EDITORIALS - by month
Honesty is the Best Policy?
Honesty is highly valued in today’s society, where the tendency to lie seems to be taking on an increased prevalence in the lives of America’s teenagers. It is therefore interesting that telling the truth can sometimes result in increased punishment for an act, especially in a school, where the imperative is not only to educate us, but instill good values in our youth.
The specific incident that will be discussed in relation to this concept occurred at a band rehearsal at Richmond Street Elementary School on September 13. After work, members of the band began to draw on the concrete in chalk. One of the students, junior Matt Lim, wrote “UCLA sucks” upon the announcement of the score of a game that day (UCLA 0- BYU 59). Nothing occurred on the day of the incident, and the students went home as usual. On Monday, Ms. Harada was informed that “obscene” material had been drawn on the concrete of the elementary school. Upon investigating this, it was indeed true that “curse words” and male genitalia had been drawn. The curse word in question was apparently the word “sucks” written by Matt. Ms. Harada, naturally, sent for the students assumed to be responsible for the deed, and they were questioned one by one. Upon being questioned, Matt admitted to writing “UCLA sucks” and further said that he had already admitted this to Mr. Fox. The response to this was that what he wrote offended people. This editorial is not condoning the actions of Mr. Lim; rather, a different aspect of the issue is being examined. A detention was give to Mr. Lim for “minor vandalism.” Once again, this is not to say that Matt did not deserve the detention (although the semantics of the word vandalism can be debated as to its applicability to something written in chalk). Rather, it is the punishment assigned to the rest of the students. Only three of the band members were given detentions, the rest were not punished in any way after they denied all claims. Naturally, the three upright students who took responsibility for their immature deeds went to question Ms. Harada about this. At this point in time, according to Mr. Lim, the reason for the detention was changed to “indecent behavior.” Regardless of the reason, the fact that only three students received detention is rather unsettling.
It is of course expected of us to behave in a morally upright manner, but when the school refuses to punish those who lie and only punishes the students who have the moral fiber to admit to their deed, when the evidence against both parties is identical (namely eye witness accounts against the accused) something certainly wrong has occurred. This action on the part of the administration, rather than having the intended effect of punishing bad behavior, seemingly reinforces the impulse to lie. Once again, this editorial does not condone the immature activities of Mr. Lim and those who also drew on the concrete at Richmond Street. Instead, it is the opinion of the editorial staff of the Bay Eagle that punishment should not be subjective, and that the morally upright behavior of those who admitted to their deed should be admired, not maltreated.
The specific incident that will be discussed in relation to this concept occurred at a band rehearsal at Richmond Street Elementary School on September 13. After work, members of the band began to draw on the concrete in chalk. One of the students, junior Matt Lim, wrote “UCLA sucks” upon the announcement of the score of a game that day (UCLA 0- BYU 59). Nothing occurred on the day of the incident, and the students went home as usual. On Monday, Ms. Harada was informed that “obscene” material had been drawn on the concrete of the elementary school. Upon investigating this, it was indeed true that “curse words” and male genitalia had been drawn. The curse word in question was apparently the word “sucks” written by Matt. Ms. Harada, naturally, sent for the students assumed to be responsible for the deed, and they were questioned one by one. Upon being questioned, Matt admitted to writing “UCLA sucks” and further said that he had already admitted this to Mr. Fox. The response to this was that what he wrote offended people. This editorial is not condoning the actions of Mr. Lim; rather, a different aspect of the issue is being examined. A detention was give to Mr. Lim for “minor vandalism.” Once again, this is not to say that Matt did not deserve the detention (although the semantics of the word vandalism can be debated as to its applicability to something written in chalk). Rather, it is the punishment assigned to the rest of the students. Only three of the band members were given detentions, the rest were not punished in any way after they denied all claims. Naturally, the three upright students who took responsibility for their immature deeds went to question Ms. Harada about this. At this point in time, according to Mr. Lim, the reason for the detention was changed to “indecent behavior.” Regardless of the reason, the fact that only three students received detention is rather unsettling.
