Gay pride house bought next to Westboro Baptist Church

                   The Westboro Baptist Church has come into the spotlight in recent years and is pretty much universally despised for their disturbing showcase of hatred for not only gay people, but basically anyone who isn't them. They even go so far as to "protest" at the funerals of American soldiers, bringing along extremely offensive signs and generally just being terrible people. That's why this news video really caught my eye. A man named Aaron Jackson has recently bought a house down the street from the church, deciding to paint it the rainbow colors of the gay pride flag. He is one of the founders of Planting Peace, an organization who's mission is to globally spread peace throughout the world through different projects around the world, most recently this one in Topeka, Kansas. This "Equality House" will be used for accommodating volunteers and raising money for their anti-bullying campaign.
               As far as the reaction of the church has gone, Jackson has said they haven't done anything outright yet, but have tweeted about it. He says that while they were painting the house, one of the women from the church, Shirley Phelps-Roper, came over and took a picture of it, letting them know she "loves the colors." Predictably, the church has twisted this into something they think will benefit their message. Says Phelps-Roper, "I just love it... [It] keeps the eyes of the whole earth on this message. Now everyday all people are thinking about is that God will not have same-sex marriage." 
              No matter what the unimportant reaction of the Westboro Baptist Church is to this new establishment, I have a lot of respect for this man for going against the grain and really putting in an effort to make a statement and further his cause. The press this news story has received will no doubt shed a lot of light on his organization, Planting Peace. What do you think of the Equality House? Do you think it will make much of a difference in the community?

Chicago plans to close 54 schools

             I'm sure most of you have heard about the decision that the city of Chicago made this week to close down 54 public schools. The budget issues the CPS is facing is not helped by the fact that before this, this school system that had places for over 500,000 was being filled by just over 400,000. For this reason, the city thought it would help the budget and assist in stabilizing the shaky system by largely cutting down the number of public schools. Technically, a lot of money was being wasted by keeping underpopulated school afloat. Unfortunately, the repercussions of these closings are that not every student will be able to attend new schools. This closing will affect around 30,000 kids, with just half of that moving into new schools. The areas of the closing are mostly in lower class, majorly African American areas.
         Another concern is that with the new schools in new areas these kids will be attending, getting to school might become a dangerous process. Student can be put in dangerous situations if they have to cross gang lines to get to school every morning. Fortunately, the CPS plans to have groups of people assist kids in getting to school safely. The closing of all these schools has caused a big uproar in the community. Eular Hatchett of North Lawndale, who walks her 13 year old nephew to school every day, has said of the necessary switch, "Our parents know about this area.They don't know about those other areas. If they send him way north or way south, I'm not going to do that. It's too dangerous." This demonstrates the problem many families are facing with the closings. Receiving and education is important to many, but its so much more complicated than just up and switching schools. There are a lot of factors such as safety and transportation that thousands of families are going to have to reevaluate.
         It is a positive thing that the city will now have more money to improve higher attended schools, but do you think that putting so many families in such difficult situations is worth it?

Economy or Environment?

 

 

           A big controversy that has recently started up involves the transport of oil from Canada to the US. The Keystone Pipeline is a pipe that can transfer oil from tar sands in Canada, to the gulf coast. Right now, the government is in the process of deciding if this should go through. If it passes, 800,000 barrels of crude oil will be transported to the US every day. The economic results from this oil trade would be very good. For an economy that has been struggling for years and suffering from high gas prices, this would definitely lower gas rates, as well as create jobs, overall improving the economy. This image displays the route the oil would take through the pipeline across the country. The other image is a play on that, expressing how much of a boost this would be for the economy because of how many more jobs it would create. It's true, putting this pipeline into use would help out the economy a lot. However, there is still a large amount of controversy about it with a huge resistance.
         While the economic aspects look tempting, the environmental repercussions are not as positive. The oil would be extracted from tar sand, which is a very dirty process. Basically, starting the transfer of oil from Canada using this method would be absolutely terrible for an already teetering environment. It would be adding insult to injury. Many scientists have hypothesized that if we continue treating the environment the way we are treating it now, an irreversible and severe climate change will take place in the near future. This pipeline certainly will not be helping. There is also the direct health threat to the indigenous people of Alberta, the area where the pipeline will start.
             For something so potentially helpful to the economy, but also clearly detrimental to the environment, is it worth it? Being "green" and earth-friendly (the use of alternative energy sources, buying earth friendly food/household items) has the connotation with being more expensive, which isn't very welcomed in today's economy. Both the issues of saving our environment and our economy are extremely important, but unfortunately by improving one, in turn the other one is frequently damaged. Do you think this oil transport should be carried through? What should we be focusing on right now, economy or the environment?

