Someone actually upholds free speech for students

Posted on February 16, 2010 by Michael

The federal courts, in particular the Supreme Court, has a history of making incorrect decisions regarding free speech. In 2007 it ruled that student Joseph Frederick could not hold up a sign that read “Bong hits 4 Jesus” because it occurred during a school sponsored event. In reality, Frederick never entered school that day, so he was effectively an independent citizen on a public sidewalk. Why the Supreme Court never considered this fact remains a mystery.

However, sometimes the courts make the correct decisions. That is the case with Katherine Evans.

Ms. Evans’s suspension first came to the attention of the civil liberties union in 2007. Then a high school senior and an honor student, Ms. Evans repeatedly clashed with Ms. Phelps, her English teacher, over assignments, Ms. Evans has said.

She turned to Facebook to vent her frustration. At home on her computer, Ms. Evans created a Facebook page titled “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever had” and invited past and current students of Ms. Phelps to post their own comments.

A federal court just ruled that Evans does have the right to continue with her suit. This is the obviously correct decision. The ability of school administrators to limit the free speech rights of students ends with school grounds or school sponsored events. They cannot reach beyond the classroom and into the lives of students. In any case where they do (such as this one), they have violated the rights enshrined in the constitution.

“This is an important victory both for Ms. Evans and Internet free speech,” Ms. Kayanan said, “because it upholds the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression in America does not depend on the technology used to convey opinions and ideas.”

This becomes all the more obvious once one transplants the situation into something parallel. Say Evans was criticizing the administration or teachers or school in general – except instead of making a Facebook page, she wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. In that instance, a suspension would have been met with outrage. (Perhaps because old people would understand what was happening.) This situation is no different. The principal acted inappropriately and should have been able to see that in the first place.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

We’re Christian…we should be allowed to be disruptive!

Posted on February 16, 2010 by Michael

Pissant little parents in North Carolina, great abusers of the minds of children, have decided having their kids harass the science teacher is an okay thing to do.

A middle-school teacher in Wake County may be fired after she and her friends made caustic remarks on a Facebook page about her students, the South and Christianity.

Melissa Hussain, an eighth-grade science teacher at West Lake Middle School in Apex, was suspended with pay Friday while investigators review her case, according to Greg Thomas, a Wake schools spokesman. The suspension came after some of Hussain’s students and their parents objected to comments on her Facebook page, many of them revolving around her interaction with her Christian students.

Basically the kids were putting pictures of Jesus on her desk, reading their Bibles during class, and randomly breaking out into Jesus-song. They were asking irrelevant questions about God while learning about simple biology (because their parents evidently don’t want them to be prepared for Bio 101 in college). And, of course, the parents believe it is all okay because disruption is acceptable when it’s done under the guise of religion.

“She doesn’t have to be a professing Christian to be in the classroom,” [parent Annette Balint said. “But she can’t go the other way and not allow God to be mentioned.”

This tune would change pretty quickly if these were Muslim children trying to disrupt class.

This is clearly all just a blatant attempt to taunt the teacher. She has a right to post whatever she pleases on her Facebook page. In fact, what she posted was entirely reasonable.

Hussain wrote on the social-networking site that it was a “hate crime” that students anonymously left a Bible on her desk, and she told how she “was able to shame” her students over the incident. Her Facebook page included comments from friends about “ignorant Southern rednecks,” and one commenter suggested Hussain retaliate by bringing a Dale Earnhardt Jr. poster to class with a swastika drawn on the NASCAR driver’s forehead.

Take note. Hussain said it was a hate crime and that she was able to shame her students. I think she’s going a little over the top with the term “hate crime” – it’s blatant harassment and completely inappropriate and irresponsible of the parents, but not a crime – but it’s good that she was able to shame the students. They were acting out and misbehaving. How many times has a student not been made an example for doing that?

