Response for H.W due 4/23

First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions -- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process -- a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it. 

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html 

This passage is from John F. Kennedy's speech at the American University in 1963. This passage is about Kennedy's beliefs and his urgency towards attaining peace. Kennedy expresses that he does not expect or ask for universal peace in which the world is completely at peace, but instead that people just live neutrally and in a harmonious way. He is telling us that there is no simple, sole solution for peace but if we all try, we can attain it. Kennedy states that "our problems are manmade, therefore they can be solved by man." He is trying to tell us that people cause and are the reasons for their own problems so we can solve these problems ourselves. Problems that arise are always our fault some way, some how so for that reason, we should be the pioneers for solving these problems. 

Peace is something that people have made it seem to be unattainable. The way that John F. Kennedy breaks down the key to universal peace makes perfect sense. Peace will not be attained if we do not work together to do so. There cannot be only 10% of the nation or the world who want to make a change while the other 90% do not care to make a difference. It is not something that can be done overnight and it's not going to be perfect. He believes nations can join together and work on creating peace but it is only going to be achieved if we all put in the effort.

Response for H.W due 4/16

This speaks to the notion that the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a safe seat but to put your opponents in safe seats by cramming all of their supporters into a small number of districts. This lets you spread your own supporters over a larger number of districts. And the way to do this is to draw outlandishly-shaped districts that bring far-flung geographic areas together. North Carolina's 12th district, which holds the title of the nation's most-gerrymandered, is a textbook example of this: It snakes from north of Greensboro, to Winston-Salem, and then all the way down to Charlotte, spanning most of the state in the process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/ 

This passage from Christopher Ingraham's article, America's most gerrymandered congressional districts", is about how gerrymandering works. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries in a state in order to benefit a party. This passage notes how the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw boundaries to secure your parties' safety but to secure the opponents' districts. In this article, Christopher Ingraham shows us how bizarre the boundaries drawn for the districts look. He also shows us how years ago, the shapes of the districts were more compact and had shapes to them but as the years have gone by, the shapes have become very strange and far-out. 

I chose this passage because it helped me get a better understanding of gerrymandering. I originally thought that if you just create district boundaries that are compact and in one area, it would benefit the party but instead the more spread out, even if its not in a "normal looking" shape, the more beneficial it is to the party because they can reach more supporters. What I did not understand was how the state legislatures draw up the district boundaries. How do they know where these supporters are located? How do they just choose where they want to doodle their boundary lines? 

Response to H.W due 4/9

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ 

This passage is about Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave and social reformer, delivering a speech about the Fourth of July. Douglass was appalled about having to present a speech about a country's freedom where he did not experience the freedom that America promised since he lived through the time period of slavery. In this passage he describes the type of treatment and abuse slaves received. He states that, for an American slave, celebrating the 4th of July is seen as "injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim" since slaves were badly mistreated and received the short end of the stick in this country.

I chose this passage because it stood out to me the most. I never put into consideration how African Americans who's families/ancestors were once slaves would feel about this day America celebrates. To me, 4th of July is a day were families and friends get together to have BBQs, go to the beach, or see the firework show. Frederick Douglass put the 4th of July into a different perspective for me because I never put myself in these individual's shoes. It is not right to brag and take such pride in a country that mistreated people simply because of how others felt about their skin color. Douglass feels that America is full of savages, hypocrites, and this country is deceptive. I agree. Yes, this may be a great country to live in but to think about the way people were abused and discriminated back then, how free and how great is America really? Also, it was considerably sick for whoever asked Frederick Douglass to deliver this speech. He experienced the injustice and maltreatment when he was a slave. No person in their right mind that was treated the way slaves were treated would want to stand in front of a crowd and not acknowledge their past experience.

Response for H.W due 4/2

“Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice”http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

This passage is about the government deciding what is right and wrong based on majority rules but instead it should be decided by one’s inner sense and ethical/moral principles. Thoreau is expressing his concerns about how being conscience should over power corporations and laws. Morality should come before law. “Civil Disobedience” is about breaking the law and testing authorities in a non-violent way. This passage relates to “Civil Disobedience” because Thoreau is suggesting that people should respect the law, but a person should only feel compelled to do what they think is “right”. Like civil disobedience, choosing conscience over the law is choosing morality and disregarding unfair laws.

I chose this passage because I believe that as a human, as a person, it is important that we always pay attention and listen to our inner sense. Not to say that people should break all the laws and ignore the government, but if right is right and wrong is wrong. If it does not feel right, it should not be done. A line that Thoreau stated that really stood out to me was “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” This is important for people who believe the law and the government is absolutely correct and as humans, we should do exactly what they want us to do. We are humans, we are people before we are citizens following a million laws ignoring what feels right and what feels wrong.

