Topic:
In this era of electronic mass media, television commercials, image makers, and spin control, do voters get a true picture of the candidates and what they stand for? Is image more important than substance? Has the internet changed the nature of American elections? How do campaigns calculate the preference of voters? What role do the issues play in a campaign? What is the role of negative campaigning? What role do the debates play in the elections?
In this era of electronic mass media, television commercials, and high-tech campaigns, presidential candidates are being elected because of their image and amount of publicity more often than because of their stance on issues or ability to lead the country. The internet is a contributing factor in the degradation of the qualities required of a presidential candidate. News of the candidates circulates so quickly that as they enter new states to woo voters, they are met by already-established opinions and prejudices based on their campaigning in other states. Campaigns become about an image and what the news decides to report about a candidate rather than about the candidate himself. The media is the body that controls which excerpts from speeches to publicize or which interviews to comment on. The public is utterly subject to what the media feeds it and is affected by the images of candidates that the media wants it to see rather than the one the candidate is working so hard to present.
Events that are so inconsequential and irrelevant in the grand scheme of a presidential campaign are eaten up by the media and presented in a way that ensures the public adopts the same opinion of a candidate as the media. For example, it really doesn’t matter how much John Edwards pays for a haircut, but the media publicized the four-hundred dollar price-tag of one of his trips to the barber in order to suggest to the public that he is a rich, profligate, and unworthy candidate.
Another unfortunate habit of the media is their tendency to reveal private, sensitive matters regarding candidates’ campaigns to the public. Because of this, candidates must be aware that their operations are becoming increasingly public to the point where an incorrect recipient of a private email can be circulated to news outlets nationwide. A confidential email concerning Hilary Clinton’s plan of conceding the unwinnable Iowa to the other Democratic candidates was publicized, forcing her pour money and resources into a doomed state simply to salvage her image. Candidate’s personal lives, especially including marital issues are also becoming publicized and involved in campaigns. The media seemingly has eyes inside every candidate’s bedroom and chooses to announce very private and irrelevant information. During this past election, voters were bombarded with rumors and suspicions about the stability of the Clinton’s marriage, the disturbingly radical preaching of Obama’s pastor, and the affairs of the Edwards marriage. As shocking and exciting those insights may be, they are not the facts that voters should consider of primary importance and be making decisions on. Voters get a filtered and manipulated picture of the candidate because they get most of their information from the internet or the news, and for both of those outlets, there is some manipulative body controlling what information they receive.
Another factor in the degradation of elections is the rise of negative campaigning. It is discouraging that candidates have resorted to insulting the opposing candidate. Rather than developing and popularizing their own platform, candidates attack their opponents in the hope of focusing negative public and media attention on the opponent to make themselves seem like the lesser of two evil choices. They are essentially saying, “Choose me because I may not be great, but at least I’m not as bad as the other guy.”
The line between acceptable and unacceptable topics has shifted riskily into the realm of the inappropriate for negative campaigning. Race is unacceptable, and affairs and marital problems are off-limits, but implying that a candidate is weak, inexperienced, self-obsessed, or unpatriotic is acceptable, and in fact, normal. McCain ran an anti-Obama commercial saying that Obama was the world’s biggest celebrity and showing the Democratic nominee as even more self-infatuated than Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. The Obama campaign was insulted by it, and rather than taking the high road, they resorted to negative campaigning as well, using the ad to try to show that McCain was bringing up race when he placed Obama next to pictures of white, female celebrities and to suggest that McCain thought Obama was the affirmative-action nominee and unworthy of his success.
The increased speed at which information can be exchanged today has drastically impacted presidential campaigns and how those campaigns affect the voters. Rather than just allowing more people to be involved in the election or allowing the campaigns to be more efficient and affective, the technological advancements have had negative effects on what information is received by the voters and on how candidates present themselves.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Response to the State of the Union Address
Being not inclined to be interested in or knowledgeable about politics made being engaged throughout the entire State of the Union Address quite a feat. I could only judge the President's speech upon what I think politics should sound like, rather than how it really is. It seemed to me that Mr. Obama talked quite a bit about all of things he has accomplished already during his term, yet I know that it seems to many people that not much has been done to effectively improve their situation. Compared with the tone some news articles take when addressing the recession, Mr. Obama was able to make the current situation sound so good and hopeful which made me suspicious about whether he painting everything to be better than it really is. It also bothered me that the President seemed to be judging progress and a need for reform on stereotypical and dramatized anecdotes. By the end of the address, I was tired of hearing about the imaginary small business owner or farmer in Alabama whose house is being foreclosed and who is trying to raise their kids on their own and who is worried about being laid off. Life is not that simply summarized, and policy shouldn't be formed shouldn't be formed simply because of these "heart-wrenching" stories. The President even specifically stated that he took on health care because of the stories he heard. That seems like a very un-political way to go about forming opinions on very political issues.
