The Balancing Act - Person 4

Heather asks a good question to the scenario that Frank Sesno made up “is it okay to hold these people without giving them legal counsel and really not having any hard evidence to support what they are doing”. She believes that it is right because they are only trying to protect our nation. We both agree that if we were suspects, we would be okay with being held. Because we know we are innocent, we might be upset in the beginning, but at least we know we haven’t done anything and that they are doing everything they can to try and catch the attackers.

Jess says, “I believe that we, as American’s, should have the right to legal counsel. The government should take measures to ensure the US citizen rights to legal counsel within reasonable time, and a certain length of time needs to be set with regards to a person being detained”. I agree with this and that those people shouldn’t have been denied the right to a legal counsel. However, who is to say what a reasonable time is? When it comes to protecting our country and our citizens, should it matter how long we keep people. I think that once a suspect is found to be completely innocent they can be released and that is a reasonable amount of time. I wouldn’t want a suspect to be released just because they have been held for too long. If they actually are the attackers, we just made a huge mistake.

The Balancing Act - Person 2

I think another important point within these segments is that when Frank Sesno, the host of the committee talks in the show, asks the question of whether or not a person can be detained without legal council. His questions and answers are along the lines of whether this situation should happen because a US citizen was detained for a lengthy amount of time without bring provided legal council. This US citizen was detained under suspicion of terrorism association because of the recent mall bombings, when in reality, he was vacationing overseas. The question arises because a US citizen is denied a basic civil right to the right to legal council simply because of his race and recent activities. I don't think that this fundamental civil right should or can be taken away based on suspicions for an unreasonable length of time. I believe that we, as American's, should have the right to legal council. The government should take measures to ensure the US citizens rights to legal council within reasonable time and a certain length of time needs to be set with regards to a person being detained. To see more information on this subject, I have included a link to an article speaking to a real life situation and how the courts decided, follow me there.

The Balancing Act- Person 5

Frank Sesno made up a scenario that there were some suicide bombers that bombed in the U.S. on some shopping centers. The government then heard that the next attack would be to put toxins in our food supply. They found 1,000 people that fit the general profile and then narrowed it down to 60 persons of interest, denied them access to legal counsell, and also placed them on a military base somewhere. They did this all because they had a couple credible sources. The question is if it is okay to hold these people without giving them legal counsel and really not having any hard evidence to support what they are doing?
Peggy Hamburg made a good point saying that toxins in our food supply is a very serious situation because it could cause people to get very serious diseases. She also pointed out that these diseases probably wouldn't be any diseases that are normally seen and our hospitals most likely would only have a limited supply of the drugs to treat the people who were infected.
Eric Holder later made a good point saying that if he were in control of the situation that he would try and hold the suspects for as long as he possibly could so that they are in his hands and not on anyone else's so that they can get away and possibly follow through with the attack.
I think that the restrictions on civil liberties that were discussed make a lot of sense because you are only trying to protect the nation from being harmed. I think that being a suspect and knowing that I didn't do anything wrong and I can't defend myself would be difficult to get over at first but I think that I personally would rather be held and know that I am innocent and eventually would be let go because this shows that they have grabbed as many people that fit the profile so that they can protect the nation from a horrible attack. Also if this actually happened and I was a person that lived in the nation in which that attack happened I would feel a lot more safe knowing that they are interrogating as many people as possible because this makes me feel like the chances are higher that they have the attackers. It may not be true but it appears that way at least and it gives comfort to people I think. If they hadn't arrested many people I think that the U.S. would feel even more uneasy about the situation than they already are.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions-Person 2

Our group so far in this blog has focused on the fact that women's rights issues have been going on for a long time now, and even though the Women's Rights Convention occurred in 1848, we still seem to struggle with the stereotypes against us. Jenni and Heather both mentioned how one can see this difference that still exists between men and women in the business world. I agree with both of them that pay and other compensation and promotions still seem to be a bit one sided. As Jenni mentioned, the glass ceiling concept comes to mind when thinking of women's equality in business.