It is of course expected of us to behave in a morally upright manner, but when the school refuses to punish those who lie and only punishes the students who have the moral fiber to admit to their deed, when the evidence against both parties is identical (namely eye witness accounts against the accused) something certainly wrong has occurred. This action on the part of the administration, rather than having the intended effect of punishing bad behavior, seemingly reinforces the impulse to lie. Once again, this editorial does not condone the immature activities of Mr. Lim and those who also drew on the concrete at Richmond Street. Instead, it is the opinion of the editorial staff of the Bay Eagle that punishment should not be subjective, and that the morally upright behavior of those who admitted to their deed should be admired, not maltreated.
Junior-Senior War?
The Junior-Senior war is one of those timeless traditions that most can look back upon fondly as they recall their high school years. Typically seen as friendly competition, this year the war seemed to escalate to something else altogether. Previous years have been marked with their tense moments, and it would completely false to say they did not feature the always classic eggings and pranks. However, this year has been much more epic.
The “war” began this year with both classes hitting the ground running, so to speak. Many houses and cars were defiled by eggs. While students may have found this entertaining, parents and the El Segundo Police certainly did not. Punitive measures ranging from detentions to suspensions and citations were issued in an effort to combat the flurry of immature activity, but to no avail…the unconquerable spirit of some students would not be subjugated.
The pep rally on the day of homecoming was in itself a perfect example of the frenzy that took over the students. The seniors were given the “honor” of being seated in their own stands; perhaps this was simply to prevent a riot from breaking out, we do not know. The competing yells of "09!" and "10!" drowned out the beginning of announcements, and the disrespect students had for the assembly as a whole was summarized by the fact that shouts continued halfway through the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this may have been the result of the inadequate sound system. Usually the speakers would be powerful enough to penetrate the home stands but with the seniors separated off, the sound was compromised. It must be said, however, that the Senior class did redeem itself by joining the ESHS choir with its own rousing chorus of the national anthem.
One of the more interesting events of the war was the phenomenon regarding the flyers slipped in many lockers of juniors and seniors alike. A collage of some of these flyers is featured in the paper. However, while these may have been in good fun, one activity undertaken by the seniors was not looked upon particularly kindly by the administration. Immediately after the pep rally, students departing the field were greeted by the sight of twenty or so seniors holding a sheet upon which "09!" and a certain expletive directed at the junior class also decorated the signage. This immature act, which perhaps would have been moderately more acceptable if the expletive had been omitted, was a foolhardy act. Hopefully, such stupidity will be avoided in the future, and clashes will solely involve healthy, moderate competition that students, parents, the police, and the administration will be able to appreciate.
The “war” began this year with both classes hitting the ground running, so to speak. Many houses and cars were defiled by eggs. While students may have found this entertaining, parents and the El Segundo Police certainly did not. Punitive measures ranging from detentions to suspensions and citations were issued in an effort to combat the flurry of immature activity, but to no avail…the unconquerable spirit of some students would not be subjugated.
The pep rally on the day of homecoming was in itself a perfect example of the frenzy that took over the students. The seniors were given the “honor” of being seated in their own stands; perhaps this was simply to prevent a riot from breaking out, we do not know. The competing yells of "09!" and "10!" drowned out the beginning of announcements, and the disrespect students had for the assembly as a whole was summarized by the fact that shouts continued halfway through the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this may have been the result of the inadequate sound system. Usually the speakers would be powerful enough to penetrate the home stands but with the seniors separated off, the sound was compromised. It must be said, however, that the Senior class did redeem itself by joining the ESHS choir with its own rousing chorus of the national anthem.
One of the more interesting events of the war was the phenomenon regarding the flyers slipped in many lockers of juniors and seniors alike. A collage of some of these flyers is featured in the paper. However, while these may have been in good fun, one activity undertaken by the seniors was not looked upon particularly kindly by the administration. Immediately after the pep rally, students departing the field were greeted by the sight of twenty or so seniors holding a sheet upon which "09!" and a certain expletive directed at the junior class also decorated the signage. This immature act, which perhaps would have been moderately more acceptable if the expletive had been omitted, was a foolhardy act. Hopefully, such stupidity will be avoided in the future, and clashes will solely involve healthy, moderate competition that students, parents, the police, and the administration will be able to appreciate.