Also take note that the most ‘egregious’ comments came from her friends. Ignoring for a moment that the comments are entirely accurate, Hussain can hardly be blamed for the thoughts of her friends. And let’s take a moment and look at one of these thoughts: it was suggested she bring a Dale Earnhardt Jr. poster to class and draw a swastika on it. That puts things in perfect perspective: it would be inappropriate harassment if she actually did that. In fact, it would probably be a fireable action. But her students are doing the same thing. They’re needlessly taunting and harassing their teacher (at the request of their ignorant, science-hating, creationist, redneck parents). Since they’re only students and can’t be fired, they should at least be given detentions and, if the behavior continues, suspensions.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

We’re Christian…we should be allowed to hate!

Posted on February 16, 2010 by Michael

A group of crazy ol’ Christians isn’t too fond of some hate laws protecting people who are victims of crime based upon sexual orientation.

Far from the intended purpose of severely punishing criminals who commit unspeakable acts against a persecuted minority group, the religious activists claim the laws are a guarded effort to “eradicate” their beliefs.

If only.

Claiming “there is no need” to extend hate crimes definitions, Thomas More chief counsel Richard Thompson attempted to minimize the impact of violent crimes against homosexuals.

“Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation,” he wrote on the group’s Web site. “The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.”

Right. So long as it’s rare, it’s okay!

Of course, this is what the law actually says.

3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

This remind me of the deceitful tactics of the bigots of Maine during the recent vote on same-sex marriage. Over and over again we were told kids would be taught all about that icky gay marriage in schools. In reality, there was nothing in the bill about education and besides that, no one is taught anything about marriage as it stands. (What is there to be taught in schools? Two people get together, go to City Hall, get hitched. End of lesson.)

This sort of general immorality is quite common among these radical (but really mainstream) Christian groups. Hell, there are a significant number of people, primarily immoral Christians (sorry for the redundancy), who want the ‘right’ to be able to fire gays in the workplace. Such bigotry might fly in a place like Uganda, but it should have no place in a secular nation like the U.S.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Report a quack, get charged with a crime

Posted on February 14, 2010 by Michael

I just mentioned an incident where a quack ‘doctor’ was selling herbal remedies and other non-procedure procedures to his patients. Here is the full story. (And here is the summary I’m going to use.)

In Kermit, a small Texas town, two nurses at local hospital became concerned about the practices of one of the physicians, Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles, Jr. Among the alleged practices were the improper peddling of herbal medicines to hospital patients, and the performance of (sometimes unorthodox) surgical procedures without the appropriate privileges to do so. Anne Mitchell, RN, the nurse against whom charges are still filed, went to the hospital with her concerns and was fired, an act for which state reprimanded the hospital. Given the lack of response from the hospital, she went to the state medical board. When Dr. Arafiles found out that there was a complaint against him, he went to a local sheriff buddy of his, who tracked down the confidential report to the state medical board, and used the information in it to deduce the identity of the filers.

And then he charged them with a crime.

The crime was some trumped-up malarkey about misuse of information done in bad faith. It’s absolutely infuriating to read about this; some charlatan gets called out for being a charlatan, so he throws a hissy fit and brings down disproportional weight upon the person who is actually right. Do read the whole article to really see how crappy small-town Texas can be.

Fortunately, the trial has concluded.

But after a four-day trial in Andrews, Tex., a state court jury quickly found that the nurse, Anne Mitchell, was not guilty of the third-degree felony charge of “misuse of official information.” Conviction could have carried a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $10,000.

…

The jury foreman said the panel of six men and six women voted unanimously on the first ballot, and questioned why Mrs. Mitchell had ever been arrested.

Okay, so I want to amend my previous statement: Small town Texas authorities can be pretty awful. The members of the jury were entirely reasonable and rational. Oh, and they didn’t act like infants afterward:

Sheriff Roberts said he was disappointed in the verdict but did not regret the prosecution.

