Invisible Children

I love being part of a school with such generosity and big hearts. Every single year Deerfield High School has the opportunity to fundraise for the charity of our choice, for three full weeks. We have endless traditions and strategies for raising large amounts of money. There are many food sales and fun events such as Mr.DHS, a male pageant. School chest creates a community within our school instantly. Everyone is supportive and working to make each year the best. This year our school chest beneficiary is Invisible Children.  Our school had many choices that were narrowed down to two, and invisible children was our final decision. This foundation is dedicated to bringing awareness to the world about the current status in northern Uganda, eliminating rebel leader Joseph Kony from the battle field, helping former child soldiers, and preventing new child soldiers. Joseph Kony is the leader of the LRA, this is the lords army resistance. They are a rebel group against the government of Uganda. Kony’s army is made up of child soldiers. Children are abducted from their homes, immediately desensitized to violence, brainwashed to believe there is nowhere for them to go, and taught how to murder without remorse. The ideal children for them to abduct are children from 6-11 years old because they are big enough to carry a gun, but young enough to mold their minds.  It is absolutely tragic what is happening to the children of Uganda. What is even more tragic is that no one knows about it. If this was happening in any other country it would be big news, but people shut their hearts and eyes to Africa. I strongly believe in the efforts of invisible children.  They are advocating that all people are equal, and they are working to stop an awful terrorist.  This foundation has made great progress due to its immense youth support. I believe this is part of what attracted the students of Deerfield to this foundation.
Although I believe in the cause and the intentions of the foundation, I do not trust that it is our best option for school chest. I fear that all of our money and hard work could be ended in an instant. My biggest issue is that we are not directly helping these child soldiers, we are potentially helping them. We are also potentially endangering them. The money that our school raises is going to be put towards a large radio tower in the Congo.  This radio will send out an FM signal. We have been told that the child soldiers have small radios with them to catch frequencies. If they get in contact with someone they will encourage them to leave, instruct them where to go, and convince them they will be accepted and wanted. We have no way of knowing if this works, and if it does to what measure. If we reached a child solider through the radio and encouraged them to leave we could also be endangering them. They could be killed or maimed for attempting to leave. Also what is to stop the rebels from bombing or shooting the tower? I have been involved with a charity called Free Wheelchair mission. We fundraise money to create wheelchairs and bring them to third world countries where they are not accessible. The wheelchairs dramatically improve the quality of their lives. These are people who have lived in constant pain. They are also people who have been crawling on the floor their entire lives. The help is not potential it is direct, and we have the ability to deliver the chairs and see our impact. I think that being involved in a charity that is so direct with its mission makes me uneasy about supporting a charity that is based on potential and there is a large disconnect between us and the people wish to help. Although this year’s school chest has not been my favorite, I have supported it the exact same amount that I have every year. I hope for the best that our school and the students who work so hard for school chest will be able to see their impact and the people they help.

Final thoughts on the Death Penalty

All of my blogs regarding the death penalty have the same opinion. I am 100% against the death penalty. I think the intentions of ridding the world of murderers, deterring criminals from murder, and enforcing punishments are valid. But as of now I do not think we have an accurate way to execute these intentions. Too many innocent people are put to death. Too many guilty people aren’t put to death. The ways in which we execute is cruel and unusual. Until we can successfully fix all of the potential spots for error I do not believe the death penalty should be used. It is extremely difficult and time consuming to eliminate all potential spots for error. The moratorium on the death penalty is just because it is preventing the death of innocent people and allowing the country to try and improve our death penalty so that is it accurate and humane.  Illinois’ governor Ryan, in 2003, declared the moratorium on the death penalty. His view on the death penalty is similar to mine. We both believe in punishment in a humane manner. “I believed that the ultimate penalty for the taking of a life was administrated in a just and fair manner.” Ryan does believe in punishment but it was brought to his attention how flawed Illinois system of convicting criminals was. The lives of 17 wrongly convicted inmates were spared by the research of college students at Northwestern University. “Together they spared the lives and secured the freedom of 17 men - men who were wrongfully convicted and rotting in the condemned units of our state prisons.” It was obviously a big wake up call to the state that college students were able to poke holes right through there system and spare innocent lives. When my class watched a video about this in class I was shocked they are not lawyers, they were not trying to find a flaw in the system, it was simply a class project! They were average looking young adults. It is amazing to look at people my sisters age and realize what a big impact they made.  If that didn’t scream out that there was a huge problem I don’t know what would. I agree with Ryan’s decision because he acknowledged a problem, supported by facts, and acted on it in a mature manner. He took his time and did not rush into a decision and he listened to both sides of the argument. What is most assuring is that he was confident in his decision. “I know that my decision will be just that - my decision - based on all the facts I could gather over the past three years. I may never be comfortable with my final decision, but I will know in my heart, that I did my very best to do the right thing.” I agree that it is just to end a system that is not working properly. Life or death is no joke; we need to ensure accuracy to be able to enforce such a final punishment.  After reading the article from the New York Times, I felt like others agreed with my opinion. The writer of the article, Steve Mills, said “Then, with Porter's case still in the spotlight, plus a series of stories in the Chicago Tribune later that year that illuminated deep frailties in the state's system of capital punishment, the debate over the death penalty was transformed. Suddenly, it was about accuracy. No longer were the mistakes anecdotal. The problems were systemic.” Mills is saying something synonymous with what I am saying. The problem was so obvious and prevalent that something had to be done.  Overall I agree with the decision to put the moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois. Governor Ryan made the right choice to acknowledge and act on a problem.  

