We were asked to blog about a specific right that petitioners should or should not be afforded. The right in question is that of the publication of the results of certain petitions, should peoples names be shared with the public along with their vote. The issue that was briefly discussed was that of Gay Rights. The specific example that was provided was :if somebody voted against gay rights, should that vote be made public?
My answer to this question is yes. First of all, if anyone is so adament about an issue that they wish to voice their opinion via petition, then they should be prepared to defend themselves (verbally of course!). I answer yes mostly because people should be proud of their political standpoints, ridiculous or not. If someone were to argue in the other direction they would be arguing that it is an invasion of their privacy for their vote to be made public. But I see it in the completely opposite way, if somone were to go out of their way to voice their opinion then everyone should have the right to know. The truth is that anyone that would vote in favor of keeping petitions private is most likely a coward, trying to avoid conflict but at the same time prohibiting people from living their lives with a single signature.
It is hard for me to clearly say what I am thinking in this post because the sheer thought of anyone arguing against gay marriage aggravates me beyond comprehension. The point I am really trying to make is, if you want to prohibit people from living the way they want by way of petition, you gotta man up and stick to your guns.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
American Censorship
My step brother just began his new job as a teacher in Tulsa, OK... Very random right. Well thats the point. He recently got the job after a rigorous selection process. The only difference between him and the other teachers is that he got his job through the Teach for America program. This program takes bright, fresh out of college students and sticks them in the middle of blue collar America to shape the minds of the youth. This program was established when it was discovered that teachers with experience degrees had no desire to teach in lower income areas.
Anyways he was set up with housing and a job and will now spend the next three years of his life in Oklahoma.
He is a former New Trier graduate who lived a pretty typical North Shore life and is now being transplanted directly into the "real America". With these circumstances, it is understandable that he may experience strange things that he wants to share with friends and family. For this reason he chose to make a blog.
Making a blog about being a teacher in a disadvantaged community, while being a Teach for America employee is not as easy as it sounds. There are so many politics involved, that the second he began posting things about his class, T for A was all over it. They made him take it down immediately. My only problem with this is that this became a political issue, that he would in the long run say something that would make the program look bad. I haven't doubt in my mind that nothing but constructive and humorous stories would come from this blog, and yet it is disbanded within days of its creation. It is simply because everything is too monitored. Let's say he did make a comment about something that was seen as "politically incorrect" (HOLY MOLY), his superiors would immediately correlate his behavior to the T for A program, something they could simply not allow. Potential suspensions, punishment and drama, etc. would ensue and the situation would become a mess.
It sickens me to think about how limited our society it is the status quo to be politically correct all the time. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of publications that could be public if it were not for their lack of conformity. This only makes me think about the knowledge and the stories that we are all being deprived because of these standards. Even in a country that is renowned for freedom of speech, I still see it as overly censored.
I also see a deep correlation to the civil liberties issues that we have studied. The Teach for America program is essentially restricting its participants from speaking their minds, maybe in attempts to prevent dissent as past US administrations have.
So in conclusion I pose the questions: Do you think the US has too much censorship? Why is it that we have a standard for behavior in the US? Who is responsible for that? Is this type of incidence a violation of civil liberties?
Anyways he was set up with housing and a job and will now spend the next three years of his life in Oklahoma.
He is a former New Trier graduate who lived a pretty typical North Shore life and is now being transplanted directly into the "real America". With these circumstances, it is understandable that he may experience strange things that he wants to share with friends and family. For this reason he chose to make a blog.
Making a blog about being a teacher in a disadvantaged community, while being a Teach for America employee is not as easy as it sounds. There are so many politics involved, that the second he began posting things about his class, T for A was all over it. They made him take it down immediately. My only problem with this is that this became a political issue, that he would in the long run say something that would make the program look bad. I haven't doubt in my mind that nothing but constructive and humorous stories would come from this blog, and yet it is disbanded within days of its creation. It is simply because everything is too monitored. Let's say he did make a comment about something that was seen as "politically incorrect" (HOLY MOLY), his superiors would immediately correlate his behavior to the T for A program, something they could simply not allow. Potential suspensions, punishment and drama, etc. would ensue and the situation would become a mess.
It sickens me to think about how limited our society it is the status quo to be politically correct all the time. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of publications that could be public if it were not for their lack of conformity. This only makes me think about the knowledge and the stories that we are all being deprived because of these standards. Even in a country that is renowned for freedom of speech, I still see it as overly censored.
I also see a deep correlation to the civil liberties issues that we have studied. The Teach for America program is essentially restricting its participants from speaking their minds, maybe in attempts to prevent dissent as past US administrations have.