Heather brought attention to an insightful case that brings light to the fact that women all over are still being discriminated against by means of wages, and gthe governemtn is finally recognizing this. Heather also made an important point that we were all supposed to be Created equally while Jenni made a good point when she mentioned that women should have the same chances as a man because we in fact are citizens just like them.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions- Person 5

Women have struggled for decades to have equal rights as men. Even in today's world, we are still not completely there yet. It's proven that, in some circumstances, men still get paid higher wages than women when doing the same job.
It's amazing how the Woman's Rights Convention was held in 1848 and even today it's still not completely equal. Yes, we, as women, have achieved a lot over the years especially in the business world but secretly people still stereotype in my eyes.
There have been many Supreme Court cases, within ten years, about discrimination with women in schools, and also sexual discrimination. In 2009, "President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which allows victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint with the government against their employer within 180 days of their last paycheck." ( info please website) Before this act was placed, the victims, who mainly are women, could only complain 180 days of their first unfair paycheck. This shows progress in today's world for women.
"That woman is man's equal- was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such." This is really saying that men and women were created equal and for whatever reason men have been established as superior to women all through history. The progress with women's rights has really succeeded through the years but I think if we are almost to the point now of kind of just excepting what he have accomplished after this long and now we will gradually keep trying bit by bit to get closer to the men.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions - Person 4

We have all heard the famous line, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal”. When we listen to those words, what do we think about? I know that when I hear them, I think about women in history compared to women today.

Before my time, women’s place was in the kitchen, not in the workplace. We were supposed to clean and cook all day and have a meal on the table when the men arrived home from work. Women were looked at as not having any rights or power. We struggled for a long time to get the rights and respect that we deserve.

The glass ceiling comes to mind when I think about discrimination against women. Men have always been treated as dominant in the work place; they usually hold the higher executive positions in firms and corporations. Women could work the same as men, if not harder and better, but always stay in the same position at the same pay. They could see that they deserve the higher position and pay, but a man would receive it over the woman. Today, this situation has improved greatly, but I know it stills goes on in some places.

“…We insist that they [women] have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.” The Declaration of Sentiments shows that women have been treated unfairly in the past and deserve the same rights as men do. We are citizens!

we shall overcome summary

To sum up what our group thought. Person 4 quoted from the Constitution where it says: "no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or color." Which means that African American people have every right to vote just like white people do. She also said that the speech was just an "easy, unfair, and illegal way to keep African Americans from voting. Person 5 said that the word overcome had two meanings in this speech, one was the African American people overcoming inequality, and the other meaning was the white people overcoming disallowing African Americans the right to vote. Which I thought was a really cool way of putting it. They also stated that we need to overcome our differences and just get over it because it doesn't matter what color or race we are, the fact is that we are all Americans and have the right to vote and the Constitution says so. Person 1 also said that it doesn't matter what color they are, if they're Americans they have the right to vote like everyone else.

"We Shall Overcome"-Person 2

Our group focused a lot on how the African Americans in our nation have faced a struggle for a long time, and just to add more that that long list of struggle would be to be able to have the right to vote, just as any other white person is able to.

Heather focused on the fact that the government thought it would be a good idea to have black people take a test to have to vote. She made a really good point that most white people wouldn’t be able to pass that test now-a-days. She stated that “This was just an easy, unfair, and illegal way to stop the African Americans from voting.” I think Heather hit it right on the nose by saying it’s just a way to avoid letting them have rights.

Jenni, like Heather, focused on the fact that African Americans have had such a harsh journey to overcome and have also achieved so much along the way. Jenni also focused on how President Johnson said that we have an American problem, not a color problem or a regional problem. Jenni stated that “This really shows us that no matter where we are from, or what color we are, we are all Americans and we need to be able to accept everybody because no matter what we look like we are all U.S. citizens and we all have the same rights. We just need to overcome our differences and accept each other for who we are.”