Pro-life or Pro-choice and everything inbetween

After reading both of the articles I have side with the NARAL. The main reason that I side with them is that they have more concern for each individual woman. Their concerns lie with women turning to hazardous methods to terminate the pregnancy, women who have low income and will not be able to support a baby, and women who are ill-informed about a medically safe abortion. I do not believe abortions are always the right answer, but my opinion doesn’t really matter. That is why I am prochoice. The choice to have an abortion or not will only affects the life of that woman, so it should be her choice. The other website, National right to Life, seemed to clump all women and babies into the same category. They speak about the health risks for the woman and baby, and that is pretty much it. Yes abortions can be dangerous, but the woman should be able to decide if she is willing to take that risk. Why are these people who are strangers to the woman concerned with her health?  Why do they care about the unborn child? They will never know this child. I wonder if they would be willing to take the child. If they care so much about every baby being born they should open up and adoption agency. To me it seems as if they are just preaching their opinion, they have no legitimate argument. The NARAL has valid arguments. They want to get rid of the bans on safe abortion. These bans are making women chose unsafe methods of terminating the pregnancy. They want to help the women who are already in poverty prevent bringing a child into poverty and setting the women further back. I think that The NARAL is the “winning” side because they are not preaching an opinion, they are leaving the choice to the individual women.

I am an 18 year old girl. I am prochoice. I believe that girls under the age of 18 need their parents’ consent to get an abortion. I believe that girls 18 and older do not need their parents’ consent but their parents do have to be informed of what procedure the woman is going to have. I think that the parents should be involved in the process of getting an abortion because it will affect their lives to. When you are under 18 years old you need moral support. I can’t imagine how it would feel to be in a situation where I was considering getting an abortion, but I can assume it is very difficult. Our parents know us well and want what is best for us. They will always want to protect us. They also have lots of life experience that can help in making the decision or recovering after decision has been made. Getting an abortion is serious business; young women need their parents looking out for them. For women 18 and older they can legally make their own choices, but I think their parents have to be informed about what there daughter is about to do so that they can help her heal mentally and physically. Everyone needs support. Even if the parents do not support the decision they will be informed on an important  procedure that their daughter is taking.

                Although the father is incapable of understanding what it is like to be pregnant, they want what is best for their daughter and should be informed. Having your father informed about having an abortion can be extremely awkward, but they have the right to know because they are your parents.  I think that the father should be informed but if the daughter is 18 or older they do not need his consent.

                When reading the Illinois state laws on abortion it is clear who is writing it. Every fact that is presented is shown in a negative light. The pro-choice movement is the host of the site. They do not agree with the state’s laws surrounding abortion.  Although I do not like some of the laws regarding abortion in Illinois  I understand why they are in place, such as “Illinois law restricts young women's access to abortion services by mandating parental notice.” Like I said earlier, I believe that parental consent should only be necessary for women under the age of 18. But I understand why this law is in place. They are trying to protect women who are seeking a medical procedure. There are risks in any medical procedure along with mental grief. I believe this law is attempting to help women. I do not think that the law requiring spousal consent to get an abortion is trying to help the woman. This law to me is just another way for the state to keep abortion unobtainable. The spouse could have ill intentions for wanting to have a baby. I think that it is outdated to need a man’s approval.  Women are strong and independent. We do not need a man to make our decisions for us.

Eating Eggs

This bog was inspired the book I am reading, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and my breakfast. My sister left to go back to school this afternoon. My parents prepared a big family breakfast for her. We had bagels, eggs, fruit, and hash brown potatoes. I had some of everything.  Breakfast was more like brunch. In the morning, before brunch, I had time to write another blog. I blogged about the internal struggle Foer and I have about which animals can be eaten and which can’t. All inspired by his book. I sat down with my family and began to eat. My thoughts were still among the blog I just wrote. I looked down at my plate of eggs and felt no guilt because the eggs we eat are not fertilized. I am 100% confident that there are no embryos in my eggs. I did not take any lives by eating this breakfast. Then I started to think about how long people have eaten eggs. I was assuming for a very long time. I’m sure the early settlers ate eggs. Then a stomach curling thought came into my head. The technology to produce unfertilized eggs has not always been around…did people used to eat the chicken embryos? I find that so disturbing. They were literally eating under developed baby chickens! My question is when did this stop? When did people decide that it isn’t right to eat chicken embryos? Why did people stop? What was the ultimate determining factor? I would not eat a chicken embryo. That is a chicken that has not even been born. Why would I eat meat? That is from animals that were alive! Why don’t I feel as disgusted as I did about the unborn animals, than I do about the born ones? When did one become okay? To anyone who reads this……would you eat a chicken embryo?

