4/25 Jigsaw Activity

Q. Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.

A. This packet is about the Patriot Act and whether it has increased censorship in the United States or it has not. I think a good debate resolution would be, The Patriot Act increased censorship in the United States.

Q. Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another?

A. The Patriot Act is a law that allows the government to enforce law powers. This includes allowing agents to follow a suspect through wiretaps and follow the suspect into a library or a bookstore. The government is also able to track down email and internet usage from anyone. Not only this, but the Patriot Act also gives the government the power to limit what a person reads or purshases.

This is a big impact on our constitutional rights because it violates the First Amendment, the right to expression free from government interference. The Patriot Act limits our reading, and that already is an issue. I think that limiting the amount of reading is completely unconstitutional. We have the right to read what we want, and write what we want. Pretty much anything that allows us to express ourselves. There is nothing that can't allow us to do that.

I think this is an important topic because I believe the Patriot Act increases censorship in the United States. It gives the government priveledges to track down a suspect through following them. But those rights are completely unnecessary because that is why we have FBI agents and local cops, they are the ones that help prevent crimes. The Patriot Act is a big invasion of privacy and it's pretty much as we call, "stalking." How would you like it if everytime you were to walk into a library or a bookstore, there were FBI agents there, practically waiting for you to be questioned if you were part of some crime or some act of terrorism? Wouldn't you feel like you were being accused of a crime? I sure would not want that. The library is a place for you to read, and do research and whatnot, not a police station.

In the passage, they say "it is possible for them to investigate a person who is not suspected of criminal activity, but who may have some connection to a person. Worse... there is a gag provision barring bookstores or libraries from telling anyone-- including the suspect about the investigation. Violators of the gag order can go to jail." What I believe this means is that it the govenment may also track down ANYONE they please. From my perspective, I think there might be times where they may take advantage of this right and "stalk" someone that may not have done anything wrong.

This also limits many powers for me as an individial because I would never feel safe when I'm on the computer. If I were to send an email to a friend or a family member, I think the government could easily have access to that. The Patriot Act would completely cover for them.

Q. Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side.

A. Con : It is a fact that the violent crime rate has plunged down to it's lowest point in 30 years. This is not due to the Patriot Act, but the FBI and the local cops that have worked hard to prevent crimes.

Pro : The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor a suspect or even a terrorist through wiretaps.

4/24 The Press in Times of Crisis

Q. Indicate wheter your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
A. I decided to read the chapter that was against the resolution. The three main points that I chose to support the Con side of the argument. One, it is unconstitutional to censor the media's opinions. Two, there was the issue about a man named Maher Hawash who was arrested and his home was also raided. He could not explain why exactly he was being held. This related to our topic, because later the article discusses how the press first heard about this story, such as The New York Times and the story was ran in their newspapers. This is a great example to support the Con argument because this was an issue that was hidden under secracy. Very few people were not aware that this had happened. And finally, the issue about a man, Jose Padilla who was arrested at an airport in Chicago who was a "known terrorist" and was planning to explode a radioactive bomb. I don't really know this is related to our topic, but this was a great issue that appreared in the text that I think could be used later on.
Q. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
A. My personal opinion on the issue is that I am definitely against censoring the media. The media should have a right to broadcast the news to us. After all,it is their job to deliver the news to us. Especially during a major event such as a war, or an attack. We want to be kept informed what's going on in our society, and what possible challenges we may face later on. But I also believe there should be a limitation as to the content that is expressed by the media. Sometimes they can take advantage of their air time to broadcast their own personal opinions. Sometimes that may be a good thing because it can change your own personal opinions about a particular subject, but it can be a bad thing as well because if they include anything from violence, to language in their opinions and it may not be appropriate for the audience. But in my overall opinion, even if there may be some negative sides to the media, I believe that the media is something that we cannot live our lives without.

4/23 Viewpoints

Q. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
A. America is crumbling because people are becoming very opinionated and they're not giving any thought as to what can be affected from what they say. They also don't know where to stop, and they don't know the limit as to the law. Not only this, but the youth have been affected as well. There are many things that are open to young children that they should not even be taught yet. Young children are learning things that is not yet concerned with them, only as to the "adult world."

Q. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" arguement.

A. Freedom of Speech is our right to have a say in what we believe in. But without it, we would not be able to express our thoughts on a particilar subject that we feel strongly about. But I also believe that we should follow the law as well because without it, we wouldn't have order in our country. People would not be able to know what is right or what is wrong. People would not know the limit.

Q. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
A. I think everyone should have the right to Freedom of Speech, but we sometimes tend to take advantage of it, and we take matters too far. They push things too far that before they know it, they're doing something wrong, and they have to face a consequence. What I think should be the solution to this is there should be an extension to the limit to what we want to say. I think it's wrong for people to get in trouble over a small issue that was probably not made intentionally. But I think the right thing to do is to create a consequence if you go pass that limit. So in my opinion, we need refinement in our country.