Chelsea did a good job at summing up the group and also added that African Americans are just as much an American as any other people are and she questioned why should they not be given the same rights as everyone else just because of their skin color?

All in all, our group recognized the fact that African Americans have gone through many struggles but continue to overcome them as a group, sticking together for a common goal.

Person 1

African Americans have had a hard time with getting rights. I feel as if they should have all the same rights that Americans have. They are just as much an American as any other people are. Why should they not be given the same rights as everyone else just because of their skin color? I do not understand why some people feel as if African Americans should not have the same rights. To me it should not be any question that African Americans have the same rights as Americans. I think that African Americans should not have to fight for their rights to vote. If they are an American citizen, then they should be able to vote.

"We Shall Overcome"- Person 5

"We shall overcome" is a very simple but effective statement. African Americans have had such a harsh journey to overcome. They have overcome a lot in the past. They also have achieved many things in the past and I believe are fully successful at doing so. The word overcome has two elements in this speech. One is for the side of the African Americans and them overcoming inequality. The other is for the side of the white population that overcame disallowing African Americans the right to vote.
President Johnson states, "There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem." This really shows us that no matter where we are from, or what color we are, we are all Americans and we need to be able to accept everybody because no matter what we look like we are all U.S. citizens and we all have the same rights. We just need to overcome our differences and accept each other for who we are. Also this shows how we as Americans have the power to overcome the fact that everybody deserves to be able to vote.
President Johnson also clearly says, "Many issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument: every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right." This was a new concept that the white people had to overcome because it's immoral to deny African American's the right to vote, especially when the Constitution states it.

"We Shall Overcome" speech - Person 4

African Americans have had a long, hard road to be treated as citizens of the United States just like a white person. First, they finally got their rights to not be slaves. Then, we read about their struggle in getting their rights in public places (the Rosa Parks bus incident). Now, in this speech, we read about the struggle African Americans faced for their right to vote.

In the article, it states, "the Constitutions says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color". This clearly said that African Americans had the same right as white people to vote; however, white people still weren't used to the idea. Because white people weren't used to the idea yet, they would try anything to stop African Americans from voting.

The speech says that we would use a test to try and keep the African Americans from voting, "And if he manages to fill out an application, he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex provisions of state law". I don't know about you, but if I were asked to recite the entire Constitution of the United States of America, I would fail too. I think any white person back then and today would probably fail that test as well. There are too many articles and sections within the Constitution to remember it word for word. If the African American couldn't recite the entire Constitution, the white person wouldn't let them vote because they weren't a "true" citizen. This was just an easy, unfair, and illegal way to stop the African Americans from voting.

Week 2 Blog Post

To summarize what our group though the week is that, the Tuscon shooting is a very big tragedy and that LePage comment was “childish”. It was said by Jennifer that “As a citizen in the legal sense, the Bill of Rights say that we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves. However, in the moral sense we have a duty to not go shooting people just because we feel like it or don't like someone. If we see our own citizens going around shooting each other, this sets a bad example on all our other citizens in the United States.” I agree that this is setting a bad example. It would not be good for this generation of children to think that going around shooting people would be okay. As a citizen I feel that we should respect the rights that we have. With the comment of LePage, Jess says that it is “tearing people apart” I also think that it is. There are always going to be two sides to a story and not everyone is going to agree. This is where Maine could be “split apart, rather then working together” as pelletierh says.

