Potts Eng 2

2005-12-05T14:06:00.000-08:00

I think NOMIC would have been more fun if we had not always voted unanimously. That is why I voted against something near the end. We made it too easy almost, but our objective was to meet a goal in a certain time period.
This could be a lot of fun online.
The lesson learned for me was that we needed to make rules on how to make rules and getting started was difficult. Every time we wanted to decide HOW to decide on something, I was thinking to myself, "Yeah, but how do we decide who will offer suggestions. Do we take turns? Should I be blurting out anything? What makes it OK for me to be speaking now?" We might have taken the whole hour just deciding on how to get started. If the group had been larger and more "into it," I can see where we might have been arguing about points of conduct, etc.

2005-11-30T13:27:00.000-08:00

For anyone thinking of focusing on the religious freedom aspect , I have a couple of books in our personal library which give some history on Islam and the branches. "A Ready Defense," by Josh McDowell, and "Understanding Sectarian Groups in America," by George W. Braswell, Jr.
A Ready Defense describes other religions and compares them to Christianity.
Understanding Sectarian Groups looks like it gives a more detailed history, but not necessarily a comparison.
These books will be vital to my paper if I continue to focus on religious freedom.

2005-11-30T13:14:00.000-08:00

Another site to check is www.weeklystandard.com. Charles Krauthammer has written some excellent, in-depth articles. One was "The Truth About Torture."
This is a weekly magazine and there was no charge to search for articles or to print them. It is a conservative publication which we subscribed to at one time. Honestly, I couldn't keep up with reading them, although magazine itself is not a large one. I do wish we were still receiving them for the sake of this class.
Charles Krauthammer is a regular panelist on one of the FOX NEWS shows. I think it is the one with Brit Hume. He is a very smart man. You will find that whether you are liberal or conservative, he presents a good argument in his writings. I hope to be able to use some of his articles for my paper.

Another article from the Weekly Standard which interested me is, "The Freedoms We Fight For." This was by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross. I am not familiar with him, but the article itself included several highlighted words or phrases, which, when clicked on, sent me to other articles about that word or reference. I got one from the Jerusalem Post, one from CNN.com, and one from Hindustantimes.com. This was like the author's "works cited", but it was neat to read the same articles he had read. I probably wouldn't have been able to find them on my own (at least not as easily).

2005-11-29T20:50:00.000-08:00

I found an excellent site called The Heritage Foundation. The address is www.heritage.org. I thought it might be considered a political journal, like the Hoover Digest, but it describes itself as, "a research and educational institute - a think tank." There is a section on research with several topics. One is the Middle East, another is The War on Terror. When you go to one of the topics, there are several articles or essays and others listed at the side for further interest.

2005-11-16T12:22:00.000-08:00

I finally had to give up after having spent way too much time trying to do the "blog this." I don't have the links button and it isn't available in "view." I also tried to download the Google toolbar, but was unsuccessful.
So, I will give you some sites I found which you might also find useful.

I did not care for Eliza Applet. It was a waste of time.

I went to Iraq Politics as suggested by Mr. Cain. He suggested the 2nd link. I wound up at Wikepedia, a free online encyclopedia. Specifically, the one place which has a variety of information is:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Iraq
I am sorry. When I tried to go back to this, I only got as far as Wikepedia.org. it worked better to search Iraq Politics and go to the second link, just as Mr. Cain said. I still got to Wikepedia and found some history of Iraq and other middle eastern countries. I also found entries on the state of religious freedom in some countries, but it does not cover all countries. It covered Iran, but not Iraq. So, I will find that in another source and compare to religious freedom in other middle eastern countries.

I am leaning toward focusing on the state of religious freedom in Iraq, but still need to read some history of Iraq and Saddam.
I did find the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Wikipedia site.
The address is:
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng_print.htm

Some of you might be interested in some pictures on the White House site. One in particular might be of interest to someone focusing on women's rights.
Check out the White House site, go to photo essays, then The war on terror, then look for the photo of Mrs. Bush talking with women from the Middle East.
There is also a list of speeches or events by date that you can then click on to read.

As mentioned in class, my husband subscribes to the Hoover Digest, which is a political science journal. If you can find these at the library, all of the recent ones have articles about the war on terror and Iraq.

This is what I have so far...

