The Help Blog Chapters 31-34: The Ugly Truth

           In the final chapters of Kathryn Stockett’s The Help, she explored an area in life that we rarely touch upon. It is what is hidden underneath our words, in our minds and is rarely expressed. It is part honesty and part cruelty, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. Stockett let loose the ugly truth.

           Every single word in the book Skeeter wrote spills the secrets of the help and of the women they have worked for. For some of the help, the book ruins their lives and they are fired. But for others, things turn out better than before. Willie May had worked for a woman for thirty seven years and after the book came out, her and the woman she served sat at the same table for the very first time. Sometimes in life we just don’t realize things until they’re shoved right up in our faces. It could be that we’re too naïve, but most of the time it’s because there’s just too much going on around us. The ugly truth in America isn’t that there is one; but that we don’t recognize it ourselves. It’s because we’re scared that we can’t handle it. In my opinion, how are we supposed to know if we can handle it if we don’t even know what it is? We can’t.

When Minny is lying in her bed, praying to G-d that Leroy doesn’t start a fight with her, she thinks about her life and what has saved her from him. Why he hasn’t given her a hard enough blow to end it all. She realizes it’s her children, because that’s all Leroy has to leave in this world when he’s gone. And he wants to make sure he has enough of them. So Minny finally looks down at her stomach and tells herself why he isn’t beating her tonight; “because that’s the only thing that saved me, this baby in my belly. And that is the ugly truth” (413). It’s not easy for Minny to accept that a baby is what saves her from her own husband instead of their love, but as I wrote in my last post, that’s just the way it is. And that’s why Minny was able to kick Leroy out. She admitted to herself what she knew all along and accepted it. It made her stronger. And that’s what we sometimes have to learn. You can sugarcoat things, you can lie with all your might, but it doesn’t take the truth away no matter how ugly it may be.

The other part of this concept that Stockett shows us is that we have to sometimes acknowledge other people’s ugly truths, because we’re not the only ones who have them. When Aibileen is worried about the women finding out her and the maids and Skeeter wrote the book, she begins to realize that this book has made them free. If they get fired, at least they were able to write this book and free themselves from the guilt of not doing anything. They’d be “freer than Miss Leefolt, who so locked up in her own head she don’t even recognize herself when she read it” (444). And that’s the ugly truth that Aibileen realizes about Miss Leefolt; she’s oblivious and doesn’t even love her daughter enough to give her a hug good morning. Aibileen thought about the book and about her own ugly truth and moved on because she understood that everyone has their ugly truth and nothing would change that.

This becomes an issue with teenagers, because for the half of the day were not in school were sitting at our computers, locked up in our rooms, watching perfect actresses on TV, looking through the profile pictures of that gorgeous girl you wish you were or at the gorgeous boy you wish you had. It eats away at teenagers and we look in mirror and ask why we don’t have that. We internalize it and think it’s our own fault. It leads us to believe that we’re the only one who feels this way because everyone else is better and everyone else has something in their life and we have nothing. We forget to consider that someone else is doing the same thing we are. Stockett proves that there’s another person and many more doing the same thing we are and feeling the same things we are. In this book, she proves it by showing the town of Jackson that everyone has their own ugly truth.

Invisible Children

                I am on Student Council at my high school and was a part of deciding the two possible beneficiaries for our school to vote on for our yearly charity drive. When it came down to the two, I knew right away that Invisible Children would be the winner. After seeing the documentaries and hearing an escaped child soldier speak, I knew that I wanted to help their cause and that so many others would, too. Jedidiah Jenkins spoke to our school and his speech revolved around us. Us as in ourselves; just teenagers attending a high school surrounded by a bubble known as the North Shore of Chicago. He told us that we can make a difference. And looking at the pictures and watching the videos of students our age rallying for change; we couldn’t deny that we could do it, too.

                I believe that Invisible Children puts the money they have raised towards good causes. They are creating tangible things for the children, whether its books, schools, communication devices or just basic necessities. This organization allows us to see where our money goes; it makes our donations visible, and in turn should do so to the invisible children. Parts of their website, such as their crisis tracker, allow us to see what’s happening. Just looking at it right now, it says that there have been ZERO civilian deaths and ZERO abductions. I truly believe that our help is what has allowed this number to stay at zero, and looking at that number all I can think is that I want to do whatever it takes to keep that number at zero.

                Watching a documentary impacted me a lot. It is very helpful that the organization has so many documentaries to watch as it is hard to believe what is happening to these kids without seeing it through our own eyes. It is so easy to relate to the kids who are filmed in the documentaries because they are our age, they like the things we like and love to act like normal kids. During one of the documentaries I watched a man who escaped after being a child soldier said, “The question for life is for all; for any color.” His words really hit me. He put into words what really was going on; anyone can die any given day. It doesn’t matter where you’re from or the color of your skin. When it comes to death, we are all put at the same level. No one is greater than another. It is the same with birth; we were all children at one point, as weak and vulnerable as the rest. The difference is that if someone got abducted and was forced to be a child solider in the United States, the entire world would know about it. Everyone in the US would do everything they could to help. But when a child is abducted in Northern Uganda, forced to kill his family, carry a gun and bow down to a mass murderer, no one hears about it. There’s no Amber Alert in Africa. That is one of the things that Invisible Children is trying to change and why I believe in this organization more than any other; they are giving the child soldiers a voice. And a loud voice, too. This organization has decided to make the invisible children of Africa visible.

The Help Blog Chapters 27-30: The Way It Is

             Sometimes it seems as if the world works in a certain way, and that’s just the way it is. Throughout chapters 27 through 30, Stockett brings forward the idea that things have always been a certain way. It is a concept that has caused people to struggle in society and is a major issue in every day life. There are the general concepts such as models have always been skinny and if you want to be on the runway you have to look like a twig, and that’s just the way it is. Or there’s the smaller issues, such as if you live in certain towns and go to certain high schools, you are going to college once you graduate. That’s just the way it is. And back in 1964, in the Help, things were a certain way and were going to stay that way. That’s just the way it was.

            This concept is something that Miss Skeeter had to learn the hard way. Trying to become a writer in a world where women are housewives is quite difficult, especially when no one around her was being supportive. Miss Skeeter knew that becoming a journalist and author would be a challenge, and she was ready to face it. However, she was still surprised when Missus Stein slapped her across the face with reality when she said, “’If you’re a nobody, as you are, Miss Phelan, before the twenty first is your window. Your only window’” (343). Missus Stein was giving her the deadline of December 21 instead of January as she had told Miss Skeeter earlier. Miss Skeeter did not think that it was fair, but soon realized that in the world of journalism and as a woman are already a disadvantaged party, that’s just the way it is.

