Post Trial Reflection

According to the prosecution, Arizona was violating the constitution, specifically the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Two of the founding fathers were called up (James Madison and John Adams), to explain exactly what they meant in the amendments, and a representative of Arizona was called up to explain why he (she) thought that the bills Arizona had passed were wrong.

According to the defense, Arizona was not in the wrong, but only doing their job to keep their citizens safe from the illegal aliens. They called forth the Arizona Governor, a police chief (if I am not mistaken...), and a policeman who had been shot by two 'illegal' immigrants. They pointed out that the country was not doing their job and they only wished to help it keep the people who shouldn't be there out.

I think the most significant pieces of evidence came when the prosecution cross-examined the defense's witnesses- they basically got them to contradict everything that the defense had said up to that point in time. They also got them to admit they were wrong on many occasions - not directly, but still - and if you admit that you're wrong, that seriously ruins your credibility as a lawmaker or police enforcer and so on.

The most significant argument was the prosecution hammering into place that the bill(s) were against the constitution and that states did NOT have the power that the defense was saying they should have if the country wasn't doing its job.

The verdict was guilty - which I fully support. I was on the jury, after all... anyway, it's my own personal opinion, but I did my best not to let that affect my choice and I made it based on the evidence both sides had presented, and the organization, or lack thereof, that they had. I just really felt like the prosecution did an amazing job of hammering their point into place.

-

I think I deserve a 35 out of 50 points because being a juror is not very hard. I just watched (which I didn't fully do...) and helped make the final decision. I was good at the deliberations because I felt like I had a real opinion and say in the matter and it was easy for me to get my pint across, even if I did stumble across my words a bit I knew what I was trying to say. I could have done better at actually watching the trial by drawing less... I'm not very good at maintaining focus and I was constantly drawing throughout the trial, which I feel like was a bad idea (but I did get the gist of what was going on - I just feel like I should have taken more notes on names and positions and such is all).

WW2 Letter Info

I am probably going to pick a position as a working woman in America, simply because it will be easier for me to put myself in the position of a woman - however, I might end up picking a soldier because it might be fun to get into a soldier's shoes to see what they would think.

As a woman I would look up information on working conditions and probably look into a specific factory that I would be working at.

As a soldier, I think I'd pick a specific battle to be in - maybe even be a soldier on the opposing side?

As for the letter itself, I'd like to handwrite it as a semi-illiterate person, so it'd have spelling errors and backwards letters and stuff, but the message would still get across... It might be fun.

Honors History Blog #2

The wars held importance in the sense that they were so devastating that it's unlikely that anyone would ever want to be involved in such a large-scale conflict again. They also held importance in the sense that they helped countries do a lot of developing- quite a bit of technology developed during that time is still used today. Weaponry, planes... heck, even nuclear weaponry came about because of the second world war. Not that it wouldn't have if it weren't for the war, but during times of crisis people become desperate and tend to work faster than they normally do on such things so that it can help them overcome said crisis.

The wars were incredible in the sense that they brought about development that would not have ordinarily been brought around. Yes, nuclear fusion/fission did exist before World War 2... but that was in the sun and not in a way that we could harness. If it hadn't been for the need to build nuclear weaponry then we would have never even considered that it could be harnessed, and we would probably still be using some ridiculous form of power like hamsters on treadmills. A lot of the weaponry that we use today appeared in the second world war as well - I'm probably wrong on this, but if I remember right, I heard that AK-47s were invented during WW2, and a lot of aerial technology came to be in the second world war. Plus, a lot of planes that could carry more than just one person (a person plus a bomb/weapon) started to be invented in the first world war - before that, soaring with the birds was something that could only be done for a few moments (just ask the Wright brothers). They also created a lot of alliances and a system of checks and balances on other countries that had the possibility to go renegade on us all. (Not that they would. We have nukes.)

Blog #15

Instead of picking something off of the provided list that Randy has given us, I decided to choose something that I was particularly interested in - that is, the combat strategies and what sort of information and misinformation was used to win the war.

During the war, both sides had many different battle strategies. Due to my nature as a writer, and my recent fascination with the kinds of tactics that are used in war-like battles, I wish to know all that I can about the combat tactics in the war and what kinds of things were done to give the other side misinformation. I recall reading somewhere that American and Brittish troops had spies working for them, sometimes even double-agents, who would talk about what the German forces were up to, and deliver information about squadrons that were nonexistent. I also recall reading that America and Brittan broadcasted radio messages that purposely spoke about plans, attacks and squadrons that did not exist to falsely prepare their enemies for an attack that was not coming and distract them from the real attack. I'd like to know a lot more about these strategies and these spies and the way that the battles were fought during the war; which I could probably do by researching accounts of soldiers on the battlefield or looking up battleplans. And, chances are, a lot of our combat strategies are the same as they were back then.

Blog #14

1. What are the most interesting aspects of World Wars 1 and 2?
In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of World Wars 1 and 2 is that they were so close together. The world had just been devastated by the first World War (or, as it was known then, The Great War), and yet the instability caused by it provoked the second one to erupt and begin. I also find it interesting that the wars both had similar causes - that is, instability among alliances and countries, as well as chaos involved in the relationships between them, albeit for different reasons for either war.

