Firstly, I was actually quite surprised by the verdict of the rape case that I participated in. I considered it an open and shut case, considering both sides. The defendent admitted that she had said no multiple times and that he still had sex despite her objection. That seems to me to be all the information that would be needed to find him guilty. I wish I had been there on the last day of the trial to have seen just why it ended like that.
I was not surprised by the verdict of the sexual harrassment trial per se. I thought that one could go either way depending on the personal stance of the jury members. I do feel that it was a justified and proper verdict. I think that the defense seemed to avoid the point and simply talk about whether or not she was demoted rather than argue whether or not she was sexually harrassed, which was what the trial was supposed to be focused on.
Furthermore, I have not had any direct or indirect encounters with rape or date rape in this school or this community that I can recall, but there is no shortage of sexual harrassment at this highschool. I think to an extent it is to be expected at the high school level with adolescents with highly active hormones intermingling. But, I do however, believe that it does get out of hand at times. For instance, just yesterday I saw a male security guard clearly staring at a female student's posterior as she passed, with a smirk on his face. That sickened me. I think although the person who he was staring at so innappropriately had no idea and thus was not affected at all, that this is unacceptable behaviour, especially for those who are hired to keep the school as a safe friendly environment. I see a decent amount of verbal and physical harrassment of a sexual nature done by students of all ages. Unsurprisingly, it is almost entirely male students who contribute to it. I have no significant other experience to compare this to so I cannot truly say for sure whether this is too much or a normal level.
Tuesday 1 March 2011
Union Insanity in Wisonsin
My take on this is pro-union since so far I have yet to hear any sufficient argument that would make me feel that there is really anything bad about a union. I have personally attended a rally for a union at the congress hotel in downtown Chicago. The owner was a wealthy man who wanted to pay his workers as little as he could and give them the least benefits he could while having them work for him. They got sick of it and unionized and have been protesting for some seven years now. It is terrible and so many people lost their jobs from it and have been facing terrible hardship as a result. I sympathize greatly with union workers and think it is one thing that above all gives the workers something to defend themselves from greedy corporations.
I therefore think that the ability to unionize should be a protected, rather than a restricted, right. I think my stance was most eloquently worded in the article by Linda Kaboolian stating, "While the rich get richer and middle class prospects diminish, they've seen every opportunity to level the playing field crippled by the same people who supported Governor Walker’s election," (See article here). I get sick of the unethical ways of corporate ideology. my dad works in partnership with Microsoft so I reap the benefits of big business but at the same time he is a successful entrepreneur so he has started five successful business which does something to counteract the association with corporate America.
In the other article I read it went into startling specifics of other corrupt policies proposed by the clearly flawed and misguided bill such as, "the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state," (see NYT article). This gives unchecked power to the gouvernment. This is a direct contradiction to the basis of our entire democracy. i feel this should not be allowed to happen and I hope it does not rear its ugly face for much longer.
I therefore think that the ability to unionize should be a protected, rather than a restricted, right. I think my stance was most eloquently worded in the article by Linda Kaboolian stating, "While the rich get richer and middle class prospects diminish, they've seen every opportunity to level the playing field crippled by the same people who supported Governor Walker’s election," (See article here). I get sick of the unethical ways of corporate ideology. my dad works in partnership with Microsoft so I reap the benefits of big business but at the same time he is a successful entrepreneur so he has started five successful business which does something to counteract the association with corporate America.
In the other article I read it went into startling specifics of other corrupt policies proposed by the clearly flawed and misguided bill such as, "the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state," (see NYT article). This gives unchecked power to the gouvernment. This is a direct contradiction to the basis of our entire democracy. i feel this should not be allowed to happen and I hope it does not rear its ugly face for much longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)