Hendershott Eng 2

2005-12-11T15:03:00.000-08:00

SUMMARY OF DR. KING'S LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL CELL

Dr. King was ultimately trying to get his point across that while wanting justice and equality is commendable, doing nothing to achieve this goal, which is inherently your social duty, is just as bad as being one of those who oppose equality. He made a great point when he said "using the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice" is the worst kind of person when he was refering to the police in Birmingham. Dr. King is very clever and educated in the art of drafting a speech that making very clear and concise points highlighting his agenda so no misrepresentation is possible, as well as writing in a way so that someone who does not share his same sentiments, upon reading his call to pity laced letter, may persuade the reader to his side. What a loss for us all to have such a man assassinated. He paid the ultimate cost to assure the goal of his life was achieved.

2005-11-14T19:52:00.000-08:00

AN EXCELLENT SOURCE FOR ALL THE CURRENT INFORMATION REGARDING "WHO'S WHO" IN THE BIG PICTUR EIN IRAQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/post_saddam_iraq/html/default.stm

2005-11-14T19:33:00.000-08:00

MORE INFORMATION THAT IS USEFUL FOR ESSAY #4

IRAQ'S CONSTITUTION IS INCOMPLETE

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2005/1029incomplete.htm

On October 15, 2005, the Iraqi people voted on the fate of their new constitution. This is not their first written constitution, though it is their first somewhat popularly composed constitution. What was most feared did not materialize, and the Sunni Arabs failed to veto the document. Now that Iraq has a federal democratic system in place, a brief analysis of its main characteristics and their potential opportunities and risks for Iraq is warranted.
Federalism requires devolution of power from the local governments, where the sovereign power of the people is assumed to be located, to the central government, and a rigid division of power that cannot be easily amended. Such a design can only work with a relatively decentralized system of government, with a solid division of power between the central and regional authorities. Students of constitutional politics argue that federalism often incorporates a written constitution and a bicameral legislature where an upper chamber protects the interests of the provinces. Finally, a federal constitutional court, which works to protect federalism against the encroachments of the center, needs to be incorporated into the written constitution.

IRAQ: UNIFIED BY OIL?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/1014unified.htm

Iraq’s people vote on their draft constitution on 15 October. A single sentence in the document may be the key to its success, says Tamara Chalabi.
Hard times may still continue in Iraq. However, the hopes for social and political justice, as well as resolving the problem of federalism and containing the violent insurgency, might reside in chapter 4, article 109 of the draft constitution. It simply states that: “Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people in all the regions and provinces”. Oil, owned by the people, can become the metamorphosing miracle that ensures the survival of Iraq’s fledging democracy.
The same land that invented the calendar and created the world’s first writing system can, thousands of years later, offer the world something equally inspiring: a new social contract that recognises that national resources are assets of society and not of the state. With such recognition, the perennial problem of rentier states can find a solution in a progressive, citizen-driven economic environment that ensures both prosperity and stability.
The way to implement Article 109 is the formation of a national oil holding company – an additional safety-valve against yet another arrogant authoritarian regime. It will be a guarantor of a healthy democracy. Such a holding company would issue every Iraqi woman, man and child the same number of shares – shares that are inalienable and non-transferable. Monthly, each citizen will receive an equal share of oil revenue (in essence a stock-dividend). There are many variations of this scheme; the exact details are yet to be figured out by the world’s best and brightest experts, but the principle is the most important point of departure.

2005-11-04T19:49:00.001-08:00

ESSAY #4

I am merely in the decision stage of where I want to go with our last essay. However, many of you might find the following link useful in getting some background on Iraq and what a Democracy would mean to the country.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6395

It is at the very least a informational piece that could possibly allow you to decide what angle to take with the final paper.

