Varying from place to place, issues are different. Due to environment and culture problems arise. When writing the laws for the United States, this was an issue that they had to address. Should we take a federalist stand or an anti federalist? In the end states got the right to make their own laws.
A recent issue in the state of California is the definition of marriage. There is two ways to look at this; one is the federalist way, the other anti federalist way. The federalists want the law to be the same across the county. The anti federalist way of looking at it is to have the law vary state to state. For Marriage the reasons are similar to the reason in the civil war. For marriage, one way to look at why having gay marriage be legal in one state vs. all is that this would mean people would need to travel and not get married in places that they wanted to if it was outside the country. This would eliminate people that maybe weren't a serious making them commit more to getting married.
In the civil war the issue was slavery. In the south, slaves were legal. In the north slaves were illegal. This was an anti federalist stand since the law wasn’t the same throughout the country. Having slaves was considered the easy way. Not having to do the work just forcing someone else to do it. Part of the reason that half the country was spilt is the same reason as gay marriage. It would be a sacrifice to move everything. However in the end we went to war. I don't think that the marriage law will take us to the next civil war because of the last civil war. We learned how to address issues like this and keep it constitutional. By having the people vote for what they want.
Information gathered from:
CIVILWAR.COM
American Civil War-Wikipedia
The Civil War Home Page
California Proposition 8- Wikipedia
California Proposition 8 (2008)-Ballotpedia
Yes on California Bonds
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Give Me Privacy
I have the right to think what I want, to express my opinions freely in a peaceful manner.
Thoughts are mine. I don't have to agree with the government.
My house is mine. If I don't want to house someone I don't have to, unless prescribed by law.
Unless there is a reason with a license, there will not be a search and nothing will be seized.
My private property will not be taken without proper compensation.
These are all rights I have stated in the Bill of Rights. But is it possible that when this amendment was written there were things that the writers could have never imagined would be a problem in the future? I say yes. They already knew this. That is why we have the 9th amendment. The ninth amendment declares that any right not stated in the bill of rights is given to the people.
Thoughts are mine. I don't have to agree with the government.
My house is mine. If I don't want to house someone I don't have to, unless prescribed by law.
Unless there is a reason with a license, there will not be a search and nothing will be seized.
My private property will not be taken without proper compensation.
These are all rights I have stated in the Bill of Rights. But is it possible that when this amendment was written there were things that the writers could have never imagined would be a problem in the future? I say yes. They already knew this. That is why we have the 9th amendment. The ninth amendment declares that any right not stated in the bill of rights is given to the people.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
a reflective blog on blogging. proud. improve. understand.
What am I most proud of?
Going into this project I knew very little about blogs. I could make a comment on others but that was it. Because I didn't know a lot, I had to learn. I am happy with the outcome of my blog and posts. I have learned about the program and how to personalize it. Since this is a ongoing project, this will help me in future blogs maintaining the look I want my blog to look like. Another reason I am proud of my blog for is, I didn't really realize how open blogs are to the public. I know everyone could see but I didn't think anyone would look at mine. My blog is open to the public so I do have to keep that in mind as i write. I think that I have done a fair job at this and hopefully shown different views and made people think about what I wrote.
What could I improve on?
There is always room for improvement. I know that my blog needs a lot. I understand that I have only got a small amount of information about topics this could be due to the date it was due. However what I "blog" about is usually something I am interested in and not only would it be beneficial to continue to do research to support my claims, but I would at the same time come to be more aware of the world around me.
Has blogging really made me that more aware of the world?
well let me think...humm my main intrests are guitar, arts, sports, friends. All of these have to do with a world perspective but I never really thought of it that way. Applying what I already am intrested and seeing how it relates to the world, insted of just to the places I go to create a blog that expresses my opionions....i would have to say yes. blogging has helped me think more on a larger scale.
