Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Speaker
In Large, Tony Lang from the FBI came to talk about his job and how it relates to what we are learning about: the Patriot Act, the Military Commisions Act, and the Constitution. He had a unique perspective, being in the FBI. I thought it was interesting when he was talking about how they listen in on people's phone conversations and read emails. We talked about that in class a bit. He explained how he became an FBI agent, too. He talked about the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot act, but also about other things, like how they extract infformation out of people. There was kind of a discussion about whether they should be allowed to do that, like torture people if they think they have information. These are all controversial topics, most of them dealing with the issue of personal rights and freedoms versus precautions for the safety of the country. Usually, I think that protecting the country is more important, but then again I'd rather not have people listening to my phone conversations or rifling through my locker. I thought it was all really interesting and he had time for people to ask questions.
Questions for the speaker
1. Do you think that in times of war, such as right now, it's fair to limit people's individual rights and invade their privacy, like in the patriot act and the military commissions act?
2. Do you think that all the extra precautions that the government has taken since 9/11 has helped to make the country more safe?
2. Do you think that all the extra precautions that the government has taken since 9/11 has helped to make the country more safe?
Bill of Rights article
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/scotus.handguns/index.html?iref=newssearch
I chose the second amendment, the right to keep arms. The article I found is about a recent ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court has decided to discuss the matter. I ruling is expected to come by late June, so it will probably be a topic discussed by the 2008 presidential candidates. Some argue that allowing people to have handguns will only increase the amount of violence in D.C., while other say that it is against their constitutional rights to deny them the right to protect themselves. Last year, the city had 137 gun-related murders. An ongoing discussion is how to interpret the amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This could mean that only state militias are allowed to bear arms, not individual people. You’d think that someone would have made a decision on this by now. I guess the founding fathers didn’t think that we would be using our right to bear arms to kill each other. Because this deals with the constitution, the Supreme Court has to make the decision. This applies to us, too, because if the law changes and no one is allowed to have guns, it will affect everyone. We saw in “Bowling for Columbine” that it’s not hard to get ahold of a gun in this country, and that that can lead to things like school shootings.
I chose the second amendment, the right to keep arms. The article I found is about a recent ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court has decided to discuss the matter. I ruling is expected to come by late June, so it will probably be a topic discussed by the 2008 presidential candidates. Some argue that allowing people to have handguns will only increase the amount of violence in D.C., while other say that it is against their constitutional rights to deny them the right to protect themselves. Last year, the city had 137 gun-related murders. An ongoing discussion is how to interpret the amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This could mean that only state militias are allowed to bear arms, not individual people. You’d think that someone would have made a decision on this by now. I guess the founding fathers didn’t think that we would be using our right to bear arms to kill each other. Because this deals with the constitution, the Supreme Court has to make the decision. This applies to us, too, because if the law changes and no one is allowed to have guns, it will affect everyone. We saw in “Bowling for Columbine” that it’s not hard to get ahold of a gun in this country, and that that can lead to things like school shootings.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Modern-Day Scarlet Letter
I think that an example of a modern-day scarlet letter here at Punahou would be people who get expelled and who come back the next year. Everyone knows that they were expelled and some version of why, and people always remember. It's not that everyone else thinks badly of them or anything, but it's always the first thing they think of. Whenever someone hasn't heard of what happened, someone else is always like, "Oh, that's so-and-so, he got kicked out for..." It's like Hester's A because it's a reminder of something they did wrong that people fixate on. Sometimes they can turn it around like Hester did, when people started saying A was for "able." People might say, "They got kicked out for failing, but now they're doing really well in their classes," or something.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Speakers from Large
I thought that both of the speakers were really interesting. They were both good at selling whatever their organizations did. Just personally, I like Planned Parenthood a lot better beccause they believe in comprehensive education and that a women has the right to choose what to do with her body. Because of this, I was more interested to hear Aloha Pregnancy Care sell their viewpoint. I guess a lot of why I like PP more is because I'm not religious, and religion is APCCC's main selling point. Not that my views on the issues they talked about changed at all, but I was impressed with both presentations. I appreciate that even though APCCC does not support abortions or offer them, they don't discriminate against people who've had them and they even offer counseling for people who have trouble after they've had one.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Scarlet Letter - Hester
Even in only a few chapters of reading, Hester shows some strong personality traits that really make her stand out not only as a women in that time period, but as a character in general.
