abortion post part 1

For the NARAL website, there seems to be no effort to hide the clear bias present in the provided information.  They make no attempt to show the other side of the argument.  Additionally, the primary tactic seems to be, rather than persuation to side with them, dissuasion for the opposing side.  There is no emphasis on why they are right, but rather why the other side is wrong. 

The opposing side, however, makes sure to focus on their own argument and then has a portion dedicated to direct citations of contrary arguments and rebuttals to them.  They seem to be better organized and, in my personal opinion, would be more persuasive, especially to someone considering an abortion. 

Death Penalty; Clifford Boggess

In terms of whether or not, people can change, I think that people definitely are likely to change especially when threatened with death.  As for whether or not Clifford Boggess had changed, I think that he did, but not in a beneficial way.  He merely found an excuse and justification for what he did.  It bothered me how he was so sure that he was going to heaven and that he knew that god had forgiven him.  His conceited sense of overconfidence irritated me and gave the sense that he felt no remorse for what he did. 
I don't think that the families and friends of the victims got any real sense of releif after Clifford was executed.  It is often the case that the loss of one person's effect on someone is not made any less painful by taking another life.  It obviously cannot bring back the victims.  I would not want to be the one to have to determine whether someone is to live or die, but I think that in this case it ended up that Clifford was rightfully executed seeing as he saw it not as cruel and terrible and he was beyond doubt the killer.  I do appreciate his artistic abilities, but there are many other great artists that didn't have to kill to hone their abilities. 

DHS: Struggling with a bullying problem

I think that there is absolutely a bullying problem for some students at DHS, but at a much smaller scale than most.  Our first class standard has definitely helped, but I personally know two people, two friends of mine, who each claim to be suffering electronic harassment from the other.  I have tried to tell them both to just cut off communication entirely if they cannot communicate in a beneficial way.  The problems are deeply rooted with some people, but I personally think that, in general as a whole, DHS has very good control of the bullying situation. 

An update on the efforts to make schools safer for people like Jamie Nabozny

For so many people, school is not what it is supposed to be.  Rather than a safe place to enjoy a productive learning environment, many people face verbal and physical harrasment at school and without any consequences for those who commit the acts of hatred and intolerance. There is currently a policy waiting for approval from congress called the Student Non-Discrimination Act which is being pushed by the Human Rights Campaign.  If this law were to be passed, it would, in theory, guarantee protection for students against harrasment including that based on gender expression and sexuality.  But, even if this is passed, there would be a lot of work to be done to make sure it is followed and upheld in all schools. 

http://americansfortruth.com/

A great resource for total bigoted bullshit about the 'homosexual agenda'

Bullying; Unnacceptable for any reason

As stated in the title of this post, I believe that bullying is wrong an damaging regardless of the reasoning behind it.  Bullying in itself specifies that it is not any sort of justified reaction of self defense or discipline, but rather harassment, physical, verbal, and often worst of all psychological.  Especially in the event of physical bullying taking place on school property, there is absolutely no excuse for the school not to take action.  Ideally there would never be any instances of escalation to physical violation, but the unfortunate reality is that it often does happen.  Even non-physical can often be fatal, as seen in the news lately with the spree of teen suicides as a result of bullying, mostly for the sexuality of the victims.  I hope that I will live to see a time when this does not occur anymore, and for now I do everything that I can to help work towards that future. 

Follow up to fourth amendment post

In response to the articles found from the following links http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/us-supreme-court-declares-strip-search-13-year-old-student-unconstitutional http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Sexting-Suit-Tests-Searches-of-Student-Cell-Phones.html http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-settles-student-cell-phone-search-lawsuit-northeast-pennsylvania-school-district http://rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=854

Fourth Amendment and Student Searches

 In terms of rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment, I understand that there is reasonable argument against drug testing in schools.  However, I also recognize that in the interest of the safety of the student, drugs are dangerous, especially for athletes in competitive sports.  Therefore, I am too conflicted to say one way or another, whether or not I think that Drug testing policies should be enstated in public schools. 

Religion taugh in schools vs First Amendment rights

After reading about certain activity proposed at a public school, I realize more fully when there is reasonable grounds to restrict first amendment rights.  I read of a school wanting to reenact the persecution of the Jews during the Nazi reign wearing yellow stars.  These symbols are not appropriate school and would not be right to be used outside of the particular class doing the simulation.  They could use less tolling symbolism, like wear some blue dot or such, and not risk bringing up the terrible memories of the mass murder and torture of the holocaust.  I think that I would not allow a school to do this were I to have an authoritative position.  I feel that it would be counterproductive to the education of those participating and would promote exclusion.  These cases are those when I am okay with a restriction on freedom of speech. 

First post: first problem

Among the many problems facing America, a recurring one is that of the restrictions, or lack thereof, on citizens' first amendment rights.  This has proven itself to be a notably complicated predicament since no balance of regulations and protections with freedoms of expressions has thus far left all those affected satisfied.  A huge problem is what a university is able to restrict in order to protect its students without infringing upon constitutional freedoms.  Some colleges have had such ridiculous regulations as a campus-wide ban on dancing.  This was a poor choice of wording in an attempt to reduce the partying and underage drinking.  But banning dancing is just an absurdity.  Some more reasonable restrictions are more widely accepted such as those specifying a ban on acts that cause direct harm to others or put them in danger.  These such regulations are more to make sure that one's rights do not violate the same rights of another.  I can tolerate those laws, but when it comes to those as ridiculous as no dancing, I automatically cross the college off of my potential ones to apply to.