Update on Federal Government Shutdown

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress has missed the deadline for averting the first partial government shutdown in 17 years.

As the clock struck midnight Monday, House Republicans were demanding that the Senate negotiate their demand for a one-year delay in making millions of people buy health insurance under President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law. Minutes before midnight, the White House ordered a shutdown.

The Democratic Senate on Monday twice rejected GOP demands to delay key portions of what has become to known as Obamacare as a condition for keeping the government open.

An estimated 800,000 federal workers faced furloughs though many were told work a half day Tuesday. Critical functions like air traffic control and military operations will continue. Social Security benefits will be paid. National parks and most federal offices will close. "

exact article from :
http://news.yahoo.com/congress-misses-deadline-averting-shutdown-040303946--politics.html

Federal Government "Shutdown"?!

Tonight is a very important night because Republican representatives in Congress are considering shutting down the Federal Government due to disagreements between Democrats and Republicans in funding issues.
     
       *This is an article touching base on the topic!
http://news.yahoo.com/government-shutdown-imminent-barring-an-unlikely-last-minute-deal-165129660.html

       *Here is a video regarding the Federal Government "shutdown" effects:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html

Is This Incest?

Today in class we where watching the "Dogs" documentary and in one part one of the people they interviewed said that the couple who owned the dogs adopted the inmate because they wanted to have a three way relationship. Many people groaned and moaned about what they thought and i heard a couple people say that its worse then incest. With this i recently ran into an article talking about how a stepfather was having sexual relations with his step daughter. Is this considered incest?? Ponder. 

Link to article: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-step-daughter-arrested-incest-article-1.1471510

Interesting topic in class today about interracial dating... it was intriguing for me because the white dad that was talking about the difference in the culture of black people and white people, not judging wether one was better or worse, but rather stating what he felt was fact. I felt it was almost like someone saying "no offense" before something they know will be offensive to you. I felt it has half hearted and he was disguising a clear distinguishment in his head between black and whites. However the black family I felt came off much better in saying they had nothing against the white girls that his son was dating but asked "why no black girls" "do you have a problem with your own race" Those questions came off better just because of the way they asked them to their son, it was not racist they just wanted to see what their son was feeling. So I guess what I am trying to get at is wether or not it is racist to differentiate people because of their race in small ways. Things we don't always see as blatantly racist, but are we secretly a little racist but don't say so.

Examples:

You see a young black man driving a really nice sports car, you might in your head assume did he steal that?
You see a white kid driving the same really nice sports car, you might assume that his dad let him borrow the car.

Also Mr. Smith's example of getting pulled over 17 times in a single year, most likely because of his race.

PLEASE COMMENT! LET ME KNOW YOUR OPINION

Bilderberg Group

Privileges

Over the past two days in class we watched a video about Privileges and how certain people get preferential treatment over others. For example a celebrity might get to cut a large line or get preferential treatment at a store, because of their fame. How much should we care about these privileges that are given to certain people? Should we even care at all? I think we shouldn't care about these privileges even if it’s unfair, because there will always be someone who has more of something than you. Whether it be money, fame, looks, etc.       

L.A. Riots

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr.

In class today we talked about the riots that followed the Rodney King verdict. The city was pretty much living in an anarchy because the police wasn't present. Watching the people destroy their own city really amazed me. I really don't see how ruining their own city makes sense. I understand that the blacks were tired of watching white officers getting away with so much stuff but violence can't beat violence- it only makes things worse. That only made people think worse about blacks, especially the ones who took advantage of the riots and started stealing stuff. Really? So much for the cause.. One of the victims I won't forget from that case is Reginald Denny (the guy who was pulled out of the red truck and beat). I actually did some more research on him and found out that he had to go through years of rehabilitative therapy and his speech and ability to walk were permanently damaged. Denny had been unjustly beat just like Rodney King had been? I find that very hypocritical. That doesn't make any of them better than the officers who had beat Rodney King. I feel that Martin Luther King's quote I put above really sums up my opinion on this. I fully agree with his idea that violence is not the way to go when you seek change. Change is suppose to be progress but there can't be progress when you destroy the little that your people have built up over the past years. 


This shows some of his face wounds.

