Thursday, May 16, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Mentors
I think the best way to find someone to help you is to help someone else. When you help others they feel more willing to help you with things as well. Although if someone sees that you have some kind of special abilitys they may take interest in you for that because it probably relates to their own interests. Usually people's mentors are most likely their family because your family usually wants what's best for you. Although sometimes I think a friend could be a better mentor because they would take more interest in what you want to do instead of what your family thinks is best for you.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Blog Assignment 10- Mentorship
"If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"
These words, from Sir Isaac Newton, speak to the necessity in life of finding people to help you along your way, who will lift you up to your own potential. Many times these individuals come from the rank of family or friends, but more often we find people who will 'have our back', and help us succeed. We call these people mentors.
Assuming mentors are important in life, how would you go about finding one (or two, or three?) this is not easy. A mentor first and foremost must believe in you and be willing to use his or own social capital for your benefit. Obviously this means the mentor must be a volunteer.
How do you get someone to help you? How could you convince someone that you are worth their time and energy?
I believe that the connection a mentor and a student have is one of the most needed relationships in every person's life. When seeking a mentor to help you in any skill you first should really know you want it and it is truly your passion/goal. If you aren't sure of yourself then the person your seeking mentorship from will probably take you less serious as everyone can read confidence. I could see how it would be wise to always act respectful towards the possible mentor every time you cross paths with them and to try and make yourself stand out and appear unique to them. Plain and simple a student seeking a mentor should compensate their actions based on what the mentor in desires attitude is.
These words, from Sir Isaac Newton, speak to the necessity in life of finding people to help you along your way, who will lift you up to your own potential. Many times these individuals come from the rank of family or friends, but more often we find people who will 'have our back', and help us succeed. We call these people mentors.
Assuming mentors are important in life, how would you go about finding one (or two, or three?) this is not easy. A mentor first and foremost must believe in you and be willing to use his or own social capital for your benefit. Obviously this means the mentor must be a volunteer.
How do you get someone to help you? How could you convince someone that you are worth their time and energy?
I believe that the connection a mentor and a student have is one of the most needed relationships in every person's life. When seeking a mentor to help you in any skill you first should really know you want it and it is truly your passion/goal. If you aren't sure of yourself then the person your seeking mentorship from will probably take you less serious as everyone can read confidence. I could see how it would be wise to always act respectful towards the possible mentor every time you cross paths with them and to try and make yourself stand out and appear unique to them. Plain and simple a student seeking a mentor should compensate their actions based on what the mentor in desires attitude is.
Mentors
"If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"
These words, from Sir Isaac Newton, speak to the necessity in life of finding people to help you along your way, who will lift you up to your own potential. Many times these individuals come from the rank of family or friends, but more often we find people who will 'have our back', and help us succeed. We call these people mentors.
Assuming mentors are important in life, how would you go about finding one (or two, or three?) this is not easy. A mentor first and foremost must believe in you and be willing to use his or own social capital for your benefit. Obviously this means the mentor must be a volunteer.
How do you get someone to help you? How could you convince someone that you are worth their time and energy?
In my opinion you cannot get someone to help you; you can only take the first steps towards the mentor relationship, and from there they must "complete" the process. Though if you were attempting to obtain a mentor you would probably want to show some sort of interest in whatever the mentor is offering. They must show, in one way or another, that they have the potential to achieve something. To get someone to help you, in my opinion, all you have to do is offer a connection, show them that you are worth what they have to offer; even if your worth isn't necessarily on the surface. To convince convince someone you are worth their time and energy, once you have them interested, you just need to stay true to yourself. Prove that you are a strong person who does not give up, not matter what they are offering, if you prove your worth to them, in any way, they are likely to stick around.
These words, from Sir Isaac Newton, speak to the necessity in life of finding people to help you along your way, who will lift you up to your own potential. Many times these individuals come from the rank of family or friends, but more often we find people who will 'have our back', and help us succeed. We call these people mentors.
Assuming mentors are important in life, how would you go about finding one (or two, or three?) this is not easy. A mentor first and foremost must believe in you and be willing to use his or own social capital for your benefit. Obviously this means the mentor must be a volunteer.
How do you get someone to help you? How could you convince someone that you are worth their time and energy?
In my opinion you cannot get someone to help you; you can only take the first steps towards the mentor relationship, and from there they must "complete" the process. Though if you were attempting to obtain a mentor you would probably want to show some sort of interest in whatever the mentor is offering. They must show, in one way or another, that they have the potential to achieve something. To get someone to help you, in my opinion, all you have to do is offer a connection, show them that you are worth what they have to offer; even if your worth isn't necessarily on the surface. To convince convince someone you are worth their time and energy, once you have them interested, you just need to stay true to yourself. Prove that you are a strong person who does not give up, not matter what they are offering, if you prove your worth to them, in any way, they are likely to stick around.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Nationa anthem
It's a land of conquest, it's a land of guns
It's a land of terror, it's a land of fun
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
It's a small land actually
It's a scary land actually
It's a crazy land actually
It's a deadly land actually
It's a small, small wonderland
It's a land of purpose, it's a land of bliss
It's not a land of freedom, it's a land of hit and miss
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
It's a limited land actually
It's our land actually
It's not your land actually
It's a wonderland after all!
It's a land of terror, it's a land of fun
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
It's a small land actually
It's a scary land actually
It's a crazy land actually
It's a deadly land actually
It's a small, small wonderland
It's a land of purpose, it's a land of bliss
It's not a land of freedom, it's a land of hit and miss
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
It's a limited land actually
It's our land actually
It's not your land actually
It's a wonderland after all!
National Anthem
Its a land of conquests, its a land of guns
Its a land of terror, its a land of fun
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
Its a small land actually
Its a scary land actually
Its a crazy land actually
Its a deadly land actually
Its a small, small wonderland
Its a land of purpose, its a land of bliss
Its a land of freedom, its a land of hit and miss
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
Its a limited land actually
Its our land actually
Its not your land actually
Its a wonderland after all
Its a land of terror, its a land of fun
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
Its a small land actually
Its a scary land actually
Its a crazy land actually
Its a deadly land actually
Its a small, small wonderland
Its a land of purpose, its a land of bliss
Its a land of freedom, its a land of hit and miss
If the flesh begins to tear, we have cannibals beware
Its a limited land actually
Its our land actually
Its not your land actually
Its a wonderland after all
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Blog assignment 8
I'd like you to reflect on the NationState game. What's working, and what isn't? How is your nation making its decisions, and are you happy with it? Would you like your nation to be more aggressive, or less, or take another route? Do you have an agreed-upon strategy for dealing with other countries or city-states? Are you proactive or reactive? Are there examples in the real world that you are using as models for where you'd like your nation to end up? Which ones and why?
I think the NationState game is entertaining and It keeps me guessing and thinking of new ways to get over the obstacles it puts in front of our group. It seems to kind of jump around which is not necessarily a bad thing but can be a little confusing. My nation seems to be efficient at working on our assignments in class as we let everyone in group put their two cents in, which really helps. I think my nation has an okay attitude as we are pretty aggressive when we need to be yet always think things through. We don't really have a set strategy for with other countries or city states other than talking it out and thoughtfully making a decision. Even though we instantly went to war with the first other country we came into contact with and beat them in a close-call dice game. Id say my country is more reactive. I see my country ending up like a cross between the United Kingdom in its prime and Denmark; A truly interesting and fun country to live in. I love Denmark, the feel of it, and the atmosphere. The United Kingdom helped create good music and that in it's self is amazing.
