Habeus Corpus Video

At first I didn't know what was happening but after a few times of watching it I kind of understand what is happening. This video was sort of a wake up call in the sense that it affects me as a citizen of this country however I don't think I am going to be considered an unlawful enemy combantant anytime soon. It is sort of strange that this act pretty much can consider anybody an unlawful enemy. The fact that this act allows people to be detained without trial makes us all seem guilty. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, it is now guilty until proven innocent. However, how can you even be proven innocent if you are not put on trial.
It is almost as if our country has taken a step back. One thing about this act that seems to have taken our country a step back is the tolerance of torture. This bothers me because it almost seems uncivil. I find torture unecessary, and really unhumane. The main thing that bothers me about this act is the shift in power. In the past, the citizens of this nation, when establishing this country tried to make it as hard as possible to avoid one person having all the power. However, now people are afraid of George Bush having all the power. In the video it mentioned that there is only one vote in the supreme court that could stop this. My question is what happened to the spread of power and why is it becoming that only one man has almost, or will soon have all the power?
To me it seems the problem is that the people of this country do not care enough. Maybe the shift in power is because the people are not caring enough anymore. In the past the people were afraid of this new nation becoming like what they left. When they were afraid they made sure to spread the power, and to have a corrupt-proof government. Now people are more concerned with other things, as mention in the video, Dancing with the Stars or shows like American Idol. Now people don't really vote even when they have the privelege. Or instead of voting for the president we choose to vote for the winner of a reality tv show. Recently our rights and freedom have been slipping away, because of our carelessness. Although we have more security now, if we were more careful before we would still have as much freedom. This sort of can be compared to the dresscode at Punahou. Perhaps if the teachers enforced the dress code more strictly before, we wouldn't have a uniform now. However, it just seems that people will not really care until it is too late.

Freedom of Speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/opinion/15thu4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The article I chose was about a Women's bridge team that displayed a sign that said "We did not vote for Bush." at an awards ceremony in Shanghai. This offended some people, and some felt as if it was an unecessary display of political feeling. I thought this was an interesting article because it involved people showing negative feelings about their own country in front of people from other countries. Do people have the duty to have loyalty to their country? Is putting your own country's president down in front of people from other countries a disloyal thing to do? In the article it states that "To hold up a sign like that is an act of disassociation, not from this country, but from the failed policies of this president." Is it a bad thing to want to make it known that you disagree with certain things and actions that the president has done. Is this breaking freedom of speech? I find this difficult to decide because if you are not proud and disagree with the actions of what your president, you should be allowed to pubicly display your opinion. In this particular situation, I think it was a little unecessary to do this because they are at a Bridge tournament, and I think as a citizen of a country you should have some respect for the president of your own country. However it is okay to not want to be associated with actions that represent your country and you as an American citizen and display that opinion.

An Artifact of Rebellion

The artifact that I chose to represent rebellion is money. Money is something that can trigger alot of negative emotions and actions. As seen with the Americans and British, money was one of the main reasons why the Americans started to rebel. The British began to tax the Americans and the Americans were not happy. The British thought they had control and power over the English, and they did until the issue of money got involved. Money was enough of a motivation for the Americans to want to become sovereign and rebel against the British.

Ingenious punishments

Disrespectful behaviors are frowned upon by modern American society. In the article, the kid who threw a party was punished because he was had made too much noise, had a keg, and had under-age drinking at his party. He disrespected the law, and his neighborhood by making too much noise. Perhaps if he had not made a lot of noise, he would have never been caught. It seems that people are only concerned with bad behaviors when they know about it. What someone does not know, can't bother them.
Such punishments for these behaviors are shameful punishments. These shameful punishments are effective because it is almost cruel. These punishments are out of the ordinary and not common. However, in the article it said "the punishment must fit the crime" and this is true. These punishments ironically fit the crime. For example in the article when the kid threw a toga party with underage drinking, he had to stand in front of the police station wearing his toga, or when kids defaced a nativity scene they had to march around town with a donkey.
These punishments fit because they are punished by being mocked or shamed into guilt. In the scarlet letter, Hester Prynne commits the sin of adultery and has to wear a scarlet letter 'A' upon her breast. She also had to stand in front of the whole town and confess her sin. It is almost cruel because she is publicly humiliated. With such shaming punishments, the lesson is learned more permanently. In the article it stated "Mr. Cicconetti says he sees few repeat offenders." These punishments help to keep people from repeating their crime because they are harsh. They are harsh because of public humiliation, everyone gets to see the crime or sin you committed.
I don't think that these types of punishments are too harsh because what goes around comes around and you should treat things the way you want to be treated. If you want to deface a nativity scene, then it shouldn't bother you to have to march around town with a donkey. If you don't want to be mocked then you should not go about making fun of other things.