“The defense had to spin this as a reporting issue, that nurses were not going to be able to report bad medical care, and it’s never been that,” he said. “We encourage people to report bad medical care. But I encourage public servants to report it properly.”

She did report it properly, jackass. The only improper action here is from Roberts. He acted on behalf of a friend to ruin someone’s life. He should be removed from his position and prosecuted himself.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Happy Darwin Day

Posted on February 12, 2010 by Michael

It’s also Lincoln’s birthday. Can you guess who was more important?

(Hint: It’s not the guy on the right.)

Filed under: News | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on, Pat.

Posted on February 7, 2010 by Michael

I thought God was mad at New Orleans for their sins? But how did they win the Super Bowl? And then Drew Brees said “God is great”?! B-but this must mean Pat Robertson was wrong! Noooooooo!!!!

Filed under: Humor, News | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Suzanne Franks gets something right

Posted on February 6, 2010 by Michael

For those who weren’t here for Femi-crazy Invasion 2010 here at FTSOS, Suzanne Franks is one of those caricatures of feminists that really has no place in rational discussion. Hell, she demands people refer to her as “Zuska”, and should one refuse to delve into her weird Internet fantasy game, she’s liable to start throwing down some bans (or call you sexist: whatever works at the moment to get her whiny way).

She’s a forgettable character in the blogosphere, but I am still getting hits from her post all about me; I admit I clicked around a little recently. And one of the things I clicked was this post. It’s all about this image.

For Franks, there is no distinction between this image and the one in her post about CNN. She believes that virtually all images of the female body are sexist. The basis seems to be that since men tend to dominate and run things, pictures of women are only meant for the sake of objectification (except maybe face shots). In reality, this is just a ridiculous tool Franks and her friends use so they can whine that everything is sexist. And there’s no practical way that sexism can ever go away under this mis-definition. In essence, Franks should be pointing out nearly every picture of a woman under her caricature philosophy. The fact that she focuses on particular images belies what she probably actually recognizes – not all images are sexist.

In the image in question here, yes, it is actually sexist. Lindsey Vonn’s body is specifically being viewed at the expense of her other talents. One sports writer disagrees and it’s here that Franks takes out her frustrations and anger.

Silly ladeez! Chris Chase mansplains why you are WRONG!!!! (Though I note, alas, poor Chris is unable to actually directly link to the womentalksports.com post he is mansplaining.)

Because the ladybranes are tiny, I am here to help. I am going to translate Chris’s mansplaining post into a more direct communication that really gets the message across, so that even the teeniest tiniest ladybraned ladeez out there will understand what is meant. Chase’s original text is in boldface. Here we go!

She goes on and on from there, inserting some imaginary conversation she’s having in her head. This is where Franks is generally wrong. All she’s showing anyone (except her faithful in-group commenters) is that there are certain things that might please her if any reasonable man actually said them. She seems to have this sort of desire to hear a man say “but Vonn’s cover is awesome because, while she is posed in a classic come-hither-and-fuck-me-hard-you-know-you-wanna stance…” just so she can validate her philosophy in her head. If a man actually says it, then I’m right! Until then, I’ll just pretend really, really hard that men actually think this way.

One final, bit of a non-sequitur point on the term “mansplaining”. In the past Franks has tried to define the term, claiming that it isn’t just the act of explaining while male. Instead, it’s giving a condescending explanation to someone who does not need one. This is a lie because within that definition is the qualifier that it’s really a man explaining something to a woman, but that can be ignored for a moment because Franks and friends also point out that women can be guilty of “mansplaining”. Of course, they’d never be able to give any examples, but I can take this at face value. Let’s say, sure, anyone can mansplain. But then wherein lies the intrinsic masculinity? If anyone can do it, then there are two options. Either there is nothing inherently masculine about condescending explanation or Franks and friends are grouping the majority of men together as if there is something inherently wrong with how men behave. This is itself sexist since it is discriminating against one sex based upon an unfounded stereotype. (And here I use “sexist” correctly, i.e., discrimination based upon sex, not the doltish ‘it’s just discrimination of women’ definition caricature feminists have to offer.)