I think the NationState game is entertaining and It keeps me guessing and thinking of new ways to get over the obstacles it puts in front of our group. It seems to kind of jump around which is not necessarily a bad thing but can be a little confusing. My nation seems to be efficient at working on our assignments in class as we let everyone in group put their two cents in, which really helps. I think my nation has an okay attitude as we are pretty aggressive when we need to be yet always think things through. We don't really have a set strategy for with other countries or city states other than talking it out and thoughtfully making a decision. Even though we instantly went to war with the first other country we came into contact with and beat them in a close-call dice game. Id say my country is more reactive. I see my country ending up like a cross between the United Kingdom in its prime and Denmark; A truly interesting and fun country to live in. I love Denmark, the feel of it, and the atmosphere. The United Kingdom helped create good music and that in it's self is amazing.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Assignment 8
I'd like you to reflect on the NationState game. What's working, and what isn't? How is your nation making its decisions, and are you happy with it? Would you like your nation to be more aggressive, or less, or take another route? Do you have an agreed-upon strategy for dealing with other countries or city-states? Are you proactive or reactive? Are there examples in the real world that you are using as models for where you'd like your nation to end up? Which ones and why? Use standard blogging rules for both your original blog entry and your comment.
I like the NationState game, the problem I'm having is that it seems like very scrambled; which isn't really anyones fault considering the game is still "new".
When making decisions we just kind of all throw ideas out there and then considered everything; then as a group figure out the best decision weighing the pro's and con's.
I am happy with the way things are decided in our country because it gives everyone the chance to present their "argument" and then from their the can see where the idea is good and bad.
Our philosophy was to just not socialize with the other groups and not bother them; that was last I heard, but I was not in class on April 19th, so things might have changed since then.
I personally am looking at Switzerland for some decisions and Englands "older style" of government for other decisions. I love Switzerland's policies when it comes to foreign countries; they just don't get involved. And I love Englands "old school" style of government because it worked/s very well for them; they are efficient (though sometimes slower) and try to keep mistakes to a minimum, which is a great quality in a government.
I like the NationState game, the problem I'm having is that it seems like very scrambled; which isn't really anyones fault considering the game is still "new".
When making decisions we just kind of all throw ideas out there and then considered everything; then as a group figure out the best decision weighing the pro's and con's.
I am happy with the way things are decided in our country because it gives everyone the chance to present their "argument" and then from their the can see where the idea is good and bad.
Our philosophy was to just not socialize with the other groups and not bother them; that was last I heard, but I was not in class on April 19th, so things might have changed since then.
I personally am looking at Switzerland for some decisions and Englands "older style" of government for other decisions. I love Switzerland's policies when it comes to foreign countries; they just don't get involved. And I love Englands "old school" style of government because it worked/s very well for them; they are efficient (though sometimes slower) and try to keep mistakes to a minimum, which is a great quality in a government.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
1.(I'd say everyone has been doing their best with the busy lives tht all of us in the group have)So i'd give me a 5.
2.id say tht we need some who can actually mke a little bit of time so tht we as a group can meet up nd maybe rehears for things such as our mid term so everything is decided upon in the last 15seconds b4 class.but i dnt think we should eliminate neone from the group cuz in actuality we wrk well together when we are upon one another as a group.
A. Showing up : 10B. Doing your fair share:6C. Being on time:10D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:7E.Handling conflict among group members:7F.Being present in the group--not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting:10
4.
1.listen to one another
2.try and be available to meet up as a group outside of school as often as need be
3. dont come with a hang over.
4.treat every1 in the group the way u expect to b treated
5.stay in contact with one another as much as possible.
2.id say tht we need some who can actually mke a little bit of time so tht we as a group can meet up nd maybe rehears for things such as our mid term so everything is decided upon in the last 15seconds b4 class.but i dnt think we should eliminate neone from the group cuz in actuality we wrk well together when we are upon one another as a group.
A. Showing up : 10B. Doing your fair share:6C. Being on time:10D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:7E.Handling conflict among group members:7F.Being present in the group--not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting:10
4.
1.listen to one another
2.try and be available to meet up as a group outside of school as often as need be
3. dont come with a hang over.
4.treat every1 in the group the way u expect to b treated
5.stay in contact with one another as much as possible.
Midterm Reflection
Please refelct on your midtermm assignment and its presentation. Find an article on group dynamics that roughly approximates what your experience was, and answer the following questions:
http://managementhelp.org/groups/dynamics-theories.htm
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
It is not easy to work in groups, but as the group leader I felt like I was relied on a little too much. Yes, I should be providing clarifications and making sure everyone is doing their part and working together, but when I have to actually walk every single team member through each of their parts individually then it all becomes overwhelming. I would definitely say that I was one that did more than my fair share in this group. We ended up being able to perform alright I guess, but sometimes things were made ten times more complicated then they needed to be. Although, when someone doesn't do their blog it is a poor look on our blog posts and the overall quality of the blog. I would give myself a 9 because there were a few times where it may have taken me a little while to respond to calls or texts, but for the most part I was always available and in class to provide clarification.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
Yes, unfortunately there are a few members in my group who are not involved at all and don't really communicate that well. If I were to be adding someone else to the group they would definitely have to be reliable and have excellent communication skills. A group cannot succeed without communication.
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:A. Showing up : 10
B. Doing your fair share: 7
C. Being on time: 5
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members: 10
E. Handling conflict among group members: 9
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting: 10
4. Please come up with 5 rules for having an effective group:
1. COMMUNICATE!
2. Ask questions, but attempt to answer them yourselves before reaching out.
3. Pay attention in class
4. Try to be available outside of class
5. Do your part of the bargain.
http://managementhelp.org/groups/dynamics-theories.htm
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
It is not easy to work in groups, but as the group leader I felt like I was relied on a little too much. Yes, I should be providing clarifications and making sure everyone is doing their part and working together, but when I have to actually walk every single team member through each of their parts individually then it all becomes overwhelming. I would definitely say that I was one that did more than my fair share in this group. We ended up being able to perform alright I guess, but sometimes things were made ten times more complicated then they needed to be. Although, when someone doesn't do their blog it is a poor look on our blog posts and the overall quality of the blog. I would give myself a 9 because there were a few times where it may have taken me a little while to respond to calls or texts, but for the most part I was always available and in class to provide clarification.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
Yes, unfortunately there are a few members in my group who are not involved at all and don't really communicate that well. If I were to be adding someone else to the group they would definitely have to be reliable and have excellent communication skills. A group cannot succeed without communication.
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:A. Showing up : 10
B. Doing your fair share: 7
C. Being on time: 5
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members: 10
E. Handling conflict among group members: 9
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting: 10
4. Please come up with 5 rules for having an effective group:
1. COMMUNICATE!
2. Ask questions, but attempt to answer them yourselves before reaching out.
3. Pay attention in class
4. Try to be available outside of class
5. Do your part of the bargain.
Blog Assignment 7 -- Reflections on the MIdterm
Please refelct on your midtermm assignment and its presentation. Find an article on group dynamics that roughly approximates what your experience was, and answer the following questions:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/educationtraining/group-projects
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
A. Showing up :7
B. Doing your fair share:5
C. Being on time:8
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:10
A. Showing up :7
B. Doing your fair share:5
C. Being on time:8
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:10
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cellphone calls or text messages when the group is meeting.:10
I believe there was definitely a few other people in the group who did more than their fair share while others including myself did less. I was one of the two people absent in my group the day we had our presentation on capitol punishment, so I presented my own a week later on my own and did not get to see me my other group members perform. I researched well enough and my blog up and ready, but I failed to execute my presentation properly which surely was not 5 minutes. I think on a scale of 1 to 10 I feel I earned a solid 3.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
I would not wan't anyone to join or leave the group. I appreciate all of our group members as we all seem to have good ideas but usually are totally different.