Chapter 2: Eating Animals

After completing chapter two, all or nothing or something else, I am leaning more towards considering being a vegetarian. Foer describes his struggles with his affection for animals. He had always hated dogs. He never wanted one and was not amused by anyone’s. Then Foer fell in love with a dog, and it became his pet. He could not explain how the switch was flicked from hate to love. I connected with this immediately because it was similar to me experience with my first dog. After my family decided to get a dog we spent around two years researching dogs. We went to dog shows and read books. We had finally settled on an English bulldog. I was far less than pleased. I thought they were ugly, mean, and downright unappealing. I could not understand why anyone would want one at all. But after we adopted Buddy, and I took a few days to get over my fear, I was head over hills in love. I know how Foer felt; there is no explanation for the change of heart. It just happens. After examining his relationship to dogs, he started to reflect on other animals. Foer started to talk about pigs and cows. Both of these animals have the same exact intelligence capacity that dogs have. They are capable of having individual personality’s, which is usually what separates dogs from other animals in our minds. We picture dogs as more advanced, or more compatible with us, but other animals have these exact same qualities. I, like Foer was horrified by the thought of eating a dog. I eat bacon and hot dogs on a regular basis. I started to feel so guilty. My dog, pearl, and English bulldog looks like a pig. She is short, fat, and snorts. She is basically no different than a pig. So why aren’t I horrified by eating a pig? When did I make the distinction between what animals I eat and what I don’t? How were these distinctions formed? The questions I am asking myself are nearly verbatim the questions that Foer was asking himself. I wont eat pearl, will I eat babe?

Poor Pets

Whenever I stay home sick it is my dog’s responsibility to take care of me. Both of my parents work during the day so when my sisters or I are sick, we are all alone. The only type of dog my family has ever owned are English bulldogs. My first bulldog, buddy, lived to be ten years old. My current bulldog, Pearl, is almost two years old. I stayed home from school yesterday because I was sick. As usual my dog laid with me the entire day to make sure I was okay. I was playing with my dog and thinking a lot about her. Bulldogs are fat, short, and have a terrible respiratory system. Of all dog species they have one of the shortest life expectancies. I was thinking about how a bulldog would act in the wild. Where would they live? What would they eat? How would they survive? I couldn’t answer any of these questions. I could only see these dogs as pets. I do not think they could survive on their own in the wild. Then I started to think about all house pets. Could they survive without being dependent on humans? What is the concept of a pet? Why do we have animals living in our houses among us? Is it right to own another being? Is it right to make these animals dependent on us? I love my pet, but I am questioning whether owning a pet is right. We have taken wild animals and domesticated them. All house pets are like broken horses, forced to obey and act against their nature. Did we make a mistake when we started to own pets?

Deadline

As much as I would like to believe that justice is blind, I don’t.  Our society has a picture in our heads of what a criminal looks like and for most people it is someone who is black. If the majority of people being arrested are black then suspects in future crimes that are black will be unfairly prosecuted. There is a bias no matter where or what the case is. In some locations it is better than others, but it is always present. If our country makes it look like black people are committing more crimes they will believe that black people will commit future crimes. It is unfortunate that our justice system works this way because there is no way to determine whether someone is discriminating or not, many innocent people could be put in jail or executed, and real criminals could be left on the streets.  I wish the justice system could be blind, but I don’t see how it could be.
I think our country is pro death penalty because we blow up our crimes to be huge new topics. Whenever there is a bad crime the entire country knows about it. When there is so much pressure to find the criminal and punish them for their actions, people will support the death penalty. If there wasn’t such a large spotlight on the justice system I don’t think as many people would be in favor of it. I think our society makes everything a little more dramatic than it actually is, so their responses are more dramatic then they should be.  I also think many people believe it will bring them closure for their loss. Unfortunately it wont. When that life is lost your loved one’s does not come back. Our society supports the death penalty because our society supports revenge.
To the families of the victims at the clemency case I would say, I am sorry for your loss, it must be extremely painful and sad, but taking the life of this person will not bring you any peace. It will not bring back your loved one. I truly believe that taking the life of another person will not help you grieve. At the end of the day nothing has been accomplished. That empty spot in your heart is still missing, and one more person has lost their life. I would encourage the victim’s families to watch the confessions of the other victims families who are opposed to the death penalty. Emit Till was brutally lynched, but his mom is opposed to the death penalty. Those who are opposed could explain to the victims in the clemency cases why death isn’t the answer.  I believe there is no room for revenge in the justice system.

Chapter 1: Eating Animals

This week I completed reading the first chapter of Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. The first chapter is the author letting us know who he is. He talks about his battle with vegetarianism. He spoke about his beliefs on food, family, and identity. He also explains to the reader why he wrote this book. The first chapter was so compelling because I learned so much about the author. I got a brief timeline of his life and he is very straightforward about his opinions. I was originally interested in this book because it reminds me of my sister. One day out of the blue she decided to be vegetarian. My family all believed it would last around two weeks, it has been three years. I respect vegetarianism but I don’t quite understand it. This book, in 19 pages, has already helped me understand more.  I look forward to the future chapters where he goes in depth about his experiences. I am interested to know how I feel about his decisions. Will I agree with them? Will I understand them? Will this book turn me into a vegetarian? Many of the topics that were brought up in the first chapter made me stop and think. One that I have continued thinking about is the idea of food as a source of memories. Foer says “Within my family’s Jewish tradition, I came to learn that food serves two parallel purposes: it nourishes and it helps you remember.”(12) I am Jewish. I do not keep kosher but I do eat Jewish foods and know the meaning behind them. For example, apples in honey on Yom Kippur represent the sweetness of the New Year. I had never heard the concept of food being a way to remember and tell stories. What does that mean? Food makes me think about stories. Every time I eat mandarin oranges I think of how my grandma would always give me them and let me watch frosty the snowman in her basement.  The food didn’t tell the story, it reminded me of it. Is that what Foer means?  I am fascinated by this book and will continue to search for the connection between food and memories.