Richard Beasley recommended for death penalty

                    If you remember, back in 2011, there were a number of murders in Ohio which lead to the discovery of the "Craiglist Killer." 53 year old Richard Beasley had posted fake farmhand job offers on Craigslist to trick people into meeting with him. Three men showed up and were killed, as well as a wounded fourth.

                   Yesterday, the Ohio jury announced that they would be recommending the death penalty for Beasely. The other possibilities were life in prison without chance of parole, or a life sentence with chance of parole in 25 to 30 years. The judge has the final say in the matter, so we don't know for sure. Beasely's final fate will be revealed on March 26th. It seems likely though that she will agree with what the jury is recommending. While the crime he committed was a terrible act, the defense was trying to paint him in a sympathetic light. His mother testified in his defense. She explained how Richard had had a very difficult and abusive childhood. He was sexually abused by neighborhood boys in his youth, and was neglected and violently abused by his father and stepfather. A psychologist testified that this childhood had a profound impact on him later in life, resulting in depression, alcohol abuse, and low self-esteem, which in turn may have caused him to commit these crimes.
                Do you agree with the jury's recommendation for the death penalty, or do you think it is too harsh considering the conditions he was under throughout his life? Do you think these factors of an abusive childhood serve as any "excuse," or at least alleviate the severity of what he has done?

No More Big Gulps for NYC?

            You may have heard about New York City's plan to eradicate sugary drinks, like soda (larger than 16 ounces), from public establishments like restaurants and movie theaters. However more recently, this ban was ruled  by the State Supreme Court as "arbitrary and capricious" after the American Beverage Association had sued the city, and it was invalidated. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to appeal to get the ban validated again, and argues that obesity has become and dangerous epidemic. It supposedly kills 5000 New Yorkers a year, and he believes this ban would help cut down on that number.

        This whole issue on whether this ban should go though or not seems pretty ridiculous. The thing that confused me is that if the ban goes through, sugary drinks won't even be banned in public facilities, just sizes larger than 16 ounces. Have we really become a nation that throws a fit when the ability to buy a Coke bigger than 16 ounces is threatened? The American Beverage Association released this statement, "The court ruling provides a sigh of relief to New Yorkers and thousands of small businesses in New York City that would have been harmed by this arbitrary and unpopular ban." Why would banning large sized sodas harm the NYC population, or really small businesses for that matter? It's no secret that drinks like Coke have a huge amount of sugar in them and, drunk in excess, are extremely bad for you. Their consumption can clearly be traced back to obesity. While this ban probably won't affect the overall problem of obesity in NYC in a huge way, I don't think there is any reason not to go through with this health-conscious ban on sodas bigger than 16 oz., especially since people will still be able to get their soda anyways, just in smaller sizes.
           On the other hand, there is an argument for the invalidation of this ban. It does seem to limit a costumer's freedom (in a very small and seemingly unimportant way, but is does nonetheless). People will no longer have the choice to enjoy Big Gulps, which may be upsetting to some. To the judge that stopped the ban, it was more about NYC not having the authority to place this ban, rather than the limitation of soda being unfair.

What do you think? Should the ban on facilities serving sugary drinks  larger than 16 ounces go through, or is it unfair and arbitrary? Should the ban go through, do you think it will have any affect on obesity and health rates in NYC?