Soapbox

About a year ago, a middle school student was sent home from chool for refusing to change his shirt, which had a bible verse on the front and on the back said,
“Homosexuality is a sin. Islam is a lie. Abortion is murder. Some things are just black and white.”
The school felt that school was not an appropriate place for such an inflammatory message, but his parents (who no doubt bought him the shirt from Operation Rscue) disagreed and, backed by the deep pockets of a right-wing group, took them to court.

I read with true sadness that a U. S. district court judge ruled yesterday that bigotry and hatred are neither distracting or “clearly offensive” to young Ohioans. (“Student Wins T-shirt verdict” Aug 19th)

Well I would like to go on record as saying that a child wearing a shirt that says “Homosexuality is a sin. Islam is a lie” is deeply offensive to me, at least. In addition to being appalled at the sort of parents who would make their child a human billboard to advertise their hate, I find Judge Smith’s decision breath-takingly activist.

I am hemming up Katie’s pants this week because they may not touch the floor when she walks, and she is not allowed to wear a bandannas in the building, just in case it might be a gang symbol- but the judge thinks this is A-OK in Ohio schools?

There are all sorts of dress code restrictions at schools, for good reasons. Middle school and elementary schools in particular are really not an appropriate place for strong religious or political statements by kids. What if a kid showed up at the judge’s son’s class with a shirt that said
“Right wing fundamentalists pervert the word of God“?
While I agree with that sentiment, I also feel that it was wholly inappropriate for them to wear a shirt that insults a large group- any group- of people IN SCHOOL. I would have no problem with John Kerry shirts being banned at a school, as long as George Bush shirts were banned too. Keep politics and religion out of public school.

Conservatives say “there you liberals go, being a slave to the politically correct” but when did tolerance become a dirty word in Ohio? My issue is not with a person’s right to espouse a belief that I personally think is wrong. When you start saying it’s not disruptive or offensive for a kid to wear a shirt that reduces the world’s largest religion to “a lie” to his school– why not approve one that says “Eliminate black unemployment: Repeal the 15th amendment!” ? Well, a person has a right to wear a shirt that espouses the philosophy of the kkk, but NOT TO SCHOOL when they’re 12 years old!

This is why so many schools resort to school uniforms, and who can blame them? It just makes sense to eliminate all these bumpy issues: Is it a gang symbol or just a bandanna? Is it OK to demean every Muslim on the face of the earth in 6th grade or not? Lets’ just say NO shirts with any words or pictures on them other than the school name, NO hats of any kind, etc. and then we can spend more time worrying about passing those moronic tests we saddle our children with every year and less over this redneck kids’ urge to insult people he doesn’t even know.

My issue is not with the hateful, nasty shirt or his right to wear it while hanging out at the corner dipping snuff with his pointy-headed friends. My issue is that there are things that our public schools were never intended to teach. Religion is one, hate is another. This shirt is about both.

In their warm and fuzzy biography of the oh-so-photogenic John G. Roberts, Supreme Court nominee, the Columbus Dispatch neglected to mention several important statements and rulings by Roberts. Here are a few facts about his disturbingly sparse record that should be known.

Roberts argued against renewing the Voting Rights Act. He also found in favor of police handcuffing a 12 year old girl for eating one french fry on the subway, even though adults in similar situations were merely issued tickets. Roberts ruled against American POW’s from the first Gulf War who wanted to sue Sadaam Hussein for the abuse they suffered in his custody, saying they were not entitled to sue for damages from a large pool of frozen assets of Hussein.

In the year 2000 Roberts was an important part of the legal team that fought to allow George Bush to be improperly declared the winner of the election in the state of Florida.

While on the Court of Appeals Roberts ruled that the American people have no right to learn the truth about whatever unsavory details of his energy task force meetings Vice President Dick Cheney is so determined to keep secret.

As deputy solicitor general, Roberts argued that those whom President Bush labels “Enemy combatants” have no rights under the Geneva conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other set of guidelines and are, in effect, non-persons. He further found that just the president’s word that these beings are enemies is all the proof needed to strip them of their rights. Roberts ruling was in direct contrast to Justice O’Connor who ruled that the president does not have a “blank check” to act without restraint even in war.
Interestingly, 4 days after Roberts found in favor of Bush and against the people of the world, he was rewarded with a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

None of these facts means that John Roberts is not a bright, qualified jurist, or that he would not uphold the Constitution and the rights of American citizens if his nomination were confirmed. He is hardly the only poerson out there who meets those standards, however. Before this man is given the opportunity to affect the lives of every person in this nation by being on the Supreme Court for possibly the next 30 years, we should, if possible, look beyond the Breck girl good looks and the cute family the media shows us to what lies underneath.

I was confused today by an editorial in The Dispatch called “Forbidden Notions”. The editor asserted that student Scott McConnell, who wrote that he thought he should be allowed to hit children in his classroom and that multi-cultural education is un-American, should not have been asked to leave Le Moyne Jesuit College in New York.

I agree. But if having unusual ideas should not prevent one from getting an education, neither should it prevent one from teaching. It is ironic that under Rep. Larry Mumper’s proposed “college witch hunt” bill, a professor with the above stated views would not be allowed to teach them at a public college in Ohio if someone found them “controversial” (which I certainly do). Yet the Dispatch has not taken a public stand on this legislation. Is free speech to be protected only when it is the students speaking?

