling the bird-feeder.

Eating Animals: Behind Locked Doors

This chapter of Foer's book, titled "Hiding/Seeking," had several excerpts from other writers, each telling their story about factory farms. One was a young girl, a kind of vigilante who would go on missions to farms, looking for truth. After years of sending letters of questions to food corporations, this young lady (called "C" for her protection) grew frustrated with the complete lack of reply from companies and took the quest for information about where our food comes from and the treatment of animals into her own hands. C is not a super-human. She is, according to Foer's description, "short and wispy. She wears aviator glasses, flip-flops, and a retainer" (81). C goes into farms at night. C pulls on locked doors, opens the unlocked ones, and confronts what she sees. Which means that C scales fences, wades in shit, and pulls out her knife to euthanize those animals that are too sick, or in too much pain to let live. This is not, and should never be the job of someone like C. Neither does the job belong to the corporations (we've seen and heard the horrors they allow in the dark, locked sheds, filled with sickness and death). No, it's the job of the experts. Let them be confronted with the harsh reality of our food industry. Let them, with their accustomed eyes, declare what is just and unjust for animals. I am not so naive to think that the world will suddenly become vegetarian, that people will care. People like meat, and so they will keep and kill animals. What we should be able to change, however, is how they keep and kill. There must be a better, more humane way to provide people on all budgets with the animal protein they feel they need.

Foer offers us another perspective, that of the last real turkey farmer. This man, Frank Reese, loves his turkeys. Does he still slaughter them? Yes, because he has to make a living, and people want to have turkey meat. Reese breeds natural turkeys, not one is genetically altered for more meat, or immunity to disease etc, otherwise they wouldn't survive on his actually free-range farm, where they go outside and live like real turkeys. He tells the reader, "With the modern industrial turkey it would be a mess. They couldn't survive. My guys could maneuver through a foot of snow without any trouble. And my turkeys all have their toenails; they all have their wings and beaks -- nothing's been cut off. . . Our birds exercise all day. And because their genes haven't been messed with, they have naturally strong immune systems. We never lose birds." (111). This loss of birds Reese refers to is the large-scale deaths of millions of birds each year on factory farms. Birds trampled, diseased, genetically mutilated, incinerated, etc. Industries discovered they could still make a profit on sick and dying animals, and as a result, they no longer care about the general health of flocks. We mess with the health and genetics of animals, eat them, and then become sick ourselves. We've seen a rise in "not only juvenile diabetes, but inflammatory and autoimmune diseases . . . kids are allergic to just about everything, and asthma is out of control" (112). I can't understand why people, not just corporations, but consumers, think this is acceptable. It's a vile corruption of nature, and is having detrimental effects on national health. But that's okay, because now you can have cheap turkey on thanksgiving. Rather than supporting animal rights and going vegetarian this Thanksgiving (Oh! The horror!), rather than supporting ethical farming, this holiday season, you can have a disease-ridden, painfully murdered, animal, nestled in a bed of gravy on your dining room table for pretty cheap. Doesn't that sound delicious?

Deadline: Video Response

David Keaton was sentenced to death in Florida.  Seven years later, he was proven innocent of the crime, exonerated, and released. In Deadline, his brother says, “Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime. You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” How would you respond to this statement? From watching the film, what role do you think race plays in capital cases?

I agree that the justice system in the United States, as far as the death penalty is concerned, is undeniably corrupt. Juries and judges are influenced by racial stereotypes and prejudices, and often defendants cannot afford an experienced and competent lawyer to defend them. Justice is not blind, it sees race, gender, and social class, and, as a result, innocent lives are sacrificed. The race of persons on trial for homicide as well as their economic status, may condemn them, rather than the facts of the case or the evidence against them. \

The film frequently references the 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision that the death penalty was in violation of the 8^th Amendment of the Constitution. The 8^th Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” How does this constitutional issue play a role in your opinions for or against the death penalty?

This issue is one of the most influential pieces of reasoning that have shaped my views on the death penalty. While I often drift to abolish the penalty when I hear of innocents suffering, then back to re-instating it when truly evil, guilty people are allowed to live, I feel that society as a whole will soon ready for the end of the death penalty. Each method of capital punishment is cruel in itself. Hanging, gunfire, gas, injection. All are painful, and can be botched, leading victims to gruesome ends. I predict that society will soon out grow the need for such barbaric methods of enforcing justice, and so, I am against the death penalty.

John Allen Muhammad (one of the Washington D.C. snipers) and Timothy McVeigh (one of the Oklahoma City bombers) both received the death penalty after widely publicized trials. Their respective counterparts, Lee Boyd Malvo and Terry Lee Nichols were also found guilty of their crimes in similar trials, yet they received life sentences rather than the death penalty. How do you account for this apparent discrepancy in sentencing for heinous crimes?