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
E. Handling conflict among group members :10
5 rules for having fun in the group:
1: Always stay communicated with the other group members.
2: Always try to know what the current group assignment is and keep everyone up to date.
3: Always try to listen to what other group members might have to say and let everyone express their ideas.
4: Everyone should be on the same level and should not have to always rely on the group to the point to where they do not rely on themselves.
5: Speak up and be considerate when others offer criticism which can be and is usually is always helpful
http://www.beyondintractability.org/educationtraining/group-projects
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
A. Showing up :7
B. Doing your fair share:5
C. Being on time:8
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:10
A. Showing up :7
B. Doing your fair share:5
C. Being on time:8
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:10
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cellphone calls or text messages when the group is meeting.:10
I believe there was definitely a few other people in the group who did more than their fair share while others including myself did less. I was one of the two people absent in my group the day we had our presentation on capitol punishment, so I presented my own a week later on my own and did not get to see me my other group members perform. I researched well enough and my blog up and ready, but I failed to execute my presentation properly which surely was not 5 minutes. I think on a scale of 1 to 10 I feel I earned a solid 3.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
I would not wan't anyone to join or leave the group. I appreciate all of our group members as we all seem to have good ideas but usually are totally different.
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
E. Handling conflict among group members :10
5 rules for having fun in the group:
1: Always stay communicated with the other group members.
2: Always try to know what the current group assignment is and keep everyone up to date.
3: Always try to listen to what other group members might have to say and let everyone express their ideas.
4: Everyone should be on the same level and should not have to always rely on the group to the point to where they do not rely on themselves.
5: Speak up and be considerate when others offer criticism which can be and is usually is always helpful
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Group Dynamics
Find an article on group dynamics that roughly approximates what your experience was:
http://www.successfulculture.com/group-dynamics-small-stones-cast-big-ripples/
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
Yes, and sadly yes. Me :( I'm pretty sure I made things not as good as it coul've and I'm very sorry. I'm medium I did my other things, I stidied alot on the death penalty on how is done but I wasnt there and thats bad. But since I was absent Id give me a big fat 1 :( and I wasnt able to text to let people even know
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
No, I like our group and we always come up with good ideas, but if we added someone itd be someone who could hold together the small amount of disharmony we have
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
A. Showing up: 10
B. Doing your fair share: 10
C. Being on time 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members 10
E. Handling conflict among group members 10
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. 7
(I say 10 because important even if we didnt make it happen)
4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.
1: make sure you can always keep contact with at least leader tell leader everything
2: if one group memeber is fooling around attempt to push them to try harder
3: make sure there is harmony try to be the harmony keeper
4: always be postive when responding to someones idea, never say, thats dumb, say maybe thats good but instead
5: Listen to leader!!!!
http://www.successfulculture.com/group-dynamics-small-stones-cast-big-ripples/
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
Yes, and sadly yes. Me :( I'm pretty sure I made things not as good as it coul've and I'm very sorry. I'm medium I did my other things, I stidied alot on the death penalty on how is done but I wasnt there and thats bad. But since I was absent Id give me a big fat 1 :( and I wasnt able to text to let people even know
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
No, I like our group and we always come up with good ideas, but if we added someone itd be someone who could hold together the small amount of disharmony we have
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
A. Showing up: 10
B. Doing your fair share: 10
C. Being on time 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members 10
E. Handling conflict among group members 10
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. 7
(I say 10 because important even if we didnt make it happen)
4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.
1: make sure you can always keep contact with at least leader tell leader everything
2: if one group memeber is fooling around attempt to push them to try harder
3: make sure there is harmony try to be the harmony keeper
4: always be postive when responding to someones idea, never say, thats dumb, say maybe thats good but instead
5: Listen to leader!!!!
Blog Assignment 7 -- Reflections on the MIdterm -- Due April 17
Please refelct on your midtermm assignment and its presentation. Find an article on group dynamics that roughly approximates what your experience was, and answer the following questions:
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
I feel like everyone did their fair share of course we were missing a couple people during our presentation and I think that did affect our performance since we expected to have more people during our 20 minutes. My presentation was not very long I had meant for it to be longer but I get really nervous talking in front of classes. I feel like I would deserve maybe a 7 or 8 just because I did my presentation and answered questions at the end but I defenetly think mine could have been better.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
I wouldn't want to remove anyone from our group were all different and I think that's a good thing to have in a group.
3. How important were basic workplace rules
in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
A. Showing up 9
B. Doing your fair share 9
C. Being on time 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members 9
E. Handling conflict among group members 10
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. 10
4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.
1. Being cooperative
2. Listening to what everyone has to say
3. Do more as a group instead of individually
4. Speak your opinions
5. Meet up other than just in class
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
I feel like everyone did their fair share of course we were missing a couple people during our presentation and I think that did affect our performance since we expected to have more people during our 20 minutes. My presentation was not very long I had meant for it to be longer but I get really nervous talking in front of classes. I feel like I would deserve maybe a 7 or 8 just because I did my presentation and answered questions at the end but I defenetly think mine could have been better.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
I wouldn't want to remove anyone from our group were all different and I think that's a good thing to have in a group.
3. How important were basic workplace rules
in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
A. Showing up 9
B. Doing your fair share 9
C. Being on time 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members 9
E. Handling conflict among group members 10
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. 10
4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.
1. Being cooperative
2. Listening to what everyone has to say
3. Do more as a group instead of individually
4. Speak your opinions
5. Meet up other than just in class
Friday, April 12, 2013
Blog Assignment 7 -- Reflections on the MIdterm -- Due April 17
Please refelct on your midtermm assignment and its presentation. Find an article on group dynamics that roughly approximates what your experience was, and answer the following questions:
http://www.smallgroups.com/articles/2011/groupdynamics.html
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
I feel like their were people who did less than their share, solely because they did not have anything else to say, or anything that was relevant. The groups performance overall was not what I expected due to having two people absent on the presentation day. I feel like I contributed a huge amount to this project, but also comparative to a few of the other people; as in we took the majority of the work. My scaled performance compared to others in the group would be a 9 in my opinion.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
I would not add anyone to the group nor would I take someone out; even though the group tends to disagree I do enjoy hearing the different opinions that are offered during our discussions and decision making processes.
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
A. Showing up 10
B. Doing your fair share 8
C. Being on time 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members 9
E. Handling conflict among group members 8
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. 10
4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.
1. Communication
2. Know when to say what's on your mind verses inappropriate times to speak
3. Make sure that you are prepared to do your best and help other's do theirs
4. Think of the group; help when needed and offer criticism when needed
5. Do not rely too heavily on the group; make sure you are knowledgable in all aspects of the work in case someone else isn't ready with their required "area" of focus
http://www.smallgroups.com/articles/2011/groupdynamics.html
1. In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).
I feel like their were people who did less than their share, solely because they did not have anything else to say, or anything that was relevant. The groups performance overall was not what I expected due to having two people absent on the presentation day. I feel like I contributed a huge amount to this project, but also comparative to a few of the other people; as in we took the majority of the work. My scaled performance compared to others in the group would be a 9 in my opinion.
2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.
I would not add anyone to the group nor would I take someone out; even though the group tends to disagree I do enjoy hearing the different opinions that are offered during our discussions and decision making processes.
3. How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:
A. Showing up 10
B. Doing your fair share 8
C. Being on time 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members 9
E. Handling conflict among group members 8
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. 10
4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.