The Death Penalty

After the arrest of the accused there is a arraignment. This is the first time that the accused will hear their charges and be able to make a plea in front of a courtroom. This is the first place where the rights of the accused are protected. They are told exactly what they are being accused of and they are allowed to plead their case. Next there is a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to prosecute the accused. If enough strong evidence is found there will be a hearing of a grand jury, there they will determine whether the evidence is compelling enough to charge the suspect with a specific crime. The rights of the defendant are being protected because the evidence against them is being carefully analyzed for strength and validity. Finally the prosecutor must announce their intentions to seek the death penalty. This is the final aspect that protects the accused because they know what the prosecutor’s intentions are so they can make their case against it.
    I do not believe that the system we use to enforce the death penalty insures that only the guilty are convicted. I think there are a lot of grey areas where people could slip through. For example eyewitnesses may have false memories, feel pressure to describe a certain suspect, or lie. Also there are people who give the police information hoping to get something out of it. Their intentions might not be right and they could endanger an innocent person. Finally most of the case is based off of evidence found at the crime scene. That evidence can be tampered with or staged. Our steps to enforcing the death penalty are not the most accurate, but I don’t see how they could be more accurate. There isn’t really a way to decide if someone is lying or telling the truth. It is also hard to determine if the evidence is genuine or designed to look a certain way. I think that our system that enforces the death penalty is as good as its going to get. There will always be a large margin for error.
I do not feel that any way of murdering someone is humane, but I would say the most humane are hanging and lethal injection. Hanging has a series of probations that it takes to ensure a quick painless death. They measure the weight of the inmate and the length of the rope. There is always potential for error that could result in a long painful death, but they do their best to make it quick and painless. Lethal injection is also somewhat humane because there is also a small margin for error. The inmate is strapped down and put to sleep. Then they inject the chemical that paralyzes the entire muscular system so the inmate dies of respiratory and cardiac failure. They try their best to make it quick and painless. I think that gas chambers, firing squads and the electric chair are cruel and unusual because there is a large margin for error, the death of the inmate can be extremely slow, and the death of the inmate can be extremely painful. If we are trying to be humane we should not torture the inmate.
After looking through the state-by-state death penalty information what  statistic I found the most interesting was the women.  In almost every state I looked at there were 0-2 women executed. The only one that I saw that surpassed that was Texas with 10 women executed. It made me think a lot. Why are women executed far less then men? Do women commit less crime? Are women better at hiding from their crime? Is it easier for a woman to plead innocent? There has to be a reason behind the small amount of women executed and I am curious what it is.
I do not think any of the crimes listed deserved the death penalty because I do not believe in the death penalty.  I think that death is the easy way out. It happens and then you are done. Any criminal who committed the crimes listed in the document deserves a lifetime in jail. In jail they will settle into a boring, strenuous, lifeless routine. The only thoughts they will have are regret and guilt. Spending your life in jail is miserable and the strongest form of punishment. Sentencing the death penalty is relieving someone of the punishments of jail.
The chart on Illinois current death penalty information reveals that the state of Illinois no longer has the death penalty but it does not give a clue as to why.  I would assume that the death penalty is no longer used in Illinois because the process takes to long, all types of executions are cruel and unusual,  and the murder rate is not high enough to need a death penalty punishment as a warning.
After looking at the fact sheet I stand by my opinion that the death penalty is the wrong answer. Executions are bad for the economy. They are extremely expensive and the taxpayers paying for the death penalty may not support it. The evidence is also solid that race is a large determining factor in utilizing the death penalty. This is an unfair and illegitimate bias that our justice system is using. Only one third of the population supports the death penalty. The death penalty is not the majority opinion in the United States; we are a democracy so we should be able to end it. The death penalty information sight is against the death penalty and so am I. The evidence I found on their sight has made me more secure in my beliefs.