2005-10-28T14:56:00.000-07:00

Question #6, page 438

If I am not mistaken, I think I remember all kinds of things printed on paper towels in the '70's and '80's, including flags. I never thought of that as desecration, but more festive. My mother-in-law loves to decorate her house with the changes in seasons and for holidays. For the 4th of July, she uses a lot of red, white, and blue. I do have some napkins and plastic cups with the design of waving stars and stripes printed on them. I also have some cloth with a similar print which I bought soon after 9-11 for the purpose of making it into a scrub jacket for work. We use these things because we are celebrating the holidays and consider ourselves patriotic. We never thought we were mistreating the flag.
Now, after all of our class discussion and reading of the first amendment, etc., I am more sensitive to whether I am mistreating the flag or not. I guess it would be up to the individual to decide where to draw the line. I mean, seeing someone with a bathing suit or underwear made from a flag or flag-printed cloth would bother me, so is it ok for me to wear a scrub jacket made from the cloth I bought? And, I think it would really bother me now, to use toilet paper printed with stars and stripes (unless I was really desperate). Is it a fair line to draw to say, "OK, he didn't cut up an actual flag and sew it into a shirt, so it's OK that it's just a print of a flag?"

But, when we talk about burning flags, or burning representations of flags, we are still getting the point accross that we are burning the flag, whether for real or symbolically. The message is the same.

2005-10-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

If you have the time to check it out, go to the Betsy Ross homepage. After our class discussion, I was curious to find out who really was the designer of the flag. the site I offered before didn't even mention Betsy Ross, so I went to her homepage. I didn't know that it is not certain that she sewed the first flag. There is a point-counterpoint argument which makes it look like she was.
The sites offered much history which we don't have room to include in our papers, but it is certainly interesting.
Sometimes, I think I should have majored in history, but I didn't develop the love for it until a few years ago.... (sigh)

2005-10-28T13:58:00.000-07:00

Since we were graciously granted a little more time for this paper, I wanted to share with you a site that I had forgotten about. I had heard Jay Sekulow on the radio off and on for several years but had never checked out the website for the ACLJ, the American Center for Law and Justice. Go to www.aclj.org.
I will warn you that this is a conservative site, but the specialty is constitutional law. I first became interested when I heard that these attorneys were fighting for the right to keep prayer in school and things like that. There are still many cases involving what can or cannot happen in schools. For instance, in Locke v. Davey (2003), "a college student was denied a state scholarship because he declared his major to be pastoral studies." In Santa Fe Independent School district v. Doe (2000), the subject was the "constitutionality of student-led prayer at high school sporting events."

The other source I found extremely helpful was the little pamphlet on the Flag Code. You can check that out at www.americanflags.org.

2005-10-28T13:38:00.000-07:00

Question #3 from page 394

Holmes WAS acting on the orders of the mate, who was speaking for the captain. I do not understand why neither of those people was charged for manslaughter. I wondered whether a scapegoat was needed. And, weren't there other crewmen who helped? I did not get the impression that Holmes was the only one following orders. The fact that the mate did have to say it twice tells me that they at least thought about the order before carrying it out.

According to the judge's statement, "sailors have no right, for their dafety, to sacrifice the passengers." And, "he is bound to set a greater value on the life of others than on his own." This tells me that all of the crew were bound by this and that he was responsible for the deaths of the passengers. But, I think that the mate as well as the captain were equally responsible.

Another of my questions is Why didn't the captain go down with the ship? Isn't that supposed to be a tradition if all passengers cannot be rescued? And, why were ALL of the crewmen saved alive (though we understand that Holmes was the last to leave the ship, having rescued many, which should have earned him a medal and which actually did help to lighten his sentence)? Why were there only the SAFE number of people in the captain's boat, but the longboat was grossly overloaded?

I understand that the US could not let the whole issue slide because the rest of the world was watching to see how it would be handled. However, I think that the captain and first mate should have also been held accountable.

2005-10-13T09:40:00.000-07:00

Evaluation of the movie, "Farenheit 9/11

As most of you heard in class, I have some strong opinions against the movie.

I will try to be a bit more objective in this blog, but I know it will be difficult.

Michael Moore put together a 2-hour opinion piece, not a true documentary. I came away with many more questions than answers.

