Gettysburg Address/ Homeless Edition

Eleven Score and seventeen years ago, our forefathers made a pledge that America be a refuge. A refuge for the scared or broken, for the ones who just need an escape. So why is it that some cant even have a meal.. A warm bed.. A place to come home to.. an education..  The American Dream!? There are millions of different types of people in this world, and they all have different approaches and views on life. For the ones who don't care, and choose to live the lifestyle that they do, they should be out on their own.  Why is it that the innocent people of America whom are guilty of nothing but having a bad fortune or being dealt a bad hand are the ones who suffer. They are the ones who would be willing to do anything for the "Dream" if only they could catch their break in life. These are the people we should be worried about helping. These are the people we should be pouring our resources into helping, not the ones who choose their fate and expect this country to carry them, handing out a free ride. This time, effort, and money being handed to the ungreatful needs to be channeled down a different path.. To the unfortunate and homeless, but only to the ones who are deserving of the help. And this is what we shall set out to do.  

Bellringer 11/6

Yes, I thoroughly agree. The following quote is a prime example why.

"Maybe Kmart should have shown they are thankful for their loyal employees and let them be with their families on Thanksgiving," Jenn Tayrien wrote. "I realize you are a corporation and your goal is to make money...but sometimes you need to show and prove that people are important, too."

I think that coorperate greed is a thing that plagues our society, especially today. Money has become the sole most important thing, whith people, especially the wealthy, caring about nothing more. They would rather sacrifice compassion and morals for a few extra bucks. It's pretty pathetic.

Assignment 10-30

Syria Red Line

Obama Syria Missiles Peace
1)Violence doesn't create peace.
2) Irony and Analogy

Obamas anti-peace
1)Obama just slaps the idea of peace in the face, literally.
2)Analogy and exaggeration and analogy

The World Did It
1) Obama sets the example that you can blame others for your bad decisions.
2)Irony

Choke
1) It means that Obama doesn't dare look at the bigger picture, such as the lost life of soliers, only his personal goals.
Analogy, irony.

Red Line- Burning Finger
1) maybe if Obama were to see the first hand effects of his decisions he'd think them through.
2) Analogy

Political Parties

Origins (to 1800)
Antifederalist-
1) The antifederalist party was characterized by the belief that the main threat to the country was the government being able to become to powerful.
2) People who considered themselves antifederalist, were mainly farmers and those low in society. These were the people who would suffer if the government became corrupt as it had in Britain.

Federalist-
1) Federalists believed that citizens needed a strong central government, with only a few in charge.
2) Members of the federalist party consisted of high class bankers, businessmen, and land owners.

(1800-1860)
Democrats-
1)Early democrats main goal was to defend the Working class or common citizen.
2)People whom cared about the rights of the working class or common person was a Democrat.

Whigs-
1)The whigs supported the lifestyle of their home country, Britain. The believed that the democracy's executive branch should be replaced with congress.
2) Rich people, high class, land owners.

(1860-1932)
Democrats-
1)They wanted states to be able to have their own rights,and make their own decisions.
2)Southern states for slavery.
Republicans-
1) The republicans at this time were focused on slowing the spread of slavery and abolishing it.
2) People in the northern states whom were against slavery.

(1932-1968)
Democrats-
1)They were geared toward civil rights, causing them to lose many of their southern supporters.
2)people who cared about the rights of African Americans.
Republicans-
1)Remained the antislavery party.
2)anti slavery activists.

Is the internet reaponsible for teenagers engaging in risky behaviors?

     In this day and age, technology has become of increasing presence in the life of humans. Day by day, we become increasingly dependent. In fact, there are very few things we can do in life that don't involve some form of technology. Our technology dependence has been increasing without hesitation, and isn't predicted to cease at any point in the future.
     The "younger generation," as the older would say, is growing up with technology, the internet in particular, in an unhealthy manner. They would say, "they are becoming too dependent, and that it is taking up too large of a portion of their lives." Some even insinuate that the use of the internet and social media are responsible for acts of violence committed by the younger generations. They may argue that exposure to risky behaviors, through the internet, is a foolproof cause of teenagers partaking in these risky activities.
      The reality of the situation is that these risky behaviors, acts of violence, or even bullying, have always been present. It is not a concept that has recently been introduced to our society. The "young people" have always been associated with causing mischief and doing things otherwise deemed irresponsible. Its just a fact of life. Something that as been occurring since the beginning, and will never change.
     If it is a fact of life, just the way the world works, why do we have to blame new technology such as the internet? The answer is rather simple. No matter what problem arises, whether it be global warming, bullying, or "risky behaviors by teenagers," there always has to be something to blame. Though taking a step back can enable one to see that its something unchanging, that it has always been here, many critics refuse to do so. They would rather blame the first plausible thing that comes to mind, in this case, the internet.
     So, is risky behavior in teenagers is caused by exposure through the internet? The answer would be no. Every generation ever has complained about how the "younger generation" is taking our society downhill. This may seem true, however it proves that internet, which hasn't been around all that long, could not possibly be at fault. Even without the internet, the idea for particular risky behaviors would travel by mouth. Either way, there are always young people engaging in risky behaviors, no matter where or how they hear about it.

bellringer 10/7

1) This proves that there is something wrong with our security. I know, as I have been on a plane many times, how inconvenient some of the security practices are. However it is for our safety. But if someone is able to sneak onto a plane, then there is a serious loophole that needs to corrected.

2)Yes this incident surprises me very much. Like I said, I'm a somewhat frequent flyer, and know the pains on airport procedures. It just blows my mind that someone was able to find a way around it unnoticed.

Eagle Eye

1) a centralized system would be of benefit because things such as terrorism, or much of the deadly or horrible crime, could be prevented. However, if the process is abused, it would be violation of privacy.

2) The advanced technology was able to control their lives because it controlled everything.  It could threaten them with their lives or even the life of a loved one.

3) No. Though it could provide protection and successfully prevent crime, I have little faith that it would be used for the right reasons.

4) Using technology wisely is doing whatever you can to protect your privacy. Once its out there, anyone has access to it.

5) The movie is kind of a preview of what's to come. I believe in the future, that something such as Eagle Eye could happen. A allowing technology to become more and more prominent is the cause.