            Skeeter is also met with the reality of consistency in society when her mother acts like a real mother for the first time. All her life, Miss Skeeter’s mother acted harsh and cruel towards her, constantly nagging at her about this and that. However when Stuart shows up, her moms says, “’If Stuart doesn’t know how intelligent and kind I raised you to be, he can march straight on back to State Street…Frankly, I don’t care much for Stuart. He doesn’t know how lucky he was to have you’” (357). Miss Skeeter was in shock that her mother said this, but quickly understood. Her mother had to be harsh on her in order for Skeeter to turn out the way she did. Miss Skeeter is so accepting of people because her mother is not. But also, her mother had to prepare her for the realities of the world and that people aren’t going to be nice to her all the time. Mothers eventually define true motherhood, but it takes time and that’s just the way it is no matter how difficult it may be.

            Miss Skeeter’s mother also shows her that some things in life are a certain way and they cannot be changed when she is diagnosed with cancer. Her mother’s diagnosis was very hard for Miss Skeeter to accept. As she was hysterically crying at one point, her mother said, “’Now stop that, Eugenia. It can’t be helped’” (371). In this moment, Miss Skeeter realized that her mother truly was intelligent and accepting of her situation. It was the first time Skeeter looked up to her mother, as well as realized that things are what they are and she can’t always change them. Throughout these chapters, Skeeter shifts into a hippie-like person, as Aibileen describes it. The inspiration to change her beliefs came from her mother. She realized things will work themselves out in the way they were planned to be. By the end of these chapters, Skeeter is successful with her book which allowed Stockett to prove that Skeeter has finally come to terms with the fact that things are what they are and that’s just the way it is.

Abortion

In my opinion, the NARAL-Prochoice America website is way better than National Right to Life. Most of it has to do with the vibe I originally got when looking at the first page of the website. Opening the Prochoice America website, there was a picture of a woman and instantly I saw the use of the word ‘we.’ Whereas when you first open the National Right to Life webpage, you are met with block-like typewriting and it just makes you feel not welcome. Then when looking deeper into the websites, Prochoice has so many places to click on and has a box on the right that says “stories.” If I were in the situation of a pregnant woman, I would want to be able to relate to the website that’s helping me choose my future. I do not want to be met with toolbars and lists of facts that I don’t even understand. Also, the arguments Prochoice provide are much stronger than that of Right to Life. This is one section of the very first article I read that stood out to me;

“In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-­NV), who opposes legal abortion, gave an emotional and touching floor speech in which he decried violence against abortion providers and observed, ‘Those who believe in the sanctity of life cannot be selective. We must value every life – not just those with which we agree.’”

Immediately when I was reading through this website, I found myself agreeing with arguments and wanting to read more and more stories of women’s experiences and I am not even in the situation where I have to make a choice. I did not feel this sense of comfort and confidence when I looked at the Right to Life website. After clicking on the first link under ‘First Trimester” I was met with a detailed description of how a certain abortion procedure goes and all the ways I could die. I wanted to puke after reading that, but gave it another chance. I clicked on the link “When Does Life Begin.” I was then shown two pictures of a fetus and facts were once again being shoved down my throat. Basically, they were saying that I’m killing a child and by doing so, he or she cannot become an adult. Like I didn’t know that. In general, I felt attacked when looking at the Right to Life website.  Therefore, the NARAL-Prochoice America website is much better because it is more relatable and stronger.

In my opinion, it is the person’s choice as to whether or not they tell their parents. If a girl is strong enough to walk into a room and tell a stranger that she needs an abortion, she is independent enough to not have to tell her parents. Some people may think that it’s contradictory; if she was so independent, why did she get pregnant in the first place? Or if she’s so independent, why can’t she take care of the baby? Well here’s my question; what if she was raped? What if she had an abusive father that made her have sex? A person’s business is a person’s business and that is that. It is her body and she knows what is best for her.

I do not believe the father has a right to consent to the abortion. He has a right to have knowledge of the pregnancy, but not consent. If a girl was raped, how is she supposed to get consent from the father? Is it right to make her find the man who raped her, look him in the eye and tell him to sign some papers so she can terminate the pregnancy he forced upon her? No, it’s not right.

Two things that stood out to me when reading the Illinois laws on abortion were the Abortion Ban and the Insurance Prohibition for Abortion. I agree with the courts decisions to rule two Illinois laws unconstitutional regarding health and how many procedures are allowed. The Illinois law states that women can have abortion only when there is a risk of losing her life and this undoubtedly undermines the freedom of choice that our nation so strongly has failed at upholding. The law then continues by limiting the number of procedures to one, which is extremely unconstitutional. So the Illinois law will allow a woman to get an abortion because of health issues the first time, but then not again? How does that make sense? The woman still has the same health issues as the first time. The law also makes any abortion procedure performed other than those necessary due to health as a felony. Also, Illinois law states that insurance policies do not need to include abortion unless the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life. In my opinion, this law should be overruled as it should be the company’s choice as to whether or not they include abortion in their insurance policy. The laws I agree with are Contraceptive Equity, Emergency Contraception and Low-Income Women’s access to both abortion and family planning.

The Help Blog Chapters 23-26: Our Strength

            Over these past two weeks, I read chapters 23 through 26 of the Help. The main idea that Stockett shows, and that I believe we lack socially, is strength. Socially, strength is an issue because people measure us by our strength and judge us based on what we are strongest at. Even more so, our strength is observed based on how we act at certain moments. For example, if one man badmouthed another mans girlfriend, he is expected to fight him. Men are expected to be strong physically, and women mentally. And when that is switched around or we fall short of our genders’ expectations, we are looked down upon. But what Stockett shows is that the truly strong people are the ones who will do something ‘out of character’ for their gender or classification and stand up for it. Not question their actions or make excuses. And in these four chapters, we are shown the strength of Minny and Miss Celia.

            When the man first approaches Miss Celia’s house, Minny is prepared to fight and keep Miss Celia safe. Minny takes Mister Johnny’s hunting knife and a broom as her only forms of defense and faces a white man who is ready to kill her by any means necessary. But Minny’s strength isn’t that she just stood up and was ready to fight; she had to overcome her fear and her thoughts of Leory and the way he beat her. She had to ignore the burning pain above her eyebrow where the sugar bowl split her skin open. She could feel the man forcing thoughts inside her head. She said, “he’s staring with his lip curled like I deserved every bad day I’ve ever lived, every night I haven’t slept, every blow Leroy’s ever given. Deserved it and more” (305). Minny showed her true strength because she was only fighting to protect a white woman, Miss Celia, while white women were the reason she was even in the situation in the first place. It wasn’t approved of for black help to show their strength and stand up for those around them, but Minny did. The only problem was that Minny wasn’t strong enough.

            Miss Celia had to step in to help Minny, Miss Celia who is a white woman risked her life to save a black maid. We have known all along that Miss Celia is not the same as the other white women. But those other women wouldn’t stand up for anyone, not even their own family like Miss Celia stood up for Minny against the man. Minny said, “she takes a deep breath through her nose and I see it. I see the white trash girl she was ten years ago. She was strong. She didn’t take no shit from nobody” (309). But Miss Celia is still just as strong, even though she is portrayed as being weak and vulnerable. Miss Celia has not given up on having a baby, she has not given up on the league women, she has not given up on keeping Minny a secret even though Mister Johnny knows about her. Miss Celia is still strong, maybe not always physically, but mentally. Minny has just seen her at her weakest points. That is where Miss Celia’s strength lies; her mentality. It is something we lack most of the time; the strength in our minds to overcome, to believe in our thoughts and pursue them.