In cases such as these, the corruption of the justice system becomes vividly apparent. Why is it that two criminals can escape death, while two are killed for the same crimes? The media is the answer. Politics is the answer. Politicians, newspapers and television networks want to entertain and appeal to the public, this is how they gain support. Because Muhammad and McVeigh's cases were highlighted by the media, everyone involved in the case felt the need to act to improve their own images, rather than to seek justice. The public likes it when horrible people are sentenced to death. That is why two men can be killed in the public eye, while two are allowed to live. This is a massive issue with the justice system. Criminals can slip under the radar, or be thrust under the spotlight. Which place one receives is all too arbitrary, and the outcomes of both are all too final to be left to the mere whims of the public.

Life and Death Decisions: Examining the Death Penalty

The standard capital offense case is an eight-stage process ending in either life in prison, years in prison, or execution. Within this process, there are several stages designed to protect the rights of the accused and guard against wrongful execution. One of these is the preliminary trial. Because police are often pressured to find suspects, plenty of innocent people may be accused for capital crimes. It is up to the jury of the preliminary hearing to determine whether or not a person who has been accused may be prosecuted. If the offender is prosecuted, they sit before a judge and grand jury of 23 people (who should be unbiased). The jury will examine both aggravating factors (those that strengthen the prosecutor's case) and mitigating factors (those that strengthen the defendants case). By allowing the review of mitigating factors, the jury can decide if extenuating circumstances (such as mental disablilty, bad background, etc.) play a role in the defendent's life and could give them a more lienient sentance. The defendent also has the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the burden of the prosection to prove guilt, the defendent need not prove their innocence, though they should introduce evidence to affirm it or weaken the prosectuion's accusation of guilt. If the defendent is proven guilty, they no can no longer assume innocence. Now, they must prove that their was some mistake in the proceedings during the appeal process. The defendant can appeal to higher courts, and even petition the Supreme Court for a writ of Ceritorairi (though such cases are rarely accepted). Finally, the defendant can petition the governor of the state or the president for clemency (mercy), otherwise they face execution.

I do not believe that this system is perfect by any means. If a person is wrongfully accused in the first place, and then is convicted, their sentance could be a result of jury bias or other factors. Also, it is a difficult and rigorus process to appeal a case, and if the defendent's representative fails or makes a mistake in the proceedings, they may lose their chance at a new trial, and life. Then, since so few cases are accepted by the Supreme Court, the defendant depends on clemency to save them from execution. If this fails, their execution could be carried out by hanging, gas chamber, leathal injection, electrocution, or firing squad.

All of these methods strike me as cruel and unusual in one way or another. Leathal injection, for instance, is not carried out by a proffesional doctor, which often leads to mistakes that cause inmates extreme pain during execution. As for the firing squad, the execution can either be a quick loss of conciousness as blood is cut off from major vessels and the brain, or, if the squad misses, a slow painful process of bleeding to death. If the methods for hanging are not correctly set up, the inmate can die from slow asphyxiation. Victims of gas chamber executions "nodded their heads" when they felt pain, and doctors likened the process to that of a heart attack, which causes a great deal of pain and anxiety.

Looking at a map of the death penalty and its use, certain trends appear. For instance, the most executions took place in the South (in those states in which the death penalty still exists). Also, the number of inmates on death row was larger in the South/South-East. There also seemed to be a positive correlation between the number of homicides committed in state and the number of executions (more murders may mean more executions). Perhaps the majority views on the death penalty are different depending on the region. This may affect the jury views and cause some bias or risk of arbitrary sentencing in those states where the death penalty is more widely accepted as a norm.

The former IL capital punishment murder statute states the grounds for a perpetrator to receive the death penalty. These include the cold and premeditated murder of an individual, murder caused by hijacking, terrorism, murder of disabled persons, murder of government personnel, school personnel, doctors or EMTs and other emergency responders (ex. firefighters), use of torture on a victim and so on. These are all heinous acts which I believe could warrant a death penalty sentencing. However, I feel that IL has made a mature and just decision in abolishing the death penalty. I would infer that the government did so based on changing public opinion and the gradual change of societal viewpoints on execution as punishment in this day and age.