Going into this project I knew very little about blogs. I could make a comment on others but that was it. Because I didn't know a lot, I had to learn. I am happy with the outcome of my blog and posts. I have learned about the program and how to personalize it. Since this is a ongoing project, this will help me in future blogs maintaining the look I want my blog to look like. Another reason I am proud of my blog for is, I didn't really realize how open blogs are to the public. I know everyone could see but I didn't think anyone would look at mine. My blog is open to the public so I do have to keep that in mind as i write. I think that I have done a fair job at this and hopefully shown different views and made people think about what I wrote.
What could I improve on?
There is always room for improvement. I know that my blog needs a lot. I understand that I have only got a small amount of information about topics this could be due to the date it was due. However what I "blog" about is usually something I am interested in and not only would it be beneficial to continue to do research to support my claims, but I would at the same time come to be more aware of the world around me.
Has blogging really made me that more aware of the world?
well let me think...humm my main intrests are guitar, arts, sports, friends. All of these have to do with a world perspective but I never really thought of it that way. Applying what I already am intrested and seeing how it relates to the world, insted of just to the places I go to create a blog that expresses my opionions....i would have to say yes. blogging has helped me think more on a larger scale.
Friday, September 19, 2008
streching truths like saltwater taffy
Factcheck.org a website put up to clear rumors and to double check what people say.
Not Pictured Here
August 12, 2008
Some of the articles that I have read are clearing up what the presidential candidates have said, others clear up what the news have said. In the "Not Pictured Here" article a news reporter made it seem that the people in the picture were lobbyist. This however turned out to not be true. Though it would have made an interesting story it is a lie. The things that news reporters say are to sell a story, to grasp the viewer’s attention. This is how they get paid, from viewers. So why say things the people watching wont like or be interested in, that doesn't make money.
Not Pictured Here
August 12, 2008
Some of the articles that I have read are clearing up what the presidential candidates have said, others clear up what the news have said. In the "Not Pictured Here" article a news reporter made it seem that the people in the picture were lobbyist. This however turned out to not be true. Though it would have made an interesting story it is a lie. The things that news reporters say are to sell a story, to grasp the viewer’s attention. This is how they get paid, from viewers. So why say things the people watching wont like or be interested in, that doesn't make money.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
But The students don't feel theatened by the KKK.....
(Continued from last Blog)
Hours Later published by Paul P. Quinn "UM students not threatened by Klan’s possible appearance"
Summary of the Article:
This article was written the same day that "An open letter to the KKK" was published. What struck me about this article is it was the student’s point of view. The students didn't seem worried about the KKK arriving at a debate about the presidential candidates.
The same day though a letter saying the KKK’s views are not respected by the Daily Mississippian (the news paper that represents the school). At the same time inviting them to go to a debate where a black man is running for president! But the KKK's views are not respected.
The KKK Emperor said that they WILL arrive, but dressed like everyone else. The daily Mississippian has an interesting comment to that...
“That means our people won’t be in regalia or demonstrating. So, I guess you’ll just have to guess which of the people present are Klansmen,” The Daily Mississippian reported on Friday, Sept. 15.
Could this be inviting the people attending the debate to stereotype the people there to try and "figure out" whom the KKK are? The KKK is for white power, The Mississippian clam that they are for equality. The KKK stereotypes people of different races and religion to be not worthy of them. The Daily Mississippian is now inviting people to stereotype others. Isn't this a little hypocritical? Should we not respect the Daily Mississippian Paper because they have a fixed idea of who these people are at least enough to pick them out of a crowd!
This blog is based on my views, what I have read off of The Daily Mississippian website, and what I have learned about in my Humanities class. I am open to hearing everyone's view and considering what they have to say.
If you would like to continue to read about this issue here is the website to the University of Mississippi Online New Room search results for "KKK":
http://www.thedmonline.com/contact_us/7.363?q=KKK
Hours Later published by Paul P. Quinn "UM students not threatened by Klan’s possible appearance"
Summary of the Article:
This article was written the same day that "An open letter to the KKK" was published. What struck me about this article is it was the student’s point of view. The students didn't seem worried about the KKK arriving at a debate about the presidential candidates.
