Colombian Stereotypes

The problems of Colombia´s past still contribute to a present perception of the country that may not be totally acurate. Despite being one the fastest growing economies in the world, with one of the strongest middle classes in South America, many North Americans and Europeans continue to avoid investment and travel in Colombia. On top of it´s rapid economic growth, Colombia has one of the highest literacy rates in the Americas topping Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela, and even China!
In addition to being one of the largest trading partners with the United States, Colombia still is lagging behind in foreign investment and international travel. Past violence and political instability have directly contributed to the West´s current perception of Colombia.

You will now use this blog as a forum to dispell (get rid of, repudiate, cancel) current stereotypes or misconceptions of your country. Students in Boulder, Colorado will be reading and commenting on your blog posts. Keep in mind, Most of these American students will have a very limited knowledge of Colombia, and especially Manizales!

Your Blog Response Must:
-address misconceptions/stereotypes about Colombia (what do you want people of other countries to know about Colombia?)
-discuss where these stereotypes come from
- In YOUR opinion, do you think Colombia is safe for foreign investment and travel
-At least two paragraphs

Should There Be More Restrictions For Gun Owners?

The 2nd Amendment clearly states,

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

After the Supreme Court overturned Washington DC's ban on handguns, guns rights advocates are looking to repeal the City of Chicago's ban on handguns as well. Although the 2nd Amendment states that our right to own weapons shall not be limited, some citizens feel that there should be some "reasonable" restrictions for gun ownership. Please read the attached Newsweek article about the possible gun ban in Chicago and respond to the following question(s).

Should American citizens have the right to unrestricted gun ownership or should the government place restrictions on certain types of weapons?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185

Undocumented Students and College

A recent study has placed the number of undocumented residents of the United States at around 12-14 million. All of these individuals have come to the United States for different reasons and under different circumstances. Presently in Colorado and the United States as a whole, undocumented high school students cannot attend colleges and university because they are denied in-state tuition and very often cannot afford to pay out of state tuition. The current controversy surrounding this debate is whether individual state and the federal government should allow undocumented high school students who have the necessary grades and test scores to receive in-state college tuition.

The DREAM Act, which has been voted down twice, is a piece of legislation that would allow in state tuition for undocumented students. Moreover, this act would provide a "path to citizenship" for undocumented students who would otherwise have to leave the country for 10 years before they could apply for citizenship. Opponents of this bill argue that we should not reward illegal immigration and this law would provide the motivation for more illegal immigration in the future. Proponents of the DREAM Act maintain that often times it is not the fault of the student that they are here in the United States and should not be penalized for their parents "crimes". What do you think? Should undocumented students be given in-state tuition in Colorado?

Points to consider in your response:

-Where is the money coming from?

-Should undocumented students be required to pay state taxes as well?

-how would that look?

-Does granting in-state tuition reward illegal immigration?

-Should these students be punished for their parents actions?

-How can these students ever become citizens?

Dream Act

reformimmigrationforamerica.org

"RIFA"

Supreme Court in Action: First amendment

The Supreme Court often hears cases that illicit strong opinions on each side. Often times, the court is asked to hear cases that are ruled on by one of the federal Appellate Courts. The most recent case that has stirred controversy is the case involving members of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at fallen soldiers funerals. Please read the following article on the extent of first amendment rights and answer the following question. Should Americans freedom of speech and expression extend to protesting at soldiers' funerals? Is this going to far or do these extremists have the right to say what they choose at these service funerals?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/us/09scotus.html?scp=1&sq=westboro%20baptist%20church&st=cse

Health Care Debate

The debate about health care reform has created a political divide between Democrats and republicans that we haven't seen in years. The central argument for Democrats is that there is never a good time to reform health care and that despite our struggling economy we need to act fast. Republicans then counter by saying that more government involvement in health care and private enterprise is not only unnecessary but hurtful to our economy. Please read the New York Times article (attached link below) and respond to the following question. Should the Obama Administration and Democrats continue to push forward with Health Care reform? Does this economy allow for proper and lasting reform? Does health care even need reforming in the first place?


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/health/policy/09health.html?scp=2&sq=health%20care%20bill&st=cse

There has been much debate about the substance of the Pledge of Alliegiance. The phrase "under God" has been challenged at the state and federal levels due to its religious connotations and possible violation of the separation of church and state. Do you think that our pledge violates the Constitutions' First Amendment that states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."?
Moreover, do you think that students in public schools should be required to hear the pledge if it violates their beliefs? Should the pledge be changed or should it stay as it is?
"But even in times of peace, Americans have grown accustomed to invoking God?s name in everything from the motto on their currency ("In God we trust") to the saying at the start of every Supreme Court session ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). Yet while the word God has become omnipresent in the nation?s ceremonial language, it should be noted that when the Founding Fathers were crafting the Constitution, the blueprint for a bold new nation, they left it out. " Nadya Labi

State of Nature: Haiti

After the devastating earthquake in Haiti, the UN estimates the death toll above 200,000. Unfortunately, the situation has degraded to the point where, in some cases, there is an absence of government and police enforcement. The media has depicted incidents of violence, looting, and crime that have arisen in the aftermath of this devastation. However, there are also stories of heroism and bravery from average people trying to help out their friends and fellow citizens.