I am surprised at how expensive the death penalty is for taxpayers compared to sentences of life without parole and so on. One would assume that the one injection costs less than the years in prison, but the numbers say otherwise. I still believe that IL made the right decision in eliminating capital punishment, it appears to be saving taxpayers money. I also believe it was the right choice because of arbitrary sentencing caused by racial discrimination. I was shocked to see the graph that depicted the number of persons executed and wether or not the victim was white and the defendant black or the defendant white and the victim black. Only 17 white defendants were executed for killing black victims, yet a whopping 255 black defendants were executed for killing white victims. This is a huge discrepancy that I believe contributes to a cycle of prejudice, bias, and arbitrary execution based on race, which is unacceptable. Where there is high support for alternative sentencing and such striking examples of abuse, I believe it is the role of the state to abolish the penalty before more innocent people are subjected to needless suffering and more guilty people have their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments revoked. I mainly agree with the position of the death penalty information center, which appears to be against the death penalty and in favor of more humane methods of punishment. Yet, I still find myself waffling on this issue when I think of the families of victims and what kind of closure they need to deal with their loss. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and even then, I wonder if we even have the right to decide issues of life or death. Punishment that is so extreme cannot be taken back and should by no means be given lightly or arbitrarily.

Play Time

Shakespeare is daunting. Whether it's the iambic pentameter, the archaic language, or the sheer volume of the works, some synapse in student's minds translates the name to "torture." Why? Because it is, more often than not, tough, boring, and silent work to read an annotate. Even with the margin notes, it is sometimes impossible to comprehend. So, it is no wonder that my English class let out a collective groan when we heard that our next book was Hamlet. I could see, sitting in my desk, book in hand, how the next month or so would play out. I could picture the late nights (I tend to do any reading homework last, for no apparent reason) staring alternately at the black and white page and the clock, watching the lines on both blur in and out of focus. I would contemplate just spark-noting the thing and having done with it. I would decide that it wasn't worth it. Then, I would keep going  until I was too tired or too frustrated to continue, whereupon I would throw the book onto my backpack and leave the fate of my performance on the quiz to some higher power.
This year, however, it is not so. Hamlet is, above all things, a play. And this is something my teacher has recognized. Therefore, we are reading it (for the most part) aloud, together. Now, seemingly meaningless phrases take on life. The characters have passion and fear. The audience (our class) has interest. It is still slow work, finding the right emphasis, using the right tone, but it is engaging. Shakespeare reaches its full potential not when it is read, but when it is performed. It should, above all things, be entertaining. It is not a lecture or a brief or a textbook passage. It's active and fun to watch and perform. That's why it's called a "play."

Eating Animals: Semiotics and Suffering

I am another chapter into Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals, and having waded carefully into this book of introspection and macro-views, am pleased to find I'm learning new things. In this chapter Foer discusses words and their meanings (appropriate, as the chapter's name is "Words/Meaning"). Words like fresh and free-range on food packaging normally conjure up images of lush green valleys, healthy animals, and general peace and happiness. Foer dispels the illusion in just a few quick blows. First, however, he talks about humanity and how we view animals as separate from ourselves. Most humans are anthropocentric, we believe we are the "pinnacle of evolution, the appropriate yardstick by which to measure the lives of other animals, and the rightful owners of everything that lives" (46). Does this give us the right to be cruel? To most widely accepted religions and moral codes, no. And yet, we turn a blind eye to the harsh realities of animal treatment, especially treatment of those unlucky creatures that will become breakfast, lunch, and dinner for so many.

Lets talk about chickens. Lots of folks eat chicken. Chicken was the last land-based meat substance I gave up as a child. I used to enjoy chicken nuggets with the best of 'em. Then, I began to equate the little breaded dinosaur shapes with the fluffy, yellow chicks I saw on farms and at petting zoos. Too cute. Then I thought about the feathered birds, their beady black eyes, their squawks and flapping. Too real. Too alive. Nothing like the little breaded lumps that were in the oven and then on my dinner plate. Chicken went off the menu.  Eggs, however, stayed on.

"The typical cage for egg-laying hens allows each sixty-seven square inches of floor space. . .[the size of] a sheet of printer paper." (47). These cages are piled one on top of another for stories and stories of cramped, frightened, birds. The wire floors cut their feet. Some can't even stand, their cages are so tight. In order to get a feeling for the bird's feelings, Foer asks us to imagine an elevator, "an elevator so crowded you cannot turn around without bumping into (and aggravating) you neighbor. The elevator is so crowded you are often held aloft. This is kind of a blessing, as the slanted floor is made of wire, which cuts into your feet. After some time, . . . some will become violent; others will go mad. A few, deprived of food and hope, will become cannibalistic. . . No elevator repairman is coming. The doors will open once, at the end of your life, for your journey to the only place worse (see: Processing)." (47).