2005-11-04T19:49:00.000-08:00

Fahrenheit 9/11 & Class "discussion" CONTINUED:

To reiterate my thoughts from last week's class discussion, I fully believe that Michael Moore's agenda was to weaken any positive view of President Bush Americans may have. In my previous post, I alluded to the fact that the title (9/11) of the movie bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual theme of the documentary. I took Mr. Cain's advice and went to MichaelMoore.com, I found the website too be chock full of information. I will give it to Mr. Moore, he is the KING of writing RHETORICALLY! I myself, LOVE to speak on issues rhetorically, it is quite easy to do, and most of the time, if spoken with enough passion, the person I am talking to becomes enamored with my stance on the topic or issue at hand. There are interesting links on his website if anyon eis interested, the link is below:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/links/index.php

Also, we started too discuss soldiers in the military fighting in Iraq, I have included a interesting link below that will be of interest to anyone who has family or friends overseas at the moment

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5306

2005-10-27T16:12:00.000-07:00

FAHRENHEIT 9/11

I just finished watching Fahrenheit 9/11 for the first time, which is amazing to me since it deals (I thought it had anyway) with a topic that I, along with most Americans feel strongly about. The title of the documentary in and of itself is a redherring since it gives the viewer the perception that he or she is about to embark on a mission to get to the bottom, and ultimatley the reason that 9-11 happened. What were the terrorists motives. Upon finishing the documentary, I realized Michael Moore had used his hour-and-a-half film to air out the dirty laundry our extremely less than infallible President Bush to see. It is ironic that Moore chose to title this documentary as such, seeing as it runs a clear parallel to the reasons that Buch gave to invade Irag. Both Moore and Bush chose to change the "real" topic at hand to promote the topic that they wanted to deal with. Moore chooses to use Personal Attack Ad-Hominems throughout the entire documentary. Basically, it seemed as if everytime he narrated his story, there was a personal attack on Bush's intelligence, allegiance, or agenda. Amazingly, Michael Moore wrote a documentary that many people in society quote regularly and belive to be the gospel. This is extraordinary for the sheer fact that Moore is not an authority by any means on Government Law, foreign trade, or any other aspect pertainin gto the film. He did his own research, that is for sure, but how are we to be certain that he didn't simply choose statistics by which supported his claims? How do we know he didn't edit out comments he had recorded that contradicted his own interpretations? Overall, I would suggest that no one should watch this for anything more than entertainment purposes. Perhaps gathering with a group of like-minded Bush haters and taking a shot everytime an insinuation of Bush's lack-of-intelligence was displayed. I was highly disappointed in the documentary, which gives me a bit of justification for waiting so long to see it. Perhaps, "Bush:The Man Who Didn't Win the Election" or "It's Good to Be Bush's Son" would have been a more appropriate title for such a documentary. I will, however, suggest a documentary, for those of you who would like to hear amazing truths about the possible reasons for 9-11. The documentary is entitled "Distorted Morality". It is a lecture given by Noam Chomsky at Harvard in 2002.The following is a bried description of the lecture and Noam.

"Noam Chomsky is a renowned scholar, the founder of the modern science of linguistics, a philosopher, a political and social analyst, a media critic, an author of more than 70 books, a winner of numerous prizes and awards and ranks with Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible as one of the 10 most quoted sources in the humanities. In this remarkable DVD, Noam Chomsky offers a riveting but devastating critique of America's current War on Terror - arguing, in fact, that it is a logical impossibility for such a war to be taking place. Professor Chomsky presents his reasoning with astonishing and refreshing clarity, drawing from a wealth of historical knowledge and analysis. "Only those who are entirely ignorant of modern history will be surprised by the course of events, or by the justifications that are provided..." Anyone who is serious about trying to understand world events since September 11th cannot afford to miss this."

2005-10-18T12:47:00.000-07:00

A-27 : THE GUN CONTROL ARGUMENT

After reading the two arguments centering around gun control in America, I have concluded that both arguments, pro and con, were written in a fashion that argues their position using valid points. Ultimately, if you were reading the articles and had already had an opinion for either the pro-gun control or anti-gun control, the article that shared your own opinion would undoubtedly sound like Gospel to you, and you would agree wholeheartedly with the article that shared your sentiments on the issue. However, both articles were written using extremely strong language that contained many of the fallacies that we have discussed in class so far. This being said, if someone who were not initially informed on the issue of gun control in America and had yet to form an opinion on the subject, these two essays would surely raise a "warning flag" in the educated readers mind. Both essays use percentage facts that could easily be manipulated and we are also receiving the information from a Newspaper (who may be biased in their opinion for monetary reasons) and a gentleman (who may or may not be affiliated with the NRA which are known for radical takes on the subject of gun control). So in closing, I would say both did a good job on tugging on the heart strings for the uninformed, likely bring them to their side of the argument, but I would hope that a reader who did not have a opinion at the start, would take their time and do some independant research from valid sources.