pro-choice vs. pro-life/choice vs. anti-choice

After todays Am. Studies large many questions can be brought up. On the issue of abortion, my question to the pro-life side is if, abortions were made illegal, would there be an increase in orphans, and children left without parents? When the representative gave some sort of statistic on how the abortion ratem is so great that if we continue it in 80 years, humans will be extinct I thought that this was questionable evidence because yes even though we are killing something when you have an abortion, we are not going to go around killing people. I thought that it was silly that she would apply the rate of abortion as if we were killing people who already exist on earth and are living.
Most of Aloha Pregnancy Care's arguments were backed up by the word of God. Well my question is what if you are a different religion, or if you do not believe in God. The word of God in this case is not enough evidence to back up their argument if you are a non-believer in God. Another question that can be brought up is, do people choose to be gay or are they born gay? If they are born gay then why would God create someone that is considered wrong in his own relgion.
The question that the Planned Parenthood representative brought up that I thought was a good question is "Why should one group of people get to impose their beliefs on another group of people?" I agree with being pro-choice because it is a more open-minded point of view and is more tolerant to differences. When the lady compared the views and beliefs taught by both sides she brought up a good point that the pro-life side is really anti-choice and that they only teach things one way, and that is God's way. This brings up the question what if you are not a religious person is this enough and valid proof to make you believe their point of view? I agree with the pro-choice side because their proof seems more valid to me, it is backed up by more scientific proof and is more open minded to all groups of people and their beliefs. The lady also brought up a good point that even if abortion is made illegal it won't go away, it just makes it less safe for women. She also said that abstinence education is proven to be non effective. If this is true than making abortion illegal would just be kind of stupid because people will still do it, but it will put them at greater risk of putting themselves in danger.
The pro-choice side is about being able to believe and practice your own personal values, rather than practicing in what someone wants you to believe in. I am not only disagreeing with teh pro-life side, but also questioning them, that if someone is not relgious then what proof do they have? The lady from Planned Parenthood brought up a good point that Aloha Pregnancy Care's main arugements are mostly scare tactics. This is true because they use God and the bible, and that does scare people. All their evidence is also saying that if you don't live the one, right way of living you are a bad person and bad things will happen to you. I don't think that there is just one way of living and that everyone has the choice to live the way they want, by what they belive in and value.

My thoughts on religion

Religion has always been really interesting to me. I have always gone to church but not because I truly want to but because I kind of have to. My aunty being a strong believer in Jesus Christ, rather a fanatic, likes it when I go to church and almost forces me too. Just recently I have started to question what am I 'serving' and praising.
Religion is a huge part of society today, and there must be something that keeps people believing. I would never know, I have never had an experience with God or something along those lines. It seems to me that a main reason why Religion is a big part people's lives is it is an answer to the unknown, or life after death. What happens after death? Where do you go? Are you born again? Death brings up many questions, and none of them can really be answered. However Religion gives an answer. It tells you their is a heaven, nirvana, or whatever place your religion calls it. Living a religious life is sort of living your life by guidelines or rules to help you to achieve the right to go to this 'place' [and not hell] after death. What confuses me is when people fight or discrimnate agaisnt other religions. Like the Sunni and the Shites, that is stupid to me because they believe in the same God and are the same religion. I know that they believe in different versions but shouldn't religion be about peace with others not turmoil? It bothers me when people discriminated agaisnt other religions just because they don't believe in the same God. For example my aunty thinks that any other religion, even sect of Christianity that is different than what she believes in is evil. This is silly to me because generally I think that every religion believes in the same moral values. Religion is good to learn and practice moral values but it becomes discriminatory or somebody becomes a fanatic I think that is too much.
One day in church I felt like an outsider looking in. It got me thinking, is it healthy to devote and WORSHIP something that could easily not be there, or exist, something that you will never see until you die, perhaps you do not even see it when you die we do not know, no one will ever know, atleast while they are alive. But I also listened to the pastor say, "if you have any question on how to become a member...." and that sparked a question in my head, a member of what? I thought church was something you could come freely to whenever you wanted to learn a good lesson, I didn't know it was something you could join. The pastor also said something about sharing your experience with God, so perhaps I need an experience with God, to help me devote my life to him. But then I started to wonder about tithes and offerings. It is strange to me how the church takes your money, but you are "offering" [to God?] and giving it to the church, so it is a good deed because you are giving it to the church right? I don't know. Church and money is an interesting topic because you can look at history and see that the church has been corrupt before, like in the medieval times when people would pay the church, because they thought all their sins would be washed away after. My aunty also use to give me money when i came to church, and that is messed up to me. I mean church should be something i want to come to because i enjoy in it not because i am forced and because i get paid.
I wonder what all the Gods must think of our world. They must all be up there, looking down at us, shaking their heads because we are all fighting against each other. Or maybe there only is one God, I mean we never really here his name or identity. Does he even have a name? I only see him as 'God.' Perhaps every religion believes in the same God. But no matter if there are Gods or just one God he or she or they must be disapproving our world today.

Chang Rae Lee Reflection

I really enjoyed listening to Chang Rae Lee speak to our class. It was insightful to hear the author speak about his book. It was surprising to hear that Chang Rae Lee never really felt out of place in his life, and that he didn't ever struggle with his place in society as a Korean-American. Reading his book I would think the opposite but after Chang Rae Lee said that most of his book is fiction, and not based on his life it was understandable. It was interesting to know that alot of his book is fiction and that his real father was a mellow psychiatrist rather than a "tough-love" type of father.
The discussion that we had after asking Chang Rae Lee questions brought up some good points. On the issue of immigration in Hawaii, many interesting questions were asked. Who has the right to tell people that they do not have the right to live here? Do only natives have the right to tell immigrants they can't live here? But they are a minority group on this island and do not have much authority or power anymore. Even if someone did have the right, how can you tell someone they can not live here. Would they actually listen or do what they want to do. But everyone should have the right to want to better their lives and become successful and no one has the right to tell someone that they can't do that.