I am not sure just what McConnell finds offensive about learning the role other cultures have played in shaping American society, but I expect there are many schools who would be happy to employ him, paddle and all. As a parent, I would prefer that my child not be in his class, but that is a separate issue. As the paper states, just because he thinks that corpral punishment is a valid educational “tool” that doesn’t mean that he would spank student if school policy forbade it.

What confuses me is that The Dispatch suddenly finds this issue worthy of taking an editorial stand. Why have we not heard similar concern from them that student’s can be dismissed from Bob Jones University for listening to Christian Rock or holding hands with someone of the opposite race? Isn’t this an equally egregious violation of personal liberty? Aren’t they denying students an education just because of a belief or activity that surely has nothing to do with their education, unlike McConnell’s case? Surely The Dispatch is not concerned only when conservative speech is suppressed!

Bob Jones is a private, religious college and as such is allowed to have controversial, even ridiculous standards for their students if they wish. So is Le Moyne college. If they do not want to be known for having a graduate who wants to hit children and teach that learning about others is treasonous, so be it! I’m sure there are plenty of other colleges where McConnell’s unusual views would be welcomed.

Just not in Ohio. We don’t allow controversial ideas here. Well not liberal ones, anyway.

Yesterday, in a naked grab for political capital, the congress of the United States enacted emergency legislation to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, the woman in Florida whose feeding tube was removed over the weekend to allow her to die at last.

I am at a loss to explain yesterday’s action by Congress in this case. Why has congress been silent for 15 years while ump-teen judges ruled on this case? Does Dennis Hastert, who insists that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state suddenly know more about medicine than the doctors who have run test after test and all the judges who painstakingly reviewed the evidence?

It is completely hypocritical for the President to be so eager to sign this bill to keep Terri alive. You see, when he was governor of Texas, ( in addition to executing more prisoners than any governor in U.S. history) George Bush also signed a little bill called the Texas Futile Care law. Ever heard of it? It allows hospitals to terminate life support in patients with no hope of revival if they are poor and cannot pay for their care. Just last week, against its mothers wishes, a baby in Texas was removed from life support under this law. Can the President explain why Terri matters and that baby and others like it do not?

Surely it couldn’t have anything to do with their ability to pay? Because under the tort reform champoined by the president and fellow republicans, families like the Schiavos would no longer be able to file malpractice claims like the one whose award is paying for Terri’s care, the care they want to continue. And under the bankruptcy bill just passed, families who can’t get a malpractice award to pay their staggering medical bills would be unable to file for bankruptcy protection to keep from losing the shirts off their backs to pay those bills.

The sad truth is that people in this country have their feeding tubes removed and are allowed to die peacefully every week. Why have congress and the president never cared about any of them? Because there was never political hay to be made from careing. A memo leaked to the Washington Post reminds Republicans that intervention on this issue will please their religious base and put the democrats in a tough spot. Indeed, 47 Democrats in the house voted for the bill, rather than be painted “pro-death” by George the baby killer.

If congress is so concerned with questions of life and death, why did they refuse to investigate the 107 prisoners who have died in U.S. custody since the war began? Many of their deaths would make Terri Schiavo’s seem like a walk in the park!
I empathize with the family members on both sides of this tragic case and they are in my prayers. I also find it hypocritical and inappropriate for Congress to act so intrusively and exploit this suffering for political gain.

Some good can still come of this tragedy if it reminds us all to sign a living will today!

Yesterday the US senate missed yet another chance to plan work toward true energy independence of America when they voted to open the Arctic National Refuge to oil drilling. Supporters of this measure said that despoiling one of the last remaining pristine places on earth is a matter of “national security”. Senator Thune spoke of the high gas prices in his state, as if drilling ANWAR is going to bring gas prices down.

The truth is very different than we have been led to believe.

The Arctic National Refuge is estimated to contain approximately a 6 month’s supply (at current rates) of oil. The U.S. could save that much right now simply by increasing mileage standards in cars by only a few mpg. It is believed it will take nearly 10 years for the oil from ANWAR to be recovered and processed, and even then, it will probably not end up in your tank. The oil will probably be sold to China and Japan, for a greater profit for the oil companies. Remind me again why we are drilling there?

Our national security is much more threatened by the fact that China owns a huge and growing portion of our National Debt. It’s true that US dependence on foreign oil is a problem, but how will 6 months more oil for Asia change that? Conservation, mass transit and alternative energy research will do far more to address that concern.

If the Bush administration is concerned about energy independence, why have they just eliminated ALL funding for Amtrak? Many republicans have the ridiculous idea that Amtrak is a failure because it does not completely pay for itself. A modern and efficient high-speed rail system, such as the TGV in France, could save the country billions in highway construction costs and reduce dependence on foreign oil in a way ANWAR can never do. Yet we will continue to bail-out the airline industry and provide back-door subsidies for big oil and the auto makers by pouring money into highways, while killing a transportation system that could help secure the future of this vast country.

Congratulations Senator Mike DeWine for seeing through the rhetoric and voting against ANWAR drilling. Shame on George Voinovich for once again voting to short-change the future of America.