Human Trafficking; The Ugly Truth

Though we may like to think that human trafficking is something that just happens in third world countries and really just anywhere other than where we live, the ugly truth is that human trafficking is a major issue right here in the Bay Area. Today we learned that human trafficking was not only a major problem in the past, such as in San Francisco in the 80's, but is also a huge issue today. For example, in October 10 people were charged for running a collection of 40 brothels throughout the Bay Area which employed women trafficked mostly from Asia. Another example would be the also relatively recent exposure of the story of a Los Altos High School alumni whose parents sold her to work in brothels in her free time away from school from the age of 10 up through college.

Based on these examples (and other information you can find from Sarah and Caitlin's website http://sarahmcallan6.wix.com/human-trafficking ), we can see that human trafficking is a major issue that not many people know about. What we need to do is bring light to the situation and find a way to end human trafficking for good, not only in the Bay Area, but throughout the world as well.

Making a website? Here are some helpful tips for presenting!

I know a lot of you have made websites for your muckraking projects, so here are a couple helpful tips for making the presentation easier to follow!

1. Try to summarize each page and let the audience read the rest of the details for themselves. Include the main points, but don't just read the entire page out loud. This makes it easier to follow along.
2. When telling people to put in the URL so they can get to the website, try using a URL shortener to make it easier to reach. This means that the URL is shortened to a quarter of the size and abbreviated so it is much less likely to make mistakes while typing it in. You can shorten your URL at https://goo.gl/ . Just copy and paste and, voila! You've got an easy to follow, shorter URL.

These were just a few helpful tips. Good Luck on the presentations!


PS. Not sure why this posted now. It was supposed to post yesterday...

U.S. History Semester One Final Guide

As many of you are aware finals are coming a lot closer than we expect. The final for this class is Friday, December 19.

Although there is not a study guide for our final, there are practice tests for each chapter. The final only covers chapters 7-9 and know important information from previous chapters. These practice tests are super beneficial and usually include a lot of similar questions on the final. Another resource to use, is your notebook. Review worksheets, readings, movies, and anything in your notebook. Another helpful resource is reviewing edmodo presentations/notes.

A study technique that I used and found helpful was taking the practice test and seeing what I got wrong, then using my book to work on what I need to improve on.

Attached is the link for the practice tests:
https://www.edmodo.com/home#/group?id=9272723&sub_view=folders

Study up and good luck!

The pros and cons of electric cars

Automakers around the world are pulling out all the stops in the latest and greatest vehicle answers. Car consumers have more choices of engine technologies with the new hybrid vehicles coming out of production, however for those who want the pure electric vehicle experience, buyers are wading in unknown waters. What exactly are the pros and cons to owning and driving an electric vehicle? Here is a definitive list of both pros and cons to give you an unbiased look at the future cars. First of all, electric cars are the quietest cars on the road, even the sound of a smaller engine can not beat the virtual silence of an electric car on the road so much that even U.S. lawmakers have proposed pursuing and installing "noise-makers" in the stealth-like cars to inform inattentive pedestrians of their approach. Owners of these cars also do not have to ever fill up those seemingly bottomless gas tanks while simply being able to plug the electric vehicle in at home and drive off in the morning. Most models can even run up to 80-100 miles on a single charge, some even offering more staying power. Electric cars also do not run on oil, therefore you do not have to change the oil, the filter, or any parts that accompany a combustion engine, saving not only gas but your wallet as electricity as far much cheaper than petroleum. Third of all, electric cars are incredibly environmentally friendly. They do not require an exhaust system and therefore have absolutely zero emissions. Even on areas that rely on coal burning plants to produce electricity powering EV's, the emissions to produce the charge are far lower than a combustion engine vehicle. Now onto the cons: It's true that the range of electric vehicles would make a coast-to-coast driving vacation next to impossible, making the lack of charging stations top the list of electric car cons. Until charging stations are as common as fueling stations, an electric car can only get you so far. Second, while electric car drivers can skip the gas station on the way home, they best not forget to plug in their car before anything else.Most EV engines can about 25 miles for every hour they are charged and can take up to 4 hours to completely charge. Such models, such as the Ford Focus EV, can take an excruciating 15-20 hours to reach their full potential. Last but not least, although electric car vehicle owners realize significant savings on energy and maintenance costs, the initial price tag for the top selling EVs is still too high for most consumers. As battery technology advances to newer and cheaper designs, and as EV's become a larger share of the domestic car market, these prices should come down. For now, however, EV's are a considerable investment. In conclusion, I certainly believe that the development of electric vehicles is definitely efficient as it serves its purpose in being able to aid in the progress of keeping our planet from environmental turmoil and danger, it also, like anything else, has it's definitive faults, however I also believe that as time continues, they CAN certainly find solutions and be fixed.