Proposition 8
In the recent 2008 election, Proposition 8 aroused much controversy in the state of California. Although this proposition affected only California law, this issue was thought to have far reaching effects outside our state. The passage of this proposition prohibited same sex marriages in the state of California already made legal by the state’s Supreme Court only a few months before.
The people who came out for this proposition are for discrimination. What happened to equality? Isn’t that the reason people come to the USA in the first place? Americans have always believed in the power of the freedom and equality – should this include our gay citizens? The history of America is a history of how we welcome more and more people into our American community. It seems that we excluded people with the passage of Prop 8. With Prop 8, we have cut off the rights that other citizens have.
Americans are for change, for new leaders and experiences, but this discrimination started long ago. Now that such progress has been made, do those who vote yes on 8 really think that it is right to segregate people according to sexual orientation? America has been prejudice against the Chinese, African Americans, Japanese and many others, are homosexual couples just another group to be added to that long list of heartbreak? With the election of the United States of America’s new President, it would appear that America was taking a step in the right direction for change, has California caused this great influential change in America’s history to move backward? As a nation, the United States was considered the promise land, but those promises fall short when we deny gay citizens the same privileges of getting married as straight citizens.
What is the legal difference between someone who is gay and someone who is straight? Laws are supposed to make everyone equal. But this law discriminates. Since when did Americans put a barrier upon deciding whom we can love and cannot? With love comes the desire to be with that person forever, which is the general idea of marriage. The difference between heterosexual love and homosexual cannot be shown to be greater or less equal than the other. What if it was the other way around? What if it was illegal for a man and a woman to get married but legal for two people of the same sex to get married? Can you imagine if you could not marry the person you love, because it was forbidden from the law? If the Constitution says that men are created equal then why should gay people be discriminated against? When discrimination becomes okay in this country, opportunities become limited and the unity of America deteriorates. Why should people of certain religions be accepted but people with different orientations are not? Americans and residents of California have increasingly become more hypocritical and unwilling to change for the good of the country.
The arguments against gay marriage are typically ridiculous, and ridiculous is the only word that can describe them. Even assuming all of the emotional arguments with no logical basis, what remains is a random assortment of exaggerated facts and simple untruths. Gay couples do not create gay children. The defeat of this proposition would not have result in the indoctrination of our children with “gay tendencies” in schools. We agree with Senior Jessica Mason, “Prop 8 has to be one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever experienced. It’s not right to take away people’s rights just because you don’t agree with them.”
In the Bill of rights American citizens are given the freedom of religion. However, do those religions who allow same sex marriage suddenly become invalid because another religion has changed California’s state laws? This country was founded upon the concept of a separation of the church and state from the government. The purpose of America is to give EVERYONE freedom, opportunities and a better life, how can we enforce these promises if discrimination is practiced because of Prop 8? What do we mean when we say we are “one nation” but discriminate against our fellow Americans? Are we all not Americans?
The people who came out for this proposition are for discrimination. What happened to equality? Isn’t that the reason people come to the USA in the first place? Americans have always believed in the power of the freedom and equality – should this include our gay citizens? The history of America is a history of how we welcome more and more people into our American community. It seems that we excluded people with the passage of Prop 8. With Prop 8, we have cut off the rights that other citizens have.
Americans are for change, for new leaders and experiences, but this discrimination started long ago. Now that such progress has been made, do those who vote yes on 8 really think that it is right to segregate people according to sexual orientation? America has been prejudice against the Chinese, African Americans, Japanese and many others, are homosexual couples just another group to be added to that long list of heartbreak? With the election of the United States of America’s new President, it would appear that America was taking a step in the right direction for change, has California caused this great influential change in America’s history to move backward? As a nation, the United States was considered the promise land, but those promises fall short when we deny gay citizens the same privileges of getting married as straight citizens.
What is the legal difference between someone who is gay and someone who is straight? Laws are supposed to make everyone equal. But this law discriminates. Since when did Americans put a barrier upon deciding whom we can love and cannot? With love comes the desire to be with that person forever, which is the general idea of marriage. The difference between heterosexual love and homosexual cannot be shown to be greater or less equal than the other. What if it was the other way around? What if it was illegal for a man and a woman to get married but legal for two people of the same sex to get married? Can you imagine if you could not marry the person you love, because it was forbidden from the law? If the Constitution says that men are created equal then why should gay people be discriminated against? When discrimination becomes okay in this country, opportunities become limited and the unity of America deteriorates. Why should people of certain religions be accepted but people with different orientations are not? Americans and residents of California have increasingly become more hypocritical and unwilling to change for the good of the country.
The arguments against gay marriage are typically ridiculous, and ridiculous is the only word that can describe them. Even assuming all of the emotional arguments with no logical basis, what remains is a random assortment of exaggerated facts and simple untruths. Gay couples do not create gay children. The defeat of this proposition would not have result in the indoctrination of our children with “gay tendencies” in schools. We agree with Senior Jessica Mason, “Prop 8 has to be one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever experienced. It’s not right to take away people’s rights just because you don’t agree with them.”
In the Bill of rights American citizens are given the freedom of religion. However, do those religions who allow same sex marriage suddenly become invalid because another religion has changed California’s state laws? This country was founded upon the concept of a separation of the church and state from the government. The purpose of America is to give EVERYONE freedom, opportunities and a better life, how can we enforce these promises if discrimination is practiced because of Prop 8? What do we mean when we say we are “one nation” but discriminate against our fellow Americans? Are we all not Americans?
The Holiday Season
The holiday season has come upon us once again, and we find ourselves faced once more with the age-old juxtaposition between the forces of good and the forces of evil. This is no melodramatic statement, somewhat of a cliché though it may be. Christmas is the perfect time of year for looking at the interplay between hope, love, courage, heroism, fear, avarice and corruption. Santa himself embodies the ultimate physical manifestation of karma, and the idea that somehow, justice is served. This season brings him together with the forces of American capitalism, as well as religious devotion and family bonding. The spirit of the holidays encompasses love, hope, family and, most of all, faith
This year in particular, the season has specific importance. The year has been an eventful one to say the least; from a historic election, to the deeply divisive Proposition 8 here in California, and even away from the political stage, where an economic crisis hit and continues to hit home with millions of Americans each and every day. These times have proven themselves of great import. Even in recent times, the corruption continues: governor of Illinois, Rod R. Blagojevich, was just accused of heinous deeds that have been described by his federal prosecutor as causing “Lincoln to turn over in his grave.” These events are constant reminders that the forces of hate, corruption, and deceit are all around us, but the holiday season is unique in that it brings to the table, in direct contrast to these oppressive forces, all that is good in society: the hope of a child who waits anxiously to open his presents the following morning, or the love between family and friends in front of a fireplace. We hope that you find the joy in the world, even in these troubled times.
The Tax on Our Freedom
"The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets" – Will Rogers.
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax" –Albert Einstein
“People who relieve others of their money with guns are called robbers. It does not alter the immorality of the act when the income transfer is carried out by government.” -- Cal Thomas
“Most [tax revisions] didn't improve the system, they made it more like Washington itself: complicated, unfair, cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to hire high-priced legal and tax advisers.” -- Ronald Reagan
It is clear that taxes are a contentious subject, and have been for ages. The concept of handing over personal income to an institution is by no means new; the first recorded taxes go all the way back to Ancient Egypt. No matter what, the ONLY way that a government can provide services is with money gained from taxation…which unfortunately, brings us to the classic argument of what responsibilities the government should carry. Proponents for both “big” and “small” governments clash repeatedly on the topic of taxes, and the American people, in their hypocrisy, tend to make what should be a simple issue extremely complex.