1. Communication
2. Know when to say what's on your mind verses inappropriate times to speak
3. Make sure that you are prepared to do your best and help other's do theirs
4. Think of the group; help when needed and offer criticism when needed
5. Do not rely too heavily on the group; make sure you are knowledgable in all aspects of the work in case someone else isn't ready with their required "area" of focus
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Before I get started I unnderstand that this is late and i understand that ill probably get a zero on this but i want it turned in. I have had trouble getting my electronics that i do my homework on to work lately but I hope that you at-least read this.
And to my group I apologize for the inconvenience of my mid-term being late. Enjoi
THE DEATH PENALTY
The death penalty is punishment inwhich the personwho committedthe offense is put to death by the state.
Currently35 of the 50 states have a death penalty as well as the Federal Government and the U.S Military. The resolution allows states to continue to use the death penalty if they choose.
From some research I have found out that it cost California tax payers $90,000 a year per inmate on death row. I also found out that California could save over a billion dollars in over the next 5years if we took away the death penalty. But that is not what my argument is about.What my argument is about why I am for the death penalty. My opinion on the fact that i have found out are that California tax payers could save more money in the long run if we spent 22cents for a bullet per inmate on death row and lined them up and put a bullet in the back of their head execution style or even between the eyes. I dont feel like California tax payers should have to pay to keep child molesters,rapist,murderers (unless there is a valid reason for the murder itself)or people who commit torture,treason and or kidnapping alive. As long as experts have proven that the charges against the defendant are apodictic [indisputably true] (everyone has the right to a fair trial) then they should be killed immediately after being convicted. It'll save money. Fuck their appeals!
I see that the death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill, it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense.
well thatsthatsthats all folks :)
porky the pig couldnt say it better himself :p
Thursday, April 4, 2013
The history of Capitol Punishment in America
Ways and dates first used in Amercan History
-Execution by:
1608- Fireing Squad
1890- Electrocution
1924- Cyanide Gas
1982- Lethal injection
History of Reform
-In the colonies
Capitol Punishment in the United States came mostly from Britain influence as the very first settlers from Europe seeking the "New world" brought the tradition with them. By the time the 13 colonies of America had established themselves they had also established vastly different death penalty laws. For example some of the crimes considered worthy of capitol punishment in the laws of Virginia were as petty stealing fruit or Bartering with Indians. Under the Duke's laws of 1665, the colony New York considered physically hurting ones parent or denying God was punishable for death. The first ever recorded execution in American history took place in Jamestown, Virginia 1608. Captain George Kendall was charged for espionage in the act of spying for Spain and was executed by fireing squad for his crimes. The first ever recorded execution of a Virginia woman, Jane Champion, in 1632 for crimes still unknown. Not all of the colonies were advocates of the death penalty however. Thanks to founder William Penn the colony of Pennsylvania had ideas of government that took root heavily in Quaker beliefs which favored a less violent way of life. In the 1700's the first ever attempt to reform capitol punishment to where the only crimes punishable by death would be murder or treason was presented in a bill written by our forefather Thomas Jefferson. The bill was unfortunately vetoed by only one vote. By 1794 Pennsylvania had made it to where murder was the only crime punishable by death and in 1834, after the writing of Declaration of Independence, it would all together stop public executions and be the first state to carry them out in correctional facilities.
-In the states
The reforms of Capitol punishment continued as Michigan would follow suit of that of Pennsylvania by setting treason as the only crime punishable by death. Rhode island and Wisconsin would be next to completely to abolish it. Many other states followed suit as their are 35 states to this date that have abolished it completely while 18 states have an enforceable death penalty still in place. In 1838 an enactment of discretion was introduced to death penalty process which was considered a great abolition victory. The abolition movement continued strong until the 1920's when criminology experts of the time stated that the death penalty was needed in order to keep balance of society. As this research gained momentum so greatly did the number of people being executed from the 1920's all the way through 1940's. There was an estimated 167 execution per year in that time period. This gave way in the 1960's as the death penalty was stated as "cruel and unusual" under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states that "nor shall any state deprive any person of a life, liberty or property without due process of law. 1972 brought about the Supreme Court suspending 40 state death penalty statutes in response to the result of the case Furman vs Georgia. In the 21st century we are still dealing with reforms of the death penalty
Against the Death Penalty
When you see or hear stories about how a person murdered or raped someone or hurt someone to one extent or another you probably think yes they deserve the death penalty. These people probably don't deserve to live but at what cost. Each year California's taxpayers pay about $90,000 to put someone on death row than they would be paying for a life sentence. California alone could save roughly around a billion dollars over the next 5 years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment. Although its not just about the cost in a literal sense, it's also about the cost of taking a life for another life to make something right. There are many people who have been proven or presumed innocent after being on death row. Whats sad is that most of them that were proven innocent were already executed or had been on death row for quite a few years just waiting to die for something they didnt do. When they are executed there are usually a few executioners so no one will know which one actually killed the inmate but thats still murder as well so how does that make it right. Some of these people may deserve it but is it really right for us to take their life away as well?
Monday, April 1, 2013
Death Penalty, The Background, Or What Takes Place
First of all there are different methods to use for the death penalty. Firing Squad which has been used 3 times since 1976, hanging which has also been used 3 times, then a gas chamber which has been used 11 times, electrocution, which has been used 158 times, and then lethal injection which has been used 1150 times.
Lethal Injection is the most modern and common way.
But before anything happens, there is a very intense trial, jurors are presented with facts by skilled advocates under civil rules of evidence and come to a reasoned judgement, and are put to a test. People can be on death row for decades, waiting for their cases to work their way through the appeals process, some people even die before reaching the execution chamber.
The capital punishment process begins when a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, while appeals are made to the court the prisoner lives in a section called Death Row.
Once the appeals are exhausted, an execution order is given and a date is set for the execution. The inmate is now moved to the next area of prison called Death Watch.
During the final 24 hours a prisoner can be visited by several people, family, friends, attorneys, and spiritual advisers. They are halted some time during that last day.
The last meal is provided, and sometimes, the prison attempts to provide whatever the prisoner requests.
The warden and chaplain visit, and also stay until the end of the execution.
Then witnesses arrive, no contact is allowed between the witness, and the prisoner, they are instructed to remain silent.
The prisoner is allowed to make final preparations, some are allowed to shower and get dressed, some are required to remove all clothing.
A heart monitor is connected to monitor when the heart stops.
Once the inmate is finished, the warden gives the signal to bring the prisoner to the execution chamber. They are either rolled in by gurney, or walk in to be strapped in one, or a table.
After being restrained, IV's are inserted into the inmates arms by the execution team, the tubes are threaded through the wall to the anteroom where the executioner is at.
When the IV's are in the prisoner is allowed a final statement either written or verbal, the statement is recorded then released to the media.
Unless a call is received from state officials the execution goes on as planned.
Lethal injection machines can be used or its done manually, the execution team is hidden from view, or wearing a hood. Only one is delivering the lethal injection, the other are putting it in a dummy bag and no one knows which one.
The drugs are administered in this order,
Anesthetic, to put them to sleep.
Paralyzing agent, to paralyze the lungs and stop the breathing.
And a toxic agent (Not used in all states) to induce cardiac arrest.
A physician declares the inmate dead. The body is placed in a body bag, and taken to a medical examiner who may preform an autopsy. Then the body is either claimed by the prisoner's family, or by the state.
Lethal Injection is the most modern and common way.
But before anything happens, there is a very intense trial, jurors are presented with facts by skilled advocates under civil rules of evidence and come to a reasoned judgement, and are put to a test. People can be on death row for decades, waiting for their cases to work their way through the appeals process, some people even die before reaching the execution chamber.
The capital punishment process begins when a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, while appeals are made to the court the prisoner lives in a section called Death Row.
