The First Lady's
speech: 9/5/2012
One
part of Michelle Obama's speech that really stood out to me was the fact that
she really targeted the middle or working class. She spoke about how her father
had to work so hard to get her through college and that she remembers Barack as
the man who would pick her up for dates in a rusty, old truck. Then on Facebook
a friend of mine posted that Michelle Obama's speech was full of lies and that
she went to an upper class high school and later an Ivy League school so how
could she make these claims that she knows what it's like for the working
class. I don't agree with that comment but it was interesting to me for a
couple reasons. Even though Michelle Obama probably had a father who did work
really hard she could of easily manipulated stories from her life to make it
seem like she had to work hard and her family did as well. I really relate to
that because my father has worked really hard all of my life so that I could go
to college one day, but I consider myself to be in the upper middle class and
probably wouldn't be able to relate very well with a struggling middle class
family. However, I could make claims just like Michelle's that talk about how
hard my father has worked and that I will probably be working through college.
It wouldn't be lies, but it wouldn't be truth exactly either because I have
never had to deal with intense financial troubles and neither has my father
because of how much he works. Politicians are so vague and how much of what they
really say is genuine? I feel like their speeches are almost a hoax just to get
more voters and have nothing to do with the reality of their upcoming years.
Even if my friend was wrong about everything and Michelle's family really did
struggle with finances it made me question how much of what politicians really
say is manipulated to get more voters. In the end, I no longer know whether I
can trust speeches at all and I think I would rather rely on hard facts than
what politicians say. I am curious to see if their bite is as big as their
bark.
Obama's speech:9/7/2012
Before I watched Obama's speech
I studied an issue on barackobama.com.The issue I studied was equal rights such
as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't
tell", The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Hate Crime Prevention
Act. On the website, after I read the information on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair
Pay Act, there was more information on how Mitt Romney avoided the subject and
would not answer when someone asked him if he would have signed the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It also stated that Paul Ryan voted against the act.
Nowhere in Mitt Romney's speech did he mention fair pay for women, equal rights
for the LGBT community or getting women involved with science and math
programs. Obama, even though he does not mentions fair pay for women, does
mention how soldiers should not be kicked out of the army because of who they
are or who they love and he mentions multiple times girls and woman getting
involved with the sciences. One of my favorite quotes was when he spoke about a
young girl being given the opportunity to rise out of poverty by her teacher
and become the next Steve Jobs. I love how Obama wants to give women and girls
more opportunities in the sciences because it is such a male dominated field. I
don't think Mitt Romney can even compare to Obama on this issue because of his
stances and priorities. For example, Mitt Romney does not support same sex
marriage, whereas Obama declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
Over all I really like Obama's stance on this issue and it made me take a
closer look at Mitt Romney and where he stands on equal rights.
Safety Vs Freedom 9/12/2012
Yesterday in class we talked about four prompts and whether we agreed or
disagreed with said prompt. All of the prompts shared the same idea: would you
rather have freedoms and rights or safety and protection. For example the first
prompt was that sometimes personal rights must be given up in order to protect
people from those who could be a danger to all of us, do you agree or disagree?
I said that I agreed because there has to be a balance between safety and
freedom. I believe the more safety you have the less freedom you have and the
more freedom you have the less safety you have. Therefore to find a balance we
have to give up some freedoms and some safety. Both extremes lead to bad
places: anarchy vs. tyranny. Today in class I learned about the Patriot Act, which is an anti-terrorist act that was signed into law one month after September 11th 2001. This act would allow the FBI to investigate suspicious people without evidence, search their houses in secret or without telling them, and this act makes it easier for Law enforcement to access financial, medical and educational records. There was a lawsuit against this act made by the American Civil Liberties Union. We have the government pushing to protect us even at the cost of certain rights and we have the ACLU fighting for our rights at the cost of our safety. Both have a valid argument but there needs to be a balance between the two so after studying this I stand by my previous statement. I do agree that in order to protect people from those who could be a danger to all of us we must give up certain personal rights.
Tinker vs.Desmoines
“School’s need for order and discipline must be balanced with the student’s
right to basic constitutional freedoms.” I agree with this statement. In my
blog Safety vs. Freedom I talk about balance and finding the balance between
our rights and our safety. In schools I feel like everything is more extreme
and kids are more unstable and in need of more order. The fact that a school is
a large group of unarmed kids makes it very vulnerable, not taking into account
the volatility of teenagers. I believe kids are unable to make wise decisions
until they reach a certain point in their life, it definitely does not come
naturally. Therefore the need for order and discipline is even stronger.
An example where this is true is the fact that our possessions and lockers can
be searched if there is suspicion that we have a weapon. If someone was
reported to have brought a weapon to school, teachers or administrators would
have the right to search that student’s bag or locker. An example where this is
untrue is the fact that teachers can legally hit students. I feel like this is
an old law that is a little bit ridiculous by today’s standards. If a teacher
hit me I would want to seriously sue them. It’s like the rule of thumb, kids
are still people and I don’t think beating them is right, even as a form of
discipline.