I apologize for all the negativity, but praise requires a connection with personal opinions, and I have no opinions or knowledge on many of the matters discussed.
Also, I thought all the applause was absurdly overdone. I do not believe I've ever seen a State of the Union Address before, because I don't think I've ever seen so much clapping for such a simple presentation (as in a single speaker and no music or special effects).
The only question I can think of for the President is "Do you blame yourself for any problem or continuation of an existing problem in present society?" I hope it is not too harsh of a question, but it seemed like Mr. Obama was blaming other administrations and outside forces for problems that might have been created or exascerbated during his term. I don't want to blame him for anything, but I thought it was odd that he seemed to be saying that everything wasn't his fault.
I apologize for all the negativity, but praise requires a connection with personal opinions, and I have no opinions or knowledge on many of the matters discussed.
Also, I thought all the applause was absurdly overdone. I do not believe I've ever seen a State of the Union Address before, because I don't think I've ever seen so much clapping for such a simple presentation (as in a single speaker and no music or special effects).
The only question I can think of for the President is "Do you blame yourself for any problem or continuation of an existing problem in present society?" I hope it is not too harsh of a question, but it seemed like Mr. Obama was blaming other administrations and outside forces for problems that might have been created or exascerbated during his term. I don't want to blame him for anything, but I thought it was odd that he seemed to be saying that everything wasn't his fault.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
DBQ Questions
Document A
Brutus' main argument against the ratification of the Constitution and the proposed court system is the unchecked power of the judges and the judiciary branch. He says that it is an amount of power never seen in the judiciary before.
Document B
Hamilton calls the judiciary branch the "least dangerous" because it has the least ability to do harm to or to even annoy the other branches. The judiciary lacks force and will. It can only pass judgments and it even needs help from the executive branch for the enforcement of its judgments.
Document C
No law can be valid if is contradicts the Constitution. This gives complete freedom for laws as long as they are constitutional.
Document D
Hamilton asserts that the judges have the authority to judge the constitutionality of federal laws because they are the ones who hold the Constitution to be fundamental law and it is their job to interpret it.
Document E
Hamilton denies that the Constitution gives power to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court because no where in the Constitution does it specifically give that power to any body of government. Hamilton also states that the Constitution should be the standard by which laws are determined even though there isn't a designated body to judge the Constitutionality of the laws.
Document F
The Supreme Court has the power to, in all cases, rule on issues of law and equity, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made within the regulations that Congress sets.
Document G
This document supports Hamilton's argument because it recognizes that the judges are subject to the laws of the land and of the Constitution. Under those restrictions, they do not have many powers and are therefore the least dangerous branch.
Document H
Section 13 gives the court power to call forth anyone in the United States, even people holding office, before the court under a writ of mandamus.
Document I
Thomas Jefferson asserts that the sovereign states that created have the power to nullify any laws that contradict the Constitution.
Document J
This ruling says that the judicial branch has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution because it is thier job to judge what the law is. Because laws created by the legislature must adhere to the principles of the Constitution, the judicial branch must interpret the Constitution in order to determine the validity of the laws created by the legislature. Marshall identifies the "very essence of judicial duty" to be the job of deterimining, on a case by case basis, whether the law or the Constitution should determine the rules of the case.
Document K
Jefferson's reaction to the decision of Marbury vs. Madison was that the judicial branch was created to be equal to the other branches so that there would be checks and balances. They are an equal branch except for their ability to perscribe the rules for the governing of the counrty and the other branches. They are able to mold these rules to fit their fancy for the Constitution is "a mere thing of wax" which can be interpretted and twisted any number of ways. This opinion is drastically different from that of Hamilton's in Document B because Jefferson believes that the judiciary have the power to dictate how the country functions whereas Hamilton believes that it is the least dangerous branch of government without the will or power to affect laws or policies.
