As America braces itself for the upcoming election, I too am starting to think about for whom I’m going to vote. I’m very excited about finally being able to vote, after so many years of following politics and not being able to participate in the process. And even though I plan to register as a Democrat, I would have no qualms about voting for a moderate Republican who fosters bipartisanship.

The problem is, no such Republican exists. I’ve watched the debates in South Carolina; I’ve watched the debates in Florida; and I am convinced, now more than ever, that these four Republican candidates are more concerned about proving their conservative credentials than about what is good and healthy for the country.

The issue of abortion is just one example of their extreme stances that are not copasetic with the rest of the country’s mentality. During  the South Carolina debate, I watched those four intelligent, respectable politicians spend 20 minutes arguing who was more pro-life than the other. They were like children, obsessed with proving themselves without thinking about how such a ban on abortion would affect America’s sense of freedom.

In 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, the decision was 7-2. Everyone agreed that although abortion isn’t a good thing, not giving people at least the choice to get an abortion is even worse. However a different breed of Republicans was on the Court back then – like Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Lewis F. Powell, Harry Blackmun and Potter Stewart – who were able to separate their personal perspectives from their Constitutional perspectives and did not feel the need to perpetuate this militancy in regard to certain social issues. With the advent of the arrogant evangelical movement and the rise of the Tea Party, these Republicans are no more; their eradication – and the rise of the pro-life movement – is killing bipartisanship, compromise, the concept of moderation and American freedoms.

As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his opinion in Roe, “few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman’s decision – with the guidance of her physician and within the limits specified in Roe – whether to end her pregnancy. A woman’s right to make that choice freely is fundamental.” It is this fundamental right that Republicans seek to terminate. Quite frankly, the idea of that happening makes me nauseous, and I urge everyone evaluating the issue to separate your political beliefs from your personal beliefs.

Personally, I would never suggest or advocate for anyone I know to go out and actively get an abortion – they are morally repugnant to my own religious ideas and basic morals regarding virtue and humanity. However, I am also not going to be so pompous as to suggest that everyone should have the same morals and religious beliefs as I do. It is, after all, a key concept of American Constitutional law that the government shall not legislate based on religious principles. Evangelical Republicans, however, seek to change that, and they believe that their views on life should be everyone’s views on life. This, however, is not the proper mindset with regards to evangelism, which should be about respectful discussion, offering to take a non-Christian friend to church, and talking about why Christ is the savior – not cruel condemnation, harsh denunciation and severe diatribe.

For some strange reason, I don’t see these sanctimonious pro-life people, who spend countless hours standing along street corners or protesting in front of abortion clinics, actually take initiative themselves and work to be foster or adoptive parents. Instead of working toward helping women who cannot keep their babies in way that would be more pursuant to their (and my) Christian beliefs, they feel the need to spend their time protesting without thinking of the Constitutional crisis for which they are advocating.

Everyone can sensibly understand that murder is wrong and that is it is OK to ban murder – that is part of an occidental secular moral code; however, how can we say that terminating the development of something that is not even alive is murder? Too often, pro-life proponents use the phrase “the rights of the unborn” to defend a ban on abortion. I ask the question: How can a fetus have rights if it is not born? I understand why abortions should be limited after viability. I understand when some say that at that point a fetus actually possesses the constitutionally protected right to life.

But this is not what these Republicans are seeking to do – they strive to ban abortion straight out, which in turn, deprives women of the “fundamental human right to make one’s own children bearing decision,” in the words of Gloria Feldt, former Planned Parenthood president.

In this way, these candidates are also directly attacking our concept of democracy as we know it. As Justice William O. Douglas once said, “The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.” I firmly believe Justice Douglas when he says this. There are many things that people do that perhaps they should not do, but that they should still have a right to do – things such as looking at pornography, advocating for the violent overthrow of the government, being a member of the Ku Klux Klan; and even getting an abortion. But Constitutional protection is not about endorsing actions; it’s about protecting them to ensure a free and democratic society. It’s about giving citizens the privacy to make personal decisions about their actions.

This argument today should not be solely about abortion – in fact, it probably should not be about abortion at all. Rather, it should be about privacy, arguably the most important American right. It is, after all, the root of all other freedoms. Without privacy, the people would be totally beholden to the government, and the government would have complete power over the people. Without the right to privacy, the American government and the Party in the novel 1984 would be one in the same. Oceania and the United States would become synonymous.

The people’s right to privacy is what differentiates democracies from totalitarian regimes. The right to privacy is what maintains the autonomy of the people from which all of the rights of the Bill Rights branch off. That is what we should be thinking of today. We should be thinking about that and liberty – an explicitly protected Constitutional right. The idea that the Constitution does not protect a right to privacy – such an essential, innate and fundamental right – is absolutely absurd. The Ninth Amendment indicates that the founders meant for other implicit rights to be protected, and the first Eight Amendments also by and large indicate that there is an endowed right to privacy.

Furthermore, history teaches us that the countries that don’t grant their citizens some modicum of privacy quickly undergo a metamorphosis into vicious dictatorial governments. That being said, though, even without the right to privacy, the right to choose to get an abortion would still be encompassed in the right to liberty – the liberty to make very personal decisions about your body. Once the government starts telling its citizens what it can do with their bodies, then all democracy – all semblance of freedom – is lost; theUnited Stateswould have started on a slippery slope that will surely lead to oppression.