Once the appeals are exhausted, an execution order is given and a date is set for the execution. The inmate is now moved to the next area of prison called Death Watch.
During the final 24 hours a prisoner can be visited by several people, family, friends, attorneys, and spiritual advisers. They are halted some time during that last day.
The last meal is provided, and sometimes, the prison attempts to provide whatever the prisoner requests.
The warden and chaplain visit, and also stay until the end of the execution.
Then witnesses arrive, no contact is allowed between the witness, and the prisoner, they are instructed to remain silent.
The prisoner is allowed to make final preparations, some are allowed to shower and get dressed, some are required to remove all clothing.
A heart monitor is connected to monitor when the heart stops.
Once the inmate is finished, the warden gives the signal to bring the prisoner to the execution chamber. They are either rolled in by gurney, or walk in to be strapped in one, or a table.
After being restrained, IV's are inserted into the inmates arms by the execution team, the tubes are threaded through the wall to the anteroom where the executioner is at.
When the IV's are in the prisoner is allowed a final statement either written or verbal, the statement is recorded then released to the media.
Unless a call is received from state officials the execution goes on as planned.
Lethal injection machines can be used or its done manually, the execution team is hidden from view, or wearing a hood. Only one is delivering the lethal injection, the other are putting it in a dummy bag and no one knows which one.
The drugs are administered in this order,
Anesthetic, to put them to sleep.
Paralyzing agent, to paralyze the lungs and stop the breathing.
And a toxic agent (Not used in all states) to induce cardiac arrest.
A physician declares the inmate dead. The body is placed in a body bag, and taken to a medical examiner who may preform an autopsy. Then the body is either claimed by the prisoner's family, or by the state.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Death Penalty: Economics
The death penalty in the United States has caused much controversy in terms of what rights we have in our government to take away or spare a life. Behind all of this controversy, there lies the question of whether or not it is cost effective to continue to imprison these death penalty cases or to just follow through with the prosecution and kill them. On this site below, it shows a specific portion dedicated just to the financial part of the death penalty in some of the states that says:
-"A new study in California revealed that the cost of the death penalty in the state has been over $4 billion since 1978. Study considered pre-trial and trial costs, costs of automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, costs of federal habeas corpus appeals, and costs of incarceration on death row. (Alarcon & Mitchell, 2011).
-In Maryland, an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. The eventual costs to Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted. (Urban Institute, 2008).
-In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
-Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
-The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).
-In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
The effects of the present financial crisis on the criminal justice system vary widely, but the common thread has been cutbacks in critical areas. In a report released in August of this year, the American Bar Association found that "the justice system in many parts of the United States is on the verge of collapse due to inadequate funding and unbalanced funding." The report went on to state that "the very notion of justice in the United States is threatened by a lack of adequate resources to operate the very system which has protected our rights for more than two centuries."
-New Jersey, for example, laid off more than 500 police officers in 1991. At the same time, it was implementing a death penalty which would cost an estimated $16 million per year, more than enough to hire the same number of officers at a salary of $30,000 per year.
-In Florida, a mid-year budget cut of $45 million for the Department of Corrections forced the early release of 3,000 inmates. Yet, by 1988 Florida had spent $57.2 million to accomplish the execution of 18 people. It costs six times more to execute a person in Florida than to incarcerate a prisoner for life with no parole.
-In contrast, Professors Richard Moran and Joseph Ellis estimated that the money it would take to implement the death penalty in New York for just five years would be enough to fund 250 additional police officers and build prisons for 6,000 inmates.
- Ten other states also reported early release of prisoners because of overcrowding and underfunding. -In Texas, the early release of prisoners has meant that inmates are serving only 20 percent of their sentences and re-arrests are common. On the other hand, Texas spent an estimated $183.2 million in just six years on the death penalty.
-Illinois built new prisons but does not have the funds to open them. It does, however, have the fourth largest death row in the country.
-Georgia's Department of Corrections lost over 900 positions in the past year while local counties have had to raise taxes to pay for death penalty trials."
Death Penalty: Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas
 |
| Cameron Todd Willingham |
Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, was executed wrongfully in 2004 after allegedly starting a fire to his house, killing his three daughters. Due to his history of domestic violence it wasn't hard for the police to suspect him of this crime; and quickly after a Fire Marshall examined the scene Cameron was convicted and sentenced to death.
It didn't help this man that even his own attorney openly admitted that he believed his client started the fire that killed his own family.
While Willingham was in prison evidence arose that he had "satanic images on his walls and was a sociopath" and when the jurors heard of this evidence it was the crowning factor in the final decision.
Killing his children would be his "crowning achievement as a psychopath".
With the Fire Marshal finding 20+ accelerants at the scene and multiple origin points it quickly became obvious that the fire was one of arson, and the only logical starter was Todd. With no motive and no true double check of evidence Cameron Todd was killed.
Quickly after being convicted he was thrust into loneliness, who would believe a "dangerous" man who killed his children? His neighbors reported that he watched his house burn and made no attempt to go inside and save his kids from their death, and this point, at the time, made the idea of arson very believable. Why save people who you were purposefully killing?
Though it was later determined that normal humans cannot force themselves into going into a fire, the human brain does not allow an individual to do so. Even if he tried to save them, which is indeterminable, he wouldn't have been able to because his own body wouldn't allow it.
His ex-wife was quick to jump into the court room and accuse him of the deaths; her children were dead and she knew it was him, after all why would an ex-wife say anything bad about her previous husband? Friends were quick to point fingers at him as he seemed to be calm and under control rather than distressed at the loss of his three daughters. No one bothered to take a second look at the "evidence" at that point, it was all word of mouth, someone had to be punished for taking three young girls from the earth.
He was executed and the death penalty in the case was "proven" to be the best route, until it wasn't.
Dr. Gerald Hurst stepped into the picture years after the execution to prove that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted and murdered; he and many others often look back on this case when examining the death penalty.
In the end Cameron was pardoned, sadly this was six years after his death.
Though it was later determined that normal humans cannot force themselves into going into a fire, the human brain does not allow an individual to do so. Even if he tried to save them, which is indeterminable, he wouldn't have been able to because his own body wouldn't allow it.
His ex-wife was quick to jump into the court room and accuse him of the deaths; her children were dead and she knew it was him, after all why would an ex-wife say anything bad about her previous husband? Friends were quick to point fingers at him as he seemed to be calm and under control rather than distressed at the loss of his three daughters. No one bothered to take a second look at the "evidence" at that point, it was all word of mouth, someone had to be punished for taking three young girls from the earth.
He was executed and the death penalty in the case was "proven" to be the best route, until it wasn't.
Dr. Gerald Hurst stepped into the picture years after the execution to prove that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted and murdered; he and many others often look back on this case when examining the death penalty.
One can never be sure that the right choice is being made, and if the death penalty is allowed, there is always room for error. A life sentence can be overturned but people cannot be brought back from the dead.
 |
| 1994, Cameron Todd Willingham refused an offer and plead guilty to the murder of his children |
In the end Cameron was pardoned, sadly this was six years after his death.
“This Court orders the exoneration of Cameron Todd Willingham for murdering his three daughters. In light of the overwhelming, credible, and reliable evidence presented by the Petitioners, this Court holds that the State of Texas wrongfully executed Cameron Todd Willingham.”
