Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Censoring school history books .. no.
Dear Dr. Rhinehart,
I have recently discovered that some important historic events are not covered in our history textbooks, and quite frankly, I do not understand why. I believe we have a right to know everything, every detail, and every event there was. Some might be inappropriate or too violent and disturbing, but that doesnt mean people who are interested in learning it should be restricted. Today, for example, I learned about the Rape of Nanking. I was not familiar with it until today. I was actually quite frustrated about that. How could I have not learned about something important and major like that? I understand maybe when we were younger, schools thought it wasnt age appropriate, but we're in highschool now, like seriously come on. Yes the Rape of Nanking was atrocious, unbelievable, hideous and everything awful I could think of, but it's a part of history, a part that I think we should be taught about and not ignorant about. This whole censoring history school books is just something I completely, 100% , disagree about. What about Sudan? Genocide occurred there too. And once again, unfortunately, I did not learn about it at all. Similar actions that took place in the Rape of Nanking occurred in Sudan; civilians assaulted, killed, tortured, women raped and so much more awful stuff. Theres also so many more events of genocide, yet none of them are in our books. So this is my approach to you, hoping that you would reconsider the censoring of our history school books, because we really want to learn and be knowledgeable about everything in history, is that too much to ask for? What can we say.. we love history.
Sincerely, Noura Abuzant.
I have recently discovered that some important historic events are not covered in our history textbooks, and quite frankly, I do not understand why. I believe we have a right to know everything, every detail, and every event there was. Some might be inappropriate or too violent and disturbing, but that doesnt mean people who are interested in learning it should be restricted. Today, for example, I learned about the Rape of Nanking. I was not familiar with it until today. I was actually quite frustrated about that. How could I have not learned about something important and major like that? I understand maybe when we were younger, schools thought it wasnt age appropriate, but we're in highschool now, like seriously come on. Yes the Rape of Nanking was atrocious, unbelievable, hideous and everything awful I could think of, but it's a part of history, a part that I think we should be taught about and not ignorant about. This whole censoring history school books is just something I completely, 100% , disagree about. What about Sudan? Genocide occurred there too. And once again, unfortunately, I did not learn about it at all. Similar actions that took place in the Rape of Nanking occurred in Sudan; civilians assaulted, killed, tortured, women raped and so much more awful stuff. Theres also so many more events of genocide, yet none of them are in our books. So this is my approach to you, hoping that you would reconsider the censoring of our history school books, because we really want to learn and be knowledgeable about everything in history, is that too much to ask for? What can we say.. we love history.
Sincerely, Noura Abuzant.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Cinderella Man Outline :)