The Help Blog Chapters 19-22: Our Limitations

In chapters 19 through 22 of the Help, I feel that Stockett really explores the characters limitations. Such as Stuart’s limitations when it comes to talking about his ex, Patricia. He could barely even handle it when Miss Skeeter asked him a few questions about her. Then, he was really tested when his dad brought Patricia up at dinner with the Phelan family. He could not think about her, and tried to demonstrate his limitation with the subject when he told his father to stop. When our limitations aren’t respected, we cannot handle certain situations and that is why Stuart broke up with Miss Skeeter. Limitations don’t seem like that great of a social issue, but we just don’t always recognize it as one. We pay attention to teenagers who don’t know their limitations. They die from overdosing on drugs or getting alcohol poising from consuming too much alcohol or getting in a car crash from driving under the influence because they think they are invincible. But limitations can also come in forms or work or school, because sometimes we don’t know how much we can handle. Another way in which limitation is a social issue is because other people don’t care to know or respect our limitations.

Miss Skeeter came to terms with the fact that sometimes our limitations are barely recognized or respected while she was interviewing Louvenia who works for Lou Anne. When Louvenia’s grandson was blinded for using the white bathroom, she needed time off of work to help him. Lou Anne gave her two weeks off as well as brought her casseroles and was the one to take Louvenia to the hospital when she first heard what happened. As Louvenia told Miss Skeeter all of this, she realized that “Lou Anne has never mentioned this to any of [them]. And [she understood] completely why she didn’t” (258). Lou Anne had helped out her maid in so many ways and believed her friends wouldn’t approve. She was limited in telling the truth and no one even noticed. It is the same way that Miss Skeeter is limited; she cannot tell anyone the truth about the book because they won’t approve of her.

            Earlier in the chapters, Miss Skeeter finds out what happened to Yule May and feels extreme frustration when Miss Hilly is talking about it. Miss Skeeter wanted so badly to tell Miss Hilly off, but she knew she couldn’t. This is yet another way in which our limitations control us; by society. Miss Skeeter couldn’t speak up because she knew that if she said anything, no one would back her up. At one point she said, “I fight the urge to snap each of her flapping fingers in half, but I hold my tongue. Let her think everything is fine. It is safer for everyone” (254). Miss Skeeter cannot say what she wants, and this symbolizes the way in which we are limited every day by society. Certain things are expected of us based on where we live and how we are raised, and we are looked down upon if we go against our expectations. It can be as simple as our weight, what college we choose, or if we even go to college. But no one stops to ask what we want or what our limitations are. No one ever asks. And even if they do, we give them the answer we know they want to hear. This is exactly what Stockett explores in these chapters; how deep our limitations go and how much they affect us.

The Help Blog Chapters 15-18: Where do we draw our lines?

             Throughout chapters 15 through 18, a larger message was presented about struggling with where we need to draw lines in life and our responsibilities to lines we didn’t know were drawn. When Aibileen takes care of Mae Mobley, we see a line often stepped over by Aibileen. She constantly tells Mae Mobley “you kind, you smart, you important” (199). She does this as much as possible because Mae Mobley’s own mother doesn’t. Then Aibileen realizes that Mae Mobley’s “growing up and [she] know, soon, them few words ain’t gone be enough” (199). This is where we see Aibileen begin to struggle as she does not want to overstep her boundaries as she only is the help, but also does not want to forget that she has a responsibility to Mae Mobley to be the mother she doesn’t have.

            Another place where we see Aibileen struggle with her responsibility is during the meetings with Miss Skeeter. She has a very strong responsibility as help, and it makes her worry to think what could happen to her and her family if people found out how far out of line she was stepping. Her job is to be the help and do solely that; not tell the truth about what goes on behind closed doors. However, Aibileen has a responsibility to the other help and to many other blacks who have been treated wrongfully in the past. She realizes this when she says “we telling stories that need to be told” (208). Aibileen has committed to stepping out of line for her responsibility to her people and to herself. She knows that if she is not strong enough to do so, who will be? So, these chapters teach us that sometimes we have to step out of line to see where the true line is drawn based on our responsibilities.

Death Penalty Final Response

            I believe that the abolishment of the death penalty in Illinois was just. Besides the issue of morality, the death penalty has been met with the conflict of factual evidence. Governor Ryan of Illinois ordered a blanket commutation right before the end of his term. After originally having supported the death penalty, Ryan was shocked to see how many innocent people have been executed and how easily their innocence could have been proven. As he began to see the flaws in our justice system, a group of people at Northwestern University pushed him all the way to the side of pro-life. In his speech, he said “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.” Ryan recognized that if students and a professor from a college could prove the inmates innocence, something was going very wrong. I agree with his decision to a blanket commutation as the death penalty does not deter murder and after seventeen men on Illinois’ death row had already been proven innocent when their cases were re-opened, many more were sure to be innocent.

            The Illinois’ legislature decision was based mostly off of this new idea that Ryan had discovered; fact over morality. Morality is a difficult argument because everyone’s morals are different, but one cannot disprove fact. As case after case was given a new trial, innocence was proven and it was only just to abolish capital punishment. Juries began voting more for innocence and lesser sentences. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said "The life-without-parole option is not going away." As the legislation of Illinois began to understand how unreliable the justice system was, they realized they could not do much but abolish capital punishment entirely. I believe that this act was just because it is not fair to take the life of an innocent person. We say that murder is murder, and execution is different. But if the person we are executing is innocent, then I consider it murder. In the movie Deadline, Scott Turow, a practiced lawyer and author, said “even the people who believe in the death penalty don’t believe in killing innocent people.”

            Also interviewd in the movie was Gabriel Salachai, who was pleading for innocence. He was always working, never did drugs and was trying to make money to support himself. Salachai said that he only confessed because “I couldn’t take the beatings any more.” This is one of the things that gets overlooked when it seems so evident; race. Salachai was given a document to sign that was written in English and a detective read it aloud to him in Spanish. In my opinion, that is not just. Salachai was not sure of what he was singing, his confession was beaten out of him, we don’t know whether or not the jury or evidence was biased, what more does it take to make this case unjust? As Governor Ryan accepted more and more of this evidence proving the inaccuracy and unjust system of capital punishment, he decided that the death penalty “should be a decision without error.” I agree with his decision upon coming to terms with the fact that it is impossible for the decision to be made without error. Error is inevitable, and therefore the death penalty needed to be abolished. I agree with Ryan’s and the Illinois legislature’s decision because the death penalty system in it of itself is unjust and no innocent person should be murdered.