Should the Supreme Court Have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws?
The Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. The court is the interpretted of the Constitution in cases broght forth between different levels of government. If it doesn't have the power to exert its Constitutional-interpretting skills upon the creation of laws, no other branch or body of the government will. While it is the court's primary duty to uphold the Constitution, the legislative branch simply acts in what it feels is in the best interests of the country, without the hinderance of consideration for how their actions adhere to the Constitution. A separate body, the judicial branch, must check that the federal laws are in-line with the most basic principles and document of the United States.
Brutus' main argument against the ratification of the Constitution and the proposed court system is the unchecked power of the judges and the judiciary branch. He says that it is an amount of power never seen in the judiciary before.
Document B
Hamilton calls the judiciary branch the "least dangerous" because it has the least ability to do harm to or to even annoy the other branches. The judiciary lacks force and will. It can only pass judgments and it even needs help from the executive branch for the enforcement of its judgments.
Document C
No law can be valid if is contradicts the Constitution. This gives complete freedom for laws as long as they are constitutional.
Document D
Hamilton asserts that the judges have the authority to judge the constitutionality of federal laws because they are the ones who hold the Constitution to be fundamental law and it is their job to interpret it.
Document E
Hamilton denies that the Constitution gives power to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court because no where in the Constitution does it specifically give that power to any body of government. Hamilton also states that the Constitution should be the standard by which laws are determined even though there isn't a designated body to judge the Constitutionality of the laws.
Document F
The Supreme Court has the power to, in all cases, rule on issues of law and equity, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made within the regulations that Congress sets.
Document G
This document supports Hamilton's argument because it recognizes that the judges are subject to the laws of the land and of the Constitution. Under those restrictions, they do not have many powers and are therefore the least dangerous branch.
Document H
Section 13 gives the court power to call forth anyone in the United States, even people holding office, before the court under a writ of mandamus.
Document I
Thomas Jefferson asserts that the sovereign states that created have the power to nullify any laws that contradict the Constitution.
Document J
This ruling says that the judicial branch has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution because it is thier job to judge what the law is. Because laws created by the legislature must adhere to the principles of the Constitution, the judicial branch must interpret the Constitution in order to determine the validity of the laws created by the legislature. Marshall identifies the "very essence of judicial duty" to be the job of deterimining, on a case by case basis, whether the law or the Constitution should determine the rules of the case.
Document K
Jefferson's reaction to the decision of Marbury vs. Madison was that the judicial branch was created to be equal to the other branches so that there would be checks and balances. They are an equal branch except for their ability to perscribe the rules for the governing of the counrty and the other branches. They are able to mold these rules to fit their fancy for the Constitution is "a mere thing of wax" which can be interpretted and twisted any number of ways. This opinion is drastically different from that of Hamilton's in Document B because Jefferson believes that the judiciary have the power to dictate how the country functions whereas Hamilton believes that it is the least dangerous branch of government without the will or power to affect laws or policies.
Should the Supreme Court Have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws?
The Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. The court is the interpretted of the Constitution in cases broght forth between different levels of government. If it doesn't have the power to exert its Constitutional-interpretting skills upon the creation of laws, no other branch or body of the government will. While it is the court's primary duty to uphold the Constitution, the legislative branch simply acts in what it feels is in the best interests of the country, without the hinderance of consideration for how their actions adhere to the Constitution. A separate body, the judicial branch, must check that the federal laws are in-line with the most basic principles and document of the United States.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Responses from Class
1. Video about Haymarket Riots
The right to assembly implies the right to strike. People are allowed to come together to talk or plan about whatever they want. They are also allowed to come together, acting upon that plan, to protest or to strike. The only time when these rights would be taken away is in the face of clear and present danger. It is the government's job to balance the peoples' right to free speech and assembly with the needs of the community.
2. Women's Rights
Is voting the basis of citizenship? Did suffrage make women equal?
Voting is the basis of citizenship because it is the privilege of citizens that makes them part of the democracy. Involvement in democracy is involvement in the government, and being able to be involved in the government makes you a citizen. Women may have gained equally in the eyes of the government, but they still were not seen as equal to their fellow citizens. Employers were still paying them less and husbands still felt superior, making them unwilling to stay home and take on house-making roles typically occupied by women.