The same day though a letter saying the KKK’s views are not respected by the Daily Mississippian (the news paper that represents the school). At the same time inviting them to go to a debate where a black man is running for president! But the KKK's views are not respected.
The KKK Emperor said that they WILL arrive, but dressed like everyone else. The daily Mississippian has an interesting comment to that...
“That means our people won’t be in regalia or demonstrating. So, I guess you’ll just have to guess which of the people present are Klansmen,” The Daily Mississippian reported on Friday, Sept. 15.
Could this be inviting the people attending the debate to stereotype the people there to try and "figure out" whom the KKK are? The KKK is for white power, The Mississippian clam that they are for equality. The KKK stereotypes people of different races and religion to be not worthy of them. The Daily Mississippian is now inviting people to stereotype others. Isn't this a little hypocritical? Should we not respect the Daily Mississippian Paper because they have a fixed idea of who these people are at least enough to pick them out of a crowd!
This blog is based on my views, what I have read off of The Daily Mississippian website, and what I have learned about in my Humanities class. I am open to hearing everyone's view and considering what they have to say.
If you would like to continue to read about this issue here is the website to the University of Mississippi Online New Room search results for "KKK":
http://www.thedmonline.com/contact_us/7.363?q=KKK
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
"The KKK took my baby away" -the clash
This blog is about pertains to:
Daily Mississippian
"An open letter to the KKK"
Summary:
The Basic point of this letter is to tell the Ku Klux Klan they are not wanted on the University of Mississippi campus. The reason for this letter is to tell the KKK that they are not welcome to express their thoughts through the school, examples of this is the school newspaper and wall space. This to me brings up two points one the first amendment and two the declaration of independence.
The First Amendment states the right to freedoms such as freedom of speech and religion. Would not letting the KKK members express themselves be unconstitutional? The daily Mississippian is aware of this amendment and writes:
"We want to be clear: we have utmost respect for your right to express your views, but we have no respect whatsoever for those views. You may attempt to defile our beautiful campus by shouting your twisted viewpoints from the top of your lungs. No one will listen."
This reminds me of another thing that I learned in Humanities, Federalism. "An open letter to the KKK" Article is written by 5 people. Though I do not know the exact amount of people that attend this school I know it is more then 10. Which would make this article an anti-federalist view of the KKK. Even if more people agreed there are only five names that "signed" the article (this can be found at the bottom of the page that the original article came from).
The last point that I would like to make is that the declaration was about declaring independence form Great Brittan. In this article the editorial board is trying to separate the school with being associated with the KKK. This could be for the same reasons as the founding fathers of the United States had (people that they didn't have problems with they now did because they are known to be with this group, also threats, and fear). The Daily Mississippian wrote an open letter what follows because of this in my opinion going to be very interesting!
Follow this story
http://www.thedmonline.com/1.746424
Daily Mississippian
"An open letter to the KKK"
Summary:
The Basic point of this letter is to tell the Ku Klux Klan they are not wanted on the University of Mississippi campus. The reason for this letter is to tell the KKK that they are not welcome to express their thoughts through the school, examples of this is the school newspaper and wall space. This to me brings up two points one the first amendment and two the declaration of independence.
The First Amendment states the right to freedoms such as freedom of speech and religion. Would not letting the KKK members express themselves be unconstitutional? The daily Mississippian is aware of this amendment and writes:
"We want to be clear: we have utmost respect for your right to express your views, but we have no respect whatsoever for those views. You may attempt to defile our beautiful campus by shouting your twisted viewpoints from the top of your lungs. No one will listen."
This reminds me of another thing that I learned in Humanities, Federalism. "An open letter to the KKK" Article is written by 5 people. Though I do not know the exact amount of people that attend this school I know it is more then 10. Which would make this article an anti-federalist view of the KKK. Even if more people agreed there are only five names that "signed" the article (this can be found at the bottom of the page that the original article came from).
