Comments for Kautzman's AP GO PO Blog

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Justin Fritz the Conservative

Justin Fritz the Conservative — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:11:19 +0000

Response to Carly Ross

People have a problem with the constitution because it can be loosely interpreted. Judicial review, various supreme court cases, and I really thing the most horrendous misinterpretation comes from the 1st amendment or right to freedom of expression.

I can understand that it is a theory of government that has been working for quite some time. There are actual many government theories we tried before we finally wrote a constitution. The Articles of Confederation are among them.

I also want to tackle your “under God” question. Our country (America) was NEVER a Christian nation. It never has been.

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” – James Madison

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” Thomas Jefferson

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.” Benjamin Franklin

“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.” John Adams

Under God was not in the original pledge it was added quite some time after. Our founding fathers would have been appalled to see religion mix with politics because I believe it was James Madison who basically said the less politics and religion mix the better.

To say we are opting out of our origin is preposterous.

Comment on CE Week #7: “Cute kids, repulsive politics” Oct. 18th by Justin Fritz the Conservative

Justin Fritz the Conservative — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:44:45 +0000

I am sorry but I did not take the time to read the 35 or 36 comments left before me. I understand that many will hate me or disagree with me highly. However, I am fairly certain it makes logical sense and must be said.

No surprise that the conservative is against domestic partnerships for homosexuals right? Well, there is good reason and I do not think they have been mentioned.

I am against it for the following reasons.

1) Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.

Don’t believe me do you? think about it. they have the exact same right that I have to marry. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal legally. Just like a zoophile (beastality) cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile. Thus equality. I am in no way comparing homosexuals to zoophilia or pedophilia to be clear.

2) Homosexuality is not innate.

There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is innate. Correlation is not evidence if it were, we would be blaming the decrease of pirates for recent climate trends. So a good note before you embark on more science research, correlation is not causation. We are not talking about hypotheses, I can make one of those. These “study” or “studies” say nothing in regards to lesbianism.

But again, let us imagine for a moment that they or you are correct, that homosexuality IS innate. If the very fact that one was born with particular proclivities made those proclivities a basic right, we would be in chaos. That logic leads us to accept pedophilia and zoophilia as legitimate rights and legitimate acts to act out upon as they are innate after all.

3) Opens doors to Polygamy

It would be a blatant cheating of the law to allow 3 or 4 consenting individuals, who deeply love one another, to marry. But it is apparently not cheating of the law to completely circumvent our legal system to establish nationally recognized gay marriage. Can we not change tax laws in regards to individuals with multiple spouses that does not seem too hard. Not allowing polygamy and polyandry spits in the face of my any activists definition of equality.

4) This one is just for laughs really and not a strong argument at all. Not allowing them to wed protects their right to the pursuit of happiness. How you may ask. Well, 50% of all heterosexuals marriages fail in America. Failure has NEVER meant happiness.

It has also been shown that that nearly “eighty percent of all working comedians speak about the unhappiness of marriage as part of their routine.” Many complain about the horrors of marriage.

It is clear by now that marriage equals pain and suffering. What we are doing when we vote no is protecting their rights to pursue happiness and have freedom to have sex with whomever they wish whenever they wish without fear of being divorced and losing half of their assets to some filthy fat slut whore of a wife (or husband). Just look at the damage marriage has done to the heterosexual community. Do we really want to spread that to the homosexual community as well?

*side note*

I do realize that ref 71 is everything but MARRIAGE. They want the same benefits but not the name. Almost sounds like greed or a money issue to me. In no way shape or form did I bring in religion into my arguments, so to attack the points of many I am assuming, there are several other arguments against homosexual marriages/domestic partnerships not involving God at all.

Comment on CE Week #9: “Voters wary of ballot measures” Nov. 3rd by Michael Cathcart

Michael Cathcart — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:02:04 +0000

Spokane, Washington – With election returns final, the grassroots group Save Our Spokane has claimed victory over the Envision Spokane Community Bill of Rights. With over 75% of voters rejecting the Community Bill of Rights…

http://www.prlog.org/10399170-save-our-spokane-thanks-citizens-of-spokane-for-voting-to-defeat-envision-spokane.html

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Carley Ross

Carley Ross — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:53:30 +0000

What I Learned:

I could not quite make the connection between the salivating conservatives and Obama’s popularity plummet to our education. I am hypothesizing that Mr. Cal Thomas was trying to connect between the President’s closer leanings with “socialization” and the education system (?). I did not know that in every other high school, besides the three I attended, stray away from the teachings of our Constitution. I do not understand how our nations history (mind you, history cannot be—or at least should not be—altered) would hurt diversity.

What I Think:

Is Cal Thomas saying that Republicans do not support a positive learning environment by suggesting that “children and their parents (will) see which party and persuasion cares about them enough to bring real change to their lives”? Or was he bringing his introduction into relevant light by saying that we need to trust Obama? Either way, I think this was not a clearly organized article. Is it education reform that Mr. Thomas is speaking about, or simply the audacity that our own Constitution is considered “offensive”? Of all things in this world, I could probably care less if someone finds the supremacy of the Constitution offensive. But after all, we do live in a country where the Bank of America was asked to take down the stars and stripes.

What I Want to Know:

Did anyone interpret this article a different way? I see how the “one nation under God” can offend someone, but does that mean we disregard our origin?

Connection:

This week Mr. Kautzman spoke about William Jennings Bryan, a presidential candidate in the 1896 election and a prosecuting attorney for the Scopes Monkey Trial. The connection is to the essential question of the trial; what to teach, or what not to teach in school. I believe all theories like the Big Band, Darwinism, etc. should be taught in school—with the understanding that they are all theories. But where I find the teaching (or lack of) the Constitution baffling, is that it is recorded history and that there is not countless possibilities of “theories” to our government—there is our Constitution. So why should be have a problem with it?

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Taylor Jordan

Taylor Jordan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:59:28 +0000

A) What I Know: I’m not quite sure if I understood this article in its entirety. It is no secret that republicans and conservative ideals have taken a hit as a result of the Bush administration but It’s almost as thought the overall gist of this article was that if we start teaching more history then people will become more conservative.
B) What I think: I think that diversity is a great concept that should be continued to be taught for one but I also think that the problem is not that we aren’t teaching history the same, I think that over time it is interpreted differently. Conservative ideals are becoming somewhat dates in a world as modern as today. In my opinion the Republican party needs to be re-energized and more willing to make changed and compromise if they want to be a key player in American politics. Maybe this is a pre-mature evaluation but who know?
C) Question: My question is what are republicans going to do before the next election to regain their ground and support? The Bush administration really dealt a huge blow to their party, but is it temporary?
D) Link: The republican party might need a fresh face to revitalize their part, and it’s not Sarah Palin.

Comment on CE Week #7: ” Tax the rich: It’s the American way” Oct. 21st by Daniel Lipuzhin

Daniel Lipuzhin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:52:51 +0000

A. Learn
CEO income has increased by 730 percent, while worker income has decreased by 13 percent. Income rates have been at 92 percent once. Now, that’s above my understanding. Taxing the rich just a little more than 35 percent could help us out of a tight financial situation. After all, they do owe the society their fortunes.

B. Think
I think that the richer you get, the more greedy you become. With wealth comes power, and power can make tax increases not happen. So, it might be hard to make a tax increase. Why has not anyone made a tax increase yet? Although I do think that the rich should contribute to this country more, financially. I agree with the author, Chris Jordan. If you are rich enough, you can afford the taxed put upon you by the government. The richer people are, the more taxes they can pay. And they should pay, since they’re living in this country. However, when someone cannot afford the tax, it’s a problem. I think that these problems should be fixed, and then tax-raising will go much smoother. By the way, it’s really interesting how much money the government spends on the IRS versus how much money it receives in taxes.

C. Question
Has a tax increase been formally proposed yet?

D. Extension/Connection
The top 400 richest Americans’ lowest net worth starts at a low of 950 million dollars. The biggest is 50,000 million dollars. Wow. If these people each gave at least 1% more of their income to the government, what would happen? Mountains of dollar bills would move. Bill Gates, the richest of them all, could do that alone, even.