He opened with the President being told of the towers being hit the second time. Moore tried to make him look stupid for sitting there with the kids. My question is: What good would rushing out of there do? It is often easier to see in hindsight what might have been a better action, but would ANY of us have known what to do at that precise time? Was he expected to be able to singlehandedly stop any further attacks? I think it is better that the time with the children was not hastily cut off. They did not need to be alarmed. He only stayed for 7 more minutes. It's not as if it were 37! And, the look on his face did not look like indecision, but more of sadness, and what things need to be done.

Moore spent quite a bit of time discussing vacation time. I thought it interesting that he included a clip where both he and Laura were wearing shirts for (I think it was) Habitat for Humanity. He was putting in some volunteer time while he was on vacation. That should have been commended - not scoffed at! And, Bush is right. Many things can be done from his ranch. Every other president has always been in touch. They are NEVER really OFF work. Have you seen any of their schedules? There is an enlargement of Ron and Nancy Reagan's calendar pages for one month on display at the Reagan Library. EVERY HOUR was scheduled for some meeting, speech, or dinner. It looked grueling!! I would NOT criticize Bush for playing golf if that is what helps him unwind. Isn't it better than vegging out in front of the TV?

The sound of the tower disaster on 9/11 was very effective with the blank screen.

I was angered by the shots of the different ones getting the hair and makeup before going on air as if that was a vanity thing. EVERYONE who goes on the air to give a report has makeup to diminish the glare, etc. And, as for the jokes and the silly grins before going on the air, my comment is that MOST of us can get silly as a relief behavior even when facing the most extreme crisis. Any psychology student will understand this.

Moore mentioned some statistics. He said that Bush cut FBI spending for terrorism. I would like to see that because I cannot take his word for it. Moore never mentioned Clinton and what he did or did not do to prevent this. I know that Clinton cut back on the military and that he knew where Osama was and lost him. Bush was only in office for 8 months before 9/11 but somehow, this is all his fault.

Moore showed many pictures of the Bush family and their associates, like Rumsfeld, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, and being friends with the Saudis. Of COURSE they wanted to keep peace. Saddam was offered all kinds of chances, but he didn't stick to his end of the bargain.
And, as Daena mentioned in class, the bin Ladin family was well-respected (something I didn't previously know). Why was it a big deal for the Bush family to be friends with them? Was Osama the rebel black sheep? Am I to believe that the whole family took part in this terror? I do agree that they MAYBE should have been kept in the US, perhaps in sequestered housing or something, until they could all be sufficiently questioned. But, I don't know the whole situation.

If it was such a big deal for Bush, Sr. to have been meeting with the Carlyle Group, why wasn't it advised that he stop - by someone, ANYONE?!? You would think that most people in G.W.'s administration would be alert to ANYTHING that would cast bad light on him.

And, is it such a bad thing for a president or past president to be wealthy? JFK as well as Jacqueline came from wealthy families.

I do not want to believe that W did anything dishonest in the past OR now, as president. He wasn't a terrific guy a few years ago. He was an alcoholic and very fortunate that his wife stuck it out with him.

As for his military record, Moore showed a name blacked out. I do not know who blacked it out, but I can understand why. The association with someone from his past, who is now of questionable character leaves room for speculation (obviously).

There is suspicion that Saudi oil money was used for Bush's failed companies. I did not see any proof. I do not think that the US should be giving favors or making decisions based on private (as opposed to government) business we conduct with other countries. Moore made me wonder about the wisdom of a president doing personal business with foreigners.
But, Moore sort-of lumped all the middle-easterners together. He talked about the media playing up our fear, but he did that as well by linking Saudis, Iraqis, and Afghans. As someone mentioned in class (Daena?), just because several of the highjackers were Saudi, this doesn't make all Saudis bad.

Moore said that we started bombing 4 weeks after 9/11. I need proof. I know we didn't start invasion until March. And, even then, the Democrats said that we were waiting too long.

I didn't get enough information on the lawsuits filed by families against Saudi families. Moore said that this was ignored by Bush. Is there anything he could have done about that? Why did they file against Saudi families and not Iraqi or Afghan families? Not enough info.

Bandar Bush? A family friend, obviously trusted to be an ambassador. Dinner on 9/13. Maybe it was already scheduled? Maybe they wanted to talk about what could POSSIBLY be done.

I don't remember who Richard Clarke is and Moore did not tell us why we should listen to him.

I don't believe that Bush wanted to cut military pay. This sounds more like something Clinton would do. I actually thought military pay went up. Again, not satisfactorily explained and NO evidence.