But that's okay. One can just eat free-range chicken and eggs. No sweat. No cruelty. Right? RIGHT???
Wrong, says Foer. Free range implies room to roam, sunshine, food, all the comforts your future chicken nuggets/ omelette layers could ask for. What it really means is this: "access to the outdoors,' which, if you take those words literally, means nothing." Chickens that are free-range simply are not in cages. They can be cramped, stuffed, crawling over and under each other, in their own feces, starving for air in a warehouse, but they are not in cages. And that outdoor access? There's a little window at the top of the warehouse that someone theoretically could open to let in a little light. Maybe.

Well that's just disgusting, one might say. It's a good thing my chicken comes fresh in nice, clean packages at the grocery, shiny and ready to be cooked/eaten. That's another word. Fresh. Which Foer tells us is "more bullshit. According to USDA, 'fresh' poultry has never had an internal temp. below 26 degrees or above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. . . Pathogen-infested, feces-splattered chicken can technically be fresh, cage-free, and free-range, and sold in the supermarket legally (the shit does not need to be rinsed off first)." This is the last time I put eggs on the grocery list, assuming they're from a factory farm.

Factory farming is a term that "is sure to fall out of use in the next generation or so, either because there will be no more factory farms, or because there will be no more family farms to compare them to" (59). This generation is the food industry's animals' last chance. If we continue to purchase and promote goods from factory farms which privately ignore and even condone animal suffering (when it makes the corporation more money to starve chickens or put male chicks from egg layers in a shredder, why not?), we may see any truly humane farms die out.

If that doesn't make you put down the nuggets and the egg carton, I don't know what will.

Drug Testing in Schools: Unacceptable Infringment or Necessary Evil?

In two cases, Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, student's right to privacy and their right to be "secure in their persons" as stated in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is threatened by school-mandated drug testing. In both cases, in order for a student to participate in extracirriculars (or in athletics, in Vernonia) they must sign a form and submit to urinalysis tests that search only for drugs, are not turned over to law enforcement officials, and are given to teachers only on a need-to-know basis. Students challenged the school's ability to make the drug test mandatory for participation in extracirriculars and claimed it was an infringment on their Constitutional rights.


In both cases, the Court held in favor of the school. In Vernonia, they ruled that "the decreased expectation of [student's] privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search . . .[make] Vernonia's Policy. . . reasonable and hence constitutional. The Court ruled similarly in Board of Ed. v. Earls. Their reasoning included similar arguments, including that "students who participate in competititve extracirricular activites voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrustions on their privacy as do athletes." In both cases the Court agreed that students relenquish some of their rights when entering extracirricular activites. In the Vernonia majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court also held that the compelling nature of the subject of the searches makes them reasonable. Scalia stated that "School years are the time when the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs are most severe. . .[and] have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical risks to athletes." In the interest of gaurding student safety and health and combatting the national drug problem, some rights must be sacrificed. Also mentioned in Vernonia was the disruption of education caused by drug use on campus. "A large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics was in a state of rebellion. . ." Action was needed to maintain a healthy school environment that facilitates learning. In the Board of Ed. v. Earls decision, the Court goes on to say that "drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society." It is vital that officials target this issue and protect children from the detrimental effects of drug abuse. 


I have never been a proponent of drug use.  Wasting time abusing drugs is a vile waste of one's life when there are so many other opportunities to explore. Not only that, but drug use is detrimental to one's health and well-being.  I agree wholeheartedly with the court's decisions to protect students, rather that their right to privacy in these two cases. When students become involved in activities affiliated with the school  that are not mandatory (that is to say, privileges) they do surrender some of their rights. In both cases, students had a choice: sign the form and receive the urinalysis test, or don't participate in athletics/extracurricular. This rule was not made to squashing student's rights, but to squash a huge campus-wide problem of drug use. A problem that was distracting from the educational responsibility of the school and the responsibility of the school to provide a safe, controlled environment for students. Also, because neither urinalysis test would subject students to invasions of privacy outside what they would normally experience in a locker room or public restroom setting, I agree with the Court that in these cases, the school has right to enforce drug testing policies. The health and safety of students is more important than a right to privacy that they would lose upon walking into any public restroom anyway. 