The equal rights amendment was never ratified. Should it be? Should we have an amendment protecting women if there's one protecting African Americans?
A specific amendment protecting women's rights shouldn't be necessary; Americans should just know that all people (no matter of race or gender) are created equal. Seeing that wages are still not the same and that "glass ceilings" still exist, an amendment defending women's rights against other Americans might be necessary. I don't have any personal experience with this issue, so I'm not sure.
3. "I Have a Dream" Speech
Obviously a really great speech. It is interesting that Martin Luther King is speaking to two entities, only one of which is present: He is addressing the people gathered before him, seeking racial equality, but also the government or the nation, whom he urges to realize the fact that they owe rights to the African American population and the fact that his followers will not be satisfied or quieted if the government tries to silence and ignore them. Martin Luther King is speaking to the people who already believe in his cause. He is not speaking to convince anyone else, but only to strengthen his supporters in the resolve to pursue the dream of racial justice.
4. Huey Newton
Huey Newton is less idealistic and admits the more evil tendencies of Americans. He believes in confronting the issue and addressing the very true but embarassing, hidden, stereotypical thoughts that everyone has. We cannot end prejudice unless everyone admits that they are prejudiced.
5. H. Rap Brown
He is less cooperative. He identifies the problem to be the rest of the country. He is good at humorously comparing his followers' situations to common, simple situations that help people to realize the injustices directed at them.
The right to assembly implies the right to strike. People are allowed to come together to talk or plan about whatever they want. They are also allowed to come together, acting upon that plan, to protest or to strike. The only time when these rights would be taken away is in the face of clear and present danger. It is the government's job to balance the peoples' right to free speech and assembly with the needs of the community.
2. Women's Rights
Is voting the basis of citizenship? Did suffrage make women equal?
Voting is the basis of citizenship because it is the privilege of citizens that makes them part of the democracy. Involvement in democracy is involvement in the government, and being able to be involved in the government makes you a citizen. Women may have gained equally in the eyes of the government, but they still were not seen as equal to their fellow citizens. Employers were still paying them less and husbands still felt superior, making them unwilling to stay home and take on house-making roles typically occupied by women.
The equal rights amendment was never ratified. Should it be? Should we have an amendment protecting women if there's one protecting African Americans?
A specific amendment protecting women's rights shouldn't be necessary; Americans should just know that all people (no matter of race or gender) are created equal. Seeing that wages are still not the same and that "glass ceilings" still exist, an amendment defending women's rights against other Americans might be necessary. I don't have any personal experience with this issue, so I'm not sure.
3. "I Have a Dream" Speech
Obviously a really great speech. It is interesting that Martin Luther King is speaking to two entities, only one of which is present: He is addressing the people gathered before him, seeking racial equality, but also the government or the nation, whom he urges to realize the fact that they owe rights to the African American population and the fact that his followers will not be satisfied or quieted if the government tries to silence and ignore them. Martin Luther King is speaking to the people who already believe in his cause. He is not speaking to convince anyone else, but only to strengthen his supporters in the resolve to pursue the dream of racial justice.
4. Huey Newton
Huey Newton is less idealistic and admits the more evil tendencies of Americans. He believes in confronting the issue and addressing the very true but embarassing, hidden, stereotypical thoughts that everyone has. We cannot end prejudice unless everyone admits that they are prejudiced.
5. H. Rap Brown
He is less cooperative. He identifies the problem to be the rest of the country. He is good at humorously comparing his followers' situations to common, simple situations that help people to realize the injustices directed at them.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Observations from Class
1. What is the worth of a human being?
While we would hope that a human life is the most sacred thing on Earth, it sometimes seems like risking multiple peoples' lives is not worth the possibility of saving one. In the movie, "Black Hawk Down," 19 soldiers ended up losing their lives in a series of attempts to rescue possible survivors from a crashed helicopter. They were following their motto, "no man left behind," but in the effort to save pilots who were only possibly alive, many other soldiers were killed, humiliated by the natives, and one was kidnapped. In that circumstance at least, it would seem as though the possibility of saving one life was not worth risking all of the those other people. While even I normally always say that a human life is worth almost anything, we should all be honest about reality.