Liberty has been an explicit part of American government since the Declaration of Independence and is assured to the people in both the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. These two freedoms, liberty and privacy, are what the Republicans are seeking to strip from the American people – these two freedoms are what the Republicans are seeking to strip from the Constitution.

During the South Carolina debate, former Speaker Gingrich criticized the “pro-abortion” movement. What movement is this again? I know I don’t adhere to such a school of thought. I find Gingrich’s reference to the “pro-choice” camp is offensive; I am in no way for abortion, but I am in every way for the woman’s choice to get an abortion in the first trimester. Gingrich’s word choice is indicative of these Republicans’ all-or-nothing mindsets. If you’re not for abortion, you can’t be for the choice to get an abortion. And that is simply not the case – with any issue. There are always shades of gray between black and white. Their mentality is dangerous; this mentality will kill American politics – and the country. This is not just about abortion; this is about the very future of our country.

Last week, in a column Zach Jarrell claimed that the country needs an extremist politician and that moderates are in some way “weak.” I cannot disagree more. A moderate is exactly what the country needs – someone who can be a respectable figurehead for America without going on militant tirades about their sense of right or wrong; someone who can unite both sides of the political aisle; someone who can compromise and work to get us out of debt. Most importantly, we need someone who can foster much-needed cooperation and compromise in Washington.

A moderate is the future of America. I seriously don’t think that person is President Obama, but I’m sure it’s not one of the four Republican candidates.

Ron Paul seems to be the scary second choice. He has enough support to consistently remain a top contestant, but he can’t get enough to win a state. Newt Gingrich is hanging on by his fingertips at a consistent fourth. He’s remaining in the race now more for his own pride than his actual chances of winning. He’s been criticized for switching from his talk about a “positive campaign” to making ads hammering Romney.

The final candidate is former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Santorum began his campaign as the laughing stock of the race. A week before Iowa, he was only in single digits in the polls. After visiting every county inIowa, including 35 pizza joints, he managed to surge to an apparent second, finishing eight votes behind Romney. But the GOP recently recounted the votes and is now declaring Santorum the winner ofIowa.  He spent little time inNew Hampshire, where Romney was the obvious leader. Instead, he chose to focus on South Carolina for its Jan. 21 primary.

My personal choice for 2012? Well, I was all in for Herman Cain, but he dropped. In fact, if he were still in the race, I think he would be the easy winner of the Republican nomination. But unfortunately, I can’t pick him now. The rest is a tough crowd to choose from and I’m more comfortable choosing who I don’t want. Here’s how I see the people who are left.

Ron Paul is scary

The No. 1 person who scares me is Ron Paul. I agree with a lot of his views, but he takes them to extremes that are even too big for me. I almost fear that Paul would get rid of the federal government entirely. I’m all for giving the states more power, but we can’t have a nation as strong as we are without some type of federal government. Look what happened with the Articles of Confederation. They were great for establishing a mail service and bringing the Northwest Ordinance, but some key things such as building an army were not very feasible. The federal government needs to be there, just not as big as it is now.

Gingrich’s time has passed

Next I would have to eliminate Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has been in Washington forever and I believe his time has come to leave.  He is a little too sketchy for my tastes. I don’t like the fact that he’s had a ton wives, though I don’t think that should be a huge issue. He also is just too much of a politician. Politicians aren’t the most trustworthy people and he has certainly been one for a long time. Granted, a candidate needs more experience politically than Obama had, but Washington is one the most corrupting places in the world. Gingrich also is a believer of global warming, something I have not seen strong enough evidence for and that most conservatives don’t believe exists.

Romney is a flip-flopper

Mitt Romney is an interesting character. He was growing on me for a time. I disagreed with his views almost as much as Jon Huntsman’s, but I thought he had the best chance of beating Obama. Romney was even getting the endorsements of some of my favorite people such as Chris Christie and Ann Coulter. But I’m starting to see he is a flip-flopper. I don’t like Romney-Care, and I think he has shown a more moderate past. Our country needs more than a moderate to get out of the hole it’s in. Romney seems to base his views on what’s popular and doesn’t really have his own opinions. He’s very power-hungry; I think he just wants the power that comes with the presidency.

Santorum gets my vote

That leaves me with one choice. (I won’t even consider Vermin Supreme, the candidate who promises ponies for everybody if he becomes president). I will be voting for Rick Santorum this March.  His views are most consistent with my own, and after his win in Iowa, I believe he could run a considerable campaign.

Santorum is the most socially conservative of the bunch. In his Senate career, he added the Santorum Amendment to Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment states that “where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.”

Santorum is also willing to defend America to whatever extent it takes. He will clearly identify who our enemies and allies are, unlike Obama who has shown much more hostility to our friends in Israel than our other enemies in the Middle East. Some people fear that Santorum will lead us to war with Iran, but people thought the same thing about Ronald Reagan when he was elected.

Santorum is the best choice for presidency at this rate. He is a very conservative candidate and a leader that could rally the nation for a victory over Obama.