The Help Blog Chapters 11-14: Separate but Equal

               Throughout chapters 11-14 of the Help, Stockett really brings forward the contradiction of the fact that blacks and whites are “separate but equal” (185). In chapter 14, the white women talk about how the bathrooms are separate but they’re still bathrooms. They try and justify it by saying that it’s all the same and that no black help wants to share the bathroom with a white lady just as much as a white lady doesn’t want to share with the help. We see the contradiction with this chapter and the past ones, because the issue of the Jim Crow laws was brought up in the past. Miss Skeeter looked at the laws and was “mesmerized by how many laws exist to separate [them]” (173). Numerous rules exist to separate blacks from whites, as the Jim Crow laws displayed, and Skeeter is met with a reality she had been genuinely shielded from growing up. She knew they were different, but she never understood the lengths at which these laws existed.

                Skeeter realizes that as soon as she steps into Aibileen’s house, Aibileen stood taller. But, she couldn’t help but notice that Aibileen was still hesitant; that removing her white uniform didn’t remove the laws that controlled her life. The black neighborhood is separate, that the white women are correct about, but it is most definitely not equal. Besides the main issue of the quality of the neighborhoods and houses, there are no black police, so if something goes on and someone is hurt the white police won’t be as quick to respond and will automatically blame the fact that it’s a black neighborhood. That that stuff just goes on. The white people are discriminatory and hateful. They do not see the black people as people; they see them as workers and alive to serve the white people and to do nothing else. Looking around me today, I see so many different people. I have never once questioned the legitimacy of anyone of any other race, ethnicity, or religion. I look around me and see equals. Some of them I see as smarter, stronger, more athletic or anything, than I am. I do not judge based on color because what does it even mean to have different color skin? It means you have an identity. Then I read this book, and I just can’t imagine it—these ladies talking this way. About diseases you can get from black people if they use the same toilet as you. It greatly disturbs me, and I see it eating away at Skeeter as well.

                Skeeter is around the ladies all the time; she sees them act this way to the help so often, it becomes foreign to her if they don’t. That is why it was hard for her at first to do what she is doing now. It is so hard to stray away from something we have known our entire lives. That we have heard, seen, lived. But, Skeeter is trying and is establishing equality. She treats Aibileen and Minny with the same respect she gives everyone else, and doesn’t look at them as pathetic or feel bad for them. She looks at them with respect, not with apology. She sees truth in them and strength, more of it than she could wish to have. So maybe there is a double play on the words of the white ladies. The help, they are separate but equal. They live apart from the whites, but they are equal in mind, person, and strength. Sometimes, they are even greater. So maybe the white ladies speak a truth they have misunderstood.

The Death Penalty: DEADLINE

              Race and class have had a major effect on the death penalty. The film Deadline proves that people have been wrongly convicted for their race. One example the movie provides is David Keaton who was sentenced to death, but later released after being proven innocent of his crimes. This is such a strong example because had he not been proven innocent, he would have been killed. Murdered, just like that for a crime he did not commit because somewhere in the justice system, someone did not like that he was black. Keaton’s brother stated, “Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime.” This statement has sadly been proven true in many other cases as well. Black people have been constantly wrongly convicted because of the members of the jury and the media. His brother also said, “You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” I completely agree with this statement. Justice is not blind because we are humans and we have opinions. Members of the jury are supposed to be able to put those opinions aside, but the truth of the matter is that they don’t. A juror cannot take part in a case where a white person is killed, the suspect is a black person, and they do not like black people. They simply cannot ignore their views. Race effects the determination of the death penalty, as well as law and politics.

Looking at statistics, the death penalty is greatly supported in the states where it is allowed. The reason for this is that people like the death penalty because they get revenge. People can become so distracted by their desire to get what they want and give others what they deserve that they are blinded from justice. In the United States, people look at situations of revenge with the theory of ‘an eye for an eye.’ Basically, someone should be punished in the same way for which they committed the crime; if they steal money, they have to pay back that money and spend time in jail. It’s our way of lessening the pain by knowing that they are going through the same pain we are. I think the notion of the death penalty is so widely accepted because it has been around us for so long. Also, we used to execute in much more inhumane ways than we do now. Since we have changed the way in which we execute to a more humane form, such as lethal injection, we feel the act is justifiable.

Looking at the bigger picture of the issue of the death penalty, there is a quote by Stephen Bright that reads;

“This was the third person released by the journalism students at Northwestern, and of course it doesn’t say much for our legal system when people spend sixteen years on death row for a crime they… didn’t commit. And that ultimately comes to light not because of the police or the prosecution, or the defense lawyers or the judicial system, but because a journalism class at Northwestern took it on as a class project to see whether or not these people were guilty or not. You know, if those students had taken chemistry that semester, these folks would have been executed.”

            This quote shows just how easily the death penalty can be unjust and how easily innocent people are proven guilty on death row. A journalism class of college students proved the innocence of death row inmates; something that the Constitution of the United States could not prove. There truly is a problem there. These innocent people on death row sit there day after day, awaiting their death and being aware of their innocence and their inability to prove it. It took unbiased students with the desire to be true and just to the wrongfully convicted people to prove their innocence. To prove innocence that should never have been deceived. Bright also talks about how had the students taken a different class, the innocent people on death row would have been executed. It took chance for the inmates to get out; the chance that those students had chosen that class and then chosen to write on death row inmates. Hours in court with evidence, a selected jury and judge and all it took was the chance that those students would be put in the same class together? There truly is something wrong with our justice system.

The Death Penalty: Is it justifiable?

                 During class we have discussed the death penalty and its justifications, or lack thereof. There are stages in a court case that help determine whether or not someone will receive the death penalty.  Some of the stages that protect the rights of the accused are that they are innocent until proven guilty; there is a stage where the jury decides whether or not there is enough proof to accuse someone before even deciding whether or not they should receive the death penalty, which is called a criminal hearing. They have to be determined guilty without a reasonable doubt. After determining guilt or innocence, the jurors are tested to see whether or not they can choose if the accused should receive the death penalty without bias towards the accused, the prosecutor or their opinion of the death penalty. During this decision, the jury is required to consider the defendants background such as traumatic incidents or childhood, or some form of mental retardation. The defendant is also protected in these stages by allowing for there to be a new trial if the accused felt there was not sufficient evidence or that there was “juror misconduct,” which is when the jury favors one side. If they don’t want a new trial, the defendant can appeal or try to get clemency in order to not receive the death penalty. In my opinion, all of these stages do help to determine that a person is guilty. There is no question when there is the rule of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is required to not convict someone if they are even the slightest bit unsure. While it is difficult to prove sometimes whether or not a jury is favoring one side of the case, the defendant does have options to be fairly judged.

                If a defendant is proven guilty and given the death sentence there are several ways in which they can be executed. In my opinion, being executed by hanging or by firing squad are very inhumane. Sometimes, when hung, their neck does not fully break and they slowly die by asphyxiation. When killed by a firing squad, the shooter can sometimes miss the heart, by intention or by accident, and the prisoner would then slowly bleed to death. Not only are these methods inhumane, but they are unnecessary. I would say both of these should be considered cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment because we have the technology needed to execute people in an efficient and humane way, such as lethal injection.