If the government is to provide services, the people must pay taxes. The average American, however, is hypocritical enough to resist government taxation, citing an oppressive government that tramples the rights of its citizens, yet also demand of the government a variety of services and fixes to innumerable problems. “Small” government advocates protest welfare and other sources as utter wastes of tax dollars, while others argue that certain government services are extremely important, and that other industrial nations such as Germany (which could be called a welfare state) have a very efficient system that cares for its citizens very well. The ideological argument between large and small governments will not be addressed here, but rather a complaint must be launched against the American tax system itself. No matter what is done with this money, the process of collecting it as the current system stands is lengthy, unnecessarily complex, and most of all unfair.
The US tax code is over 60,000 pages long, providing 60,000 chances for a crack team of tax preparers hired by a filthy rich citizen to avoid taxes. This is clearly a problem. As citizens, we pay taxes through many convoluted ways, ranging from income taxes, to sales taxes, to additional taxes imposed on certain products on national, state, and local levels. A proposed solution comes in the form of the FairTax Ace…it proposes the removal of all of these forms of income and property tax, and replacing them with a standard sales/consumption tax that applies to all people and all goods purchased. It would be regressive on income but progressive on consumption. In this way, no number of loopholes could save the rich from paying taxes if they intend to spend money. Unfortunately, this increases the incentive to hide sales from the government. The 162 page FairTax Act would be a great replacement for the corrupted glut of laws that make up the US Tax Code, but its own shortcomings have caused great deal of debate in Congress. It is unlikely that any single solution will be found or implemented quickly, or will come without their own set of imperfections; however, the current system is simply horrendous, and its unjust ways and complicated set of restrictions (that require over 60,000 pages to fully flesh out) must be replaced and updated.
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax" –Albert Einstein
“People who relieve others of their money with guns are called robbers. It does not alter the immorality of the act when the income transfer is carried out by government.” -- Cal Thomas
“Most [tax revisions] didn't improve the system, they made it more like Washington itself: complicated, unfair, cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to hire high-priced legal and tax advisers.” -- Ronald Reagan
It is clear that taxes are a contentious subject, and have been for ages. The concept of handing over personal income to an institution is by no means new; the first recorded taxes go all the way back to Ancient Egypt. No matter what, the ONLY way that a government can provide services is with money gained from taxation…which unfortunately, brings us to the classic argument of what responsibilities the government should carry. Proponents for both “big” and “small” governments clash repeatedly on the topic of taxes, and the American people, in their hypocrisy, tend to make what should be a simple issue extremely complex.
If the government is to provide services, the people must pay taxes. The average American, however, is hypocritical enough to resist government taxation, citing an oppressive government that tramples the rights of its citizens, yet also demand of the government a variety of services and fixes to innumerable problems. “Small” government advocates protest welfare and other sources as utter wastes of tax dollars, while others argue that certain government services are extremely important, and that other industrial nations such as Germany (which could be called a welfare state) have a very efficient system that cares for its citizens very well. The ideological argument between large and small governments will not be addressed here, but rather a complaint must be launched against the American tax system itself. No matter what is done with this money, the process of collecting it as the current system stands is lengthy, unnecessarily complex, and most of all unfair.
The US tax code is over 60,000 pages long, providing 60,000 chances for a crack team of tax preparers hired by a filthy rich citizen to avoid taxes. This is clearly a problem. As citizens, we pay taxes through many convoluted ways, ranging from income taxes, to sales taxes, to additional taxes imposed on certain products on national, state, and local levels. A proposed solution comes in the form of the FairTax Ace…it proposes the removal of all of these forms of income and property tax, and replacing them with a standard sales/consumption tax that applies to all people and all goods purchased. It would be regressive on income but progressive on consumption. In this way, no number of loopholes could save the rich from paying taxes if they intend to spend money. Unfortunately, this increases the incentive to hide sales from the government. The 162 page FairTax Act would be a great replacement for the corrupted glut of laws that make up the US Tax Code, but its own shortcomings have caused great deal of debate in Congress. It is unlikely that any single solution will be found or implemented quickly, or will come without their own set of imperfections; however, the current system is simply horrendous, and its unjust ways and complicated set of restrictions (that require over 60,000 pages to fully flesh out) must be replaced and updated.
Label 6
Content 6