Iraq... Operation Iraqi Freedom...

When the average American hears the word Iraq, many thoughts come flowing into their mind. Possibly the irreversible situation that the Bush Administration has brought America into, the constant fear of a terrorist attack from that country, or maybe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was started on the basis of “disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” (Radio Address)
Although our President mentioned an invasion plan and how several other countries would be joining our coalition for peace he did not put forth any timeframe, nor any withdrawal timetables, which could be interpreted as a forethought that this war would continue beyond his administration. Throughout his Presidency, Bush and members of his administration have openly advocated instigating Iraq in the 2001 Terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers. Before United States Senate met in October of 2002 to vote on the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” (Keegan 13), upwards of 60 senators were told in closed sessions that the country of Iraq had the WMDs, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the means to deliver them by UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, to the eastern United States. “While there was truth behind Saddam having UAVs at his disposal, purchased from the crumbling U.S.S.R, none of which, if any had offensive capabilities. According to the U.S. Air Force.” (Galbraith 24). Saddam had the planes, but they couldn’t bomb the United States without major modifications. Despite the U.S. Air Forces testimony, the Senate voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq, though never officially declaring war, stretching the U.S. Constitution quite a bit.
In “February 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency, under the direction of the Bush Administration, chose to send an agent to Niger to determine whether or not Iraq was attempting to purchase ‘yellowcake’ uranium for whatever purpose. The agent returned to the United States and informed his superiors that any report of Niger selling ‘yellowcake‘ to Iraq were ‘unequivocally wrong’ ” (Galbraith 31). With this information the Chief Executive of the United States could rest assured that Iraq was not being supplied any yellowcake uranium to use for nuclear power or to manufacture WMDs for offensive use, yet he still threatened Congress with the fear of terrorist attacks from the Middle East, and supposedly from Iraq.



I'm not even close to done with this, but unfortunately, this is all I've organized. I'll be adding larger chunks as soon as I've organized them into coherent sentences, but this is the bulk of my Research and going into the Iraq "Wars" process and initiation, and finding whom is responsible.

Nov 19th.

1. Do you think the University’s honor code is too harsh? Should the students have been given another chance or some other penalty?

Yes, considering the gravity of the penalty, it should be issued on a case to case basis. Forgetting a foot note or a simple citation is one of the easiest things to do when writing a research paper. If the honor code is going to be that harsh, it is the Universities responsibility to make sure all the entries/students who have to follow the honor code are proficient in their writing experience and understand the MLA formats, and the rules that come with the honor code.
It's totally feasible that students wouldn't know anything about paraphrasing if they have only written straight citations in their papers, and never underwent the learning process about paraphrasing and quoting when the thought was not originally their own.

Essay #5

Honesty is a phrase lightly used in a world where lying can get a person ahead of the competition and keep themselves out of trouble. Telling “little white lies” about one’s tardiness or mental state to avoid conflict and resolve problems quickly, can this be considered still being honest although they’re potentially telling a lie? In a society where each and every person is driven to make a living, and all the while still have an enjoyable life, how can it be possible to remain happy when a potentially disastrous conflict happens to arise? The answer is simply to lie through their teeth, and yet at the same time reassure themselves that it’s to avoid a conflict with their spouse, acquaintances, friends, or family, or even in the rare case a stranger. Lying is part of the human drive to survive, even if it’s only to avoid a three minute argument, or the potential loss of a job. If these “white lies” are just to avoid conflicts, and people use this idea as a basis that they're still being an honest person, what other falsehoods can one reach by believing they're still honest after telling bold faced lies?

Telling a lie can be brought about in one of two ways, to either avoid conflict, or to avoid or prolong involvement. To avoid a conflict, many people lie about why they are late for work, because traffic was terrible, or there was a wreck, when they simply chose not to get up early enough to get to work on time, or went and picked up coffee on the way to work. Lying about why one was late to a meeting, school, work, or any of the other dozen destinations one might have, is merely the attempt at avoiding conflict, such as an argument, being reprimanded by a company or a superior. Sometimes these little lies about tardiness become just so natural we can think up one on the fly, “The traffic on the 101 was backed up because of the construction on College, so I was delayed at least 15 minutes trying to get to Windsor.” Although these lies sometimes are to benefit our own situation, where are we justified in lying about that? Just because they wanted an extra half hour of sleep they lied about construction, or needed to sleep off a hangover, but we don’t tell our superiors this to avoid a conflict, as well as hoping we don’t get fired over such a mistake.

The American public has come to the consensus that being prompt, bright-eyed, and bushy-tailed, is a virtue to live by, and being lazy, tired, and uninterested are bad traits. So because the public opinion swings in favor of a good image, people often are forced to lie about situations or events to gain the favor of their superior or maintain that “good image” everyone is so happy to strive for. Truly, being an honest person does not only stem from being honest at certain times, but also being honest as often as possible to avoid conflicts between friends, and to keep people from being hurt. A lie informing your friend that you’re already busy that day, and you’re actually free all day is a lie no question about it, but it also avoids hurting the other persons feelings, as well as injuring your friendship. Being truthful when it really matters, and being so much more often than a liar is very difficult in this day and age, but fortunately most people are honest with their friends, and keep hurtful secrets to themselves, rather than instigating a conflict, verbal or physical between two people....