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/54/rich-list-09_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Dillon Fischer

Dillon Fischer — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:47:12 +0000

a. What I learned from this article is that Mayor Bloomberg is willing to spend a ridiculous amount of money ($85 million) to continue being Mayor, a job that pays him less than $200,000 a year. I actually learned a lot about the top spending campaigns, and that Bloomberg has matched or surpassed the costs of many other expensive races. I also thought it was interesting that his campaign is a huge chunk of incomes for several businesses, even boosting a local pizza parlor.
b. What I know is that campaigning is becoming increasingly expensive. I think that we will see more and more campaign cost record breaking. I also know that Bloomberg is filthy rich, but I think it’s interesting that he would spend so much on a single mayoral race. It seems to me like that money could be spent in much better places. I also think it’s interesting to note that a Republican candidate is predicted to by the end of the election have spent more on his mayoral campaign than Obama did on his presidential campaign, which was a criticism vocalized by conservatives and republicans.
c. What I want to know is what Bloomberg’s motivation is for seeking public office. He is spending way more on the campaign than he will earn on the job he’s trying to get. Is it just for the power?
Extension/Connection: I did some more research on Bloomberg, and found out that he has a net work of $16 billion and is the 8th richest American. I also found out that he declines his pay as mayor, accepting remuneration of $1.00 instead. That made me even more confused. I also learned that he declined to run for president, even though he obviously had a vast amount of money to spend on a campaign. I read that he has contributed over $1 billion dollars to philanthropy, mostly health and medical institutions and anti-tobacco campaigns.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Taylor Jordan

Taylor Jordan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:43:33 +0000

A)What I Know:

Swine flu has had the media in a frenzy for the last couple of months. I remember when I first heard stories about it They were making it out to be the next apocalypse.

B) What I Think:

I don’t understand what all the uproar is about. Is there a significant difference between the common flu and swine flu? Various sources have had different numbers however most websites I have checked have said that around 20,000 people are killed by the common flu each year. One thousand is a lot of people, but it is rather insignificant compared to the common flu’s twenty thousand. Swine flu has been spreading now for a couple months and granted that it will have taken more lives by the end of the year, it still won’t be as high as the common flu. Would one not be better off getting their seasonal flu shot as opposed to the H1N1 vaccine?

C) Question:

My question, if it is not apparent through what I have said above is what is all the fuss about swine flu? I honestly want to know, it’s not as though I hold some strong opinion that it is over-blown, I just have not seen any evidence to prove otherwise.

D) Connection:

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm This is one of the websites that estimated around 20,000 deaths annually and has many other interesting stats as well.

Comment on CE Week #6: “Peace prize is biased, hollow” Oct. 13th by Ype Kingma

Ype Kingma — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:35:50 +0000

TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TOPIC ADRESSED: my knowledge on this subject extends only as far as that I know Obama got a peace prize; people did not think he deserved the peace prize and fox news has been having a hay-day with the story.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE ARTICLE: Once again I managed to find an article that impressed me, not by its astoundingly accurate information and thoughtful opinion, but by the authors close mindedness and passion about an utterly bias standing. No, I do not think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I do like Obama. I would agree with this author on his main point, that Obama did not deserve the prize, if it were not for that fact that if I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with someone as close minded as this I might have to start banging my head against a wall. All in all I found this article about as informative as watching Fox News, and if you have ever read my comments before you probably know, I find Fox News about as informative as the video of the fat guy screaming for his Chicken McNuggets in Wal-Mart.

WHAT DO I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUBJECT: Really the only thing I want to know is where I can find a list of Nobel Peace Prize winners?

CONNECTION: I was reminded of the extra credit lecture at Witworth by the former ambassador, and how he said that Obama had, thus far, adopted Bush’s previous foreign policy plans for Afghanistan.

Comment on CE Week #7: “‘Less is more’ needs revival” Oct. 20th by Elise Martin

Elise Martin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:29:19 +0000

I) I knew we were way over budget, not that I knew it was a 1.4 trillion deficit but at least had some idea.
II) The article is somewhat bias. I mean I can’t tell if this is some young political activist going crazy wishing they were in some sort of authority to settle this all out ‘or’ some older political elitist giving us a slice of their opinions from their observations. I agree that the “greatest generation lived within their means, knowing what it meant to go without all but essentials”. And that “today, we think the sky is the limit when it comes to spending and that if we can conceive it, then we are entitled to it” because the statement is so true. We all take many things for granted and want more than what we can have or take more leave less. But somewhere along the lines someone stopped all that madness and understood that they can go without, you know? Not everyone is like what the article is saying.
III) Has Obama had any other say about the government issues brought up in the article?
All in all the article caught me off guard.

Extension: Researching the state of Washingtons percentage of poverty is around two-thirds (62%). My goodness.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Brooke Batterton

Brooke Batterton — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:22:51 +0000

A. What I learned: I thought it would be good to get some information on the swine flu because it’s such a personal issue (and it was super short). I learned that over 1000 people have died from it in the U.S. I also learned that the government hopes to have about 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine out by mid-November and 150 million in December. I learned that the flu virus has to be grown in chicken eggs and that is the reason that it’s taking a long time for them to mass produce the swine flu vaccine.
B. What I think: I’m not altogether certain that the number of vaccines projected to arrive in the coming months is going to be a reality. Because the estimates were way off for the month of October. 120 million (the estimate for mid-October) and 11 million (how many have been shipped thus far) are not close numbers. I liked reading this article because it’s so close to home. We’re not often presented with issues that potentially could affect us right now. It seems strange that that kind of a topic is a political issue but healthcare and health finance is in fact included in the realm of politics. 5000 people doesn’t really seem like a lot in comparison to the number of people there are in the world but I guess that’s enough for it to be considered a global epidemic. I hope that swine doesn’t continue to be an issue in the future and that the vaccines will get it under control and prevent future deaths.
C. What I want to know: What are the bureaucratic roadblocks? At what rate is the swine flu spreading and how long is this “pandemic” projected to continue?
D. Connection: This topic hits close to home for me because my Grandma has several auto-immune diseases and so has almost no immune system. If she were to get swine flu, which is definitely a possibility, she could die. I also know a few other people that are currently in the hospital in ICU units with swine flu. I hope that the vaccines will arrive in time to curb the issue before it spirals out of control.

Comment on CE Week #7: “‘Less is more’ needs revival” Oct. 20th by Daniel Lipuzhin

Daniel Lipuzhin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:19:36 +0000

A. Learn
So, I found out that we only have a $1.4 trillion budget deficit; no big deal, right?! Wrong. Obama also wants to give out $250 dollar checks to senior citizens. Whose pockets is it coming out of? People who actually have a life, and who actually made their life, are going to pay for this. And this is being done to pass the health-care legislation.

B. Think
I believe that government has gone too far in taking care of the poor. Now, many of them depend on the government, instead of using it as a saving grace once in their lifetime. Obama has no bones, figuratively speaking, he bends both ways (no pun intended), or so it seems to me. He got elected campaigning for change (appeals to young people). Now, the only change he has made is the fact that the president of our country isn’t George Bush anymore, and seniors will have $250 more in their stash (appeals to older people). It is indeed a good political strategy: give them a little, so that they think that they’re happy, and they support you. But you can’t use public money to bribe voters; this doesn’t even guarantee victory. And if Obama fails with his health-care reform, the $250 will disappear along with the reform. However, this dirty trick works very well. I just imagined being offered $250 dollars for free. I wouldn’t think of any principles to accept that cash, although it wouldn’t make a monumental difference in my life. Selfishness will ruin this country’s economy… oops.., it already has.

C. Question
I’d like to know who came up with the golden $250 idea. Who is this genius, who uses our weaknesses against us?

D. Extension/Connection
Senior citizens are a big part of the voting population. Their turnout rates are higher than other age groups. I think that it’s sad how much effort politicians put into getting the senior vote. An executive official shouldn’t be a puppet in voters’ hands. What if they ask for lowering Via(g)ra prices?