Prussian Blue and their claims on the Holocaust

If interested in looking at the claim that the Holocaust wasn't possible due to the fact "there were not even that many Jews in the world" at the time by the Gaede Twins here's a short article on populations of people of the Jewish faith throughout the world currently and at the time of World War II.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/07/daily-chart-16?zid=312&ah=da4ed4425e74339883d473adf5773841

Enjoy!

Law and Society Notes (continued)

September 11, 2013

Apprendi v. New Jersey (1994-2002)

One black family moved into a neighborhood

Clark Apprendi (white) shot their house because he didn’t like them (black)

-made a confession saying he didn’t like them 

    •During the trial, he took his confession back so he wouldn’t be charged with 

-bias against African American 

Charged with 23 counts; only guilty of 3 of them

-Apprendi said his rights weren’t given to him (his plea)

Ruling: 5-4 (Apprendi won the trial)

Importance: -You can’t judge one’s case thought facts without evidence because it is both morally and ethnically wrong

-America is all about fighting for rights and in this case Apprendi’s rights were violated 

Served 12 years in prison

Loving v. Birginia (1967)

Mildred Jeter, a black women was a wife of Richard Loving. 

-Virginia was part of the 16 states that were against different race marriages

-Four mouthes into their marriage in 1965 

“Almighty God created the races and he placed them on separate continents...the fact he separated the races shoes that He did not intend for the races to mix”

-violated the 14th Amendment (Due Process)

Connection: Gay marriage

Ruling: in favor of the Lovings

United States v. Windsor (2010-2013)

Issues: right of same sex couples to marry 

Constitutionality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)

Power of people to govern themselves v. Power of court to pronounce the law

Ramifications: discussion of rights for same-sex couples

Could enable other individuals to challenge traditional definitions of marriage

Arguments: DOMA tells couples that their marriage are unworthy of federal recognition

“majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition”

Related: Hollingsworth v. Perry-Prop 8 violates due process and equal protection law

Ruling 5-4 (section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional )

McCollum v. B.O.E (1945-48)

Background: Champaign Council on Religious Education

Issues: violated first amendment (separation of churches and state in the US)

-equal protection clause of the 14th amendment

Ruling: Illinois supreme court ruled in favor of the school (jan 1946)

• Supreme Court 8-1 (favor of McCollum (March 1948))

Veronica School District v. Acton (1995)

Students who wanted to participate in sports had to take a drug test because coaches required it

-James’s parents though it was “violating” their son’s privacy

-violates 4th amendment

Issue: violates 4th amendment

Ruling: 6-3 (the athletes were reasonable of the 4th amendment)

Samson v. California (2006)

Donald Curtis Samson was on parol and officers randomly searched him and found meth in the cigarets

Argument: violated his 4th amendment

-he had agreed to the search...

Issue: trial lasted from Feb. To Dec. (2006)

Ruling- 6-3 (California)

-samson was sentenced to 7 years in prison

Precedents: us v. Knights (2001)

Guy on probation and there was suspicious activity 

Related cases: US v. Montoya de Hernandez

PAROL VS. PROBATION

-you get out of prison (serious crime!!) ()

-you get in trouble but don’t go to jail (probation officer) (not that serious)

United States v. Hirabayashi (1943)

Interment camps

-Pearl Harbor

Issues: presidential executive order and power of the military authority discriminated against japanese american descent?

-5, 6,7th, and 14th amendment violated

**okay because it was during a time of war.....**

Supreme Court said a sorry to Hirabayashi even though he was da

Ruling: 5-4 (internment camps were okay)

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

Issues: Constitutionality of a search of public high school student

-violated 4th amendment 

Ramifications power to a students with the rights of the 4th

-Power of school administration

-Drug paraphernalia/ safety of school

Events leading to case: comic because a principal searched her purse and found

Arguments: Powell and O’Conner felt that students in primary and secondary educational setting should not have the same level of protection of searches of those in juveniles and adult

Precedents: Board of Education v. Earls 

Ruling: 6-3 (reasonable search)

Bakke v. University of California (1978)

Background: -16 of of 100 spots saved for minority student

-rejected Bakke twice because there wasn’t more room for more white

Case: violated 14th amendment equal case

Affirmative actions programs not follow the constitution?

-cannot accept people based on race

Ruling: 5-4 split (unconstitutional cannot be binding decision but consisted)

Related cases: Grutter. Vollinger (2003)-neutral 

-Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)-unconstitutional 

September 13, 2013

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

Issues: article was about the first time Falwell had sex (with mom...)