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Drone attacks being covered up
The Air Force Times reports that the Air Force began publishing monthly data on airstrikes launched from remotely piloted aircraft in Afghanistan in October and made the statistics available in November, December and January. The statistics report for February contained an "empty space" where the data on drone strikes had previously been and reports from previous months had been scrubbed of drone strike data. Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Air Forces Central Command did not respond to a request for comment. Over the last decade of war, remotely piloted drone Predators and Reapers have become a critical weapon to gather intelligence and conduct airstrikes against terrorists or insurgents around the world. They have been used extensively on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and northern Africa. The White House on Thursday said President Obama does not have the authority to use a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil if the citizen is not engaged in combat. Attorney General Eric Holder made the assertion in a letter to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who held up the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director amid claims that the administration could use drones to target Americans suspected of terrorism. I think we as Americans should know exactly what's going on in our country if our leaders are going to enforce drone attacks on u.s. citizens or other country's than its our right to know.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Proposed law in Arkansas about abortion.
Information, what stage the infant would be at.
Arkansas has passed a law, banning abortion at twelve weeks of pregnancy. This law was passed by the Republican legislature, over the veto of governor Mike Beebe, but the state senate voted to override his veto, as well as the house. Although this law contradicts supreme court decisions, which gave women basically 24 weeks of pregnancy before they could no longer have an abortion. With our constitution, it may or may not pass, it depends on the majority of people who are against abortion, and our king and queen's opinion on the matter. Although I'd like to think, if it is what the general public wants, it is possible. As an idea, I'm a little wishy washy, because I feel that in twelve weeks, it is true that the baby has developed far, there is brain activity occurring. Although, I don't know that a person could find out in time if they are pregnant, in 24 weeks, at least it's quiet fairly obvious. We need to study more in the matter what is going on with the unborn child, whether or not it is considered "alive" or has the capability to think and be aware. We also have to decide whether or not if we should be "playing god" in this matter.
Arkansas has passed a law, banning abortion at twelve weeks of pregnancy. This law was passed by the Republican legislature, over the veto of governor Mike Beebe, but the state senate voted to override his veto, as well as the house. Although this law contradicts supreme court decisions, which gave women basically 24 weeks of pregnancy before they could no longer have an abortion. With our constitution, it may or may not pass, it depends on the majority of people who are against abortion, and our king and queen's opinion on the matter. Although I'd like to think, if it is what the general public wants, it is possible. As an idea, I'm a little wishy washy, because I feel that in twelve weeks, it is true that the baby has developed far, there is brain activity occurring. Although, I don't know that a person could find out in time if they are pregnant, in 24 weeks, at least it's quiet fairly obvious. We need to study more in the matter what is going on with the unborn child, whether or not it is considered "alive" or has the capability to think and be aware. We also have to decide whether or not if we should be "playing god" in this matter.
Friday, March 8, 2013
arguments facts about drone attacks that have been going on and why. i dont support them do u?
It's frustrating to see how muddled the debate over drones has become. Some people are wondering why we're all so concerned over a new vehicle that delivers bombs, as opposed to planes. No, no, that's not it at all. Drones don't kill people, the U.S. government kills people. It's just a tool. The problem isn't the tool; the problem is how we are using it.
So, in order to clear up the confusion let me just state the three biggest problems with how we are using the drone program.
1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, the government seems to be indicating he was a really important operational leader for al-Qaeda. Their evidence for that -- nothing. At least nothing they have presented to the public or any other branch of government. The old saying is that you could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently they couldn't indict Awlaki.
Does that mean our government couldn't produce any evidence at all on this supposed terrorist mastermind, or has such disdain for any other branch of government that they think it's beneath them to show a shred of evidence to a court before they order the execution of a U.S. citizen?
In the case of the other two U.S. citizens who were killed, including Awlaki's 16 year-old son who was struck in another bombing, the government refuses to say whether they meant to kill those citizens or if it was an accident. Shouldn't we at least know if assassinations of U.S. citizens are done on purpose or accidentally (by the all-knowing, all-wise executive branch)?
Finally, on this note, what a lot of the senators are frustrated by is that even the legal memos outlining why they think they have the right to do these extra-judicial killings are secret. Great, we're using secret law that justifies why the executive gets to execute citizens without any due process (and yes, due process is judicial process Eric Holder).
If you're not bothered by any of this, you should retake your civics class from high school because apparently you missed the whole point of this country, and really, all of western civilization.
2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing. Really, you're in favor of this? This is so outlandishly immoral that it seems unbelievable. But the New York Times, among many other outlets, has confirmed that in fact we are dropping bombs from drones based on signature activity down below without having any idea who we are killing specifically.
This is why we sometimes bomb weddings. People in Afghanistan and Pakistan often bring weapons to weddings and they fire the guns in the air to celebrate. We see the "signature" of terrorists because there are many guns in the area and obliterate the entire wedding party. If you're comfortable with this, there's some chance you're a monster.
3. We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded. If you weren't a monster for agreeing with the above strategy, you certainly are if you agree with this one. Plus, a war criminal. This is one of the biggest war crimes there is. The other people who use this strategy often: al-Qaeda.
So, now do you really support these policies? Of course not, the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists. In reality, only 2 percent of the strikes have hit high level al-Qaeda figures. That's why it's so important to shine a light on this issue.
Of course, there is one other thing, which is that most Democrats cannot get themselves to believe that the beloved Barack Obama would authorize things like this, so they just turn a deaf ear to it or try to make some sort of comical excuse for it. The reality is that he does do these things and that's why progressives who are paying attention have been so disgruntled with him. It's not like we didn't like the guy or vote for the guy; we're not like the conservatives who have Obama Derangement Syndrome and think he's a Muslim from another planet and oppose everything he does. No, we oppose him on this because it is clearly and unequivocally wrong.
Now you know. What you do with this information going forward is your own moral choice. If you can live with yourself by agreeing to these policies, then that's who you are. But if how we use these drones bothers you, then you have a moral responsibility to oppose these policies and let the president know, no matter who's team he's on.
You Can Watch The Young Turks Here
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
In this description on how the drones are being used and why describes that our government isnt really doing their jobs. They may think tht they are making the right decisons and the right people for the right reason....well thats what they want us to beleive, And in all honesty after putting alot of thought into it and doing some research i am against the random use of drones being used to kill american citizens I honestly think if the government has any thought of someone being a teorist or even causing a problem tryn that could put america into danger or any threat, I think tht the government has enough fire power and enough people so tht they could go into people's homes and figure it out from there even if its putting them into an enterment camp. idk maybe im just cruel lol but I think tht if the government is so worried then they should stop letting people into our contry and quit giving them same rights tht we have deport them if their so worried about it but i think the government is doing all of this just for shits and giggles. o'well we live in a twisted society and there is really anything tht we can do unless there is a big enough patition filled out and given to the presidant himself but i doubt anyone will take the time or even have the money to travel around and get a large enough amount of people to sign it.
now this is the presidents argument on why he and the government have the right to use drones to attack american citizens on United States soil. in my oppinion i think its bullshit and tht Hiialry Clinton WOULD do a better job in the office in replace of obamma.
Never wanted him as president.
(CNN) -- Since 9/11, the United States has increasingly relied on drones to kill its enemies and to chip away at terrorism around the globe. Drone warfare has always been controversial. But it became virtually sensational during the heated discussion over John Brennan's nomination to be CIA chief.
CNN Explains: Drones
Is it okay for U.S. to target citizens?
Rand Paul: I'm happy with WH letter
Did pilot spot a drone at JFK?
can we call a revote on presidentcy? if so what do we have to do?
So, in order to clear up the confusion let me just state the three biggest problems with how we are using the drone program.
1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, the government seems to be indicating he was a really important operational leader for al-Qaeda. Their evidence for that -- nothing. At least nothing they have presented to the public or any other branch of government. The old saying is that you could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently they couldn't indict Awlaki.