2. What are some minority groups?
Asian-American 2%, disabled Americans 5%, gay Americans 5%, African Americans 15%, American Indians 2%, Hispanic Americans 20%
* I couldn't find a good graph to include
3. How does America determine a person's worth?
Most people would like to think that "all men are created equal" in America, and that is how it would be in the ideal situation, but all people are not treated equally in reality. The country generally judges and values people based on wealth, status, and race or gender. You are worth more to society if you are a big businessman rather than a "lowly" factory worker. And the happiness and preservation of rich, influential people is worth more to the government than a low-income worker who might be part of a minority group. These actions are simply products of the government acting in its own self-interest. Morals and gaining supporters are the only reasons why the government would act in the interest of minority groups, but money, influence, and power are very enticing reasons for the government to act in the interest of large corporations and influential people.
While we would hope that a human life is the most sacred thing on Earth, it sometimes seems like risking multiple peoples' lives is not worth the possibility of saving one. In the movie, "Black Hawk Down," 19 soldiers ended up losing their lives in a series of attempts to rescue possible survivors from a crashed helicopter. They were following their motto, "no man left behind," but in the effort to save pilots who were only possibly alive, many other soldiers were killed, humiliated by the natives, and one was kidnapped. In that circumstance at least, it would seem as though the possibility of saving one life was not worth risking all of the those other people. While even I normally always say that a human life is worth almost anything, we should all be honest about reality.
2. What are some minority groups?
Asian-American 2%, disabled Americans 5%, gay Americans 5%, African Americans 15%, American Indians 2%, Hispanic Americans 20%
* I couldn't find a good graph to include
3. How does America determine a person's worth?
Most people would like to think that "all men are created equal" in America, and that is how it would be in the ideal situation, but all people are not treated equally in reality. The country generally judges and values people based on wealth, status, and race or gender. You are worth more to society if you are a big businessman rather than a "lowly" factory worker. And the happiness and preservation of rich, influential people is worth more to the government than a low-income worker who might be part of a minority group. These actions are simply products of the government acting in its own self-interest. Morals and gaining supporters are the only reasons why the government would act in the interest of minority groups, but money, influence, and power are very enticing reasons for the government to act in the interest of large corporations and influential people.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Points of Interest in the News
Articles from the Washington Post
1. I was reading the travel section, and I found an article about planning a trip to Ireland. I know this is not technically news, but I've always wanted to go to Ireland, and it was reassuring to know how easy it is to plan a trip and how nice of a country it is to visit.
2. I read an opinion article entitled "This Will Not End Well." It was about Obama's plan in Afghanistan. Although I am not very familiar with the premise of this war, it was interesting to be reminded that many presidents, like Obama, do not meet their deadline for pulling out of country. The writer was obviously biased against our president, but it was interesting to hear how much evidence there is to suggest that Obama is not capable of following through on his promises. (Please note: these are not my opinions. In fact, I don't really have any opinions on this topic. This is just a response to a very opinionated article.)
3. "Fashion Advice That's Worth Taking Personally" is a lightly amusing, yet pointless article about the necessity of getting an unrelated, critical person to assess your style honestly, rather than your mother. I thought the topic was common knowledge, but I thought that the title may have been clever. I'm not sure if it was purposeful that the author chose the word "personally" to title an article about finding someone who is not invested in you personally, but I got a chuckle out of it. Also, they mention my favorite brand: J. Crew!!
4. I just found an article about a soldier who became a specialist in the Army Reserve. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but guess where he went to college. Washington and Lee!! Go Generals!!
5. "A Plowman Dressed as a Prince" is, believe it or not, an article written about a car. "Please welcome the 2010 Land Rover Range Rover Autobiography, arguably the most extravagant, most luxurious, most leather-bound, fine-wood-paneled, amenity-laden sport-utility vehicle ever made, which is why it's also one of the dumbest." This is an entertaining, well-written article about the absurdity of luxury vehicles whose purpose was originally to be able to go off-road. I was intrigued that Land Rovers were originally used as transportation vehicles in war, but were turned into luxury vehicles because there was money to be made off a market of extravagant, rich people. I just liked this article because it was different and because it featured a new character on the news scene: a car.
