I, personally, would solve this issue of Kony as well as the criticism the organization Invisible Children is getting by becoming someone of power in the organization, because then I would be able to control most efforts to "stop" Kony, and I would be able to fully understand the criticism the organization is getting and why IC is even getting said criticism, because there must be something truly unreliable about its motives that caused all this negative evaluation. Furthermore, once I was able to get a position of power among the organization, I would not support military intervention like IC is doing now. This is because the Ugandan military is known for not being the most esteemed group of people in Uganda. For example, it says, "The founders of the group, who advocate direct US military intervention in response to the LRA, had been previously criticized for posing with guns alongside members of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) in 2008, an organization widely accused of rape and looting." ("Joseph Kony and More AFRICOM wars over oil") This means that one of the main things that Invisible Children needs to do to avoid any more accusations is to increase its credibility and reliability. Thus, once we do this, then we would be able to move forward without any questions.
This affects me as a citizen because this viral video was sent through the media. Who watches the media? Everyone. And everyone includes me. This video spread like wildfire with a few simple clicks of the mouse. And once everyone heard about it through the Internet, the wildfire spread to our lips. The day after the video went viral, nearly half of the conversations people were engaged in throughout the day were about the Kony 2012 campaign. Also, this affects my life because the organization involved, Invisible Children, is trying to get the government's attention to use money to increase military influence in Africa. The United States government must get this money from somewhere. And that somewhere could easily affect my life, such as pulling this money out of education, which would consequently effect me greatly.
This connects to our unit of study because there are foreign countries that are causing the United States trouble, which happened with several of the first five presidents during their terms. For example, Thomas Jefferson had to contend with Britain, France, and Africa all becoming unrestful and violent. Just as Thomas Jefferson had to do with African pirates, the US government are sending over small fleets of US military in order to calm Africa. Thus, this current day event connects to our unit of study because of foreign conflicts.
I, myself, will make a difference on this issue by participating as much as I can with this campaign, because I do in fact agree with Invisible Children's morals. At my age, I am really not allowed to make as much of a difference as I would like, but I will most likely participate somewhat in "Cover the Night", which is an event where, on April 20th, people go onto the streets at night and cover every wall with posters advertising the Kony 2012 campaign and signs as well as other things. I could also send a letter to the US government offering my solution, though it is doubtful they would listen. Nonetheless, with these small steps taken, I believe that, eventually, Kony can be stopped.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Happy Birthday Mr. Madison! 2nd Article
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/17655-africom.html
This article discusses exactly where the morals of the organization, Invisible Children, lie. To start with, much less than half of the organization's funds actually directly go to stopping Kony. Also, Kony has either been killed or has not been seen in Uganda for the past six years, yet the US forces still demand sending in military forces to "protect the citizens" from Kony and his abductions. As one American human rights worker stated, "“Invisible Children's campaign is…an excuse that the US government has gladly adopted in order to help justify the expansion of their military presence in central Africa. Invisible Children are ‘useful idiots’, being used by those in the US government who seek to militarize Africa, to send more and more weapons and military aid, and to bolster the power of states who are US allies. The hunt for Joseph Kony is the perfect excuse for this strategy - how often does the US government find millions of young Americans pleading that they intervene militarily in a place rich in oil and other resources?” This statement mentions the reason behind the United States's desire to further militarize Uganda, because this area lies on a land rich in valuable resources the United States would love to get their hands on. Therefore, Invisible Children is a toy of the US government in order to encourage people to give their money to the organization so we can send in more military into Uganda, for its rich resources.
I believe that this article may be reliable; it cites all of its sources as well as is on a website, the MWC News, that may be completely reliable. I believe that all the facts in this article were found and are true, and this author appears to have done quite some deep research. Therefore, it is in my belief that this website and article are trustworthy.
