The Forum of Young Writers and Thinkers

English and Citizenship

2009-11-17T18:48:00.001-06:00

Yes, America is the home of the free, and yes, the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But as much in their own interest as in that of our country’s, immigrants should be required to learn English in order to become citizens. Immigrants come to America because it offers opportunities and a working mobility very few other countries, if any, can boast – in fact, most other nations around the world severely restrict immigration or lack the means to support surplus citizens. It has always been American policy to embrace immigrants, but this could easily change: America supports immigrants by choice, not obligation. (This is not to say we should stop supporting immigrants; it is one of the great things about America, but the problems that go along with our influx of immigrants is so large that one almost has to consider the US’s immigration policy as a favor.) Thus, as a voluntary host to over a million immigrants per year, the American government should not have to linguistically accommodate the hundreds of diverse people pouring in every year, but the other way around. And what better way to assimilate immigrants than by requiring them to learn the accepted language and medium of our country?
Many readers will indignantly cry that it is “unfair” to force immigrants to learn a new language when method of communication should be a personal choice. But no one is asking immigrants to give up their own languages or cultures – they would simply be adding another to their repertoires, an action congruent with the melting pot that America is supposed to be. Just because America is home to so many cultures, ethnicities and lifestyles does not make up for the need for a nationally accepted language so that we can all communicate.
Predictably, inability to communicate has become a massive problem in public schooling. Supplementary course teachers – those who teach electives or help out with core subjects – are being laid off in order to save money for translators, or else foreign language-speaking children can’t learn at all if their school doesn’t have the resources to hire translators. Schools could run down their budgets hiring translators, or we could solve the problem at the core: require citizens to learn English so they can pass on the skill to their children.
In addition, immigrants have a much greater shot at attaining productive jobs and opportunities if they are literate in the language of the global community, greatly reducing the cycle of poverty among immigrants, not to mention every citizen’s basic need to be well-versed in his or her rights and laws. Moreover, having access to better jobs will make it easier for immigrants to reach middle class or higher, where xenophobia and discrimination aren’t as present as they are at lower levels. Of course, if an immigrant wants to continue working at stations in which being able to communicate with most of America isn’t necessary, than that is his or her choice; this paragraph is simply arguing the immense benefits immigrants could get from learning English. Newcomers to any culture are vulnerable already – as an immigrant, why make assimilating yourself any more difficult than it already is?
Furthermore, English is currently the accepted language of the global economy, and as such it is the United States’ obligation to continue to make sure that our country can keep its power and participate in said economy. Not enforcing American citizens to know English, when more people in countries such as China are learning English every day, could have a much worse effect on our global position than one would think.

America:Overmedicated

2009-11-15T19:53:00.003-06:00

In Elizabeth J. Roberts book, Should You Medicate Your Child's Mind? she tells a story of a patient she once had who had been diagnosed with Manic Depression, Bi-polar Disorder, and ADHD by her previous psychiatrist. The doctor gave her and her parents the diagnoses after one session and no evaluation of the child's life. The girl wasn't even eight years old yet, and she was on an antidepressant, an antipsychotic, and an amphetamine. The parents told Roberts that they had adopted the girl and that she had been molested, beaten and the victim of neglect by her biological parents. Roberts took her off of all of the medications and after thorough evaluation diagnosed her with nothing more than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (due to her past) and placed her on one mild antidepressant. Obviously, she takes a strong stance against prescribing antidepressants, amphetamines, and antipsychotics to children.

This story is just one example of misdiagnosis due to a "quick diagnosis." Doctors and psychiatrists all over the country have lost patience when taking time to evaluate the mental health of their patients. In some cases, doctors and psychiatrists have been known to diagnose children with ADHD, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, after only seeing them for ten minutes. "I'm seeing kids...who are on five or more psychiatric drugs who have substantially nothing wrong with them," said Peter Breggin, a Maryland psychiatrist. A child needs to be evaluated in every setting in which the symptoms of concern appear, as well as their past and present situations, at home, school and anywhere else where they could become the victim of any abuse that could potentially trigger disorder-like behaviors.