I. Cinderella Man
A. Characters
1. The man himself, James J. Braddock
i. Famous American Boxer
ii. World heavyweight champion from 1935 to 1937
2. Mae Braddock; the wife of James J. Braddock.
3. Kids; 3 in total
4. Joe Gould; close friend, manager.
5. Max Baer; undefeated boxer.
II. Things get rough
A. Stock market crash
1. James Braddock lost everything
2. Incapable of supporting his family
3. Worked at my several low-paying jobs in order to come up with at least a bit of money
4. Incapable of paying rent and providing much food
5. No money for medicine
i. Kids got sick
B. Injures his hand
1. Lost his opportunities to gain money through fights
2. Pushed back his career
3. Made it harder to work in other jobs
III. Braddock's comeback
A. Braddock's hand heals.
B. His manager, Joe Gould, offers him a chance to fill in for just that one night and make a quick buck.
1. First fight back against Corn Griffin; Braddock wins
C. Boxing experts are impressed with his comeback and arrange more fights.
1. Fight against John Henry Lewis; Braddock wins
2. Fight against Art Lasky; Braddock wins.
D. His wife Mae is against him fighting again, fearing his safety.
IV. The Big Fight
A. Braddock is renamed to "Cinderella Man".
B. Gould arranges a fight with the vicious one and only, Max Baer
1. He is known for killing at least two men in the ring.
2. Offered a great amount of money if he wins.
C. Baer intimidates Braddock, and mock Mae in public that her man might not survive.
D. The day arrives.
1. June 13th, 1935.
A. James Braddock becomes more famous
B. His life gets better
1. Pays his rent and is financially better
2. Enlisted in the U.S Army and served in war.
3. Upon his return, he owned and operated heavy machinery
4. Him and his wife bought a house, and spent the rest of their lives in it.
A. Characters
1. The man himself, James J. Braddock
i. Famous American Boxer
ii. World heavyweight champion from 1935 to 1937
2. Mae Braddock; the wife of James J. Braddock.
3. Kids; 3 in total
4. Joe Gould; close friend, manager.
5. Max Baer; undefeated boxer.
II. Things get rough
A. Stock market crash
1. James Braddock lost everything
2. Incapable of supporting his family
3. Worked at my several low-paying jobs in order to come up with at least a bit of money
4. Incapable of paying rent and providing much food
5. No money for medicine
i. Kids got sick
B. Injures his hand
1. Lost his opportunities to gain money through fights
2. Pushed back his career
3. Made it harder to work in other jobs
III. Braddock's comeback
A. Braddock's hand heals.
B. His manager, Joe Gould, offers him a chance to fill in for just that one night and make a quick buck.
1. First fight back against Corn Griffin; Braddock wins
C. Boxing experts are impressed with his comeback and arrange more fights.
1. Fight against John Henry Lewis; Braddock wins
2. Fight against Art Lasky; Braddock wins.
D. His wife Mae is against him fighting again, fearing his safety.
IV. The Big Fight
A. Braddock is renamed to "Cinderella Man".
B. Gould arranges a fight with the vicious one and only, Max Baer
1. He is known for killing at least two men in the ring.
2. Offered a great amount of money if he wins.
C. Baer intimidates Braddock, and mock Mae in public that her man might not survive.
D. The day arrives.
1. June 13th, 1935.
i. Braddock defeats Baer in the intense fight and becomes heavyweight champion of the world.
V. Post-fight.A. James Braddock becomes more famous
B. His life gets better
1. Pays his rent and is financially better
2. Enlisted in the U.S Army and served in war.
3. Upon his return, he owned and operated heavy machinery
4. Him and his wife bought a house, and spent the rest of their lives in it.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial.
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti .. GUILTY.
Whaattt? Judge, this is outrageous! How in the world can you make such a call? I can surely tell you that these two men surely should not be convicted of this murder! I cant believe that you are convicting them based on unreliable evidence.
Firstly, most of the witness claimed to be positively sure about seeing both Sacco and Vanzetti either during the crime, or after it, and then later on they become unsure? Come on, this is absurd. You need REAL evidence, evidence that is reliable and not this childish guessing game.
Secondly, I know they both lied at the beginning, but it was due to fear! Fear of his and his friends safety and the fear of being deported; the credit for this all returns to the Red Scare.Plus, there were several, not just one or two, witnesses that testified to seeing Sacco at Boni's Restaurant in Boston, and Vanzetti in Plymouth, so how is that even possible? And several of the witness that tested that they thought have seen either of those two men, described them incorrectly, so are you really basing your
decision on them?
Oh and this definately made me laugh. So they believe they found a hat that Sacco possessed? At the crime scene? How ironic. I bet that Sacco is the only one that possesses that type of hats, doesnt he? This is ridiculous! Anyone passing by previously would have dropped that hat. Just because Sacco wears something similar to that does not immediatly mean it was his! Plus, you saw how it did not fit him while he tried it on, so it obviously wasnt his, unless he enjoys wearing small fitted hats...
Bartolomeo Vanzetti, one of the victims here, who shouldnt even be in this place, who is crucially misjudged and misread, has no adequate evidence to convict him guilty. One of the prosecutions evidence is his gun; they believe that the gun that was found on him resembled the one Berardelli, who was shot, owned. My client assures that this gun was purchased months ago and from a friend named Falzini, who is here at the moment, and testifies that that claim is true! Once again, just because my client possessed some similar items people in this case had, does not certify that that was the gun used in the crime scene.
These insufficient and poor evidence that you are willing to convict my clients because of would be extremely unethical. Unreliabe eye witness, poor ballastics evidence, false accusations and all this other ridicule is completely, 100% NOT enough to be able to convict these two guys of crime and robbery. I am ashamed of this decision of yours, and will not set for this!
This is America, remember? Everyone is treated equally and we all have rights. These 2 men should not be treated differently or be carelessly taken care of. We all have the right to be heard and be given an opportunity, so don't just end this simply by convicting and ordering them to be executed, hear them out and don't fall for these foolish testimonies and insuffience evidence because remember ..
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/sv.gif
Whaattt? Judge, this is outrageous! How in the world can you make such a call? I can surely tell you that these two men surely should not be convicted of this murder! I cant believe that you are convicting them based on unreliable evidence.
Firstly, most of the witness claimed to be positively sure about seeing both Sacco and Vanzetti either during the crime, or after it, and then later on they become unsure? Come on, this is absurd. You need REAL evidence, evidence that is reliable and not this childish guessing game.
