Your mom walks up to you after seeing your straight "F's"on your report card, she slowly grabs her belt and beats you, causing you to hit the ground. Should that be allowed? I believe parents should be allowed to hit their kids because it shows kids consequences for their behavior and parents become "respected". Although the "hitting" should be limited.
Sometimes kids think their is no consequences for bad, reckless, or even the "I don't care" attitude. When you hit your child the become aware that they can't just do what they want whenever they feel. Also helping the realize they must do better!
Parents at this point in time just aren't respected! Maybe that is because they let their kids run over them like a lawn mower. Kids talk back and argue with their parents; totally stepping out of line, crossing a child's place. When you hit your child they'll soon learn that you are the parent the one who is in charge.
Although hitting should be limited. For Example Huck's father was extremely abusive. Being an abuser is not what you should accomplish. Never lock your child in a closet, as if they are some type of estranged pet. A pet is not what you want to raise. Let them know you still care and love them.
In conclusion, I believe parents should be allowed to hit their kids, but with limitations. I know that to get respect you must give it.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
.10 Huck Finn
Huck Finn
I believe “Huck Finn” by Mark Twain should be taught at Constitution High School and many other schools across the nation. I have many reasons; it shows a black slave as a hero, shows a different language (that could open your mind), followed by a series of conflict and compromise with the characters.
In the story Jim the slave is secretly portrayed as the hero. Huck ran away from his estranged father, for him rather to be with Jim. Most stories I’ve read the slaves are the “villain”; the one who did the world “wrong”. Jim helps out, even telling fortunes. It would really open up many students minds’, to a different perspective.
Most people would say “My god the language in this book, it should be banned!” That is not the case, the book take you back into a mind state of the “slavery days”. By using the language many people used back in that time, it seems more realistic. Also showing us, how some people have over came this. It really helped me as a first time reader of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
The story also has a wide base of “conflict and compromise”. For Example Huck Finn and his father really didn’t get along; to the point where his father had to change himself from being a “good for nothing drunk”. Accessing to Huck examining himself, seeing what he really wants to be. Not what his father wants or even Ms. Watson. That would really help a student with some of the struggles they have in this era in their own life.
In conclusion, I believe The Adventures of Huck Finn by Mark Twain should be taught at Constitution High School, and schools across the nation. It shows a black slave as a hero, a strange but eye opening language, with a series of conflict and compromise between many characters. Yes, the book has cons; but reading it wouldn’t cause any harm!
I believe “Huck Finn” by Mark Twain should be taught at Constitution High School and many other schools across the nation. I have many reasons; it shows a black slave as a hero, shows a different language (that could open your mind), followed by a series of conflict and compromise with the characters.
In the story Jim the slave is secretly portrayed as the hero. Huck ran away from his estranged father, for him rather to be with Jim. Most stories I’ve read the slaves are the “villain”; the one who did the world “wrong”. Jim helps out, even telling fortunes. It would really open up many students minds’, to a different perspective.
Most people would say “My god the language in this book, it should be banned!” That is not the case, the book take you back into a mind state of the “slavery days”. By using the language many people used back in that time, it seems more realistic. Also showing us, how some people have over came this. It really helped me as a first time reader of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
The story also has a wide base of “conflict and compromise”. For Example Huck Finn and his father really didn’t get along; to the point where his father had to change himself from being a “good for nothing drunk”. Accessing to Huck examining himself, seeing what he really wants to be. Not what his father wants or even Ms. Watson. That would really help a student with some of the struggles they have in this era in their own life.
In conclusion, I believe The Adventures of Huck Finn by Mark Twain should be taught at Constitution High School, and schools across the nation. It shows a black slave as a hero, a strange but eye opening language, with a series of conflict and compromise between many characters. Yes, the book has cons; but reading it wouldn’t cause any harm!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
I-Chip Take Two [8]
Different Aspects
Technology View Point-
Of course it would be a major upgrade in technology.
Let's just say you could access the internet from this I-chip.. who wouldn't go for that. The more technology the lazier we get. People go crazy when they can't find a remote, imagine use now not even wanting to use the computer, because we have it all in our brain. Let's just say many people would say "bye bye, computer, hello i-chip."
Science Aspect-
Yes, it would fairly take years to probably even design the i-chip; so it can be safe enough for us to use it. I know you wouldn't want to be unhealthy because of the chip. So, yes I could imagine scientist being hard at work with this idea.
Technology View Point-
Of course it would be a major upgrade in technology.
Let's just say you could access the internet from this I-chip.. who wouldn't go for that. The more technology the lazier we get. People go crazy when they can't find a remote, imagine use now not even wanting to use the computer, because we have it all in our brain. Let's just say many people would say "bye bye, computer, hello i-chip."
Science Aspect-
Yes, it would fairly take years to probably even design the i-chip; so it can be safe enough for us to use it. I know you wouldn't want to be unhealthy because of the chip. So, yes I could imagine scientist being hard at work with this idea.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
P.O.G 2 [4]
Ideal Society
Take a look back at the time you studied the constitution. All the amendments and bills seem to be just a random bunch of words. In those words our freedom and security is protected. People may try to use the constitution to their own advantage. That leads me to tell you, citizens must fight for their own rights. For example, the Miller vs. Young case, Miller’s arrest, and the president’s offenses. As our class experienced in our previous Ideal Society, people will try to limit our freedom.
