Church Man is Asked to Beat a Child

Kaitlyn DeShon

12/12/11

North County Times

"Officials: Calif. parents asked man to beat child"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/officials-calif-parents-asked-man-to-beat-child/article_a42083d4-e41b-5970-9f26-0fcefd9e0158.html

Religion

The parents of a 15 year old boy suspected him of smoking. Upon finding a lighter in his possession, the distressed parents called Paul Kim, an apparently reliable church man. They dropped their son off at his house. Kim beat the child with a metal pole, causing intense bruising on his legs. An adult at the child's school noticed these marks and called the police. Kim was arrested for this crime, and suspected of doing similar things to children for parents around the neighborhood.

This connects to what we are studying in class because it states that this man is apparently known for being reliable and a consistent church-goer. This has to do with religion. Also, it represents society and culture because it shows how some people in our society punish their children. Another connection is that the thirteen colonies were very religious and had strict rules about their churches. They even had strict laws on what to do on Sundays, which is considered the Lord's Day. Obviously, these rules have been lost over the years in most societies, including this one where this church man beat people.

This connects to my life as a citizen because all parents must punish their children at one point or another, yet beating is severe, not to mention illegal. I have been punished for things I have done as a child. Also, many teenagers have been influenced by adult temptations such as alcohol or smoking. In this instance, it was smoking. However, this son is not the only one who has been influenced by this.

I believe that this man obviously should not have beat this child, instead the parents should have confronted their son about the lighter found in his possession. This man is putting a bad name on religion and church, because people cannot help but stereotype other groups of people. If they had only confronted him and perhaps gotten help for him, they would have, of course, avoided the arrest of this man and avoided the harm of their own child. These people are simply sick to do this to their own child and should have charges pressed against them also. As you can see, I think that this man should be arrested as well as the parents of the beaten child. They should also have gotten help for their son.

Prince William VS Government

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #1

North County Times

"Prince William's posting to Falklands defended"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html

Prince William of Britain wants to fight in military, but government won't let him

Prince William was deployed for the Falkland Islands despite attempts by the British government. Britain owns most of the land, but Argentina has claimed the Falkland Islands. He was sent to a British outpost on the islands. Argentina claimed this was a "provocative act" and that the British meant to have another war to overtake their islands. The British insisted it was not, and do not approve of Prince William serving in the military, however, Prince William as well as his brother, Prince Harry, have served in Britain's armed forces for quite some time and do not plan to stop now.

This connects to what we are studying in class because Britain/England, where Prince William is from, explored the Americas and colonized there. They were part of the Colombian exchange and claimed land in the Americas such as Virginia. Also, the simple fact that an American newspaper is making news about something going on in Britain shows that the Colombian exchange never ceases. We still exchange ideas, goods, new ways of life, government ideas, and so forth.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have also been forced not to do something, as I am sure we all have at one point, because of the "dangers" and "possible fatalities" and so forth from our parents. Here Prince William is the child and the British government is the parent. Also, false accusations have been made. Argentina accused Prince William and Britain of trying to overtake their islands because of a simple deployment. This has happened so many times in my family household.

I believe that Prince William and Prince Harry should be allowed to be in the military if they wish, but be suspended from serving should a war or battle arise. Therefore, they could guard and protect their country, but they could not be injured badly. For example, Prince William should have been allowed to be deployed to that island, but if the tension were to rise too much and break out into violence, he would be removed from the area immediately, because any enemies would go straight for royalty. He would be much too vulnerable. Therefore, you can see that I believe the best thing for Prince Harry and Prince William would be that they are allowed to serve in the military, but with extra safety restrictions.

Can You Really Trust the Police?