Scopes Trial Reflection

Based on all of the information and research on the Scopes "Monkey Trial", I can fully testify my personal perspective on the purpose of the case in confronting the forces between religious fundamentalism and rational secular thought. The trial degenerated into an extended debate over evolution vs. creationism and for this reason, it obtained national controversy and coverage. I believe that the significance of the case is that it was ultimately the first nationally famous public debate over creationism, which contemporary politicians have recast as "intelligent design" which results in the debate still being semi-discussed. Not only did the trail exhibit the conflict between conservationists and modernists, focusing on the debate of scientific analysis and the culture of religion, yet it also generated much more spotlight on Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the increase in it's widespread development during this period of time. On a personal level, this case introduced me to the fact that the system of education should not obstruct from theories such as Darwinism, Creationism, evolution, and intelligent design they for they serve a purpose in expanding the minds of students and allows them to develop/sharpen their minds to a world of different perspective. I believe that science, although messy at times, has the capacity of holding the answer towards many of life's questions and is the answer to the world's organisms, living things, and the creation of life, itself.

The misconception of Mental Illness and Prisons

On Wednesday,one of the Muckraking projects were based on overcrowded prisons. Along with the numerous amount of new facts that were presented to the entire class not only about the excessive amount of prisoners being kept behind bars but also the invalid reasoning behind it as well, wasting more money each year and vastly raising the cost of money that is purposely used to spend on each prisoner. Something Paige had pointed out certainly seemed to have widened my attention and convinced me to provide a discussion on it in this blog, the topic was:mental illness. Prisons and jails have become America's "new asylums" as the number of individuals with serious mental illness in prions and jails now continues to exceed the number in state psychiatric hospitals tenfold. Most of the mentally ill individuals in prisons/jails would have been treated in the state psychiatric hospitals in the years before the deinstitutionalization movement led to the closing of the hospitals, a trend that actually continues even today. The treatment of mentally ill individuals in prisons and jails is critical, especially since such individuals are vulnerable and often even abused while incarcerated. Untreated, their psychiatric illness often tends to get wore, and they leave prison or jail sicker than when entered. Individuals in prison and jails have every right to receive medical care, and this right pertains to serious mental illness just as it pertains to tuberculosis, diabetes, and hypertension: all, yes, physical conditions. This right to treatment has even been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court which,fortunately, suggests the basis that mental illness IS just AS important as any physical illness. The solution to this problem would underlie in using the tactic of maintaining a functioning public mental health treatment system so that mentally ill individuals do not end up in prisons/jails which would consist of a reform of mental illness treatment laws & practices, reform jail and prison laws & practices, implement and promote jail diversion programs, use court ordered outpatient treatment, encourage cost studies, establish careful intake screening, institute mandatory release planning, and finally provide appreciation mental illness treatment. Not only would we be preventing jail/prison overcrowding and the deterioration in psychiatric condition of inmates but we would also be allowing the reduction of taxpayer costs, thus going back to the main focus of the project. -Andrea Torres Period 4

The Benefits of Electric Cars in California

In California, there are many reasons to purchase an electric car, including the access of a free HOV sticker to avoid the crowded roadways of California by driving in the carpool lane, a benefit I enjoy when I drive my mom's volt. While purchasing the most efficient electric cars (Tesla model S) may be out of the price range of most, many electric cars can now be purchased for around 20000. Califronia currently owns the most public domain PEV's or charging stations, which makes it very pratical to drive an electric car around, and the fact that many work places like google have added 100s of parking spaces dedicated to electric cars only, and the charging at work is free. The average mpg of fossil fuels used to charge your car is about 99, as opposed to the mere nationwide average of 23 mpg on the average car. You will save on average 600 dollars per year in fuel costs, not to mention all the tax refunds and deductibles you get on your car, plus a much lower insurance rate for an electric car of the same price as a fossil fuels car. An electric car also uses 1/2 the amount of fuel per gallon of a gas run car, and costs 1/2 as much for this new egallon fuel. Gas prices for normal cars also tend to fluctuate drastically, while egallon's have remained relatively constant for the last 13+ years. The amount of rebates you get per year + the low gas prices, you will practically make money off of your car before you sell it. It's the fact that Califronia's high amount of PEV's and roadway accessbility + good temperature that allow the electric car to be a better choice for california drivers.

The 1920's

This post will give a brief over view of the 1920's. The 1920's was a vibrant era in American history. skyscrapers represented the strength, wealth and accomplishments of the american people. Cities became more popular and more populated. There quality of life seemed to be coming up, with new technologies, more wealth, and new culture. In particular, Harlem New York became a popular place for jazz and new types of dancing. Blacks in this community were more accepted and noticed for their musical ability then ever before. During this time the prohibition was also occurring. This brought to life places called "speak easys". A speak easy was in a way an old time night club. You needed a password to get into these hidden clubs, and paid to enter. You would pay to enter because the sale of Alcohol was illegal at this time because of the prohibition. Though once you got in alcohol was served and you could enjoy music and shows. The shows often featured the new type of American women that had more autonomy.