Confused about Teenage Privacy

Drug testing in high schools is something that I do not have a firm opinion on. I always feel like I go back and forth between being for it and against it. I think I feel this way because I am torn in the middle of the two arguments. On one hand I think drugs are terrible. No good can come from using them; they endanger your life and the lives of others. Drugs cloud your judgment and change who you are.  My close friend almost died from using drugs. I am a anti-drug. On the other hand I am an athlete. I am involved in school sports. I think that it is very invasive to drug test. I do not want to give a urine sample to my school. I believe that is something only done at the doctor’s office. We need a certain level of privacy. I go to school to learn and be involved in activities. My parents are the ones who should be concerned with drugs or alcohol.  My teachers and coaches are not my parents. It really isn’t their business. I personally have nothing to hide, I would pass a drug test, but I can’t help feeling on the fence about it.  I see valid reasoning from both sides. In the case of Board of Education v. Earls, I find it hard to decide where I fit in, with the majority or dissenting opinion. Two high school girls were smoking in the school restroom. When the girls were being questioned T.L.O. claimed that she did not smoke. The vice principal went into T.L.O’s purse and found cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers. The rolling papers made the vice principal suspicious about involvement with marijuana so he continued his search and found “ a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money in one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and letters implicating T.L.O. in dealing marijuana.” T.L. O. then admitted to selling marijuana on campus. The majority opinion ruled “ We hold today that school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.”  I do not agree with this opinion. It is such an invasion of privacy to have anything on you searched at school without a warrant. I do not think this ruling should have come out of this case because it does not apply.  Being able to search students without warning is not the same as searching a student who is accused of smoking. There has to be reason behind the search. I believe there should be a warrant. This topic is provocative because it is something that can happen to me. I am a high school student involved in high school activities. These court decisions impact my life. These rulings could cause my possessions to be searched and myself have to submit to drug testing. 
Like I said before I have mixed feelings. Even though I do not think that the unwarranted searches should be allowed I do think that the drug-sniffing dogs should be. If people want to engage in drugs that is their own private personal decision. But school is no place for drugs.  Having drug-sniffing dogs is scary. I would not want one of those dogs start to sniff my possessions and bark. I imagine it would be very frightening. The fear of being caught and the fear of the dogs is enough to keep students from bringing drugs to school. That is the main goal. Students may use drugs outside of school but that is not the schools issue. If the drugs are not at and not being distributed at school the school should have no problem. I know from the article “Drug-Sniffing Dogs Patrol More Schools” in the New York Times, that this method is successful. “ Dogs have searched the school twice since January, and no narcotics have been found,” The dogs are not invading students privacy. They are only finding things that are not allowed. When a teacher searches a students belongings they may find no drugs but other personal and private items. That is why unwarranted searches are invasions of privacy and drug-sniffing dogs are not.

No More Jersey Shore

I have a huge issue with the jersey shore. This is a show with no basis. All it is Italian people living in different locations. They are expected to drink, fight and be promiscuous.  Their daily motto is GTL, this stands for gym, tan, laundry. Not one of the cast members has a goal for the future, they are just partying their lives away.  This show is a worldwide phenomenon. With its fourth season currently airing the cast members are making large amounts of money and expanding their fame. Millions of people tune in Thursday nights to watch the idiocy. Each cast member is well known. They have Halloween costumes based of off them. They have pens that repeat dumb things they have said. They have t-shirts and everything else that contributes to their wealth. I think it is disgusting that our society appreciates this type of entertainment. We are making the scum of the earth wealthy. Why do we promote this type of behavior? Why do we find unintelligence and irresponsible behavior appealing? Snookie is the most famous from this show. She is notorious for saying stupid things, drinking excessively and having sex. What kind of role model is that? I think it is a huge problem that our society idolizes these people. Even if you do not idolize these people but you watch the show you are guilty. Our society needs to embrace a more sophisticated type of entertainment.  We have to recognize that that is not a way of life. We need women to respect themselves. We need men to be respectful of women.  We need to take glamour’s illusion of drinking alcohol away. This show stands for what we should not be. I say no more jersey shore.

Missing the King and Queen

This year, for the first time in my high school career, there was no homecoming court. In years past there was a king and queen from each grade.  The steps to becoming homecoming royalty begin with a nomination. Someone has to nominate you and you have to sign it with your consent. Then ballads are sent to your entire grade during homeroom.  Every student casts one vote for king and queen from the nominees in their grade. The winners from each grade are revealed at the homecoming pep rally. They are brought down in front of the whole school to be presented with their flowers and crowns. It is supposed to be a great honor, an award of congeniality. It should look like those cheesy moments in movies. Unfortunately the students at our school had different intentions for this award. Ever since I was I was a freshman I was hoping to never become homecoming queen because my older sister, who was a junior, informed me that people only get nominated as a joke. Our student body uses homecoming court as a way to publicly humiliate kids. At first I didn’t believe it but each pep assembly proved it to be true. Each kid looked ashamed as sad to have won. This always bothered me. Homecoming is a time when our school is supposed to come together with pride and spirit. We are all eager to win the football game, we can’t wait to get dressed up and go to the dance and the dress up days make school a fun place to be at. I don’t understand why such a happy time would instigate such hostility. Why would students prefer to embarrass someone instead of honor them? What is wrong with selecting a king and queen that embody the qualities that the award was originally intended for? This year the school did not cancel homecoming court. It was there, but no one would give his or her consent to being nominated out of fear of embarrassment. Ultimately I think it was a good thing that no one was acknowledged in front of the whole school for the wrong reasons.  I would rather have a happy pep assembly with no homecoming court than a pep assembly that made students feel miserable. Even though I feel it was good that we didn’t have it this year, I think it is important that it is something we restore. Homecoming king and queen is something kids are aware of from a young age. Movies and television glorify this award to be the highlight of high school. I think it is a terrible shame that our school doesn’t live up to this reputation. I think that if the award were something desirable homecoming would have one more event that makes it so fun. It could only enhance our school spirit. It is a serious issue that we have moved away from tradition and turned it into something bad. 