Questions- Person 5- Position 4

Jess made some important points about the shooting in Tucson and also with the Governor's comment. First, she commented about the Tucson event asking the question "are we banded by tragedy?" I believe that we are normally banded together every day but when a tragic event like 911 or the Tucson shooting occurs we just react together to resolve our issue that has faced us as a country together. I also like how Jess points out the legal and the moral meaning of citizenship. It really does show varying sides of citizenship that somehow work together to make a citizen.
When Jess talks about the Governor she talks about how it tears people apart, which is very true because there are always two sides to everything and it really makes Maine split apart rather than work together. One side supports the governor and his actions like how he has the freedom of speech; and then the other side that believes that what he said is morally wrong and his remark embarrasses us as a state.
Jenni and Aubrey both have some interesting and similar points as well. Jenni talks about how we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves. They said morally though we can't just go around shooting people if we don't like them or if we disagree with what they are saying. Jenni talked about the Governor and how, again like Jess said, we have the freedom of speech, but she then comments, and I agree, that he is a political figure and a leader that people look up to. When you then look at his comment, which was all over the news, it was childish and very unprofessional. Aubrey also made a good point when she pointed out that "people stretch out rights too far" and the governor most certainly did, in my eyes.

Blog 2

Two recent events made national headlines. First and foremost, then tragic shooting that took place in Tuscon, Arizona on January 8th. Then shortly after, the remarks made my our own govenor of Maine, LePage. I agree with Jennifer's posting, we do have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves, but we do not have the right to just shoot any random person who comes along because we don't like what they have to say, or what they're doing. If that were a right, then everyone would be shooting everybody. Also, if this were a right it wouldn't be a very good example, as Jennifer also stated, because people who are trying to become citizens would see this and it wouldn't be setting a good example for our nation and I personally do not want our nation represented by a bunch of homicidal maniacs.

I can't really find anything that Jennifer left out in her post. She said it just like I would. I think people stretch our rights too far. LePage is a political figure, someone that citizens and residents look up to and he's just flaunting his words around using no proper behavior or language. He's acting childish by saying, "kiss my butt." People need to remember their rights and not stretch them beyond what they are.

Questions to answer - person 4

Two events happened in one week that had implications for citizenship. First was the tragic January 8, 2011 shooting in Tucson and the other less tragic January 14, 2011 statement by our very own Governor Paul LePage. Both of these events made national news, showing us (as citizens) what it is like to be a bad citizen.

The shooting that occurred on January 8, 2011 devastated and scared people all over our great nation. As a citizen in the legal sense, the Bill of Rights say that we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves. However, in the moral sense we have a duty to not go shooting people just because we feel like it or don't like someone. If we see our own citizens going around shooting each other, this sets a bad example on all our other citizens in the United States.

Governor Paul LePage's statement "kiss my butt" that made national news may have come as a shock to some. As a citizen in the legal sense, we have the right to freedom of speech. We should be able to say what we feel and make statements that are our opinions. However, our Governor is not only just a citizen, but he is also a political figure. In the moral senese, he has certain duties. He should be attending all these political invitations. He should be setting an example as a leader and not going around saying "kiss my butt" like a five-year-old would do.

So just becausee we, as citizens, have rights to freedom of speech, to bear arms, etc. doesn't mean that we have the duty to say things that embarrass or hurt people. We don't have a duty to go shooting people that we don't like. We do have the duty to work together and to keep each other safe.

Answer to Questions-Person 2, Position 1-Wednesday

To start, let's talk about the very meaning of moral and legal citizenship, what it means to be a good citizen versus the rights given to citizens exchanged for loyalty. The latter of the two is the legal impact on citizenship while the first is the moral vision of the word.

First, let's look at the shooting in Tucson that occurred on January 8, 2011. The tragedy brought citizens together, but it's unfortunate that it happened. It brought people together, does that mean we are banded by tragedy? Or does it mean that we, as American's, have a very common goal in our daily lives, and that is protection? Similar events that have resulted in banding citizens together would be the terrorists attacks on 9/11 or the War in Iraq. Citizens of this nation find a common ground when things effect more than just themselves; they try to come together for the greater good of their common interests, but it is unfortunate that this is sparked by a tragedy felt by all. I think this points to the conclusion that citizenship, in the moral meaning, is for the greater good of being a good citizen and fulfilling the civic virtues of helping fellow citizens in time of need. On the other hand, the legal meaning points to the conclusion that rights to all citizens are sometimes mis-used and can hurt people, while helping so many more.