Saturday, Jan. 21, will be a very important date for this year’s Republican nomination. It has the potential to show a shift in the GOP leader or knock a candidate or two out of the race. Whatever happens, there is almost no doubt that they will be better than Obama.

I finally decided to put down “nerd” … I fit the bill pretty well. That’s when I saw that HumanKIND Day would be something more than a fun event and a day out of classes.

The second annual HumanKIND Day at Fairmont High School took place on Dec. 10, 2011. The daylong event, sponsored by Growing Peace, involved about 100 students and 8 staff members, and the goal was to help students learn ways that humans are the same in order to foster peace among us. Some of the participants had eagerly signed up to participate in HumanKIND Day, while others were contacted and urged to participate. No one, however, was forced to sign up.

I started the day in the gym, listing to Fairmont Principal Dan VonHandorf and Growing Peace Adviser Jessica Kelly introduce the guest speakers. The visitors came from places like T.J.’s Place of Hope and the Dayton International Peace Museum to talk to everybody about peace. As I heard the list of people and the places they represented, I grew more interested in hearing what they had to say to us.

After they spoke, the entire group of participated in an activity called Enter the Circle, and it had a very big impact on me.

In Enter the Circle, Kelly said a statement that ranged from something as simple as “Enter the circle if you are a boy” to deeper distinctions such as “Enter the circle if you have ever felt unattractive” or “Enter the circle if anyone has ever made fun of you.” All you could hear during the activity were Kelly asking the questions and the footsteps of the other students.

By the end of the activity, I had gained a great appreciation of the fact that other people have the same feelings that I do. As I left that event, I was ready and excited to see what else they had planned for us.

After Enter the Circle, we all headed to the library, which featured a number of stations that offered different activities.  I started with the stereotype activity. As I said, everyone had to label themselves and put it on a nametag. The introductory session in the gym had prepared me to be open and honest about all the possibilities for my own label. Even after I decided on “nerd,” I kept thinking of more possibilities. Out of all the activities we did, I think this one had the biggest impact on me.

I continued through the other nine stations and their activities. I learned a lot through many of them, especially from the speakers from the Dayton International Peace Museum and the T.J.’s Place of Hope. All the activities gave me a new perspective on how to look at certain situations, and I had a lot of fun with the group discussions. It was great to hear what the other members of the group thought.

I really enjoyed all of the activities and found that there was always something that I could draw from one of them to use in my daily life. The speaker from the Dayton International Peace Museum told us that we can start the day on a positive note by complimenting ourselves on something, instead of starting it in a negative way by complaning about the morning. I’ve taken to doing just that after he spoke to us.

After we had gone through all of the activities and eaten, the entire group headed down to the Recital Hall and watched a documentary called “God Grew Tired of Us.” It was about the Sudan Civil War and the negative way it affected the children of raided villages.

The scenes they showed were horribly sad to watch, but I couldn’t look away. I saw the boys of the villages having to walk hundreds of miles to find any sort of shelter, their bodies malnourished from the long walks and lack of nutrition. I was happy to see that the scenes changed to most of those same children in a refugee camp years later, with a group of them waiting to go to America.

I really loved the scenes of the boys’ first introduction to America. Everything was so new to them; it was funny to see how they did some of the things that we consider routine. For example, one morning they woke up and instead of making coffee, they mashed crackers together and mixed it with milk, all in the coffee jug. Everyone laughed at this point, but it still showed us how they started to adapt to our society. I had to leave early for a scheduled photograph, but I enjoyed every single moment of the documentary that I got to see.

I truly enjoyed HumanKIND Day. I had a ton of fun, and I got to learn a lot about how to live a more peaceful life with other people. I’m hoping that there will be another HumanKIND day next year; if so, I will definitely sign up!

from Zach Jarrell

Merry Christmas! That’s right. I said, “Merry Christmas.” I’m writing for a public school newspaper and I said, “Merry Christmas.”

Some people may find this offensive, but I really don’t care. I am a Christian, and I believe that as a Christian, I should be able to celebrate my holiday without worrying about offending those around me. The government should not be able to stop me from expressing myself. Even the governor of Rhode Island is now calling a Christmas tree a “Holiday tree.” I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of a Kwanzaa or a Hanukah Tree, but if they exist, please tell me.

As it is now, Christmas has become very much of a secular holiday. Many things have been done that have caused the original meaning to be lost. For example, look at Santa. Where in the Christmas story of the Bible is Santa? Nowhere. He was added to the holiday much later.  I will concede the fact that he was based on Saint Nicholas, but in most people’s minds, Santa is now just a big guy in a red suit who brings gifts for good children.

Now I don’t mean to say Santa is the devil for invading the Christmas story, but he has caused many people to lose sight of what Christmas is. And even he has now been banned from Stockton, Calif., school district, along with poinsettias. What has a poinsettia ever done to anyone? It’s a flower.

Let’s also look at department stores. Christmas is when department stores make the most money. People go everywhere to buy things on everyone’s lists. And while people buy, buy, buy, the stores rake in the money. I’m a huge fan of capitalism and if people are willing to buy, let the stores make as much money as they want, but I don’t think they are remembering the true story behind Christmas. Christmas has begun to create more stress than happiness. So if Christmas is such a secular holiday now, why do people care when a government puts up a Christmas tree?