Falwell sued because of  emotional distress

•awarded $150,000 for emotional distress

Hustler Magazine sued because the 1st amendment freedom of press was violated

Ruling: 8-0 (Hustler)

Falwell had to give back the money because it wasn’t legal

Batson v. Kentucky (1996)

Background: James Batson is a black male convicted of burglary

-all four black men were dismissed by Peremptory Challenge (not fair)

Issues; violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment

-violated the right to have a jury drawn from the cross section of community

Arguments: race is not sufficient as a reason to dismiss a juror even by Peremptory challenge

Ruling: 7-2 (Batson) 

Since then...Batson Challenge: objection to peremptory challenge 

• Edmonson v. Leeswille concrete
• JEB v. Alabama ex re TB (1994)-excluded based on sex

Tinker v. Des Moines (1965)

Issue: during the Vietnam war,  three students wore arm bands that were against the war 

Case: Violated=Freedom of speech (it wasn’t interfering with class)

Ruling: 7-2 (Tinker)

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Issue: Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) wanted to get an abortion but it was against the Texas state law

-James Hallford, physician, intervened and said he wanted to challenge state too because it was illegal to violate patient and doctor confidentiality

-Jon and Mary Doe also intervened and said it was illegal

Violated Due Process and 14th amendment

-state cannot tell doctors what they can and can’t do medically 

-Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy including right to terminate pregnancy

Ruling: 7-2 (Roe)

How Easy is it to Change your Beliefs?

In class today, we watched the video of the twin girls, Lynx and Lamb, and how their mother taught them her white supremacist ways growing up.  As children, the twins worshiped Nazi beliefs and and thought it was important to keep whites separate from other races.  They learned this directly through their mother, and their father was not apart of their life.  As we learned today, at 19 years old, they changed their views, saying that they were accepting of other races.  But how is it possible to believe so strongly in something and then switch to almost the complete opposite?

We discussed that the death threats and hate they received might have forced them into saying they changed their beliefs, but maybe not actually changing.  Or maybe, the hate made them realize that their beliefs caused much discrepancy in society.  Either way, I do believe something, or someone must have influenced them to completely switch their views.

Here's an article on the girls beliefs and updates now:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/nazi-twins-lynx-and-lamb-gaede-941546

That Class Discussion

I am sure most of you remember the class discussion that seemed to focus on my beliefs the other day. I want to just preface this by saying I really appreciate the people that took the time to talk with me during tutorial in a calm rational manner. It was enlightening, interesting, and pretty damn fun actually. If you're reading this, you know who you are, I don't want to embarrass you by calling you out, but thanks. Even still, at parts it did feel like some people were attacking me instead of debating my ideas. You'll never be able to change someone's opinion by raising your voice and laughing at them. There's a difference between a debate and an argument and that difference has a lot to do with respect. Just thought I'd put that out there before I continue.

First, let's look at the crux of the issue which a lot of you seemed to ignore. I was not arguing those people could not say whatever they like. I was not arguing they should have their children taken from them for their beliefs. I was not arguing that I had more rights than them. I never debated any of that, because the answers to that are pretty clear.

I said that they were depriving their children of an education deemed acceptable by the United States. Mr. Stewart told me to look up the laws based in Kansas, because that's where one of the families lived. So, I did.

The laws on homeschooling, I'll quote directly below:

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-1111(a)(2)

“The instructor must be ‘competent.’”“no such program shall be approved unless it fully complies with standards therefor which shall be specified by the state board of education.”“ If the sponsors of an instructional program approved under this subsection fail to comply at any time with the provisions of this subsection, the state board of education shall rescind, after a written warning has been served and a period of three weeks allowed for compliance, approval of the programs, even though the two-year approval period has not elapsed, and thereupon children attending such program shall be admitted to a high school of the school district.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 75- 409

“truancy occurs and is required to be reported when a child between the ages of seven and fifteen years, inclusive, is inexcusably absent from and inexcusably fails to attend continuously a public school or a private, denominational or parochial school taught by a competent instructor.”“has since retained the requirement only that the instructor be "competent," and has not adopted any additional requirement of certification”“The board of education has no authority, either express or implied, to evaluate the competence of an instructor of a private and nonpublic school, "

So, how does this actually come into play? Well, the case In Re Sawyer 672 played out the above perfectly. Anna Sawyer attempted to home school her son and daughter after her son failed second grade. She also had a toddler and a newborn in the home at the same time. The argument was proposed that the learning environment was not beneficial to the children. In fact, a psychologist claimed the children would both be better suited in a traditional school setting. Now, it says above that the board of education cannot decide whether an "instructor" is "competent" or not. That does not mean nobody can. Because, as the judge of this case said 

"if such a family arrangement will serve as a substitute for school, there is no compulsory school attendance". 

