http://action.aclu.org/privacypower/index.html
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/
This week we turned in an essay where we talked about civil liberties and I found this website that addresses civil liberty issues. The above links are two parts of the site that I found interesting. The one about ordering pizza in particular stuck me as odd... could that really happen to us? At this rate, maybe. All the civil liberty violations that have been escalating for centuries COULD one day very soon become this different.
Stephanie
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Perverted Times
Some say we live in "Perilous Times" but others believe it's more of "Perverted Times"...
"Perverted," just like "perilous" can be interpreted a number of ways. The dictionary definition of perverted is:
1. Pathology. changed to or being of an unnatural or abnormal kind: a perverted interest in death.
2. turned from what is right; wicked; misguided; distorted.
So what does this mean?? People see "perverted" as something like a pedophile or a sex offender, but really it can be anything like torture, an innocent person going to jail, or even someone with a mental problem. It all depends on who is looking at it. I think that is a large part of why we live in these so called "perverted times;" how there is no wrong and right. There is no fine line between the two. The older generations of our society usually do not understand the teenagers and therefore think they are "corrupt" because they have different values, while the teenagers think the same of the older people. The thing is times change, and no one can agree on what is right. So are these "Perverted Times"? Are we "turned from what is right"?
"Perverted," just like "perilous" can be interpreted a number of ways. The dictionary definition of perverted is:
1. Pathology. changed to or being of an unnatural or abnormal kind: a perverted interest in death.
2. turned from what is right; wicked; misguided; distorted.
So what does this mean?? People see "perverted" as something like a pedophile or a sex offender, but really it can be anything like torture, an innocent person going to jail, or even someone with a mental problem. It all depends on who is looking at it. I think that is a large part of why we live in these so called "perverted times;" how there is no wrong and right. There is no fine line between the two. The older generations of our society usually do not understand the teenagers and therefore think they are "corrupt" because they have different values, while the teenagers think the same of the older people. The thing is times change, and no one can agree on what is right. So are these "Perverted Times"? Are we "turned from what is right"?
QUASI WAR PRIMARY SOURCES WITH LINKS
The Quasi War with France
Primary Sources
John Adams - Message to the Senate and House of March 19, 1798
Regarding Reports of the Envoys to France
United States, March 19, 1798.
Gentlemen of the Senate and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
The dispatches from the envoys extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my message to both Houses of Congress of the 5th instant, have been examined and maturely considered.
While I feel a satisfaction in informing you that their exertions for the adjustment of the differences between the two nations have been sincere and unremitted, it is incumbent on me to declare that I perceive no ground of expectation that the objects of their mission can be accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, the honor, or the essential interests of the nation.
This result can not with justice be attributed to any want of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any indisposition to forego secondary interests for the preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great body of the people, to avoid by all reasonable concessions any participation in the contentions of Europe, the powers vested in our envoys were commensurate with a liberal and pacific policy and that high confidence which might justly be reposed in the abilities, patriotism, and integrity of the characters to whom the negotiation was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject, with the aid of an the information I have received, I can discern nothing which could have insured or contributed to success that has been omitted on my part, and nothing further which can be attempted consistently with maxims for which our country has contended at every hazard, and which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty.
Under these circumstances I can not forbear to reiterate the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to exhort you to adopt with promptitude, decision, and unanimity such measures as the ample resources of the country afford for the protection of our seafaring and commercial citizens, for the defense of any exposed portions of our territory, for replenishing our arsenals, establishing foundries and military manufactures, and to provide such efficient revenue as will be necessary to defray extraordinary expenses and supply the deficiencies which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.
The present state of things is so essentially different from that in which instructions were given to the collectors to restrain vessels of the United States from sailing in an armed condition that the principle on which those orders were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore deem it proper to inform Congress that I no longer conceive myself justifiable in continuing them, unless in particular cases where there may be reasonable ground of suspicion that such vessels are intended to be employed contrary to law.
In all your proceedings it will be important to manifest a zeal, vigor, and concert in defense of the national rights proportioned to the danger with which they are threatened.
JOHN ADAMS.
Under Adams, “Every consideration of the public welfare was swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice.”
-Matthew Lyon, New Haven Gazette
From the Fifth Congress. The Alien Act:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=689
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by the act, intituled ‘An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; ant to repeal the act heretofore passed on the subject,’ he shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the United States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required, any thing therein to the contrary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who is residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year after the passing of this act–and any alien who shall have made the declaration of his intension to become a citizen of the United States, in conformity to the provisions act, intituled ‘An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject,’ may, within four years after having made the declaration aforesaid, be admitted to become a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that he has resided five years, at least, within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States: And provided also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States.”
Annotation (overview) of the previous text:
“No alien shall become a citizen, unless he shall have declared his intention to become such, five years before his admission. He shall declare and prove fourteen years residence within the United States, and five years in the state, &c. where he applies; besides otherwise conforming to the former act.”