Turnout rates by age, 2004 election:

65 and up : 79% (highest)
18 to 24: 58% (lowest)

Source:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Dillon Fischer

Dillon Fischer — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:18:13 +0000

a. What I learned from this article is that Obama deemed the swine flu dangerous enough to declare it a national emergency. While I did know that the health department was behind on vaccinations, I did not know they were behind by over 100 million doses.
b. What I know is that everyone is going crazy over the swine flu. It is a nightly feature on the news and everyone is talking about it. I’m sure Purell is throwing parties every week because of record-breaking sales. What I also know is that so far, it is less deadly than the common seasonal flu. The World Health Organization said that there have been 5,000 deaths from swine flu worldwide, yet up to 500,000 people die worldwide every year from a mild seasonal flu. I’m surprised that the government is not only making a big deal out of it but spending so much money on it, considering the panics over bird flu and SARS over the last couple years that also turned out to be over hyped.
C. What I would like to know is what it requires to make something a national emergency, or for something to qualify as an official “pandemic.”
Extension/Connection: I looked up some statistics comparing swine flu to the common seasonal flu. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the common flu kills about 20,000 in the US every year and up to 500,000 people annually worldwide. The swine flu, since it was identified in April of 2009 (7 months ago) has killed 5,000 worldwide. I’m all for being safe and preventing disease, but it seems like the $1.5 billion spent by the government on vaccinations so far could be spent on something more important… like the normal flu?

Comment on CE Week #8: “Supreme Court reviewing corporate campaigning Justices could overturn finance restrictions” by Adam Ropp

Adam Ropp — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:12:11 +0000

A. I learned that stopping corporate contributions to campaigns predated the Federal Election Campaign Act and that people are trying to change the act in the name of upholding free speech.
B. After being initially confused about the point this article was trying to get across, I have come to understand that they are trying to allow companies themselves to fund their own campaign ads. Right now only Political Action Committees can make ads as long as they are independent expenditures, meaning they cannot be directly related to any candidate’s campaign (Willie Horton ad). I personally don’t have a problem with this change because corporations and unions are still not directly contributing money to campaigns. If there was a change to the Federal Election Campaign Act that did allow direct contributions from corporations and unions, I would be against it because of the obvious reason that the candidate would be beholden to the donator. As long as they are only changing this part, there is no issue. It does make sense though that this would be a free speech issue and I am surprised it hasn’t come up earlier, considering Buckley v. Valeo addressed one free speech issue already: independent contributions to one’s own campaign. I am curious to see if independently funded advertisements will eventually outnumber candidate’s own ads.
C. What other sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act could be changed because of freedom of speech or similar issues?
D. Currently, corporations and unions have to from Political Action Committees in order to make ads. The type of ads made by PACs and, if the restrictions are overturned, corporations are called issue advocacy ads which cannot use the words “vote for”, “elect”, “support”, or “oppose”. These types of ads originate from the use of soft money. If the restriction is overturned, the McCain-Feingold act will be mostly nullified.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issue_advocacy_ads

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Devon Preedy

Devon Preedy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:08:24 +0000

What I learned: I didn’t know exactly which day Obama had called for the H1N1 disease as a state of emergency. It’s scary to think that it is even being considered that in the first place! I can’t believe the disease has gotten this out of hand either but I’m glad to hear that more vaccinations are coming in for hopefully everybody. I also learned that the vaccination is made from raw chicken eggs. That seems kind of gross but if it works then hey, why not get the darn vaccination over with. Better safe than sorry my mom always says.

What I thought: Since Swine Flu is being declared a state of emergency, it makes me wonder if any other pandemics or epidemics have been deemed that in history before. I mean what about AIDS in the 1980’s? I’m sure that was a big thing because not only of all the celebrities that have the disease but also because of how “popular” it had become in that decade. The swine flu vaccination, in my opinion, is phony. My brother, sister, and mother all went down to the arena Saturday to get their vaccinations and have all been seriously ill this past week from the vaccination. My dad has since contracted this illness from them and they are all recovering pretty well from it. I was fortunate enough to not get sick (knock on wood). Maybe that is just my family but I don’t like how this shot is supposedly “working”.

What I would like to know: How many more people are estimated to die from Swine Flu as of now?

Connection/Extension: On the voter ballot for mock election one of the questions asked if healthcare should solely focus on just Swine Flu issues and what not. The question was something along that line and I voted “Nay” because there are other important diseases that need just as much attention as Swine Flu if not more.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Social Security ‘raise’ unwarranted” Oct. 24th by Ype Kingma

Ype Kingma — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:05:51 +0000

TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TOPIC ADRESSED:I will not go so far as to say that I know a whole lot of numbers about the subject at hand in this article, but I do somewhat know what’s going on. I found that I understood what the issue is, but I have a hard time finding a position on the subject because I don’t know enough about it to completely understand both sides. All I know is that I want to still have social security for when I am ready to retire.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE ARTICLE: I found that I did not like the article very much; I feel that the author is so set in her ways that she is completely closed minded to any information or opinions that do not stay strictly in line with her own. I also think that she is wrong about the treasuries IOUs being just as good as money. When the local diner accepts IOUs for a sandwich, is when IOUs are as good as money. I thought it was ignorant of her to say that we can worry about social security’s finances in 30 years. In 30 years I will be 48 and not nearly ready to retire, by that time the system may be too far gone to be fixed, and people like me who will have been pumping tax dollars out of our paychecks into social security will never reap the benefits. Maybe she will be dead and gone by then and then she won’t have to worry about it, but I am going to worry about it until I have sufficiently reaped my rewards from the system and am ready to peace-out-rainbow-trout, if you know what I mean.

WHAT DO I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUBJECT: I want to know how much money is left in the treasuries and how anyone who agrees with this author plans to pay back that money into the social security system?

CONNECTION: The opinion set in this article reminded me of trying to debate politics with my uncle, who is very stubborn and would not concede a single point no matter how many good points were made against his position that he could not defend.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Fox News snub is Nixonian” Oct. 25th by Devon Preedy

Devon Preedy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:53:25 +0000

What I learned: I had no idea that the White House was attacking FOX network for what they’ve been saying about the White House. I did know that FOX was deemed an unreliable source a few weeks ago because of some other scandal that had occurred. I’m glad that they are taking a stand against the station though because this kind of rubbish needs to be put to an end. If they are going to proceed with their false reports then why not punish them in some way, shape, or form?

What I thought: I thought this article was interesting because it actually gave examples of what is going on between the White House and FOX. I really hope that people start watching the other news stations more often because they are more reliable. I watch NBC almost every night and their stories are seemingly always accurate and recent. They don’t seem biased in any way at all either. If people are looking for actual accuracy on certain topics then they should watch C-SPAN because that is live feed that is not tampered with. I agree with the title that this isn’t the Madisonian way it is the Nixonian way because FOX lies and cheats to the public and so did Nixon.