One of my other big beefs is when people get mad at the sight of a Nativity scene, and God forbid if the government puts one up. Cities and towns around the nation are now being forced to take down Nativity scenes due to only one complaint. In Santa Monica, Calif., the Nativity scene that has been a tradition for more than 60 years is drawing complaints from some atheists, who aren’t even residents, causing city officials to take it down.

In Henderson County, Texas, atheist groups are demanding that the government take down the Nativity scene in front of the courthouse. One person or group should not be able to dictate what the city does and does not do. If they really feel that strongly about it, then make a petition saying the government cannot put up a Nativity scene or anything else in reference to Christianity. If you have enough people on your side, then you can get the issue on the ballot and let the people vote. This is called democracy and it’s what our country is based on. We got rid of the rule of one more than 200 years ago.

And so you know I’m not one-sided, if the government puts up a menorah or a kinara, let them. I don’t care. The government is not telling me what to celebrate. They have not established a religion; therefore, they are still within the bounds of the First Amendment.

This brings me to the meat of the situation. The First Amendment in no way says that the government and the church cannot interact. All the First Amendment says is that the government cannot establish a public religion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines establish as “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement.” Nowhere is there a law saying people must worship the plastic Baby Jesus.

In fact, the government is actually prohibiting some people from practicing their religion.  Teachers in public schools are not allowed to pray. Some judges have been forced to take the Ten Commandments down from their courtrooms. Now tell me how that is religious freedom.

Our Founding Fathers would not be for this. “If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free,” said our second president, John Adams. Signer of the Constitution and Supreme Court Justice James Wilson once said: “[L]aw, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God … . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine … . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

If there is no religion, where do we get morals? There is no such thing as a universal morality. Natural law is to do what gets you ahead. If that takes murder and theft, then there’s nothing stopping you. All morals come from religion; therefore, laws like those prohibiting murder and theft are coming from a religious standpoint. Our country is based on Christianity.  That’s the simple fact of the matter. The more we stray from our Judeo-Christian base, the more we stray from the original intent of our country. The less we incorporate religion into our laws, the less law we can actually have.

Incorporating religion into law is a requirement for a country to have a moral base. To say religion and politics are two separate things is pure and utter stupidity. They are one in the same. Laws are based on morals, and morals have to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a universal morality. In the wise words of Stanley Hudson from The Office, “Christmas is Christmas is Christmas is Christmas. Just give me plain-old-Baby-Jesus-lying-in-a-manger Christmas.”

A liberal view

from Paqui Toscano

I go to church every Sunday. I sing the hymns every Sunday and pray every day. I have been confirmed and play Christian music as I get ready to come to school in the morning. I consider myself a devout Christian.

I also am a huge proponent of strict separation of church and state. My fellow Flyer writer, and other conservatives, would have you believe that these two things are mutually exclusive. I, however, vehemently disagree.

The concept of separation of church and state is tricky enough as it is, let alone when Christmas season comes around – what is “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” becomes even more complicated. In what ways can cities, school teachers, principals, presidents, mayors and other officials reference Christmas? What can be displayed? More importantly, what can’t? These are the questions that plague our society when it comes to Christmas.

My feeling: little reference to Christmas can be made by government officials.

Since I’m essentially talking about a debate regarding the separation of church and state, it would remiss to not at least mention the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Together, these two clauses read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These few words have been the cause of so much debate.

In the past, the Supreme Court has used the Establishment clause to strike down praying in public schools, the display of standalone statues of the Ten Commandments, and Nativity scenes with a clearly ecclesiastical message. I could not agree with their decisions more. Although strict constructionists may and do argue that the original intent of the framers was to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion, and thus, all other entanglements of church and state are completely constitutionally permissible, their logical fails to include basic common sense.

Teachers or principles who try to promote religion; judges who display the Ten Commandments in their Courtroom; crosses on government-owed property – what do conservatives think that this is doing?

It is by all accounts and purposes establishing a state-sanctioned religion. At the very least, this is clear promotion of a certain religion by the state. It is government action respecting a particular religion, thus, also trying to exert governmental influence on non-Christian citizens, in turn violating their right to practice their religion freely. Judges, government officials, teachers and principals who depend so much on religious texts are not following the rules of the school or Constitutional guidelines, which is one of the surest ways I know of fostering despotic command.

When it comes to Christmas, most “pious” conservative, Christians argue that because Christmas has become such a secularized holiday, that the normal rules governing separation of church and state don’t apply. To these people I ask, what happened to your faith? The word Christmas has “Christ” in it. How much more ecclesiastical can you get? To say that the word Christmas and celebration of Christmas doesn’t have religious value is a slam against Christianity.

With that being said, the next question is, how many references to Christianity can government officials or government employees, teachers, principals, mayors, presidents, judges, congressmen, and other state officials make? To start with, I say Christmas tree lightings with the mayor and Nativity scenes on government-owned property are definitely out.