                I looked at several states for their information on their death penalty and found that Illinois does not have a death penalty. Since 1976, only 12 people have been executed versus 475 executions in Texas who has the death penalty. In Texas, out of the 321 people on Death Row, only 10 are women. This is very interesting, but at the same time, understandable. People tend to sympathize with women more than with men. What really strikes me is that Texas has a murder rate of 5 per 100,000 and Illinois is higher with a murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000. Illinois method is injection if they were ever to use the death penalty, and it is interesting that Missouri’s method is by injection or gas and it is the choice of the prisoner as to which they will receive. In comparison to Texas, Missouri has a murder rate of 7 per 100,000, yet only 68 people have been executed since 1976 and there are currently 50 people on death row. Part of this that the statistics don’t always take into account is that there is a big population difference between Texas and Missouri. The one thing that remains consistent in all states is that there are more men than women on death row.

                Looking further at Illinois, their death penalty requirements include felonies, killing children, murdering with intention and a plan, killed in order to obtain money or prevent the victim from testifying, if the murderer injured the victim to the point of death, the victim was a disabled person, and even if the intentions of the killer were terrorism. I do think that these statues of the death penalty are justifiable because they all require for the killer to have an intention to kill, to harm someone incapable of defense, or in order to have personal gain. All of those acts listed are reason enough for someone to be subject to the death penalty. However, I can see as to why these statues would make the death penalty questionable in Illinois and eventually made them abolish it altogether. One reason is that the death penalty cannot be biased towards putting those to death who were disabled or children, because any other person killed, such as an adult, is of equal value. Also, it is hard to prove intention, which is what a lot of the statues are based on. Lastly, killing someone by injuring them to death may go against intention. If the intention was to break their arm by hitting them with a baseball bat and they then fell down stairs which broke their neck and killed them, is it really the person with the baseball bat’s fault? Their intention was to break their arm, not kill them. So are they guilty or not? I think that question was brought up a lot in cases, which was another cause for Illinois to no longer use the death penalty.

                Something that is interesting is that in all of the states, the largest race to be executed is white which is usually presumed to be black. However, the largest race of victims whose perpetrators were executed is also white, meaning that courts are more sympathetic towards white victims and more likely to send whoever killed them to death. Looking at a different chart, there were 17 white people sent to death for killing a black person, versus the 255 black people sent to death for killing a white person. These statistics are another reason why Illinois and other states no longer have the death penalty; there is a prepositioned bias in deciding whether or not to give someone the death penalty.

Drug Testing in Schools

                The two court cases we have recently studied, Vernonia School District v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, argued over the approval of drug testing in schools. In Vernonia v. Acton, the court held that a drug policy should be established because of the growing drug problem in their school. The parents of the students at the school approved of the policy Vernonia wanted to put in place, and the school felt it was acting in a way “to protect their health and safety.” In my opinion, the implementation of this drug policy was acceptable, because the school was directly reacting to a problem that was becoming worse in their own school. Vernonia was applying its rule only to students participating in athletics, which I think is acceptable, because drugs can have a very negative and harmful effect when doing athletics. All students participating in athletics know they will be drug tested before the start of the season, and will possibly be randomly tested throughout. The drug policy in which Vernonia has adopted is completely understandable, because they are applying it to the students who can be directly affected by drugs physically, and their whole team will notice when a player is not performing to their full ability. Also, Vernonia is doing the right thing by applying the policy to athletes because they are students who peers look up to. If they are not doing drugs because of the tests, other students may follow.

                In Board of Education v. Earls, the court held that their drug policy was constitutional and could apply to all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities. I do not necessarily disagree with the policy being applied to all competitive activities and not just athletics, but I do disagree with the board’s reasoning. Their justification for the policy is that “’drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.’” Basically, the school board is saying that because there are drug problems in other places, they exist in their school. This is a false assumption that cannot be accepted, considering that in Vernonia, their drug policy applied because they had problems within their own school building. Part of the argument for the policy was that “the Fourth Amendment does not require a finding of individualized suspicion.” Basically, this statement is supporting the board’s idea that because drugs are a problem in society, it is a problem in their school. Another way the board of education tries to justify their stance, is by making the urine test ‘more private.’ They are having the boys now sit in an enclosed stall when taking the test instead of in a urinal that’s not enclosed. To me, that means nothing and they might as well just stand at the urinal. They cannot justify putting this policy in place by letting the boys be enclosed instead of stand at a urinal.

                I agree with the ruling in the court case Safford Unified School District v. Redding. During this case, a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched when a classmate claimed the prescription-level ibuprofen she possessed was given to her by her classmate, Redding. During the case, the strip search was found unconstitutional when appealed to the Supreme Court, but the officials were found “immune from liability.” I agree with this ruling, because it was completely unnecessary to strip search a girl to her underwear and then even check under those all because another student claimed it was hers after that student had gotten in trouble. The student did not suggest that Redding currently possessed any more ibuprofen, so there was no reason for the search.  

                Another article talked about dogs sniffing through school lockers to try and find drugs. To be honest, that is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. There was only marijuana found originally in one locker a month at the most. That is not reason to need a dog to sniff through an entire school building to find drugs. According to the school, there have been no further findings of drugs since the few incidents. I do not believe that there were no more findings because of the dog. It was because students got more smart and figured out ways for the dog not to find the drugs either by not bringing them to school or storing them in a way that eliminates their smell. While superintendents claim that the ‘drug dog’ isn’t used to get students arrested; just for the elimination of drugs in schools, I do not agree with the practice of having a dog sniff out the school. Also, the sniffing dogs have led to several false accusations against students when there were no drugs present. In one incident, fifteen students’ classes and education were disrupted when they were pulled out to be interrogated. Only one of them was in possession of marijuana.

Bad Things Happen to the Innocent Ones: The Help - blog 2

            Over this past week, I read chapters 7-11 in the Help. The focus of these chapters was on how the help raise the children, and then they turn out to be the same way as their mothers and fathers. We see this relationship between the help and the kids develop through Mae Mobley and Aibileen. When trying to teach Mae Mobley to go to the bathroom on the toilet, Aibileen really struggles with handling the situation. As she described, most of the white mothers would sit on the toilet and show their kids how to do it; to set an example, but Miss Leefolt refused. I don’t know which would have been better; for Aibileen to sit on the toilet in the house to show her, or to bring her out to her own toilet like she did. I think it would have been much better for Aibileen to show Mae Mobley in the house, because it would have avoided the problem of Mae Mobley constantly wanting to go on Aibileen’s toilet. However, this is one of the issues that gets brought up; Mae Mobley doesn’t know better. She doesn’t realize that the toilet outside is only for Aibileen, and when she gets spanked by her mother for going to the bathroom in there, she doesn’t understand what she did wrong. This shows the issue of how children’s innocence gets taken away when they don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. It takes away the desire to explore that children have because, as Aibileen described about Mae Mobley, “she don’t know what she is yet” (92).

