Being and American

Being and American, to me at least, is trying to be the best you can be and use that to help the people around you. Everyone has a special gift that makes them stand out from everyone else, i think it is important to use that gift to help better the world. If you don't use that gift for somehting what's the point of having it. What's the point of being a genuis if you don't use that intellect to help people? There isn't one, all you would be is a really smart person. Now using that ability to find a way to fix a major problem is what sets you apart.
When we don't care about each, that is when the monstrousities happen. That is when adoptive parents kill their adopted kids, when people steal ot for need but out of greed, when all the truely atroshish acts happen. These are people using whatever gift they have for the worst. That is why i believe that trying to better the world is imprtant to be an american. If we don't use our gifts to help the worl the gifts end up for being used to worsen it. Our compassion as a country is what sets us apart from the dictators and terrorist. I try my best to be the best i can be because i know that the next worst thing to diong something evil is not caring and letting others do it. That is why being being the best you can be is what being an American is about.

State Of the Union

The State of the Union, was a good speech in itself. President Obama did out line what the issues in America where, but for most failed to really spell out what he was going to do about the issues. This part of his speech wasn't the part that bothered me at all really. The part, or parts i should say, is the part when he criticized the Supreme Court on national television and right in front of their faces. I give him kudos for actually saying it to them, in a way, but the manner in which he did was very declassè. That kind of criticism belongs in house and not on tv where the whole country and then some can see the problems of you and your buddies. I also did not appereicate Obama poking fun at republicans when he talked about "global warming" or as it should be called Climate Change. His manner of tone and sarcasm came off as a bit childish and unnessicary. So some people don't believe in the same thing as you. It really doesn't matter how much evidence you "have" to prove it, it is their belief and being and American you can believe what you want. The final part of Obama's speech that really got under my skin was when he said he wanted to get ride of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military. I believe that policy is what allows gay people to be in the military without being attacked, by getting ride of the policy it puts those soldiers in more danger. Because while some would like to believe that America is not prejudice against groups of people it still is for some groups. That policy gave homosexuals the ability to go fight for their country and protect them from people who are anti-homosexuals. I really don't think it's a great idea to take something away that helps people.
Now on a different note, I am not here to bash President Obama. He did have some very good ideas in his speech. I believe that we as a country need to work on helping people get jobs, because when people have jobs they make money, and when people have money they tend to spend money, which in the long run helps the US economy. I still don't no how Obama plans to do this without raising taxes, becuase if i remember correctly he doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class or lower. But honestly he would have to because he can't keep raising the taxes on the rich because let's face it they are rich and will just take their money elsewhere where they can keep it. But i digress, the President did a good job with delivering his State of the Union Speech, expect for those areas talked about above, and I hope that he will do his best to bring this country the best.

DBQ

1. What is Brutus's argument against ratification of the Constitution and the proposed court system? Brutus's argument is that the Judges and the Supreme Court would have too much power. The court could overrule a legisaltive descion if it wanted to. The court wouldn't have anything to keep it in check so in a sense it would be more powerful than the legislative branch.
2. Why does Hamilton call the judiciary the "least dangerous"branch of government? Hamilton says that the judiciary branch call only judge things. He says it has no infulence of the strength or the wealth of society which the legislative branch does.
3. Who or what does Hamilton assert has the authority to judge the constitutionality of federal laws? Hamilton says that the judges of the court ascertian the meaning of the consitution and its relanvence to laws.
4. What power does Hamilton deny the Constitution directly gives the national courts? Hamilton says that there is nothing in the consitution that binds the making of laws in the spirit of the Consitution.
5. What does Hamilton say should be the "standard of construction"for laws? The constitution...
6. What is the Supreme Court's power? The Supreme Court's power is over all laws and rulings from other courts. It has the power to reject a law made by congress if the court finds it unconstitutional. The court also has the power to overrule other court descions (i.e Brown vs. Board of Education).
7. Does this section of the Constitution support Hamilton's argument in Document B? No it doesn't beacuase Hamilton says that being the weakest part of goverment, the supreme court can't infulence society strength or wealth. However the Supreme court can infulence society because even though it doesn't makes the laws it controls which ones are valid or which ones are invalid.
8. What powers does Section 13 give the Supreme Court? It gives the power to issue public duty, and the writs of mandamus.
   

notes from class dec 10

Haymarket and Strikes

Strikes, while sometimes very annoying to people; i. e the writer strike that halted many shows, are very necessary. It is a way for workers to fight for their rights, and also a way to send a message. Many people protest against abortions or animal fur, and it is their right to gather publically and do that…as long as it doesn’t turn violent. In Chicago, Haymarket square in 1886, there was a strike for mill workers that did turned violent and some workers were killed.

Women's Rights

Does voting make you equel? It does and it doesn't. Voting gives you power to voice your opinon and effects outcomes. However benig equel is broad and voting is only a certain part of it. I can vote but still can be told by a college that I have been rejected, sometimes for a man who was less qualified than myself. Also after African-American's won the right to vote they were still not considered equel in many peoples eyes.

"I have a Dream"

Martin Luther King Jr,'s speech, is very moving. We are lisnting to it as I type, and it's messgae hits home. We live in a time when segragation doesn't exist, but to think of a time when it did is hard. A really hard pill to swallow is that fact that some memebers of my family might have done some of the things that I despise when i read about the Civil Right's movement. I have a hard time accepting that people would really think that they are better then a group of people because of a skin color. In my mind it doesn't seem right, and in my mind Martin Luther King Jr. words are inspirational. He spoke out against all the wrong doing in hopes to make life better for everyone.