The number of people between the ages of five and seventeen prescribed Antidepressants increased from two percent of the population in 1994 to almost six percent in 2002. Antidepressants, Amphetamines, and even Antipsychotics, to a certain extent, have become an easy fix for doctors. "In this fast-paced culture, we [doctors] are tempted to go for quick solutions," says psychiatrist Edward Hallowell. For example, Prozac, an antidepressant was originally created to treat people that suffered from Major Depression Disorder, but now it is given out freely for almost any ailment, including: shyness, low self esteem, stress, compulsiveness, and even shopaholism. According to research done at Baylor University, so many anidepressant pills are being popped that their breakdown products in urine, gushing into waterways, have accumulated in fish tissues, raising concerns that aquatic animals may be getting toxic doses. Even more disturbing, off label antipsycotics, a drug originally created to treat serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia, are now being prescribed by doctors to treat dementia, attention deficit aggression, autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. "They're being given an easy out with a pill. But the easy out may create a much more serious problem," was the remark made by Steven Sheller a Philadelphia lawyer.

Antidepressants alone have been proven to double the rate of suicidal thoughts in children and adolescence. In a study done in clinical trials, researchers found that four percent of the children taking antidepressants had suicidal tendencies, verses two percent of the children on dummy pills. Scientists have discovered that this result is because while a vast majority of antidepressants do boost serotonin, they simultaneously inhibit another key neuro-chemical messenger called dopamine. They have also been found to energize victims of depression, before actually lifting the depression. People may be more prone to enact their depression (suicid/self mutilation) before they are offered any reprieve from their symptoms.

Ritalin, an amphetamine, is now given to children as young as two. The number of Ritalin prescriptions tripled in the past five years, and Ritalin is used by an estimated four million American children every day. Some of the minor side effects are: insomnia and reduced appetite (which can slow growth in developing children).

Antipsychotics, although not prescribed as often, are none the less prevalent in many American homes. They have permanent side effects, which not even doctors fully understand. One major side effect of antipsychotics is that they can cause female breasts to grow in the people who take them. The only way to get rid of the breasts is to have them surgically removed. This can be a very traumatizing and emotionally disturbing process for an elementary aged boy. Roberts says, "The potential benefits of antipsychotic medication have to be weighed against its dangerous, irreversible, and permanent side effects. Because antipsychotic medications are very powerful, they can have extreme consequenses."

Drugs are not always the answer; but psychotherapy often is. Psychotherapy has been proven to work wonders on many children, who simply need an avenue to help them cope with the emotional trauma they may be struggling with. When a child is given medication, the problem is not solved. It grows even larger than it was in the first place. The British House of Commons Health Committee, issued a statement saying that further industry promotions "worked to persuade too many professionals that they can prescribe, not a medical condition."

Psychotherapy is not only for children without disorders, it can be very effective on children who suffer from severe disorders such as: Major Depression Disorder, Schizophrenia, and Bipolar Disorder. In the case of severe disorders such as these, medications are unavoidable, because the child may become a danger to himself or the people around him. Psychotherapy paired with regularly monitored/altered medication and a thorough, correct diagnosis, can be very successful in helping children and adults alike, with major disorders, live a normal healthy life. However, this does not mean that just because a child, can't pay attention in school, doesn't obey his parents, is overly shy, or has a hard time coping with their emotions that they need to be drugged.

A major concern for doctors and patients alike, is that antidepressant prescriptions have overlooked both the fragility and the variety of children's brains. By the end of high school, one in ten students have attempted suicide, with 2,000 succeeding each year, more than anything else, this statistic needs to be lowered. The increase in scientific technology, in the area of medicine, comes with a responsibility that many psychiatrists and doctors have overlooked. Until they decide to moderate the medication they prescribe, our country will continue to become more and more overmedicated.

~Abby Miracle

Stark, Karl. "Tarnished View of Wonder Drugs." PhiladelphiaInquirer, The (PA) (17 Feb. 2008).

Newspaper Source. EBSCO. [Library names], [City], [State abbreviation]. 32 Mar. 2009

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W61980211707&site=src-live&scope=site.