            Aside from the issue of the innocent children are raised in a confusing manner that ultimately makes them act the same way towards their own children, these chapters brought up how bad things happen to good people. We are introduced to a new character, Robert, who was one of Treelore’s friends before he died. The young boy told Aibileen that he would be coming by to mow her lawn, as he always did without her asking since Treelore was no longer there to do so. Soon after, Aibileen found out that after accidentally using the white bathroom at a store, he was chased and beaten blind. Aibileen was in shock as Franny Coots said “poor Louvenia. I don’t know why the bad have to happen to the goodest ones” (101). I completely agree with Franny; Robert was a sweet and caring boy who helped Aibileen find some peace after the loss of her son, even by doing the simplest of things for her like mowing her lawn. He made one innocent mistake, and it cost him the ability to see for the rest of his life. This is exactly how the book shows that the innocent and the good people are the ones the bad things happen to. I think that while it is wrong, there is a reason behind it whether it is conscious or not. If another kid had been chased and beaten to blindness who was constantly looking for trouble, then people wouldn’t have as strong of a reaction. It was the fact that it happened to a caring, good boy that made what happened even worse. The same goes for Mae Mobley; she was spanked by her own mother for trying to please her by going to the bathroom, and unknowingly using Aibileen’s when she didn’t know the difference; had Mae Mobley been older and doing it to purposefully annoy her mother, we wouldn’t feel the pain we do for Mae Mobley.

            I love this book; it captures simple ideas in a complex way that makes them so much more meaningful. Stockett has already showed me how nature, nurture and innocence can affect people’s lives. I can not wait to read what she will teach me next.

Searches and Seizures: New Jersey v. TLO

            During the past week in class, we have discussed how the protection against searches and seizures actually applies. In my opinion, it barely does. In the case New Jersey v. TLO, a girl is caught smoking in a bathroom with another girl. At fourteen years old, upon refusing to admit to smoking, her bag is searched on the spot to find any evidence of the smoking incident. While looking in her purse, the principal finds rolling papers and automatically assumes they have to do with marijuana. He then searches further to find actual marijuana in her bag. In my opinion, this search was completely unreasonable and did not follow the rules of searches and seizures.

            When going to look in the bag, the principal was focused on only finding evidence of TLO smoking. The fact that he saw the rolling papers did not whatsoever allow him to continue his search. The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case argued that the “relative ease with which teachers can apply the probable-cause standard” was unreasonable. I agree with their argument that by allowing this search, it is extremely easy for any teacher to decide to randomly search a student because they were ‘suspicious.’ The dissenting opinion also argued that “the search for evidence of the smoking violation that was completed when Mr. Choplick (the principal) found the pack of cigarettes—was valid.” I agree with this statement; the search was following rule by searching for the pack of cigarettes, but Mr. Choplick soon violated it when he went further.

            I greatly disagree with the overall ruling of the court, which was in favor of the school, not only because it violated the searches and seizure amendment, but because it violated morale on many levels. The search only showed TLO, and other students, that she was not protected in a place where she was supposed to feel most safe. As the dissenting opinion argues, “if the Nation’s students can be convicted through the use of arbitrary methods destructive of personal liberty, they cannot help but feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.” The simplest way to put it is that it is absolutely ridiculous for the school to ask students to feel safe and protected at a place where the school can eat away at a student’s dignity by searching or questioning them all because of a simple assumption or ‘hunch.’ In my opinion, the court should have ruled in favor of TLO because the school violated her right to protection of her personal belongings and herself.

Nature v. Nurture: the Help - blog 1

            Over the past two weeks, I have started to read the book The Help by Kathryn Stockett. Stockett captured me from the first page, and it was hard to limit myself to reading only chapters one through six for this first blog. Slavery is an issue that we have learned about for years, probably starting in sixth grade. However, this is the first time I have been able to look at it from a different perspective than the history books that fed us only facts. The struggles that blacks (I was told that the correct term is no longer African Americans, and is now blacks) faced make me cringe, but it they have also has given me insight to how brave and strong these women were. One of the parts in the book that has stuck me most is the topic of having a separate bathroom for the help. In my opinion, that is outrageous. It is saying directly to someone who cooks your meals, keeps your house in one piece and practically raises your child themselves cannot use the same bathroom as you. It is ridiculous and completely tears away at the dignity that the help possesses far more of than the white people for which they are ‘employed.’

            Miss Celia is who Minny, a black woman who works as help, is employed by. What seems strange to me about Miss Celia is that she is so unsure of herself and everything in her life. I cannot figure out if she is simply ignorant, or actually cares for the help unlike the other white women in the book. She does not mind what Minny does, and even gets cooking lessons from her; showing that she looks up to and finds respect in Minny. I greatly question her character. I cannot figure out how Miss Celia would act towards Minny had she been living around the other white women we get to know in the book. Would she act in the same caring manner towards Minny as she does now? Or would she be just as rude and demeaning to her as the other women do to their help? In other words, would her nature or her nurture prevail? It is such a difficult question to answer, but I believe it is the outcome of both being imposed upon us.

Our natural reaction to people is to accept them, but to also protect ourselves. We want to see the best in people and encourage that part of them, but we always make sure we are not harmed in the process. Nurture can completely change who we are because of how we are raised. We definitely see this happening throughout Miss Skeeter’s life. She was brought up by a white mother who had help, but Miss Skeeter had a different relationship with Constantine than her mother did. Miss Skeeter saw the good in Constantine that the other women looked past. She was brought up from when she was born by Constantine, and so she learned from her. Her nurture was by her own mother, who taught her that help was necessary and that the help were lesser than the white people. But, she was also brought up by Constantine who told her with just one look that she was perfect the way she was; she encouraged her in every way that her mother did not. She grew up to respect the help, and find trouble in accepting the idea of a separate bathroom for the help. This was simply because the good side that Constantine brought out of Miss Skeeter was stronger than the side her mother tried to build for her.

So far, only eighty-nine pages have told me so much. This book has already shown me the strength the help possesses, and the weakness the white women have. It has also taught me the effects of nurture and how one way someone was raised can completely overpower another based on their natural persona.

Freedom of Speech in school

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/vacaville-students-lost-2_n_987930.html?ncid=webmail14

                In the article titled “Vacaville Students Lost 25 Points Off Test For Saying ‘Bless You’ To Sneezing Peer,” a teacher punished students by taking off points on their test for saying ‘bless you’ when a student had sneezed. After talking about free speech the past couple of weeks in class, I have begun to notice that speech applies to many different life situations. In this case, the question is posed as to whether the teacher or the students is right.