If Moore had it in him to do an honest documentary and HONESTLY show both sides with equal time, he might create something that would make me think, rather than just get angry.

We know that many Americans were killed in this war effort and some were killed horrifically and tortured. But, Saddam was doing this to HIS OWN PEOPLE. Some say that we went to war for no reason. They weren't bothering us. But, what about those people who were strung up just for looking crossways at one of Saddam's guards? And, yes, Iraq (Saddam) was financing Osama. Don't tell me there was no connection. Moore just tried to lump them together with the Saudis, but he would say that there was no connection. There was.
The issue of "weapons of mass destruction" is not over. Saddam had the capability. He also had the ability to hide them. We may never know where they all are.

I am very thankful that neither Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry were in charge when 9/11 happened.

So much more we could say! There was absolutely no fairness in this film. Now, I want to see "Farenhype 9/11" to get the other point of view.

2005-10-13T09:34:00.000-07:00

Evaluating MLA resources

This is my first class which required MLA format. I never heard of it before. So, I do not think that my evaluation of MLA resources will help anyone else.
I have not tried the Citation Machine yet, as mentioned by Mr. Cain. The textbook used in class has been the most helpful. I also have my husband's book, "MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers," (5th edition), by Joseph Gibaldi. I briefly looked through it, but still found our text to be the most helpful to me.

2005-10-13T08:54:00.000-07:00

Summary of article from paper 2

I have only been here in California for just over 2 years. When I arrived and started working at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital, I heard the rumors about the possibility of Natividad closing or selling and what that might mean for SVMH. There was a recent article about another tax issue which might have also affected Natividad, but I did not include it in my paper. As I researched, I found that Natividad was now operating "in the black."
So, my focus shifted from Natividad's problems to the problem of governement overspending. I will offer a summary of the Governor's Weekly Radio Address.

Arnold reminded us that we sent him to Sacramento to clean up the mess left by the previous administration. He found that overspending was the biggest problem which left left him a debt of $22 billion. The budget is also a big problem. There are "spending formulas" in place which might seem like a good thing, but when we are spending $10 billion more than what is received, this is detrimental to the financial health of the state. Arnold wants to stop spending more than we have. He says that this will allow money to go to education, health care, and other important services.

Of course, I read other articles. The proposition mentioned above is Proposition 76. The official CA Republican website says that it "stops the politicians from spending more tax dollars than the state of CA has. Stabilizes education funding."
But, an article from the CA Nurses Association (of which I am an automatic member, with dues deducted from my paycheck every pay period) says this about prop 76, "Gutting school funding... deprives cities and counties of hundreds of millions of dollars for firefighter, healthcare, and social service programs."

Now, I am a supporter of Arnold. I can see that he still has a lot of work to do to clean up after Grey Doofus (oops, Davis). And, I have always felt that although my union has done some good things, like establishing ratios for safe nursing, I did not feel like they were willing to work with Arnold. I think they are almost militant in demanding their way.
For instance, the ratio of 6 patients to one nurse went into effect and the next year, it went to 5:1. Arnold wanted to delay the 5:1 for 3 years. CNA went ballistic!! Now, think about it. CA is the only state with ratios. I have worked in FL, TX, OH, IA, and PA without ratios and cared for many more patients. I agree that it's not safe, but CA is way ahead with the 6:1 ratio. For as bad as the system is in places like LA, it might be saving the hospitals millions of dollars, which COULD have paid for higher wages, if they didn't have to pay it in FINES for not meeting the ratios. There is a nursing shortage. HELLOOO!!!! Sometimes the bodies are just not there!! If some of those major hospitals have to close down because they no longer have money to pay those ridiculous fines, where will people go? To already overcrowded ER's. Boy, I'm glad I don't live in LA!!

Anyway, the blurbs from both sides are confusing. I finally received the offical voter paper in the mail, which supposedly explains the propositions extensively. I do plan to read it before voting. I am sure that some of the language will be over my head and that I still will not understand completely.
But, RIGHT NOW, I am angry that CNA, my union, is attempting to mislead us. I will be even more angry if I find out that Arnold is trying to mislead us, because RIGHT NOW, I believe that he is sincerely trying to straighten things out.