The technologies that were becoming popular at this time the automobile, electricity, credit cards, and radio's. The automobile allowed people to travel more and even expand business. Electricity lit up the night and speak easys all across the US. Credit allowed people to buy more expensive things than they could have before because now they could have time to pay it off. The radio connected the US and brought a larger sense of community to people. Everyone would hear the same jokes and shows and would be able to connect over the. Also broad casting let people listen to sports games like baseball, and their automobiles could drive them 20 miles to see the game.

Many things that really picked up steam in the 1920's are still around today. If you guys can identify these things and how they relate to modern day, post it so we can all learn.

A Post in Response to Scott Delmar's "Conservation of Water" Post.

Here are some other ways to conserve water.(a) use a nozzle on your hose when washing your car so you can more easily moderate the water flow and are not using any extra. (b) do not take baths, quick showers are more efficient. (c) make sure that when it rains, that you turn your sprinklers off, especially in a down poor like this one. According to the local news channels this storm will help the drought and the snow pack will re-fill reservoirs, creeks, rivers and lakes in the spring. Even with this large amount of rain, we will still be in a drought.  While this rain is good for the drought it is causing some problems such as flooding and mud slides. California needs the rain to say the least but it would be better and safer if the rain came in smaller more frequent sequences.

Students Rights and Virtual Rights

On Wednesday, my group presented on students rights. Towards the end of the presentation, Mr. Stewart brought up a something he would call "provocative". He asked the class to think about understanding their rights in regards to new types of privacy and what that could mean. Recently the school loans out lap tops, what you do on their could potentially viewed by the school. After all those laptops are school property. This is something to take note of. There is quite a bit of uprising technology uses and devices, know what rights you have in that area would be very beneficial. For instance if you save things to the cloud then you should maybe find out who can see it, can apple look through it because after all it is their creation that you are using? Or perhaps your gmail is owned by google could they search your email and documents? My group focused on more basic rights on and off campus but it seems to me there is plenty of research to be done on your rights as a user of technology. Perhaps next years Muckraking assignment sheet could include rights over your virtual property as a possible topic.

Conservation of Water

I know we haven't yet gone over this muckraking presentation, but I remember the title being the Conservation of Water in California. It's been pretty clear to me (both on the news and with real life experience) that California is in a severe drought. What are some of the best ways to conserve water? I know that I personally try to take shorter showers and not leave the sink running while washing your hands with soap. Are there obvious other ways? Also with this huge rain storm, do you think California will still be in such a severe drought? Something to think about going into tomorrows presentation!

Overcrowded Prisons

On Wednesday, one of the muckraking projects address the issue of overcrowded prisons. I was previously not aware of how terrible the system was. Many prisons are holding more than 200% of their designed capacity. This is a ridiculous number considering some inmates being sent to prison for pointless reasons raising the cost of money that needs to be spent on each person. Millions of dollars could be well spent on education around the state. California needs to focus on either transferring inmates to other facilities to prevent overcrowding or simply reevaluating the reason for each individual who is being sent to these prisons. Does anyone have other solutions for this problem? What can we do to prevent this in the future?

What do you guys think about gender inequality.

According to the presentation on Tuesday, women are paid less than men in general. Does it have to do with the job itself? For instance if both men and women work in a day care centre, men has to put more work force than women because they usually work as maintenance and they are the ones who carry heavy objects around. However, the women's job at a day care centre is just to do some clean up and take care of the children so if they were to be paid less, it is totally reasonable because they contributed less than the men. Also, now there are many female ceos and many professional positions were also taken up by female. Do you guys think that women are paid less because of their gender or it is because of the job itself?

Electric Cars

It is a common misconception that electric cars are absolutely green and are harmless to the enviorment.  Although electric cars do not require gas, they do require coal power plants to create their batteries.  Also, electric car batteries only last two years, and they have compnents in them that are extremely toxic, and the batteries tend to only last a few years.  As of now, both gasoline cars and electric cars have their pluses and deltas, but overtime electric cars will become by far more eco friendly with the devolopment of greener power plants, and more efficient batteries.

Muckraking Project - Electric Cars

Today one of the presentations is about the pros and cons of electric cars. Although electric cars are not as user friendly, I think that the use of electric cars should be further developed because it is beneficial to the society in a long run. The use of electric cars can reduce the amount of pollutants thus improves the problem of air pollution/ global warming. Global warming is a huge issue that affects human so we should try our very best to slower the pace of global warming. And the best way to solve this problem is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Since most people in the bay area has a car, the amount of fossil fuels used in the bay area is enormous. If people started using electric cars, the amount of fossil fuels used would decrease. So I think that the use of electric cars should be widely promoted in order to safe the world.

Sacco and Vanzetti Case Study had differing perspectives..but what about something more recent?