So in conclusion I pose the questions: Do you think the US has too much censorship? Why is it that we have a standard for behavior in the US? Who is responsible for that? Is this type of incidence a violation of civil liberties?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The College Rejection Process
I, for a change will not scour the web for intresting tid bits, but I am rather intrigued to write about some new developments that I am experiencing right now.
As a first semester junior I am beginning to think about the college admissions process a little more as the time nears will I will have to narrow down the establishment that I want to give ten years of savings away to. My problem is not with the absurd amounts of money that these schools are raking in, but rather just the stress which it puts on the participants and their families.
The story is that I have been playing tennis since I was about 9 and have loved it my entire life. But recently I have lost my passion for being out there on the court. I walk around the court just counting the minutes until I get off. I have however played tennis at New Trier my freshman and sophomore years and had always planned on continuing to do so as an upperclassmen. The only problem is, if you cannot connect the dots, that I now have no desire to play, I instead want to quit and play another sport.
I chose to divulge these sentiments to my parents recently and did not recieve the reaction I was hoping for. The dilemna is that they believe that the idea of committment is important to colleges, thus making my desire to quit undesirable. My parents are simply not willing to let that happen. So not only am I contending with pressure from potential colleges, but the famous parental pressure simultaneously.
Let me make it clear that the sheer thought of playing tennis everyday for 2 months straight makes me nauseous. I am forced to ponder cliches nonstop, the most common one being "Life is too short to do things you don't love".
The important thing here is that it is insane that colleges force these things on students, although not directly, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Especially not me. I bought new strings this weekend.
As a first semester junior I am beginning to think about the college admissions process a little more as the time nears will I will have to narrow down the establishment that I want to give ten years of savings away to. My problem is not with the absurd amounts of money that these schools are raking in, but rather just the stress which it puts on the participants and their families.
The story is that I have been playing tennis since I was about 9 and have loved it my entire life. But recently I have lost my passion for being out there on the court. I walk around the court just counting the minutes until I get off. I have however played tennis at New Trier my freshman and sophomore years and had always planned on continuing to do so as an upperclassmen. The only problem is, if you cannot connect the dots, that I now have no desire to play, I instead want to quit and play another sport.
I chose to divulge these sentiments to my parents recently and did not recieve the reaction I was hoping for. The dilemna is that they believe that the idea of committment is important to colleges, thus making my desire to quit undesirable. My parents are simply not willing to let that happen. So not only am I contending with pressure from potential colleges, but the famous parental pressure simultaneously.
Let me make it clear that the sheer thought of playing tennis everyday for 2 months straight makes me nauseous. I am forced to ponder cliches nonstop, the most common one being "Life is too short to do things you don't love".
The important thing here is that it is insane that colleges force these things on students, although not directly, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Especially not me. I bought new strings this weekend.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Limbaugh Claws his way into NFL
The recent interest from conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh to buy the struggling 0 and 5 St. Louis Rams, has players and the public yearning for intervention. This development began when Mr. Limbaugh decided to partner up with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts.
For anyone unaware of Limbaugh's reputation, he is an extreme right wing republican radio show host. He has in his years on the airwaves become notorious for remarks concerning minorities, and more specifically African Americans. He once said in regard to the nation's African American population, "they're 12 percent of the population, who the hell cares!"(http://newsone.com/elections/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/).
However his most recent development has taken shape in his desire to buy St. Louis' NFL team, the Rams. Immediately the league, and the public have been in uproar about the possibility of permitting a public bigot to be at the helm of one of the dynastic franchises in NFL history. The only things that must occur for this to actually fall through are the approval from the commissioner Roger Goodell, and a three fourths majority vote between all the current owners.
The owners, as not to even remotely parallel themselves with Limbaugh have been reluctant to comment in where they stand on the issue. The most important thing to see is who really are the NFL owners. The truth is they are nearly all older white republican men, who, maybe not as vocally, share the same political opinions as Mr. Limbaugh. More importantly, these men are all men of business, looking for the next way to make a quick buck. If a person has the interest and most importantly the money, epecially in these times, then it would be perfectly logical for them to allow Rush into the exclusive group of NFL owners.
But unfortunately, I think that in these harsh economic times, money will overpower morality. They will find compromise in telling themselves that one other rich white republican guy can't hurt that much, even if he did wish Obama would run the country into the ground just to say 'I told you so'. This is simply just another testament to the greediness of America's elite, who will only fuel other more complicated problems in our society.