And, as we are all aware, school is not a choice. It is mandatory. The courts can decide whether a learning environment is suitable to the children.

The ruling in that case? The children were to be resubmitted into their school, or subsequent absences would count as truancy.

What happens if your child is counted as truant? According to Article 22, chapter 38 (minors), those children are now classified as "children in need of care". Link for those curious. This definition of neglect, while perhaps slightly less relevant, is interesting "failure to provide adequate supervision of a child or to remove a child from a situation which requires judgment or actions beyond the child's level of maturity". That sounds pretty loose to me, because who defines the capability of a child's maturity?

Anyway, what this boils down to? Those mothers who home schooled their children and prevented them from a suitable learning environment were not providing their children with "adequate care".
So, we can define whether someone is a good mother or not. In a lot of cases, unfortunately, this doesn't actually help the child. We can define what is a "competent" instructor, and forcefully enroll the children in education suitable (whether public or private).

It is all good and well to have your own beliefs, but when your beliefs start hurting innocent people (such as children, whether they are yours or not), society takes note. And, the law takes action. At least, we can hope. Because, we clearly saw those children home schooled, we saw those mothers teach their children things like this crazy clip (watch the movie Jesus Camp if you have time). That is an injustice.

Someone in class asked me why it was any of my business. I have a really clear answer I was unable to give. They are children. Often, it is near impossible for children to speak up for themselves, to help themselves. If we see an injustice, such as the purposeful removal from education at a young age, we really should speak up. Just because something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't care. You could have been the child that believes the fall of Rome was due to interracial mixing, you could have been the child that believes homosexuality is a choice, you could have been the child that believed dinosaurs never existed. How sad would that be? That's exactly how sad it is. It's simply not fair. And, this time, the laws (whether they're executed or not) agree with compassion.

Anyway, sorry this was pretty long, but I guess it's a tricky subject. It was pretty enlightening for me to see the true extent of the court systems, and made me question a lot of the language we use to define things. Whose freedom are we protecting when we prevent children from learning? S'all I'm saying.

Pretty interesting case in big group today, Prussian Blue. Here are before and after pictures of the girls.
Here is the link if you want to check it out http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165342/Prussian-Blue-twins-Lynx-Lamb-Marijuana-changed-Nazis-peace-loving-hippies.html

Society and Law Presentations

In small group today, we watched presentations.  One that stood out to me was Gideon v Wainwright.  In this case, someone spotted Gideon walking near a place that had just been robbed with loads of cash in his hand.  He was turned in and automatically arrested.  When he went to Court, he could not afford a lawyer, and as a result he had to defend himself.  Starting off right here, I feel like many rights are being violated.  With him being arrested just for suspicion of the robbery goes agains the idea of "innocent until proven guilty," and I don't feel like that is enough evidence to throw someone in jail.  Second, the court is not supplying Gideon with a lawyer breaking the sixth Amendment. He ended up going to jail for about two years, where he studied law, and then took his case to Court again.  The court ruled in favor of Gideon that his sixth Amendment rights were broken, and the case was to held all over again.  I think this is important in showing that if people have a problem with something, then they have to take action to make a change.

Opinions of Others' Opinions

Today in large group, we discussed the piece "Moms." Almost everyone during the film was making remarks about these women's beliefs and how it is against what we personally believe. I, along with many others, think what they believe is wrong and incorrect, but that is my opinion and they have the right to their own opinion.  On the idea of the government stepping in and taking charge of their beliefs, to me, is going against the freedom of speech and religion. Although, we may not have the same beliefs as these women, they do have the right to believe what they believe, just like any other person.  So, all in all, we could be very against what many people in America believe, but then again, they could be very against our beliefs, as well.