After our discussion of human nature and the Locke v Hobbes debate, we are now seeing a situation in which there is an absence of government in Haiti. The question now remains: In the absence of government, is human nature naturally selfish, greedy, and corrupt ?(Hobbesian View) Or is human nature naturally innocent or benevolent? (Locke) From reading the article below and what you have seen in the aftermath of the Haiti Earthquake please support Locke or Hobbes' view of human nature.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100119/OPINION01/1190308/1038/OPINION01

Proposition 8: Constitutional or Not?

One of the most carefully monitored federal trials is beginning this week in California. The issue before the court is one that promises to bring out strong opinions on both sides. The court will be deciding whether California's ban on gay marriage is constitutional or not. Proposition 8 narrowly passed a state-wide referendum last year and now has been challenged by gay marriage advocates as discriminatory and ignoring the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.

Please read the New York Times article (attached below) and respond to the following question: Do you agree or disagree with Plaintiffs argument that California's ban on gay marriage (Prop 8) was based upon "legally irrelevant religious or moral beliefs" ? Also, the defense will be arguing that, "governments historically have sanctioned traditional marriage as a way to promote responsible child-rearing and that this remains a valid justification for limiting marriage to a man and a woman."

Which of these two points of view do you agree with most and why?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/07/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Trial.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=propostion%208&st=cse

Right to Privacy v National Security

In class, we have discussed domestic spying and other controversies surrounding the 4th Amendment and the war on terror. As Americans we are in the unique position of having to weigh our "reasonable expectation of privacy" with the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens.

With that being said, do you think that the federal government should be able to listen to US citizens' phone conversations without a warrant in an attempt to prevent another 9/11 attack? Read the following article and respond to this important and difficult question.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1155835,00.html

Cruel and Unusual?

After reading the TIME Magazine article "Death Penalty Walking", Do you agree that the citizens of the U.S. are starting to oppose the use of the death penalty? Moreover, do you feel that the use of lethal injection violates citizens' 8th Amendment? Please post your response here.

"Our death penalty's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice." Davide Von Drehle, Time Magazine. Jan 3rd 2008.

More Troops to Afghanistan?

As the war in Afghanistan continues to drag on many Americans and Europeans are becoming frustrated by the death tolls of coalition and NATO forces. Moreover, many of the funds that the United States and European Union have sent to the Afghan government are not achieving the desired goal : A strong and internally stable and self-sufficient government.

Initially, the United States began sending troops and funds to Afghanistan to a) eliminate the power of the Taliban and Al Queda, b) help rebuild the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and c) help train Afghan forces to combat the threat of the Taliban and Al Queda. After 830 US deaths and over 150 coalition deaths many are starting to worry that Afghanistan may turn into another unending quagmire that requires the presence of US and Coalition forces for an indefinite amount of time. Please read the TIME Magazine article (link below) and answer the following question in two paragraphs.

Should the United States continue to send billions of US dollars and over 100,000 US troops to Afghanistan?

Points to consider:

- What would the ramifications be of an immediate withdrawal of US forces?

-What would the consequences of a strong Taliban be?

- Is this OUR problem or the Afghan people's problem?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1924405-1,00.html

The Right to Die?

Does the Constitution provide US citizens the right to die? A recent Montana Supreme Court case has brought the controversial issue of physician assisted suicide into the national spotlight again. Currently, Oregon and Washington State allow physician assisted suicide (via statewide referendum) and Montana would be the third state in the the Union to allow terminally ill patients to die with the help of a doctor.

Opponents of euthanasia argue that physicians would be placed in an extremely compromising legal position. Doctors who help terminally ill patients commit suicide could not only violate their Hippocratic oath but also place themselves in a position of possible legal ramifications. Moreover, opponents also argue, from a moral and religious perspective, that the decision to die is not ours. According to this stance, only God has the power to decide when, where, and how we die.

Supports of the Right to Die issue argue that our bodies are our own personal property. Since the Fourth Amendment provides all citizens with a reasonable expectation of privacy, does this right to privacy extend to the decision to take our own lives if we're terminally ill?

What do you think? Should terminally ill citizens be able to take their own lives with the assistance of a physician? OR Is this going too far? Is it not our decision when we die? Please respond to this very difficult issue.

Second Amendment Rights

After the recent appearence of several armed citizens at President Obama's healthcare rallies, the right to bear arms has come back into the national spotlight. There was a small group of protesters that brought semi-authomatic assault rifles to the meetings, while others wore their holstered pistols. In states like Arizona and New Hampshire, residents are permitted to carry their weapons as long as they're properly registered.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The most controversial aspect of this amendment lies in the interpretation of what a reasonable "arm" is in 2009. Moreover, how much should the government be able to restrict US citizens' ability to own a firearm?