Secondly, I know they both lied at the beginning, but it was due to fear! Fear of his and his friends safety and the fear of being deported; the credit for this all returns to the Red Scare.Plus, there were several, not just one or two, witnesses that testified to seeing Sacco at Boni's Restaurant in Boston, and Vanzetti in Plymouth, so how is that even possible? And several of the witness that tested that they thought have seen either of those two men, described them incorrectly, so are you really basing your
decision on them?Oh and this definately made me laugh. So they believe they found a hat that Sacco possessed? At the crime scene? How ironic. I bet that Sacco is the only one that possesses that type of hats, doesnt he? This is ridiculous! Anyone passing by previously would have dropped that hat. Just because Sacco wears something similar to that does not immediatly mean it was his! Plus, you saw how it did not fit him while he tried it on, so it obviously wasnt his, unless he enjoys wearing small fitted hats...
Bartolomeo Vanzetti, one of the victims here, who shouldnt even be in this place, who is crucially misjudged and misread, has no adequate evidence to convict him guilty. One of the prosecutions evidence is his gun; they believe that the gun that was found on him resembled the one Berardelli, who was shot, owned. My client assures that this gun was purchased months ago and from a friend named Falzini, who is here at the moment, and testifies that that claim is true! Once again, just because my client possessed some similar items people in this case had, does not certify that that was the gun used in the crime scene.
These insufficient and poor evidence that you are willing to convict my clients because of would be extremely unethical. Unreliabe eye witness, poor ballastics evidence, false accusations and all this other ridicule is completely, 100% NOT enough to be able to convict these two guys of crime and robbery. I am ashamed of this decision of yours, and will not set for this!
This is America, remember? Everyone is treated equally and we all have rights. These 2 men should not be treated differently or be carelessly taken care of. We all have the right to be heard and be given an opportunity, so don't just end this simply by convicting and ordering them to be executed, hear them out and don't fall for these foolish testimonies and insuffience evidence because remember ..
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/sv.gif
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Evolution vs. Religion
Evolution was not permitted to be taught during the 1930's. A proof of that and one of America's important historical events was the Scopes Trial. A biology teacher was trialed and found guilty for teaching evolution. Nowadays, people have different views about how this world came to be. I completely respect that and dont judge people for their beliefs. But, I dont think it's fair to only teach evolution or only teach religion. Students will eventually learn about evolution in their science classes, but I think they also have the right and choice to learn about religion in schools too. It doesnt have to be mandatory to take it, but if there were like elective classes, then that would be fair for all. Some students might take the religion classes just to kind of learn about it and see the other views, if they wished. It is a good chance for students of different views to be able to learn and see the other views available.
So therefore, my opinion is that both evolution and religion should be taught in order to be fair! :)
So therefore, my opinion is that both evolution and religion should be taught in order to be fair! :)
Acrostic poem B-)
Pushed by Henry Ford
Restricted the float of alcohol
Outrageous amendment
Hungover workers from the night before
Intoxicating liquor
Banned the manufacture and sale of "intoxicating liquor"
Illegal
Transportation of alcohol wasnt banned
IRS forced the amendment
On to the next one
Not accepted by many people
Red scare that stemmed from the Bolshevik Revolution
Old Americans
African Americans moved from the south to the north (Harlem Renaissance)
Roosevelt pushes for the repeal of the 18th Amendment
IRS was put in charge for forcing the 18th Amendment
No sleeves
Great Migration
Transportation of alcohol was not banned
Workers didnt work as good when they were hungover from drinking the night before
Evolution was taught by John Scopes, which resulted in his arrest and the Scopes Trial
New "installment plan"
Twenty first Amendment states that the 18th Amendment is no longer right
Immigration Act of 1924
Espionage and Sedition Acts were declared constitutional by the Supreme Court
Severe drought was one of the causes of the Dust Bowl
Restricted the float of alcohol
Outrageous amendment
Hungover workers from the night before
Intoxicating liquor
Banned the manufacture and sale of "intoxicating liquor"
Illegal
Transportation of alcohol wasnt banned
IRS forced the amendment
On to the next one
Not accepted by many people
Red scare that stemmed from the Bolshevik Revolution
Old Americans
African Americans moved from the south to the north (Harlem Renaissance)
Roosevelt pushes for the repeal of the 18th Amendment
IRS was put in charge for forcing the 18th Amendment
No sleeves
Great Migration
Transportation of alcohol was not banned
Workers didnt work as good when they were hungover from drinking the night before
Evolution was taught by John Scopes, which resulted in his arrest and the Scopes Trial
New "installment plan"
Twenty first Amendment states that the 18th Amendment is no longer right
Immigration Act of 1924
Espionage and Sedition Acts were declared constitutional by the Supreme Court
Severe drought was one of the causes of the Dust Bowl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)