Check it out...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/opinion/bergen-seals-bin-laden-killing/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

The Simulation

This week in USH we have been doing a simulation in which the class was split up into 5 groups. Each group was given a slip of paper that told us what group we were on the board and how many of E.U.’S we had. In the beginning each had different amounts of resources. Some groups had more ships while others had more soldiers or artillery. Every group but group 5 had the same amount of planes. Even though planes weren’t the main concern it was a bit strange that they one while every other group had 6. In the second of the simulation a few groups allied with each other. Two groups even made secret alliance that the public of their country didn’t know about. The happy or sad face that was drawn on the board after every round showed the happiness of each group’s citizens. In the second round the group that I was in notice that the ability produce some products more effectively than others remind us how closely some of the groups represented actual countries in reality; for example are group was able to produce ships without spending as many E.U.’s as other groups. Another group represented Russia because there ability to produce troops was unbelievably quick.

By Jack Tomkins

What did you guys find interesting about the simulation?               

Woodrow Wilson

Today we watched a documentary about Woodrow Wilson. We also noted if he was a progressive or not. I think that he was a progressive. Although he was put into office by the boss system, after he was elected governor of NJ he began to reform workers rights and proposed anti-corruption laws. This was what being progressive was about. Giving everyone equal chances. He also denounced the bosses and believed that Americans should have a fair share of the country's wealth. One way Wilson differed from Roosevelt was their views on the trusts. Roosevelt believed that not all trusts were bad and only some who were hurting the people needed to be broken up. Wilson believed that all trust were bad and needed to be broken up so everyone could have a fair share. Do you guys think that Wilson was progressive?

Today, Friday, we took a test.

Teddy Rosevelt

On Tuesday,  we watched a documentary on the Theodore Rosevelt and took notes on whether or not he was a progressive.  personally I believe it is hard to judge him as either, because he did a lot of things that could contradict an arguement that he is one or the other.  For example, he broke up trusts that had too much power, but he himself did whatever he pleased an did not ask congress for permission, prompting his critics to believe he was undemocratic and possesed too much power.

Do you think Rosevelt was a progressive? Why or why not?

The Labor Movement

On Monday we talked about the working conditions of the factory workers in the late 19th century.  There were very few laws to protect the workers, so they worked long hours for minimal pay.  This means that the risk for injury was very high, and workers who got injured were just fired and replaced by new workers.  Workers were exploitable, and there were many immigrants from overseas who were willing to work, even for little pay.  Because of this, strikes were not very successful due to the large flow of immigrants willing to take the place of the strikers.
 Do you view the harsh conditions and low pay as a necesity for the growth of America?

Video Notes

Today, Tuesday 14th, we finished up the Theodore Roosevelt worksheet that asked the BIG QUESTION, is Theodore Roosevelt a progressive.  The video went in depth to talk about Theodore Roosevelt, and the later part of his presidency, and how he spent a lot of effort into breaking down trust's and other forms of concentrated power.  The video also went in depth describing how Roosevelt had a strong passion for nature and spent a lot of effort into making laws and creating state parks to preserve forests and other parts of nature.  There was also a quick segment about the teddy bear and how it originally started as a toy that was named after Theodore Roosevelt.  After The video we cleared up some misconceptions with the test and Mr. Stewart reinforced the idea that the practice test will enormously help us prepare for the actual test.  With the last 10 minutes of the class we started a video titles "War and Empire" that talks about America and its Empire.

Immigrants in America

In class we learned about the massive amounts of people immigrating to America every year in search of the success they were sure they could find in the "land of opportunity". However, they found that when they did arrive, they didn't always find what they had hoped. One of the most influential mantras of the time was "word hard and you will move up", so when the immigrants found that coming to America and becoming successful would be harder than they thought, they had to find someone who could help them. Despite the fact that there was always a job opportunity for immigrants due to the strikes that worker's unions would hold (and consequentially be fired for), many people saw the immigrants as taking over and flooding America. Without the help of the American public, growing numbers of immigrants turned to those known as bosses for help in this new country. Essentially, the boss system is focused around one person in charge (the boss) who would spend his time helping out the immigrants by giving them supplies, jobs, housing, etc. In return he would only ask that they vote in the elections the way he tells them to. This ensured that the elections were in favor of the bosses' preferences because they had the majority vote: the immigrants. Many people were enraged by the boss system because it essentially rigged the governmental and economic systems of the United States to be in favor of the few people who ran it. Eventually, the boss system was outlawed due to so many people rising up against it and therefore leading to laws being created that made what the bosses were doing illegal. Although the boss system did help the immigrants get set up in America, it was overall damaging to the country because of the way it controlled the vote and money flow in the US.

Factory Towns

Today we watched video segments about the wealthy, poor, middle class, and the factory workers. What I thought was interesting was the segment about factories and how they would have towns for the workers to live in. What was crazy about the towns though was that the factory's owner would also own the town. They were the landlords of the workers, the one that sold them food and items that they needed. Everything these workers had came from the factory owner. I thought it was insane how much control a factory owner had over his owners. The idea that someone could have that much power is incomprehensible, especially in today's world. It makes me appreciate the laws and rules that are in place today that make sure these things don't happen so that we don't have to deal with it.