Law and Society Project NOTES

For Mr. Smith's class, here are some notes I took while listening to Monday and Tuesday's presentations. The rest will be posted later! (I will also post my own project with the rest of the presentations!)

Rasul v. Bush (2001)

     *Rasul was tortured because he looked like a terrorist 

     *Bush administration did the torture and said it was just

-9/11

-go to Afghanistan to fight 

-Guantanamo Bay-Cuba/700 men

-torture in Delta

“the us is not only denying the detainees fundamental rights but is jeopardizing any claim that is a country ruled  by law”

*****supreme court: Habeaus corpus: freedom from unlawful imprisonment

-Independent sovereignty-in cuba different laws

-Geneva article V (POW)-right to trail if they think you are/aren’t a prison of war

-absolute control-US control (forced fed food on sundays)

-VOTING: 6-3 in favor of Rasul and was released

-violated Humans Rights Violation

-Misrepresenting populace

-setting precedents-soldiers have lawyers

-trial in own country?!?!

Note: Patriot Act (pictures of soldiers with their “kill”)

United States v. Nixon (1974)

     •Watergate break-in: nixon order men to break into the democratic headquarters at watergate to gain and advantage in the 1972 election

-criminal trial and subpoena: ordered President to hand over everything

-said he had the right to hold those documents because he was the President

-nixon said it was invalid: 1. Dispute within the Executive branch and the court had no right because of separation of powers   2. Conversations and documents are privileged and cannot be subpoenaed

-does not on its own prohibit the court from issuing the subpoena to compel a criminal investigation

-“the legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential privilege” President isn’t above the law 8-0 (1 didn’t vote because he didn’t want to be bias)

**president isn’t above the law and it was unanimous which was more powerful

CT v. Griswold (1965)

     *prohibits the use of any “any drug” medicinal article or instrument of the purpose of contraception

-during social purity time period

    -related cases: Tileson v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961): both said that they couldn’t proscribe drugs to them because the law prohibited it

-violates the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendment

*supreme court ruled: contraception should be legal to married couples

Clark v. Arizona (2006)

   -truck was circling around neighborhood; officer got dispatched to call; Eric Clark was shooting

Legal questions: Mott rule with Mens Real violate Due Process?

Insane?

  Does the states defense of mental insanity violate due process fi it does not follow M’Neghten Rule

Importance: insanity plea

     *ruling 6-3 favor of Arizona

Impact: •written laws in the future •new AZ insanity law

September 10, 2013

Miranda v. Arizona (1963)

Ernesto Miranda was not read his rights when he was accused of raping and kidnapping an 18year old

-during interrogation he was not read his rights

Issues: 5th amendment (right to remain silent, the right against self-incrimination)

-6th amendment (right to counsel-trial by jury)

Ramifications: interrogation limits: if the suspects asks for attorney questioning is ceased

-police procedure: must be read rights

Precedents: Escobedo v. Illinois (1954) counsel present during interrogation

-Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) gov. will provide counsel if you can’t afford one

Tinker v. Des Moines (1965)

I was clicking for Roxanne's presentation, so I'll get the notes from her tomorrow in class!!

Parents vs. Seattle (2007)

Background: •Seattle school district allowed students to apply to high schools of choice

•district used a system of tie breakers to decide where students where using race as a choice

-parents brought districts to court and 

Issues: school district decided by race

-diversity

Importance: desegregation/integration that district wanted

-parents believed it violated civil rights act and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment

Ruling: 4-1-4 (4: wrong to choose who goes to which school   4: said it was okay   1: neutral) 

districts did not meet requirements or “narrowly tailored”

RULED in favor 

NYTimes v. Sullivan (1964)

Background: plaintiff: L.B Sullivan defendant: NY Times 

Sullivan files for libel and defamation; case wins

•plaintiff: filed for libel and defamation

NYTimes posted article: “Heed their Rising Voices”

•Defendant: protection of 1st amendment rights, free speech clause

Ruling: 9-0 (NYTimes)  no presence of actual malice 

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

Chinese students were denied English courses in school

-began to fail classes

Issue: Chinese american students w/limited english proficiency (SFUSD

Not receiving 14th amendment rights (racial segregation)

Filed law suit against SFUSD

District court denied relief w/Court of Appeals affirming

Petition went to Supreme Court: 

