Person 4 Blog

However, I don’t think that we should deny them the right to legal counsel.
In general, I think that some of the restrictions on our civil liberties make sense. They are set in place to prevent terrorism in America. If they were not there, then it would be possible for another attack on America. Even now that we have taken over Iraq for the Iraqis’, there are still militia groups that are trying to take back the nation and get us out of the country.”(-Cat )”They may be small, but they have the power to make a huge effect in our day to day life’s—just look at what they did with 9/11”(-TJ). “When America is attacked we go into military law not civil law”, a point made by Cat, is a good observation. She does not understand why they are different, but I think I may have a reason for it. During war, our country is at risk: any day could have a deadly attack. With the country being more at risk, there are extenuating circumstances. For this, there needs to be some different rules—or powers—the government can use in order to protect us without such a delay. I always feel that my group has a lot of good ideas to added to the different topics each week and that we feed off each other more to express the points we are trying to get across. The point bring up by TJ about just because a country is smaller than you cannot mean that they can’t have the upper hand in power which is so true , never un-estimate someone because of their size because you look like the ass in the long run. Prime example the attack on the twin towers killed a lot of innocent people. I love how Cat said that restrictions prevent terrible things from happening which is true and then person 3 goes on to explain military law because for a lot of people it seems stupid or confusing and they explain it very well.

Since this is our last blog and I got the honors to present last I would like to say that it was great working with you all as a team, our thoughts as a good were always very appetizing to the discussing of blogging. Feel free to give yourself a pat on the back for your amazing work. GOOD JOB!

Week 5- Person Three

Looking at the videos for this week blog post, I noticed some points that were made. “When America is attacked we go into military law not civil law”, a point made by Cat, is a good observation. She does not understand why they are different, but I think I may have a reason for it. During war, our country is at risk: any day could have a deadly attack. With the country being more at risk, there are extenuating circumstances. For this, there needs to be some different rules—or powers—the government can use in order to protect us without such a delay. If we did not have military law, and for some reason we were in war and we had P.O.W.s we would have to let them go without proper interrogation. I just think that military law is an emergency law setup.

The point Cat made about not having attacks on us since 9/11 is because we have good security. I wanted to add that even though it may be a pain to have to go through so much security, it has definitely helped protect us. I feel that sometimes we feel because we look a certain way or have money means we are entitled to more, but we’re not. Sometimes we forget to step in the other person’s shoes and realize that we both have to do something we do not want to, and sometimes that is just the way it is.

One of the points brought up by TJ was good. We need to protect our citizens of hazardous situations like food poisoning. Whether it seems ridiculous or not, it needs to be done. It reminds me of when I was in elementary school, and my mom would make me wear this hat with a pom-pom on it that I did not like. I thought it was stupid to have to wear such a hat, but it was to protect me from the cold. It is a weird connection, but I still make the point of having to do some things we may not want to do, but in order to maintain our health, we need to do it.

Week 5 - Person 1

After watching the four clips for the week five blog, I discovered that some of the other main points in those clips were the powers of Habeas Corpus, and how war is not between states anymore it is more or less between individuals with the powers of mass destruction. When it comes to the topic of Habeas Corpus, people that get taken into custody of the United States have the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus (which means that a prisoner can be asked to be released from an unlawful detention.) In some cases, there have been people that were detained mainly because of their race, religion, color, and creed. Even if we are in a state of war/terror, people still have civil liberties such as the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus.
The second main point that I found was that we really don’t fight other states aka countries. The last time we were at war with a country was really Iraq in desert storm (the last war with Iraq was mainly to help stop terrorism.) We face groups such as Al-Qaeda, which are small militia groups with radical views on our current society that do not run a country. Even now that we have taken over Iraq for the Iraqis’, there are still militia groups that are trying to take back the nation and get us out of the country. They may be small, but they have the power to make a huge effect in our day to day life’s—just look at what they did with 9/11.
The restrictions that are discussed in this program are very relevant to the issue at hand in the fictitious scenario. When it comes down to a chemical warfare kind of act, we need to have stricter sanctions so that we can better protect the welfare of our own people. People will view some of the restrictions as ridiculous, but in the end it all helps protect them from what could possibly happen (also when they detained some “suspicious” people, the food poisoning didn’t happen.)

Person 5-The balancing Act

When watching the video posted for this week’s blog, I agreed with three main points said by the speakers. The first point I agreed with was that when America is attacked we go into military law not civil law. We are used to civil law, as citizens and a lot of the time, don’t understand why they are different. Another point that was said that I agreed with was that the Constitution was made so that we could check the executive branch, meaning that branch wouldn’t have all the power. And the final point that I agreed with in the movie was that we should keep those who are a potential threat isolated so that no one can get to them before we as a nation question them. However, I don’t think that we should deny them the right to legal counsel.
In general, I think that some of the restrictions on our civil liberties make sense. They are set in place to prevent terrorism in America. If they were not there, then it would be possible for another attack on America. One reason we haven’t had a serious attack on America is because we have stepped up our security to prevent such attacks. I think that some of the restrictions set on our civil liberties are there for the greater good, and that without them, many people would be in dire situations. I think that people don’t think about that side of the argument often, and think that there is a right to a lot of what they have now, when in reality it is a privilege.