Religion vs. Science?

Today we continued watching the "God in America" video. One major issue that arose was the clash/combination of religion and science. Most people know how religion seems to be at odds with science, especially evolution and all that. But what I found interesting today was how some religious people actually believed that religion and science could work together and that with both of them together, it could strengthen the Bible and a person's belief. I thought that was interesting because, as mentioned earlier, most times religion seems to clash with science. But there was actually a group of people that believed that religion and science could be compatible. One leader who led this idea was Briggs. He believed that he grew closer to God when he incorporated the Bible with science. And the people that also believe this were called Liberal Christians (I think). What I thought was very interesting was how some people would accept science and actually use it to strengthen their religious beliefs, but others just shut it off completely. What do you guys think about the situation of religion and science?

Trial Reflection

Today Wednesday Oct. 1, in class did our trial, where half of the class were against four important figures which were, Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie, saying that they did bad by hurting the country, caring only on success and money. The other half of the class were pro them, saying that they were a great because they were great leader and helped many. The pro side said things about those figure such as that they had donated 350 million dollars, in libraries, and founded thousands of institutions, donated 1 million dollars to Vanderbilt University, helped people come across New York and give people free rights and such. Others that were against those four figures thought that they were a bad figure for America because they would, cut of money of other businesses, railroads and transportation just get through his way, and they'd also make their workers starve, because of the unlimited amount of money that they would get paid.

John D. Rockefeller

This week in class we have been studying and learning more about four strong, men figures that have made a huge impact on todays life. My group and I have been doing research mainly about a man called John D. Rockefeller, who was a millionaire that owned a huge company called standard oil back in the 1800's. Many people see him today as a bad person, and yet some see him as a good person that helped many. In class my group and I have been researching facts saying how he was a negative impact towards society because of the fact that he was greedy, and only cared about success, Rockefeller once said that he got his success because thats what gods will wanted him to be. Rockefeller was also greedy because he would go around threatening his opponents to work for him, or else he'd make them go out of business.

Businessmen in America

Wednesday in class we learned about some of the great businessmen in America - Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and J. Pierpont Morgan. Although they accomplished many great things, like the expansion of the railroad business or the building of public libraries, they were also shrouded in infamy - Carnegie’s philanthropist reputation was destroyed by the Homestead strike, and Morgan had such a stranglehold on the economy that the public began to fear him. However, it is indisputable that many of them used their power and wealth to help America evade a potential economic collapse. J. P. Morgan managed to use his influence to persuade other bankers to contribute money for a trust fund, ending the panic of 1907. What do you think America would be like if there weren’t any business giants like them? Would other people take their place, or could the advancement of technology and industry have been the same without their presence?

Segregation after the Civil War

Today in class, we further discussed the aftermath of the civil war. Although in theory slavery was abolished in the newly reunited Union, racism and segregation were still prevalent. Sharecropping began to replace slavery in the south. Although it was cleverly disguised as a form of paid work, in reality, sharecropping was a loophole around the laws that prevented slavery. Since many freed slaves only knew the lives they once had, they often took up the jobs offered by their previous owners, who gave them a place to live and an amount of money to start a farm. They former slaves would use their crops from the farm to pay off the debt, but would be told that the crops they grew weren't enough to fully reimburse the land owner. Their only option was to borrow more money from the landowner in order to grow more crops to pay off the ever increasing debt. We also learned about the Plessy v. Ferguson case. In 1986, Homer Plessy, who was of one-eighth African descent, tried to board a first-class whites only train, and was denied the right due to his lineage. The court ruled against him, bringing about the idea of “separate but equal” - that segregation was okay as long as both races had equal facilities.

Another take on the Religion survey

Check it out...

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/22/6826415/five-most-surprising-findings-from-pew-faith-politics-study

Hey! Religious Poll Today!

For those interesting in views on religion today...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-religion-politics-20140922-story.html

Check it out!

Aftermath of Civil War

Today we talked about the aftermath of the Civil War and what effects it had brought to the country. After Lincoln's death, he was remembered as the man who changed America. He managed to put an end to slavery, he delivered the most famous speech in America (Gettysburg Address) which honored the soldiers who lost their lives but managed to win the war, and finally showed himself to be a president who was looked upon heavily during the Civil War under immense pressure to make the right decisions. During the documentary God in America, we witnessed many pictures of soldiers after the war who were badly wounded and killed on the battleground. Lincoln felt responsible for all the lives lost and took the decision to visit many hospitals where the sick lay in the beds to comfort them. Overall, Lincoln was the one of the greatest men who shaped this country for what is it today by making the most effective choices in his career while managing to preserve the Union.

A Diversion: Plagiarism...can we spot it?

In our class we have access to a lot of information from a lot of different sources.  For everyone involved the question properly addressing the issues of "citations" from our sources will constantly come up.  You might be interested in trying to test your skills at identifying plagiarism (unauthorized/undocumented use of intellectual ideas).