            Mr. Cuckovich is a health teacher at Vacaville High School in California. In class, a student sneezed during a test and another student said ‘bless you.’ The student who sneezed replied by saying ‘thank you and they both continued with their tests. According to Cuckovich this behavior was disruptive and unnecessary. He took off twenty-five points on the student’s test who said ‘bless you,’ and the next time it happened he took off that many points from the entire classes tests without warning. In his opinion, saying ‘bless you’ or ‘G-d bless you’ is a reference to religion, but it could also be looked at his disagreement with the religion that the remark represents. In the article, they reported him saying that “’When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying 'God bless you' for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, what you're doing really doesn't make sense.’” Continuously in his interview, Cuckovich addressed that the punishment was not based off of religion, but because of class disruption. However, we have to question his reasoning because if it was just about disruption, why would Cuckovich bring up the point about the phrase ‘bless you’ not being necessary because it no longer applies to today’s religious views. Many parents were furious with his way of handling this, saying that he had no authority to guess at what students meant by saying ’bless you.’ They pointed out that for all he knows, they could be saying it because of their beliefs. Cuckovich continued to defend himself and not take back his actions when confronted not only with the parents of students, but with the school’s principal.
            The students’ opinion is that they were not saying ‘bless you’ to cause class disruption, but to be respectful to other students when they sneezed. They pointed out that they have been raised in a community where saying ‘bless you’ or even ‘G-d bless you’ is appropriate and is encouraged. Some kids when being interviewed said that they are religiously some form of Christianity, and that they were taught that not saying ‘bless you’ was an insult and looked down upon. Even students who were of other religions had the same beliefs. It is common for them to hear expressions such as ‘may G-d be with you’ if they are sick or even for tests. Many students upon first hearing about this did not believe it and said it was “absolutely ridiculous” and they had “never heard of anything like that happening before.” Infuriated parents said that new rules say their students are no longer required to stand for the pledge of allegiance, “and now this?” They do not like how the student population is being brought up in this manner and feels it is the school’s responsibility to ensure that the students are learning to respect and feel pride for the flag under which they live and not look at speaking for it once a day as a requirement, but as an honor.
            In my opinion, the teacher acted completely out of his authority. By no means is it rude or disruptive for students to say ‘bless you’ when another student sneezes. It completely relates to the difficulty we find in defining the fine line of freedom of speech. These students are saying something they have been raised to be expected to say, and are being completely confused when their teacher is punishing them for it. Saying ‘bless you’ requires a level of respect, and that is exactly what students show when they say it. When I am in class or even at a restaurant and I sneeze, I automatically expect for someone to say ‘bless you’ and I am ready to say ‘thank you’ back to them. If I sneeze twice, and someone says ‘bless you’ the first time I sneeze, I hold my index finger up to them during my second sneeze to say wait and then say ‘thank you’ after I sneeze again. It is just a commonality and something we have been raised with. Sure the origin of the fraise dates back to many years ago, but it is used everywhere today. In a court case in California from this past month, a school won when saying that “a math teacher for Poway Unified School District cannot display banners proclaiming “In G-d We Trust,” “One Nation Under G-d,” “G-d Bless America” and “G-d Shed His Grace On Thee.” I think that this ruling is completely ridiculous. Some of these sayings are written in our documents as the United States of America, and this ruling is basically saying that we cannot represent some of the defining words of our nation. “One nation under G-d, indivisibly, with liberty and justice for all;” Those words define our nation, our free nation. And our own courts are ruling that they cannot be said? That is a complete disregard not only to our freedom of speech, but to what we represent. If our own courts—that are supposed to protect the people of this nation—rule that the words that define our nation, ones that we learn before we even step foot in school, are not allowed, then what are we supposed to believe? Do we even have freedom? These words have been drilled into our heads from our earliest days, and if we cannot speak those words then how do we expect to be allowed to speak our minds at all?

Hate Speech and Campus Codes

        Hate speech and fighting words are the only things, according to the articles we read over the weekend, that speech codes can ban on college campuses. However, the question remains as to whether limiting just speech is enough to address the oppression minorities receive. In court cases, such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire  in 1942, Doe v. University of Michigan in 1989 and UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin in 1991, courts repeatedly ruled that the schools’ speech codes were too ‘vague’ or ‘overbroad.’ The schools goals were to limit the use of fighting words that often led to violence, but the courts ruled that the speech codes weren’t specific enough and students were left to question what crossed the line.

 In the article “Jim Crow on Fraternity Row,” it depicted how students at a fraternity, that was open to both Jewish and Christian religions, became very discriminatory to African Americans. At a party, Caucasian members of the fraternity were photographed having painted their faces brown and black, or wearing KKK costumes. Some students even went far enough to wear shirts that represented the African American race or even wear ropes around their necks with other students holding onto them. This is where speech codes become confusing. There is such a conflict because the schools have to decide which matters more: the freedom of speech and viewpoint of the students, or the protection of minorities from oppression. The Supreme Court constantly ruled that students who used speech against a race or a person could not be punished just because the statements are offensive. I agree with this ruling. Speech codes cannot be so vague to try and cover all types of hate speech, because it is unclear as to what is actually prohibited. However, some sort of code needs to be put in place in the example of students dressing in certain ways for a party. A student painting their face brown or black, wearing a rope around their neck, wearing a shirt representing an all African-American fraternity, and another student dressed in a KKK outfit holding the rope is not acceptable. That is a clear statement that the students want to take violent actions against the African-American members.

Looking at the “Restrictions on Expression Rights” code at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I was not surprised. In Illinois, there is a wide range of races, religions and ethnic backgrounds. Students who live in Illinois know that, and have become accustomed to respecting people with different backgrounds than one’s self. I think that the policies that the university put in place are to address mostly people from other states that are attending the school, or even those from Illinois who were raised in a different way. If I were to attend U of I, I would definitely feel comfortable with these codes. There is a difference between joking around about race, religion and ethnicity and meaning it in a much more serious manner. I do believe that everyone makes fun of everyone else, but we all find ways to make fun of our own backgrounds as well. Because we have become accommodated to being around many different people, it only becomes natural to see the flaws in our own cultures. I think that the University of Illinois’ policies address the issues while understanding that someone saying a simple statement as a joke that may be offensive is not as serious as one that is threatening or harmful.

9/11 Affected Everything, Even the NFL

            After September 11, 2001, the people in America went into a state of shock and almost paranoia. No one trusted anyone, and security procedures went to a whole new level. Whenever people think of 9/11’s effect on security, they talk about airports, trains, and government buildings. But what people sometimes forget is that security was forever changed in places like Six Flags, public and private schools, and even malls. For the most part, people have just become accustomed to walking through metal detectors and having bags searched, but what we really pay attention to is the fact that it’s a waste of our time. When you’re attending a Blackhawk’s game, you don’t want to have to be crowded outside the doors in the cold to wait to have women’s purses searched. But at the same time, you don’t want to end up with a man’s Taser waving in your face when you’re just trying to enjoy a Sunday football game.

             At the Jets-Cowboys game this past weekend, everything seemed normal. But as I read in the article “NFL security should be more than a show” in Sporting News, nothing was normal. Leroy McKelvey, a Dallas fan, was escorted out of the game by security officials, after pulling out a Taser when he got into a fight with a Jets fan. The head of security claimed that his men search for weapons that can cause “serious injury,” but I think people would consider a Taser to be threatening. The article refers to NFL security as a “show” that goes on every weekend, just to meet the security requirements. A question people asked before this event, is if this security is necessary? Or if it is just something to keep people in the mindset of being safe?

