Electoral College

After reading both sides of the Electoral College debate, I believe that we shouldn't have the electoral college.  The election for the President should be one of a direct vote.  Every vote would be counted for and every side would be seen.  We wouldn't have to worry about one state getting a certain amount of electoral votes.  All we would need to worry about is every vote being counted.  That way, no matter what state a person was in, the votes would be individually counted and go towards the candidates.  The popular vote should be the one that determines who becomes President.  It should be up to the people and the electoral college shouldn't have the final say.

Inherit the Wind...What's Behind the Name?

When we first were told to blog about what the title of the book meant, I had no idea what it could be about. I really didn't know if I'd be able to come up with anything even after reading the book. But, actually, when I carefully read the book, I think I figured out what this title meant. With help from this quote on page sixty-seven, "He that troubleth his own house...shall inherit the wind," the meaning came into my head. I believe that the quote is saying that whoever troubles themselves most, meaning, going against what people are saying and what people are supposed to do and actually do what they think is right, will come out ahead. They will "Inherit the Wind." They will win and get what they were looking for; people will learn to agree or accept what they believe. Whoever fights for what they believe in more will prevail and win. This is just what I think the title means; there are probably a host of other meanings that other people will think of.

Law and Justice

In this article, "Law and Justice," the author is trying to tell us that there are times to go against the law if something isn't right.  Like Zim said, "Bad laws and bad policies endanger our lives and freedoms." If there is a law that encroaches upon our freedoms, we shouldn't have to obey it or it should be changed.  His opinion goes with John Locke's Compact Theory of Government: if the government goes against the people and hurts or goes after their freedoms and rights, the government should be changed.  I think that he is trying to say that we should do what we feel is right, within the limits of our government.  If we don't think that we should be forced to do what the government says to do, we should be able to take them on and challenge them.  He's trying to say that laws are just an outline to what we should do; the laws shouldn't hurt our freedoms or our rights.   

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design is such a confusing topic. I looked all over the Internet at different definitions and I found that Intelligent Design is that nature/things were created by [super] intelligent beings, or as one definition put it "A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent design." This whole idea of Intelligent Design sort of relates to evolution in the fact that they are both very debatable and major issues in our society.
Intelligent Design seems to relate most closely to religion, so if they want to keep religion and schools separate, they should keep Intelligent Design out of schools. Intelligent Design, from what I read, seems to be like creation without the use of the word "God." If they want to be consistent in their teachings and rules, it shouldn't be taught in school.
Intelligent Design could also be considered a science because it tells how something was made; in science how things are made is something that is explained. It could be considered both involving science and religion.
Personally, I don't know if Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in schools. It is very controversial and sort of brings religion-ish things into the school. It's a hard decision to make. In keeping with prior rules about separating religion and school, it shouldn't be taught.

Presidential Candidate Survey: Task #1

My results in four of the six categories paired me with John McCain, the Republican candidate in the 2008 election and were very consistent. That doesn't surprise me because I'm normally a Republican anyway and share the same beliefs as the Republican candidates.
On the last two quizzes, I didn't like how it didn't pair me with a candidate; I would've liked to see who was a libertarian and who was what. In one, I was almost in the complete center; I would've liked to know who it was that I was matched with. The last two quizzes weren't my favorite. The very last one was very short and the second to last had very random, or at least it seemed like random, questions thrown in that I don't really know how they had to do with politics. Astrology?
A few of the topics in the surveys could have been better explained. The gas tax, for instance, is one that I wasn't sure about; would it help me or hurt me? Also, questions dealing with Iran were a little vague; I didn't really know what to put. How would Iran affect me; that's what I would've liked to know.
Overall, the results I got were right where I thought they would be, and the surveys were good.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?

Promoting Democracy should be a top or mid-level priority of the United States.  As one of the most "looked up to" countries in the world, it should be one of our goals to give other countries the chance to have what we have or something like it.  We should try to spread democracy to those countries that are willing to accept the help and are willing to work and get democracy.  As one of the top countries in the world, we should give other countries that want democracy their chance to have it.  We shouldn't push it on them and we shouldn't help them if they don't want the help.  Promoting Democracy should be one of the goals of the United States, and should be done to other countries if they are willing to accept democracy and the help to get it.