Yee Eng 2

2005-10-07T22:03:00.000-07:00

Texas vs Johnson on-line resources:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/texasvjohnson.html
a brief history on flag burning:
http://www.esquilax.com/flag/history.html
flag desecration chronology:
http://www.esquilax.com/flag/history.html

good luck with the paper everyone! <3

2005-09-16T21:32:00.000-07:00

I do not think that there should be an amendment to the U.S Constitution prohibiting desecration of the U.S flag. Something like changing the Constitution for burning, tearing, and other forms of desecrating a flag, would be simply a waste of A LOT of time and effort. There is sucha thing as freedom of speech, and flag burning or any other desecration to the flag does not really harm anyone. The only thing that could come out of desecrating a flag is hurt feelings. If someone wants to show they hate the U.S government, then let them think that tearing up a flag makes everything better...or perhaps suggest that they just move out of the states...either one. Personally, I just think that anyone who desecrates a flag just wants to stir things up. Now, if somone should go through, say, fifty flags a day, then they should be monitored or checked out. I don't know, I think I may be a little biased to the whole desecrating the flag thing. I have found that I just roll my eyes to the whole thing. Maybe they should have specified "Freedom of Speech" when they were writing the Constitution to begin with.

2005-09-12T17:18:00.000-07:00

I don't know why anyone would have a problem with any city that sought to make an ordinance requiring all door-to-door salespersons (be it make-up or religion) to obtain a permit from the mayor. It makes the communities more safe and less vulnerable to heinous acts of crime. Its really rather simple...if you don't have anything to worry about, then why protest? Making sure people obtain some sort of permit, can only bring positive outcomes. Also, if I were a sales advocate, even for my religion, I would WANT the people that I approach to know I was legitimate. There's no harm in that. I would have to take some time out of my life to obtain this permit, but that really shouldn't be such a big deal now, should it? With all the unthinkable acts of crime that are out there today, why would people not want to make communities a little more safe? Ignorance sometimes is a drag.

2005-09-11T12:10:00.000-07:00

Acknowledging that the death penalty is such a sensitive subject, I do not want to sway on the subject of it, knowing that there are too many gray areas involved. I will stick to the subject at hand. The issue that pertains to the statement "...A law that asks doctors to make people well so that the government can kill them is an absurd law..." (Critical Thinking p. 82) is, I believe, as follows: Is it okay to administer drugs to a felon on death row to make him "sane enough to execute". First, I have to admit that I do not know enough about the death penalty to have acquired a strong opinion that conveys on which way I pull on the subject. Second, does anyone know how many cases involved an insane prisoner awaiting death row? I am not certain if becoming insane alters the fate of one waiting the death penalty. However, the criminal was sane enough to prosecute and sentence to the death penalty, so wouldn't the sentence hold regardless?
So sticking to only the issue given for this Blog, my opinion is against the drugs. Again, not knowing if being insane alters the outcome of the death penalty, I read that exurpt as the goverment wanting to give the prisoner drugs to become momentarily sane (or however long it will last) in order for that prisoner to know his reality. It's not bad enough that we're killing him, we want that person well enough to make certain that he comprehends what is going on. That he knows he will be going to die in ten minutes. (As if he did not perseverate on the subject during the years prior) I wonder, what is the government's agrument that an incoherent inmate must be administered drugs? Do they actually say that is imperative for the inmate to acknoweldge the fact that he is dying? Perhaps they are hoping that the inmate will beg for his life...yes, that would be fabulous wouldn't it? That way, we could reap ALL the benefits of his death. Although, I know that if i was involved in the criminal's case, (say I was the mother of a victim) then perhaps my decision would be different. I just hope that I would not become so biased as too make sure that I would deem it necessary that a possible incoherent man would need any drugs possible to realize his last moments. It is a ridiculous thing, to give an inmate medication for the sole purpose that he will comprehend his death. And if that is not the case, then what about considering the money that goes into administering these drugs? Possibly, a waste of the tax payer's money.

2005-08-28T17:13:00.000-07:00

First, I have decided to not incorporate homosexuality into my opinion. There is too much that can be argued with the subject and I want to keep the question in which it was presented. However wrong I am to the truth, I apologize and will keep an open eye when new scientific research has been developed.
I believe that people do not initially "choose" the sex that they are attracted to. The hormones and chemicals in one's body do the deciding for them. For instance, I am attracted to men. I did not say, 'Yes, I choose to be attracted to men'. Rather, it was the hormones in my body that gives me the feelings of likeness towards men. I can look at women and not get the same feelings as I might, say if I looked at men in the same manner. It is the way that we reciprocate the feelings of lust and the like towards the sexes, and we do not contol our body's chemistry.
Nevertheless, I understand that there are ways in which one may become conditioned to certain aspects of life, "learned helplessness" as one example. But to how far this concept goes into relationships between the sexes is another question, and a question that people are still trying to make clear.