2005-09-19T12:30:00.000-07:00

I do not think that immigrants who are not citizens and not applying for citizenship should be allowed to vote in state and local elections any more than they should be allowed to vote in federal elections, especially if they are illegal immigrants. They should not have any more say in the way our government operates than a visitor should. I do not think that the Italian or German government would appreciate my insistence on having a voice in the way they run things. So, why should the U.S. allow it here? If an immigrant is applying for citizenship,that is different. At least that person is showing true interest by becoming an American citizen.

2005-09-12T12:32:00.000-07:00

I looked through Hartnell's web site and compared it to the site for Emmaus Bible College. The similarities and differences have to do with the type of institutions they are. Both are institutions of higher learning and seek to attract high school students as well as older adult students. Both offer information on the necessities as well as the niceties. Both show photographs of students enjoying life on camus. The web site for Emmaus, however, is a bit more attractive in that it offers a slide show on some of the pages as well as a virtual tour. This could be because it is a private college and rather small (250-350 students at the most) or because one of the former students put it together. It made me miss the place (yes, it was "emotionally evocative").

2005-09-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

In "Just Take Away Their Guns," by James Q Wilson, the author points out the problems with each side of the argument. In the opening paragraph, he mentions that the president and the public want more gun control laws. But, this will not hinder the illegal use of guns (as he mentions in the next paragraph).
Gun control advocates would love it if all private citizens were stripped of their guns. They do not value the right to defend our homes and families from would-be burglars. They think that a gun owner is more likely to injure himself/herself or a loved one than a criminal. Gun control advocates also tell us that, "Our government has failed to protect us and our property from criminal assault, and now intends to deprive us of the opportunity to protect ourselves."
I agree with Wilson's criticism of this side of the argument because he presents convincing statistics to support his statements. He shows that only a fraction of the guns used by criminals are purchased at a gun shop. He points out that many would-be burglars are scared away because a home owner displayed or used a gun. And, he presented statistics that disprove the assertion of gun control advocates that "the cost of self-defense is self-injury: Handgun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or their loved ones than a criminal." The number is less than 2 percent of gun fatalities.
Wilson also says that the NRA makes a mistake in calling for more severe punishment of criminals who use guns. I do not think it is unreasonable to want more severe punishment. I actually thought that this was already the case. What needs to happen is a change in the court system, getting criminals through much faster. A crime committed should be paid for. I am sure that there is much I will never understand about the judicial system and why judges are more or less likely to make certain rulings. It seems to me that if the criminal was found guilty, he/she should pay for the crime without any bargainings by prosecutors.

2005-08-28T06:33:00.000-07:00

"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus", by Derek Bok

Bok mentions that displaying flags which bear certain symbols might be offensive to one group or another. He also says that trying to limit such displays will only draw "more attention to the offensive material."
So, displaying flags is one type of conduct that is "merely" offensive.
The texbook question asks the difference between harmful and offensive.
From Bok's point of view, a display like the flags is offensive, but not necessarily harmful. Perhaps he thinks of harmful as physically harmful, but emotional harm is overlooked.
What about the previous essay in our text by Charles Lawrence III, "On Racist Speech?" In paragraphs 5 and 6, the author mentions "fighting words," "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." These "fighting words" might only be offensive at first, but can lead to physical blows, fights, and riots. That would definitely be harmful.

2005-08-22T12:10:00.000-07:00

I agree with Mr. Dershowitz in paragraph seven of his essay, "Why Fear National ID Cards?" when he questions the right to anonymity. Anonymity has never been a constitutional right. Some people are confusing anonymity with privacy. But, perhaps these same people have seen abuses of privacy and are afraid that an ID card could lead to more such abuses. I mean, we've all seen movies with "good cop, bad cop" themes and other miscarriages of justice from those in authority who are supposed to be the "good guys." So, I can see that side.
But, many other issues must be considered, such as right to safety, perhaps, or how about freedom from terrorist attacks? And, wouldn't it be nice to have the assurance that everyone on the plane, boat, subway, or sports arena with you has been checked out and cleared - REALLY.
I think the safety of EVERYONE is worth a little less privacy, whether we adopt the idea of a national ID card or some other idea.

I must confess, however, that although I am in favor of something like this for the sake of national security, it does get awfully close to "The Mark of the Beast," as mentioned in the book of Revelation of the Holy Bible. I know that my whole class and my instructor will be reading this and maybe think I'm weird, but if we start having to get microchips inserted under our skin, well, that could be a topic for an essay someday.