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #5

North County Times

"School police union slammed for edgy t-shirts"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/school-police-union-slammed-for-edgy-t-shirts/article_5037be18-1a79-5698-a717-a117497479c3.html

Police in Northern California Wear Inappropriate Shirts

In Northern California, a small police department was seen wearing offensive T-shirts. They had a picture of a child behind bars while bearing the phrase, "You raise 'em, we cage 'em". Many complaints were made by people who saw the shirts. The department did not have a good reputation as it was, and these shirts did not improve it. The police chief bears the blame as well as the entire department. They were asked not to wear them and to apologize.

This connects to what we are learning in class because the First Amendment states the freedom of speech. This would pertain to the police being allowed to wear the offending shirts because they are given the right to have freedom of expression. Also, the Tenth Amendment states rights retained by the states, such as the right to be responsible for their police departments.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have seen some extremely offending shirts worn by some extremely scary people, but never by officials of the law. Also, I have been pretty surprised at the things the police or firemen have done when you thought they were such good citizens. Another connection I can make is that I once met a police officer who was very proud of his rank as police officer and would never do anything such as wear a t-shirt that would offend children, of which I was one and was good friends with this officer.

I believe that these police should have known better and they should have not worn the t-shirts in the first place. When the article said, "Town leaders said the fundraising shirts are highly offensive and fuel mistrust of the Twin Rivers Police Department in North Highlands", it only makes me think more that these shirts should not have been worn in the first place and this police department is not careful or lawful enough for a police department.

They Take Your Lunch but Not Your Phone

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #4

North County Times

"Police: Men took Pa. teens sandwich at gunpoint"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/police-men-took-pa-teens-sandwich-at-gunpoint/article_6555955f-3a9e-5218-ab07-a6a12572a21b.html

Two Men Stole a Sandwich from a Teen at Gunpoint

Two men apparently approached a teenager and pointed a gun at his head before rifling through his pockets and, upon finding a meatball sandwich, took it and ran away to their car without stealing anything else from the teen. Although the teen did have a phone in his pockets, they apparently only had interest for the meatball sandwich. Talk about "Give me your lunch money" here it was "Give me your lunch." The teen called police and gave them a description of the car they drove away in. The police thereafter soon found the car and arrested the two men for robbery. They are being held under a $150,000 bail.

This connects to what we are learning in class because we learned in the Bill of Rights that people accused of a crime are to be held with a bail before the trial, and that no person can be given excessive bail. We also learned in the Bill of Rights Amendment Six that police cannot arrest someone without reasonable motives.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I am, in fact, a teenager. Also, although I do not like meatball sandwiches, what was contained in that teen's pockets are very similar to what I carry around with me. Another connecting is that this could have easily happened to me and this is similar to what happens in cheesy television shows that I am sometimes forced to watch.

My opinion is that these people were amateurs who were extremely frightened and did not want to chance getting caught so they took what they found immediately and ran. I believe this because of when the article says, "The men allegedly took his sandwich before fleeing in a car." The use of the word "fleeing" and the quick escape suggests that the two men were new at being criminals and were extremely nervous of being caught. I believe they just wanted to feel the "exhilaration" or whatever feeling you could possibly get from committing a crime and not actually steal anything of substantial value.

The Strangest Thing You've Ever Gotten While Trick-or-Treating: and the Scariest

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #3

North County Times

"Ohio pastor apologizes for Halloween pamphlets"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_fa97c2da-c027-5a9b-b08e-ec79d158d233.html

Ohio pastor scars children with religious pamphlet

At several houses in Ohio, trick-or-treaters were given not candy, but a religious pamphlet about fearing God. This comic-style pamphlet was given to all children that stopped by Reverend Kenny Cousar's house, and all children who stopped by anyone's house who went to the Northview Baptist Church. In this comic, three children die and one child hangs himself. When parents found out about what had been given to their children, they were horrified, and complained to the authorities. The pastor had to apologize and still encouraged them that his church was, in fact, very good and usually handed out religion related pamphlets for Halloween, which usually got very good responses.