Stipp, David. "TROUBLE IN PROZAC NATION." fortune 152.10 (28 Nov. 2005): 154. Mas Ultra-School Edition. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 30 Mar. 2009

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true$db=18866576$site=src-live&scope=site

Roberts, Elizabeth J. Should You Medicate Your Child's Mind? New York: Marlowe and Company, 2006

Capitalism and its Fate in the United States

2009-10-27T21:53:00.000-05:00

Welcome to a country that is legendary for the freedoms it offers, which are unparalleled in the subjects of religion, opportunity, and-- oddly more important to most-- economically. The United States has drawn people from all corners of the world, based on the possibility that they have the ability to drastically improve their lives. This covetable freedom of opportunity was far more appealing to immigrants than the unalterable and almost always mediocre courses of life that are destined to a person in almost every single other country. Instead, America boasts a world where any person can jump between economic classes that are almost caste-like in most other areas of the world. Whether known as laissez faire or free market, this ability to change economic status of one's life, with enough intelligence and hard work, is the creator of the American Dream. But, for the status quo of the country, is Capitalism the best option for the United States? Is it beneficial to the 52.5% of Americans who spend some point of their life below the poverty line? Does the Free Market economy bear fruit for the 9.6% that are unemployed or just the top 1% of the population that contains 70% of the wealth (according to the New York Times)?And furthermore, does the drastic separation of quality of life between classes, and the concentration of power and capital resources in the hands of the few determine that maybe Americans would be better off with a different economic system?

The concept of capitalism, or as it is applied to the United States, the economic system in which all flow of money is simply dictated by laws of the market (primarily "supply and demand"), not regulated by the government...originated from Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", a century before the creation of this country. However, the USA is the only country in the world that exemplifies a legitimate form of capitalism.

Many refer to the recent Economic intervention to save the American economy by President Barack Obama's administration, to be socialism. I disagree that in comparison to other countries, the United States is no longer capitalist. On the contrary, the economy is still very much unregulated. But structure changes in the government are arguably headed toward a far different status. While it still possible for any American to make as much money as possible, the government is growing, and the source of most government funds is tax on the upper class. More and more, our government draws from the highest income earners to support the lower classes. Should the economic plight of all classes be intertwined? I think not. I think that in a society where hard work is encouraged and risk taking can have good and bad consequences, that those who end up on the wrong side of the equation should not be supported or bailed out. Instead, they should have the exact same chances of as any other person, because if there is a safety net for the less fortunate, the drive to succeed and attain the American Dream will no longer exist.

It is not to say that those who control large amounts of money should not be charitable towards others. Arguably, many of the hundreds of millions of dollars (and billions in some cases) simply are too much to spend for their owners, and would be better in the hands of somebody who really needs capital resources to survive. However, such decisions should be in the hands of the people, not a controlling government.

It seems that the fate of capitalism in the United States is not certain, because although Americans continue to become more prosperous than the citizens of any other land, they are losing the economic freedoms that were once shared by the beneficiaries of true capitalism.

-Jacob Menick

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B06E5DA153EE033A25755C0A9679C946697D6CF

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/04/13/the-rise-of-red-shirt-capitalism.aspx

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate

After Stonewall

2009-10-26T08:34:00.005-05:00

On June 28, 1969, New York City police raided a bar called the Stonewall Inn. They attempted to arrest the patrons there not for violence or illicit trafficking or even public drunkenness, but for their existence as gay people. Raids on gay bars and other establishments frequented by sexual minorities became increasingly common during the 1950’s and 60’s, as a conservative America being shaken to its foundations by the civil rights movement and other reforms sought to exert what control it could over a group that still appeared to be powerless. But “Stonewall”, as the event is now know, did not mark a continuation of the injustice and profound humiliation suffered by homosexuals, it marked the beginning of the movement determined to end it. The people at the bar that night resisted police actions, and as the officers began to escalate their use of force, an enraged mob began to riot and demand for them to leave. The situation worsened, and as the ostensible protesters began to chant “We Shall Overcome” and throw objects at the police, riot police were called in to crush the revolt. However, that act of defiance triggered others in New York City, most notably near Christopher Street Square and Greenwich Village, which in turn compelled movements for change in other cities. Within two years, there were gay rights organizations all over the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. In 1973, homosexuality was declassified as a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, a step toward humanizing people who for so many years were regarded as monsters. In 1978, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay public officeholder in the United States when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, only to be martyred the same year by an assassin’s bullet. Just as it seemed the door was finally opening, forces who sought to keep the closet firmly shut began to re-assert themselves.