That being said, sometimes the school goes too far. In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding an eighth grade girl was needlessly strip searched because another student, caught with ibuprofen pills, threw her name out when questioned and threatened with punishment. First of all, people will say anything to get them off the chopping block when they're in trouble. The school should not have taken the student's suggestion that she'd received the pills from Redding so seriously, as Redding had never had a breach of discipline and was an excellent student. If, however, they had cause to believe that Redding could have pills, the search of her locker and backpack would have been enough to disprove them. The strip search was violating, wholly unnecessary, and completely ignores the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches. In a case such as this, where student's safety is not threatened (the painkiller equivalent of two Advil pills is NOT an immediate threat to safety), and the reasonableness of the search (based on Redding's record and the foolishness of the accusation) I would agree with the Court and say that the balance of rights is not in line. The school trampled on Redding's rights to privacy of her person, and should be held accountable. 


Being a fan of drug abuse prevention and student health, I like the idea of drug sniffing dogs. The dogs sniff school property such as lockers, and student property such as backpacks and cars on campus lots. They do not search people themselves. Chief Clark states that the point of the searches is to "make it as hard as possible for anyone to bring drugs into the school." In the interest of protecting students in the unique school environment, some rights must, in part, be relinquished. Random dog searches are a good way to keep students on their toes and make sure they know that if they choose to bring illegal substances to school, they will be caught. 


The balance between student's rights and school's obligations is a delicate one. In many cases it becomes necessary to shift the balance in favor of the school's decisions, based on the protection and education of students. However, when the balance becomes ridiculously weighted towards the State, we must fall back on the Constitution to defend student's rights as all other citizen's rights. Based on the Court's decisions in these last few cases, it is clear that the balance being maintained, at least at the Supreme Court level, is appropriate. 

Reading Eating Animals (And Not Eating Animals)

Eating Animals, by Jonathan Safran Foer, is not a book about vegetarianism. It is a book about right, wrong, and thoughts on what we eat in consumer America today. As a vegetarian, I am often asked about what I eat, why I eat it, and why I don't eat what I don't eat. The questions began when, in the sixth grade, I became a vegetarian, like my mother and sister (who has recently returned to what we playfully call "the dark side" and now eats meat). Since then I have fluctuated between vegetarian and pescitarian (fish only), finally deciding on being a true blue veggie in high school. The reason? The questions I was asked made me think, what makes fish different from any other animal, what justifies the slaughter and consumption of one creature but not that of another? In the first two sections of his book, Foer asks this question more directly and more bluntly than anyone I have encountered in his chapter "All or Nothing or Something Else."
"Dogs," says Foer, "are wonderful. . . But they are remarkably unremarkable in their intellectual and experiential capacities. Pigs are every bit as intelligent and feeling, by any sensible definition of the words. They can't hop into the back of a Volvo, but they can fetch, run, and play. . . So why don't they get to curl up by the fire? Why can't they at least be spared being tossed on the fire?" Already, on page 25, Foer has asked a question i've asked myself, and been asked, for years. Why are some animals better than others? Why do we, as Americans, think it taboo to eat a dog, but perfectly commonplace to consume cow or pig or chicken or fish? Foer discusses fish in special detail when he describes gaffing, the process of taking a kind of pickaxe and slashing it into the side, gill, or eye of a fish to haul it into a boat. Do that to a dog and it would be heinous, disgusting, cruel to any sane person. But do it to a fish, and it's "okay". To put things in a new perspective, Foer asks the reader "If we were to one day encounter a form of life more powerful and intelligent than our own, and it regarded us as we regard fish, what would be our argument against being eaten?" Is it that we feel pain? That we think? What made me feel guilty about eating animals (when I did) were the kinds of questions Foer asks, questions that Americans ought to consider when they go to restaurants and the grocery.
What we eat says a lot about how we think as a society, and the kinds of questions we are willing to (or remain unwilling to) ask ourselves. Having asked myself these questions and thought hard about who I am and what I eat, I became a vegetarian long ago. Now I am interested in others' views on eating animals. I hope to, by reading Eating Animals, discover how carnivorous/omnivorous America justifies itself. Any thoughts?

Defending the Fine Arts

Last week's student newspaper contained an opinion article written by a student (who shall remain nameless) about where spending cuts for the school ought to occur. "To me," said the student, "the choice is obvious. The fine arts and physical education departments of high schools in America. . ." The fine arts department desperatley needs funding to provide music, instruments, art materials and other benefits for students engaged in art, choir, band, orchestra, and theater. The student went on to say "listening to works of Mozart and understanding how they work isn't an essential lifeskill. . ." Well, neither is learning how to write a newspaper editorial, and yet the school newspaper hasn't come under fire. Classes like the fine arts enrich student's lives and provide a broader base to their education, just as  the school newspaper, engineering program, and other non-"core academic" classes do. No subject is "better" than the other, but all help to enrich student's lives. Imagine a world in which you never learned to appreciate good music (not the autotuned drivel on the radio), or learned to express your creativity through paint or drawing or clay. A world where Shakespeare was never understood and enjoyed as a performance, where Shostakovich's symphony no. 5 fell on deaf ears in favor of Ke$ha. Think of how much our nation would suffer if students did not learn the fundamentals of the arts. There is not, and has never been a civilization that did not have music and art of some kind. It is an integral part of humanity's development. To cut it from our schools would be to cut a part of our culture, history, and numerous opportunities for growth and learning.Many students find their calling in the fine arts program and go on to become music teachers or performers, actors and actresses, crew/lighting/set designers, and other kinds of artists, contributing to their respecitve disciplines. If fine arts was not offered in schools, students may not realize these options are available to them. In the author's own words, "as spending cuts become more and more necessary, people have to start considering what's truly important." The fine arts fit the bill.