This connects to what we are studying in class because it involves the Bill of Right's First Amendment: Freedom of religion as well as expression. This pastor as well as many others had the freedom to express whatever they wanted through what they handed out. It was perfectly within their rights to give these stories, no matter how gruesome, to the children. However, the children and the parents have freedom of religion, and some parents might say that giving the children a pamphlet that scares them into becoming Baptist would compromise their freedom of religion. Both of these rights are stated in the First Amendment.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I trick-or-treat every Halloween and Halloween is definitely involved in my life, as well as religion. Just like my church is free to advertise Christianity, this church is free to advertise Baptism. Also, I have been given pamphlets about religion before (maybe not trick-or-treating) and some of them have been very, very forceful.

I believe that this pastor should have looked at the pamphlet before handing them out to every child that stood on his porch step. You can tell that he did not, in fact, even look at the pamphlet when he said his "church was careless". This displays that he did not even read the pamphlet himself because he blames it on the church and not on himself. Therefore, he believed he had no part in it, but simply distributed them. If he did have the knowledge of what was contained in the pamphlets he was handing out, then he would probably have taken some of the blame or felt responsible for it. Now, as you can see, I do in fact believe that he should have known what he was handing out to the children.

Fake Maple Syrup Upsets Vermont

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #2

North County Times

"Bill: Felony to sell fake maple syrup as real deal"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_5326a122-af4b-5134-acfe-9fc69e21b637.html

Phony Maple Syrup is Now Outlawed in Vermont

A Vermont couple thought they found a good deal on organic, completely real Vermont maple syrup from the Internet. They ordered the syrup and, upon being told that the seller was a trucker from Rhode Island who was passing through Vermont, the couple arranged with him to meet in a town called Brattleboro to get the syrup. After receiving it, being from Vermont, the couple soon realized that the "maple syrup" was nothing more than cane sugar. In order to protect Vermont's name in maple syrup, which earns the state about $30 million a year at about $50 a gallon, a bill was passed by the state's two senators to outlaw the sale of phony maple syrup.

This connects to what we are learning in class because the Constitution states that the Legislative Branch is in charge of passing new bills. Also, the Constitution states that each state will have a certain number of senators based on the population. Vermont has two. It also connects to the Bill of Rights through the Tenth Amendment. The right retained by the state is that Vermont may pass laws involving their exports and imports (Maple Syrup).

This connects to my life because maple syrup is involved in almost everyone's life, including mine. If I were to replace my maple syrup with just plain sugar, not only would it taste completely different and most likely bad, it would make me extremely fat if I were to just eat plain sugar. Also, it is false advertising and that is, in fact, illegal.

I am under the impression that false advertising is already illegal. Therefore I believe that a new bill did not need to be passed in order to solve the problem. If a new bill were not to be passed, then the man that sold the couple fake maple syrup would have been put in jail and would not have gotten away because "the bill was not passed until after he performed the deed." However, apparently the law of false advertising either did not apply to Vermont or was not brought up until the new bill had been passed. Therefore, you can see that I do not believe that a new bill had to be made in order to outlaw the sale of false maple syrup because false advertising is already outlawed.

Wal-Mart Biased Against Men

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #1

North County Times

"Calif. women allege Wal-Mart bias in new lawsuit"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_187e152d-cbb5-5c69-8e3c-099b9b86ecac.html

Wal-Mart Favoring Women Employees

In Wal-Marts across the country, there have been numerous complaints about women employees being favored much more than their male counterparts. They say that women are given lesser rates and are promoted more. After an attempt at a lawsuit at the federal court level, the court tossed it out, spurring the complainers on to the Supreme Court, who are still reviewing the case, however, the complaints and evidence was much too varied, with too many different situations, so the case was split into an "armada" of many smaller cases. All the cases needed approval from a federal court judge before they could be seen by the Supreme Court. It is still being reviewed, and there are many differing opinions on the subject.

This connects to what we are studying in class because some of the suggestions we had for our rights or rules had to be specified, just like the many varying components of the case needed to be split into many separate cases. Also, we have been studying Supreme Court cases that had to go to the Supreme Court after being undecided by the lower courts.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have sometimes thought that maybe men were favored more than women when it came to certain aspects of life, such as construction work or playing football. This affects my everyday life because it could determine where my life goes in the future as far as careers.