The last point that I would like to make is that the declaration was about declaring independence form Great Brittan. In this article the editorial board is trying to separate the school with being associated with the KKK. This could be for the same reasons as the founding fathers of the United States had (people that they didn't have problems with they now did because they are known to be with this group, also threats, and fear). The Daily Mississippian wrote an open letter what follows because of this in my opinion going to be very interesting!
Follow this story
http://www.thedmonline.com/1.746424
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9.11.2001 (Revised)
“Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama called off their campaigns for the day, and in the late afternoon descended the long ramp into the pit of the trade center site, bowing their heads and leaving the flowers in a reflecting pool.”
An article "Some find other ways to mourn on 9/11 anniversary"
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/12/america/Sept-11-Anniversary-Optional.php
This sort of makes me mad. In the article it says that McCain and Obama called off their campaigns for the day, which is the respectful thing to do. This is not a day for politics, but do they really have the right to go down in the pit of the trade center.
Right now I feel like anything they do is based on what the public will see of them. Do they really know how all these people felt when seeing them crash? It feels very political for the presidential candidates going down. Anyone can put on a sad face and act respectful, but how on earth are we to know what the candidates truly think? Will we ever? It is hard to say that what the candidates for president do is only to impress the public but I really don't think they deserve the right to go down to the pits. I can think of thousands of other people that it brings up too many bad memories for them to go down there, to the place where thousands died. It feels like a mockery of the pain that people went through, to walk on the grounds, take pictures and have the news write about how McCain and Obama cleared there day to pay a tribute to these people when victims of the terrorist attack’s family, it hurts the family to see the place where loved ones died.
A tragic event turned political. Why else would it be mentioned in the article? This article also talks about other ways of morning, on the beach, with friends, family, the anniversary a memorial.
If anyone else were to go down there to pay respect on any other day of the year I doubt that they would get on television, yet these two men can go down there with some news reporters gladly following them, it sickens me to think that America has made these men celebrity’s when America is for the people and should focus on the people on such a tragic day, when the people need us to support them, I don’t need to know McCain’s and Obama's 2 cents.
I feel I am not alone on this that many others agree. Not minutes after writing this I turned on the television. My Network TV had a 2008 "hero’s among us: hero awards" 8-10pm on 9.11.08. The show focuses on heroes, ordinary people getting recognized for heroic acts. What stuck out to me about this show is everyone so far said that they acted on instinct reactions not thinking it was a heroic act. The people on this show are very humble. This is the first show I have seen where the people don't feel like they deserve the award. This is a non-profit show. When I started to think about this, a lot of what I see on television is about the hate crimes and tragic events and terrorist, all depressing topics cover the news; some would wonder how many good people are there out there. I see the bad and I know there is good this show shows the good. Another thing to think about is Thomas Hobbs. He believed in every man for himself and human nature would help each other out. Seeing the news on TV I would never believe his theory would work, maybe Hobbs saw the good in people, like what “My Network TV” show shows. I can’t really quote this show but here is a video segment.
An article "Some find other ways to mourn on 9/11 anniversary"
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/12/america/Sept-11-Anniversary-Optional.php
This sort of makes me mad. In the article it says that McCain and Obama called off their campaigns for the day, which is the respectful thing to do. This is not a day for politics, but do they really have the right to go down in the pit of the trade center.
Right now I feel like anything they do is based on what the public will see of them. Do they really know how all these people felt when seeing them crash? It feels very political for the presidential candidates going down. Anyone can put on a sad face and act respectful, but how on earth are we to know what the candidates truly think? Will we ever? It is hard to say that what the candidates for president do is only to impress the public but I really don't think they deserve the right to go down to the pits. I can think of thousands of other people that it brings up too many bad memories for them to go down there, to the place where thousands died. It feels like a mockery of the pain that people went through, to walk on the grounds, take pictures and have the news write about how McCain and Obama cleared there day to pay a tribute to these people when victims of the terrorist attack’s family, it hurts the family to see the place where loved ones died.
A tragic event turned political. Why else would it be mentioned in the article? This article also talks about other ways of morning, on the beach, with friends, family, the anniversary a memorial.