•Recognized civil rights of English Language Learners (ELL)

•Granted more rights to ELL

Ruled: Guaranteed students opportunity to a “meaningful education” regardless of language background

New York Times v. United States (1971)

Issues: freedom of press

NYTimes wanted to post confidential documents but US thought it would damage national security

Ramifications: 4 days

-confidential papers about Vietnam War

Court: 6-3 in favor of NYTimes (1st amendment freedom of press and speech)

-the gov. Failed to show the publications would damage national security 

Related cases: Near v. Minnesota (1930)

Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)

Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978)- Houchins denied the KQED to interview prisoners 

Baze v. Rees (2008)

Baze=inmate at Kentucky and he was sentenced to the death penalty because he murdered 2 ppl. 

was violation of 8th amendment: cruel and unusual punishment (inject with the three drugs)

-alternative methods? Yes but this was the “least” painful but he still refused

Revaluation of death penalty 

National attention to the issue because Baze said if the paralyzing drug wasn’t used properly it could cause extreme pain later

•Court said it doesn’t violate the 8th amendment because it says there won’t be no pain

Ruled: 7-2 against Baze

“Rest in part on the faulty assumption about the retributed force of the death penalty”

Related cases: gregg v. Georgia  (1976)

-Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Who are we to decide?

            So today, in large group, we watched a video on moms who are leaders in such organizations as the “Klu Klux Klan” and the “Westboro Baptist Church”, and had a class discussion dancing around the topic of morals.

To be honest, I was not surprised by the content of the movie, as I have heard most of what they were saying before. Their ideas of what is “wrong” and what is “right” have not changed over the years, and none of us will likely be able to ever change them.

I was more intrigued… and aggravated by our reactions to the video. A majority of the class was so appalled by the conservative’s ideals that, with their blood boiling, raised their hands, ready to tell everyone how wrong these people are. Whether it be their parenting, their protesting at funerals, or their blatant consent of the annihilation of non-white races, it didn’t matter, the general consensus was that these “nut jobs” should be suppressed.

But really, what makes our morals right, and others’ wrong? And who are we to decide? Our morals are just that, our morals. We may share some common ones, but at the end of the day we were all brought up differently, and we all have our own set of values and guidelines to life.

Yes, most of society (including me) does not agree with these organizations, and what they stand for, and that is all fine and dandy. The first amendment makes it perfectly acceptable to say whatever we want, but I think we have to pause and ponder for a minute. If we have the power to say whatever we want, why shouldn’t they?

…

Government Parenting

Today in class we discussed whether or not the government should interfere with what parents teach their children. I do not support any of the organizations mentioned in the documentary or their teachings, but I do believe they have a right to freedom of speech. This connects directly to the discussion we had about the first amendment and how people are allowed to express their feelings and you are more then welcome to express yours. Just because you don't agree with someone else's practices doesn't mean you have to try to get rid of that practice. To us it may seem like the children are being brainwashed but that's what they grew up around so it's normal for them. They don't see it as being brainwashed and they probably look at the rest of the world and question their beliefs and practices. Giving the government the power to decide what we should be teaching our children doesn't get rid of the "brainwashing" because it goes from being brainwashed by your parents to being brainwashed by the government. Everyone has their own morals. It's  not something anyone can change and people are not willing to change them just because it goes against someone else's morals.

Would you take a bikini shot for $100,000?

*Class on 9/09/13*

        Today in class, Mr.Stewart had us interpret Oscar's shirt. On the shirt, there was a female body, money belt covering her private parts and the female biting on a necklace without her head being shown. Then Kyan told us what he thought of the shirt's meaning and made a statement with the words "money" and "bitches". Most of us, hopefully all, were raised to never call a female the "b" word. The only reason that I can think of on top of my head for Kyan to say that is because of the type of music he listen's to and how the media portrays women to be. Media portrays women as an object and if you want male attention, you have to dress less. Yes one may argue that's just how a female expresses one's self but don't go assuming everyone want's to be like that. Yes it is wrong for some male's in their music videos to portray women as sex objects but at the same time that's no one's fault but the women who let themselves be portrayed like that. Then Mr.Smith brought up questions to the females in class of how many of us would do a bikini shot like the one on Oscar's shirt for $1,000. No one raised their hand but as soon as $100,000 came up, only a few raised their hand. One may argue that's easy money to just take a pic for $100,000 but the way I see it, your just putting a price on your body. Why settle for $100,00 for YOUR body image when you know you deserve more better yet your body should be priceless. Then a comment was made about how some females weren't raising their hands when they know they would take the pic for $100,000. To whoever said that, please do yourself a favor and SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Personally, I wouldn't take a bikini shot for $100,000 even if I had the most fittest body. Why? First, why would I wanna put a prize on my body. Second, I would be disrespecting my parents, uncles, boy cousins&brothers. In my culture, that is just morally wrong to show your body parts in front of them. If a female wants to take pictures like the picture on Oscar's shirt then go ahead but know what your getting yourself into. If you chose to rock the word "bitch" as if it's cool, go right on ahead but don't get all offensive when someone call's you that word when you have allowed them. 