Week Four-Person 3

Equality: the quality or state of being equal. It is a fairly simple definition, but seems to have not been a fairly simple task.

Our group agreed that everyone should be equal. However, each individual group member had different feelings about this article. Jade feels that no one should be superior or inferior to another person, and that money conquers the mind. I may be wrong when I say this, but I think she was saying that people view others with or without money differently. When women used to not have jobs or money, they were inferior just because of their money stature. Jade also feels that family roles can create double standards, too. A stay-at-home dad may be frowned upon while for a mom it is completely okay.

Kat and Kayla have similar views on this article, and they think that the law and religion should be separate. There was mentioning of the “creator” a lot and what would the “creator” want? It is not about what the creator would want, but what is right. TJ started by saying men are encouraged to have women speak, which at first I took this a little demeaning. Maybe it was, but I don’t think so because when I read what TJ said about when men listen, they may have an insight to something they are not normally comfortable with, seemed enlightening and that we all need each other to see what the other does not. TJ quoted “That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” With that quote, it all brings us back to our group thinking that we should all be treated equal. Kat brought up a great question that I think we all—or at least the women in this room--should think about: If these woman before us didn’t stand up for their rights, then where would we be now?

Week Four Person 2

This article stood out to me because it was the official Women's Rights. When this was created, the only thing they had in mind were women. It gave us the same rights as men, and people finally started realizing that women weren't just maids for the house, and that they could actually do something productive. This article also pointed out everything that women legally were not able to do, and shows that they changed it for women. While I agree with the point of the article, I thought that law and religion were supposed to be separate? This article focused a lot on the fact that the "Creator" would want this. It makes it sound as if they're only giving women rights because of a higher power. I enjoyed reading this article because it showed me what my life would personally be like if they hadn't fixed all of those laws, and if they hadn't given women rights.

Person 1

After reading this article some of the main points that I found and would like to bring to the table is that men are encourage to have women speak. In the article it stated that, “it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak, and teach.” Men should be helping out women because it is always nice to have a women’s opinion of certain things because men can be brutes to something that needs finesse. And my second point from this article is that at the very end its final resolution was, “That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” This was extremely huge for the rights of women because it would essentially give them the chance to help make a living for them and create a women’s workforce. It would help make it so that women wouldn’t be stuck in the household anymore, raising children and cooking/cleaning for the husband.

Person 5

While reading the posting for this week, I realized that it had many good points. Something that caught my attention while reading the article was when it said women were created equal to men through the creator. Whatever happened to leaving church and state separate? Another thing that stuck out to me was that the entire posting was about women’s rights and how they should stand up to the law. They need to stand up for their rights. This reminds me of how Martin Luther King wanted equal rights for those who didn’t have equal rights: African Americans. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that laws that prohibit women from the pursuit of happiness are against the law, as they should be. Women are the same as men, and should have the same opportunities as men, just like the law says. The resolutions say that it is against nature to deny the rights of women. I agree with this. I believe this has played a part for the way women now-a-days are. If these women before us didn’t fight for their rights, then where would we be? I don’t think that it would have been possible for us to be where we are now. These women who fought for women’s rights played a huge role to where women are today. I personally do not think most women would be where they are now if it weren’t for the women who fought for so diligently for women’s rights. Many women are CEO’s now; would that have been possible if these women hadn’t fought for their rights and the rights of the women after them. If they didn’t fight, where would I be now?

Person 4 Blog

The three most important things that stood out to me were the fact that everyone should be equal and should have the right to happiness this is very important to me because I feel that equality is a major right nobody should be superior or inferior many people lose sight of what really important especially when it comes to money it conquers the mind. What I also found important when it talked about roles in the family because this is what created double standards in america today like stay at home dads how they are looked down upon. Its werid to me how they was trying to create a change but in the end I feel like it was a catch 22. The best thing I found about this article is that woman are equal to men because in all reality women can do anything a man can do most of the time a lot better because they are the ones who go through the most pain example being able to push a baby out. This article had a lot of important facts and ideas but these are what I found important in my eyes.

Week Three Blog-Person 2

After reading the four previous posts and the article, I have decided that everyone had really great points and the article was interesting as well. The article focused on LBJ wanting everyone, including African Americans to be able to vote. It also showed the struggle that they had to overcome in order to achieve that goal. I strongly agree with Jade when she said that she would rather people not like her for her morals and her character rather than the color of her skin. I feel that it is not only rude and cruel to judge someone based on the color of their skin, but its ethically wrong as well. I feel that LBJ wanted the opposite of that to happen: people to notice others because of his or her character instead of the color or their skin. Cat also had an amazing point; when she talks about the one like that essentially defines our country : "we shall overcome". We, as a United country have encountered so many issues, and have gotten through each one together. When Kaitlyn quoted from the speech " There is no negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only American problem", it defined her post. She focused on the fact that this was an issue and that LBJ wanted to fix it. He wanted to unite the United States. I'm glad that I didn't have to live through the era where whites were thought to be superior to blacks, because I would have been hated by other whites, and would have hated everything they were doing to the African Americans. And to think, all of this happened because of the color of someone's skin.