Equal Rights Amendment

1. I completely support the ERA. I believe men and women should be equal in every way. People tend to think women are all housewives, sitting at the home with the children. But this is completely wrong, many are as hard-working as men but have less of an income because of their gender. This ideology is completely wrong and should be banned with the ERA.

2. If it was revived today, I am sure it will be a huge topic with running candidates for political positions. But, at the end I'm sure the bill will be vetoed because it is not a big deal right now, women are given pretty equal opportunities as men, making people switch to more important issues instead of just the ERA.

Civil Rights Activist?

When you think of the civil rights movement, you go instantly to Martin Luther King, Jr. He is the leader of the moment as everyone would point out, but who was the true catalyst to the movement? His name was Jackie Robinson.

Jackie Robinson is well known for being the first African-American baseball player, but there is so much more to him. He started off with such ridicule and hatred in the minors that any other person would quit and give up, but not him. He would do nothing to accusations, comments, even physical things such as spitting and hitting. As he entered the majors, he became one of the most hated people out there, with boos and yells as soon as he entered the field. What people didn't realize though, was that he actually had amazing skills. He wasn't just a guy playing for the Dodgers because they wanted to try an integrated team, he actually knew what he was doing and was good at it.

Where the civil rights comes up is that he himself was a non-violent protester throughout his years of baseball. He would keep calm under pressure and many people rioting against him. He did nothing when a rival team member sliced his leg open with their cleats. He kept his cool the whole time, and that's what makes him such an important person. By the end of his career, people praised him. They loved his abilities and cherished everything about him, with no prejudice towards his skin color. He revolutionized how people view African-Americans in the media, he changed how integrated everything can be, he revolutionized the civil rights movement.

Butter Battle Book Ending

Van Itch designed a new machine piece,
that combined all his designs and his wonderful niece,
the Wobble-tee-dees and Wonder-gun-tack,
were bundled together with wonderful nack,
what became a weapon of butterly demise
became a bundle of nothingly nothing,
and all he could think of was to severe all ties.

He ended the buttering fiasco debate,
and decided to put an end to the gate,
he became my best friend, and pulled down the wall,
Van Itch did everything to make him seem tall,
but when he died, his story went on,
and was told to me from my grandpa on the lawn,
he told me Van Itch was just an unstable man,
who didn't want anything but to recycle a can.

Civilian Casualties

Do you think bombing cities/civilians during wartime is a fair/justifiable act? Why or why not?

In today's world, where nuclear weapons are flaunted and even threatened by countries. With over 9 countries known for their weapons, what happens if these are used? Thousands of civilians will be killed for one, and many people believe this is inhumane and ludicrous. I think that, even though many would go against it, that civilian casualties are a part of war and can't be stopped. With this said, I think that it isn't right under some conditions. Places who provoke an attack on other countries (i.e. Germany & Japan) are perfect places where civilian casualties would be a tool to help end the war against tyrannical dictators and conniving governments. The atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, for example, were perfectly justified. On the other hand, attacks against a neutral country (i.e. Belgium, France, United States), are completely unfair and against any laws ever created. Attacks on the World Trade Center, and also Pearl Harbor, were huge hits to the United States and was never, in any circumstances, justified.

The argument between bombing civilians is very clear, but hard to dispute. It has to be done in an individual case, and I don't think any one person can actually answer it.

The Great Depression

In an effort to learn firsthand what it was like to live during the Great Depression, write ten questions that you might ask someone who lived through it.

How many people committed suicide?
What was it like living in a Hooverville?
What was the presidents reaction to the stock market crash?
How many people actually got laid off?
Did people ever get kicked out of freight trains?
Where did soup kitchens get all their soup?
How much money did the government spend to get people back into a normal economy?
What happened to the rich people?
How many people died from starvation?
Did necessary jobs, such as doctors and firefighters, get laid off too?

Homer vs. 18th Amendment

The Simpson's are known for fictional humor, and very intense parodies, but with this episode that including the Prohibition from 1920, it really showed that they knew what they were writing about. The creators included the idea of drunken fighting, and how the government/society dealt with it. They included the actual 18th amendment, and the repercussions from it such as the speakeasies, cops illegally drinking, and illegal mob trading. The accuracy of these complete overshadow the fictional humor in the episode. I enjoyed this episode, and thought it was a good representation of what the Prohibition era was in the United States, even if it made it really funny.

If I were to be one of the producers of The Simpson's, I would add the face that the government fully endorsed it. They didn't really show any form of authority except the judges who said the bill was passed/rejected. It would have made it a lot more accurate if they made a judge scene where someone tried to reject the bill but they argued that the Prohibition is a way of getting a good name among other parts of the world, and that they want to be the model city. This would be an allusion to what the government wanted from the Prohibition act, a good name and clean people.

Civil Liberties During a Time of War

Civil liberties should never be limited during a time of war in my opinion. Our rights should never be touched unless we commit some sort of crime and get arrested. At no other time should these rights be taken away. I think that everyone has the right to criticize anything the government says, and with the Sedition Acts, it takes these right away. Not only that but it complete steps on the first amendment,which is delectably the best and well-known amendment in the bill of rights.

Today, this would never happen. People can make fun of the government in public form, even movies and book, and get in no trouble whatsoever. I think this is an amazing thing to have because a lot of countries don't allow this. Some people take this for granted, but I think everyone eventually realizes the worth of having the right to say whatever they want, and the fact that it will never be taken away.