Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wants to teach your teens about morality. Apparently, the High Court's docket is a little light these days, since the Al-Queda crew are probably going to face a military tribunal. Now I sure this fellow means well, after all he's happy enough to see the rights of the accused dismissed. Why the sudden interest in giving American teens the Fruit of Knowledge? Kennedy doesn't feel that students expressed enough "moral outrage" over the 9-11 attacks. Kennedy later went on to say:
There seemed to be a feeling that the U.S. got its comeuppance and that we have to take our lumps sometimes too.
Now some in the liberal conspiracy are going to try to tell you that the students Kennedy talked to were expressing a well-informed, global-centric opinion that represents the kind of thinking critical to the survival of not just the United States, but of humans in general on this planet. But the truth isn't that pretty. Those students were really secret members of Al-Queda attempting to poison the young minds of America. It's good to see that a non-elected member of our federal bureaucracy is concerned about the welfare of our children. I'm sure Justice can wait.
How do you expect kids to be shocked and morally outraged when they have to go through metal detectors at school and wonder if one of their classmates is going to be the next one to shoot/bomb/maim them?
It's difficult to be shocked and amazed in a world long since gone mad.
I know what you mean
Wodin on 2002-01-28T01:14:23
My little sister is currently a junior in high school, and every time I talk to her I'm more shocked by what she considers "routine" This school year alone they've had three bomb threats, three pulled fire alarms, one case of arson, and one kid expelled for bringing a knife to school.She doesn't even consider any of this unusual anymore.
I guess what is even scarier is that she tells me that the measures the school is having to take to keep things "under control" are increasingly not doing anything of the sort. They recently banned trenchcoats and "alternative" clothing styles. What next? The fact that school funding is getting hacked to little pieces and things like the Gifted and Talented program are going under is just even worse. I'm just glad she's out in a year and a half.
Re:I know what you mean
chaoticset on 2002-02-03T07:46:56
The primary job of the modern educational system is not to do something so lofty as 'educate' people. The primary job of the modern educational system is to prepare 90% of students to do what 90% of them will probably end up doing: Some damn menial thing, day in, day out, for the rest of their lives.Most of the people running the modern educational system are now a product of it.
When presented with novel problems -- such as students smart enough and perfectly willing to build and bring a bomb to school -- their tiny minds fail miserably, and stupid ideas like "ban clothing", or security-related ideas like "install metal detectors everywhere" come up.
The first is nonsensical; the second merely alleviates a symptom.
Lawyers. Morals.
Write your own joke in here.
Re:Checks and balances
pudge on 2002-01-29T13:50:01
There is absolutely no problem with checks and balances, let alone separation of powers, with this. There's nothing having to do with law, legislation, or official activity. It is privately funded. To throw around legal terms like "checks and balances" and implying a problem with separation of powers is entirely inappropriate. Justices do this sort of thing quite often, speaking to kids and students about the law and ethics and the whole thing. It's only worthy of note, really, because of the specific hot-button topic.
On a similar line, I don't understand what your concern is about "throwing their judicial weight around." Again, this kind of thing happens all the time. Most Justices consider it their responsibility to speak up about such things.Re:Checks and balances
gizmo_mathboy on 2002-01-29T15:38:44
I think it is the appearance. Working with the First Lady makes it appear that the Executive gives approval to this. While it's not like the Vice President and a Justice were doing this program I still think that the First Lady shouldn't have been a partner.
I do agree that programs like this are done by judges, but how many are done by Justices of the Supreme Court? How many are done by a Justice and someone associated with another branch of government?Re:Checks and balances
pudge on 2002-01-29T16:05:55
You seem to misunderstand. Who cares if it IS the Vice President and a Justice? There is no principle -- legal, traditional, ethical, or othewise -- involved.
I do agree that programs like this are done by judges, but how many are done by Justices of the Supreme Court?
Many.
How many are done by a Justice and someone associated with another branch of government?
Many. No one cares about what branch of government someone is affiliated with when in private, non-official activities, especially when dealing with non-partisan educational programs for kids. It happens all the time. Legislators with executives, justices with legislators, whatever.
