The Dallas Morning News had an editorial called "It's tough to stomach, but hateful speech is still free speech" that made me really think about First Amendment rights set into full effect. They talk about the members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Its founder is Fred Phelps and many members are related to him. They are nationally well-known for their protests against homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus and have even chosen to show up at U.S military funerals.
The editorial goes on to talk about how the members think that the "U.S. military deaths is God's punishment for America's intolerance of homosexuals." To make matters worse, they even showed up at Albert Snyder's son's funeral with their picket signs. His son got killed in Iraq in 2006. He ended up suing Westboro in federal court for "intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon conclusion, and civil conspiracy." Snyder actually won $10 million in trial court. That verdict got overturned by the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Mainly because they did not break any laws. They have the First Amendment on their side with this one.
What exactly is the First Amendment? It clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This laid out freedom of religion, of speech, of press, and of protest. It also gave the people the right to petition against the government to make them pay back for some harm they might have done.
Words do hurt no matter what the old saying about sticks and stones says. But, no matter how much the words hurt, there is a thing called freedom of speech and protest. I do not agree whatsoever what the members of Westboro did. They are not the voice for all of the United States, but let's face it, there are quite a few Americans that will agree. There is prejudice out there in every race, gender, nationality, no matter what people say, but the First Amendment will protect what you say according to this editorial. Sad but so true!
Friday, March 11, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Polls Mean Nothing....That's Why Voting is a MUST....
I read an interesting editorial in USA Today called "A president's midpoint polls can be deceiving". The editorial is USA Today's view on this issue. This was an editorial about how presidential midpoint polls, don't necessarily mean that that President will get re-elected or not. That was the conclusion.
They talked about what the President's 2nd State of the Union Address is supposed to mean. They said it is like a re-election bid. They also said it "provides an excuse to evaluate his first two years". To be honest, I never knew what the main reason for a State of the Union Address was. I did know it usually interrupted my tv shows though. I did know it had something to do with something the President had to say to the country.
USA Today stated that President Obama's approval rating dropped a bit and now is back at 50%. They talked about past presidents approval ratings. According to Gallup, they explained, the 1st President Bush had the best poll numbers after two years. His rating was a whopping 82%. They go on to say that after the elder Bush went on to "lose his re-election bid to Bill Clinton". The President with the lowest rating after his 1st two years was Ronald Reagan. Even after a low rating, Reagan was re-elected by a landslide and they go on to say that even 30 years after his inauguration, Reagan is "widely regarded to have been a successful and consequential president."
With all this being said, they said Obama is in the middle among the recent presidents in the 1st two years of their presidency. The conclusion that USA Today came to was that "the polls make for interesting snapshots in time, but they are lousy crystal balls."
I agree that with this editorial because with all the polls that were taken and all the evidence showing that the polls didn't matter, Obama has a 50/50 chance of being re-elected because, according to the poll, he is at 50%. Even the president with the highest rating didn't get re-elected and the one with the lowest rating won by a big margin. That is something in itself. This is why it's a VERY good idea to vote and make your voice known.
They talked about what the President's 2nd State of the Union Address is supposed to mean. They said it is like a re-election bid. They also said it "provides an excuse to evaluate his first two years". To be honest, I never knew what the main reason for a State of the Union Address was. I did know it usually interrupted my tv shows though. I did know it had something to do with something the President had to say to the country.
USA Today stated that President Obama's approval rating dropped a bit and now is back at 50%. They talked about past presidents approval ratings. According to Gallup, they explained, the 1st President Bush had the best poll numbers after two years. His rating was a whopping 82%. They go on to say that after the elder Bush went on to "lose his re-election bid to Bill Clinton". The President with the lowest rating after his 1st two years was Ronald Reagan. Even after a low rating, Reagan was re-elected by a landslide and they go on to say that even 30 years after his inauguration, Reagan is "widely regarded to have been a successful and consequential president."
With all this being said, they said Obama is in the middle among the recent presidents in the 1st two years of their presidency. The conclusion that USA Today came to was that "the polls make for interesting snapshots in time, but they are lousy crystal balls."
I agree that with this editorial because with all the polls that were taken and all the evidence showing that the polls didn't matter, Obama has a 50/50 chance of being re-elected because, according to the poll, he is at 50%. Even the president with the highest rating didn't get re-elected and the one with the lowest rating won by a big margin. That is something in itself. This is why it's a VERY good idea to vote and make your voice known.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The Austin American Statesman had a very interesting article that I just had to share. The article is called "Change in 'sexting' bill adds education for teens' parents". It talks about how the parents could be held accountable for their teenager texting nude pictures of themselves along with their teen. Attorney General Greg Abbott and state Senator Kirk Watson, D-Austin said "wording has been added to Senate Bill 407 that would allow judges to order minors and a parent to participate in an education program about the detrimental social and criminal aspects of texting explicit images." This article has some information that I did not realize about the laws against 'sexting'. It talks about the current laws' fines and penalties for 'sexting'. I think everybody should read this article to be well informed. I hope you all find this information as intriguing as I did. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)