This article discusses exactly where the morals of the organization, Invisible Children, lie. To start with, much less than half of the organization's funds actually directly go to stopping Kony. Also, Kony has either been killed or has not been seen in Uganda for the past six years, yet the US forces still demand sending in military forces to "protect the citizens" from Kony and his abductions. As one American human rights worker stated, "“Invisible Children's campaign is…an excuse that the US government has gladly adopted in order to help justify the expansion of their military presence in central Africa. Invisible Children are ‘useful idiots’, being used by those in the US government who seek to militarize Africa, to send more and more weapons and military aid, and to bolster the power of states who are US allies. The hunt for Joseph Kony is the perfect excuse for this strategy - how often does the US government find millions of young Americans pleading that they intervene militarily in a place rich in oil and other resources?” This statement mentions the reason behind the United States's desire to further militarize Uganda, because this area lies on a land rich in valuable resources the United States would love to get their hands on. Therefore, Invisible Children is a toy of the US government in order to encourage people to give their money to the organization so we can send in more military into Uganda, for its rich resources.
I believe that this article may be reliable; it cites all of its sources as well as is on a website, the MWC News, that may be completely reliable. I believe that all the facts in this article were found and are true, and this author appears to have done quite some deep research. Therefore, it is in my belief that this website and article are trustworthy.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Happy Birthday, Mr. Madison! Article 1
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/chatfield/chatfield-on-stopping-joseph-kony/article_302f7f43-d3b5-575b-ad3a-20c04f62690e.html
The video that went viral, called Kony 2012, was a campaign attempting to raise awareness of a man named Joseph Kony, who is the leader of a religious group in Uganda, Africa, called the Lord's Resistance Army. He is said to kidnap children and use them as child soldiers, among many other horrible things, to do his "dirty work". This viral video has, naturally, been put under much scrutiny by the media and everyone else. Many people question the organization behind this campaign, called Invisible Children, and where it puts its money. However, according to this article, more than 80% of the spending in their organization from 2007 to 2011 went directly to benefiting the cause. So in no way is this one of those "slacktivist", overnight campaign, but in actuality it is a deep, thoughtful campaign meant to go straight to a very worthy cause.
I believe this author is completely reliable, though where they get their statistics is questionable, as they don't even mention it. Also, I have heard multiple times of different statistics than what this author seems to be telling me, but I have more reason to trust this author than other places because it is from the North County Times, which are a very reliable newspaper network that is known for its trustworthines.
The video that went viral, called Kony 2012, was a campaign attempting to raise awareness of a man named Joseph Kony, who is the leader of a religious group in Uganda, Africa, called the Lord's Resistance Army. He is said to kidnap children and use them as child soldiers, among many other horrible things, to do his "dirty work". This viral video has, naturally, been put under much scrutiny by the media and everyone else. Many people question the organization behind this campaign, called Invisible Children, and where it puts its money. However, according to this article, more than 80% of the spending in their organization from 2007 to 2011 went directly to benefiting the cause. So in no way is this one of those "slacktivist", overnight campaign, but in actuality it is a deep, thoughtful campaign meant to go straight to a very worthy cause.
I believe this author is completely reliable, though where they get their statistics is questionable, as they don't even mention it. Also, I have heard multiple times of different statistics than what this author seems to be telling me, but I have more reason to trust this author than other places because it is from the North County Times, which are a very reliable newspaper network that is known for its trustworthines.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Right to Free Speech is Being Witheld
Kaitlyn DeShon
North County Times
"Ohio man given choice of Facebook apology or jail"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/backpage/ohio-man-given-choice-of-facebook-apology-or-jail/article_3ab472cf-3ef0-55ea-b19d-9c276a9dd368.html
A man posted what a judge deemed to be rude and annoying comments on his personal Facebook page about his wife. He was given the choice between spending 60 days in jail or posting apologizing comments every day on his page for a month. This is because the judge said that he was is contempt of a previous order prohibiting him from causing his wife any mental abuse. However, several freedom of speech experts say that this is a violation of his rights, and due to the freedom of speech he should be able to post anything he desires on his Facebook page. The man denies he violated any order given to him.
This connects to what we are studying in class because it pertains to the United States government, and it especially pertains to the Revolutionary War because it talks about people being angered by the government undermining their natural rights, which the Declaration of Independence states. The natural right in this situation is the right to freedom of speech, which can easily be put under the category of "the pursuit of happiness", which is stated in the Declaration of Independence. In both the time of the Revolutionary War and this modern scenario, the people are upset with the government witholding their proper rights.
