Update on the usual.

If you are wondering.  this may explain some things for those who are interested and curious. 

In my research I have found countless parallels to my own experiences, which has made it hard to keep my composure during class.  I personally have suffered from physical abuse since around third grade, and what’s worse is the emotional, psychological abuse I endure.  Unfortunately, the emotional abuse is harder to identify and I doubt my dad even realizes he does it.  The one thing stopping me from acting actually is the regulations in place currently as well as my financial dependence on him.  I am the only one in my family who is ever abused so if I were to file a report I may get my little brother into the mess and ruin his life by having him taken away from my parents.  So, essentially, the responsibility of holding the family together is mine and I have to keep the family intact. 

           

child abuse post 3

Day 2 of abuse research

Today, in the library lab, since all of the computers in the lab reserved for our class were in use, I decided to go get a book from the shelves.  That's right an actual physical book with paper pages.  It was a very helpful book with very good information.  It was titled The Truth About Abuse, by Mark J. Kittleson, Ph.D.  There was a ton of very good information and insight.  A lot of it was tough to read since it brought me back to memories of personal experiences with my dad and I.  I am not going to elaborate any further on those experiences because I prefer not to share those with too many. 
This is one fact from the book that I know is definitely true for my dad.  Parents who abuse their children often deny that they are abusive.  In fact, the other day, after my dad was physically abusive towards me, I heard him talking, after I returned home after trying to flee temporarily, about how he has to be sure I don't go telling people that he hit me.  He was telling my mom about how I apparently was the one who hit him, by trying to close my door and avoid conflict. 
I found it very accurate when the book said that young children, and my personal addition would be all children under the age of 18, are the most vulnerable and least protected population.  I personally find it difficult to find any resolve for my problems at home.  If I were to do anything involving legal intervention, that could compromise my little brother's life and his future, and also might prevent me from being able to attend college next year, as I am financially dependant on my dad.  Here I go talking in such detail about my own struggles after telling you and telling myself I wouldn't.  I guess I have gotten a bit more comfortable and come to accept my situation more through talking about it even if nobody reads this besides my teacher.  Thanks anyway.  This has helped me a lot withmy self-understanding. 

Starting research on child abuse

For my topic I have chosen child abuse.  This is a topic very close to me personally, for reasons I am not quite comfortable sharing online.  I was given an article by Mr. Kramer on the topic.
The article was a New York Times opinion by Bob Herbert titled "Children in Torment".  This articel was striking and appalling, listing instances of children who died from child abuse.  This was an interesting article, but I will be focusing more on the abuse that can be more easily concealed.  I will be looking into the beatings that do not result in death.  I feel that these are the important cases to be dealt with in order to prevent escalation to that extreme level.  Prevention is the way to stop this; not treatment, since that is when it ususally too late. 
I will keep everyone updated on my research and findings.  I definitely will be dedicating a lot of effort to this since it is so important to me.  Thank you for reading this. 

Mock Trial

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. 

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. 

Zeitoun post 2

The most of this books issues relate to the systematic total failure on all levels of the relief effort, which is what the following pertains to. 

It is now a few days after the storm, the levees have broken, and Zeitoun is paddling around on his second-hand canoe saving all those he can find who need his help.  Unable to transport a woman in a wheelchair and her husband who were both in their seventies due to the size of his boat, he paddles to the medical center where national guardsmen were stationed, with large fan boats.  When he asks for help, at gunpoint, he is told first that they could not help him, and after repeating his request the more astonishing answer was given, "Not our problem," (144).  I cannot explain my reaction to this any better than was written in the book, "What were they doing in the city, if not helping evacuate people," (144).  The worst part in my opinion was the disregard of the stranded elderly couple as someone else's problem.  That is just not right or reasonable in any sense. 

Zeitoun post 1.......(at long last)

I actually just finished the book a few days ago, but didn't take the time to do the blog posts until now, so here we go.  The posts will be in order of the book's plot by reference and excerpts from the book. 

One of the things that I admire about the way the book is written is the way that differences in ethnicity, religion, and everything else is mentioned casually and without pause which displays a great sense of openness to the differences in people as nothing needing explanation or justification.  He knows the feeling of falling victim to prejudices, which is why he makes a point of never imposing such feelings upon anyone else.  Without any pause in the flow of the writing, Dave Eggers, writing from the recollection of Abdulrahman Zeitoun, notes, "Rob had a similar predicament.  His husband, Walt Thompson, was like Zeitoun-bullheaded," (39).  There is no reference to them anywhere in the book as a 'gay' couple, but merely as a couple, which is the kind of absolute equality and acceptance that would be found in a Utopian society.  It is not recognition of being a gay couple and accepting that, but accepting them as a couple, just a couple, that displays true equality. 

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.