What I would like to know: Who is Roger Ailes? Also, who is this Mao person that is referred to in the article? I’ve never heard of them before…

Connection/Extension: In one of the paragraphs it talks about the Madisonian way. I connected this to the Madisonian Model for our constitution. Madison was called the father of the constitution and used ideas from philosophers such as Locke and Montesquieu to help shape our ideally valiant constitution. As Americans we should be valiant and prove ourselves to uphold what is right rather than what is wrong

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Brooke Batterton

Brooke Batterton — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:53:21 +0000

A. What I learned: This article was a little confusing to me, because I couldn’t settle on a specific topic that the author was trying to promote. He kind of took a while to relate the article to his title and topic. But, I think the gist of what he was getting at had to do with getting back to a specific prototype of American. What I gathered from the article was that Thomas feels like if we got back to our roots and the principles that our country was founded on it would create more informed political participants as well as more of a national unity. Basically the author was saying that doing away with public school would be the solution so that teachers could include religion in the curriculum.
B. What I think: I am in agreement with some of the points Thomas makes. I also liked the reference to the song at the beginning. I hear that song on the radio often and it makes me laugh, but there is a lot of truth to it. I think that students who know the meanings of documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Constitution will be more informed citizens, and more apt to care about political issues. I do think that Obama is losing points with many Americans because they’re not seeing or experiencing first hand, the results of his work. Personally I think being the President is the hardest job and he became the leader of a country that was already headed downhill, and Obama is doing the best he can to get the economy back on its feet. I don’t agree with Thomas’ opinion that private school is the only way to give kids a good chance. I have been in both situations and feel that I am becoming an informed voter while still maintaining knowledge of the important principles our nation was founded on. But I also don’t think that every public school in America functions the way Mount Spokane does. And, I think often a private school would provide a better learning environment for kids that are struggling, but I definitely don’t think it’s the only way to produce informed, patriotic young Americans. I don’t really see a whole lot of connection to making the Republicans feel better about themselves or how it is an attack on liberalism though.
C. What I want to know: Is Thomas thinking that everyone should pay for private schooling? Or that public school should operate more like private school but still be government funded? And does this just apply to minority kids?
D. Connection: I think this applies to a lot of the discussions that we have been having in class lately about how we want informed voters. In the article the underlying meaning is that a return to these founding principles will create a more unified nation and a more informed one. We want more people to vote but we really only want people who know what they voting for and who care about the issues at hand. Policy voting came to mind when I read this article, because that can only occur when the voters are informed about the issues and the candidates, find a candidate who holds the same opinion and cast a vote for that candidate.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Elise Martin

Elise Martin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:45:27 +0000

I) I already knew about the declination of Obama poll numbers, and I had a little knowledge of the idea of making strategic goals for schools curriculum but, I didn’t know they went together.
II) The overall article wasn’t that interesting to me, though the thought of having that connection within schools is something to think about. That idea of each school having the same curricular structure of “liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, natural rights, religious freedom, rule of law, constitutionalism” is unifying, rather than diverse. But the diversity of schools curriculum now-a-days is what creates America’s image of freedom.
III) My questions about the idea of making similar a curricular structure is how would that come about, how would we get consent from each state, each school, each teacher? Also, would this be something to amend into the constitution?
And still I’d like to know how the Presidents poll numbers have anything to do with what students are being taught in our schools.

Connection: Sen. Lamar Alexander, was previously the U.S. Secretary of Education from 1991 – 1993. So it’s not surprising that he would introduce a bill to require a greater emphasis on American History and civics in public school classrooms.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Krystal Roach

Krystal Roach — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:41:43 +0000

A. What you learned?
How intense money can make elections, that’s what I learned. First of all this is a race for Mayor, which leads to the fact that theses guys are spending more in this race then in some presidential races. Bloomberg is winning because he has over a million dollars to spend, people do however critique him and say it would lead him to victory. They may right because recently polls have changed and Tompson is now estimated to 3 million dollars by the election.
B. What you think?
This story is ridiculous; I don’t even want to imagine spending that much money on being elected and these guys treat it like nothing. The economy is having problems, couldn’t the politicians keep their money and actually use it for a good cause like for example helping the nation get out of a financial recession. I think the government needs to cut back how much money is spent on elections because I really don’t think its doing anyone any good.
C. What you would like to know?
I want to know how much money the elections are costing in Washington, and also how it compares to other states?
D. Connection or Extension?
So during class when we were learning about how much nominations and elections cost, Mr. Kautzman gave us the example about how the cost the nation spends on Halloween celebrations is almost twice as much as Presidential elections and how if were going to critique politicians spending so much we have to compare it to that statistic. I think the nation as a whole as a money problem and maybe if the politicians began to slowly spend less it would spread to the rest of the nation eventually. There is nothing you can do at present to help this money problem but maybe with time if the government starts thinking towards the future they could solve something.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Jaclyn Brim

Jaclyn Brim — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:25:22 +0000

A. Swine Flu, N1H1 has killed 1,000 people in the United States and 5,000 worldwide. Obama has declared the outbreak a national emergency. He aims to make it easier for treatment to be provided immediately. Vaccine production has been significantly under the estimated 120 million doses that were to be ready in October. Only 11 million have been shipped out. The government now estimates that 150 million doses will be ready in December. Apparently the virus grows in chicken eggs and isn’t thriving like predicted.
B. I think that it’s relatively interesting that swine flu has become a problem just because of the similarities between pigs and humans. Our skins have similar qualities as do our digestive tracks and thoracic organs (I learned this on Mythbusters). I also have no idea if this is in anyway relevant.
Whenever anyone coughs or has a fever everyone screams “Ahh swine flu”. I used to think it was annoying, and not funny but it’s really not that farfetched. We are suffering through this epidemic so we might as well take advantage of all jokes we can.
C. Information on Swine flu

What makes the swine flu an epidemic and not a pandemic?
Pandemic- far higher number of people infected, larger region
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-epidemic-and-a-pandemic.htm

Surprisingly the world wide the death toll for the normal flu is 250,000-500,000 compared to the swine flu’s meager 5,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/index.html

The vaccine will take four to six months total to become available. The virus is grown in fertilized chicken eggs. It is injected into the embryo where it multiplies. The egg is opened and the virus is harvested, purified, inactivated, and used to make a vaccine.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/flu_vaccines_eggfree_future.html

I have also heard about a cheerleader who received a seasonal flu shot. It triggered a one in a million neurological disorder. She can walk backward and run but once she walks forward her muscles begin to twitch. Doctors say that this story shouldn’t dissuade people from getting the vaccine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScGC7nFDxM

Comment on CE Week #8: “Social Security ‘raise’ unwarranted” Oct. 24th by Derrick Cunningham

Derrick Cunningham — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:19:45 +0000

What I know: Social Security is a very expensive program that a lot of conservatives do not agree with. It is intended to be self-funded in that taxes are taken from the working’s pay and then given to the elderly; however, the “baby boomers” have come in and caused a lot of strain on the system.
What I think: Social Security, just like welfare, needs a complete overhaul. It is expensive and doesn’t necessarily do its job. Also, I don’t think that the elderly should be getting this little bonus – at least not right now. Sure, free money is great and I’m sure the elderly love it, BUT is this really wise in such a fiscal crisis? There hasn’t been inflation and yet they get money due to expectations and tradition. It is rather irrational. Regardless, I don’t think Social Security will exist in its present form by the time I reach that age.
Question: What is the current average amount for a social security check?
Connection: I doubt there are really any Congressmen who vow to not honor social security money because the elderly make up the greatest chunk of the voting bloc. It is simple, politicians want to be liked and they need to get the elderly vote. It’s a shame that the youth don’t step up to the plate even though they outnumber the elderly.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Adam Ropp

Adam Ropp — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:15:08 +0000

A. I knew that Michael Bloomberg is the mayor of New York. However, I did not realize that that he is a Wall Street made billionaire. I also didn’t realize that incumbent mayors are allowed to tamper with existing term limits.
B. Good job on spending so much money on the race for reelection as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg, but isn’t it a little unnecessary? But I guess that is just one way of looking at it. $85 billion is a staggering amount of money to us common folk, but if you’re worth $16 billion, $85 million is pocket change. But why he would spend that much money on getting reelected as mayor is beyond me. I could see this kind of spending being rationalized if he was running for the Senate or for the Presidency, just not for mayor. Also, I don’t understand why people are complaining that this kind of personal spending is wrong. Yes, trying to rewrite term laws is wrong, but there is no law against dumping tons of your own money into your own campaign. Plus, New York City is benefiting from this whole thing. As was stated in the article, Bloomberg is a one-man economic stimulus program for New York. If he is indeed practicing dirty politics, at least he is doing some good while he’s at it.
C. How much has Bloomberg gotten in contributions so far?
D. Bloomberg is allowed to spend this amount of money on his campaign for one reason: the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court case. The ruling of the case created an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act that allowed unlimited personal contributions to one’s own campaign.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Krystal Roach