Fox v. Franken, Really Fox?

After learning about this farce of a court case, the question I have was what was Fox thinking? Did they really think the best way to get rid of a title implied by a COMEDIAN was to take the case to court? And did nobody in Fox's legal department actually look at the case and say "Uhh guys, we have no case at all. We're just going to make things worse." They basically guaranteed the book to be an absolute hit by trying to shut it up in federal court.  And if they had a legitimate claim to slander then that would be one thing, but then to go up to a judge and argue that Franken's use of "fair and balanced" was enough to confuse people into thinking that Fox sponsored the book, a book making fun of them, is another thing altogether. I almost feel bad for Dori Hanswirth, the lawyer that had to argue the case for Fox. She had to make their ridiculous argument and got laughed at by the entire nation. Who thought that their flimsy argument would win them the case when I'm surprised they even took it to court before realizing it would never work.

Do you believe teens have any power?

 Every teen has power, but your parents are your guardians which means that you won't have the final word until you reach the age 18. Your mind and body belongs to you and no one else. You have legal power over self but in certain situations. As a teen you are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to make certain decisions for yourself. It would depend on the situation as to what your rights are.

"what qualifies as a sporting chance?"

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell?currentPage=all

This is an article that begins with the description of an extraordinary man, whose genetic makeup gave him an advantage in sports, earning himself seven gold medals. Gladwell, the author, claims

"[athletes] respond more effectively to training. The shape of their bodies is optimized for certain kinds of athletic activities. They carry genes that put them far ahead of ordinary athletes." 

He then goes on to give another clear example of this, a man with a naturally long Achilles tendon that gave him a clear advantage in high jumping.

“What we are watching when we watch élite sports, then, is a contest among wildly disparate groups of people, who approach the starting line with an uneven set of genetic endowments and natural advantages”, yet at the same time “we want sports to be fair”.

 He begins to discuss the potential for modification of ability with a simple anecdote of adding iodine to salt, which has apparently increased I.Q. scores by as much as thirteen points.

Then he enters the realm of sports. He discusses how baseball players have great eyesight, amazing in fact. Not only do they have fantastic vision, they’re also allowed to correct their vision (according to the Major League Baseball) to make it that amazing if they’re falling short of the mark. They are also allowed to replace the tendon in their throwing arm with a tendon taken from elsewhere on their body. Yet, “doping scandals” are prevalent in the baseball profession.

In the article, there is a great quote that really sheds light on this issue from the perspective of those caught, Tyler Hamilton wrote that

“I’ve always said you could have hooked us up to the best lie detectors on the planet and asked us if we were cheating, and we’d have passed. Not because we were delusional—we knew we were breaking the rules—but because we didn’t think of it as cheating. It felt fair to break the rules.”

But is it? I think this article twines together both the “Bigger, Faster, Stronger” documentary we watched and the “Best That Never Was”. Marcus Dupree was naturally gifted to be great. If someone was up against him, would it be unethical for them to modify their bodies in order to even compete? Why do we believe innate talent to be fair game, but certain enhancements to be unfair? Is it because one is natural, uncontrollable while the other is a decision, a substance injected into the body?

Some could argue we can hardly stop naturally gifted people from competing, but we can even the field by preventing people from taking performance enhancers. Yet, a point was brought up in BFS that just injecting yourself isn't going to create muscles, you still need to train. They still put in the work and the time and the pain, is it their fault they weren't born a certain way?

And, is anyone else reminded of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZppWok6SX88?