First dictionary definition of plagiarism...

noun

1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne.

Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft,borrowing, cribbing, passing off.

2.a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation:

“These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said,tossing them angrily on the floor.

from Dictionary.com (see I cited my source!)

And now the quiz! (takes about 5-10 minutes).

https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/plagiarism/item1.html

Civil War

Today we studied the events that lead up to/caused the Civil War. We were given many different events that took place before the Civil War and were told to choose two causes that lead to the war. I chose slavery in the South and Uncle Tom's Cabin. I chose these two events because they both show the separation in the nation before the Civil War broke out. The South wanted slavery and they believed that it was a good thing, even for the slaves because they would get taken care of at their old age. The North wanted slavery to be abolished and these two strong ideas are what started the separation and led to the war. Then a book by the name of Uncle Tom's Cabin was published and almost everyone in the North had read it while it was banned in the South. This made the two thoughts even stronger because now the people in the North know some of the things slaves went through and people want slave laws to be stronger so there won't be books like Uncle Tom's Cabin. Then we were to predict two things about the war. For example, I said that the North would win because they had more people, money and transportation. I also said that the South would give the North a hard time because the people in the South are more motivated.

Bill of Rights

On Wednesday, we briefly went over the Bill of Rights. They are all very important but the first five are interesting, which one do you guys think is the most important of the first five?
First Amendment:
     - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment:
     - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment:
     - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment:
     - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment: 
     - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Econos Simulation 9/5/14

Today in class, we simulated a very interesting topic. There we two groups of people; there was the Entrepreneurs (who were given 2000$ fake) and the Households (who were given resources such as Natural, Human, and Capitol). The objective for the Entrepreneurs was to make as much fake cash as possible, while for the household's goal was to make as many Econos as possible. Econos were completely made up and had no real value, but were given value by the fact that we (Households) wanted them. In order to get Econos, we had to trade in a set of resources. But in order to trade them in, we had to give them to an Entrepreneur to do the trading with Mr. Stewart. I decided get as many resources as possible by buying low and selling high. This meant that I would trade in my set of resources, then use the Ecnono I got and traded that with another classmate for 2 sets of resources. MANY people fell into my trap. The fake money that Entrepreneurs were given had no value at all because we never gave it value. They would do the trading for free, so we had no interest in fake money. This was a very cool lesson on economy and I look forward to more simulations like this.

Great Britain's Advantages/Weakness

The American Revolution proved the stronger Nation not only in spirit but also in willpower. Each side had their advantages and weakness's but I want to talk about Great Britain's points. First off, Great Britain is an entire international Empire, having colonies in lands from the Caribbean to India. At the time, they were known as one of the most, if not the most, dangerous and threatening nations of its time. With superior naval power, England ruled the seas of trade and in war. Great Britain also had a plethora of recourses due to their Empire. Americans had significantly less guns, ammo, uniforms, food and people than Great Britain. As mighty as they seemed, Great Britain suffered many weaknesses too. They were not in a good position for winning this war against American colonists. They wanted to defeat America, but not badly enough that they wouldn't want to be in the colony after having independence struck from them. They also had to be on the offense at all times. They couldn't play defense in the homeland (America wasn't going to sail across the atlantic to attack, they just stayed in the colonies) . Overall, Great Britain, I believe, had the harder time to win the war. It was a glorious battle though. #USA #Freedom

Federalists vs. Antifederalists

After the Revolutionary War and the colonies had gained their independence, two "political parties" emerged within the government.  Federalists were those who were in favor of the Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton was the face of the federalists.  Federalists envisioned a strong central government, which supported an urban nation that focused on commerce and was involved in foreign affairs.  Federalists wrote many small essays, known as the Federalist Papers to convice people to join their cause.  Countering the Federalists were the Antifederalists, also known as republicans (not the same as republicans today).  Thomas Jefferson lead these men.  They feared that the Constitution was going to limit rights and allow the government to become a tyranny.  They wanted a weaker central government in a more rural, agrarian nation.

American Strengths/Weaknesses

Today in class we talked about the strengths and weaknesses the Americans had going up against the British  in the Revolutionary War.  The Americans had a moral advantage because they were fighting for their freedom.  Their leadership was strong to some extent, not necessarily in the military, but in politics.  They held a better position than the british, they were on the defense and they didn't have to invade anywhere because they were fighting on their own ground.  They had opportunities for strategic partnerships, specifically with the French as well as the Dutch and Spanish.  All these countries wanted to weaken the British Imperial empire.  The Americans didn't have to win the war by demolishing the british, they just had to tire the british out.  People commonly said "just don't lose".  Despite all these strengths, the Americans lacked organization, resources, supplies, and manpower.  There were only about three million colonists, and England was roughly three times their size.  They also had political weakness, they knew what they wanted, but they didn't know how to achieve it.