What role does the media play in teaching values?

When it comes to teaching values to everyday children, teenagers, and even some adults, the media ultimately fails at teaching anything remotely true to these people. Take for example any one of the several dozen morning or afternoon soap opera shows, they all present these beautiful women one might never see when walking down the street, as well as these overly masculine and emotional men. Not mentioning the overly dramaticized and screwed up situations one could almost never find in a hundred years in reality.
Then there are the so called news giants and social channels, who only show the dark side of humanity and these select few humans who are "Adonis" type of guys who are overly buff, have these washboard abs, and the tight butt, and wide shoulders. Giving regular guys this image of "beautifully sculpted men" who are really only a select few in our society, attempting to force regular men to change their image to fit these select few, by dieting, refusing to eat, and even cosmetic surgery at times.

2008 Election Questions

Dear Mr. President,
I have many questions pertaining to your policies you've claimed you will enact upon entering office. My first question comes from your claims that 90% of the American people will receive tax breaks in 2009, if you plan on putting this into action, I understand the legal precedents it will achieve, but is that truly your objective? Or is your objective to tear down the walls that separate the insanely wealthy from the poverty stricken? As a voting American citizen, I am apalled at the continuation of the war in Iraq, and fully support your attempts at removing the United States' armed presence from such a hotbed of Anti-American activity. How do you plan on fully removing all of the American Armed Forces from Iraq at this time? Although it is a truly worthy goal, is its implementation possible in the next 4 years? And lastly, your administration is coming into office at a time of America having a horrible economic standing, two warfare operations currently in effect, several broken and hostile treaty efforts, an illegal occupation of a sovereign country, and a poverty stricken working force, how do you plan to right all of these terrible attrocities? Will you go the same route as Roosevelt, and try for a really 'New Deal',
or some of the other numerous paths and fail like several presidents before you?

Essay #4 Rough

Huckleberry Finn, an American novel the likes of which have seen contested opinions for several decades, should it’s teaching be continued in English classrooms? Truly if we remove such a novel from being taught, it would affect the students, whether it just so happens to be in a positive or negative way we can only guess. On one hand the book uses very harsh and direct dialogue to describe characters, and can invoke a sense of guilt in the reader. On the other, it may have a detrimental effect on another student, who cringes at the use of the ‘n-word’ or the sound of his or her classmates snickering at the word. Huck Finn has not only reached “iconic status level to critics that they will defend it’s use” (437), to the point critics will dismiss any opposing arguments. With societies maturity at a pretty level point currently, Huckleberry Finn should be taught in select high school English classrooms where the maturity level is at a point where no one is discriminated against and everyone is in mutual understanding about the books intent.
The evolution of Mark Twain’s novel from the point of a decent novel, to the point that “to question Huckleberry Finn is to be unAmerican” (437). Where authors and critics much like Schlesinger claim that Huck Finn is “combating the ‘disuniting of America,” or “glorifying in the ‘hybridity’ and how Huck Finn gives us a core of an authoritative ‘we’ takes to be the meaning of America” (437). It’s here that critics emphasize on the idolatry theme that goes along with such arguments, which begin to paint a giant target on the book. Giving way to a great argument over the book, the author, and what the characters deeper meaning might be. These critics hardly listen if at all to other critics or authors objections to Huck Finn being anything less than their “quintessential American novel” and to question it, a person “must be unAmerican”. While these critics are arguing these points to keep the novel being taught, they aren’t listening to the arguments of the children who are reading such a novel. These children are stuck reading a novel that is not purely racist but contains tones of racism from the very start. Is racism a value that we need to teach our children as early as 8th grade? Some may agree, while others disagree, and prefer that children draw their own conclusions without allowing such a novel to influence them at such a young age.
In a high school English class, it would be more than appropriate to provoke long standing and heated debates about the books true intention and the underlying tones, but only if the class has the combined maturity level to read and discuss such a text. It is not only the novels responsibility to provoke discussions and debates over it, but the responsibility of the students to remain mature, even when the ‘n-word’ is being used every other line or page. The key question is not whether the novel is racist or deserves to be used in high school English classrooms, but rather. Are the high school students mature and responsible enough for Huckleberry Finn?

ESSAY #4 100words

There are several reasons why The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is worthy of debate and discussion in English classrooms. To begin with Huck Finn tells of the hardships different people were presented with, forming a novel that is reminiscent of the post Civil War era in the Mississippi region of the United States . The novel Huck Finn also throws out a word that is so loaded with hostility and hatred, that it is seen as a taboo in many parts of today’s society. The novel promotes a sense of frailty to people, the frailty that society has created from such an inappropriate word being used so many times in the novel. Both sides of the arguments deal with whether the novel is the "quintessential American novel" or if it is purely a piece of trash that has exceeded and begun to be defended by critics who haven't even read it at times.