2. What do you hope to learn about these wars?
Well, to be completely honest, I don't really hope to learn much, since I learned a lot about World Wars 1 and 2 last year in Lori's class. Something I would like to learn, though, are the kinds of tactics that were used on the battlefields, and how things like spy operations were done, and what sort of honor soldiers had regarding the other side. (I heard somewhere that soldiers would give people on the other side funerals and things out of respect.)

3. How/Why are these wars important today? How do they impact and/or inform our world today?
The wars held importance in the sense that they were so devastating that it's unlikely that anyone would ever want to be involved in such a large-scale conflict again. They also held importance in the sense that they helped countries do a lot of developing- quite a bit of technology developed during that time is still used today. Weaponry, planes... heck, even nuclear weaponry came about because of the second world war. Not that it wouldn't have if it weren't for the war, but during times of crisis people become desperate and tend to work faster than they normally do on such things so that it can help them overcome said crisis.

Honors Novel #2

In the early chapters of The Grapes of Wrath, we are introduced to Jim Casy, an ex-preacher who is pondering thoughts about his own faith. He speaks to Tom as a friend, confiding in him a revelation that he has recently had. Casy expresses belief that there is no God, and there is no Jesus. He only believes in the Holy Spirit, and he believes it to be in every being, every man and woman. He also believes that there's no sin and virtue - just stuff people do. And who's to say it's right or wrong?

Once Casy is introduced, it becomes clear that the novel is not about the Joads or random, one-shot scenes of the bigger picture. Instead, the novel is communicating Casy's message of a spiritual union, a world without sin and virtue. Constantly, migrant families stick together and stay together, feeling a connection hrough their similar situations. But is it just the situation that brings them together, or is it the connection brought about by a unified spirit - the one in every man and woman - that pulls them together and gives them the will to help each other, despite not having much themselves? The spirit that Casy talks about is everywhere - in the migrant families struggling to make a better life for themselves, in the Joad family despite members having to break away, in the turtle that was striving to get to the other side of the highway.

Perhaps Casy's message is best delivered after his death, when Tom and Ma Joad are talking about Tom having to leave. Tom comments that it's like Casy's been saying - he's just a little part of the bigger spirit, and so if Ma misses him, she can look to other people - the happy and sad, the laughing and crying, and he'll be there. Not in person, but in spirit - because in a way, everyone's just one part of a worldwide spirit, a worldwide message that Steinbeck strives to deliver throughout the entirety of the novel.

"I says, 'Maybe it ain't a sin. Maybe it's just the way folks is. Maybe we been whippin' the hell out of ourselves for nothin'.' An' I thought how some sisters took to beatin' theirselves with a three-foot shag of bobwire. An' I thought how maybe they liked to hurt themselves, an' maybe I liked to hurt myself. Well, I was laying under a tree when I figured that out, and I went to sleep. And it come night, an' it was dark when I come to. They was a coyote squakin' near by. Before I knowed it, I was sayin' out loud, 'The hell with it! There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do. It's all part of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't nice, but that's as far as any man got a right to say.'" -Jim Casy

Honors Novel Blog #1

What would you do if you could see the dead?

Odd Thomas is an ordinary person, aside from one minor detail - he can see dead people. Just as spirits, nothing more, and they lack the ability to speak, but that doesn't change the fact that he can see them. He interacts with them as if they were real people, and sometimes he'll even do what he can to figure out how they died, which often leads him on a wild chase to solve murder cases.

But what does his gift, or curse, translate into? As a device in the story about someone whose drive to solve murders comes from his ability to see the dead, one would think that it is simply a device used to get the protagonist from point A to point B. But throughout my reading of Forever Odd by Dean Koontz, I have come to suspect that Odd's ability to see the dead may represent something more than simply a device to push the story along.

Odd himself is a strange individual, having characters such as Elvis act as spiritual guides. It is strange to look at the phenomenon Odd's abilities bring about and say that they can simply be coincidental - perhaps some sort of higher force placed them there, knowing that Odd was a strong-willed individual who would do the right thing with his strange ability. In this case, his power would represent trust and fate, the idea that some force is driving us to do what we do and simply giving us the tools to do it.

However, his ability might represent something far more sinister. It might represent the insanity that comes from living a life like the one that Odd has. He lived without a father since he was only a year old, and his mother was very trigger-happy and often holding a gun in her hands. Living such a life may have driven him beyond the brink of insanity, and led him to believe that he can see ghosts - we cannot be certain, since the story is told from his perspective. But Odd's behavior throughout the book only serves to support the idea that his gift might represent insanity - after all, most people would grow afraid and run away when dealing with the situations that he has.

Whether Odd's ability is a gift or a curse is uncertain, but it is certain that it symbolizes something more than simply what it appears to be. Odd's insanity may have driven him to think he sees the dead, or it may be an honest-to-god gift given to him by the strings of fate. Odd uses his gift to guide himself through the pains that other people feel every single day, and through the chaos that carries him through his life. But in the life he lives... is it guiding him, or is he guiding it?