This connects to my life as a citizen because of course I am effected by anything involving the Internet, which Facebook certainly does. I do not have a Facebook account, but many of my friends do as well as my family, so I am very familiar with it. Also, the right to freedom of speech is, surprisingly, often around me in other news and things that happen at my school. Therefore, this connects to my life as a citizen in many different aspects.
My personal opinion is that the judge should not make this man make the choice between a jail sentence and being forced to post comments on his Facebook page where the government decides what he says. This is a very clear violation of the freedom of speech. For example, when the article says, "threatened with jail time ... unless he posted daily apologies for a month," it shows that the judge is forcing him to make a choice that in either way would violate his rights to freedom of speech, and I find that unacceptable.
North County Times
"Ohio man given choice of Facebook apology or jail"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/backpage/ohio-man-given-choice-of-facebook-apology-or-jail/article_3ab472cf-3ef0-55ea-b19d-9c276a9dd368.html
A man posted what a judge deemed to be rude and annoying comments on his personal Facebook page about his wife. He was given the choice between spending 60 days in jail or posting apologizing comments every day on his page for a month. This is because the judge said that he was is contempt of a previous order prohibiting him from causing his wife any mental abuse. However, several freedom of speech experts say that this is a violation of his rights, and due to the freedom of speech he should be able to post anything he desires on his Facebook page. The man denies he violated any order given to him.
This connects to what we are studying in class because it pertains to the United States government, and it especially pertains to the Revolutionary War because it talks about people being angered by the government undermining their natural rights, which the Declaration of Independence states. The natural right in this situation is the right to freedom of speech, which can easily be put under the category of "the pursuit of happiness", which is stated in the Declaration of Independence. In both the time of the Revolutionary War and this modern scenario, the people are upset with the government witholding their proper rights.
This connects to my life as a citizen because of course I am effected by anything involving the Internet, which Facebook certainly does. I do not have a Facebook account, but many of my friends do as well as my family, so I am very familiar with it. Also, the right to freedom of speech is, surprisingly, often around me in other news and things that happen at my school. Therefore, this connects to my life as a citizen in many different aspects.
My personal opinion is that the judge should not make this man make the choice between a jail sentence and being forced to post comments on his Facebook page where the government decides what he says. This is a very clear violation of the freedom of speech. For example, when the article says, "threatened with jail time ... unless he posted daily apologies for a month," it shows that the judge is forcing him to make a choice that in either way would violate his rights to freedom of speech, and I find that unacceptable.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Internet is Protected from SOPA and PIPA
Kaitlyn DeShon
"Congress Indefinitely Postpones 'SOPA, PIPA'"
North County Times
Friday, January 20, 2012
Jim Abrams Associated Press
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/nation-congress-indefinitely-postpones-sopa-pipa/article_656197c4-5e54-5140-b7a6-4c965f0264c0.html
This article talks about how Congress was debating on whether or not to pass the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Congress was responding to the Internet petitions that happened on large sites, like Google and Wikipedia. When these sites heard about the online piracy preventing acts, they protested by shutting down their sites for a day, or in Google's case, organizing a petition drive that attracted over 7 million people. These acts changed the minds of several important Senators and Representatives that had originally been co-sponsoring the bills. The petitions and protests of the millions of angry citizens caused Congress to indefinitely postpone what to do with SOPA and PIPA. Several representatives have suggested other methods of dealing with online piracy, which costs the country millions of dollars a year.
This event connects to what we are learning in class because SOPA and PIPA, which are government acts enacted in order to prevent further online piracy, which is illegal and costs the country millions of dollars a year. This event parallels the Tea Act, the Townshend Acts, the Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and Proclamation of 1763. In these historical events, the British government put into force the acts in order to gain money that was lost. The colonists protested all these acts because they thought of these as unfair and went against their rights, as did the modern people against PIPA and SOPA. This is shown when in the article, it says, "...a loose affiliation of hackers known as 'Anonymous' shut down Justice Department websites for several hours and hacked the site of the Motion Picture Association of America after federal officials issued an indictment against Megaupload.com, one of the world's biggest file-sharing sites." (Abrams NCTimes). This shows that after a major act, the people got angry, and even got very, very dirty. They hacked into government websites and shut them down just to prove the point that they were angry. This relates to the events that led up to the Revolutionary War because the Patriots, who were very angry at the British government, decided to get dirty and violent with their protests, injuring British soldiers and tax collectors. In other words, people as closely connected to the British government as they could get in the colonies.