More Groups in America

Huey Newton says ,"we must gain security in ourselves and have respect for others and all oppresed people." He is completely right. People who hate something are usually afraid of it or afraid that they themselves are the thing they hate. Many men are homophobic because they are scared they are gay too, it might not be true or might be, but its the thought that scares people and the thought that builds the hate and resentment. Kids in school also tend to bully others about something that they hate in themselves and what they see in this other person. They are inscure in themselves and hate everyone that reminds them of it.

Letter to the President

Dear Mr. President

I am a junior in high school, and I also happen to be a Republican. Many of the topics you believe in I don’t always support but I will say that I support your action to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. However, I can’t stand by your decision to put a deadline on the removal of the troops. There is no way we will know what will happen, and a year from now could be either in our favor to remove the troops or not. We simply don’t know so then how can we put a deadline on something that is unsure? How can you guarantee me, and the rest of our country, that the situation in Afghanistan will be stable within 18 months? Bush wasn’t able to stabilize it in 8 years, and please don’t blame everything on Bush. He did the best job he could with what happened. You yourself supported Bush’s move to enter conflict in Afghanistan, so obviously he wasn’t wrong or idiotic for entering; and if you say he is what does that say about you? Anyways, I didn’t mean for this letter to turn into what it has, but these are my thoughts on the issue. I am angered by your inconsistency with your promises you made in your campaign. You said you would withdrawal the troops, which you will in a years or so time, but first you are going to send more to help. This inconsistency makes my trust in you falter because how can I be so sure that your promises for health care, the war, or anything else you promise me and the rest of the citizens will be met? People can only go on blind faith for so long without results.

In the News

I have been reading the paper recently and here are a few things that I found interesting. Most of my topics come from the Washington Post, and some from Fox News.

The Salahi’s, the people who “crashed” the White House party, had an interview on NBC news the other day with Matt Lauer. The Salahi’s denied crashing the party and any rumors of trying to sell their story to any station, how much of this is truth I am not sure. Micheale is looking to become on of the housewives of the spin-off show “The Real Housewives of D.C”, the original was the Real Housewives of Orange County. If she did crash the White House, then her chances of being on the show drop significantly. Now the really interesting part is that the Salahi’s canceled their appearance on Letterman, to go on Matt Lauer show. I think they did this because NBC owns Bravo, which is the station that broadcast the Real Housewives shows. I bet they did this to try and boost her chances of getting on the show, because I do think the Salahi’s crashed the white House party. Also on her comment about,”no one has the audacity to crash a party at the White House,” well if someone would if the could. People don’t because they know they will be turned away by Secret service, well not so much anymore.

In the Washington Post, I read an article about the Olympics and Hockey. This might be the last year that the NHL allows its players to play for the Olympics. There are many risks for players such as Mike Richards, Chris Pronger, Alexander Ovechkin, and Nikolas Backstrom to play in the Olympics, especially because it takes place during the regular season. One it cost teams money to delay play and not have games going a couple times a week, also if the players would be injured it would hurt the teams chances in the playoff runs. I agree with Burke Bordeau, coach to the Capitals, about the compromise to move hockey to the summer games. I also agree with him that this is never going to happen. The IOC is as likely to move hockey to the summer games as it is to get rid of Soccer, or Football depending on what country you are in. Personally, I believe that switching swimming and hockey wouldn’t be that bad. Swimming competitions can be moved and changed much easier than changing a whole League, but this is never going to happen. The Swimming committee with probably have a fit about swimming being moved, and other countries might not care when hockey plays.

I got a text from the Flyers website that the Flyers had recently fired head coach John Stevens, and hired Peter Laviolette, who led the Carolina Hurricanes to a Stanley Cup win in 2006. The team fired Stevens because of the inconsistent play for the past few years. There are still some other issues that the Flyers need to fix, such as keeping players healthy and a strong offense. I don’t really know what to make. I agree with the decision because while Stevens has led the Flyers to the playoffs the past few years, you never knew what was going to come out on game day. It could be the Flyers team that dominate and score every period at least once or it could be the team that can’t get it together for a period at a time. I am not sure what will happen with Laviolette as the head coach, because while he led the Hurricanes to a Cup win, he hasn’t held a head coaching job for a year since that Cup win. It is still early in the season but the Flyers need to start winning if they hope to have a go at the Cup this year.

Daniel Carcillo was suspended by the NHL for a hit to the face against Matt Bradley of the Washington Capitals. I don’t agree with this call because both players had their gloves off and we going to get in a fight, and in hockey fights people get hit in the face all the time. I do understand that the league has rules to protect the players but sometimes I can’t always agree. I agreed to Briere being suspended because that was a nasty hit he laid on the Colorado player, but I didn’t agree to Ovechkin being suspended for only 2 games when he took out another player’s knee in on game. The league is having an inconstancy problem with this ruling just as the NFL is having problems with the “Brady” rule or the new tackling rule. They need to establish a definite amount of time of suspension for everyone instead of it being on a hit to hit basis.

Jefferson and Locke

As I said in my other blog about John Locke's second treatise, there is a line in the declaration of independance that is extremely similar to what John Locke said. The line is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which Locke argues that every man has but instead of happiness Locke says property. The ideas though are identical and even the idea that every man has these rights from birth and such are identical. I think Jefferson got the idea from Locke, and thought ti was grreat and put it in the Declaration, but to avoid plagrism put happiness instead of property.