1. I was reading the travel section, and I found an article about planning a trip to Ireland. I know this is not technically news, but I've always wanted to go to Ireland, and it was reassuring to know how easy it is to plan a trip and how nice of a country it is to visit.
2. I read an opinion article entitled "This Will Not End Well." It was about Obama's plan in Afghanistan. Although I am not very familiar with the premise of this war, it was interesting to be reminded that many presidents, like Obama, do not meet their deadline for pulling out of country. The writer was obviously biased against our president, but it was interesting to hear how much evidence there is to suggest that Obama is not capable of following through on his promises. (Please note: these are not my opinions. In fact, I don't really have any opinions on this topic. This is just a response to a very opinionated article.)
3. "Fashion Advice That's Worth Taking Personally" is a lightly amusing, yet pointless article about the necessity of getting an unrelated, critical person to assess your style honestly, rather than your mother. I thought the topic was common knowledge, but I thought that the title may have been clever. I'm not sure if it was purposeful that the author chose the word "personally" to title an article about finding someone who is not invested in you personally, but I got a chuckle out of it. Also, they mention my favorite brand: J. Crew!!
4. I just found an article about a soldier who became a specialist in the Army Reserve. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but guess where he went to college. Washington and Lee!! Go Generals!!
5. "A Plowman Dressed as a Prince" is, believe it or not, an article written about a car. "Please welcome the 2010 Land Rover Range Rover Autobiography, arguably the most extravagant, most luxurious, most leather-bound, fine-wood-paneled, amenity-laden sport-utility vehicle ever made, which is why it's also one of the dumbest." This is an entertaining, well-written article about the absurdity of luxury vehicles whose purpose was originally to be able to go off-road. I was intrigued that Land Rovers were originally used as transportation vehicles in war, but were turned into luxury vehicles because there was money to be made off a market of extravagant, rich people. I just liked this article because it was different and because it featured a new character on the news scene: a car.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Being An American Essay
John D. Rockefeller said, “I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.” His philosophy eloquently summarizes how great it is to be an American, but also how much work it takes to keep our country great. It is only because of brave, sure-minded, righteous people that we enjoy the freedom and justice that characterizes America.
The Constitution is the most important American document in terms of providing the citizens with ways to be involved in the government and influence officials on what they consider fair and right. As Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “the history of liberty is largely the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.” The Constitution developed those procedural safeguards, such as the terms for “a speedy and public trial” and the proper limits on governmental power, which protect citizens from misguided officials misinterpreting and construing those rights and liberties so crucial to American life. It is the peoples’ responsibility to take advantage of the safeguards and processes defined in the Constitution which allow them control what the government decides is in their best interests. We are obligated, by the fact that we exercise the freedoms and protections defined in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, to bring to the attention of the Court, the interpreter and protector of our rights, the situations in our communities which we feel violate our rights promised by the Constitution.
John Serrano was one such American who was willing to take on the responsibility of convincing the courts to intervene in his community and communities like his to correct an injustice he felt was denying his children their right to the American experience. Serrano filed a lawsuit against the California state treasurer because he noticed and was unsettled by the fact that the system of financing public schools in California created unequal opportunities depending on where you lived. The schools in the wealthier neighborhoods were better funded than those in the poorer neighborhoods because most financing for public schools comes from property taxes. Serrano was able to convince the California Supreme Court to take action to end the educational discrimination of children in public schools, and the changes in the way schools were financed in California led to changes in public school systems all across America. It is because of responsible people like John Serrano, who fight single-handedly against injustices that affect us all, that America will remain a free and just place.
Although not all of us are as dedicated and committed as John Serrano, there are still things that we can all do to fulfill our responsibility to our fellow citizens and our country. I am only seventeen and there is nothing in my carefree and young life that I find unjust or encroaching upon my liberties. I am confident, though, in the effectiveness and willingness of our government to deal with the issues citizens present that in the future, I will not hesitate to approach the government about any occurrences in my community, that might affect communities across the country, which I discover to contradict my perception of the freedoms promised by the Bill of Rights. All citizens should follow John Serrano's example and accept the responsibility for ensuring our own liberties. We need to learn from the past examples of citizens having the initiative and sense of responsibility to end the injustices being done to them and so that we can start changing our world today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
