Thursday, May 6

All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything.

This pretty much speaks for it itself. That it happened is not particularly surprising, but it is dissapointing that the principal is not required to back track or apologize, but actually defends his position by saying it was good for the black kids. Really? So it wouldn't have been good for any of the other kids. I think we can all imagine what would be said if the situation were reversed, except that we can't because it's so unimaginable it could never happen and if it did it would be so roundly critisized the principal would have to resign. How about if we took all the white kids to see a white basketball player to show them that yes white people can be basketball stars too.

Too some extent i can understand that theory of having black kids meet with a successful black intellectual to demonstrate that they can get ahead with their brains, and not just with athletics, and i can even understand in theory talking to them about the extra obstacles minorities have to go through, but if that's the goal why were other minorities excluded? What possible justification is their to not bring the muslim girl or any other minorities (the article doesn't specify and others.) And how could it possibly harm the white kids to meet a black rocket scientist, if nothing else it would help instill in them from a young age the message that blacks can be everything whites can be, isn't that something we want?

Also their can be no doubt that when the principal heard kids booing the black students returning he went and yelled at them. Their can be no doubt because of the transparancy of the spokewoman's comment “He wasn’t yelling at them. He was very passionate about it,” Margolis said. Clearly you don't even bring it up if he wasn't yelling. Very passionate? yeah right. So the principal makes a terrible decision and takes only black kids on this field trip. When they return the kids get booed (as would any group that got to go when nobody else did.) Then the principal hears the kids booing the returning black kids, and decides to go berate them. Well done. And he is not even required to issue a real apology or admit he did anything wrong.

If you want to do something like this it should be done afterschool with the children of parents who want their children to participate (regardless of race.) If you insist on doing it during school, and segregating the students you need to have a seperate assembly or something for the other students. You can't possibly think kids are going to accept that they all have to do school work, but all the black kids get to go on a field trip, you are just asking for racial animosity.

First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Totally bogus. This is just another in a long string of cases of judges thinking that they are their own little monarchs. I remember other recent cases where a judge was singling own people in his court and ordering police to perform drug searches on them, as well as a judge who refused to let a woman who had gone bald from chemotherapy where a hat cause he didn't like it (both judges had to apologize.) Contempt of court should be limited to actually disrupting the court proceedings, by yelling or making a ruckus or something. The judge doesn't like the shirt too bad. It is a legal, and acceptable shirt to wear out in public. Now the justice system is closed off to those who don't wear clothes acceptable to a judge. So what if judge wants all men to wear suits, what if you can't afford a suit, then you aren't allowed to support your friends. What if a judge thinks a skirt is obscene, or that a girl is showing too much cleavage. The judicial system ought to be open to the american public, and anything that is acceptable in public ought to be acceptable in a court room. If you want to say the shirt is obscene and wearing it anywhere in public should be a crime i don't agree, but at least that's a case that is legitimate. But unless you are going to arrest people for wearing that shirt in public/the library/town hall/etc. it is complete out of line to arrest someone simply for upsetting a judges sensibilities.

On top of which, even if the shirt was inappropriate then the punishment would be to ask the woman to leave/tell her to cover the shirt up/go to the bathroom and turn it inside out. There is no indication that she was asked to leave/cover up the shirt, or that anyone from the judge to someone else working at the court warned her that the shirt may be considered inappropriate. The idea that if you show up for a court hearing to support your friend, a judge can throw you in prison simply because he doesn't like something about you is completely undemocratic. Although i realize it would never happen i strongly hope that this woman does sue the judge, and that the judge is forced to spend a night in jail for misuse of her power on top of whatever financial rewards the woman receives. I imagine the judge is immune from personal liability because she was acting for the state, but that is likewise bogus, she was acting based on personal feelings, and not on the behalf of the state, but to send a personal message. As such she should be held personally liable.

American idol

American idol is down to their lowest viewing numbers ever. That's what they get for kicking all the girls off. They kick genders off equally until they are down to 6 girls and 6 guys. This was a shame because they had so many girls who were better than the guys, but when they got down to 6 and 6 it seemed like it would be okay, cause now a bunch of the goofy guys would get kicked off and the girls who made it would be able to stick around for a while. Incorrect, they kicked girls off the next 3 weeks in a row. We were down to the 2 best girls who were clearly among the best the best singers, and last week they kicked another girl off, leaving the show with 4 guys, and 1 girl. Who wants that. Answer nobody. My only question is who is doing all this voting. I have to assume it's girls who are sabotaging their own by voting for the guys. I refuse to believe (unless someone could show me hard evidence) the the men of america are voting for a bunch of guys, instead of the girls. I'm not saying i don't like any male singers, but in the context of american idol, i would much rather watch girls singing than a bunch of doofy guys.