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.