The Healthcare debate illicts passionate feelings on both sides. These Townhall meetings that members of Congress and the President are holding draw hundreds if not thousands of protesters on each side of this issue. Critics of guns rights advocates are maintaining that the second amendment should not give permission to carry a semi-automatic weapon in public nevermind a passionate political event. On the other hand, guns rights proponents argue that an armed citizenry, in any environment, is what protects us from government oppression.

What do you think? Should firearms be allowed at these public meetings or is this going too far? Does the Second Amendment allow us to carry firearms (of any kind) in public? What do you think the framers of the Constitutions would say about this controversy?

Norton High School Blog Critique

Please post your critiques of Mr. Kefors Blocks B and F Blogs. Remember that you should be providing constructive criticism, aspects you liked, and general comments regarding the Sudanese Crisis.

Should the United States Boycott the Olympics?

The International Olympic Committee's controversial decision to allow China to host the 2008 summer Olympics has angered many nations. Many feel that China's poor human rights record and recent dealings with Tibet warrant full-scale boycotts of the 2008 games. After the recent protests in Paris, London, and San Francisco President Bush issued a statement say that he WILL attend the opening ceremonies.

The question that has been debated regarding China and the Olympics is as follows: Are the Olympics a proper venue to voice political protests? Should the Olympic games remain seperate from politics? Does China's human rights violations and dealings with Tibet warrant a United States Boycott of the games?

What do you think?

2nd Amendment and Gun Control

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
2nd Amendment


The interpretation of the second Amendment is once again causing debate throughout the nation. The phrase, "the right to bear arms" has always been a point of debate due to the ambiguity of what an "arm" has come to mean in our society. Why did the founding fathers include this amendment in the Bill of Rights? Did the framers of the constitution want an armed citizenry in order to protect against foreign invaders? Should everyone be allowed to own a firearm? What is a reasonable firearm to own and what should be considered an unreasonable firearm to own?
These questions are ones that the Supreme Court is dealing with now. The District of Columbia has had a firearms ban within the city limits since 1973. Recently, this decision has been brought back to the Supreme Court due to questions of its constitutionality. Read the article (website below) and tell me YOUR opinion.
-Should the 2nd Amendment be abridged in any form? In other words, should local or state governments have the power to limit American Citizens right to own a weapon?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?_r=2&sq=2nd%20Amendment&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=1&adxnnlx=1207065853-2NwW3WLyqR0dQDV4YhK4Sg&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Women in Combat?

Some Americans feel that women should not be serving on the front lines or in "forward positions". The arguments against women fighting along side men in combat situations are varied and often supported by those in the US Armed Forces. However, many contend that women are just as reliable as men on the front lines and any arguments to the contrary are sexist. At a time when recruitment to the army is at a very low point, do you think that women should be allowed to fight on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Women are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder at higher rates than men. We know that women in general feel more negative emotional consequences from physical aggression. Surveys show that women in the military, especially enlisted women, don't want to go into combat. The percentage of women enlistees is going down, and that seems to be tied to their exposure to combat."

Kingsley Browne 2007

What do YOU think?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-28-female-amputees-combat_x.htm

Teachers' Bias?

We all have opinions regarding the controversial topics that we've been discussing this semester. It is impossible to study issues like the war in Iraq, the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, etc without dissagreeing with someone. These personal beliefs that you have formed, and are in the process of forming, have been shaped by a variety of forces. Our families, peer groups, and our location in America all have an influence on why we believe the way we do.

With that being said, I also have opinions on these subjects. I try very hard not to tell you my own stances in the hopes that you will be able to base your opinions on OBJECTIVE information. If I told you guys my opinions on Iraq, Gay Marriage, ect would you be more likely to feel the same way I do?

Blog Question: Should teachers make an attempt to always teach objectively? In other words, should a teacher present both sides of the issue equally and not express their own personal beliefs? OR Is it acceptable for a teacher to express their own beliefs and bias while teaching?

Crisis In Darfur: How Should America Respond?

The Genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan has already claimed approximately 400,000 lives and forced over 1.5 million people to flee their country. The United Nations response has been slowed by the Arab-controlled Sudanese Government and overwhelmed African Union forces.

The United States has given $270 Million to help solve this humanitarian crisis. In these difficult financial times, many Americans feel that we should concentrate on solving United States' domestic problems first then concentrate on aiding other nations and peoples. What do you think? Should US taxdollars be spent trying to help these refugees and stop future attrocities against the civilian population in Sudan? OR Should our tax dollars be spent solving domestic problems like health care, unemployment, house foreclosures, etc.?

Pre-IB Freshmen Government

Hey guys see which candidate you would most likely support in the upcoming election!