Let me introduce you to President Young. President Young took the authority to have Shay sent to jail because she threatened to “blow up the white house”. Although the Constitution clearly states in Amendment 1; “all Americans have the freedom of speech, freedom to protest and freedom of press. If we have the freedom to protest what gives Young the right to take that authority? The citizens in the ideal society slowly but surely began to fight for their own rights.
Next, I’ll let you in on the president’s faults. The president in our society committed an impeachable offense. He threatened citizens and attacked a fellow Congressman. Thinking it was unnecessary the Congress threw all of the questioning away. Remembering the sentence of Shay, you have to question; “Why is it that the president does not get any punishment for his offense but Shay has been in jail for a “threat”?
The Supreme Court was alarmed by Miller’s lawyer. She made the decision with Millers consent to take Young to court. Using Article 3 of the Constitution “the courts can settle disputes between the U.S. government and it’s citizens” The courts decided to uphold the 1st Amendment rights. The justices ruled in favor of Miller because the Amendment protected Americans rights to openly protest the government. Furthermore the decision reinstated our First Amendment rights.
In conclusion, the Constitution does affectively resolve conflict. From past ideal experiences observation will lead you that people including the government will try to limit our freedom. Bringing an i-chip into the picture could bring chaos into our country. With the constitution here to save the day you’ll be safe. Maybe just maybe you should think twice before bringing an I-chip into your country.
Take a look back at the time you studied the constitution. All the amendments and bills seem to be just a random bunch of words. In those words our freedom and security is protected. People may try to use the constitution to their own advantage. That leads me to tell you, citizens must fight for their own rights. For example, the Miller vs. Young case, Miller’s arrest, and the president’s offenses. As our class experienced in our previous Ideal Society, people will try to limit our freedom.
Let me introduce you to President Young. President Young took the authority to have Shay sent to jail because she threatened to “blow up the white house”. Although the Constitution clearly states in Amendment 1; “all Americans have the freedom of speech, freedom to protest and freedom of press. If we have the freedom to protest what gives Young the right to take that authority? The citizens in the ideal society slowly but surely began to fight for their own rights.
Next, I’ll let you in on the president’s faults. The president in our society committed an impeachable offense. He threatened citizens and attacked a fellow Congressman. Thinking it was unnecessary the Congress threw all of the questioning away. Remembering the sentence of Shay, you have to question; “Why is it that the president does not get any punishment for his offense but Shay has been in jail for a “threat”?
The Supreme Court was alarmed by Miller’s lawyer. She made the decision with Millers consent to take Young to court. Using Article 3 of the Constitution “the courts can settle disputes between the U.S. government and it’s citizens” The courts decided to uphold the 1st Amendment rights. The justices ruled in favor of Miller because the Amendment protected Americans rights to openly protest the government. Furthermore the decision reinstated our First Amendment rights.
In conclusion, the Constitution does affectively resolve conflict. From past ideal experiences observation will lead you that people including the government will try to limit our freedom. Bringing an i-chip into the picture could bring chaos into our country. With the constitution here to save the day you’ll be safe. Maybe just maybe you should think twice before bringing an I-chip into your country.
Friday, October 12, 2007
How Do You Balance Security & Freedom? [3]
Seems like a hard discussion. Ofcourse people have different views.. some believe that you must have security to ensure freedom. In class we did a simulation which helped me make my 2nd blog. That class activity is also helping me create this one. I believe that we should have both freedom and security. Yes, it should be balanced. The government ensures our security, but our freedom. Who limits are freedom? Is our freedom limited, even if it's protected in the first amendment? Protesting, should you be thrown in jail for a non-violent act? I think not, that just takes your freedom away.
Friday, October 5, 2007
iChip & the iDeal Society. [2]
I believe the iChip should be illegal. If we were ever to come down to even placing a chip into your brain, maybe you'd be all for it, but not me. OK, OK.. you can control computers, making your life extremely easier, but then again do you see the health risks you're putting upon yourself? Let's just say the iChip blew up in your brain, or even once you've gotten the chip placed in your brain it makes you act just a bit different. Yes technology, is nice.. but let's not let it take control of your life...
[ P.O.G ] [1]
I've come to the conclusion that neither John Locke or Thomas Hobbes is exactly correct. No one is just flat out selfish, take a peak at the other side, ( no one is completely peaceful ) . One day you could care only about what you need aka the "me theory". Doing what you believe will only help you survive. The next day you'd have a complete turning point and help out a local homeless shelter. When you look around, you will see violence no matter where you are, but think again; everyone isn't like that. Some people can live without the guidance of government, but to be sure we have a structured world, our country should enforce government. We should be sure everyone has a say in, causing less chaos, a new amount of peace.
"Give up your selfishness, and you shall find peace; like water mingling with water, you shall merge in absorption."
"Give up your selfishness, and you shall find peace; like water mingling with water, you shall merge in absorption."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