This connects to my life because I have had to deal with SOPA and PIPA myself. I use the Internet every day, and I was there when Wikipedia shut down their site in protest. It affected me, as well as nearly everyone at school and in my life. I have seen it on television, over the Internet, as well as simply face-to-face complaining about how "horrible" SOPA and PIPA is. Overall, this connects to my life because it directly affected it.
I believe that this will show Congress and the government just how powerful the Internet is, and how powerful the people can become when Congress decides to change it. This can effect our future because our nation's government is all about not one aspect of life being monopolized, or becoming too powerful. There are three branches of government because of this. In the economy, the government will step in in order to make sure no company becomes a monopoly, or even close to it. This could be the same mindset for the Internet. If they realize that the Internet has become too powerful, then they could pass more bills trying to control it. Therefore, this can effect our future very much.
"Congress Indefinitely Postpones 'SOPA, PIPA'"
North County Times
Friday, January 20, 2012
Jim Abrams Associated Press
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/nation-congress-indefinitely-postpones-sopa-pipa/article_656197c4-5e54-5140-b7a6-4c965f0264c0.html
This article talks about how Congress was debating on whether or not to pass the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Congress was responding to the Internet petitions that happened on large sites, like Google and Wikipedia. When these sites heard about the online piracy preventing acts, they protested by shutting down their sites for a day, or in Google's case, organizing a petition drive that attracted over 7 million people. These acts changed the minds of several important Senators and Representatives that had originally been co-sponsoring the bills. The petitions and protests of the millions of angry citizens caused Congress to indefinitely postpone what to do with SOPA and PIPA. Several representatives have suggested other methods of dealing with online piracy, which costs the country millions of dollars a year.
This event connects to what we are learning in class because SOPA and PIPA, which are government acts enacted in order to prevent further online piracy, which is illegal and costs the country millions of dollars a year. This event parallels the Tea Act, the Townshend Acts, the Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and Proclamation of 1763. In these historical events, the British government put into force the acts in order to gain money that was lost. The colonists protested all these acts because they thought of these as unfair and went against their rights, as did the modern people against PIPA and SOPA. This is shown when in the article, it says, "...a loose affiliation of hackers known as 'Anonymous' shut down Justice Department websites for several hours and hacked the site of the Motion Picture Association of America after federal officials issued an indictment against Megaupload.com, one of the world's biggest file-sharing sites." (Abrams NCTimes). This shows that after a major act, the people got angry, and even got very, very dirty. They hacked into government websites and shut them down just to prove the point that they were angry. This relates to the events that led up to the Revolutionary War because the Patriots, who were very angry at the British government, decided to get dirty and violent with their protests, injuring British soldiers and tax collectors. In other words, people as closely connected to the British government as they could get in the colonies.
This connects to my life because I have had to deal with SOPA and PIPA myself. I use the Internet every day, and I was there when Wikipedia shut down their site in protest. It affected me, as well as nearly everyone at school and in my life. I have seen it on television, over the Internet, as well as simply face-to-face complaining about how "horrible" SOPA and PIPA is. Overall, this connects to my life because it directly affected it.
I believe that this will show Congress and the government just how powerful the Internet is, and how powerful the people can become when Congress decides to change it. This can effect our future because our nation's government is all about not one aspect of life being monopolized, or becoming too powerful. There are three branches of government because of this. In the economy, the government will step in in order to make sure no company becomes a monopoly, or even close to it. This could be the same mindset for the Internet. If they realize that the Internet has become too powerful, then they could pass more bills trying to control it. Therefore, this can effect our future very much.
Monday, December 12, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, October 31, 2011
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.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
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.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
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.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)