The Supreme Court recently ruled on whether or not schools can strip search teenagers (in this case, a middle school student). I can't say I disagree with them in this particular ruling, because according to the article the only source of information school officials had was the word of another student.
I'd like to know what else the school officials knew about the girl (was she generally suspected of selling prescription drugs, for example). The article doesn't talk about any past history with this student, which is huge. It also doesn't say anything about whether or not the prescription was hers, which is another huge consideration. Schools are different than everywhere else because students are REQUIRED to be there. As a result, rights get defined differently (whether you agree with that or not can be debated later).
The part about this article that rubs me the wrong way is the following statement,
Justices Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens would have allowed the claims against individual school officials to go forward. “This is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct,” Justice Stevens wrote.
School officials are given a charge to ensure the safety of ALL students, quite frequently that means protecting them from their peers, many of which know exactly what the law is and what school officials can do. Did the assistant principal in this case overreact? Yes, but not so much that they should become personally liable. If a school official had to worry about violating rights and having such a violation cost them their job, I guarantee they wouldn't be very effective administrators. This would lead to more lax rules, and effectively those that know how to skirt them would get around them, and it would affect the entire climate. Private vs. Public education starts to come to mind.
Bottom line is exactly what should have happened is what happened. Kudos to the court for making the right call, but a big middle finger to Ginsburg and Stevens for thinking this was such a gross violation of rights that someone should be personally liable.
Apparently, everyone is claiming victory. The city of San Francisco, the Chinese, and the protesters, well, they're not really happy, but I'd say they probably won. I'm not sure how hiding the torch so no one except the randomly lucky can see it is a victory for San Francisco or China, but I get confused easily.
The protesters were upset they didn't get to do their chanting or cause a ruckus...gee, now there's a surprise. They got the entire city of San Francisco to act like a giant coward and they're not happy?
Sounds like they got exactly what they wanted. Quit protesting for the sake of protesting. You got your message across now shut up and go home.
I'm watching coverage of the Olympic Torch "run" through the streets of San Francisco. For anyone who doesn't know anything about what's going on, there have been protests around the world (wherever the torch is) about China's treatment of Tibet.
Ok, I get it. China's treatment of Tibet=bad. I don't support the Chinese government but I fail to see how this is in any way productive.
Which one of the torch bearers is actually oppressing anyone?
It's a protest. Have your protest, but don't actually stop the event. The Olympics are NOT about you. There was a group of Buddhists who apparently walked across the Golden Gate Bridge in protest this morning. They didn't stop anything but they were noticed. That's what a protest is supposed to be.
That being said, the Olympics are supposed to be non-political. Granted, one can make many references to them being a political event: Jesse Owens (can't have a Black man showing up the Aryan race and Hitler in front of Germans)/Berlin, Israel/Munich, US (protesting USSR's invasion of Afghanistan)/Moscow, USSR (retaliation for US not going to Moscow)/Los Angeles...but the fact is it's supposed to be about the athletes. These people that have spent their lives (albeit short at this point, most are in their 20s) trying to get here.
Yes, the run is symbolic, but I don't see how anyone is learning anything new about Tibet based on stopping a torch run through a city. I understand protests and getting one's point across, but to me this is just stupid.
It's that time again. We're in the primary season. Doug posted his comments on the whole process here, and I have to agree with him, but like it or not, it's the process we have so one may as well either pay attention or not care (either is understandable).
Understanding the primaries is tricky, but CNN has a scorecard for the primary race. It's pretty simple, hit the magic number and you're in. I think perhaps the poor showing by Hillary in Iowa was a godsend for her, because it's very likely that triggered Hillary supporters to flock to the polls in New Hampshire. Granted, neither state has huge numbers ... but the American public is fickle. They like frontrunners and don't pay attention to the details. Look at the CNN site. From a locked in delegate standpoint, Hillary is kicking ass right now (183 to 78 at the time of this post ... 2025 required. On the Republican side, Romney is winning 30 to Huckabee's 21, 1191 required). It's still early, but we love to bandwagon in the United States. I'll be surprised if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee.
As for president...that depends on who the Republicans decide to throw up (yes, pun intended) against her.
Democratic standings.
Republican standings.
From what I see of the choices, regardless of the winner, may God help us all.
What is American Culture?
Three today. In an effort to post daily (or more frequently), I'm going to start asking something every day...or such is the thought. Today, since it's my first installment, I'm going with three.
1. In a country of 300 million people, how come we can never find anyone who can lead?I'm overthinking these days, not pissing off.2. Why is the United States unilaterally blamed for the problems in the Middle East?
3. Why is Islam consistently referred to as a "religion of peace," and why don't the Buddhists ever claim that title?
At least not yet.
The presidential race has begun. Oh boy, two years of politicians wooing the voters with rhetoric about what they plan on doing with no real desire to do anything but what they need to do to get into (and stay) in office. Granted, with the presidency, staying is only for two terms, but the point is politicians spend entirely too much time trying to get into office and entirely too little time trying to do what the people in their districts (in this case the country) want. I have never stated to be a complete supporter of either party. When it comes to politics I have my preferences, but there are no real loyalties.