Governor Paul LePage's statement to the NAACP to "kiss my butt," on January 14, 2011 not only struck Maine's people by surprise, but it also made national news. the question of how this effects citizenship, on the other hand, does not represent a banding together of citizens for the common goal. It actually does the opposite. It tears people apart at the very level that politics rests on, the left versus the right. It widens the gap between the viewpoints of so many citizens and makes us, citizens of Maine, feel less united because of it. We feel not only weak in the eyes of the rest of the nation, but also embarrassed because our other fellow citizens, other American's now associate us with his remarks while representing Maine's views as a whole. In the moral meaning of citizenship, one looking at this remark subjectively, would say that Paul LePage did not act as a good citizen. Looking into the legal meaning, he has every right to say this because he is in fact a citizen in the United States, where the right to free speech is so prevalent.

In conclusion, both of these events pull at the ties to the moral meaning of the word citizenship and what is means to be a good citizen.

MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church- Person 5

Chelsea made a point saying that people should stand up for themselves. If they feel like they are doing the right thing then they should stand up for themselves. In this article it says, "We are here in a general sense because first and foremost we are American citizens." She believes that he says this because as an American citizen we have the right to freedom of speech. We have a right to say something to someone if we feel it's not right. She's glad that Rosa Parks stood up for herself. It shows that just because of her skin color; she was not going to let people tell her what to do. She thinks that Rosa Parks did the right thing that day. If she did not stand up for herself, what would America be now? Would we still look at Africa Americans that same as we did back then?
Another point that Chelsea made is that she thinks this article is trying to say that you can never be wrong for standing up for yourself and that people have to work together. It says in the article, "My friends, I want it to be known that we're going to work with grim and bold determination to gain justice on the buses in this city." This shows that people have to work together to get some points across. This article also says that, "if we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong." This shows that standing up for yourself isn't wrong. That if it is then everything else must be wrong too.
Jess says a strong point within this article is that this type of segregation, this type of racism, these types of acts have been going on for many years, and this situation that occurred with Rosa Parks is nothing new and out of the ordinary....she just got the proper attention called to her for it. He states that, "We are here because we are determined to get the situation corrected. This situation is not new at all. The problem has existed over endless years." What she thinks he is driving home here is the fact that yes, attention is on this situation in a singular manner, but this actually happens a lot, and without bringing up that point, he doesn't feel that the situation will be fixed. He mentioned that word, "determined", and she thinks that this is a strong point within this whole article and it's interesting to think of this word in connection to this case, especially that authoritative aspect to the definition.
A second point Jess feels he outlines is the fact, "that the law, the ordinance, the city ordinance has never been totally clarified." Without this law being clearly outlined for everyone to exist with and obey, how is someone supposed to correctly obey? He mentions that, "I speak with legal authority--not that I have any legal authority, but I think I speak with legal authority behind me." She thinks that when he says this, he is trying to pass the point across that people not only should have a say in situations that effect them, but also that they may not have the legal authority to make this happen, but they are sure going to band together to make this happen for them.
Jenni commented saying that Chelsea made a good point about standing up for ourselves and what we believe in. Part of being a good citizen of the United States is using our rights, especially the right to freedom of speech. Jenni says, to answer Chelsea's questions: if people don't exercise the right of speech, nothing would change and we might still look at African Americans the same today as we did back then. She believes that freedom of speech is probably the single most important right of being a citizen.
Jenni said she knows that Rosa Parks got most of the fame and glory for the change, but she probably wasn't the only one trying to make it. She says that she is sure if she didn't do what she did, there would be some other African American standing up for them, and eventually the same result would probably have happened.
Jenni also agrees with Jess when she says, "....this situation that occurred with Rosa Parks is nothing new and out of the ordinary....she just got the proper attention called to her for it." She believes there are plenty of Rosa Parks' out there, past and present, which tried changing things for the good, but never properly got the attention they deserved. Jenni says that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were very strong- willed people and their determination and acts got them noticed and eventually changed this world for the better.

MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church - Person 4

Chelsea made a good point about standing up for ourselves and what we believe in. Part of being a citizen of the United States is using our rights, especially the right to freedom of speech. To answer Chelsea's questions: if people don't exercise the right of speech, nothing would change and we might still look at African Americans the same today as we did back then. I believe that freedom of speech is probably the single most important right of being a citizen.

I know that Rosa Parks got most of the fame and glory for the change, but she probably wasn't the only one trying to make it. I'm sure if she didn't do what she did, there would be some other African American standing up for them, and eventually the same result would probably have happened.

I agree with Jessica when she says, "...this situation that ocurred with Rosa Parks is nothing new and out of the ordinary...she just got the proper attention called to her for it." I believe there are plenty of Rosa Parks' out there, past and present, which tried changing things for the good, but never properly got the attention they deserved. Determination definitely does make the difference when it comes to changing the way people feel, think, and act. It takes a very strong-willed and determined person to go through what people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did. It's their determination and acts that got them noticed and eventually changed this world for the better.

MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church-Person 2

A strong point within this article/speech is that this type of segregation, this type of racism, these types of acts have been going on for many years, and this situation that occurred with Rosa Parks is nothing new and out of the ordinary...she just got the proper attention called to her for it. He states that, "We are here because we are determined to get the situation corrected. This situation is not new at all. The problem has existed over endless years." What I think he is driving home here is the fact that yes, attention is on this situation in a singular manner, but this actually happens a lot, and without bringing up that point, he doesn't feel that the situation will be fixed. He mentioned the word, "determined," and I think that this is a strong point within this whole article and it is interesting to think of this word in connection to this case, especially the authoritative aspect to the definition. Determined not only by the strength and courage it must take to get this problem taken care of and fixed for, but also to think that this will help not only the current generation, but also many generations to come.

A second strong point I feel he outlines is the fact, "that the law, the ordinance, the city ordinance has never been totally clarified." Without this law being clearly outlined for everyone to exist with and obey, how is someone supposed to correctly obey it? He mentions that, "I speak with legal authority--not that I have any legal authority, but I think I speak with legal authority behind me." I think that when he says this, he is trying to pass the point across that people not only should have a say in situations that effect them, but also that they may not have the legal authority to make this happen, but they are sure going to band together to try to make this happen for them.

MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church

One point that this article is trying to make is that people should stand up for themselves. If they feel like they are doing the right thing then they should stand up for themselves. In this article it says “We are here in a general sense because first and foremost we are American citizens.” I believe that he says this because as an American citizen we have the right to freedom of speech. We have a right to say something to someone if we feel it is not right. I am glad that Rosa Parks stood up for herself. It shows that just people of her skin color, she was not going to let people tell her what to do. I think that Rosa Parks did the right thing that day. If she did not stand up for herself, what would America be now? Would we still look at African Americans the same as we did back then?

Another point that I think this article is trying to make is that you can never be wrong for standing up for yourself and that people have to work together. It says in the article that “My friends, I want it to be known that we’re going to work with grim and bold determination to gain justice on the buses in this city.” This shows that people have to work together to get some points across. The article also says that “If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. (Yes, sir) [Applause] If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. (Yes) [Applause] If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong” This shows that standing up for yourself is not wrong. That if it is then everything else must be wrong too.

What comes to mind when you hear the word "citizenship"?

Voting because it is in your rights as a citizen.
Freedom because it is also in your rights as a citizen.
Taxes because we all have the responsibility as a citizen to pay taxes.