Does that mean our government couldn't produce any evidence at all on this supposed terrorist mastermind, or has such disdain for any other branch of government that they think it's beneath them to show a shred of evidence to a court before they order the execution of a U.S. citizen?
In the case of the other two U.S. citizens who were killed, including Awlaki's 16 year-old son who was struck in another bombing, the government refuses to say whether they meant to kill those citizens or if it was an accident. Shouldn't we at least know if assassinations of U.S. citizens are done on purpose or accidentally (by the all-knowing, all-wise executive branch)?
Finally, on this note, what a lot of the senators are frustrated by is that even the legal memos outlining why they think they have the right to do these extra-judicial killings are secret. Great, we're using secret law that justifies why the executive gets to execute citizens without any due process (and yes, due process is judicial process Eric Holder).
If you're not bothered by any of this, you should retake your civics class from high school because apparently you missed the whole point of this country, and really, all of western civilization.
2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing. Really, you're in favor of this? This is so outlandishly immoral that it seems unbelievable. But the New York Times, among many other outlets, has confirmed that in fact we are dropping bombs from drones based on signature activity down below without having any idea who we are killing specifically.
This is why we sometimes bomb weddings. People in Afghanistan and Pakistan often bring weapons to weddings and they fire the guns in the air to celebrate. We see the "signature" of terrorists because there are many guns in the area and obliterate the entire wedding party. If you're comfortable with this, there's some chance you're a monster.
3. We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded. If you weren't a monster for agreeing with the above strategy, you certainly are if you agree with this one. Plus, a war criminal. This is one of the biggest war crimes there is. The other people who use this strategy often: al-Qaeda.
So, now do you really support these policies? Of course not, the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists. In reality, only 2 percent of the strikes have hit high level al-Qaeda figures. That's why it's so important to shine a light on this issue.
Of course, there is one other thing, which is that most Democrats cannot get themselves to believe that the beloved Barack Obama would authorize things like this, so they just turn a deaf ear to it or try to make some sort of comical excuse for it. The reality is that he does do these things and that's why progressives who are paying attention have been so disgruntled with him. It's not like we didn't like the guy or vote for the guy; we're not like the conservatives who have Obama Derangement Syndrome and think he's a Muslim from another planet and oppose everything he does. No, we oppose him on this because it is clearly and unequivocally wrong.
Now you know. What you do with this information going forward is your own moral choice. If you can live with yourself by agreeing to these policies, then that's who you are. But if how we use these drones bothers you, then you have a moral responsibility to oppose these policies and let the president know, no matter who's team he's on.
You Can Watch The Young Turks Here
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
In this description on how the drones are being used and why describes that our government isnt really doing their jobs. They may think tht they are making the right decisons and the right people for the right reason....well thats what they want us to beleive, And in all honesty after putting alot of thought into it and doing some research i am against the random use of drones being used to kill american citizens I honestly think if the government has any thought of someone being a teorist or even causing a problem tryn that could put america into danger or any threat, I think tht the government has enough fire power and enough people so tht they could go into people's homes and figure it out from there even if its putting them into an enterment camp. idk maybe im just cruel lol but I think tht if the government is so worried then they should stop letting people into our contry and quit giving them same rights tht we have deport them if their so worried about it but i think the government is doing all of this just for shits and giggles. o'well we live in a twisted society and there is really anything tht we can do unless there is a big enough patition filled out and given to the presidant himself but i doubt anyone will take the time or even have the money to travel around and get a large enough amount of people to sign it.
now this is the presidents argument on why he and the government have the right to use drones to attack american citizens on United States soil. in my oppinion i think its bullshit and tht Hiialry Clinton WOULD do a better job in the office in replace of obamma.
Never wanted him as president.
(CNN) -- Since 9/11, the United States has increasingly relied on drones to kill its enemies and to chip away at terrorism around the globe. Drone warfare has always been controversial. But it became virtually sensational during the heated discussion over John Brennan's nomination to be CIA chief.
Responding to a question stemming from that discussion, Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of a drone strike against Americans on U.S. soil. But he said the administration wasn't planning on such a strike and would use the option only under extreme circumstances.
Holder futher clarified the administration's stance Thursday with a brief letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who had staged a 13-hour filibuster of Brennan's confirmation.
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' " Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."
CNN Explains: DronesIs it okay for U.S. to target citizens?Rand Paul: I'm happy with WH letterDid pilot spot a drone at JFK?
That satisfied Paul, who had ended his filibuster and allowed Brennan's confirmation to go on. But it hasn't ended the discussion about the use of drones over the United States.
What's President Obama's argument?
For some time, the administration has fervently defended the drone program in general, boasting that it has helped decimate al Qaeda and saved the lives of troops that might otherwise be involved in ground attacks.
The United States has carried out 349 "CIA drone strikes" in Pakistan and 61 in Yemen, according to Washington-based nonpartisan think tank The New America Foundation.
When it comes to drone strikes in Indiana or New York, the administration insists the unmanned machines could be used when an imminent threat to the United States is clear. Drone strikes on U.S. soil could be necessary when capture isn't feasible, the administration says. Dealing with a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor-style attack -- or one that seems very likely -- could justify a domestic drone strike, Holder said.
What law or precedent might support their argument?
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said there is no law on drone strikes. "Police officers use weapons on American citizens all the time," he said. "This is just another weapon."
The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. But that's not in the United States.
Again, there is other documentation about drone use against U.S. citizens abroad. Consider a Justice Department memo, given to select members of Congress last year, that says the U.S. government can use lethal force against American citizens overseas who are operational leaders of al Qaeda or its affiliates.
One high-profile example of a U.S. citizen killed in a strike overseas is Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric born and educated in the United States. A drone killed him in Yemen in 2011.
Who are the most vocal opponents?
The pushback against the administration has united unlikely bedfellows.
Republicans and Democrats are both dubious of drones hovering over Americans.
But while Paul stopped the Senate's work cold to express his displeasure, the GOP isn't standing as one over anti-terrorism tactics. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham assailed Paul's filibuster.
"All I can say is that I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," McCain, R-Arizona, said on the Senate floor Thursday.
At one point in his filibuster, Paul said there would be nothing stopping the United States from dropping a missile on Jane Fonda, who actively protested the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
McCain, who admitted that Fonda wasn't his "favorite American," was peeved by Paul's argument.
"Somehow to allege that the United States of America -- our government -- will drop a drone Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous," he sniped.
An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer called Obama the "judge, jury and executioner" in the matter, and said he agreed with Paul.
What are the political overtones here?
The debate, in a larger way, is about the struggle between the executive and legislative branches and which wields authority in such matters.
There are also questions about how the issue might affect the next presidential election, when Obama's two terms will be up. Paul has hinted that he may run in 2016. The next president will probably, at least until challenged, assume the same authority Obama has regarding drone strikes.
But Micah Zenko with the Council on Foreign Relations, an expert on drones and terrorism, cautions against too many predictions.
"This is such a fast-moving issue, and many parts are still being decided," he said.
"But I would add that if you look at how the topic played out in the last election, there was one question on drones in the third debate, and both candidates thought about it for 10 seconds and agreed they were great," he said. "Maybe next time, it will take 20 seconds before they say that."
What's the larger issue at stake?
Drones are becoming more common in general, and technology cannot be stopped, experts say. Controlling the technology and its capabilities will be incredibly difficult. So that will make the idea of transparency even more important.
There has been "a means of dealing with imminent threat in this country -- it's the police, a time-honored way of dealing with the guy who comes into Congress with a grenade launcher," said Tom Junod, an Esquire magazine writer who has written about Obama and the drone program. "We wouldn't be talking about this if we didn't suddenly have this technology ability of taking out anybody we wish.