Krystal Roach — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:14:35 +0000

A. What you learned?
This article talks about how we need to have better education in order to have a better nation and control in the government. He mentioned Obama leaning towards socialism, which I personally found odd. He also talked about how if we continue to change laws we are going to be going against the constitution. The main thing I learned about was when he was talking about groups of people using exodus of public schools as a strategic goal to improve education. They have the idea that closing public schools and having kids in private education will improve knowledge about government and politics.
B. What you think?
I found this specific article confusing, it went back and forth skipping topics so much that I had to read it by section to understand his point. I stopped and wanting to read it because of the quote that it began with but now I’m not even sure how it fits in with what he is saying. He talked about changing public schooling so that it wasn’t an option… I believe this would be horrible because it would limit more people in the world. His main point was that people, especially parents, have to do something today about the way the nation is going or it will be too late and they will regret it. I would support that theory because we have already seen the effect people before us have had, look at all the theories of “Global Changing”, all they really know is that it was caused before us and now we will have to deal with it. What this article says is that we will have to deal with what we decide later on so don’t make it regrettable.
C. What you would like to know?
Why can’t the government make a law that requires schools to teach the basics that generations before us were taught about the constitution and everything else? Are we really that lazy of a generation not to be able to work to know how we got to where we are?
D. Connection or Extension?
We have talked in class about how much political knowledge has dropped throughout the years. Come on now, everyone in the class now knows that participation has dropped to 51% at most. There’s a reason we have an Electoral College system, it’s so only a group of people need extreme political knowledge. Yes I think having more political knowledge as a nation would be great but I don’t think it’s going to happen soon.

Comment on CE Week #7: “U.S. eases stance on medical marijuana” Oct. 20th by Adam Ropp

Adam Ropp — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:10:22 +0000

Alysa Draper-Dehart

Ventilation is the difference. The monkeys were getting no oxygen whatsoever. If the room is ventilated, tainted air is constantly being removed while fresh air is moved into the room. If the room was completely airtight, you would die from asphyxiation eventually anyway because of decreased amounts of oxygen and increased amounts of carbon dioxide. Smoke wouldn’t have to ever be present.

Comment on CE Week #8: NATO Ministers Endorse Wider Afghan Effort” Oct. 24th by Sammi Pace

Sammi Pace — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:10:14 +0000

A. In this article, I learned that General McChrystal is the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, and the issues discussed were concerning the lost momentum of the American-led campaign against the Taliban insurgency. I learned that the NATO discussion didn’t lead to any kind of decision regarding whether or not to send more troops into the field. I learned that the counterinsurgency plan General McChrystal discussed called for accelerating Afghan Army and police training and protecting population centers, which would lead to a maximum of 85,000 more troops deployed.
B. A wider effort in Afghanistan is, indeed, needed. As said in the article, it will require more people and more money, the protection of civilians and a renewed trust in government. The allies among NATO, as much if not more than they have in the past, will have to step up and allow the U.S. to take a small step back from being a singular significant force in this war effort. Obama has been sure to give his thanks for the help he has received from NATO (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/200944135024116268.html). However, my issue is with the soldiers. Being one of the many Americans with family members enlisted in the services, specifically, the Marines and the Navy, I have the sentimental feelings that call for the safety of loved ones. If there was to be an increase in soldier deployment, I would hope they wouldn’t be sent in just to replace the ones that have been lost.
C. Where would additional soldiers be specifically placed? What exactly do the White House and the NATO allies have to decide on before this wider effort can be put into effect?

NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Derrick Cunningham

Derrick Cunningham — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:09:49 +0000

What I knew: I know that in schools there is a lot of controversy about how things are addressed in the classroom (saying “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance, for example). This has led to a lower role of our “unifying bonds” – or the commonality we once had in things such as religion – since Americans are not instilled the same set of values, rather they promote diversity.
What I think: I think we should definitely learn about how our government functions. We need order – that is where teaching the constitution comes in. However, I don’t think that any set of values should be indoctrinated into any child’s mind. Education should ultimately create thinkers – those who solve problems, not those who can simply explain our government and its functions. Education should be a holistic experience; it is one of the things I am looking forward to in college actually. By amalgamating different schools of thought, progress can be made. If we look back our values have changed since our founding fathers and this is no different. It is not always for the worse.
What I want to know: Aside from civics, what other concerns do conservatives have with teaching “diversity”?
Connection: Since a citizen ought to know his or her constitutional rights, he or she must obviously be familiar with the Bills of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the constitution. They include things such as the right to bear arms to keep a militia and free speech. Every student ought to learn this.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Drew Williams

Drew Williams — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:46:11 +0000

CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th
Learned: Before I read this article, I had no clue who Michael R. Bloomberg was. What I learned about him is that he is very rich and believes in throwing away his money to help himself. I learned that he ahs around 16 billion dollars to his name. He has spent a total around 85 million dollars on his campaign. He will spend around 140 million before the election on November 3rd. He will end up spending in total around 250 million dollars. That is how much Warner Bros spent on Harry Potter. Bloomberg is going to pass John S. Corzine’s record of spending, which was 130 million dollars on two races. The man who is his Democratic rival (William C. Thompson) has spent only 6 million dollars.

Think: I believe that Bloomberg is crazy. Why would he spend so much money on his campaign, when his rival has only spent 6 million? That is crazy. Even though he has a lot of money to just throw around, he shouldn’t have to spend 100s of millions of dollars on a campaign. What if he doesn’t win the election? Then he will look like he spent all that money for nothing. I just do not get why anyone would have to spend so much on a campaign. When he is all done, I believe he will have spent a lot more than the 250 million they are predicting.

Questions: Where did he get all this money?
Why does he feel it necessary to spend this much money?

Extension: He was listed as the eighth-richest American, with a net worth of US $16 billion, in the Forbes 400 on September 17, 2008, making him the richest resident of New York City, ahead of David H. Koch. He is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., a financial software services company. Bloomberg thinks that if he spends more, he will get elected easier. He wants to attack Thompson for not having as much as he does, because he thinks the public actually cares about that. He believes that money is the whole campaign according to an NBC article. Also, one article believes that he wants to bat the record for most money spent on a campaign.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Fox News snub is Nixonian” Oct. 25th by Jaclyn Brim

Jaclyn Brim — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:34:23 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Sammi Pace

Sammi Pace — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:31:26 +0000

A. In this article, I learned that more than 5,000 people have died from the H1N1 virus worldwide. Obama has taken immediate action and has declared the virus a national emergency. I learned that 11 million shots have been flown out to treatment centers, and 150 million flu shots are estimated to be available by December. The virus has to be grown in chicken eggs, and the yield isn’t as much as was hoped for.
B. This entire situation has been blown out of proportion. My family and I have often discussed that the usual bout of influenza has had more of a deadly influence than the swine flu has had. If the virus is spreading, and there are no vaccines available, it’s going to spread where it may, most severely affecting pregnant women (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/28/swine.flu.pregnant/index.html). While the sanitary methods that are being put in place among schools and in public, even around the common household, are timely, I feel that this entire issue has been blown way too far out of proportion.
C. At what point can the President declare a national emergency? How many other pandemics have been declared as national emergencies? How can it be estimated that only 46 states are widely infected, if not the whole country?

NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Jeremy Wales

Jeremy Wales — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:24:41 +0000

A. What you learned?
I certainly learned that Bloomberg is a very, very wealthy individual of corse. I never knew that he had association with the Wall Street Journal or anything like that either. That certainly explains how he has an enormous amount of cash to do everything that he did.

B. What do you think?
I think it is really unfair that Bloomberg got his position served out to him on a golden platter just by how much money he threw into the mix. Then again, it is his own personal money that he used to promote himself with (soft money). So technically, it is not unfair of him. However, it does go against the principle that in order to get somewhere, you have to have money, but that does not mean you will automatically win. In this case, it automatically made let him win his position. I guess there can be exceptions to that principle. I honestly think that the United states was built off of truly hardworking individuals (not saying that Bloomberg was not a hard working man) starting with only the shirt on their backs and a full mind full of ideas and ingenuity. I guess there is nothing wrong with how things went down in this situation, but it surely did give Bloomberg a total advantage over anyone else running for that position.

