Parent vs School: Nobody Wins

While I was browsing the news today, I stumbled across a headline that made me cringe. It read "School bans disabled girl from using walker." To be honest, I was really curious about it. After all, who would really tell a child that she was not allowed to use her walker, her only means of being able to get around without using a wheelchair?

The article and video show how a 5-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, whose mother was told that she may never walk when she was adopted, has been able to get on her feet and get around with the help of a walker. She may have her moments when she is tired or when she trips, but then again, so do most children. So why are the school officials now saying that she needs to be confined to her wheelchair?

According to one of the people who worked at the school, she was no longer allowed to use her walker in school because she tripped and fell. Honestly, can you show me a child who does not fall every now and then? Especially since walking for someone who was not supposed to be able to walk is most likely very difficult, it is understandable. However, why would they want to take away her only means of being able to move around on her own other than a wheelchair? She worked so hard for years to be able to walk like a normal person, and even though she is reliant on a walker, the school says that they are "looking out for her health" by confining her to her wheelchair and not allowing her to walk around with her walker.

This is. in my humble opinion, completely deplorable, and the mother got into a verbal argument with the principal after he gave her one big attitude about it. I can understand that the school wants her to be safe, but they also need to realize that kids fall-- it happens, so let's just suck it up and deal with it. The mother is now challenging this, and the school says that it is waiting on information from the doctor. Still, this little girl who has worked so hard to be able to walk is not allowed to do so, but instead has to get around school in a wheelchair. Is this fair? Can the school honestly say that it is looking after her best interests while at the same time taking away her freedom to move around on her own two legs, and making all of the work that she put in for a long time come to nothing for a majority of her day? How can they say that it is best for her to no longer be able to make progress in her walking while she is at school? It's not fair, and it's not right to tell someone who has worked so hard for so long that they are not allowed to do something that makes her more like a normal child.

Regarding Responsible Learning

So one of the topics that my group was mulling over was the common misconception about religion in politics. Based on the events of today, I feel that the topic is very fitting, as I witnessed (and responded to) such a comment during one of my classes. Before I start, I just want to say that this is, in fact, one of my pet peeves.

Anyway, this specific post is aimed at the founding of our country as well as the topic of deism. While we were in our one class, we were in the middle of a discussion regarding Don Quixote (and despite not knowing how we got on this topic) one of the students raised his hand and said, "Well, since America was founded on Christianity..."

So, partially because this happens to irritate me and partially due to lack of judgement, I replied, "No it wasn't." When everyone looked at me, I had to make another statement. After all, our country, contrary to seemingly popular belief, was not founded on the basis of Christianity. In fact, many of our founding fathers were actually deist (they still believe in God, but they are not of the Christian faith). Unfortunately, in our predominantly Christian society, we tend to forget this fact, and rather tend to teach that they were Christian (I remember learning that from one of my elementary school teachers).

This raises the big question: if we are learning something about the foundation of the country, can we truly be responsible citizens? I mean, we can't very well call ourselves responsible Americans if we do not know something like this. After all, since we are not a country based on religion, we cannot get into wars of religion, yet religion is so intimately tied to politics, especially regarding issues such as abortion and gay rights (this coming week happens to be gay pride week at Penn State). So what I want to know is this: how can we be responsible little Americans when we don't even check our facts for one of the most important aspects of our history?

Anyway, if you would like to learn more about deism, historyteacher.net is a website that is used for AP European History classes and has a large portion of one of the powerpoints dedicated to this topic. Also, if you would like proof that I am not fabricating the fact that out country was not founded on the Christian religion, I would like to refer you to the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11. A link can be found here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

Taking Politics Too Far

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/15/10702389-obamas-image-on-american-flag-angers-vets

Today I was browsing through the Today Show website looking at the news articles, and I noticed this one. I bet President Obama was surprised when he saw this. A democratic party office in Florida flew this flag underneath the traditional American flag for about two months until someone noticed it. Unfortunately, that someone was a veteran. After exchanging a few verbal blows, the office took down the flag.

The main problem, however, is the fact that they put Obama's face on the American flag. It was completely unnecessary to do so, and it can actually do more harm than good (which is probably what happened in this case). After all, I doubt that many Americans would think highly of a person who put his or her face there. It is rude and disrespectful toward the country in many people's eyes for someone to do just this. Maybe I am being irrational with my thoughts, but if a candidate endorsed something like this (which I highly doubt was the case here) I would personally be less likely to vote for that candidate. To me, this screams "I think that I am more important that the country and its flag."

Perhaps foresight or a little common sense would have been the best thing for the people who produced and hung the flag. Really? They couldn't just put a poster in red, white and blue under the flag? The people who did this may have had good intentions, but they were being rather irresponsible and rash with the image of the person who they wanted to get elected as the president. I personally think that people will hear about this and think that the president endorsed such an action and will be less likely to vote for him as a result. Sadly, the members of the office who did this might not have helped the campaign with this as they probably wanted to, but they may have accidentally given the other party something to use against President Obama during the upcoming campaign-- as if he didn't have enough to deal with already.