Recently I was given the opportunity to check out a group who, at least it appears, agree with my sentiments. This group is called "Unity '08." There is a general belief among the members that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats properly represent the portion of the country that needs to be addressed, the middle class. Both parties spend too much money pandering to the fringe elements, and as a result the center of the pack, where most people exist economically, politically, socially, "morally," etc., is completely ignored. Their beliefs are outlined pretty clearly here. Also check out the frequently asked questions.
I had a discussion with Doug about it, and he was concerned that they wouldn't be able to affect any change by only controlling the presidency. Personally, it seems much more prudent to control the presidency in this way. I was always a supporter of the two party system at the highest levels. I've never posted on it but it's a discussion I've been in frequently. Having a "centrist" as the president should keep the country generally moving in a consistent direction. Multiple parties at the local levels (Congress, e.g.) would allow for more views to be heard and expressed. San Francisco can elect a left-wing radical who favors gay-rights (e.g.) and Houston can elect a right-wing reactionary who supports religious initiatives (e.g.)**
This would allow each individual area of the country to believe and possibly legislate what they wanted (within the confines of the Constitution). Ultimately, practically everything is a state right. There are very few things that should fall under federal jurisdiction, and yet the federal government has found a way to make everything a national issue (and there is no specific president to blame for that).
So, check out the Unity '08 site and really think about whether or not you agree with their premise: the majority of the people should be the ones our leaders follow.
** NOTE: please don't focus on my choice of what the extremes will support, the point is neither is a "centrist" issue. While an advocate of gay rights would say their issue is centrist and religion is a fringe element, the religious supporter would argue the exact opposite. Realizing that religion is discussed in the Constitution and gay rights are not, I just as easily could have used anti-abortion as my example, which would have probably been more appropriate, but it also elicits a visceral reaction that I'm trying to avoid right now.
The Washington Post published a brief description, with weblinks, of who they believe to be the big contenders in each party. I've included my brief thoughts on some of them as well.
First of all, what the hell is an "exploratory committee?" Seriously, I can figure out what it means, but why doesn't the candidate just call it what it is, chicken. It's a candidate who wants to run but is unwilling to say so. Just say you're running for president, be done with it. Ultimately, there's really no need to do research on it. So, (Tom Tancredo (R) and Ron Paul (R), either shit or get off the pot.
And as discussed at the beginning, why start so early? Nearly two years prior to the election, a full year prior to the normal presidential election cycle, and already we've got eight Democrats and eight Republicans officially throwing their hats in as contenders. The reason is simple: they want name recognition. Study after study shows that name recognition is always among the top reasons candidates get votes. It's one of the reasons actors and athletes are so popular in elections. This being said, those with name recognition, Barak Obama (D), Hillary Clinton (D), John McCain (R), and Rudy Guiliani (R) could probably all take their hats out of the race for now and save us the trouble of listening to them for at least a few months. Let the little guys get their faces in the paper. Maybe (though this is a pretty novel thought) they could focus on their consituents' wants as opposed to winning an election a full two years away. Wouldn't the money spent on these campaigns be better spent on real issues? Barak is partially forgiven, he's still young and has a support base mostly in Illinois. Hillary, John, and Rudy have no excuse.
Focusing on these sixteen that are officially in the race, if one goes to their websites, Hillary (D), Mike Huckabee (R), and Tommy Thompson (R) don't have an issues section on their sites. I forgive Al Gore (D) and Fred Thompson (R) (the latter of which has an understandably weak website) for not having issues sections, they haven't said they're running. Anyone who officially starts into the race however, should have something up on their belief system and what they support. Or do they simply not care, knowing they won't win but would like to waste everyone's time and at least gain a moment or two in the national spotlight. Or worse yet, do they already know what issues they need to support already because that's where they get the money?
What about age? If the retirement age is 65, wouldn't one think that 65 would be a good guideline for this job? Granted, a person doesn't go senile at 65, I know plenty of extremely sharp 80 year olds, but I'd think that 70 is probably a bit old to start thinking about first term. Saying that, Mike Gravel (D) will be 78 when the election takes place and McCain will be 72. What the hell are they thinking? My grandmother at 75 was a wonderful woman, but I'm not sure she would have been a great selection as commander in chief.
Not to leave anyone from the Washington Post out, in order to maintain that everyone got their election site plug here on my page, are some final thoughts (or not).
Joe Biden (D)
Chris Dodd (D)
John Edwards (D) - who amassed his fortune on the ever popular class action lawsuit. Based on his past I highly doubt he's not going to be working up the sympathy vote.
Dennis Kucinich (D) - Yes, it's a simple statement, but this guy is a nutjob.
Bill Richardson (D)
Sam Brownback (R) - no, he's not going to get by anyone wanting to make the jokes about the movie and "Brownback Mountain." It's like that name recognition thing, he's too closely associated with something else and as a result it will end up being a big joke.
Jim Gilmore (R)
Newt Gingrich (R) - how in the hell does a guy named "Newt" ever win anything (see Brownback, above)?
Chuck Hagel (R) - no actual dedicated site to his presidency, but he's forgiven as he hasn't said anything about running.
Duncan Hunter (R) - His website is "gohunter08." Is his campaign manager paying attention?
George Pataki (R)
and finally,
Mitt Romney (R) - Mitt. Enough said.