The history of the gay rights movement in the United States is one of bitter disappointment interrupted briefly by moments of hope. The hope of gays and lesbians around the nation in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s was fiercely tested by the emergence of the AIDS virus, which, in its indiscriminate cruelty, cut short the lives of so many who had fought vigorously for the right simply to live theirs. The rise of the Religious Right and its influence in the ascendant Republican Party cost proposals like AIDS research and hate crimes legislation years as they were defeated in Congress and thousands of people their lives as the federal government turned a blind eye to what at that time was considered a “gay cancer”. President Reagan neglected to mention AIDS, in any capacity, in any circumstance, until 1987, seven years after the crisis began, seven years too late for tens of thousands. The George H. W. Bush Administration offered little better during its brief interregnum, staffed as it was by many former Reagan appointees. But in 1992, with a Democratic victory heralding the end of twelve years of Republican intransigence, hopes began to rise again that America’s laws would reflect the society they governed. Unfortunately, the Clinton years could largely be categorized by the failure of its signature gay-rights initiative: the repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay soldiers. First, it appeared that there would be bold and decisive action (repealing the ban). Next, opposition mounts, and the president caves in (Congress objects). Finally, a compromise is reached that satisfies neither side and mostly delays the issue’s resolution (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). This pattern would repeat itself often, and Clinton’s eight years did little to undo the relentless onslaught of right-wing orthodoxy, and in fact set the cause of equality back with the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (federal government defines marriage as between a man and a woman). And yet in 2001, the real fun would start.

President George W. Bush, in his proposals, appointments, and speeches, did more to demonize gay people than perhaps any other president in American history. During his tenure, it was the stated strategy of the Republican Party to support constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in the states in order to increase conservative voter turnout, thus electing more Republicans (It is likely that such voters made the difference in Ohio in 2004, deciding the election). The president proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban something on a national level that had been regulated by the states for 200 years, and appointed two Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who are loath to have the federal government protect the rights of anyone besides corporations or torturers. As of 2009, more than forty states have restricted the rights of same-sex couples to legitimize their relationships. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed, but 45 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay; gay people are still denied access to their loved ones in hospitals because they do not have legally defined relationships; the same is true of joint tax returns, or social security benefits, and in determining fitness for adoption (illegal in five states). President Obama has only been in office for nine months, but it is appropriate to look at what should be done to ensure that a nation founded on the inherent value of every person strives to uphold that ideal. He certainly will not carry out all of his promises, but we should remember, at least, what they are.

The most important law that would benefit gays in this country is the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It would make it illegal to fire someone on the basis of sexual orientation, and be a federal protection for people who live in states that offer them none. Another law, currently waiting to be signed by the president, is the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act, which would classify a murder that specifically targets a gay person as a “hate crime” (which carries additional penalties). The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been fifteen years in waiting, yet it seems for now that the president is willing to drag his feet while honorable military personnel are discharged because of who they are. And of course, there can never be real equality without legalizing same-sex marriage, and that can’t happen without the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (which actually defended nothing except political careers). More broadly, President Obama must foster an environment of tolerance and fairness, and not be afraid to fight the forces that have impeded progress for so long, so as to facilitate acceptance of people who are no stranger to us than an aunt, or a cousin, or a brother.

A person’s position on whether homosexuality is immoral and by extension their position on gay rights often comes down to whether or not they feel it is a choice. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers would tell them it isn’t. Superstition and antiquated hatred would tell them it is. If they are a religious person, who opposes gay rights for religious reasons, it merits asking: Is a line in Leviticus more important than the Sermon on the Mount? Is exclusion the basis of Christianity? And how can our government, barred from making religious considerations and a bastion of secularism, base its decisions on your religious thinking? Surely every person deserves their opportunity to find their own measure of happiness. Surely our vision is not so clouded by fear of those who are different that we cannot see what is right. Surely our great country, whose history is marked by an ever-expanding definition of freedom, would not seek to corrupt that legacy. As the old civil rights axiom goes, “This will not be a good place for any of us to live until it is a good place for all of us to live.”

-Alexander Lyons

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/index.html
http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes.asp
http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/lgbt-rights
http://www.amnesty.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity

Rectifying a Misconception

2009-10-26T07:22:00.008-05:00

This morning, I happened to pass the T.V. as my dad listened to FOX’s financial show and I experienced an epiphany. A guest commentator was arguing that “President Obama has incorrectly prioritized global warming over rectifying the financial collapse.” While the commentator is entirely entitled to his opinion, and he no doubt is vastly more intelligent than the 16-year-old writing this pseudo article/ blog post, I am now going to explain (using startling data and witty humor) how he is completely and unequivocally wrong. A U.S.-spearheaded campaign for the passing of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen immediately would not only restore much luster to the reputation of the United States abroad, but would also go a long way toward convincing the emerging markets of India and China to join the global effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This mission is of urgent importance and can no longer be delayed by corporate greed and ignorant idiocy; a last ditch effort for the survival of earth is upon us.

Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke have busted their butts and more than likely saved the U.S. economy from complete chaos and collapse. By channeling FDR’s New Deal, many forecasters are predicting our economy’s rebound within a year. While some criticize the $787 billion stimulus as merely adding to the now nearly $12 trillion national debt, they ignore the fact that rarely has this country EVER been in the black – not since Andrew Jackson back in 1830. Secondly, there are different kinds of debt, some good (money spent for public works) and some bad (credit card debt). The stimulus bill, while expensive, not only improved our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure, but also created innumerable jobs which helped soften the blow for the 9.7% of Americans who are unemployed (the highest rate since Reagan). I think Obama has sufficiently addressed our economic woes . . . .

One of the most common arguments used by so-called global warming “dissenters” is that there are a great multitude of credible scientists who reject the notion that humans are causing global warming. Unfortunately, this argument is completely unsupported and without base. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a 1995 panel made up of over 2,500 scientists from 80 countries, which utilizes peer review to reconcile differing scientific views, found that evidence supporting the existence of climate change is indeed pervasive throughout the world. According to the IPCC, concentrations of carbon dioxide gases have increased 30 percent in the past century, and the United States is accountable for 20 percent of these emissions. During this period, the average atmospheric temperature has risen between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius worldwide, but every region of the world is affected differently. Many critics have argued that the climate began to warm after about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have been a factor and that the entire heating of the Earth is nothing but the continuation of a natural cycle. Unfortunately, all the natural variations in carbon dioxide levels in the last 650,000 years have been much smaller than the ones we are now experiencing (and yes Sarah Palin, the earth has existed for more than 6,000 years). Unfortunately, even if humans somehow stopped all emissions at this very moment, it would take 200 years for the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to return to pre-industrial levels. Isn’t our next course of action obvious?

Obama inherited a country in shambles. The war plans in Iraq and Afghanistan have been altered; our economic meltdown has been avoided; healthcare reforms are on the table pending approval from Congress. It’s time to ensure that we are not the last generation to enjoy lushly shaded trees, serenely cascading waterfalls, and the other priceless pleasures afforded to us by Mother Nature. Climate Change can no longer afford be treated like the ugly stepsister; no other issues command as much importance and urgency as limiting CO2 emissions and developing alternative energy services to wean our country from its dependence on foreign oil. I deeply worry that a combination of public indifference and government incompetence will prevent efforts to avoid environmental catastrophe. I desperately hope that my fatalistic predictions are proven incorrect; major legislation from the Copenhagen conference (COP 15) in December would go a long way towards assuaging my fears. Another eight years of inaction is unacceptable. We will not have another chance.

- Sam Barber

Works Cited

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/02/geithner.economy/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. New York: Rodale, 2006.

Union of Concerned Scientists. “The Theory of Global Warming Is Scientifically Credible.” Opposing Viewpoints: Global Warming. (2002) Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. InfoTrac. AHHS Lib., San Antonio. 29 March 2009 .

Petit, Charles W. “Global Warming in the Antarctic.” Contemporary Issues Companion: Global Warming. (2005) Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. InfoTrac. AHHS Lib., San Antonio. 2 April 2009 .

On Capital Punishment

2009-10-25T19:27:00.002-05:00

In 1608, the first person in the “newfound” land of America was executed by European settlers. He was a Spaniard who was accused of espionage in the original British colony of Jamestown. Since this unremarkable event, hangings, electrocutions, gas chambers, firing squads, and finally lethal injections have been killing criminals left and right, to “clean up the streets” and to “make America a better place.” The Death Penalty Information Center’s database relays that going back to 1608, over 15,000 Americans have been executed in some way, shape, or fashion. Of these fifteen thousand, some have been put to death for crimes as trivial as sodomy, forgery, theft, and, even as recently as 1964, one man was put to death for robbery, sentenced to die by the Alabama electric chair named “Yellow Mama.” No one knows for certain how many of these criminals deserved to die or how many were innocent; but, observing that The United States today is the only Western nation to still slaughter their criminals, one thing seems fairly obvious: America likes killing people.