If anyone else were to go down there to pay respect on any other day of the year I doubt that they would get on television, yet these two men can go down there with some news reporters gladly following them, it sickens me to think that America has made these men celebrity’s when America is for the people and should focus on the people on such a tragic day, when the people need us to support them, I don’t need to know McCain’s and Obama's 2 cents.
I feel I am not alone on this that many others agree. Not minutes after writing this I turned on the television. My Network TV had a 2008 "hero’s among us: hero awards" 8-10pm on 9.11.08. The show focuses on heroes, ordinary people getting recognized for heroic acts. What stuck out to me about this show is everyone so far said that they acted on instinct reactions not thinking it was a heroic act. The people on this show are very humble. This is the first show I have seen where the people don't feel like they deserve the award. This is a non-profit show. When I started to think about this, a lot of what I see on television is about the hate crimes and tragic events and terrorist, all depressing topics cover the news; some would wonder how many good people are there out there. I see the bad and I know there is good this show shows the good. Another thing to think about is Thomas Hobbs. He believed in every man for himself and human nature would help each other out. Seeing the news on TV I would never believe his theory would work, maybe Hobbs saw the good in people, like what “My Network TV” show shows. I can’t really quote this show but here is a video segment.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
In Federalist Paper number five by John Jay, it is trying to persuade the people to be federalists. It gives some main points some are: we are now in a war and now is the time to come together, we all come from the same background and are true American citizens, and it is our divine role that these people were born where they were and we need to come together.
“United people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government,” Jay is trying to get the message across that before when the British were over they knew nothing about our culture and weren’t even born in America. He proposes that if American citizens are a part of the government then America will stay the same and progress to a greater level.
“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence,” “for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties”. If we unite then we shouldn’t have any problems, by everyone coming together and supporting each other. John Jay believes that if we unite for the good of this country then a government would be great.
If I were put into this situation it would be hard for me to make a choice. Coming from a government that didn’t work, to trust another one would be hard. I can see that after years a government was the right idea but I don’t know if I would think that at the time. The time period that this was written was during a war. What that means to me is that the last government started a war so I don’t want more wars why would I want another government system. Another factor is trust. I can sort of tell by the way this paper was written that he is well educated but how am I to know for sure that he know what he is talking about or what kind of person he is. The last thing that I am going to mention is I don’t know him. I feel I would have to meet him and ask questions to see what he is really after. In general I if I was put in this situation would be skeptical to what I believe. That is maybe why there are so many articles and the reason it took years for the constitution to get signed and passed
“United people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government,” Jay is trying to get the message across that before when the British were over they knew nothing about our culture and weren’t even born in America. He proposes that if American citizens are a part of the government then America will stay the same and progress to a greater level.
“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence,” “for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties”. If we unite then we shouldn’t have any problems, by everyone coming together and supporting each other. John Jay believes that if we unite for the good of this country then a government would be great.
If I were put into this situation it would be hard for me to make a choice. Coming from a government that didn’t work, to trust another one would be hard. I can see that after years a government was the right idea but I don’t know if I would think that at the time. The time period that this was written was during a war. What that means to me is that the last government started a war so I don’t want more wars why would I want another government system. Another factor is trust. I can sort of tell by the way this paper was written that he is well educated but how am I to know for sure that he know what he is talking about or what kind of person he is. The last thing that I am going to mention is I don’t know him. I feel I would have to meet him and ask questions to see what he is really after. In general I if I was put in this situation would be skeptical to what I believe. That is maybe why there are so many articles and the reason it took years for the constitution to get signed and passed
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Cheap Scandel
The title of an article that I read is “how not to get hacked in Chinese surgery” By Richard Gould. This immediately grabbed my attention. In China they adapted Hobbs beliefs. Hobs believed in an every man for themselves kind of life, that human nature would naturally take care of each other and we wouldn’t need a government system. This theory goes out the window when adding in the factor of the rat race. China from what I can tell has some security laws but loopholes are everywhere. For instance, the title of the article I read is titled “How not to get hacked in Chinese surgery”. It sounds to me that there is a lot wrong in this sentence involving morals. Hobs said that we could survive without a government to govern our safety. Greed and human rank got in the way of this theory.