1sth Amendment News Article
Today
I read a news article called "Ad Calling Jihad ‘Savage’ Is Set to Appear
in Subway". This article was about an ad being put up in the subway
stations of New York calling Jihad savage. I found this article really
interesting because the people who allow ads into the subway stations fought so
hard against the first amendment to get this article taken out and tried to
find loop holes so they could remove it. It's like we have freedom of the press
only if what we have to say is happy. This ad is extremely controversial; does
that mean it shouldn't be published? The people who made that ad are the ones
fighting for our right to free press but they are also the ones pushing so many
limits that laws are made limiting our freedoms. For example if fire was never
yelled in a movie theater we wouldn't have the law that says you can't shout
fire in a movie theater, however if they didn't shout fire because they thought
it would cause problems legally, they wouldn't have been exercising our freedom
of speech. I think the ad should not be removed even if it causes problems
among the people. Freedom always comes with a price and that is a price we
should all be willing to pay to a certain extent so that we may remain a free
country and keep our constitutional rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/nyregion/ad-demeaning-muslims-to-appear-in-new-york-subway.html?ref=firstamendment
The Innocence of Muslims: A Seriously Terrible Film
After watching a part of the 13
minute trailer to "The Innocence of Muslims" I read the article 'Innocence
of Muslims' Producer's identity in question; actors say they were duped,
overdubbed
(http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/13/innocence-muslims-producer-identity-questioned-actors-say-were-duped/).
This article sheds light on free speech in a couple of ways. First, the actors
were apparently dubbed over. It's evident in the film that there is dubbing
going on and it's hard to believe that someone would literally put words in
your mouth. The film described itself as a historical desert drama set in the
Middle East called 'Desert Warriors'. The script was a lie, the title of the
movie and subject of the movie were both lies and the companies they claimed
made the movie did not. It amazes me that you can film people and trick them
like that, the creators of the film totally lied to the actors and they should
receive compensation in my opinion. Secondly, this film was not taken off
YouTube or Google because what they did was in fact, protected under our first
Amendment. This movie was honestly despicable and it's these kinds of actions
that abuse our first Amendment.
Shouting Fire Documentary
For the last few days in class,
we have been watching a documentary called Shouting Fire. This Documentary is
focused around the first amendment and explains four cases where the first
amendment rights of someone or many are being abused. Of the four moral
dilemmas presented the one that is most important to me was the case involving
Debbie Almontaser. In this case an Arabic woman named Debbie became the
principal of an Arabic school in New York. Because of this and the fact that she
was Arabic the press tried to make her out as a terrorist. Eventually Debbie
was interviewed for the newspaper. She wanted to try and explain as well as
clear her name but instead her interviewer took her words out of context and
made her look even worse. Lies were spread about Debbie and she eventually had
to step down as principal to appease the public and protect the reputation of
the school. She was forced to step down because of all the lies that were
spread about her. Clearly this is a case of Libel because these lies really
hurt her reputation and caused her to lose her job. However, even though she
brought her case to court multiple times she never won any lawsuits because
when she was being interviewed she spoke about things she was not permitted to
speak about and because the newspaper was able to take her words out of
context. Debbie's reputation was destroyed and she was never compensated for
it.
White Flag Warriors
For our free speech forum I
chose a song called White Flag Warriors by the Flobots. This song is one of my
favorite songs and I love it. I have always listened to this band not only
because they are awesome musicians but because I love the messages they send
out. The message to this song was that war and especially drafts are horrible.
They force the youth of this country to become murderers. One the lines of this
song is "They say war is necessary but we say war is child abuse." I
connect to this because I feel that no one should ever be forced to fight in
war. Propaganda tells us we fight wars to remain a free country but really it’s
all a political game for money and power, should you be forced to die for that?
Certain wars are justified but it should always be your choice whether you want
to fight or not. This celebrates our right to free speech because it is a group
of musicians speaking out against the decisions our government makes and the
laws our country has. It is beautiful that in this country, we have the right
to do that. The first stanza to this song is our freedom of speech in a
nutshell. "We request to negotiate, we come to you unarmed. We desire to
communicate, you cannot do us harm."
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier
This was a case brought to the
Supreme Court in 1983 concerning the freedoms that high school students have
when they publish a school newspaper. In this case a school newspaper was
reviewed by the principle of Hazelwood East High School to make sure everything
looked good. He found two articles that were concerning. The first had to do
with teen pregnancy and the second with divorce. The principal pulled these two
articles before the paper was published and the students were not happy about
that. They ended up going to court over it. Eventually the Supreme Court found
that the principal had reason and that educators do not offend the First
Amendment exercising editorial control over a school newspaper. I think this
case is really relevant to me as a student because it shows that my first
amendment rights are a lot more limited than that of an adult out of school.
Educators have authority over me and control my rights to freedom of speech. I
think that this ruling is fair for the most part, however that does not mean
that because I write an article and it gets shut down that I won't fight for
it. I think the ruling was a bit vague and that the judgment of educators can
be off. Like in the case of Tinker Vs. Des Moines, the principle did not think
it was right that these students were "speaking out" against the
Vietnam war, but it was still within their rights. All in all, I think the
ruling is fair but students should still challenge the judgment of educators if
they don't think that educator has a good reason to ban their article.
The Presidential Debates
In this presidential debate I
honestly thought that Governor Romney did a better job because he was able to
use statistics and attack Obama as well as defend the attacks that Obama threw
at him. One thing Obama did that I thought was almost a little bit ridiculous
is he kept repeating himself even when Romney defended the previous attacks. He
kept making claims about Romney's plan and repeating those claims even when
Romney clarified. Both candidates used rhetoric and anecdotes but I noticed
more so with Obama that he kept throwing around words like education and better
education programs but was still very vague with the "how" behind
them. They were almost like distractions. I feel like Romeny stayed on topic
more and had somewhat clear responses for Obama. I feel like there are parts of
the debate that are a political theater, like whenever the candidates try to be
empathetic, but I also feel that part of the debate is a legitimate substantive
debate. The candidates had to elaborate on how they were going to fulfill their
plans for the country and this is what really helped me get a better idea of
what both candidates represent and what makes it a substantive debate.