To have a government-sponsored Christmas tree lighting is the very religious entanglement that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is trying to protect against. These are entanglements that can lead to state-sanctioned religions, if only unofficially. Now, that’s not to say that you can’t have a holiday tree lighting – that’s a perfectly acceptable secular version of the once inherently ecclesiastical in nature tradition. Those people who come that are Christian can assume that the tree before them is a Christmas tree – and since they’re Christian they can even call it that. Those in the audience who aren’t – well, they can just take in the moment and interpret the ceremony as a way to usher in the holiday season.

As far as Nativity scenes – they’re a definite no. No person in his right mind can argue that a Nativity scene can be interpreted as just a woman with a baby and a husband with some animals, and oh, what a pretty little display. It just simply doesn’t work like that. Nativity scenes, by their very nature, are religious. They depict a specific scene from the Bible and promote a very clearly ecclesiastical message. They must come down – there are no two ways about it.

Too often people ask, “Well, what if we put a menorah up, too?”

“Interesting question,” I reply, as I secretly think how that doesn’t solve anything. So now we have a menorah and a Nativity scene. It’s not an issue, necessarily, of what religions are included; it’s a matter of what religions are excluded. So if a Muslim comes up and wants to display a religious symbol, will the city also allow that? And a Hindu? And Buddhist? And a Sikh? Before you know it, the once-simple display is now a disorganized, fragmented display of random icons that no longer hold meaning. And of course you also have the atheists who don’t believe in anything – what do you do for them? If you really want to put something up, put Santa and his reindeer. I think that is secular enough, don’t you?

Within the school, things get even trickier. Holidaytrees in classrooms are OK; Santa is OK, without a doubt. (Who wants their classroom to not at least spread a little bit of the “holiday” joy?) Heck, if classes want to even put up something that says Merry Christmas, assuming that there are no Nativity scenes, I’m OK with that, too, since this specific classroom is a much more controlled setting than a public government square.

Here’s my rule of thumb – if you know people celebrate Christmas, say “Merry Christmas” to them. If you don’t, say “Happy Holidays.” In a way, people are getting too wrapped up in this whole idea of political correctness; on the other hand, it’s important in a civilized and accepting society to be cognizant of the fact that there are other religions besides yours out there. That’s why employees in stores should say “Happy Holidays,” unless the customer says to them first “Merry Christmas.” However, it’s important to note that store owners can tell their employees to say whatever they want – there are no Constitutional restrictions on non-government-owned property. The same applies for private citizens, teachers or government officials when they’re not at work – the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause reigns supreme then.

The issue of holiday concerts may also come up – these are not, in my opinion, a violation of the Establishment clause. Often very religious messages are present in the music we play at Fairmont; however, it’s important to note that these songs or musical pieces are not being played for their religious value; they’re being performed for their performance value. As long as the focus of the piece is on performance and not the ecclesiastical message that the piece may project, than by all means play on. (I could never support a Constitutional doctrine that doesn’t letFairmont perform holiday concerts.)

I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to be a Scrooge – I like Christmas just as much as the next person. And I certainly don’t want schools to become places that are immune to the inherent happiness of the holiday season. But I also am not willing to let government-regulated places become puppets to promote religion as well – that cannot happen in a democracy. Too often people say that to support separation of church and state is to not be a Christian. Don’t ever fall into this trap, though. Jesus said to evangelize; I don’t remember anything about forcing people into believing something in the Bible.

That being said, Happy Holidays (and Merry Christmas, if you’re Christian). Enjoy your break.

Dear Janitors/Custodians,
I don’t think many people tell you this often, but you are superheroes. You fix our lights, plow the snowy sidewalks during the winter, and mop up vomit. Without your dedication and hard work, our school system would surely be in shambles. The floor tiles would be broken and unwaxed, our windows would be cracked, and our doors would be forever locked. Not very many people are willing to do what you do, but you still get up early and stay late, even though we take you for granted. So thank you, janitors. Fairmont loves you.

Swear words, the Ten Commandments

The latest Supreme Court term dawned like it does every year on the first Monday of October (this year, Oct. 3), and it seems this term could turn out to be quite prolific, with a score of important cases that the Court is expected to grant a writ of cert to hear.

Although perhaps not the most important case, the Supreme Court’s opinion in FCC v. Fox Television will be an important freedom of speech decision in the relative dawn of a new century – with new technology. The FCC enacted a policy in 2001 that not only punished systematic obscenities but ephemeral ones as well. Things came to a head when the FCC sought to penalize Fox Network for the passing “F-word” and “S-word” that certain public figures said on music awards programs, while also seeking to charge ABC with violation of the fleeting scene of a nude woman’s buttocks in a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue.

Although President Obama’s administration is standing behind the FCC’s policy, the president, betraying his liberal roots, fails to see the message at the heart of the First Amendment, which sets an absolute that no act of Congress can abridge freedom of speech. If parents are uncomfortable with these passing acts of indecency, they should be able to police their children well enough to not let them watch shows that are well-known as being adult in content. The protections of the First Amendment should not be weakened because of it.

On a similar First Amendment note, the Court is also due to hear a case about whether it is permissible under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to allow the building of large crosses along the sides of state-owned roads in Utah and whether the Ten Commandments can constitutionally stand in a judge’s courtroom in Ohio.