-Statute II, June 18, 1798
Helpful primary source websites:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/quasi.htm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=16
Primary Sources
John Adams - Message to the Senate and House of March 19, 1798
Regarding Reports of the Envoys to France
United States, March 19, 1798.
Gentlemen of the Senate and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
The dispatches from the envoys extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my message to both Houses of Congress of the 5th instant, have been examined and maturely considered.
While I feel a satisfaction in informing you that their exertions for the adjustment of the differences between the two nations have been sincere and unremitted, it is incumbent on me to declare that I perceive no ground of expectation that the objects of their mission can be accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, the honor, or the essential interests of the nation.
This result can not with justice be attributed to any want of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any indisposition to forego secondary interests for the preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great body of the people, to avoid by all reasonable concessions any participation in the contentions of Europe, the powers vested in our envoys were commensurate with a liberal and pacific policy and that high confidence which might justly be reposed in the abilities, patriotism, and integrity of the characters to whom the negotiation was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject, with the aid of an the information I have received, I can discern nothing which could have insured or contributed to success that has been omitted on my part, and nothing further which can be attempted consistently with maxims for which our country has contended at every hazard, and which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty.
Under these circumstances I can not forbear to reiterate the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to exhort you to adopt with promptitude, decision, and unanimity such measures as the ample resources of the country afford for the protection of our seafaring and commercial citizens, for the defense of any exposed portions of our territory, for replenishing our arsenals, establishing foundries and military manufactures, and to provide such efficient revenue as will be necessary to defray extraordinary expenses and supply the deficiencies which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.
The present state of things is so essentially different from that in which instructions were given to the collectors to restrain vessels of the United States from sailing in an armed condition that the principle on which those orders were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore deem it proper to inform Congress that I no longer conceive myself justifiable in continuing them, unless in particular cases where there may be reasonable ground of suspicion that such vessels are intended to be employed contrary to law.
In all your proceedings it will be important to manifest a zeal, vigor, and concert in defense of the national rights proportioned to the danger with which they are threatened.
JOHN ADAMS.
Under Adams, “Every consideration of the public welfare was swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice.”
-Matthew Lyon, New Haven Gazette
From the Fifth Congress. The Alien Act:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=689
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by the act, intituled ‘An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; ant to repeal the act heretofore passed on the subject,’ he shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the United States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required, any thing therein to the contrary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who is residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year after the passing of this act–and any alien who shall have made the declaration of his intension to become a citizen of the United States, in conformity to the provisions act, intituled ‘An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject,’ may, within four years after having made the declaration aforesaid, be admitted to become a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that he has resided five years, at least, within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States: And provided also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States.”
Annotation (overview) of the previous text:
“No alien shall become a citizen, unless he shall have declared his intention to become such, five years before his admission. He shall declare and prove fourteen years residence within the United States, and five years in the state, &c. where he applies; besides otherwise conforming to the former act.”
-Statute II, June 18, 1798
Helpful primary source websites:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/quasi.htm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=16
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Modern Day Witch Hunts
Bolos wrote a blog on the accusations of witchcraft that is currently occuring in more than one country in Africa. This is partially based off of the Bantu religion, and as an excuse to expel children from the family in order to not have to care for them anymore. "'The witches situation started when fathers became unable to care for the children,' said Ana Silva, who is in charge of child protection for the children’s institute. 'So they started seeking any justification to expel them from the family.'" But that made me wonder--is it only children who are being accused of witchcraft? The article claims it is the modern-day Crucible, but is it only children being convicted of witchcraft? Or are they just showing all of the cases of children to obtain the sympathy of the readers?
On the second page of the article, there are examples of how children have been treated and why they have been accused: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/world/africa/15witches.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2 At the bottom is a case where the boy's mother would not believe that he had only confessed to a witch only to save his life, which is in fact, like the Crucible almost exactly.
On the second page of the article, there are examples of how children have been treated and why they have been accused: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/world/africa/15witches.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2 At the bottom is a case where the boy's mother would not believe that he had only confessed to a witch only to save his life, which is in fact, like the Crucible almost exactly.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Quasi War with France
In the Quasi War with France, in total the US captured 85 French ships, while the French captured over 2,000 US vessels! The US is always quick to criticize other peoples and countries, but never our own actions. When I was researching the Quasi War, I came across the US State Department's summary of the war, and there was not much information, perhaps because the main points of the war are all major criticisms for the United States, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/16318.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/16318.htm
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Pearl Harbor
The question arose in class this week - did the government know that 9/11 was going to happen? And Pearl Harbor? Among other attacks? I found this link when I was researching the subject: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
I found it very interesting, as well, that this is a hotly debated topic on the internet, seeing as I came up with both views of the question multiple times. One example saying that the government did not know is http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html. But the article I personally believed the most was this one: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408. It states that there is proof in files that have been obtained by the Freedom of Information Act. It also claims that Admiral James Richardson (commander of the Pacific fleet) quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”
So did FDR know about the attack?? I think so...