Response for H.W due 3/5

As a nation, we have come to embrace “one person, one vote” as a fundamental democratic principle, yet the allocation of electoral votes to the states violates that principle. It is hardly an accident that no other country in the world has imitated our Electoral College.
If we were writing or revising the constitution now, we would almost certainly adopt a rather simple method of choosing our presidents: a national popular vote, followed by a run-off if no candidate wins a majority. We applaud when we witness such systems operating elsewhere in the world. Perhaps we should try one here.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/08/another-stab-at-the-us-constitution/revisiting-the-constitution-do-away-with-the-electoral-college 

This passage is about Alexander Keyssar expressing his beliefs about how America should rewrite or revise the Constitution so that we can get rid of the Electoral College. We're the only nation in the world that has an Electoral College. Instead of choosing the president using majority or popular votes, instead we have a system where an institution chooses individuals from every state to represent and cast their vote for president. There is no point of Americans being encouraged to register and vote for president when our votes are not even taken into account.

I chose this passage because Alexander Keyssar made some valid points. I think the Electoral College is pointless and does not make sense. The Constitution is outdated and should be updated in order to reflect what people really want to see in their country. America wants to see a president of their choice to be elected. Of course, not everyone is going to agree or want one specific candidate to win but if majority votes for a specific candidate, then that individual should win the election. I think America is afraid or to stuck in their old ways to make changes. Not to say that the Electoral College has only proved negative results, but there is some room for improvement in the voting system.

Response for H.W due 2/27

The Constitution is a rather short document consisting of seven articles that broadly lay out the powers and responsibilities of the government and its operation. You may have noticed The Declaration of Independence was not very long either. When we look at the speeches of Abraham Lincoln who delivered two of the greatest if not the greatest speeches in American history, they are also very short. When your aim is to persuade people often times keeping things short works much better than writing long volumes of text.

http://theamericanpoliticalsystem.blogspot.com/2012/06/th-67-constitution-and-federalist.html 

This passage is about the length of  the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln's two speeches. This passage points out how keeping things short and straight to the point are better than trying to get your point across through a protracted speech or writing. This passage states that although Abraham Lincoln's speech was not lengthy, people still admired and respected it because of it's significance.

I chose this passage because I do agree that keeping things "short and sweet" are often better than something being extensive or dragged out. Sometimes people can or choose to only focus or read something for a certain amount of time. If an individual is giving a speech, it would be hard to keep a crowd's attention for a lengthy period of time if they are just talking and not getting to the point. I would not want to sit through a thirty minute speech or read a 25 page document if there is a shorter version of it. Just because something is lengthy, does not always mean it is meaningful or rich in content. Today, we live in a world where people only like to watch 10-15 second videos on Vine or Snapchat and if the video seems too long or boring, we won't watch it. Listening to a long speech or reading something lengthy is not ideally what people prefer.

Response for H.W due 2/20

Let me begin my American impressions with two impressions I had before I went to America. One was an incident and the other an idea; and when taken together they illustrate the attitude I mean. The first principle is that nobody should be ashamed of thinking a thing funny because it is foreign; the second is that he should be ashamed of thinking it wrong because it is funny. The reaction of his senses and superficial habits of mind against something new, and to him abnormal, is a perfectly healthy reaction. But the mind which imagines that mere unfamiliarity can possibly prove anything about inferiority is a very inadequate mind. It is inadequate even in criticising things that may really be inferior to the things involved[Pg 3] here. It is far better to laugh at a negro for having a black face than to sneer at him for having a sloping skull. It is proportionally even more preferable to laugh rather than judge in dealing with highly civilised peoples. Therefore I put at the beginning two working examples of what I felt about America before I saw it; the sort of thing that a man has a right to enjoy as a joke, and the sort of thing he has a duty to understand and respect, because it is the explanation of the joke.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27250/27250-h/27250-h.htm#What_is_America

The book, "What I Saw in America" by G.K. Chesterton is about his experience with traveling to America. In the passage above, Chesterton is speaking about the perception and belief he had about America prior to traveling there. He points out how people find humor in the things that other countries find normal and that people should not feel remorseful for wanting to laugh or react to things they are not used to themselves. He believes that instead of people judging others and their customs, it is better to find amusement than to criticize.

I chose this passage because Chesterton pointed out some ideas that I ultimately agreed with. I have not been outside of the country yet but for example, if you are from New York City and you travel to a rural area, you come across people and norms that are totally different from your every day experiences. If you are from the city and travel to a very country area, it seems as though everyone is behind in technology, fashion, trends, etc. It's as if they are stuck in a bubble that has yet to pop. Sometimes these norms can be completely surprising and amusing at the same time. With that being said, Chesterton made an excellent point about how it is "healthy" to react a certain way when a person comes cross something that is "abnormal". Traveling to another country would probably amplify the humor found in people's everyday customs in comparison to America's. Chesterton states that people have a right to enjoy something as a joke but they have to comprehend that the true meaning of the joke has to be respected.