To Ban Or Not To Ban: A Brief Look At Speech Codes

Today in class we looked at an article (Jim Crow on Fraternity Row) and a series of pictures from fraternity parities at Auburn University. To quote the article, the party included fraternity members "dressed in KKK costumes. . .black face, and even went so far as to simulate the lynching of a member in blackface. The question is, should THIS kind of speech (racist, descriminatory, highly threatening and disgusting speech) be prohibited on campus? While I believe yes, I cannot deny that the  First Amendment protects student speech, including symbolic speech, no matter what the subject. There is just one exception: fighting words. Fighting words are those which incite an immediate violent response, according to an article by David L. Hudson Jr.  Universities have a responsibilty, much like elementary and secondary schools, to make their environment a safe place for students. One university policy mentioned in Hudson Jr.'s article was that of the University of Michigan which prohibited "behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed . . .that  . .  Creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment". While this policy effectively prohibits the kind of activities that occurred at Auburn it also prevents a significant amount of protected speech and remains vague and overbroad. At what point does a comment, a psychology class study, etc. become forbidden by policy? There is no real way to know. Speech codes have the potential for abuse and unneccesary censorship, as is stated on the FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) website. For instance Davidson College's policy which bans "innuendoes," "teasing," "jokes," and "comments or inquiries about dating" seems excessive. "Inquiries about dating" would mean asking out a fellow classmate is banned. And the ban on jokes would kill off any campus improv troupe, comedy group, or visiting show. There is a huge difference between this kind of censorship and that which needs to occur at Auburn.
Taking a look at the speech restrictions present at one of my prospective schools, Syracuse University, I saw policies that were clearly restrictive, yet fair and others that seemed vague. For instance, the school's policy on harassment was very clear: "Harassment, whether physical or verbal, oral or written, which is beyond the bounds of protected free speech, directed at a specific individual(s), easily construed as "fighting words," and likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace." Speech that provokes an immediate violent response is banned, and that is fine by me. However, another policy that struck me less specific and well-outlined was that on bias. Some examples given were "telling jokes, name calling, stereotyping, offensive graffiti, avoiding or excluding others." What the prospective student is left asking is what, in fact, is offensive graffiti? Is it art that offends someone? Overall, I think Syracuse has a fine policy and no reasonable student looking to learn and thrive in their environment should feel overly censored. However, there are examples (such as the graffiti) of places where student's speech is more limited than what is guaranteed  by the 1st Amendment. I feel that, had the Auburn parties taken place at Syracuse, there would have been significant fallout, as they were a complete breach of university policies on bias and harassment. As a prospective student, I have no issue with this. I would not want to attend a school that allowed such hideous conduct to go unchecked, without punishment and education to prevent further incidents. 
While I agree with FIRE's definitions and share some of the organization's passion for freedom of expression, I also value the safety and comfort of students at universities (especially since I will be joining them shortly) which I feel they often ignore. At some schools the codes seem too broad to be of real service to students and instead simply inhibit expression. At others, codes appear reasonable and a yellow or red light (as depicted on the FIRE website) was not a negative to me. Those red and yellow lights, those codes, are what prevents incidents like the party at Auburn, incidents that would make me feel threatened and uncomfortable at school. Speech codes need not be a terrible thing, so long as they are clear, concise, and serve to educate and make the school a better environment for all. However, when they become too restrictive and larger than the issue itself, they infringe on student's rights, and demand revision. 