The Establishment Clause, which states that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, has had a long and colorful history in the United States and was the lynchpin of Supreme Court cases in which the Court struck down school prayer and Bible readings.

At the essence of these cases was the idea that the government should not in anyway be projecting an ecclesiastical message. Such attempts to influence the religious preferences of citizens have time after time been a blueprint for totalitarianism. I can think of no other purpose for such flagrant signs of Christianity; without any greater context, this case should clearly be decided against the government.

Packing heat in public

The Court also will likely hear a case about whether a person has a Second Amendment right to carry a gun into a public place for self-defense. To be totally honest, I consider the right to carry a gun analogous to the right of a pornographer to publish his pornography, but the Constitution is exceedingly clear on both of these issues. Of course the Second Amendment, which boldly declares that a person has a right to bear arms, protects the rights of those to carry around their weapons. In my opinion, however, this right doesn’t encompass the right to carry a concealed weapon. For safety’s sake, such laws that allow this should be flatly repealed.

Racial preferences, GPS tracking

Also on the Court’s docket is a case about whether racial preferences can be used in university admissions programs. My question to proponents of such plans is: Whatever happened to the Equal Protections Clause, which guarantees equal treatment for American citizens? Almost all colleges accept federal funding, and any institution that accepts federal funding should be held to Constitutional standards. Aren’t people supposed to be treated equally in this country? These types of programs are only prolonging racial strife in this country, not helping anything.

United States v. Jones, a case dealing with the Fourth Amendment, will pose yet another perplexing Constitutional conundrum for the Court to settle. This case involves the Fourth Amendment, which states that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (without warrants) shall not be violated. The question before the Court will be: Did law enforcement officials violate the Fourth Amendment when they planted GPS tracking system on a suspect’s car without a warrant?

If law enforcement officers are allowed to do this, we will soon embark on a slippery slope that could lead us to oppression. Can there be any be a more insidious way for the government to spy on its citizens than to track their movement? I don’t think so.

Immigration law, health-care mandate

The two most important cases of the current term, however, have still yet to be mentioned. In one, United States v. Arizona, the Court will decide the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070, the infamous immigration law that mandates police officers verify the legal citizenship of a person they pull over for another reason if there “is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully … in the United States.”

Although Arizona has said that racial profiling is not to be used, the law will inevitably breed such unconstitutional tactics. In addition, the State ofArizonais clearly tampering with the enumerated powers of the Federal government – national defense, foreign relations and international commerce. Even more important is that in order to combat the issue of immigration, there must be one solid and concise policy that American citizens can stand united behind. The states simply cannot be defying the federal government on an issue of national concern.

In State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Court will meet the most important case of the term: whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – also known more disrespectfully as Obamacare – is unconstitutional. Although there are a host of reasons why this law should be struck down by the Court, none of them are as important as the fact that in this law, the federal government is forcing American citizens to purchase health-care insurance, at the risk of paying a penalty.

Contrary to what the president believes and Congress believes, they cannot hide behind the Commerce Clause – because no commerce existed previous to the government’s regulations. This is an issue about choice and the private decision involved in deciding whether or not to pay for health insurance. I normally support the idea that the Constitution has compassion entwined into the fabric of its being, and as a supporter of Earl Warren, I strongly support the idea of a strong and robust Commerce Clause. But when the federal government is so directly interfering in the private choices of the American citizen for no substantial governmental reason, something must be done.

The Democratic Party has traditionally been supportive of the American citizen’s right to make his own choices, standing up for individual liberties, abortion rights and contraceptive rights. Have they even though about the slippery slope the government is embarking on when it starts regulating the type of health services the American citizen is making use of? This law has the government bearing down over the American citizen. What kind of hypocrisy and betrayal to those liberals who fought to ensure that the government would not become oppressive are we seeing now?

This term for the Supreme Court will, if nothing else, be interesting, and as it progresses, Constitutional law will be changed in the process.

Although the state of Georgia had scheduled the execution for 7 p.m., the United States Supreme Court took three hours past that time to decide whether it would stay the execution or not; the Court chose the latter option. Although Davis’ attorneys contend that the evidence did not stack up against Davis, judges in both state and federal courts – including the nation’s high tribunal – decided time and time again to rule against the defendant.

Witnesses at the original trial in 1991 said MacPhail was shot after rushing to help a homeless man who had been attacked. McPhail was off-duty and working at a nearby Burger King at the time. Although prosecutors were not able to find the gun that Davis allegedly used to murder McPhail, state officials argued that they found shell casings that were connected to a previous shooting for which a court had convicted Davis.

Despite this apparent evidence, seven of the nine original eyewitnesses recanted their testimony, and others who were at the scene even contend that yet another man who accompanied Davis that night admitted to the police that he was the true killer.

At the end of the day, however, despite all this evidence, no court saved Davis from execution by the government. Such a case should give us pause to think and weigh the issue at hand.

A conservative view from Zach Jarrell

After 22 years of trials and appeals, I would surmise that the case against Troy Davis was pretty much closed. After so many courts have given their opinion, including the Supreme Court, there’s really no room for doubt.  If this man was truly innocent, there is much more wrong with our justice system than the death penalty. Davis also committed one of the most heinous crimes possible.  He shot and murdered a police officer.