4/19 Don Imus Controversy

Q. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
A. NAACP believes he should be silenced because it not only looks bad on the network, but it really created a big controversy about racism and sexism.

Q. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
A. Frank Rich believes he should not be silenced because he wouldn't actually say anything that would be offensive towards someone, mainly only to get a few laughs. It's not really a bid deal because he makes fun of everyone. Frank Rich also believes that he has freedom of speech, and he can say his own personal opinions.

4/18 Plato Reading & Blog

Q. Why should plays, and acting in them, be regulated? What is potentially beneficial or harmful from acting in a play?

A. I really don't think plays and acting in them should be regulated at all. People should be able to express themselves in a way that they want. If acting is their hobby, then they should pursue their goal. But as to Plato's quote, "And it will also apply to representation; a man cannot play many parts as well as he can one (pg. 89),"

this made me question. I think plays should be regulated because a person cannot control another person because that is not what was meant for him. That person can only control their own life. When a person acts in a play, he cannot BE that person. He can only do his best to try to portray that character.

I think Plato wants to regulate plays because if children were to watch plays that could involve violence or drugs, or anything not sitable for children, they could become influenced. Plato wants to adjust the play standards to something a little more appropriate. What's harmful in acting in a play is that a person can get so into that character, that they can do something harmful in reality. The only thing beneficial in acting in a play is that person's own enjoyment.

3/28 Plato Assignment

Q. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer (yesterday the question was about Hesiod)? You might want to think about Achilles as a "hero," and why or why not his personal characteristics are something that should be promoted, or not.
A. I think Plato would want to censor Homer because from what I have learned yesterday, some poets seem to misrepresent the gods. I think Homer has twisted up some of the traits of gods. I also think that Homer writes alot of about violence and betrayal, I don't think that's a good influence on society. Achilles for example, he seems like he's this powerful warrior who he believes he can do anything he wants, and noone can stop him because he is all that powerful. But then Homer describes him as this lazy, self centered coward, who I think is a bad influence on the younger audience.

Then read pp. 76-85 (Section b). Secondary or Literary Education)
Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
Q1. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?

A1. Some aspects of poetry that should be banned are the facts. Some poets go overboard and tend to "lie" to make their poetry seem more interesting. But I mean, good poetry has to be unsuitable for young audience even if it means stretching it far from the truth. Poetry can undermine the education of a Guardian because the Guardians need to be influenced with suitable stories and facts that will make them strong, fearless and wise. But hearing poetry such as the one's from Homer and Hesiod can influence them that their poetry is what they need to believe in, that is what's right.
Q2. What should poetry “teach” and why?

A2. Poetry should teach younger audience what's right from what's wrong, and they need to teach self control. For example, there's a short paragraph about how Zeus could not control himself that he wanted to make love to Hera. That's not exactly what we need to be teaching the young. First of all, it's inappropriate for younger ears, and second, it's teaching us that if you want something, there is nothing that can stop you from doing that. You have no self control. So I think if poems are going to be written, they need to have a lesson or a moral that atleast teaches us something.
Q. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?

A. Some of Plato's ideas are a little over the top. Some aren't even necessary. But I do have to agree on some of them, like if poetry shall be written, they need to be appropriate for younger audience because what we teach the young now, can affect us in the future.

3/27 Plato Assignment

Q. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
A. I think Plato would want to censor Hesiod because Hesiod has alot of strong opinions about the Gods and Goddesses. They somehow can influence others that this version of their story is correct, or this is what they must believe. I also think that Hesiod has alot of violence that wouldn't be a good influence on society.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions
Q1. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
A1. They both are guilty of misrepresenting the gods. By this, I mean they made up stories and poems, misinterpreting the gods, the true purpose of the Gods.
Q2.What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
A2. The two main characteristics of God, are good and perfect. God is the cause of good, and is incapable of causing evil. The cause of evil has no explanation, no responsibility, no factors of what may cause evil, if only we caused it ourselves. God is also perfect, he cannot change himself for he is already perfect, the only need to change is if there was any situation that went wrong, God is also incapable of causing harm or any evil upon us.

The two principles that is proposed in the text is 1) God is good, and cannot cause harm nor evil. A person who is punished is not God's fault, but their own. That person needs to learn that they made a mistake, and they can also benefit from it, because being punished means what they had done was wrong. 2) God, nor any immortal God or Goddess can transform themselves into any way shape or form as they wish.

Q. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?

A. I think I was pretty close, my first thoughts were that Hesiod had alot of strong opinions about the Gods, and that what he has written doesn't seem all that true. But what Plato wrote was that Hesiod has misinterpreted the Gods.