The Grocery Conspiracy

This past week I read an interesting article by Martin Lindstrom entitled "Fear And Ice Chips Selling Illusions of Cleanliness". The article was about how advertisers use different tactics to convince consumers that their food is "freshest" or "cleanest" or "best" in one way or another. Psychology and sociology fascinate me, and the truths brought to light in this article were both interesting from a marketing and psychology standpoint and disturbing from the consumer's perspective. I found the tactics used by Whole Foods (which has a large store close to home) especially interesting. For instance, Lindstrom points out the chalk boards that display the prices of extremely perishable goods (flowers), as though they've been written out by the farmer himself. He writes "It's as if the farmer or grower had unloaded his produce (chalk and slate board in hand), then hopped back in his flatbed truck and motored back to the country." These subtle signs immediately conjure romantic images of farms and sunshine and a personal touch. However, Lindstrom brings the consumer back to reality when he says "while some of the flowers are purchased locally, many are bought centrally, and in-house Whole Foods artists produce the chalk boards." Another illusion that shocked me was the vegetable sprinkler system used by many groceries. You've no doubt seen the rows of bright veggies being showered with mist every half-hour or so. Lindstrom tells us that "those drops serve as a symbol, albeit a bogus one, of freshness and purity" He goes on to say that "that same dewy mist makes the vegetables rot more quickly." In this case, the company's efforts to entice us to buy their "fresh" produce are actually leading us to buy goods that are spoiling! The author's last anecdote is much like his first with the farmer's "personal touch". He tells the story of a friend who worked on a modern fishing boat that would get the day's catch, then transfer the fish to an old, outdated but charming boat, and bring that in to the harbor so customers would see the catch coming from a more picturesque source. He adds "it was all staged, but the customers ate it up. . .we want to buy the illusions that the marketing world sells to us. . ." So which is better, eating up the illusions of marketing companies and living in a consumer fantasy or actually knowing what we're getting and where it comes from? What Lindstrom fails to tell us is how we can avoid these ploys to get to the honest truth about what we buy and eat.  Why? Because they're unavoidable. Everything from bananas to shampoo has been chemically altered, colored, "freshened" to convince us to spend. It appears that the only source one can trust, is one's own garden.

Remembering September 11th

10 years ago, 3,652 days ago, a tragedy changed the face of our nation forever. On this tenth anniversary of the World Trade center and Pentagon attacks, it is vital that we reflect and take stock in what has changed, both as a nation and individually.
In Issues class, we spent three days watching a documentary taped by two French brothers who were filming a movie about firefighters in New York. They followed their ladder to ground zero and got footage from within and outside the World Trade Center towers as they were hit and as they fell. The footage is like nothing I have ever seen. A scene from hell itself, with fire and dust and bodies everywhere. And yet, it was also a documentation of extreme heroism, bravery, and love for our nation and its people. As I watched, I felt a shadow of their fear, their anxiety, their confusion in the blasts. Then, I felt their desperation and desolation as they excavated the Pile, looking for survivors and bodies to return to families.  And finally, as they climbed the steps of a nearby building to raise the American flag, I felt their pride and patriotism. It is one thing to hear about 9/11 from articles, from parents and teachers, but it is another thing entirely to see it on film, from the lobby of Tower One itself. That was the closest I had ever been to the tragedy and it was an eye-opening documentary. It only reinforced the meaning of this 10th anniversary for me, and the sacrifice thousands made, and the grief we share as a nation, and will continue to share in the next 10 years and beyond.
This weekend I read an article from The New York Times online by James Barron entitled "A Day That Stands Alone". The article described the scene at  the 9/11 memorial opening and reflected on that day, and what it has meant, and will mean, for the United States. Part of the article was reserved for grief, for acknowledgement of the tragedy itself. As Barron states "There were also long moments of silence, first at 8:46 a.m., the time American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north tower, and again at 9:03 a.m., when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the other tower. Another silence - at ground zero and at the Pentagon- came at 9:37 a.m.. . .  when flight 77 slammed into [the Pentagon]. . . another moment of silence, at 10:03, marked the crash of . . . Flight 93. . . on which passengers tried to fight back. . ." These moments of silence, pauses for reflection, communicate the sheer enormity of the attacks, and the impact they had all across the nation. There was also a section on how Sept. 11th has redefined our nation. It has "redefined bridges and tunnels in a way that generations of commuters had never imagined, as potential targets." This particular sentences stuck with me. What were once daily commute areas, neutral, boring places to pass on the way to work or school, are now places of anxiety and fear for many Americans, let alone flying and airports, whose security measures have increased 100 fold post 9/11. It was one of those events that "divided things into "Before" and "after" (Barron). Travel is simply one of the things that will never be the same. Just as, with the new memorial, ground zero itself will forever be a place of remembrance and reflection. Hopefully, it will not be a place to recall fear, but one to bring to mind great heroism, national unity, and hope for the future.
Though it is not an article per-say, another item that struck me was the comics section of the Chicago Tribune. Baby Blues is a long favorite of mine and the image for today was a simple, poignant one. Wanda and her husband have left the trash, and laundry basket behind them, Hammie has left his basketball, Zoe, her book, and all are staring at the baby, who has built two towers out of blocks, their hands to their hearts. This image calls to mind the effect on families this event had, and how it affects our generation, having been just children when the planes hit and everything changed. Another favorite comic of mine is Mutts, cute stories from the perspective of a dog and cat. In this one, the dog's owner is walking him past the foggy outline of NYC, and the leash is stretched to full capacity. The dog's voice bubble says, simply, "Heal." Another eloquent reference to the nation's need for closure, and also its need to remember.
Today, I played the flute and piccolo in a small group of kids from the marching band at a ceremony at the village hall to remember 9/11 and to thank our firefighters and police officers for the sacrifices they make for our safety and well-being. We played several patriotic tunes and a few hymn-like melodies in honor of the anniversary. During this time, and afterwords, I reflected on what 9/11 has meant to me. Having been only 7 years old, I can barely remember where I was, or what I was doing. However, I do remember feelings, the fear, the confusion, the outrage. I remember sitting on the couch with my teddy bear, watching the news play, but now I can't even remember the shapes on the flickering screen. Regardless of my ability to recall the actual event, the atrocities that occurred on September 11th have shaped parts of my life and continue to do so. 9/11 turned travel into a nightmare, and turned my perception of monuments and other areas from their status as relics to that of potential targets. It has become the defining moment of our generation, and has sparked the war that we will inherit: the war on terror. But not today. Today, we inherit the grief for the lost, the gratitude for those who gave everything in service to their country, and the importance of this event in history, and we know now that it is our duty to remember it.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .

. . . Unless, of course, you're a student. This week in class we have been looking at several court cases relevant to student's rights in school. We have also been discussing what consitutes "speech" as it is defined by the Supreme court and the Consitution. The first case we looked at was Tinker v. Des Moines, in which students were suspended for wearing arm bands that protested the Vietnam war. This case set up several perameters for other cases of student rights that followed. One of these was that neither "students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the dissenting opinion issued yet another statement that would influence cases to come. Justice Black's dissent remarks that " It is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases." In other words, if a comment, article of clothing, or other method of free speech causes a "material and substantial disruption" it should not be allowed.
    So what does this all mean for the everyday student? For most, it means going about business as usual, following the school rules, using appropriate dress, language, and so on. Our generation seems to be less interested in speaking out about big issues in school than its past counterparts. Or, so it would seem. Nevertheless, examples can be found of areas where students who supported causes such as legalization of marijuana (for medicinal use or otherwise) were forced to take off emblems relating to the leaf or 4:20.  While wearing clothing related to drugs and/or alcohol is prohibited at school, what if someone is wearing the symbols because they disagree with the law? Are schools, to paraphrase the aforementioned cases, cutting off basic rights from America's future citizens and leaders as they attempt to educate them about becoming citizens and leaders? Something's not quite right here.
   While I agree that students should not be able to spew vulgarity or intentionally make other students uncomfortable in school, I believe that, by high school, we are not only capable of forming opinions on issues and making rational arguments to support  them, but are also capable of acting maturely when faced with those who disagree with our opinions. If we cannot discuss or passively display our opinions on issues in school, perhaps it is time for the designated school "soap box" in the lunch room, or the mandatory debate class.

School should not just be where students learn their rights. It should be the place they learn how to use them.

Rough Around the Edges

Hello, and welcome to my blog for Issues in Modern America! The class that discusses and debates current events issues requires that students post a blog about issues that interest them and/or are relevant to class discussions. For this first post though, I can talk about whatever I like. Therefore, the topic of the day is geodes!

For those of you who don't know, geodes are rough looking rocks, usually spherical in shape, and contain a center full of crystals. This phenomenon occurs when volcanic rock, mud, burrows, and the like form in sedimentary rock. When the exterior shell of the rock hardens, water carrying minerals leaks in and coats the inside walls. The result? A round-ish, earth-colored stone that, once cracked open, reveals a stunning array of tiny crystals.

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to stumble upon some inexpensive geodes in a rock shop with some friends. We got together later with safety goggles, chisel, hammer, and vegan ice cream sandwiches and had a fabulous time carving out fault lines in hand-sized chunks of rock on my driveway.

With the pressures of high school it's easy to get occasionally overwhelmed. We all have ways to cope, I play the flute, run, read fashion magazines and blogs, and, of course, crack geodes. They're a unique reminder that out of the roughest and most unlikely situations and things can come something beautiful.

Thanks for reading this week's post,
Au revoir!