In class I have been learning about Hobbs and the Enlightenment. What I understand about the Enlightenment is it is a bunch of theories about how our nation should at the time be run. Seeing how the Hobbs idea didn’t work in China I am grateful that the United States didn’t adapt this method of every man for himself. As you can see in this article it didn’t work and percussions have to be taken when going somewhere as simple as the doctor for surgery.
Prop Eight
Prop. 8 is about Democracy
Prop eight is for keeping the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, that gay marriage will not be legal or civil. People of the same sex can still have the benefits of being married just not the title. It is hard to find an article that is not one sided on such a sensitive subject. This article that I read by Danny Wells (accessed on 9.4.08) is for prop eight.
Four judges in San Francisco tried to make a law that said that same sex marriages are legal, however this is four judges not necessarily what the people want. This is why prop 8 will be put on the ballot this coming November. This will make sure that the law stays by the people and for the people. However what some people are confused about is are we taking away peoples freedoms by saying yes to prop eight and not letting gay people get married.
Democracy is what the majority of the people want. What the people want is what will happen. The founding fathers of the United States of America put this into the constitution. The constitution is what America is founded on and if it is for the people then the people should vote for what they believe to be right, and not four judges making the calls.
An interesting comment is made by Danny Wells the author of this article, he says that prop eight will not deny anyone the right to love just if we consider it legal or not. Now take into consideration, by love he means love and by legal he means being married. The definition “marriage” is a concept of being bound to another, a concept found in the Bible. What I think is that since gay marriage doesn’t fall under the Bible definition then these people can have a civil union. A civil union gives them the rights to the same benefits. Now if they do not like the name “Civil Union” maybe they can have a prop on the upcoming ballot to change that name to something that matches what it is. Marriage is as far as the Bible states is between a man and a woman.
My personal option, if I was old enough I would vote yes on prop eight. Everyone has there right to option as entails in the first amendment in the bill of rights. Marriage to me is a something sacred. That is between a man and a woman. I believe that it is a divine quality to be a woman. If I was to marry anyone (male or female) then why would there be different sexes? Personally I feel if the sex of a human didn’t matter then why is there a difference.
Prop eight is for keeping the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, that gay marriage will not be legal or civil. People of the same sex can still have the benefits of being married just not the title. It is hard to find an article that is not one sided on such a sensitive subject. This article that I read by Danny Wells (accessed on 9.4.08) is for prop eight.
Four judges in San Francisco tried to make a law that said that same sex marriages are legal, however this is four judges not necessarily what the people want. This is why prop 8 will be put on the ballot this coming November. This will make sure that the law stays by the people and for the people. However what some people are confused about is are we taking away peoples freedoms by saying yes to prop eight and not letting gay people get married.
Democracy is what the majority of the people want. What the people want is what will happen. The founding fathers of the United States of America put this into the constitution. The constitution is what America is founded on and if it is for the people then the people should vote for what they believe to be right, and not four judges making the calls.
An interesting comment is made by Danny Wells the author of this article, he says that prop eight will not deny anyone the right to love just if we consider it legal or not. Now take into consideration, by love he means love and by legal he means being married. The definition “marriage” is a concept of being bound to another, a concept found in the Bible. What I think is that since gay marriage doesn’t fall under the Bible definition then these people can have a civil union. A civil union gives them the rights to the same benefits. Now if they do not like the name “Civil Union” maybe they can have a prop on the upcoming ballot to change that name to something that matches what it is. Marriage is as far as the Bible states is between a man and a woman.
My personal option, if I was old enough I would vote yes on prop eight. Everyone has there right to option as entails in the first amendment in the bill of rights. Marriage to me is a something sacred. That is between a man and a woman. I believe that it is a divine quality to be a woman. If I was to marry anyone (male or female) then why would there be different sexes? Personally I feel if the sex of a human didn’t matter then why is there a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