"It's the technology that has extended the arm of the law and executive attention."
The question for Americans is how far they want the president's arm to reach.
can we call a revote on presidentcy? if so what do we have to do?
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF WONDERLAND. How laws are passed.
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF WONDERLAND
LAWS; The people of the kingdom are given the opportunity to offer suggestions to the king and queen in terms of new laws and concerns that they may have for the kingdom. With the exception of slander against the king/queen and the government officials. Any law that is suggested by the people is then taken in concideration and talked about between the king and queen. And the laws that the king and queen have decided upon are then looked over and talked through for the final decision and the acceptance of the new law with the head of parliment.So the parliment may make sure that the laws will have the peoples best interest at hand.They are then put up for a majority vote between the parliment itself.
LAWS; The people of the kingdom are given the opportunity to offer suggestions to the king and queen in terms of new laws and concerns that they may have for the kingdom. With the exception of slander against the king/queen and the government officials. Any law that is suggested by the people is then taken in concideration and talked about between the king and queen. And the laws that the king and queen have decided upon are then looked over and talked through for the final decision and the acceptance of the new law with the head of parliment.So the parliment may make sure that the laws will have the peoples best interest at hand.They are then put up for a majority vote between the parliment itself.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
United Kingdom of Wonderland
In the late 16th century King Chaz came to power as the new King of the United Kingdom of Wonderland. He married shortly after to his new Queen Kayla. After their head of parliament passed away King Chaz sought out a new one, he appointed his old friend Starr as the new head of parliament. The Queen decided who would be the ambassador and chose a young woman named Marissa. The ambassador then chose the person with whom she felt would be trustworthy to handle their country's wealth, she chose a woman named Lindsay for Treasurer. The king was in charge of selecting a leader for their military, since Miki was already in charge he kept her as head of their military.
Blog Assignment 4 due March 14th
6. The in-class nation simulation has started. What's working? What can we (Oden or I) do better?
What's Working
Right now things that are working would be the groups themselves, it seems that people are getting along well and that communication between group member's isn't a problem. Getting the work done by the Thursday at 11:59 pm deadline doesn't seem to be too difficult either.
What isn't Working
I feel like the game needs to be less emotional for Odin, it is hard to ask questions and get a straight response rather than an opinion; though that may just be part of the game. Also the structure is confusing, trying to figure out what needs done now is difficult because we are told everything at once, and then told to disregard certain things until a later date. It's hard to figure out what is actually going to be the grade the following week. We are given so much information and not really told what is important right now, in the actual class. It would be much easier if we had a guide saying what will be done each class and what is due the next, or at least were told more clearly these details. We are not mind readers so it is difficult to prioritize everything that we are told and that is expected of us.
What's Working
Right now things that are working would be the groups themselves, it seems that people are getting along well and that communication between group member's isn't a problem. Getting the work done by the Thursday at 11:59 pm deadline doesn't seem to be too difficult either.
What isn't Working
I feel like the game needs to be less emotional for Odin, it is hard to ask questions and get a straight response rather than an opinion; though that may just be part of the game. Also the structure is confusing, trying to figure out what needs done now is difficult because we are told everything at once, and then told to disregard certain things until a later date. It's hard to figure out what is actually going to be the grade the following week. We are given so much information and not really told what is important right now, in the actual class. It would be much easier if we had a guide saying what will be done each class and what is due the next, or at least were told more clearly these details. We are not mind readers so it is difficult to prioritize everything that we are told and that is expected of us.
Bill of Rights
Right to Own Property...
that is obtained fairly through payment, trade, barter, or gift. Property can be seized with fair parliament vote and just reasoning. During times of war all homes are available to be used to house members of the military as follows; 1 member of family living in household=1 member of military, 2 member of family living in household=1 member of military, 3 member of family living in household=2 member of military, 4 member of family living in household=2 member of military, 5 member of family living in household=3 member of military, 6 member of family living in household=3 member of military, and so on and so forth, always rounding the troop number up when family has and odd number. Property will be taxed by square footage; if taxes are not paid the property can be seized by the government at any point in time.
Right to Own Weaponry...
to be used only in self defense when intent is obvious; if death occurs trial will be held, even in cases of self defense.
Right to a Hearing...
if under suspicion of crime, and accused of said crime the people will have a right to a hearing under parliament with the King's word being final
Right to Freedom from Slavery...
the people have the right to freedom from slavery; e.i. being property. The people have the right to bring to trial cases in which slavery may or may not exist.
Right to Marriage...
the people have the right to marry who they choose. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a women, it is between two consensual people, man/women, women/women, man/man, etc. The marriage as long as it is legally preformed, will be acknowledged as legitimate.
Right to Vote for Parliament...
the people may vote for parliament, the number of seats is based on the overall population, votes will only count once. Individuals may vote for who ever they choose and at any point can bring trial to the King if the courts have misdoings. The King holds the right to impeach any parliament member after consulting the parliament and bringing forward proof on misdoings.
that is obtained fairly through payment, trade, barter, or gift. Property can be seized with fair parliament vote and just reasoning. During times of war all homes are available to be used to house members of the military as follows; 1 member of family living in household=1 member of military, 2 member of family living in household=1 member of military, 3 member of family living in household=2 member of military, 4 member of family living in household=2 member of military, 5 member of family living in household=3 member of military, 6 member of family living in household=3 member of military, and so on and so forth, always rounding the troop number up when family has and odd number. Property will be taxed by square footage; if taxes are not paid the property can be seized by the government at any point in time.
Right to Own Weaponry...
to be used only in self defense when intent is obvious; if death occurs trial will be held, even in cases of self defense.
Right to a Hearing...
if under suspicion of crime, and accused of said crime the people will have a right to a hearing under parliament with the King's word being final
Right to Freedom from Slavery...
the people have the right to freedom from slavery; e.i. being property. The people have the right to bring to trial cases in which slavery may or may not exist.
Right to Marriage...
the people have the right to marry who they choose. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a women, it is between two consensual people, man/women, women/women, man/man, etc. The marriage as long as it is legally preformed, will be acknowledged as legitimate.
Right to Vote for Parliament...
the people may vote for parliament, the number of seats is based on the overall population, votes will only count once. Individuals may vote for who ever they choose and at any point can bring trial to the King if the courts have misdoings. The King holds the right to impeach any parliament member after consulting the parliament and bringing forward proof on misdoings.
This document is a living document and may be altered at any time at the discretion of the government.
Court and tax systems of The United Kingdom of Wanderland
The court system of The United Kingdom of Wanderland relies solely on the king and Queen (Whom inherit the throne through bloodline), to create laws and policies for the country. The laws and policies of which are created then must be regulated through parliament (checks and balances) to be put into affect. Parliament may veto any law or policy if found unconstitutional. The Queen appoints an ambassador based on his/her social experience who will then monitor public relations based on needs of parliament and the throne. The county taxes its distribution centers for all goods at the rate of 4% with an exception of a 2% rate on water and consumables. All imported goods are taxed at the rate of 8%. Property is taxed by sq/ft in.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Restraining Orders
Speaking out about the restraining order against him
I focused on restraining orders, they are laws that prohibit certain people, or types of people, from doing certain things. Generally this happens in the entertainment industry when a celebrity has had enough of someone, from stalkers to ex-husbands the world of Hollywood has seen it all. Forming connections with people is the cause of these cases in most situations; why take a restraining order on an individual who has no connection to you in any way? Though these orders are not to be taken lightly, in the world of Hollywood everything comes with a air of carefreeness; these are generally dropped or settled for some dollar amount. Welcome to Hollywood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)