C. What would you like to know?
I would like to know what a “watchdog group” is. I would also like to know what the “Doctrine of Sufficiency” is. (I do not know if we went over it in class yet or not.)

Extension: “In the debate on Tuesday night, the Bloomberg campaign found its moment when Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. was asked to grade the mayor’s performance in office. “I think I’ll be kind and give the mayor a D-minus,” Mr. Thompson said.” It seems to me that someone (including a good majority of other people) are dissatisfied with the Bloomberg group. After this remark was said about Bloomberg, the whole Bloomberg group sprung into action and made a video called “Really?” in response to this. Link to information and video=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29ad.html

Comment on CE Week #8: “Social Security ‘raise’ unwarranted” Oct. 24th by Russ Zeeryp

Russ Zeeryp — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:05:53 +0000

What did I learn?
President Barack Obama is pushing Congress to send every senior a $250 check to compensate
“Sending an extra check to Social Security beneficiaries is also about pandering to older voters.” If that’s what our President is doing I can say, with ease, he’s a coward who’s only thinking of himself. However, I don’t think he’s doing that, but we’ll see.
“According to the Social Security trustees’ latest report, payroll taxes will cover all of the retirees’ promised benefits until 2016. After that, the trust fund can make up for any shortfall until 2039. That is 30 years from now. We can worry about Social Security’s finances in 20 years.” So basically… this isn’t going to keep working, and lets just be done with it Obama.
What do I want to know?
I want to know what Obama score on his SAT, his IQ, and why he really cares about Health Care and all the Senior Citizens.
Is he just waiting for a re-election?

NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Russ Zeeryp

Russ Zeeryp — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:50:02 +0000

What I know?
I knew N1H1 was a big deal. I know it can jump from organism to organism with ease. I know kids in our school have caught it. I heard that the Swine Flu was a more aggressive form of the Flu, and that if can go from person to person as fast as a cough.

What did I learn?
I didn’t know N1H1 has killed over 1,000 people in the U.S. alone. I had no idea the chicken eggs were one of the greater causes of N1H1. I learned that the President is doing more for the sick than any other has done before him. To make this such a big deal, which it is, means that it’s worth knowing about, and we don’t know enough. If the President has to get involved something else might be happening too.

What do I want to know?
What is the likelihood of dying from it now that we have a cure for it? Is the Swine Flu (N1H1) worth all the effort being put into it, or is this new found effort a cover-up? Covering something bigger to come, or turning the political views of the people to an old subject?

NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Kyle Hicks

Kyle Hicks — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:47:38 +0000

A. What did you learn about this topic?
Wait, there have only been 5,000 recorded deaths worldwide? That is barely even a blip on the global level. I realize that this statistic is an underestimate, but how much can we really be underestimating? I should probably stop before I make myself sound any more like Stalin.

B. What is your opinion on this particular topic or issue?
I am not particularly worried about the swine flu. Then, again, I’m young and healthy and not at as much of a risk as others. Still, Keiji Fukuda, former head of the influenza branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently of the World Health Organization, has said that H1N1 is not an epidemic because of its deadliness, but rather because of “how fast it is spreading”. H1N1 is not a particularly harmful virus, but it spreads like wildfire. If someone has a pre-existing medical condition, that is when swine flu can become deadly. But for normally healthy people, it is only that: a flu.

C. What more do you want to know about the topic?
What are the “federal rules” and “bureaucratic roadblocks” the author mentions that would slow down the process of getting vaccinations to people?

D. Connection:
Last year, I read the book Flu by Gina Kolata which goes into the history of the 1918 flu epidemic. One section of the book, though, was devoted to discussing the swine flu “outbreak” in 1976. I couldn’t help but notice similarities in how our government handled this in 1976 and how they are handling it now. In both instances, the government wanted to launch a nation wide vaccination campaign. In both instances, the vaccine took longer to make than was expected, and the government had to rush the vaccines out. In 1976, the whole ordeal ended in disaster with the federal government losing what would equal millions – maybe billions – of dollars. I wonder how the vaccines will work out.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Kelli Davin

Kelli Davin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:45:55 +0000

A. What I already knew was that the swine flu was bad, and a lot of people were getting it. All of the classrooms have hand sanitizer and adults constantly remind everyone to use it. Yes, it causes people to die, but so does the regular flu. I have heard that the swine flu actually goes away faster than the normal flu. This is a new virus and no one knows for sure how to cure or react to it. There is a vaccine, but who knows if it will actually work.

B. What I think of this article is it has some good points, such as over 1,000 kids have died from swine since the pandemic started, but its not looking at the big picture. How many children die in the same amount of time from the regular flu? It is widely spreading, but so has the regular flu. I don’t think everyone should race to the hospital to get a vaccine because it is so new. Just like the normal flu, a person will probably be fine and get over it soon if they keep their bodies hydrated and well rested.

C. As I stated earlier, how many people die from the regular flu in the same amount of time that 1,000 people died from the swine flu?

Relations~
The bird flu. The whole world was worried about it. In china everyone wore masks and thought everyone that would come in contact with the bird flu would die. Now the world knows it is like every other flu, and should treat it with a lot of rest and hydrate the body.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Supreme Court reviewing corporate campaigning Justices could overturn finance restrictions” by Bree Ferris

Bree Ferris — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:43:44 +0000

A. The Supreme Court is debating wether or not to remove the ban on corporations ability to spend money on political campaigns. Four justices have already vouched in favor of the removal. A group called Citizens United made a video denouncing Sen. Hillary Clinton but it was prevented from being released on the condition that it had recieved funding from corporations. This brought up the question can non-profit organizations use corporate money to sponsor political videos. Instead of saying yes or no the Supreme Court is now considering removing the ban on corportations.
B. Despite corporations being run by individuals who are protected under the first amendment the corporation is made of many individuals with differing political views. For executives to spend the money earned by the employees and intended for the company elsewhere is not fair, especially if those employees disagree with how the money would be spent. More importantly, politicians would start campaigning to the corporations for money instead of the electorate as they should be. This would disrupt the current system and create an imbalance between the power of the corporations and the people. I think that the ban was and still is a good idea that shouldn’t be removed.
C. Does the constitution really protect corporations? Corporations aren’t individuals it’s a group of organized individuals that work together to accomplish something. Without the ban executives could spend the money on which ever candidate they chose while the little people of the corporation have no say in how the money they helped earn is spent. Individuals in the corporation still have the right to supply money to which ever politician they choose, even though s/he doesn’t have has much as the company’s treasury.
Extension: Political consultant David Bossie said “to accept Senators McCain and Feingold’s remarks on the Senate floor yesterday at face value would require an objective listener to turn a blind eye to the facts at hand. Senator Feingold took an alarmist tone, warning that elections would somehow turn into corporate sponsored events like a NASCAR race. But that statement belies a willful ignorance of elections, such as the one about to take place in Virginia, in which corporate spending is legal and no allegations of any impropriety have been made.” He does have a good point, if we look to states in which corporations are allowed to freely spend money we can see that it hasn’t turned into a corporate sponsored event. Corporations would give candidates money to campaign but the candidates are campaigning to the people. Since the general public are the ones who decide their future it would be ignorant for them to ignore the general public. But the results in Virginia may not be comprable to the presidential election seeing as it takes a more significant amount of money to run for president and the presidential seat is more important than a state state.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Bailry Tansy

Bailry Tansy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:42:44 +0000

This piece reminds me of when we went over in class about the way money doesn’t buy an election but one can not be won with out it. I do think it is outrageously ignorant to spend so much on an election you keep losing. I me either he is really self conscious or hr has convinced him self that he is the best choice for major and if that is the case I say he is a Nut Case or basket case take your pick. On the note of spending soooo much money I cant belive that 250 mill dollars on the latest harry potter movie.

I am soooooooooo sorry that this is in soooooooo late so ya got done what I could. No excuses will do.