The death penalty is one of the most hotly debated topics, even within the political parties. Many conservative people I know are against the death penalty.  It’s often debated as a religious topic. I consider myself to be very strong in my faith, but I strongly believe that the death penalty is needed in our justice system.

Some crimes cannot be paid in full by life in jail. Our prisons are often a safe haven for some of the most despicable people on Earth. I do believe we can’t give the death penalty to anyone and everyone as once was the case, but it is a necessary part of our justice system.

One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the first right in the Declaration of Independence. We all have the right to life, the key word being “right.” But rights can be lost. When a man takes someone else’s right to life away, he deserves nothing less than a penalty of death. It’s that simple. And people don’t get the death penalty for an accidental homicide. The death penalty is reserved for the cases that are most severe. Davis killed a cop after bashing in a man’s skull. He deserves nothing less than what was given to him.

Some argue that we shouldn’t allow the death penalty because there’s always a chance that something may come to light that will prove that the person was, in fact, innocent. But let’s look at the case at hand. Davis had been making appeals for 22 years, and each time he’s been found guilty. He’d been to every level of the court system. If new evidence was going to be found, it would have surfaced. Davis was guilty of his crime and that’s that.

Other death-penalty opponents use the Eighth Amendment, which states that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. I agree that we shouldn’t have cruel or unusual punishment. But does death really fit in this category? Let’s look at it more closely.

According to The Free Dictionary, cruel and unusual punishment is defined as such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.

First, Davis’ death was through lethal injection, the same way most states go about the death penalty. Lethal injection is not like stoning or the electric chair. The prisoner does not feel anything. It is a peaceful death. The death penalty has also been around since the very beginning. It definitely fits in the realm of common law. Finally, when someone goes to the extent of unlawfully taking another’s life, to take the killer’s life is not disproportionate at all.

The founders’ words mean the same thing they meant 200 years ago. What they wrote is what they meant. They are words on a piece of paper and they can’t change.

Another argument put forth by death-penalty foes is that some people just can’t help but commit murder. This is bogus. Sure, some people may be psychotic, but everyone has the ability to control himself to an extent. It takes a lot of willpower to kill someone. No matter how much someone is mentally screwed up, he has the ability to keep himself from killing. And if people truly can’t control themselves, then they belong in an asylum.

Am I saying our system is perfect? No. Am I saying that everyone should be brought to the gallows? No. In fact, I don’t think the electric chair or the firing squad should be allowed. I think the needle is the best way. And I think those who may have a mental issue should be examined to see whether or not they belong in an asylum.

But if someone is willing to take another’s life, he should expect nothing less than to get the same.

A liberal view from Paqui Toscano

The French philosopher Albert Camus once said, “Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders.” It’s important to think about that when evaluating whether the death penalty deserves such prominence in our criminal justice system. This isn’t about Troy Davis – he’s just one of the many defendants who claimed he was innocent and was put to death anyway. This is about something larger than Davis; this is about modern standards of decency and a punishment that lingers from the days of barbarism.

This is about the Constitution – and premeditated murder.

The most heinous aspect of the death penalty is its premeditation. State officials have the state-sanctioned murder down to the exact time, place and date – and perhaps most of troubling of all, the government accommodates those who want to watch it.

The real question is this: what truly is the difference between a person killing someone and the government killing someone? One we say is murder; the other we justify as punishment.

I submit that many criminals commit heinous actions, but are, in fact, not heinous people. True evil can corrode the inner humanity of a person and kill it altogether. But in order for a person to be truly evil, he must have known what he was doing was evil, must have chosen it freely and happily, must have not been prone to act in such a way by biological or genetic predispositions, and must not have been influenced by situational or socio-cultural factors, the most important of which is childhood home life.

These truly evil people should be purged from our society through death, but I have yet to hear of such a person.

Too often, people are scarred for life as a child. Psychologists have discovered that serial killers and other psychopaths have a smaller amygdala and are therefore less afraid of what they’re doing than a normal person. Aggressive people have been found to have lower serotonin levels. I certainly don’t want to provide an excuse for these people or justify their actions; there are plenty of people who resist genetic tendencies and prevail against their bodies or socio-cultural backgrounds. But a system in which humans are put to death for actions over which they may not have 100 percent control is repugnant to the very spirit of American liberty and compassion.

From a more Constitutional perspective, the death penalty is in conflict with the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. Although the death penalty is certainly not an unusual punishment, it can, by all standards, be considered cruel. Electrocutions have resulted in excruciating pain, such as those in which electrodes have erupted, as in the case of John Evans, who would not die despite three lethal jolts of electricity. Only after 14 minutes, at which time the air smelled of burning flesh, did doctors declare him dead.

Similarly, lethal injection involves a drug that paralyzes the body, masking the excruciating internal pain that those being put to death feel as a subsequent drug in the cocktail puts an end to bodily functions.

Although it is true that our nation’s founders most likely never intended for the Eighth Amendment to put an end to the death penalty, this fact alone does not preclude modern judges from putting an end to it. The Constitution would have no value if it was rendered stagnant, stale and useless because it was written by brilliant men two and a half centuries ago. Rather, in order for the Constitution to be effective and act as the true law of the land, it must be dynamic – it must be living and breathing and must evolve throughout the ages to encompass more things, protect more rights and adjust to compensate for novel inventions and new understandings.