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Second-class citizenry

Posted on January 30, 2010 by Michael

Missouri Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard was hit by a vehicle that lost control in the snow on Christmas day. His partner will not see anything from the state.

Under the rules of the state pension system that covers the Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Transportation workers, if a trooper dies in the line of duty, his or her spouse is eligible for lifetime survivor benefits.

The yearly benefit is equal to half of the officer’s average salary during the officer’s highest-paid three years as a trooper. For Engelhard, the benefit would have been $28,138 a year.

Engelhard’s partner, Kelly Glossip, was at the hospital when Engelhard was pronounced dead. He mourned with the other troopers – just as they would have mourned for their own wives. The difference is that Missouri condones bigotry, so Glossip will not see any of that pension.

“I’d take 100 Dennis Engelhards. He was an outstanding trooper,” said Capt. Ronald Johnson, head of the Highway Patrol troop that covers St. Louis and surrounding counties. “His lifestyle had no bearing on his career.”

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

J.D. Salinger

Posted on January 29, 2010 by Michael

It’s a rare instance that I agree with Boston radio host Howie Carr – and today is one of those instances. His website has a daily poll and he reports the results each weekday. Obviously, the conservative position wins at least 80-20 every time and Carr pretty much is always with that majority. But today was different. The question was “Is ‘Catcher in the Rye’ overrated?”. The numbers were something like 60% “yes”. Carr responded, “No. It can’t be overrated. Don’t judge the book by your high school English teacher, people!” (paraphrased).

He’s absolutely right. Catcher in the Rye is one of the greatest books ever written. Maybe it’s because it’s usually cool to say ‘That’s not cool’ about whatever happens to be really popular – especially if it’s popular for a long time – that drives people to erroneously declare the book overrated. It isn’t. It can’t be.

Personally, this book ranks at the top of my list in a close fight with Animal Farm for the number two spot (All Quiet on the Western Front is my number one). The literary world is far better off with this book than without it.

That’s why it’s so unfortunate to hear that J.D. Salinger has died at 91.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

The French march on the burqa

Posted on January 28, 2010 by Michael

The French just seem to hate the burqa. A parliament report has recommended a ban of the burqa in certain circumstances.

In the end, the commission called on parliament to adopt a resolution stating that the all-encompassing veil was “contrary to the values of the republic” and proclaiming that “all of France is saying ‘no’ to the full veil”.

The National Assembly resolution would pave the way to legislation making it illegal for anyone to appear with their face covered at state-run institutions and in public transport, for reasons of security.

Women who turn up at the post office or any government building wearing the full veil would be denied services such as a work visa, residency papers or French citizenship, the report said.

It’s obvious this proposal has been inspired in part by fear of Islam, but it seems that there probably is some genuine concern for the equality of women.

I can sympathize with that concern; it’s obvious that the burqa is a tool used to tell women they are inferior. That’s it. Pat Condell goes off on this at some length. And I can sympathize with the need for national security. Where it is relevant, by all means ban the damn thing – at certain points within airports, in banks, etc. But where my sympathy for the French is entirely lost is with the rights and personal liberties of the individual. At no point should a government be allowed to intrude upon the right of any individual to dress in any sort of harmless manner. I hate the burqa as much as the next rational person, but I would hate to see it illegal for someone to freely practice her (or his) belief.

Sarkozy set the tone for the debate in June when he declared the burqa “not welcome” in France and described it as a symbol of women’s “subservience” that cannot be tolerated in a country that considers itself a human rights leader.

It is precisely that: a symbol. And should a woman be forced to wear this symbol by another person, that is a human rights violation. But if the woman chooses to wear an ugly mask, no government has the right to tell her otherwise.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »