ON Halloween of this year, President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, he would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has proven to be a crucial swing vote on decisive court cases.
People are often frightened of what they do not know, as was shown by the anxiety over the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. The Chief Justice served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a very short time. As a result, not much is known about how he will vote on future cases that involve such issues as abortion and religious freedoms.
Judge Alito, however, has been a federal judge since 1990, when he was nominated to the federal bench by President George H. W. Bush. He has helped to make thousands of rulings and much is known about his views on certain issues.
The most pressing issue facing senators with Judge Alito’s nomination is that of abortion, particularly because he will replace Justice O’Connor’s swing vote, which she has used to protect abortion rights. Judge Alito’s mother, Rose Alito, has been quoted as saying, “Of course, he’s against abortion,” but the media is slow to take Mrs. Alito’s comment at face value.
On the record, both as a judge and as a lawyer for the Reagan Administration, Alito has been a strong opponent of abortion, reliably anti-choice enough to send shivers down the collective spine of the women’s rights lobby. Nevertheless, there are three clear opinions in which Judge Alito ruled to uphold abortion rights. In one of those decisions, Alito cited Supreme Court precedent as part of his explanation for his decision.
For those who are pro-choice, Judge Alito’s respect for the law could make him an important ally, though no one is sure about what his decisions will be once he reaches the court. Once there, he will not be held accountable to a higher authority, as he is now on the circuit court.
A higher authority certainly seems to figure into Judge Alito’s decisions, which are rich with opinions supporting religious freedoms like the freedom of Muslim police officers to keep their beards, or Jewish professors’ rights not to attend faculty meetings on Friday afternoon and Saturday.
Everyone can agree that civil rights for people of all backgrounds and creeds is a healthy thing for a nation that prides itself as the world’s melting pot. Judge Alito, however, takes the First Amendment too far. He dissented in an opinion upholding a law against prayer at high school graduations, and also dissented in another case forbidding a mother from suing her daughter’s elementary school for taking down a poster of Jesus that she drew. It can be inferred from these decisions that Judge Alito would support school prayer if a case dealing with that topic came before him in the Supreme Court.
When he was inaugurated earlier this year, President Bush swore that he would “preserve and protect” the Constitution. The executive branch checks the power of the judicial branch because the president is in charge of selecting federal judges and justices. A seat on the federal bench is permanent, while the president has no more than eight years to make his mark on history.
President Bush is an idealist; he is firmly rooted in conservative doctrine, and thus his pick for Supreme Court justice is likely to be similarly doctrinaire on the right-wing. What America needs now is not a right-wing justice who will continue to support restrictive legislation 20 years from now, but a keen, intelligent legal mind that will recognize and welcome change that increases the lawful freedoms of American citizens.
Judge Samuel Alito is certainly keen and intelligent, but will he stand up for the freedoms of all Americans when faced with a morally difficult decision? In voting to confirm Judge Alito, senators must consider their responsibilities to future Americans, and consider whether he will protect the liberties guaranteed to every citizen by the United States Constitution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Board of Education Members Speak Out On Student Issues
Chairman Jack Darcey (D)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
I am totally against this idea, and I intend to fight against it.
Should Hall High School open later?
Personally, I think high school starts very early, but the logistics didn’t work and people seemed really opposed to the idea. Here, I’m going to listen to the public.
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
I cannot speak to athletic and music fees, but I know that parking fees declined to a much fairer price since students at Conard boycotted the parking lots.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
Schools have the right to regulate student apparel, so nobody should be complaining about hats. Also, Conard students haven’t been allowed to wear them for years.
Beth Bye (D)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
I will not favor its implementation without a consensus and a full process, and that will be difficult to do for next year. I want to see how it addresses crucial issues like the achievement gap.
Should Hall High School open later?
I don’t think it can unless we take care of surrounding issues, notably students missing classes for sports, field shortages, and the effects of this change on the middle schools. We ought to wait and see.
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
I am against pay-to-play fees. While parking prices are fair, parents are writing too many checks for school activities. I mean, do the choirs and bands need tuxedos? Some people cannot afford them.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
I really like the no hat rule.
Harry Captain (D)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
At this time, I’m open to more information and I need more data to make a decision. As of now, though, I do not favor block scheduling.
Should Hall High School open later?
Again, I would need more information from the administration. I would need to see answers on sports, cooperation with other schools, and greater support for the idea from the student body.
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
They are fair in that other districts are doing the same things. I wish we didn’t have pay-to-play, but we have to control both spending and taxes.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
Students’ wearing religious headpieces is fine, otherwise I have no problem with the rule against hats, because teachers and students ought to be able to see each other.
Elizabeth Brasil Spinella (R)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
I do not think that block scheduling applies well to most areas of study, and I know that it has not been a popular notion at Hall. I cannot imagine how a student with ADHD would function under a block schedule.
Should Hall High School open later?
Studies say adolescents need to sleep late, but 45 minutes will not make a difference. Students will simply stay up later. Finally, practical issues don’t permit late openings.
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
None of us like them, but the fees are reasonable, and the students will pay. I do not see them changing unless the state gives us more money.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
I find hats to be the least disruptive of the wardrobe issues. Other distractions should take precedence.
Bruce Putterman (D)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
We are still learning about it, so I am not prepared to offer a viewpoint, however, I am receptive to their point of view and I tend to give Dr. Slater and Superintendent Sklarz the benefit of the doubt.
Should Hall High School open later?
I support that idea 100%, and I am actively fighting for Hall to open later.
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
We would all rather not have them, but since we are working with a limited budget, everyone has to chip in to finance the benefits they get.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
Research shows that students perform better when they wear uniforms. I do not favor that extreme, but some higher standards of decorum are needed.
Tom Fiorentino (R)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
As of now, I oppose it. I am for nothing that will alienate the faculty like this will. I have seen no research or data that accurately supports it.
Should Hall High School open later?
We covered this issue last year, and based on my experience, it is not a fair trade-off for all the havoc it would cause, particularly what would result from opening the middle schools earlier.
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
I hate fees for extracirriculars, and the reason we have them is because we do not have enough money. This is an unfair way to raise cash that discourages participation in athletics and music. As for parking fees, I think that they are fair.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
I trust Dr. Slater to run his own school, so I defer to him.
Terry Schmitt (D)
What is your opinion of block scheduling?
I am still keeping an open mind. If the plan has significant advantages in terms of reducing student stress or the achievement gap, I would be for it. However, I am not sure it does that.
Should Hall High School open later?
I am a big advocate of later start times, and I have been from the beginning. The evidence is overwhelming, and making this change is important
Are pay-to-play fees, parking fees, and other payments that students have to make excessive?
I personally hate to make students pay for extracirriculars, as we should be encouraging, not discouraging, student activities. I do not, however, see any problem with high parking fees, because we offer buses.
What is your opinion on the recent banning of hats at Hall?
While I am for student freedoms, I choose to err on the side of caution with the growing gang presence in town.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chavez: Flawed Reform
By Dror Markus, ’07
Highlights Staff Writer

WITH a large image of famed revolutionary Che Guevara hanging behind him, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez spoke to thousands of protesters, calling President Bush a “fascist” and a “terrorist.” He has made degrading, sexual comments about Condoleeza Rice. He has warmed relations with our enemies, notably Iran and Cuba, and may give American military technology to Fidel Castro, and, eventually, to the Chinese. So what should the United States do about Hugo Chavez?
Hugo Chavez has been the democratically elected President of Venezuela since 2000. Under Chavez, Venezuela has adopted a democratic socialist form of government. Chavez’s administration has sought to help the poor who are a majority of Venezuela’s population. He has instituted various social and economic programs to combat illiteracy, poverty, and disease.
On the foreign level, Chavez has been trying to completely change the political and economic balance of power in Latin America. He is pushing for closer cooperation among Latin American nations for economic development. His hope is to build a strong, joint Latin American economy that is not reliant on the U.S.
All of these programs and plans are certainly commendable. Chavez is looking out for the poor and is supporting similar programs in other neighboring countries; however, this self-style revolutionary has not acted in the fashion expected of a leader of a democratic republic. He grasped firm control over the Venezuelan press, and allegations of torture and detention of opposition activists have tarnished his record.
As part of his anti-imperialist, anti-American, and anti-capitalist stance, Chavez has deliberately tried to provoke America through relations with our enemies, keeping oil prices high, and simple taunts and insults meant to humiliate a nation that has been a prime benefactor of Venezuela over the years. He has signed military and economic agreements with Cuba and China, and supported Colombian rebel groups, all in a bid to undermine our foreign policy. As a leading member of OPEC (being the fifth largest exporter of oil), Chavez has been limiting oil production, thus raising the price of the fuel around the world. As part of his ongoing attempt to humiliate the United States, he recently offered oil at a low price to poor families in Massachusetts because the American government “does not provide enough for them.”
So what to do about Hugo? On one hand, his plans for economic reform could seriously improve the situation of Latin American nations. His initiatives for the benefit of the poor in particular are worthy ones that the United States should support. However, allegations of domestic authoritarianism combined with his deliberate anti-American actions have proven Chavez to be a reliable foe.
Chavez’s strong anti-U.S. rhetoric has made him quite popular in Latin America. He is a hero to many poor people who love his anti-American and anti-rich stances. This should definitely signal to us one of the reasons why many around the world – particularly in the poor third world – hate us. We are seen as a capitalist, rich country intent only on helping ourselves.
To gain control of the situation and save face, we must make use of some of Chavez’s ideas, but do so without Chavez. America should support Latin American development by funding local initiatives to help the needy. We should counter our enemy’s popularity by backing equivalent programs being run by our friends. Instead of simply rewarding our allies with military support, we must help them take care of their own social and economic woes. Crucially, we should nurture their economies to be strong enough to stand alone in a globalizing world economy. This will help us remove the negative image of the imperialistic, wealthy America that the world sees today.
When Hugo Chavez offers oil to our poor, we should refuse the generous trick, and respond with aid to the Venezuelan needy. It is no easy task, but if we are to keep our friends and gain new ones, we must promote an image nurturing supporters of economic development, as opposed to that of an imperialistic “Big Brother.”

-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summer Convention Craziness...But Who Cares?
By Erik Schulwolf

Every four years, our national pastime of baseball gives way for a few days to another national pastime; the Democratic and Republican conventions. The conventions are the occasion where the political stars, stiffs, and hacks from each party get together in a big city (such as, say, Boston or New York) in order to nominate a presidential candidate. While many Americans care deeply about the conventions, following it on television and reading about it in the newspapers, the effect of conventions usually is minimal. In this year’s race between Senator Kerry and President Bush the conventions have both played a role, but it is doubtful that they will have as much of a defining impact as the debates. In order to judge the effectiveness of the conventions, we’ve used a letter grading system based on the theme, tone, speakers, and the nominee’s speech.
The Democrats
Theme: In late July, the Democrats gathered in Boston to nominate John Kerry for President. The theme of the convention was meant to address what the Dems thought was their biggest weakness: national security. Kerry stressed his story as a war hero in Vietnam, and featured war heroes like Sen. Max Cleland and Gen. Wesley Clark. In doing so, however, the Democrats missed a chance to outline their domestic program, which is their greatest strength. Grade: C-
Tone: The Democrats, inspired by VP nominee John Edwards’ sunny primary campaign, pledged to make theirs a hopeful, optimistic, and positive convention. They cut down on anti-Bush rhetoric in speeches and tried to maintain a strictly upbeat message. They succeeded . . . too well. The Democratic convention didn’t have the “red meat” that energizes the party faithful and puts the incumbent on the defensive. Worse, when the GOP attacked Kerry in New York, the Dems didn’t respond. Grade: D
Speakers: Not many bad things you can say about those. Illinois St. Sen. Barack Obama energized the convention with his personal “American Dream” story, while President Clinton was his usual masterful self while praising John Kerry. Wes Clark provided the support of an acknowledged war hero and patriot, and Senator Edwards added his own trademark message of populist hope. All in all, it was an all-star lineup. Grade: A
Nominee’s Speech: This was one of the best speeches of the Senator’s career. He was upbeat, visionary, and seemed to have the common touch. He seemed to speak to many Americans with his message that “help is on the way.” The only criticism was that there was no really detailed description of his agenda, whether domestically or internationally. Grade: A-
Overall: To sum up, while the Democratic convention was upbeat, positive, and security focused— everything it was expected to be—it didn’t have a great deal of inspiration, which was reflected by the tiny bounce in the polls that it gave Senator Kerry. In a way, this convention allowed the Democrats to be defined in the way the Republicans want them to be—as wishy-washy and insecure of themselves on defense. Overall Grade: C
The Republicans
Theme: The Republican convention, held in late August and early September, was like that of the Democrats in that it focused on defense. It was unlike the Democratic convention, however, because the Republicans highlighted what is perceived as their greatest asset: steady, strong leadership. Social and economic issues were discussed in detail, but took a back seat as the Republicans spent their entire convention pounding the idea that President Bush is the safe choice in these troubled times. America seems to have gotten the message. Grade: A
Tone: The GOP convention had a serious, wartime feel to it. Patriotism was the order of the day, and the Republicans tried to portray themselves as the party of an America standing for liberty worldwide. Additionally, the GOP’s convention was much more mean-spirited, featuring attacks on Kerry’s ability to lead the nation, his record, his personality, and even his service in Vietnam. The Republican delegates were energized, and the Dems didn’t take advantage of a golden opportunity to draw distinctions between the two conventions. Grade: B+
Speakers: Republican speakers got mixed reviews at the convention. On the one hand, there was Rudy Giuliani’s inspiring speech about 9/11, as well as California Arnold Schwarzennegger’s powerful address, culminating in the great line: “economic girlie-men.” (I STILL can’t believe he said that). On the other, there was John McCain’s lukewarm endorsement of the president, as well as the stupid, ditzy speech made by the stupid, ditzy Bush daughters. Finally, to cap it all off, there was Zell Miller’s nominating speech, which was so scary my little sister started crying. Grade: C+
Nominee’s Speech: While the president’s speech from four years ago was a hard act to follow, he came close with this one. After a relatively uninspired recitation of his economic and social policies, he really got cooking with a salute to our troops in Iraq and a vigorous defense of the war on terror. He scolded opponent John Kerry for “flip-flopping” on the war and ended with some jokes that even had me, a die-hard Democrat, laughing. Except for his weakness on domestic issues, an excellent speech. Grade: B+
Overall: Despite protests, the Republican convention was everything the party wanted it to be. The Republicans came across as steady, strong, and trustworthy. They managed in many ways to negatively define Sen. Kerry, and provided a much more detailed message than the Democrats. While they only got an eight-point bounce in the polls, eight points in a race such as this might prove decisive. Grade: B+
With the conventions over, it remains hard to judge what their effects might be. The Republicans still ride something of a post convention bounce, but their lead remains in the mid-single digits, 49-43% in a Newsweek poll published today on Taegan-Goddard’s Political Wire. While the debates still could change anything, I’m going to predict right now that the Republicans will hold on to Florida and Ohio, and in addition will take New Mexico from the Dems. The Democrats will steal West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada away from the GOP. Based on that, we’ll have an unprecedented 269-269 electoral tie, which will be decided in favor of the president by the Republican House of Representatives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honors Biology Provides Balance
By Lillian Reuman, ’07
Sports Associate

West Hartford’s educators have lost sight of what is sane. Indeed, it seems as though our school system is concerned only with NESCAC ratings, percentages, and rankings. Likewise, the rigor of our curriculum should not be determined according to the amount of students taking AP classes.
As students in West Hartford, we should be proud of our exceptional teachers, including Ms. Cindy Caruk and Mr. Richard Joseph, who teach AP biology classes offered at our school. Nevertheless, just as it is not their responsibility to teach a standard curriculum in their AP classes, it should not be the standard biology teachers’ responsibilities to cater to the wide variety of learning levels in their respective lessons.
At Hall, we are fortunate to have many class options throughout all subject areas; however, the school should offer a more leveled progression of classes rather than offering standard classes and AP classes, with no “stepping stones” in between. After the honors earth science option offered to freshman, honors courses in the Hall High Science Department all but disappear for students in the subsequent years. Incorporating Honors classes in our course offering selection is the only alternative for those who aren’t interested in or prepared for the stress of AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and other advanced science courses.
Students like junior Kara Cook would benefit from honors biology. She originally enrolled in AP Biology last year, but then opted to take the standard biology class. Cook commented that, “I would have taken honors biology because AP was too hard, but standard did not provide enough of a challenge.”
Junior Stephanie Levy reflected that “I am in favor of honors biology because it gives students who may not be up to the ‘AP level’ to get a chance to challenge themselves!” A large number of students find themselves in a position similar to Levy’s. As junior Adam Nestler remarked, “I would have taken honors because I wasn’t sure if I was ready to take such a hard class like AP Biology, and I didn’t want to take standard because I felt it would be too easy.” Honors biology will provide a solution for all students who look for a compromise between the standard biology and AP Biology workloads and curricula.
Students interested in taking honors classes should opt to sign up for honors biology based upon their interest in the sciences without concerns as to whether their GPA will be weighted. Where grades are concerned, students ought to get involved and potentially devise a compromise. An equitable agreement would award an “A” in standard biology with a 4.0 grade point, while an “A” in honors biology should equal a 4.25, and an “A” in AP Biology should earn a 4.5.
Scientifically-strong students looking for a compromise in biology - regarding in-depth coverage of information and fair GPA rating - ought to support the Board of Education’s investigation and consideration of adding honors biology sections to our course selection. Please speak with the SA Board of
Education Representative Geoff Carr if you are interested in addressing the board of education regarding the addition of honors biology.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libby: GOP Liability
By Sheray Felice, ’08
Highlights Staff Writer

IN the past few weeks, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, White House aide, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice. The charges against Libby follow a two-year investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the public outing of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame.
Plame’s name was made public (which is illegal to do) just eight days after her husband, former United States Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, criticized the administration on its foundation for the Iraq war. The five-count indictment states that Libby lied to the FBI on two occasions, made false statements in two appearances before the grand jury, and obstructed Fitzgerald’s investigation. The indictment goes on to claim that Lewis Libby started getting information about Joseph Wilson in 2003. He soon learned that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, from administration national security officials. Reportedly, he proceeded to leak that information to the press.
Politically, Libby’s indictment is a very harmful blow to the Bush administration. It leaves the White House in a defensive position and creates a sense of political uncertainty that will shape the rest of President Bush’s second term in office. It is proving to be a sizeable distraction, at minimum, from the Republican agenda. Libby’s arraignment will occur in the coming days, and it could take a year before the trial begins. He is facing up to 30 years in prison and 1.25 million dollars in fines, if convicted.
President Bush only had positive things to say on Libby’s behalf. His brief speech about Lewis Libby was that “each individual is presumed innocent” and that “Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country.” The president went on to say, “He served the vice president and me through extraordinary times in our nation’s history.” Of course, Bush is not going to say anything against Libby. Condemning Libby would just show everyone how corrupt the Republican Party and the White House are. In fact, 8 out of 10 Americans polled believe that the Bush administration either broke the law or acted unethically in the Plame situation. Using this evidence, the Bush administration is walking on glass at this point.
What is scariest is the reality that Libby held a lot of power. Not only was he Cheney’s chief of staff, but he was also the vice president’s national security adviser. Further, he served as an assistant to the president. Scooter Libby was a key player in making the case for the American invasion of Iraq.
Another person who holds a great deal of power and seems to be involved in this case is Karl Rove. Rove is considered to be a very important man in the White House. He is a longtime strategist for the Republican Party, known for his aggressiveness in dealing with political opponents. He is considered so essential in the current administration that it is hard to imagine life in the White House without him.
While Rove’s official title is deputy chief of staff, his role is much larger. He has acted as a political tutor to President Bush for three decades. His knowledge of local party politics made real the Bush presidential wins in the elections of 2000 and 2004. In his quest to create a permanent conservative majority in American politics, Rove puts his stamp on just about every policy that comes out of the White House, including its public case for the invasion of Iraq.
Rove apparently spoke with Robert Novak (the person who published Plame’s name in the media) just days before the now-famous agent’s name was released to the public, but Rove told the grand jury that it was actually Novak who informed him about Plame, not the other way around. This defense is doubtful at best. Who is likely to know more about a sensitive matter of national security, a right-wing pundit or a man with his fingers in every pie in the Bush White House?
This all begs a disturbing question: If we cannot trust people this high up in the government, whom can we trust? What else is the government lying to us about? And how many people in the Bush administration must commit perjury before we do something?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outerwear Policy is Unrealistic
By Andrea Grody, ’07
Highlights Staff Writer

“TO promote positive, safe, and non-disruptive learning environment, proper attire should be worn. Therefore, the following attire is prohibited from wear in school during the academic day…Coats, jackets or other attire normally worn as outerwear” (Hall High School Handbook).
How many people did not know that was a rule at Hall? I see a large fraction of the student body, often myself included, wearing coats and vests every day in school. Only a few of us encounter the meticulous teacher who forbids outerwear in the classroom and scrupulously enforces the questionable rules forced upon us by our superiors.
Why did the administration saddle us with this rule? The gun at the horrible school shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado was smuggled into the school in a large jacket, and since then, all American schools have tightened up their rules regarding jackets inside the building. This reaction and this rule, however, are neither necessary nor effective. Preventing school slayings is obviously a good cause, but the “no jackets” rule just is not going to work at Hall without some serious changes.
The first issue is fashion. The definition of “outerwear” is changing, as many outerwear-appearing items become fashionable all day wear for the cold weather days. The extremely common North Face vests are perhaps the most obvious example of this. These vests come in a variety of colors from black to pink, and many people wear them as a cute and practical item of clothing. As a result of this trend, many people have come to regard vests as an indoor item that has use outdoors instead of simply an outdoor only piece of clothing. Strangely, under the archaic and impracticable rules set down by the administration, these comfortable accessories cannot be worn in the classroom.
Speaking of practicality, our school seems to have a secret mission: to freeze all of its students to death. From prohibited jackets to forbidden hats to air conditioning blowing when it’s below freezing outside, Hall High is making its way back to the Ice Age. I wear my jacket almost every day because most of my classes are still blasting freezing air at this time of year. As fire codes probably prohibit the lighting of Bunsen burners in non-Chemistry classrooms, jackets are all that stand between the Hall student and a mild case of hypothermia.
“Bring a sweater” is probably the response the school has for myself and other students with the same predicament. Both a sweater and a coat is a lot of clothing to bring to school everyday and I would probably have to wear my jacket all around school anyway because I would not have time to get to my locker. In fact, most people cannot get to their lockers during the day because they either have no time, their locker is conveniently all the way across the school from any of their classes, or else it is broken, lost, or nonexistent. In fact, many students have not their locker since freshman year. So why bring two warm things when you can wear a cute and functional jacket both outside and inside?
Sadly, this rule is a gross example of bureaucratic bungling and administrative shortsightedness. Unless it is altered or eliminated, this rule will be ineffective through the winter at Hall. Perhaps senior Peter Brown stated it best by saying, “I’ll take off my coat when the school turns up the heat.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premium Parking in Hall Lots Burns Holes in Students’ Pockets
By Abbie Dym

At some time betwen finding reasons to put off the summer reading and taing that infamous trip back to Staples for school suppies, we are sharply reminded of the reality that the joy of ur sanity and the exhilaration of our freedom is about to be demoished with the inevitable commencement of school that is once again upon us.
Upon returning to school, students find something altered, both good and bad, such as a new teacher or perhaps the addition of a new rule that seems to cause more problems than it solves (shall I recall a certain stairway policy?).
Regardless of the past mistakes, however, we came into this year hoping for effective school guidelines and reasonable expectations of us students. It took but a few moments until we were rudely awakened with a horrendous reality that neither would be the case. Alas, my fellow upper-classmen, we must now disburse a fee of one hundred dollars to park in the school parking lot.
Disturbed by this shocking news, I asked around for an explanation from the other students. I have yet to find one student who knows the actual reason for this high cost. In fact, the general consensus among students is best echoed by Senior Brandon Murray. He, like many others, does not like the new policy and feels it is unfair that the school board enforced the rule without giving students a venue to express their opinions on the matter.
Senior Krissy Jacobs suggested that if we were going to spend this exorbitant price for a piece of land, we have a right to claim it, to decorate it as we please and to thereby leave our mark of creativity. Truly an interesting and lovely idea; yet, it does not clarify why we must pay.
Students have many expenses. Between our extracurricular activitie and college savings, one hundred dollarsfor a section of cement, one that isn’t even guaranteed, is ludicrous. What about the seniors who have waited four long ears and now finally have first period free? rriving at eight in the morning, should they have to pay one hundred dollars when they will likely be forced to park in an obscure spot down Karen Road? Absolutely not.
The students of the Hall High School community are willing to contribute to the school in many ways as long as the requests are substantiated and reasonable.
This new fee was neither discussed nor explained to us.
Regardless of the cause, it is without a doubt unreasonable to ask students to pay one hundred dollars for parking.
As Senior Jessica Patrice Albert says, “It’s mad bunk.”
Yes, it certainly is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETA Goes Off The Deep Edge For Animal Rights
By Erik Schulwolf, ’06
Opinions Editor

DO you consider yourself evil? Well, have you ever eaten meat or gone to a circus or the zoo? Actually, have you ever owned a pet? In that case, your moral standing is essentially the equivalent of that of a concentration camp guard. At least, that is the rationale of the animal-rights organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
PETA, which has almost one million members, is regarded as America’s foremost mainstream animal-rights group. And by mainstream, I mean utterly insane. In actuality, PETA is a radical organization that is completely out of the ordinary in its unscrupulous advertising, its blatant disregard for the truth, and its funding of terrorism.
Wow, those are some pretty bald accusations, but fortunately, PETA doesn’t seem too interested in hiding the truth of these statements. First, PETA’s ideal society would end human use or exploitation of animals. While this sounds simple and idealistic, it actually amounts to government-enforced vegetarianism. This is a poor idea on a number of levels, the first being that meat tastes good. There’s nothing better than a good steak or burger, although kosher chicken is excellent when it is salty enough. But I digress.
Enforced vegetarianism is a bad idea because it would ensure massive overpopulation of chickens, cows, goats, sheep, pigs, and other domesticated animals. Of course, because meat eating would be illegal, PETA-land’s red foxes and timber wolves would be forced to subsist on a diet of, basically, broccoli and berries. Apparently, PETA members either did not pay attention during biology class, or they forgot that humans, like the aforementioned predators, are omnivorous, meaning that they naturally eat plants and animals.
Nevertheless, PETA has a number of fair points. Circuses, meat companies, and errant pet owners routinely mistreat their pets. Wearing fur is an inherently despicable practice. So, what do the fine folks at PETA suggest? Total Animal Liberation! Yep, total animal liberation.
PETA proposes taking pets away from their owners, throwing lions and tigers from zoos into the streets, and reintroducing domesticated animals to a natural environment for which they are in no way prepared. Aside from the tragic-comic notion of a hippopotamus wallowing around Central Park, the fact remains that none of our pets will survive in the wild. Domestication has readied tabby cats and cocker spaniels for life as companions, not as predators. My dog – an eight year old border collie with more fat than a sumo wrestler and a pathological fear of foxes and raccoons – fully agrees with me on this.
Similarly, the methods that PETA uses to transmit their views are politically incorrect and bordering on despicable. Their advertising brochures, calculated to shock, more often offend than not. Worst of all was an advertising campaign comparing conditions in meat plants to Nazi concentration camps. Images of farm animals juxtaposed with Jews are intolerably racist. First, they equate slightly unscrupulous businessmen with some of the most vicious murderers in the history of mankind. Worse yet, they dehumanize the Jewish people by comparing Jewish children to chickens. In declaring the presence of a daily holocaust, PETA trivialized the suffering enduring by the Jews in Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
When PETA slanders and defames meat companies and circuses, one can deplore their methods while admitting the validity of their argument, but where animal testing for medical causes is concerned, this organization goes beyond the pale of logic and acceptability. It is PETA’s point of view that animal testing has limited success while brutalizing innocent animals. This would be a solid rationale, if it were not a complete lie.
Indeed, the very basis of modern medicine rests in testing human cures on animals. The meaning of the word “vaccine” derives from the Latin term for the cows on which Edward Jenner tested his inoculation for smallpox. Since then, animal testing has led to the development of common antiseptics, anesthetics, and antibiotics. It has presaged the development of treatments for scourges like diabetes and rabies. Without the synthetic insulin tested on animals, my diabetic grandfather would be dead.
Today, animal research is a key step in developing drugs for cancer and AIDS. PETA and its allies effectively favor a death sentence for millions of sick people worldwide in their twisted belief that human life is somehow inferior to animal life.
PETA’s disdain for human life seeps from their ideology into their actions. Animal rights activists are among the most vicious radicals in existence. They have slashed tires, harassed humane society workers, egged shops, and vandalized the property of anyone who dares to oppose their agenda. Furthermore, they provide monetary support for terrorism, namely, the Animal Liberation Front.
Masquerading as freedom fighters, ALF members break into research labs, firebomb medical buildings or other places where animals are incarcerated, and commit criminal acts to liberate animals “whatever the cost.” In this, they are supported and funded by PETA, which consistently glosses over their atrocities or justifies them in the name of the cause.
In reality, PETA, for all its mainstream support, remains the province of radicals. It pursues its utopian and unrealistic agenda with hateful public messages, confrontational stands, and personal attacks. Its ideology rejects the value of human life that forms the basis for modern society. Further, it uses tactics similar to those of America’s terrorist enemies to achieve those aims. This is an organization whose patina of respectability is a dangerous illusion. PETA deserves to be exposed for the wacky organization it is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Powerful Thoughts
By Deirdre Power
 
   Enough of the ridiculous standards set for women in the entertainment industry. Enough of the horribly revealing outfits leaving nothing to the imagination.  Okay, maybe I sound a little crazy, but the image of the woman is headed back to the Stone Age.  Gender principles are becoming more and more antiquated every day.
Honestly, think about it.  In rap videos, women are portrayed as sex objects used at the leisure of the stars of the video. Britney Spears and Christina Aguliera, in their videos, are nothing more than images motivated by the lustful wishes of some drooling caveman.  They try to play it off as an exploration of their sexuality.  That’s the biggest crock I’ve ever heard.  They just want to sell their music through their nicely toned abs and plastic bodies. They barely wear anything in any of their videos.
Lest you think I am only interested in bashing the music industry, let me be fair. Paris Hilton, the toothpick thin reality star that just won’t go away is no different. Every time she shows up on the red carpet it appears that there is more skin showing than not. 
  It seems as though the image of women has fallen everywhere in recent years.  Even female action heroes have to dress like dominatrices to get anyone to see the movie in the theaters. It seems as if the entertainment business is becoming more and more male driven.  All it’s selling is the idea that women are vapid; no more than toys for the use of men.  
I just don’t know what happened to that whole female empowerment business . . . it died far too quickly.  I mean you can see it in the styles of the clothing worn at school.  It gets worse and worse every year.  Girls show up in shirts that display about 85% of their chest and act like there’s nothing wrong with that.  The skirts, too, get shorter and shorter every year. Pretty soon pencils and pens will be all over the floors of Hall.  Why, you may ask?  They will litter the floor because no girl will be able to bend over and pick them up without her entire butt hanging out for all to see. 
So, here’s to actually wearing clothing that covers our bodies and leaves something to the imagination.  Here’s to showing yourself a little respect so others will too. Here’s to some of that female empowerment so badly missing. Maybe Hall could start a whole new trend: self respect!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recruiter Access To Cafeteria Is Fair
At Hall High School, the war in Iraq is extremely unpopular where Marxists probably outnumber Republicans. Altogether, it is not a particularly conducive environment for military recruiters, yet with the continuation of the war in Iraq, nationwide recruitment has dropped, even for the National Guard and Reserves.
Our own principal went to Iraq for 18 months, where he experienced battle firsthand, still very few people in West Hartford have any interest in these recruiters, save to challenge them about the morality of the war. In fact, here at Hall, we have a chapter of an organization called the Hartford Opt Out Campaign, dedicated to countering the recruiters’ message and campaigning to “limit their access to schools and students, ” according to group member Jenna Daniels, a senior.
The organization’s focus on dialogue and dissent is inherently positive and American, but the hostility often engendered by these representatives of our armed forces is unfortunate. More than that, it is shameful. We at Highlights are mostly Democrats who despise the war as a silly, wasteful conflict fought without a plan, on questionable moral and legal grounds. Indeed, events have proven those of us who opposed the war for these very reasons to be all too correct, at the cost of 2,000 American lives and countless Iraqi deaths. All this said, however, I feel that we need to be more respectful of servicemen.
Towards the end of the Vietnam War, returning troops were spat upon by radicals so drunk with moral outrage that they could not distinguish between the policies of our government during the war and the GI who simply wanted to do his duty and get out. Vietnam and Iraq have been, in recent months, compared more and more often. Sadly, as exemplified at Hall, many on the Left seem to be repeating the policy of transferring the ills of the administration onto the soldier.
The military provides a number of boons to our nation’s young adults. Entering the army can provide a teenager with the means to attend college and break out of an otherwise hopeless situation. The armed services have also been extremely positive in straightening out the lives of many troubled youths. For those who had difficulties in high school and do not attend college, the military can provide technical training that will be useful in later life, as well as much-needed discipline.
Even more than the active military, the Connecticut National Guard can be beneficial for those who need an opportunity. Service in the Guard provides full scholarship to colleges, civilian benefits, and the advantages of part-time service. Also, says recruiter Staff Sergeant Brian American, “it engenders a sense of pride, the idea that you are serving your country.” For many of Hall’s students, particularly more economically disadvantaged ones, service can be a conduit to a better life.
Of course, as Dr. Slater’s activation demonstrates, being in the National Guard does not mean immunity from being sent to war, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan. National Guard soldiers have died in Falluja and in Bagdhad, just like their active duty comrades. Currently, two units of the Connecticut Army National Guard are serving in Iraq, with a third soon to join them; however, as Master Sergeant Bill Bernard – a Guard recruitment supervisor – claims, “high school students are intelligent enough to understand this. We always inform potential recruits that within a six-year period, there is a likelihood of serving a tour overseas.”
While Daniels disagrees, claiming that recruiters “aren’t obligated to tell the truth,” it is difficult to believe that recruits aren’t aware that there is a chance they will be forced to fight, and possibly die, in a war. That is why recruitment for all the services is currently down. People understand the risks, weigh them against the rewards, and decide that they are or are not worth taking.
In today’s climate, a decision to join the service is probably more carefully weighed than ever before in the history of the volunteer army. The decision to join the army, whether out of a desire to protect America, a wish to see more of the world, or a yearning for professional and technical training is a private decision and an important commitment. Recruiters ought to be allowed to find and encourage these individuals in West Hartford, Hartford, Avon, and all across the state.
Many anti-war groups claim that they have equal rights with the military recruiters to set up tables in the cafeteria. While their anti-war message is important, their wishes cannot be granted. The special access won by military recruiters is a measure of our gratitude to the armed services for defending our liberties for two hundred years. We owe them this, because they fight so that we do not have to.
In the end, the debate centers on respect. Speaking as someone who opposes the war, I abhor the policies of the Bush Administration and look forward to the day when the failure in Iraq is over; but these feelings in no way lessen the esteem in which I hold our uniformed servicemen. I respect and applaud the decision of classmates of mine that choose to join their ranks.
In Vietnam, we made the mistake of supporting neither the war nor the troops. Sgt. Ameican recognizes the legitimacy of the opposition, but reminds skeptics that “the army fights for everybody’s rights to speak their own opinion.” To try to silence military recruiters is an affront to the memories of soldiers who died protecting the freedom to protest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Debate Over School Starting Time Continues
By Aaron Salituro

Last year, in response to new research and other high schools throughout the country adopting a later starting time, West Hartford Public Schools began to seriously consider a later starting time for its ninth to twelfth graders. Knowing the overwhelming positive effects of later starting times, I am strongly supportive of such a change. Yet, to my surprise, there is a sizable opposition to a later starting time within our student body.
This seems to be the opposite of what most desire in the national population of high school students, according to several widespread surveys. In fact, in a 2002 nationwide survey conducted by the National Sleep Foundation, 47% of the students questioned thought that high school should begin between 8:00 AM and 8:30 AM and 33% said high school should begin between 8:30 AM and 9 AM. Obviously, this many high school students cannot be unjustified in their opinions.
The National Sleep Foundation says that high school-aged students should have from 8.5 to 9.25 hours of sleep a night to function properly, and with our current 7:30 AM opening, this is not possible. Of course, you may say that students should go to sleep earlier than they currently do. However, the internal clock of adolescents usually doesn’t allow them to go to sleep early, as most can’t doze off until about 11:00 p.m. This seven or so hours of sleep isn’t exactly insomnia, yet studies show that two, one, or even a half an hour more of sleep can make a noticeable difference in a student’s performance. Often in school districts that have made starting times later for their high school students, test scores are higher, students are happier, not as stressed, less tired, and obviously don’t fall asleep in school as frequently.
Nonetheless, the opposition still remains because the later starting time would mean a later closing time, and would affect those who participate in sports and extracurricular activities. Although most of these activities, excluding games and meets, do not take an incredible amount of time, there are several ways to make these events more efficient. For instance, when I was on the football team last year, there were several occasions where we didn’t get out onto the field until after 3 PM. In this case, practice could simply begin earlier.
In addition, some people complain that there would be less time to do homework, but one hour at the most should not make a difference. If a student gets home from a practice at five, has four hours of homework, and allots two hours to free time and eating, they can still be to bed by 11:00. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of Hall students will not usually have more than four hours of homework, nor need in excess of two hours of free time. Furthermore, the work achieved after school would probably be of a higher quality or at least be done in a less stressful manner than before.
Of course, there are other obstacles, such as after-school jobs and sports schedules that still need to be solved, but if West Hartford Public Schools are able to find a suitable environment for a later starting time to occur, then why not?
An hour change wouldn’t just be some irrelevant scheduling hassle; it is a big deal – Teens are not getting enough sleep and it is affecting them physically, emotionally, and mentally. A later starting time at Hall would allow students to perform better, feel better, and be happier.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The “War on Terror” Factor in Upcoming Election
By Alex Porter
 
Why does Bush draw so much skepticism from area teens?  Why is the country split so closely over the election?  In my opinion, it all comes down to the values and needs of each specific region.  In our region, we generally care the most about the war in Iraq.  Since most citizens here are employed and teens tend to think that job searching in this area is fairly easy, our minds turn away from economic issues and move toward the foreign policy of this nation.
West Hartford is a predominantly Democratic town, and most of the students that I spoke with would choose John Kerry for president.  The war has come home to us, as the most prominent member of the Hall community, Dr. Donald Slater, commands his medical battalion in the Iraqi desert.  According to a Hall student source, the 1.8 trillion dollar Bush tax cuts are also an important issue.  What sense, argues the teen, does a tax cut for the rich make for middle class America?  Her position is seconded by that of a Massachusetts teen who said that the “trickle down theory” does not work.
President Bush has pursued an aggressive foreign policy with regard to our terrorist foes.  Henry Melcher, an eighteen-year-old Massachusetts resident, is one of the many New Englanders against the war.  He believes that the conflict is a “futile war against imaginary enemies.”  Mr. Melcher is especially upset over the idea of a draft and is worried that the president, if reelected, would “institute a draft that would even extend to college students.”  In fact, such a bill has already been proposed, but by forces different than one might expect. 
Surprisingly, a group of Democratic congressmen proposed a draft bill in January that has been quietly debated on the floors of both houses of Congress.  Such an action, if not vote-changing, at least caused a whole world civilization class to moan in their seats a few days ago.
So who will win?  By most official polls, Bush is ahead by up to eleven percentage points.  In my unofficial and unscientific poll of eight Northeastern teens, six out of eight would vote for John Kerry, with one for Nader and one for Bush.  In terms of the Electoral College, the state-by-state system for electing our president, Bush’s lead over Kerry translates to a mere seven vote advantage. 
While that does not seem like much, consider that Al Gore lost Florida in 2000 by only 0.1 percent of the Floridian population. 
All in all, however, the election is still over a month away and could potentially go either way. Either way, it’s all speculation. This election could be the most intense election of our lifetime. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If The Worst Happened

By Isabella Salamone, ’09
HIghlights Staff Writer

ON April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and shot about 900 rounds of ammunition at their teachers and fellow students. Twelve students and one teacher were killed before the pair turned their guns on themselves. It was, and still is, considered the greatest tragedy in the sickening history of school violence.
Psychiatrists, police officers, judges, and supermarket shoppers all speculated about what caused the brutal attack as the story echoed across news sources around the country. Were Klebold and Harris crazy? Were they satan worshippers? Had they been abused as children?
Suddenly, schools across the United States cracked down with new violence policies. Students were suspended for bringing in nail clippers, or pretending to shoot guns during the popular recess game “Cops and Robbers.” School administrators took the harsh “take no prisoners” attitude to the extreme.
In the wake of recent atrocities in Minnesota and Arkansas, the question of whether Hall could survive a school shooting still festers. If John Doe wakes up one morning, decides that he really does not like the people who mock him, steals his father’s shotgun, and tries to blast away his entire third period science class, could the school react fast enough to save students and staff?
According to school security officer David Ross, the answer is yes. “You’ve got to understand,” he told Highlights, “[security guards] Rob Womer and Jerry Lavery are two ex-police officers. They, myself, and others who are under their leadership, and if anything happens we always know what to do. Having them here makes the school really secure.”
Principal Dr. Donald Slater agrees with that assessment. “I think that we are as prepared as any school could be for the unlikely possibility of a school shooting,” said Slater. “Students have to remember their responsibilities to inform adults when they suspect their friends or fellow students in the school community are stressed, depressed or angered” he continued.
But what if the worst does occur? “We always look to the safety of students,” replied Slater. “Then, we call the police, and they have their own procedures.”
So the administration rallies around the idea that Hall is a safe place to be during a school shooting. Lockdowns have prepared us for any situation, right? And even if they not, stuff like that could never happen in West Hartford, Connecticut. Right?
Wrong.
As part of my research for this article, I watched the Oscar-winning documentary Bowling for Columbine, which delves into America’s fascination with guns. Michael Moore, who wrote and directed the film, goes deep into Littleton, Colorado, to see the truth about the Columbine shootings.
“This is a great place to raise your children,” gushed a woman on her front lawn. “Really great place to raise your kids. We have a very close-knit community here, everybody looks out for everybody. Good people.”
Her statement is exactly what my mother’s real-estate agent said when she bought our house. According to her, West Hartford is one of the best communities a family could move to. “Everyone’s very close and there is always someone at home. Nothing bad happens in West Hartford.”
Evan McCallum, another Littleton resident, echoed this same belief. “This just happens to be a place where two young men made very bad, very wrong decisions, and there has been international notoriety as a result of it. Other than that I don’t know that Littleton is a lot different than a whole lot of suburban communities.”
Like West Hartford?
Watching the view from the security cameras in Columbine High School, I saw the students rush in panic from one grainy black-and-white video to the next. Could that, one day, be someone I know, perhaps someone I eat lunch with everyday, holding that rifle, stalking through the Hall library, opening fire on my friends and classmates?
Would I be one of the weeping students in front of a Hall ringed with wailing sirens and yellow police tape?
Or would I be one of the bodies?
“Eric and Dylan, people called them ‘fag,’ and they were like, you know, ‘If I’m a fag now, I’m a fag forever.’ And you wish someone just could’ve grabbed them and said, ‘Dude, high school is not the end,’” mused Matt Stone, creator of South Park and a Columbine alumnus.
But high school is the end all be all for some. For those 12 students that Klebold and Harris killed, high school was the end of the road for them. And no school could ever truly be prepared for a shooting.
Until one does occur, we do not know how anyone will react. Most likely, Hall would turn into the pictures shown of Columbine – bloody, surreal chaos. No one is ever ready for death or violence to erupt.
I cannot say that I would courageously try to stop the shooter. Just like everyone else, I would most likely hide and pray that I survive so as to leave school grounds on my two feet, instead of in a body bag.
Harris and Klebold’s tormentors were not expecting them to come into school with guns and kill them. Everyone has had a victim – and no one expects the victim to suddenly become the powerful one.
Shootings are not something that you can second-guess. There is nothing methodical, nothing predictable about massacres. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went to the Littleton Lanes to bowl before they picked up their semi-automatics and attacked Columbine High School.
“It changed how we talked,” said Denny Fennel, who lived through it. “Because, well, for instance, Columbine, everybody knows what it means, I don’t have to explain.”
One day, could this be true of Hall High School? And if the school’s Armageddon does come, will we be able to avert the catastrophe that befell a high school a lot like us on the other side of the country? Let us hope we never have to find out.