America Vs. Great Britain

On Friday August 29, we finished watching "Making a Revolution." It was about how things happened and how they lead to the revolution. The colonists started getting mad at Great Britain because the Stamp act was created. In the stamp act they cut the colonists power and colonists were taxed from great Britain. The colonists got even more mad because they were being taxed with out being represented from anyone. Soon the stamp act was repealed and there was a bigger issue of who was in charge (Declaratory act). Then the Boston Massacre happened, you may think that may people died but actually only five people died. The Boston Massacre became a propaganda piece because it showed how the whole thing was planned and the colonists were innocent. Then there was a boycott against British Tea. 200 boxes of tea were dumped into the Sea. The British reaction to the Boston Tea party was that they passed the intolerable acts. The colonists saw the the Boston Tea Party as hero's because they had the courage to dump the tea in the sea. The revolution was seen as inevitable because they tried to propose that both sides stay together but they both rejected the proposal. Americans thought that they were different from the British.

What John Hews Stood For

The majority of the last 20 minutes of the second documentary we watched title "God in America" expanded on the rise of the Catholics throughout America, and this movement was led by and Irish born Bishop, John Hews. Hews, along with thousands of other Irish people immigrated to America because of the First Amendment's promise of freedom of religion. This was just years after the Cane ridge revival in Kentucky, were many Protestants rediscovered their faith in the God and the protestant church. The Irish people come to America with the hope that Catholics will be readily accepted into this "free area", but they couldn't have been more wrong. The Protestants of New York City had implemented anti-catholic teachings into public schools, which were funded by the people living in New York City. This was what John Hews' main argument for Catholics was centered around. Hews goes to court to challenge that since the public schools (which are really protestant schools) are being funded, that the Catholics should rightfully get money to fund their own school districts as well. His argument is centered off the fact that the separation of church and state was a law, but taxpayer money (including Catholics themselves) are paying for the protestant schools. However, despite the superior argument, he looses 15:1 because the majority of the council members were protestant. However, he then responds by raising funds to build parochial schools in the city of New York for the Irish-Catholic youth, but he is not satisfied yet. Hews urges his followers to vote for Catholic city council members, and his plan works out. 8 of the 10 Catholics who ran for office were elected, and Hews brought back his argument, this time winning 8:7 majority, passing the McClay bill. This doesn't end the conflict however, because the Protestants are outraged. However, this change reflects the ideals of American democracy in place, because of the guaranteed right of freedom of religion, John Hews and the Catholic believers were able to make America their home.

"Making a Revolution"

This blog will expand on what Anna said about the documentary called “Making a Revolution”. The first question talks about the Albany Plan.  The colonies wanted a way to protect themselves, so they tried to make a military defense system.  They needed money for it, so they made the Albany Plan to get the colonies to work together to pay for the military defense of the colonies.  This plan was sent to all the colonies to sign, but not one signed it.  This was because they didn't think of themselves as one team, they thought of themselves as from their own colony instead of Americans.  Then the documentary talked about the Proclamation of 1763.  This made it so the colonists couldn't expand west because the British didn't want a war since they had just finished the French and Indian war.  So they sent British troops onto a line they create that the colonists couldn't cross.  This limited the colonists’ freedom to get land, and they had to pay for the troops to be there even though they didn't want them there.  This was through taxes that came from British Parliament which was the first time they had been taxed directly from Parliament.  Then the documentary talked about the writs of assistance which were searches warrants. This was established because British were concerned with colonists smuggling trade with the French. The British didn't like this because the French were their enemies at the time.  The colonists were upset because they had always smuggled trade and the British never said anything, and out of nowhere they decided to enforce the law.  Also this was one of the ways most people made a lot of their money, so the colonists were infuriated.   

Protestants VS. Catholics

Today we finished watching the video of "God in America." The last part of the video was about how more and more people started to migrate to the East coast. It was mostly Irish people who came to the East coast. Irish people were Catholic and in New York the people were Protestants. The Irish wanted people to convert in Catholics. The Protestants began to to make schools but in the schools the only taught about the religion of the Protestants. New York was an anti Catholic and so the teachers made the kids think that Catholicism was bad and the Protestant religion was good. A lot of Catholics got mad and they made their children drop out of school. Soon the Catholics went to a Catholic Bishop (John). He was a very religious people and he said he would help them make schools for Catholics. He went to debate with the government to get money to make catholic schools. He thought it wasn't fair that only Protestants could make schools but not Catholics. He was sure he was going to get money to make the schools but the he lost 15-1. It was clearly that he was going to loose because all the people from the government were Protestants. He got no money to make Catholics schools. But then he thought about it and saw that they could make schools because they didn't have to depend on the government. Then we saw the first part of a  video which is called "Making a Revolution." It was about what the Albany Plan is. The Albany plan indicates that the British needed to get as many colonies together and discuss on how they protect themselves from Attacks for the Indians, Spanish, and French. Also the colonists got mad because the proclamation act was passed because they couldn't get land and they had to pay money for tax which was for the troops. Also they had writs of assistance which is a search warrant to stop smuggling and trade with the enemies.