            The article’s opinion is that the security at football games is “designed to give the impression that something is being done to enhance safety without providing any real security benefit at all.” I strongly agree with this statement. The security at things even like sporting events needs to be improved greatly. We can not just go through the motions, because someone will get hurt. No longer can we be reactionary to these things: we have to take action to ensure that our people and our country are safe.

September 11, 2001...Ten Years Later

                In the movie we watched this past week in class, I got a whole new understanding for what it was like in New York City on September 11, 2001. Usually, when I’m walking down the street and see someone from the army, I have the urge to go up to them and say thank you. But, I never find the courage to. After watching this movie about the New York firefighters, I now know that if I see a firefighter, I will have that same urge. The things those workers did on that horrible day saved people’s lives, even if just by giving them the hope to keep going. They risked their lives for hundreds of people they didn’t even know. On that day, we sat and watched the events on the television. There was always a power switch to turn the TV off—but for them, there wasn’t. The firefighters were in the middle of it. They couldn’t curl up in a ball and cry in fear like most of us could. They had to have courage to overcome their fear of death, or much worse, to even step inside Tower One. Then, they had to climb up hundreds of stairs, each step knowing they were getting closer to what had already taken so many lives. And as people came down past them, they had to tell them it was okay and to keep going down, even though they knew it probably wouldn’t be okay.

                In the article “Don’t Listen to Romney: America Is Safer Than Ever,” by Michael Cohen, he captures the contradiction of safety in America. We have deadly enough weapons to put an end to the world with the push of a button in almost every country, and yet, we feel safer than we did ten years ago. Cohen really addresses how Mitt Romney made a good point in his speech: “that the world is becoming a safer place.” We look back on September 11, 2001 and question as to how we could let it happen. It truly is reassuring knowing that now something like that is far less possible. We constantly complain about the procedures at airports, but the truth is that wouldn’t you rather get to the airport an hour early and stand in a line if it meant it could save your life? One of the interesting things Cohen pointed out was that China’s economy relies a lot on a strong American one. If America fell apart to the point where it could no longer purchase from China, they would lose the majority of their exports and income. That’s another reason why the world seems more safe and peaceful now more than before; we rely on one another. China isn’t launching off bombs at us due to our debt to them, because they know that if the situation were ever to be flipped around, America would help them. One last thing is that no one wants to enter into a nuclear war, because everyone will lose. If Iran nuked us, we would nuke them and someone else would nuke someone else and so on and so forth. No one wants that. Everything will be gone, and no one will have proven a point. It’s almost as if our paranoia of a nuclear war is keeping the world at bay.

                Nine eleven still seems almost unrealistic, like a movie. It just seems impossible that something like this could ever happen. It makes you re-think how you live your life every day. Every time I hear the numbers nine and eleven together, I know that I just won’t think of them as two numbers. They represent so much more. Those people woke up that day, thinking about a normal day; a normal life. But then everything changed. Every time I’m on a plane, I just consider it…consider what could happen. When I was little, I liked to collect a lot of things. We not only lost hundreds of lives, but we lost faith. We lost the ability to go on a plane and not think twice about it. We lost the ability to hear the numbers nine and eleven together and think of them as anything but numbers. We lost our ability to think about anything other than how evil reality can be. We lost our reason to feel safe—that when it came time when someone hijacked a plane that a miracle would happen to save us. We lost hope and faith, and just that tiny ounce of miracle we all sought. We gained reality, and the fact that miracles don’t always happen. That to you, you cannot die: this is your life, but to the man in that cockpit, you’re just another enemy. I would collect rocks, change, candy, scissors, pencils, string, and rubber bands and pretty much anything I could get my hands on. When I flew somewhere, I would pack all of these things loose in my carry-on bag for whatever reason. When I opened it up on the plane, people would ask me why I brought that stuff with me, and I would explain why each of my seventeen rocks was important. They found it cute…and innocent. Now, I see kids trying to do the same thing I did—bring the simplest things that they loved and made them happy on the plane. But no one sees it as cute and innocent anymore—they see it as a threat. I once saw a boy hysterically crying at security because he had sharp rocks in his bag that they would not allow him to bring on the plane. He was seven years old, and his name was Michael. Just ten minutes before he had explained to me what every rock’s super power was. He looked at them as if they were the only thing in the world that mattered to him. And now they were being taken away for a reason he won’t ever understand. How far will we go to ensure our safety? That’s the one question I cannot answer. 

is freedom of speech a legit freedom?

           I just read this article, Texas: Judge Halts an Abortion Requirement (published by the New York Times), about a lawsuit in Texas over a law that was going to be passed regarding abortion. This law "[required] a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion." On its way to be approved on September 1, 2011, Judge Sam Sparks of Austin, Texas, argued that this law was in violation of the First Amendment. His reasoning was that doctors were being violated of their freedom of speech by being asked to show women a sonogram of their living, breathing fetus, which might change their choice in abortion. Even further, this law required women who were pregnant because of a sexual assault to sign a form to allow the doctor to perform a sonogram. Judge Sparks ruled that “the state cannot compel a woman to disclose such private information that she may not even wish to tell the police.”

Over this past week in class, we rigorously discussed where the line of freedom of speech is drawn. Cases we covered included Tinker vs. Des Moines, Morse vs. Frederick and Bethel School Dist. No. 403 vs. Fraser. While these cases argued over rights of speech in a school setting, unlike the case of an abortion, the same question is still asked; where do we draw the line of what is freedom of speech and what isn’t? The truth is: you really can’t. The First Amendment of the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Now some people may say, well abortion isn’t a form of speech—it is an action. But as we discovered in class, some actions we take are just another way of speaking out loud. For example, in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, Mary Beth and John Tinker wore black armbands to their public school to showcase their disagreement with the Vietnam War. The school made a rule that no students were allowed to wear these black armbands, and if they did wear them and refused to remove them, they would be suspended from school. When the Tinker kids were suspended for refusing to remove their armbands at school, their father filed suit. The court held that the school policy was in violation of the First Amendment.

I agree completely with the decision of the court. I also agree with Judge Sparks that putting the law into action would be unconstitutional. A doctor is being completely violated if he is being required to show a patient something he does not thing is right or necessary. As a doctor, he knows his patients well and would be going against any patient-doctor trust by following through with this law. Also, if a woman has made the decision to have an abortion, she should not be forced to witness the living and breathing fetus inside her. The guilt that would come with that is a complete injustice to her free right of choice between pro-life or pro-abortion.

the bear punch

this story is unreal...but what I don't understand is when you see a bear in your backyard, why your reaction would be to punch it??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/brooke-collins-punches-bear-to-save-dog_n_945400.html?ncid=webmail12#s348076&title=Woman_Punches_Bear

I hate seeing things like this come up on my email current news feed...its so sad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/sharon-west-missing-texas-teen_n_945662.html?ncid=webmail11

the coolest iPhone 5 video