The death penalty also doesn’t stand up well in light of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, which states that all citizens will be entitled to equal protection under the laws. The death penalty is not applied equally. As Justice Potter Stewart put it, the death penalty is “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual,” and that “petitioners are among a capriciously selected handful upon whom the sentence of death” has been imposed.

Such arbitrariness is especially unjust when it comes to the issue of race. According to an American Bar Association study, 33 percent of African-American inmates on death row in Philadelphia would have received life imprisonment sentences if they had not been black; likewise, a Yale University study shows that in the state of Connecticut in 2007, African-American defendants received the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where white victims are involved.

But the battle to outlaw the death penalty in our nation is not lost. We can still take action through the legislature.

This battle is crucial to save our American system of justice and to save innocent people, hundreds of whom have been released since the development of DNA testing. We must fight to lower crime rates, which, statistics show, only increase when the death penalty is present. We must also fight to abolish the death penalty because it is economically unsound. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice has found that the present system in California costs $137 million per year with the death penalty; however, it would cost $11.5 million if the maximum penalty was lifetime incarceration.

Proponents of the death penalty fail to address any of these issues. Instead, they take a sadistic approach and advocate the snuffing of human life by the government. Every statistic shows that the death penalty does not benefit anyone. It is simply a barbaric ritual that should no longer have a place in modern society.

What? Cell phones? They’re less than 10 years old! I didn’t get a cell phone until middle school, and that was only for security purposes. (I could only send 50 text messages a month!)

It’s also extremely scary that elementary school students have facebook pages and twitter accounts. There are so many things that could harm them (like contacting the wrong people or not knowing what not to say) and even affect their social interactions.

Don’t get me wrong – I’ll tell you right now that I think technology is a good thing. I have a Blackberry, an iPod touch and a Macbook myself, but I’m 16 years old and actually have a use for these items.

Why do 8-year-olds need laptops? Are they writing essays or emailing teachers and other professionals, or looking for jobs? I don’t think so. Do they have to stay away from home for more than a few nights and a cell phone is the only way they can contact someone? The only people they really need to contact are their parents anyway. It’s not like they have serious relationships that they need to maintain. They’re kids, and they haven’t even hit middle school.

Now, I have to admit that when I was in fifth grade, the idea of having a cell phone definitely crossed my mind more than once. I really wanted one. Of course, that didn’t mean my parents went and got me one. I was angry at the time, but now I realize they were trying to keep me safe and make it easier for me to enjoy my childhood.

Technology can even prove to be a distraction for the young children of today. Consider the number of kids playing video games on their computers instead of playing outside, or texting on their cell phones instead of enjoying themselves on the playground at recess. Who do they need to contact at recess anyway? Their Lego consultant?

The other night while I was babysitting, I heard music playing from the stairway (where the kids were playing), and I see the friend of the oldest boy (age 11) with his cell phone, getting on Pandora. What? I didn’t start using Pandora until a year ago, and this 11-year-old boy beats me to it. Plus, he has a better phone than I do.

Maybe there are reasons to give a child this kind of technology sometimes, but mainly it just seems creepy. So many dangers are associated with the technology we have these days, and elementary school kids just aren’t mature enough to handle it. They don’t realize that there are people out there who prey on their childlike innocence. Children should not have to worry about protecting their innocence.

I can see kids getting cell phones without texting (certainly not a Droid or a Blackberry) only if there are times when the parents or guardians need to be contacted. Other than that, I think some technology should not be given to children under the middle school age. I mean, c’mon, what do they need it for?

It’s important to fund music education. Studies show that music students do better in school and get into less trouble than students without that exposure. At Fairmont, music is not required, but you do need one art credit to graduate and you can obtain it by taking one of the 10 music classes held throughout the day. Also, students can join one or more of the 16 after-school Music Department ensembles to have something to do, or just to keep out of trouble.

Now do I think funding for music education should take priority over funding for things like math and science? Absolutely not. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are the future of our world, and if schools have trouble with funding, cuts should be made from music before they’re made from math and science. Being a future engineering major, I have strong feelings about that.

But I am also a music student who enjoys singing in choir every day, being a dancer in the upcoming musical, and participating in the Band Department’s Color Guard and Winter Guard. Without these activities. I wouldn’t have learned how to push myself to achieve what I want, and I would not have made the amazing friends I have now.

It makes me sad to think that there are schools out there without funding for music. For me, music was something I could bond with other people over (since I was never really good at sports), and other teens should get that opportunity to make friends and do something they love, too.

Music education is a luxury in schools since it’s expensive, and let’s face it, the chance of a student going on to be a professional musician is extremely slim. However, music is a huge part of our culture today, which is something school administrators should never forget.

I want to remind people about this since March is Music in Schools Month. Music education in schools helps students to excel and reach their full potential. It’s an important part of both my life and the lives of the other 600 music students at Fairmont.

It’s good the fall levy passed. If not, it would not only have been a devastating loss for us, but also for the community and reputation of Kettering.

Yeah, music education matters that much.