2005-09-28T21:43:00.000-07:00

FREE NEEDLE PROGRAMS

Free needle programs are a spectacular creation. Intravenous drug users carry a high risk of spreading many diseases, including the #1 killer amongst needle users, Aids. The program itself is courageous because it understands a junkie will not be easily swayed away from his or her addictions, nor does it take on this ambitious quest, yet it provides a safe and minimal costing solution to the immediate problem of transfering such diseases onto others. The health costs incurred by the state is staggering seeing as most addicts are insuranceless. The cost of supplying clean needles to such users is low and plays a major role in keeping the states cost for hospitals and medicines for severely sick people down. Perhaps it is not someone elses job to point out the obvious short comings in others; perhaps it is admirable these givers of clean needles understand compassion and love to help their fellow man...especially in the toughest of times.

2005-09-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

The Marshall Gardiner "Dilemma" in Kansas

The son of Marshall Gardiner is obviously the instigator here. It is already known as fact that Marshall Gardiner loved his wife, regardless if she was a man at birth. It is quite amusing the only time there is an issue at play, it revolves around money. Marshall's son has just proved how shallow humanity an truly be. Greed plays a powerful role in society, as it has since the beginning of time. Personally, if I were the judge, I would have granted the widow the lump sum of the inheritence to be bequethed. One fatcor that most definately came into play on this issue woul dhave to be the fact this incidence took place in Kansas. Kansas is a well known "Bible belt" state with a large population being extremely reserved. For Marshall Gardiner to have even married a transsexual was a backhand in the face of such a devoutly conservitive society. His son must have surely objected to the marriage from the beginning and was merely biding his time until his father's death to invoke this loop hole in the marriage laws. I am anything but shocked in the sons greed and ecotystical plight, but it still disturbs me to see my fellow man allowing such things to bog them down. Love is love. Death is death. You can only have one of these for eternity, make the most of the other while you have it. Marshall's son has missed the entire point in life.

2005-09-12T22:02:00.000-07:00

Blog #3 "Fox News vs. CNN: Is someone right?"

I watched Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News and Paula Zahn's program on CNN. Being that the recent situation in New Orleans is predominantly hogging the overall major headlines, and neither side, whether it be FOX (right wing) or CNN (left wing) has been too much at ease to lash out at the other side, I will say that CNN leaned in a bit on the Presidents' take (as they usually do) on the disaster response. Both sides had nothing but contempt for Mike Brown who resigned from FEMA after BOTCHING the entire rescue mission. It has come to light he fibbed on his resume and has since resigned citing that he wants to take the focus off of himself and let people focus on the mission at hand. For the first time since 9/11, it is heartening to see both sides of the news casts staying on the straight and narrow of trying to relay news of our countries heartbreak and not trying to cut each other down. Surely, those biased newscasts will be in the works and sent on the aiwaves sooner than later, but for now, getting the word out on David Hollison taking over as Director of FEMA is first priority and helping those workers in the fold get relief seems to be the number one priority as it should be. One slant that CNN has been taking is to reaffrim the fact that a lot of things went wrong, and this is insinuating ofcourse, that FEMA failed miserably (which is obvious) and that the whole political system failed miserably as well (Bush's appointed players). Although CNN is trying to keep itself from placing blame, it is obvious they have a belief that someone could have done more, and they have names to report. FOX has kept the reporting on the issue at hand, not wanting to veer to much from the problem. Who is to blame has been the last thing on the Neil Cavuto show. I would think this is defiantley on purpose, as they are predominantley Republican constituents. Although there is still the same insinuation on both sides, at least they have kept it to a minimum seeing as so many lives were lost and that we are still in the heat of a major salvage mission.

2005-09-12T21:46:00.000-07:00

Blog #5 :Desecration of the Flag: Does anyone care?"