In the first scene in the book, the whole town is waiting around just to stare at Hester as she walks out of the jail, wearing the A on her chest. A lot of people would have dissolved into tears in this kind of humiliating situation. But Hester, keeps her cool. When she first emerges from the jail, Hester "...with a burning blush, and yet a haughty smile, and a glance that would not be abashed, looked around at her townspeople and neighbors." This shows that she is proud and fierce, not hiding and guilty but strong and defiant. She's showing that thee town may be able to force her to wear this badge of shame and stand in front of the town, but they can't force her to feel bad about what she did. Something else about Hester is that she is not very trusting of other people, probably with good reason. When Chillingworth offers her medicine, she "repelled the medicine, at the same time gazing with strongly marked apprehension into his face." This says a lot about her outlook on the world. She probably feels really alone, like it's her against everyone else, which it kind of is. Hester has also proved to be very loyal and strong-willed. When asked again and again about the identity of her child's father, she says, "Ask me not... that thou shalt never know." Even though her punishment would be lessened if she shared this information, she remains loyal to him. She even agrees to keep quiet about Chillingworth when he asks her to. Hester is completely different from the other women in the village, and I think she is mostly just misunderstood by everyone else.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Religion
Religion does not play a huge role in my life. I'm Jewish but not really strict about it. For instance, the holiday Yom Kippur was this weekend and you're supposed to fast for the whole day. I did not fast at all nor did I have any intention to. I probably would not have even realized it was Yom Kippur if my dad hadn't gone to temple. I dropped out of Hebrew School right after my Bat Mitzvah, which I had a year earlier than most people do. It's not that I'm opposed to religion, and I wouldn't by any means call myself an atheist, but religion just doesn't play that big a role in my life. I guess a big part of it is that I'm very aware that I'm Jewish not because I want to be but because my dad is. I have always celebrated Christmas and Easter with my mom's side of the family. They are also not very religious. You will never see a cross in my grandma's house at the Christmas Eve party or hear the word "Jesus" spoken at any time, but there are a lot of Santa/reindeer related decorations and a freakish amount of presents under the tree.
As for the role that religion should play in government/society/schools, I don't think that it should play much of a role at all. It just makes people upset, like with the whole "one nature under God" commotion. I have always thought that a lot of people use religion and politics to hide behind their own problems and to find excuses to argue with other people. What religion we are has nothing to do with our education; if you want that kind of situation than go to Sunday School or whatever. I remember being in like, second grade singing the songs and saying the Lord's Prayer in Chapel and wondering vaguely if I shouldn't be. It never really upset me or anything, but it probably does upset some people. Nothing good ever comes from bringing religion issues into things because there is no way that everyone will agree about it. On the other hand, it's impossible to separate religion out of other aspects of our lives, no matter how much we want to. I remember years ago there was some politician who was Jewish, and my dad talking about how he was definitely going to vote for him. I asked my dad what if the Jewish guy was trying to corrupt our society or was incredibly stupid or something, would he still vote for him and my dad said yes, only partially joking. Even though I was probably like eight when this happened, I remember getting kind of mad about this. Religion should have nothing to do with why you would vote for someone, but it probably always will to some people.
As for the role that religion should play in government/society/schools, I don't think that it should play much of a role at all. It just makes people upset, like with the whole "one nature under God" commotion. I have always thought that a lot of people use religion and politics to hide behind their own problems and to find excuses to argue with other people. What religion we are has nothing to do with our education; if you want that kind of situation than go to Sunday School or whatever. I remember being in like, second grade singing the songs and saying the Lord's Prayer in Chapel and wondering vaguely if I shouldn't be. It never really upset me or anything, but it probably does upset some people. Nothing good ever comes from bringing religion issues into things because there is no way that everyone will agree about it. On the other hand, it's impossible to separate religion out of other aspects of our lives, no matter how much we want to. I remember years ago there was some politician who was Jewish, and my dad talking about how he was definitely going to vote for him. I asked my dad what if the Jewish guy was trying to corrupt our society or was incredibly stupid or something, would he still vote for him and my dad said yes, only partially joking. Even though I was probably like eight when this happened, I remember getting kind of mad about this. Religion should have nothing to do with why you would vote for someone, but it probably always will to some people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)