First for a little background to the present situation in the United States: the issue of capital punishment has come before the Supreme Court several times in the past decades, and its institution has been upheld each time. On the forefront of this judicial battle is originalist Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has gone public in several situations, posing his mildly callous aphorisms, like “death is no big deal,” and “you kill, you die; that’s fair.” But even putting these statements behind, for someone on the vanguard of such a hotly debated Rovian wedge issue, Justice Scalia has made some very outrageous claims. For instance, he asserts that the secular United States government “derives its moral authority from God ... to execute wrath, including even wrath by the sword, which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty.” Not only does this irk the populace that believes spiritual motives should not influence our non-religious government, his statement also exemplifies his arrogance and portrays Scalia as some sort of religious vigilante, taking God’s will into his own hands and carrying it out through the legal system.

One other thing that Justice Scalia has continually asserted is that no innocent man has ever been executed. This issue has been a hotbed of legal disagreement and discussion, and now the state of Texas finds itself on the precipice of that debate.

On February 17, 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham of Corsicana, Texas was given a lethal dose of potassium chloride by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Weeks before, Governor Rick Perry had received a lengthy report that concluded that the convicted Willingham was only wrongfully so. Mr. Willingham was arrested and jailed for felony arson and murder, after police accused him of setting fire to his own house and killing his three children. The state forensic investigator ruled that due to the burn patterns discovered in the house, arson was definitively involved.

However, the science of arson investigation is seriously flawed. Since the trial, two separate and independent arson experts have come out and challenged the findings of the state. One of the two, Craig L. Beyler, stated that the state’s “investigators had a poor understanding of fire science.”

A special investigative committee, The Forensic Science Commission, was assigned to look closely at the details of this case and to examine the newfound evidence. However, weeks ago, Governor Rick Perry halted the committee before they could issue their results. He then replaced the chairman and various members of the board with his personal allies, and is now motioning to remove the “public” status of this committee’s findings.

Nobody expects the results to be disclosed until after the governor’s upcoming Republican primary.

A political stir is now in the works, and rightfully so. If Todd Willingham was indeed innocent, he would be the first executed man whose innocence was proven. This would exemplify how unjust the death penalty truly is, putting a halt to the appeals process and stymieing the legal framework of our nation.

America is the only nation who still has mentally disturbed people on death row. Our nation ranks in the top five countries worldwide with the most executions per year, accompanied by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Politicians and citizens alike need to take a serious look into the stark nature of capital punishment and reevaluate their understanding of right and wrong. This institution is a blemish on America’s reputation, for what justice is there in killing?

Noah Stanton

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/us/20texas.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=rick%20perry&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/02texas.html?fta=y

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/scal-j05.shtml

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-us-1608-2002-espy-file

http://pewforum.org/press/?ReleaseID=11

Howdy Night Schedule

2009-09-30T13:00:00.001-05:00

First Meeting on 9/17

2009-09-14T11:54:00.002-05:00

The Forum will have its first meeting on Thursday, September 17th. The meeting will take place in Mrs. Chupp's room, which is found in upstairs south, during lunch (from 12:10-12:30). During this meeting, members will group together based on common interests and ideas, and will be invited via e-mail to sign up for and edit "The Forum of Young Writers and Thinkers" Blog.

Mrs. Chupp and Mrs. Bernabei will be present.
We hope to see you there.

-Jacob Menick

Birth of the Forum

2009-09-02T00:29:00.002-05:00

Hello, everybody. This is the officially unofficial blog of the Forum of Young Writers and Thinkers. Apart from round-table discussions and meetings, this is one of the main outlets for our thoughts and views. Remember that everything you say is traceable and will be monitored by Mrs. Chupp and other school officials. THE SCHOOL's ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY DOES APPLY TO THIS SITE That being said, anything you wish to discuss is fair game as long as it is appropriate. Controversial matters are AWESOME and we encourage you to to share them.

We are excited about this movement and I hope that we have a good turnout for our first year, but more importantly, even if there are only 15 members (the minimum to maintain a club), the most important part is participation. I look forward to receiving your feedback.

P.S. I think a good way to start is to establish veritable sources. Any study or research from a university or known and accepted company is acceptable. Good news sites are BBC News, CNN, Fox, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Google News. I will provide links to these sites in the near future.

Thanks,
Jacob Menick