I believe that women were not, in fact, being favored more than men, they were just being acknowledged more than they usually were. I believe this because it says that women's percentage of employment at Wal-Marts sprung from 38.8 percent to 41.2 percent in the past five years. However, that isn't even half, so more men are still employed at Wal-Marts than women and if this trend continues and more than half of Wal-Mart employees are women, so be it. I believe that apparently less than 40 percent is the standard employment of women in Wal-Marts compared to men, and that if that percentage were to go higher, it should not offend men that women might slightly overpower their numbers one day.

The Pledge of Allegiances

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #1

Home of Heroes

"Stories of American Heroes"

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

The Pledge of Allegiance


The Pledge of Allegiance was originally called the Pledge to the Flag. It was first created in 1892 through the magazine "The Youth's Companion" in order to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the day Columbus discovered America. Children in public schools all over the country recited the very first version of the Pledge of Allegiance that they had been memorizing. After Columbus Day, the Pledge to the Flag was continually recited in public schools daily and became a popular routine. Over the course of many years, the Pledge was continually altered to fit the times, until 62 years later, the final version of the Pledge of Allegiance was created. It now states "the American ideal" as well as the devotion to the Flag and the US. It went from being, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all" to "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all." Although people do not usually think about the actual words now, they still reign true.

This connects with what we are studying in class because it connects with the Constitution in being flexible but still with the same basic framework, and the Bill of Rights in being a way to honor people's freedom and citizenship. We can tell this because the Pledge of Allegiance was continually altered and changed to fit with the times, adding little bits and pieces that were required to make it sound more suiting to whatever the need was. For example, "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance after President Eisenhower decided that it should be added in order to strengthen our spiritual strength. This is like the Constitution because a change was made because the government decided it to be in the country's best interest. The Pledge of Allegiance is like the Bill of Rights because it honors people's freedoms and what it means to belong to the US. We can tell this when the Pledge says, "With liberty and justice for all" because it means that freedom will reign and everyone gets the same treatment when it comes to government and legal things. The Bill of Rights also states the exact same thing, only more specifically. As you can see, the Pledge of Allegiance is very much so like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is what we have been learning in class.

This connects with me as a citizen because it was made after a very harsh time for our country and for history, a sort of rising-from-the-ashes celebration. I can connect with this because of the fact that I do not let my past control my future. I make sure that because of the past I learn and grow. That I forgive and forget. I do not let a mistake make me scared and helpless, but stronger and more powerful now because of it, just like this celebration after the Civil War. I believe this because once I cracked my head open at a waterpark. Most people would be scared out of their wits to go back to this waterpark and ride the very same ride they once almost died on, but I do not let that phase me. I know to be careful and that I need to be safe, but I stride once more into that park and forget a horrible day that was once in a lifetime. This is the very same with the Columbus Day celebration because they strode once more into the future and were ready to take it on with a newfound knowledge and strength. Now, as you can see, this does in fact connect with me as a citizen.

I actually do not believe the people should have chosen children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, as if they were going to truly understand what they were saying and think deeper. I believe they should have chosen adults, who chose the exact wording and understand what it means and when the children were old enough they could recite it too. Because knowing those words at such a tender young age does not sink in and when eventually these children are old enough to understand what it means it has been drilled into their head so much it is brainless and they are not curious about what it means because it has been said so many times. I also do not believe that the recitation of a statement would exactly be celebratory, and does not commemorate what it truly was for. While I do strongly believe that its meaning is very patriotic and pure, I do not believe it should have been portrayed as something brainless to do or something that is a pain to perform. It should have been commemorated in a more celebratory way, such as a feast with speeches made by important government officials. And now you see that although I do strongly approve the meaning behind the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, it is lost to most because of the way it is portrayed.