Writing Reflection

This year, my writing has greatly improved. In the beginning of the year with the American Icons project, i wasn't very good at collecting my ideas on paper and displaying them in a way that makes sense and is pleasing to the reader. I would use lots of -ing words and sledghammer words. I would often drag out sentences and go on and on about things that really dont matter.

My writing started to improve throughout the year and hit its peak with Ampersand. i spent hours on writing that paper, with close to 13 drafts and 3 changed subjects. I spent hours editing to get every last flaw out of the paper and my work showed with my final paper.

In the future i want to be better at making connections with the reader because right now I've gotten better at saying my thoughts in a way that makes sense but i haven't gotten to the point where i can draw human emotion with my writing. Thats the level i would like to be at.

Historical Reflections

Barrack Obama would be someone i met on the campus of my college, most likely the head of the debate team or something. Not only because he's our current president but i would like to ask him what goes through his head on many of the choices he makes. For example, one of the biggest things that gets to me about him is that when he got elected, if you asked a large percentage of the people that voted for him or would have voted for him only voted because either he was black or they didn't like McCaine's party, not because they support what he does.

He told us in his campaign that he was going to bring change to America. I'm still waiting... its been over a year since his election. Its still hard as hell to get a job, and we are still in the biggest recession since the Great Depression of the 1940's and yet people still think of him as being our super hero. I dont find his actions as heroics. As i do recall, this is similar to the way Adolf Hitler came to power. The country was in dire need of a leader to promise to fix their problems and give them a sense of hope. He himself said that "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." One of Obamas most well known posters have a picture of him in red white and blue with the exact word "hope" on it. How did he get elected? he promised to make things better for the American people and promised to fix this recession and the problems that this country is in. "the world has changed and we must change with it" wheres the change you promised. Whats the difference other than motives?

http://cabalamuse.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/obama-hope.jpg

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/mein_kampf_quotes.shtml

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/

Literary Reflections

If I could bring one person to college (from the books that we’ve read) I would have to bring Jay Gatsby from the book The Great Gatsby. He would be my roommate. I would choose him because he was a smart man with a lot of class…and lots of money. He knew how to be a man of mystery and held parties for a large amount of people. These parties were legendary, people from all over the country flew to his house to go to these parties. If he was my roommate, not only would he be a valuable partner for a social life but he also had connections in many aspects of his life. The book described him and his house to be huge and him to be someone who no one really knew much about. It described that he liked to keep things on a “need to know” basis meaning that the only people that knew anything about him were his close friends and business partners. He would be so valuable as a roommate because of all the perks and connections that he has from all his businesses.

All these great qualities were happening before he was obsessing over a local woman (Daisy). His obsession with her really turned him into someone that wouldn't be a very good person to be hanging around with. The Gatsby that i would want as my roommate would be the Gatsby that never even met Daisy.

Post Trial Reflection

The prosecution's argument was mainly morally, and constitutional based and less fact and statistic driven. Their arguments consisted of things like "how would you feel if ... happened" or "do you think that the people would do..." "are they people just like us". Theres nothing wrong with that approach and it won over many of the jurors, but some of it was rather redundant because of its lack of statistics. They interviewed Raul Grijalva, John Adams, James Madison.

The defense took a more factual approach. They presented stories and statistics of jobs, death toles, and weather. Their testimony didn't have very much of a sob story or a moral standpoint (which appeals more to the jury) but they had many more facts than the prosecution. They interviewed Robert Watchorn, Russell Pierce, Jan Brewer.

The most significant evidence was the prosecution's utilization of the U.S. constitution. It stated in plain english that people in the united states, legal or illegal, are still members of society and still are under the protection of all American Laws. That part of the trial was the part that sold me the most.

The argument of making the witnesses read through the bills and constitution aloud was the most significant argument because it was an unscripted part of the trial that showed an unbiased reason as to why the defendant was guilty for violating the spirit of immigration. If the prosecution would have just told the witnesses to say something or read a paper that they themselves had written then the entire argument wouldn't have been valid and all credablity would have been lost. But the laws were set down by our Fore Fathers and states clearly that laws were being broken.

I do agree with the jury because everyone (after the trial in the conference room) was sharing all of their ideas and the ideas presented matched what i was thinking during the trial. Everyone agreed that Arizona was guilty and the conference just solidified that i wasnt the only one thinking the way that i was.

I think i deserve a 45 out of 50 because during the case I was analyzing both sides of the court and going through in my mind and in my notebook everything that was going on to decide which side of the argument i most agreed with. I could have done better at speaking my mind more and said more in the conference room and asking questions.

WW2 Letter

June 5th, 1944

Private Alexander
2nd rangers regiment
US army
1st Platoon

Dear Mom

My commander and squad have been discussing amongst themselves about the order that was issued that we are going to storm the beaches of Normandy. The troops and my friends all think that its going to be a bloodbath with those nazis falling to their knees. They are all pumped up. They are saying that the nazis should have learned from the war a few years ago that they can't just do whatever they want, its our job to put em in their place. Their confidence is to be admired but that wont save them. My commander's eyes have barely left the calm waves of the ocean since the order was recieved. I don't think i've ever seen a man that afraid of anything before in my life. He looks like the walking dead. I tried talking to him to find out more about what we were getting ourselves into and he told me it was a suicide mission. He told me that we were going to take the flat boats up onto a shore that is heavily protected by enemy machine gun turrets and many troops. He told me that our chances of survival were next to nothing.



At a time like this, getting scared isn't going to do anything except physic me out. I have my trusty rifle and my brothers beside me. I will emerge victorious no matter what and no man will stand in my way. Semper Fi.

Blog 15

Something that came out of the war that really interested me was that rules were established for warfare. I would think that war would just be "no holds barred" win the war dirty or clean. I knew that some weapons were banned for being too destructive to the land but i didn't think there were people running around on the battlefield that weren't suppose to be shot at. I think rules in war (for weapons) are a good thing because some weapons even though they destroy the enemy, they can make the land uninhabitable which is bad for everyone. I think that rules where you can't shoot certain people is stupid because if they are for news or not they could still help one side of the war.

Blog 14

To me what I find interesting about the wars is that in both wars its Germany who thinks they are better than everyone else and tries to conquer everyone. I also find it quite interesting how even though on paper they are stronger than everyone else that they still didn’t win the two world wars. In the first war the Germans are just trying to take everyone’s land and in the Second World War they are trying to exterminate the Jews.

I hope to learn more about tactical strategies on the battlefield and to learn how the leaders of the United Nations deal with things like giant wars.

During both wars, new weapons were created to better kill the enemies, a few of those weapons for example the napalm bomb were outlawed by the united nations for being too destructive. If the wars didn’t turn out the way they did, many of the problems today wouldn’t even be there because the world would be without Jewish people, and America wouldn’t have the same style government as we do. The Germans would have invaded and we would be under the command of whomever Hitler would appoint as new leader of our country. But they didn’t win so that didn’t happen.