I found it very interesting, as well, that this is a hotly debated topic on the internet, seeing as I came up with both views of the question multiple times. One example saying that the government did not know is http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html. But the article I personally believed the most was this one: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408. It states that there is proof in files that have been obtained by the Freedom of Information Act. It also claims that Admiral James Richardson (commander of the Pacific fleet) quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”
So did FDR know about the attack?? I think so...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
In the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, I agree that the school had the right to discipline the student in this case, however, I believe that other school teachers could use this to end up suppressing free speech in schools. What the ruling of this case shows that if the school administrator wants a certain political party, say, for the Presidency, than could they say that the school is going to have a "Support " policy and then the students who do not agree could be suspended/disciplined?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Bh4j.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Bh4j.jpg
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Ending of The Crucible
I loved after the end of the play where it says legend has it that Abby turned up as a prostitute (page 135). It gave me the closure at the end that I was looking for. It's too bad that Proctor had to die, because he was kind of the "hero" of the book (even though he was a pedafile...). I didn't like the fact that Elizabeth got remarried for some reason though.. It just made it seem like a "life goes on" ending to the book.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Moment of Silence
Students should not be forced to recognise a moment of silence in school, as is imposed by the recently passed "Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act", in my opinion. I think it is just another excuse to try and force religion into schools and children. Not necessarily a particular religion, but just religion in general. I am very against religion. You can have your own religion so long as you never say anything about it to me. Religion is not about conversion, in the first place, it's about your own beliefs. Keep your beliefs to yourself and we'll be alright. This bill imposes the opposite, it shoves religion in my face and the face of my peers. This could be argued by people saying "Well then just use it as a 'silent reflection,'" but that is just trying to avoid the fact that this is a blatant act of attempting to unite church and state.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Band-Aids
"Skin color" Band-Aids? What about if you're not white? What if you are African American? We've always talked about biases in this class, and this is another example... Companies do not always think of these things, they just assume that everything's alright.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Life Sculpting Situations
The essay that we are writing for class about "life sculpting situations/memories" was easy for me to write, because I have had a lot of specific events that stand out to me in my life, but other people may not remember things as specifically. I believe that some people just do not think that events in their life change who they are, when in reality everything that happens to them on a day to day basis seperates them from everyone else. Everyone is different because of their experiences; no one has exactly the same experience, or the same take in what happened. Any event could have been writen about for this essay, I think because if you can remember it, well, it's a memory then isn't it???
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Radiolab
The radiolab podcast that we listened to in class about Memory started a controversial discussion in the classroom. Should we delete someone's memory if they want to? I believe that we should be able to, but only to a point. If someone had a really traumatic experience, they should be able to erase the memory. Or as this procedure works, it removes them from the memory emotionally, which would allow the memory to still be there, they would just not feel the pain or fear anymore. I think this is a great discovery and could be great for people with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, if everyone were able to get rid of the unwanted memories in their lives, the world would be filled with happy careless people not afraid of getting hurt.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
"Indians are no longer important in American History"
In Elementary American History and Government, I found that the authors, James A. Woodburn and T.F. Morgan, were extremely biased. Throughout the reading we were given ("The Indians"), I found many of the things they said very appalling. For example, in the section titled "Warfare", the first sentence I found obnoxiously unknowledgeable. It reads: "The Indians were constantly at war, either among themselves or with white men." This statement convinces me that either the extent of the authors' knowledge is extremely limited, or that their ignorance is great. The fact that they stated that the Indians were are war among themselves made me angry; did they not understand that there are different tribes of the Native Americans, just like there are different countries of Europeans? But the topic I found the most confounding was the section titled "Religion." They stated that "The Indians were not very religious, but he did think that the souls of the dead went to a far-off 'happy hunting ground.'" I was simply taken aback by that sentence. The complete disregard for Indian culture disgusts me. What does "not very religious" mean? That they were not Christian? And "a far-off 'happy hunting ground.'" First off, not all Indian tribes hunted. You cannot generalize based on one source; which I would actually very much like to see a list of the sources these authors used. Yes, the book was written in 1914, but that does not mean anything. This was quite possibly the most biased article I have ever read.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Appearance vs. News
This week in class, we talked about the previous White House press secretary, Tony Snow, and the current one, Dana Perino. We talked about how the White House has been using more attractive individuals to speak for them. This may be to distract the public from the important issues, or maybe becuase more people will listen if they make it easier on the viewer's eyes. If the speaker were to be some old, balding, hunched man, would there be the effect that no one would watch, or would people listen more closely to what is being said and take it more seriously? I have been back and forth with this issue, and I cannot come to a conclusion.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Secret Messages
When I wear my Kaenon sunglasses (http://www.kaenon.com/) around at regatta (basically a tournament for sailing) sights, everybody knows that I spent a lot of money on them. They probably assume that I have a lot of money to spend on my sailing career. They can tell that sailing is a big part of my life, if I am willing to spend $200 on something as small as my sunglasses, and then they wonder, if she will spend that much to get a good pair of sunglasses, how much does she spend on coaching?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