The Separation of the Church and the State

Thomas Jefferson was a big believer in equality and liberty.  He was one of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and strongly supported the ideas in it.  He said that religion and church should be completely separate, and so he ended up helping the Baptists by taking their petition into the court.  This petition said the Baptists should be free to preach without having a license.  Jefferson himself was a Deist who believed that God was not in control of daily life and believed in reason and science to explain things which used to be explained by the works of God.  He did not agree with the Baptists’ ideas at all but believed they should be able to practice whatever type of religion they wanted.  Though he had some problems passing the bill because another man on the Virginia Assembly thought religion being not a part of the government would make religion go away because people would stop practicing it since they didn't have to. Or, he thought it could also make too many religions and every person would have a different religion.  So he drafted a bill advocating for the government to fund all religions.  Jefferson believed the government would kill religion.  Eventually Jefferson's bill was passed but some of Henry's ideas came to play.  People started to question religion and stopped going to church.  Eventually though, they began to feel lost and weren't sure where or which religion to turn to.  This lead to a meetings held by preachers who believed the people needed to be saved from no religion.  They conducted large meetings and preached for hours.  The people that went there weeped, fainted and asked for forgiveness for their sins and for not practicing a religion.  This lead to more and more meetings spread throughout the colonies.

Separation of the church and state

Today we watched another episode of  "God in America." It was about how Baptists came to Virginia and started to convert Anglicans into Baptists. The Anglicans didn't like the fact that Baptists were trying convert the Anglicans into Baptists and so the Government started to send people who were preaching without a license to jail. But you couldn't get a license if you were preaching for the Anglicans. Jeremiah Moore was sent to jail because he sacrificed everything for his religion. From the jail cell he would preach to people outside his window cell. The Baptist people went to look for Thomas Jefferson and he compromised with them. He said he would help him because he believed that the government should stay out of peoples religion. Thomas Jefferson then began writing a new bill about religion. When they passed the bill, the congress didn't say that it was certain that religion was going to be free. Then there was another man who went to a meeting in the woods. He wasn't expecting a lot of people there but there was 20,000 people. He was just going to go observe and watch if what he had heard was true. After when he got there, he heard people preaching and he fainted. He said that he felt god in him.

Church and State Should be Seperate

The idea of separation of state and church was made so that people could believe in whatever they want and have whatever values they want without being prosecuted by the government.  To this day we haven't completely rid ourselves from religion involved in the government.  Examples of this from class include the words "In God we Trust" on our money and the pledge of alliance. I don't think this significantly harms our society but I think it weakens our bond as a country.  We should keep moving farther away from these references to God since some people don't believe in God (such as Buddhism) or believe in multiple gods.  Also in schools, we get two weeks off for Christmas, but most of the time we have school during the Jewish holiday Hanukkah even though it is also their major holiday.  The Constitution says everyone is equal but by favoring or paying more attention to some religions over others we are saying that not everyone is equal and some types of people are better than others.  We as a society should start to accommodate and think more about the religions with a minority.  There is a heavy Christian majority of people in the US, but that should not be a justification for all of these pro- Christianity examples in the government and everyday life. Religious opinions should not be heard in the government even though for the time being we will continue to have a Christian majority in Congress.

The Issue of Seperation of Church and State in America

The "wall of separation between church and state" is clearly stated in the Constitution under the First Amendment. However, what limitations should politicians have in expressing their religious beliefs or there of? In the article we read in class today, "American democracy's real doctrine: religious neutrality," author Jane Eisner incorporates a republican conservative, an extremely atheist liberal man, and a devout catholic democrat. Senator Santorum, the republican conservative, believed that Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" that was passed as the government neutrality of religion in the constitution only led to more secularization within the government system, which fueled more fights over religious neutrality within politicians. Justice Hugo Black, who happened to be anti-Catholic and anti-Jew, was the head of the supreme court during the Everson v Board of Education of the township of Ewing trials. He made the trials more contradicting and confusing by promoting not religious neutrality but rather anti-religion in government. He contributed largely to the continuous growth of the wars of religion in the mid 1900s in America. John J. DiIulio, a catholic democrat wrote The Godly Republic. In his book, he published that he did not support "religious establishment nor in strict separation" and believed in a "faith friendly equal protection". His wording supports the involvement of religion in politics, but should it really be allowed. The article goes on to say that "Catholics may be ascendant now, with a decisive majority on the supreme court and unfettered access to the elective office." If Catholics have the majority religion, though, what happens to the other minority religions? The author later states that "protecting the neutrality doctrine is so essential for American Jews." So, can politicians who promote religious views damage other religions and create an imbalance of religious powers, eventually disrupting the "wall of separation between church and state"?

Welcome!

Welcome! Please apply our class discussion rules to the blog. Any violations will result in deleted posts and possible sanctions by instructors or school administration. Please consider this venue a safe place to post and a safe place to learn about material related to the class. Enjoy!