University Speech Codes

After reading the article “Jim Crow on Fraternity Row” I was extremely surprised.  I know that a lot of jokes, pranks and hazing go on in the Fraternity lifestyle.  These boys were not just “being boys”, they were being disrespectful and ignorant. Their actions were not in protest of anything. Their actions were not the result of anything that has happened to them. There was no reason for them to behave that way.  All they accomplished was being jerks and offending people.  After reading the article I looked at the slide of pictures. It was obvious to me that the boys were simply trying to be funny. They had no cruel intentions, they were just being dumb.  I believe their actions did violate the first amendment.  The cases we have read and discussed in class that deal with first amendment rights typically have to do with a protest. For example, when the Tinker children wore armbands to school they were protesting the Vietnam War. They are allowed to express how they feel about that issue. Revoking their right to peaceful protest was a violation of their rights.  These fraternity members were not protesting anything. The University has the rights to ban these actions and punish those who participated because there was no logical explanation for them, they were obscene and offensive, and they were very threatening and could create a violent and hostile atmosphere. The actions of these boys are not protected under the first amendment.
    I selected University of Iowa. I have already applied to this school, so I am very interested in what speech codes they may have. Their speech code put a lot of emphasis on sexual harassment. They didn’t use vague terms like the ones we read about for homework. I like that they are very descriptive so that it is not a question whether some behavior falls under the speech code or not. They specifically listed what actions would not be tolerated.
(a) persistent unwelcomed efforts to develop a romantic or sexual relationship
(b) unwelcome commentary about an individual's body or sexual activities
(c) unwanted sexual attention
(d) repeated and unwelcome sexually-oriented teasing, joking, or flirting
(e) verbal abuse of a sexual nature.
Being a female I have had my share of run ins with these types of situations. They can be harmless or very hurtful. Knowing that these rules are established at a school I am interested in makes me feel safe. I know that I am protected and don’t have to be worry about any of these unpleasant things occurring. And if they do I know that there will be consequences for the other person. I think that these limits of freedom of speech are necessary to create a safe living environment. No one wants to go to school where they are afraid of being sexually harassed. This speech code makes me more confident in my decision to apply to the University of Iowa because I feel safe.
    I believe that the University of Iowa would not have tolerated the actions of the Fraternity brothers. They list out everything and the actions of the boys violated more than one of their rules. I agree with the Universities’ decision to punish the boys. They were creating a threatening environment and definitely disturbed the peace.
    I think that FIRE is a great sight. It allows students to research the schools they are interested in at a deeper level. Someone like me wants to know that they are safe and there are clear restrictions keeping me safe. Other people want more freedom and are opposed to speech codes. This sight allows people to see where  they fit best to avoid an unpleasant experience.  I think everybody has the right to know what he or she are getting themselves into. If you know yourself to be an active protester this sight could help you find a school that will allow that type of behavior.  And same goes for people on the other side of the spectrum. I appreciate this sight because it has given me peace of mind on the school I applied to.
    Overall I am totally for speech codes. I do not think that they are a violation of the first amendment because they reprimand actions that disturb the peace, create hostility, violence and threaten personal safety. I will be in college soon and speech codes make me feel safe. I still have my freedom to voice my opinions and feelings.  I simply have to do so in a manner that does not violate the codes. I think the codes are very direct and reasonable. Following them will be extremely simple and overall enrich my college experience.

Freedom of speech in sports

    In school I would never swear, interrupt the teacher, scream out my opinions, or talk about other students in front of them. Under the first amendment I have the right to do those things. But I do not feel it is appropriate at school. I hold my tongue and make sure that I am polite. For some reason I do feel like doing all of those things are okay in sports. I play soccer and have my whole life. I never hold my tongue there even when I should.  I had a game today and it got me thinking about why I feel this way. I am still in front of adults, I still could offend other people, I still am representing something. Why do I act differently in sports? I am known on my team for arguing with the referee, making smart remarks at girls on other teams, and swearing when I am upset. I am not proud of this but I know it is true. I am also not unique. Most girls on my team and others speak this way during games. This topic is also very prevalent in my mind because I got a red card last weekend for something I said. When you get a red card you cannot continue on in the game, you cannot play in the next game, and you have to pay a one hundred dollar fine. At the time I was outraged. I didn’t understand how I could be punished so harshly for my words. Why wasn’t I allowed to say how I felt about the referee’s call? What was the rule that I broke? What was the point of that rule? Where else can I now be penalized for my opinions when I am supposed to be able to use them freely? I wasn’t starting violence or creating danger for anyone. I was sharing my emotions on a call that I believed to be unfair. I do represent my club, coach and teammates when I am playing soccer. But ultimately I represent myself. If college scouts were watching our game they would not scrutinize my team for my actions, only I would be penalized. That is why I think we should be allowed to say whatever we want in sports. We are representing ourselves. We are allowed to showcase ourselves in whatever manner we want. If it ends up biting us in the butt we know it is our own fault. If I didn’t get a scholarship because of what I said, that is punishment enough. I shouldn’t be kicked out of a game for my thoughts. I completely understand restrictions in freedom of speech. That is why I follow all of my schools rules.  But sports can be unfair, physically and mentally aggravating, we have the freedom to express how we feel. That freedom should not be tampered with.  I will continue to speak my mind for everyone out there who has suffered from a bad referee

Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

Today is the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.  My experience so far has been a day of silence. Everything seems somber. I can not believe that 10 years have gone by. This morning I woke up early to get to my soccer game in oak brook. Sitting in the car, half asleep, attempting to get my gear on, it did not cross my mind that today was September 11. Our games normally start with a whistle and we enter the field. Today we lined up, walked out and had a moment of silence.  And right then and there is where it hit me. I was so mad at myself for forgetting. I was instantly overwhelmed with emotions and thoughts. I started to thing about September 11, 2001.  I started to think about the film we watched in class. And finally I began to think about the holocaust.  I have been learning about the holocaust my whole life. A topic of great importance is remembrance. We have to remember and continue to teach to prevent it from happening again. We have to make sure people know and understand what it was so that history my never repeat itself. I reflected on how profound of a thought the holocaust is for me. It makes me sick. I am a proud advocate of remembrance. And that is why I was so angry. September 11,2001, is another awful piece of history. If I can’t forget the holocaust I cant forget 9/11/01. We have to remember what happened that day. We have to discuss it even though it is painful. We have to grow from it. I was mad at myself for forgetting because remembering is such a contributing factor to healing. I remember my experience. I was in Mrs.Merins class, second grade. It was a normal day for a while. Then the teachers all temporarily left the rooms. When mine came back she seemed upset. She let us know that some kids would be taken out of school by their parents and that we would all find out what is going on later. I was not too worried. I got home and only my mom was there. This was typical; my dad normally came home around 7.  My mom told me that there was an accident at the world trade center. Unfortunately I can’t remember much of what she said because I was so young.  All I remember was that I was terrified that something happened to my Dad. At this point in time all I knew about my Dad’s job was that he was a trader.  I didn’t know what that meant or where he worked. But when my Mom said world trade center I assumed that had to be where he worked. I didn’t know about the planes or anything. I was only worried about my Dad.  I am 17 now and I know the story and have seen the footage. I also know that my dad worked Chicago, and the world trade center was in New York. September 11, 2001 has changed my life as well as every other Americans.  I learned the importance of saying I love you. You never know what could happen and when the last time you see someone will be. I thought I lost my dad that day. From that day on I make sure to tell people I love them and always try to be on good terms.  That is one of the better results of 9/11/01. There are negative ones as well. I reasonably have a fear of flying. I have a fear of going to important places in our country because I see them as a target. And unfortunately I get scared when I see Arab people in airports. I know that that is racial profiling and I wish I didn’t feel that way, but it is a consequence of 9/11/01.  I will always remember that day as a day of hate, fear, and death. I will also remember it as a day of love, heroes, and community. But the most important thing is that I remember it.
Watching the documentary of September 11, 2001 in class had a large impact on me. I experienced 9/11/01 as a kid. I have talked about it numerous times.  I have read books on it. I have even had a unit in class on it, junior year in American studies.  None of these have impacted me as much as this film.  The film had such a charm to it. It made everyone seem so wholesome and innocent. You really fell in love with tony. All you want for him is to be the hero he want to be. Its so fun and laid back at the beginning. It is captivating to watch the community within the firehouse. While I am sitting enjoying the film there is a looming sense of uneasiness.  As the dates get closer and closer you only wish you could warn them all. We are sitting waiting to watch the most horrific event of terrorism the United States has ever seen. The anticipation was large. Once it finally happened I felt just a shocked as every time I have seen it before. It doesn’t seem real, watching a plane enter a building.  Your mind is to full with thoughts that you don’t know what to focus on. I thought how many floors did the plane directly hit? Did the people in the building see it coming? Was there anything we could have done to prevent this?  How fast could the first responders get there? What could they do once they were there? I was thinking all of these questions when watching the film. I had seen the planes fly into the buildings before. But I had never seen anything from inside the buildings. The lobby looked like a ghost town. Shattered glass was everywhere. There was no one to be found and everything was covered in dust and debris. It was a very disturbing sight. This was floor one. The explosion was in floor 80. What on earth did it look like there?  And what does it look like above and below? When I am watching all of the firemen enter I am astonished by their bravery. I tried to picture myself in their situation and it was impossible. I wonder what I would have done. It is aggravating to watch because you want to help.  I wanted to direct people and make sure everyone was helping in some way.  You also want to scream out THERE IS ANOTHER PLANE COMING! The shock and pain on their faces when the second plane hit was upsetting to see.  Observing the people in action in the building while it was occurring was something I never thought I would see. It is inspiring how people took charge and kept calm. It warms my heart to see how strangers are willing to risk their lives for others in need. I makes me want to be a better person. I had so many mixed emotions. I was feeling bad for all of the people that were trapped. I was feeling inspired by the firemen, and I was feeling troubled by the loud thumping sound. I knew that people jumped from the buildings. I had seen a picture of it in the book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. But hearing was a whole new experience. It was so hauntingly loud. It was a painful reminder of what was above. It only scared me more to think about what was up there. Because whatever it was people were choosing plummeting to their deaths instead of facing it. That awful boom made my whole body cringe. I couldn’t even picture seeing it. Unfortunately I missed the second day of watching the film so I ended off there. The last thing I saw was people orchestrating going into the second building, people getting off of the elevator and that unforgettable sound of bodies hitting the pavement. I wish I had finished the documentary. But only watching half had a tremendous affect.  I got a whole new appreciation for those firemen and all firemen in our country.  I got a new perspective on just how bad everything was. And I got a life long lesson on the power of hate. I also feel proud to be an American.  That was a worst-case scenario, and we had people lined up to try and help. We came to together as a country and remained strong. I am very glad that I had the opportunity to see this documentary because it enhanced my experience of 9/11/01.  The closer I feel to this event the stronger the memories I will have. I will never forget September 11, 2001.
I read a few articles but one stood out more than the others, 9/11 Ten Years Later: Educator and Parent Guide. I was originally drawn to this article because it referenced educators. In almost every one of my classes we have discussed 9/11. So I was curious to see what this article had to say. I was wondering if it would be similar to what my teachers say or if it would be different. It also references parents. I thought about my parents. What they said to me then and what they have to say now. I wanted to know what the article suggested they say. The article had an opening paragraph that introduced the purpose of this article. The purpose was to discuss and explain 9/11. Its main objective was to educate those who were too young to remember or not born yet. This peaked my interest because I fall into the category of being too young to remember. I can recall small parts and traumatic parts but not full details of my experience. The rest of the article is questions and discussion topics. For example, “ Who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? What was the motive behind the attacks? What was the U.S. government’s response to the attacks? “ These topics are heavy but affective in learning.  I realized I didn’t know the answers to some of these questions, so I looked them up. That was how I knew this article was affective. After reading I wanted more knowledge. It is good to be informed because you can have deeper discussions about your topic.  I thought this article was great. It was thought provoking and well written. I think that I will bring this article to my dinner table to discuss 9/11 tonight. It will help us bond and cope as a family. I think it is very important for us to discuss it, especially on the ten-year anniversary.  It is great that someone took that initial step and wrote out all of the questions we as a country have in order to help people who don’t know how to start the discussion. Start talking people! And use this article as a guide!