NO CREDIT: ORGANIZATION/FORMAT OFF; MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION; WORD COUNT

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Kylei Tompkins

Kylei Tompkins — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:36:28 +0000

A.Older people remember learning about liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, natural rights, religious freedom, rule of law, and constitutionalism. Even I remember learning about those things. Public school will no longer emphasize on those thing, but rather on diversity. Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, wanted public school classrooms to have greater emphasis on history and civics, so he introduced a bill six years ago.

B.I think it’s sad that they are taking the history out of the curriculum. We live in this country, so we should know about it and how it was started. The world is changing in so many ways, some are good but I think it’s mostly bad at what this world is coming to. For example, at school, some kids just try to get by with the bare minimum and what used to be homework time is now being replaced with television and videogames. Honestly I don’t see how those things help you. How is staring at a television for hours or getting points for killing people going to help someone? It’s not. I’m not saying that this is bad every once in a while, but get your priorities straight. I am actually glad that I get to go to school and get an education and actually make something of myself instead of working at some fast-food restaurant the rest of my life.

C.I would like to know why they are taking these things out of the teaching curriculum.

D.In the last unit I remember learning about liberty, private property, consent of the governed, equality, and natural rights. I actually didn’t really learn about that before this class, well teachers talked about it a little, but not so in depth.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Social Security ‘raise’ unwarranted” Oct. 24th by Kelli Davin

Kelli Davin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:24:40 +0000

A. What I already knew was social security was just a thing we paid for now out of our pay checks and it went to the elders. Every adult pretty much said my generation would never see social security in our life times. I can see how that could be true because of our national debt. Relating to having a massive debt, it is a possibility that we will see our social security and the national debt will just be a bigger, fancier, more expensive number.

B. What I think about this article is it has a great amount of trust in the government. Not that it is a bad thing, but I have to question how much trust in it is good for a person until it is naive. Like I said, if my generation does have our social security by the time we are in our upper sixties and seventies, it will probably be like it is now with the national debt, but with much bigger numbers.

C. What I would like to know is how much money do people get for their social security that they have worked for their whole lives? Is it a decent amount?

Relations~
The banks make IOU pieces of paper also. They use peoples money in the bank for the building, inside and out, and other various reasons, but the bank still has to give people their money when they want it.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Kyle Hicks

Kyle Hicks — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:18:59 +0000

A. What did you learn about this topic?
Honestly, I had heard of Mayor Bloomberg before, but I had not heard of anything else mentioned in the article before.

B. What is your opinion about this particular topic or issue?
I am torn on this issue. Part of me believes that it is – as the anonymous Thompson campaign spokeswoman put it – obscene that a candidate is allowed to spend that much money on – well, anything really. Bloomberg has made an already one-sided race a near race. However, is it really so wrong that Bloomberg spend his money on what I’m sure he thinks is a worthy purpose? It is his money to do with whatever he wants. Plus, he has pumped “nearly $1 million a day into the city’s economy.” What?! Bloomberg has single-handedly saved Goodfellas Brick Oven Pizza!

C. What more do you want to know about the topic?
Are all campaign finance laws national, are they all state run, or is it a good mix of both?

D. Extension:
I had not heard of the Doctrine of Sufficiency that Kautzman mentioned (unless we studied it for the class, in which case I’m just pulling your leg, Kautzman). As such, I decided to look it up….and couldn’t find it. I did, however, pick up some information about it. What I gathered: Harry Frankfurt wrote it. He encourages an egalitarian society, which would mean everyone is equal. Obviously, this would run in stark contrast to what Bloomberg is doing simply by having so much money.

DIFFERENT “DOCTRINE OF SUFFICIENCY” – KAUTZMAN

Comment on CE Week #8: “Reclaim education first” Oct. 27th by Sadie Peterson

Sadie Peterson — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:14:29 +0000

A. I had no idea that President Obama’s support had dropped so significantly. I knew it had dropped since he began his presidency with such a high approval rating and because he came into office during a huge economic crisis, but this increased disapproval makes me realize just how impatient Americans are. A person is less likely to succeed with decreasing support, so disapproving of Obama’s actions will get us nowhere. He will most likely be in office for at least four years, so the least we can do as citizens is give him our support.
B. The author of this article makes a good point in saying that if today’s generation of young people are not informed about the country’s history and the Constitution, then our country is going to be in trouble when that generation is in control. The trend seems to be that students as a whole have become less educated about politics as time has gone on, so hypothetically, the nation is eventually going to end up completely politically ignorant.
C. If the country recognizes that young people are becoming less and less knowledgeable about politics, why isn’t anything be done to fix that? Shouldn’t there be some sort of new requirements put in place for students to insure that our future governors and senators are well informed and will make the best decisions for the country? Also, what’s a Gallup?
Extension: I looked up Gallup and learned that it is a political poll. I guess that was kind of obvious.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Fox News snub is Nixonian” Oct. 25th by Jaclyn Brim

Jaclyn Brim — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:02:08 +0000

A. Media is heavily liberal. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, and MSNBC as well as Hollywood and most elite newspapers have a liberal undercurrent. Fox is the major conservative network and it’s doing well. Its number of viewers totals MSNBC’s and CNN’s combined. The media realizes how important the Madisonian norm that “requires the contest between factions or interests” is. This is why when Ken Feinberg was made available for interviews and everyone but Fox was invited the other networks declined.

B. In Colbert’s book, I am America (and so can you), Colbert claims “reality has a liberal bias”. Well, basically everything has a bias. Any media will have a bias. Dunn claims Fox is “opinion journalism masquerading as news”. Yes, Fox news does have a conservative bias and I think that it well known. Fox covered her graduation speech and she didn’t like it. I think Dunn is just lashing out. I also think that although the Treasury Department responded with a bad move, giving all other networks besides Fox an interview, the networks took it in stride and proved just how admirable they are. It’s odd that it was the competing networks who upheld Madisonian norms and it was the government who did something low and Nixonian.

C. I watched the Fox segment that covered Dunn. In her graduation speech Dunn said Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa were two of her favorite political philosophers. She quoted Mao saying “you fight your war and I’ll fight mine” stressing her point of “finding your own path”. She later said it was an ironic joke that fell flat. From that clip I also learned Mao is responsible for seventy million deaths, more deaths than any other twentieth century leader. Glenn Beck also mentioned gulags. Gulags or GULAG was the government agency that administered the labor camps of the Soviet Union. The word gulag is infamous for its association with remote places where prisoners were kept and sometimes disappeared. Mao has millions of his people imprisoned in these gulags.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Sadie Peterson

Sadie Peterson — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:58:29 +0000

A. I did not know that the swine flu virus was grown in chicken eggs. That seems really strange to me, but then again I don’t know much about medical science.
B. The reaction that has been occurring as a result of the swine flu seems like an overreaction to me. There have been 5,000 reported worldwide deaths from swine flu so far and though that is 5,000 lives that have been lost, I don’t see how that number differs from the amount of people who are killed by the regular flu every year. I don’t think it’s time to panic yet and fact that President Obama has declared the swine flu a national emergency is just going to bring more panic among people.
C. My question is what qualifies a situation as a national emergency? Can the president declare anything an emergency or does it have to meet certain standards? Also, what is the purpose of declaring this? Are there actions that can be taken after a national emergency is announced?
Extension: After re-reading the article, I found that one of my questions was answered in the article. Declaring the swine flu a national emergency allowed the Health Services to “bypass federal rules” and make it easier to get this taken care of.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by Valerie Nauditt

Valerie Nauditt — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:56:43 +0000