I do not feel that there should be an Amendment to the Constitution banning desecration of the flag of the United States of America. Simply put, a ban on such acts would be time consuming and fruitless. Desecrating a flag is simply ruining a piece of cotton. It is not an actual vengeful or threatening act on our soil. Sure, it denotes the deepest hatred of what the country stands for or may be doing at the moment, but by no means is this grounds to restructure our Constitution. If it upsets you when someone desecrates the flag, as I would assume it should if you were to witness it, it still does not give you the right to bring violence upon someone who ruined a piece of cotton in an act of angst against our country. Sure, if you saw someone do such a thing, they should be monitored as a possible threat to national security, but it does not make them a target for any crime of hatred towards someone who does not believe whole heartedly in what the country is doing politically. It is their right to speak out and detest what the country they live in does. That is what makes it a DEMOCRACY. Freedom of speech can be used wrongfully, but it can never be wrong!

2005-09-12T21:33:00.000-07:00

Blog # 4 "Stratton, Ohio: The Permit Town"

I have absolutley no problem with any city instituting a mandatory permit clause for door to door salesman of any kind. Whether you're selling vacuums or religion, making this a law cuts down on crime and brings a safe feeling to the cities inhabitants. I haven't a clue why the Jehovah's witnesses would protest against such a law. I am sure the only thing a person would have to do to acquire such a permit would be to pass a background check. I am sure no Jehovah's Witnesses would fail one, let alone protest one. This a a classic win-win situation for both sides. Making it a necessity for someone walking up to my door when it could be my wife or mother or child answering would set my mind at ease...a little bit. We live in a cynical world, and I understand that nothing will curb the effects of violence or robbery full turn, however, making permits mandatory would be a good start, and the old saying "If you have nothing to worry about, what's the problem then?" holds true on this issue.

2005-08-22T21:00:00.000-07:00

In allowing the State of Arkansas to administer an antiphsychotic drug to an inmate so that he would be fit to execute brings many issues on the death penalty to the surface. There are many facets of this delicate issue to be discussed. One could argue that the issue at hand is the moral issue of killing a convicted murderer. Many adversaries of the death penalty will suggest that the old adage "an eye for an eye" is unethical and immoral. Their proponents will take the stance that the only way for the victim(s) to be brought to justice is for the slayer to "reap what they sow".

Upon stumbling across this question in the text book, I thought about it a while and I was reminded of a quote that I read in an autobiography. Steve Earle (singer/writer/poet) is a huge proponent of ending the death penalty sentence in America. In his autobiography, "Hardcore Troubadour", he states, "My main objection to the death penalty isn't about trying to save anybody on death row. It's about, "if this is a Democracy and the government kills someone, then I'm killing somebody. I object to the damage that it does to my spirit. It's that simple." Without losing the issue at hand, this is the "death penalty is immoral" stance I talked about earlier. I agree with Steve's sentiments for the most part. The governments' power to dictate who lives and dies is not something I am entirely comfortable with. Ultimately, the only thing accomplished by executing a murderer is the government showing its' power, and lack of compassion. The victim does not come back to life, the pennies are still on their eyes six feet below the ground. The murderers family is now losing a loved one as well. Both sides lose a life they treasure. By executed the murderer who has been safely locked away from society in a 'correctional facility', I would like to know just where the correction comes in.

By administering said drug into the inmate, the government has succeeded in showing its' pleasure for torture. As if taking someone's life isn't enough, now they want to make sure the poor soul is as coherent and "sane" as they execute him.

Simply disgusting.

2005-08-15T23:57:00.000-07:00

To believe that people choose which sex that they are attracted to is not such an easy opinion to agree with. Although there is no scientific proof solidifying a case for either side of the argument; there have been studies that have shown children that grew up to become practicing homosexuals showed a preference towards the same gender far before they were aware of any sexual conotations. When homosexuals are enquired as to when they began to prefer the same gender, many will relay that they can not remember a time when they had ever had intimate feelings for the opposite sex.
Being that the topic of homosexuality causes enormous rifts between nearly all religious followers, political parties, and American culture; it is no shock to see that a majority of families who find themselves in the midst of a relative that is homosexual, choose to keep this information in the closet and guard it as well as possible for fearing of friends and neighbors finding out. Amazingly, in this day and age in American history, where everyone one has rights and freedoms, a large portion of the homosexual community still stays in the proverbial "closet" and is either ashamed or scared of coming out for fear of ridicule and harassment.
Considering the overwhelmingly amount of downside rather than upside of being homosexual in todays times, I personally can't see why anyone would "choose" this way of life. My personal opinion would definately lean towards the "you're born gay" philosophy.