Teenage limits on freedom of speech

Everyone has their own opinions on teenage freedom of speech. Some kids in my class believe it is too restricted and others believe it isn’t restricted enough. There are also those like myself who aren’t sure what they think. I think that the people with the strongest opinions on the subject have had the most experience with it. If someone is constantly reprimanded in school for what they said, wore or any other demonstrations of symbolic speech, they will hold a lot of hostility towards the current rules against freedom of speech in their school. I personally have been told I am not allowed to wear something at school that I didn’t find offensive at all. One day in the season of varsity girls soccer is dedicated to the seniors. All of the underclassmen on the team wear embarrassing pictures of the seniors on their shirts. My senior was Audrey Rabuska. I selected an extremely awkward and hilarious picture of Audrey from the eighth grade. She was wearing a hideous one-piece swim suit, and cheesy smile. Audrey knew the picture I selected and was embarrassed but gave me permission to wear it to school. The second a teacher saw me with it at school she made me take it off. It was in no way inappropriate or offensive and I had permission from the person to wear it to school. That was one of the only instances my freedom of speech had been tampered with, but I didn’t really think that it was a big deal.  The other side of the argument is the people who believe that speech and symbolic speech is not restricted enough in schools. I would assume that these people are people who have fallen victim freedom of speech, people who have been teased or embarrassed by other people exercising their freedom of speech. If you have felt humiliated by another person using their freedom of speech it is understandable why you would want the rules to be changed. I personally haven’t been dramatically affected by either side of the debate. I obviously think that freedom of speech is important. I value my opinion and being able to share it. But I also believe in common sense. I am not going to run down the halls in school screaming at the top of my lungs because there is no reason to. I am not going to say whatever is on my mind because that wouldn’t be appropriate. I think people use freedom of speech as a cop out when they did something they know is wrong. It’s an easy way to get away with something. When teenagers in school clutch to the first amendment as their argument they are not concerned at all with their rights, they are just concerned with getting out of trouble. I think everyone should just deal with the rules at their school that deal with freedom of speech because we are done in four years. Just learn to hold your tongue until we are out.

emotions

This weekend, like many in the life of a teenage girl, was very emotional for me. When you are upset, you wish more than anything that you would stop feeling the way that you do. The captivation our emotions have over us is almost unbearable.  You are a prisoner to what you are feeling. It affects everything you do, from what you eat, how you behave, what you listen to and so much more. Our emotions determine our days and nights, even our dreams. Sometimes this is a great thing, sometimes its like an evil curse you would do anything to rid yourself of. Unfortunately enough for myself, I was experiencing the bad kind. When you feel so gut wrenchingly terrible you spend a lot of time thinking of ways not to feel that way. I baked cookies, watched TV, worked on my homework, but it always lingered. Then I got to this assignment, a blog about whatever I want. So why not blog about the only thing that is on my mind, saving myself from these emotions. I started to think deeply about these feeling and it brought up a lot of questions. Why do we have emotions? What is their purpose? Do they help or hurt us? Or do they have no effect at all? What would life be like without them? Can you control them? I have no answer to these questions, just opinions. I think life without emotions would be bland. We live our lives in the pursuit of happiness. If there was no such thing as happiness what would we live for? Just because I don't think we could live without them doesn’t mean that I like them. I know for a fact that in my life emotions have clouded my judgment, broken my heart and ruined lots of days. They can also lead to great things, but for reason human beings tend to remember and dwell on the bad emotions rather than the good. We take feeling good for granted. It is almost as if we don't notice we are feeling good until we feel bad and it is disrupted. Why do emotions have such control over us? Why can't we set them aside? I would assume humans have always possessed emotions. Are they a part of survival? Do they play a part in human success over evolution? I do not see how emotions have helped us as a species. I see how it has hurt us. When we are hurt so bad it is hard to forget and that causes hate. Our world is full of hate. That is why we have discrimination and war. Our emotions are so powerful that they dictate society. Of course there are good emotions that lead to love and other happy things but they are much less prevalent in history. Are our bad emotions stronger than our good ones? If our good ones were stronger could we end war? I could continue on forever so I will end for now with a final question. Why do we have emotions?