The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
This is beyond disturbing. It is quite possible that a few of these kids will find themselves in positions of leadership in the future. If they don’t outgrow their sick little aversions to freedom, then we’re going to be in real trouble.
When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.
This is particularly alarming. Over 17,000 kids think free _expression is something that needs to be stopped. They hardly make a majority, but it’s pretty damn scary that there are that many raving fascists in high school.
Where could these ideas be coming from? Quite possibly from pure ignorance. It’s no longer PC to teach American history or to espouse ideas such as those found in the U.S. Constitution in public school. And kids are more likely to be bombarded with flattering portrayals of Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideas than they are to be presented with the myriad virtues of freedom and capitalism, so I suppose the results of this survey shouldn’t be surprising. But as for myself, I shall remain hopeful. It’s possible that the survey questions were poorly worded and that high schools aren’t turning out tyrannical thugs. And I am absolutely certain that there are many people old enough to know better who think censorship and oppression are just fine and dandy, for I see such people at work on a regular basis, and most such morons will never be in a position to influence anyone. But I may never vote for someone younger than me for any office, just as a precaution.
6:47 AM
Some dude has been filming suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge. He’s going to compile his footage into a little movie of sorts. I don’t see many movies and have no interest in seeing his, so I won’t be seeing it. But I'm willing to concede that it may be in poor taste. Assuming this chap doesn’t plan to handcuff the population of San Francisco to folding chairs and force them to watch his film at gunpoint, the citizens of SF should be equally indifferent, considering he's been going about his filming for some time and they haven't even taken notice of him until now. But, as yesterday’s letters to the editor show, a few of the fine citizens are not indifferent. This is the stupidest example:
"Bridge officials and Marin and San Francisco county supervisors are upset by Eric Steel's film project, but they have been enablers of suicide at the bridge. Cities such as Paris and Toronto and many others eliminated suicides from local icons long ago, but we don't want our precious view impacted. "
If Paris and Toronto have done such a thing, then that’s just wonderful and they should really be happy about their empty gesture. And the bitch that wrote the letter can go live in one of those cities and bask in the suicidelessness of it. It’s not like people are driving across the Golden Gate bridge, being sucked out of their cars and hurled over the side because of design flaw in the bridge. If you can avoid getting smacked by someone’s car, you can safely walk, bicycle, or skateboard across that bridge without fear of being thrown off it. People that plunge to their deaths from that bridge do it because they bypass numerous safeguards because their main objective in life at that point is to go over the side of that bridge. If stopping those assclowns means impacting someone’s precious view, then those assclowns should not be stopped. Bridge officials, et.al. are not enabling a damn thing by not turning the Golden Gate Bridge into the Golden Gate Fully-Enclosed Padded Tunnel any more than the Bureau of Marine Resources is enabling drowning by not filling the Pacific with sand.
But while we’re on the subject of suicide, let’s talk about the worthless pieces of crap that can’t just end their pathetic lives quickly and without affecting others. One example is the fools that get to the middle of the bridge, make it known that they intend to jump, then spend the next few hours holding up traffic while people try to talk them down. Here is some advice for the suicidal: If you think your life is bad enough such that you should end it, then at least have the decency to have low enough self esteem to realize that you’re worthless and have no right to inconvenience anyone else. Come to think of it, isn't that why you're killing yourself? Whatever you do, don't be like this guy:
At least when someone goes to jump off a bridge, they might have fully intended to be nice and just jump on over and then just gotten scared when it came time to do the deed. Not so with Juan Miguel Alvarez. When this MURDERER parked his car on the railroad tracks, even had he not decided to wimp out at the last minute, his plan all along involved putting numerous others at risk for no good reason. You have to be a special kind of sick bastard to do something like this. His inconsiderate suicide attempt shows that the world in fact would've been better off without him and thus that his decision to exit it was the right one. I don’t know what people who do this kind of thing deserve. Hopefully he will get the death penalty, but is that really punishment enough? He might want to die anyway. Not that I’m suggesting this dude not be put to death or anything. Far from it.