For anyone unaware of Limbaugh's reputation, he is an extreme right wing republican radio show host. He has in his years on the airwaves become notorious for remarks concerning minorities, and more specifically African Americans. He once said in regard to the nation's African American population, "they're 12 percent of the population, who the hell cares!"(http://newsone.com/elections/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/).
However his most recent development has taken shape in his desire to buy St. Louis' NFL team, the Rams. Immediately the league, and the public have been in uproar about the possibility of permitting a public bigot to be at the helm of one of the dynastic franchises in NFL history. The only things that must occur for this to actually fall through are the approval from the commissioner Roger Goodell, and a three fourths majority vote between all the current owners.
The owners, as not to even remotely parallel themselves with Limbaugh have been reluctant to comment in where they stand on the issue. The most important thing to see is who really are the NFL owners. The truth is they are nearly all older white republican men, who, maybe not as vocally, share the same political opinions as Mr. Limbaugh. More importantly, these men are all men of business, looking for the next way to make a quick buck. If a person has the interest and most importantly the money, epecially in these times, then it would be perfectly logical for them to allow Rush into the exclusive group of NFL owners.
But unfortunately, I think that in these harsh economic times, money will overpower morality. They will find compromise in telling themselves that one other rich white republican guy can't hurt that much, even if he did wish Obama would run the country into the ground just to say 'I told you so'. This is simply just another testament to the greediness of America's elite, who will only fuel other more complicated problems in our society.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Hannity vs. Moore
Over the weekend I was flipping through the channels and came upon at interview being held between conservative talk show host Sean Hannity and film-maker Michael Moore. I knew that any combination of Michael Moore and a republican would make for quality television, and I was not dissappointed.
I was particularly interested in this because I have been an avid fan of Moore's films for many years. However I have felt that unchecked, Moore at times manipulates information for a more dramatic effect in his films. I was intrigued to see if Moore could stand his ground against a more then competent adversary in what was for all intents and purposes a debate between conservative and liberal.
After a brief introduction, the drama commenced, and Hannity wasted no time cutting directly to big name topics. Hannity attacked Moore's 2007 movie "Sicko", in which Moore argues for the benefits of univeral health care. He lets Moore begin and within minutes, the two are in a an all out verbal brawl. All I could hear from the TV for minutes was "can you please let me finish", "did I talk when you were speaking!", "that's just ridiculous", "I understand what you're saying but that still makes no sense". After two grown men behaved themselves like mere infants on national television, the part that I was awaiting came. They both laid out the basis of their argument. Moore considered Hannity unpatriotic for not supporting those in need in this own country. Hannity, on the other hand, challenged Moore to give ninety five percent of his income to the goverment, as a display of his patriotism. And to this Moore had no answer.
When the interview finally ended, I was exhausted. This interview was essentially an episode of Jerry Springer with suit wearing men as the stars of the show. However exhausted I was, I sure had enjoyed the show. I enjoyed it nearly as much as anything on television these days, and I have a hard time believing that I am the only one that feels this way. This prompted me to question why we do not have more unformal debates such as these on television these days. It was both interesting and informative at the same time and a perfect way for anyone to refresh themselves on the big topics in politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0EKWDisi7Y
I was particularly interested in this because I have been an avid fan of Moore's films for many years. However I have felt that unchecked, Moore at times manipulates information for a more dramatic effect in his films. I was intrigued to see if Moore could stand his ground against a more then competent adversary in what was for all intents and purposes a debate between conservative and liberal.
After a brief introduction, the drama commenced, and Hannity wasted no time cutting directly to big name topics. Hannity attacked Moore's 2007 movie "Sicko", in which Moore argues for the benefits of univeral health care. He lets Moore begin and within minutes, the two are in a an all out verbal brawl. All I could hear from the TV for minutes was "can you please let me finish", "did I talk when you were speaking!", "that's just ridiculous", "I understand what you're saying but that still makes no sense". After two grown men behaved themselves like mere infants on national television, the part that I was awaiting came. They both laid out the basis of their argument. Moore considered Hannity unpatriotic for not supporting those in need in this own country. Hannity, on the other hand, challenged Moore to give ninety five percent of his income to the goverment, as a display of his patriotism. And to this Moore had no answer.
When the interview finally ended, I was exhausted. This interview was essentially an episode of Jerry Springer with suit wearing men as the stars of the show. However exhausted I was, I sure had enjoyed the show. I enjoyed it nearly as much as anything on television these days, and I have a hard time believing that I am the only one that feels this way. This prompted me to question why we do not have more unformal debates such as these on television these days. It was both interesting and informative at the same time and a perfect way for anyone to refresh themselves on the big topics in politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0EKWDisi7Y
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)