I learned that Michael Bloomberg whose name only sounds semi-familiar, has spent a total of 140 million dollars to become mayor. This is crazy to me because I could be wrong and he could have a deal under the table to get paid or something but he is losing a terrific amount of money.
My guess is Bloomberg likes to see his face on t.v every night or something. Why else would you have to promote yourself that much? All that money that goes to his campaign could be used elsewhere. He could probably win reelection with a fraction of that money and give the rest to Africa or something. I do not see the point in why politicians pay so much to win an election. Yes, media costs a lot, but to put that much of his own money is ridiculous. It is one thing to have your supporters pitch in, which they probably did, but to pay that significant amount of money on a campaign is wrong in my eyes.
I would like to know, why he felt so inclined to pay that much money. Also how successful his fund raising really was.
My connection is that we have been talking about campaign finances. It reminds me of McCain-Fairgold that does not limit what an individual can spend on their own campaign. Also, this reminds me of how far campaign finances have come. It has over gone multiple tweaks to its rules. Yet today there are still many loops holes to the system.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Bloomberg Sets Record for His Own Spending on Elections” Oct. 24th by megan sikes

megan sikes — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:48:01 +0000

A: What I Learned
Holy cow!!! Who has that much money to just spend willy-nilly?! And this might just be because of my own ignorance, but I’ve never even heard of this guy. I had no idea that people would be willing to spend that much on a political campaign…when it’s not even for president! But I guess when you have 16 billion dollars, what’s a couple hundred million? Uuh, a lot!
B: What I Think
Personally, I think this is ridiculous. Bloomberg is essentially keeping anyone running for mayor from even coming close to challenging him because he is willing to shell out his own fortune to stay in office. Why would someone spend 14 times the amount of their opponents?? What’s the point? Also, I think it’s crazy to have more than 100 employees when you’re a shoe in for the next election. To me, it sounds like he’s giving raises, paying for advertising, and spending $322,521 on food, $293,953 on transportation, $176,066 on furniture and $39,858 on parking (by the way..who spends/ how do you spend almost 40 thousand dollars on parking?!) just because he can. Besides the fact of his unnecessary spending to campaign for office, I guess it is good for New York’s economy. To get $8,892 when you are hurting for money is a god send.
C: What I Want to Know
Ok first of all, how did Bloomberg get so rich? Why is he spending so much money compared to other people running for office? I’d say twice or 3 times as much is understandable, but still over kill. Let alone 14 times! He should run for President if he has that much money.
Connection:
I found out why he’s so rich: Bloomberg is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., a financial software services company.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by TJ McGriff

TJ McGriff — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:41:27 +0000

A. Honestly I found this article with very little in it. I learned a little but most was what I already knew. I learned that it is now a national emergency and that is mostly just a formality. I also learned that there have been over a 1000 deaths in the US.
B. I think that the swine flu is a little bit of a joke. It is the flu, just a different strange strain of it. Yes it has the potential to kill but only for those that have damaged or weak immune systems. If you have a bacterial infection at the time or if you have something that depresses your system. I know this from personal experience because my family went through a case of it. If you are healthy then you get sick and get over it. Pretty simple. It is just going through everybody. Yes some people have died but that happens with the normal flu too. When our family got it we called the hospital and they asked us if we had any conditions that suppress our health and if we didn’t then we should just isolate ourselves and if something got worse then we should go in. People are just clogging up the system because they are freaking out because of misinformation.
C. I would like to know more about the swine flu in general. Also I would like to know why he had to declare it a national emergency. Just would like to know more whys in general.

NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION

Comment on CE Week #8: “Social Security ‘raise’ unwarranted” Oct. 24th by TJ McGriff

TJ McGriff — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:17:15 +0000

A. I learned a little about the situation about social security. I have actually found this pretty interesting in the past. This taught me a little bit about it and the problems that we face in the future with this system. One of the main things that I learned was that it is now predicted to last for 20 more years at least but in 30 years it will collapse. This isn’t good. The most amusing part was that the plan is to do nothing right now and leave it alone until it is a bigger problem.
B. I think that Social Security should be better done and things should change for this program to work. Things should be done now so that it doesn’t screw with things later. Who knows what is going to happen in 20 years and what we will be involved in. Right now we have some time that we can attack this problem. I don’t believe that social security is a good thing but some do and that I can respect. However I don’t want to pay taxes into a failing system. Things are bad but they can be worse. I think that the problem should be faced now by a small bipartisan committee to resolve the issue.
C. I would like to know what the government’s official standpoint on the issue is. Also my connection is that we voted for this in the mock election. I find that interesting and I would also like to know what people think on this subject on the national level and in our school.

NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by Valerie Nauditt

Valerie Nauditt — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:13:15 +0000

I learned about Obama’s declaration that swine flu is now a national emergency. I also learned that 5,000 people worldwide have died of the H1N1 virus; therefore it becomes a worldwide pandemic. It’s interesting to me to see the numbers of people that died from the swine flu because honestly I thought the numbers were higher.
I don’t know how I feel about the swine flu outbreak being declared a national emergency. I’m torn because I feel that for the majority of people that the swine flu infects it does not lead to death. Many people have had swine flu and survived. In fact some people that have just say it is like the regular flu and if I got it I would not know the difference. I understand the importance of getting out the vaccines to those who are extremely young or in poor health, but I do not see the necessity in the average person. I am not one who supports vaccines or immunizations usually just because I think sometimes they do more harm than good. I don’t always feel you need an extra boost for your body to heal itself.
I would like to know how many people are still infected and if the swine flu outbreak has already peaked? Is what Obama’s doing stopping the outbreak or cleaning up the pieces?
My connection to this piece would be all the news reports, school incidents, and school posters that deal with how not to get swine flu. I think by now we all know the importance of hand sanitizer and hand soap.

Comment on CE Week #8: NATO Ministers Endorse Wider Afghan Effort” Oct. 24th by JJ Scott

JJ Scott — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:06:56 +0000

A. I learned that NATO defense ministers are agreeing with General McChrystal in the need for more troops in Afghanistan.
B. I do not believe that we should be ultimately trying to make this war bigger than it already is. I know that recently many bombings have taken place to warn the people of Afghanistan not to vote in the up coming election. I also know that a strong military presence can help in this kind of situation, but there are better ways. President Teddy Roosevelt’s motto was to talk softly and carry a big stick, or something of that nature, but wouldn’t it send a better message if we talked loudly and carried olive branches. We can’t expect to stop the violence and corruptness in the Middle East by fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They become more urged to be violent the more we attack them. Their motto is “kill the infidels” and if we want to fight them, they sure as hell are ready to fight us. I know I sound like the hippy saying, “war’s not the way, man; you have to love everything, man,” but seriously, we have been fighting this war for 8 years. It’s turning into a modern day Vietnam, and we have to rethink our tactics. More troops might help now, but will it help in the long run?
C. Since President Obama is the head of the military, does he hold all the power in decisions of more troops, or does he have to consult others first? I know that to declare war, the President has to ask Congress, but I’m not sure if he has to ask Congress for more troops.
D. In regards to the Afghanistan government and elections, the basis behind them is faith that they will work. In the United States, the government and elections hold legitimacy because most people believe they are fair. For the Afghanistan government and elections to work, the people have to have faith that they will work.

Comment on CE Week #8: “Obama declares swine flu a national emergency” Oct. 24th by megan sikes

megan sikes — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:48:58 +0000

A: What I Learned
It is shocking to hear the number of people who have died from this virus, especially because of the 100 children who are included in this number; 5,000 people! We have heard on the news, ever since early September, that the swine flu was spreading and it was deadly, but after a while it got old and people forgot about it. Now that the numbers have grown, I realize that while we were shouting “swine!” at every cough, there were people who actually had it, dying in their hospital beds. It is also very interesting to learn that the virus has to be made in a chicken egg. I’d never heard that before.
B: What I Know
It wasn’t until the first couple of cases where people were dying from the swine flu that we started to pay attention to how serious it was. But again, this was back in September. Now, that there is a vaccine, this is the bulk of what we are hearing about. On a personal note, my Mom called my doctors office a couple of days ago to see if I could get scheduled to get the vaccine, and they said that they did not and were not going to get the vaccine. So, I will have to go somewhere outside of my own doctor’s office, as I suspect many others will have to do too. I think it’s great that Obama has made this the health department’s priority. This is a quickly spreading, deadly epidemic and it needs attention.
C: What I Want to Know
I would like to know why the predicted number of vaccines to be available by mid-October is so much higher than the actual vaccines that were shipped. Also, because of this focus by the health department, will other health-related issues suffer?
Connection:
Now I know why my doctors office isn’t carrying the vaccine :]