Law & Justice

I pulled this quote out of the article on page 109 because I felt this statement summed up and made the whole article: "Are we not more obligated to achieve justice than to obey the law? The law may serve justice, as when it forbids rape and murder or requires a school to admit all students regardless of race or nationality. But when it sends young men to war, when it protects the rich and punishes the poor, then law and justice are opposed to one another. In that case, where is our greater obligation: to law or to justice?" This quote to me, tells me what Zinn is saying. He is saying that we can either achieve justice or obey the law, but not both. There are so many different ways to go around this statement espcially if people start throwing in different scenerios like the example above. I don't believe there is anyway to come to a peace with law and justice together. He describes in his piece that from the democratic theory, law is only a means. He also describes how obedience and disobedience is an attachment-like to the law and thinks that disobedience could possibly lead to anarchy. I think he describes a great example from history. Zenn questions his readers about the black movement in the South and if that lead to anarchy. As a result, after all the chaos, the country became stronger and "a healthy reconstitution of the social order toward greater justice."

Inherit the Wind

DRUMMOND: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart" (pg 126).

To me, the quote means that if someone is willing to question other people or stand up for what they believe in and not be afraid of getting judged or even shunned for it, they will be more successful then the person who is too afraid to show what they really feel. Inherit the wind means being able to take on any obsticals that may come in one's way.
I think it is a good title for this play because the title is ironic given the circumstance. The title is from Proverbs 11:29, one of the books in the bible. The book talks about how wrong it is to teach evolution in school, which is presented by a religious title found in the bible.

Intelligent Design Is A Science!!!

FIRST ARTICLE
Yes, intelligent design (ID) should be taught in schools. I believe that this course should be manditory at least one year for all students, however if school districts and/or parents aren't okay with this idea, this class should be an option for students. On the 5th page when they talked about teaching ID in California, Casey Luskin stated "Evolution is taught dogmatically—it is one-sided. Students should be taught strengths and weaknesses of evolution." True, evolution (ID) is one-sided to the teacher that is teaching the class. Even if the district had one teacher for the whole school, nation wide, there would be millions of different teachers teaching this one-sided intelligent design class. However, this con should not stop us from teaching this class. Another part in the article is when they talked about that schools cannot teache religion as a science. Yet, they go on saying they can teache religion if the curriculum calls for it (they gave an example of history). For me, I don't see the difference.

(By the way, this was my favorite article so far)!!!

THE ONE PAGE ARTICLE (2nd PAGE ARTICLE)
For me, I think that a lot of people aren't okay with this class (ID) becuase like in the second article stated: "There is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID." I also believe this
"ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry," that they also stated in the second article. This article states a lot of facts pertaining to why a lot of people don't believe that this class should be taught as a science, as well as why it should be.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be A Top US Priority?

I started off neutral with the topic. I agreed with some issues that Wittes brought up and some issues that Siegle brought forth. However, after reading the whole article, I began to write and all the things I listed for Wittes were stronger than I had for Siegle. So I agree with Wittes that promoting democracy abroad shouldn't be at the top of our list. However, I don't understand how it is a key part of the war on terrorism. I also believe that the world should have difference in it and by making us all the same with the democracy government, I could see it causing problems.
In the beginning of the packet it said "while a world populated by democracies is likely to be more peaceful than others, a world of countries going through the process of democratization may be more unstable and conflict-prone." I'm not certain which person this would fall under, but my guess would be Wittes and the "NO" argument. I agree with this statement a lot.

Presidential Candidate Selectors

The results of all 6 of my surveys were pointing at Barack Obama and the Democratic side. I really wasn't surprised since I knew what my opinions were to begin with. They all support what Barack Obama says. However, I was surprised on the 4th survey results when my top match came out to be Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. I had 100% match. I was 82.35% for Ralph Nader and 76.47% for Barack Obama so those were pretty close. Another surprise was the last survey. I was a centrist, more closer to conservative. After reading what a Centrist is though, I agreed with the answer. It says Centrists keep an open mind.