Final Blog

I think political philosophy helps us as citizens know how our government thinks and how it was made.  Political philosophy has shaped the structure of our entire government for example the way Thomas Jefferson used the ideas/philosophy to write the Declaration of Independence, by Jefferson using Locke's philosophy he was able to help distinguish how he wanted us to be independent from Britain and to establish ourselves in the world. I think it is fairly important to study political philosophy because it just makes you understand how to relate to certain philosophical ideas, but I find it to be not as important in some cases because political philosophy is always changing just like people so i sometimes question the legitimacy of some philosophy since most of the time citizens will only listen to their family family values, and they're ideas of being a pre-determined republican or democrat. When really citizens base they're own philosophy on what the media shows.

final blog

I think that political philosophy is the theory of which methods to enforce for political sovereignty or there lack of, for the benefit of the people in that state or nation. I like looking back in history and reading about different political structures and seeing what worked and what didnt, which is the main purpose it serves to society today, especially in more industrialized nations because they have the most wealth and power and indirectly rule the world. We can keep learning from history's mistakes and keep progressing in hopes that one day we live in a Utopian society, which is why i think political philosophy is important

Final Blog

I think political philosophy is studied to help us get better in tune with our government and its economy. Most of us, like me, don't really understand government itself, much less the reason for the way it runs today. I think that is an important study because it informs people about their own government and it will later help them in constructing their own opinions about certain candidates in elections instead of just going by commercials and hear-say.

Final Blog

This class was very interesting and I learned a lot. It did surprise me because I did not think we would have the type of readings we did. Overall it was really interesting what we were going over in class, discussing the points the philosiphers made. Their points had effect on the ideas and thoughts of some of todays political ideas. Political philosophy to me means the basics of our government and where it came from. This class made me have to go deep inside my brain to figure things out to try and answer questions.

philosophy

to me political philosophy is studying the foundations and ideas that have shaped our political world today as we know it. Being able to look back at and study how different people viewed political theory has in my opinion really helped other theorist in the future and help shaped all the different types of governments and cultures of the world. Learning about all the different views taht people have proposed throughout history has really opened up my mind about different topics of the world. 

Final blog- political philosophy

When I hear the word "politics", or "political philosophy  I kind of roll my eyes. However, after taking this class and reading our assignments each week, I really began to see how precedents were set long, long ago for the way that the political world operates today. Each piece that we read is somehow still relevant to the world today and how our governments are formed and interact. For example, in the readings about MLK and all the readings from week 7, ideas and issues are discussed in which one person stands up for what is right when it is an unpopular stance. Those people set standards for right and wrong and how much people would take before they said enough. That in particular I think is a huge aspect of today's political world- standing up for right and wrong even when the odds are against you, and feeling free to argue your point. All of the readings we were assigned throughout the semester really showed how governments don't just make their own way of doing things, they learn from the people and events of that past.

Political philosophy

Political philosophy is the study politics and rights. By learning about other political philosophies and views one will gain a more well rounded pint of view. The content of a political philosophy does not necessarily matter as long as its legit, it still helps provide a better understanding of politics and the world. Political philosophy helps provide answers regarding why there is government and how major decisions were made.

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is really anything to do with politics. The way in which a country is run through laws and rights, the way in which authorities take control, and the way that the people feel or view their rights and government. It is something that is competely different among each persons views and beliefs and also differs greatly between countries and governments.

Political Philosophy

To me, the intentions of political philosophy is to understand the purpose of politics. The study of what is necessarily for organized society to exist, and why it's necessarily. From Socrates to Baudrillard, it has been explained man's nature and what it takes to keep order. What the people expect from authority, what the authority demands of the people.
When we can understand these things more comprehensively, we can better govern ourselves. We may create an orderly society safe for everyone, while still keeping as many individual freedoms as possible.

Political Philosophy

Over this course, we have read many stories and learned about many different philosophers and their ideas. I have learned quite a lot of new things and new political theories. After taking this class I think that political philosophy is just how the government is operated and how it effects the citizens rights and liberties, not only in America but in many different cultures.

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy, in my opinion, is the ideas and beliefs behind the political foundations that the governments we know today are based on. Political philosophy is not a concrete idea that is unchanging. Political philosophy is constantly recreating itself to go along with the times. And, with every new political philosophy that comes along, it makes way for a new leader to take the reigns of what politics can, and probably will, become.

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is a philosphy or theory that looks at the topics of liberty, politics, rights, and law. It looks at the enforcement of these topics by an authority and if the authority (government) is legitimate. It provides insight as to how and why we have government. Many philosophers explain to us waht needs to be done if we feel the government is not treating us fairly/taking advantage of us.
King and Ghandi explain that we must use acts of non-violence, peace, and love in order to obtain change. Marx explains that there is a struggle between two classes, one who owns the means of production and one who labors. Kropotkin believed in complete overthrow of government on communist principles. Hobbes is considered to have created the concept of a social contract that justifies the actions of rulers. The ideas by many of these philosophers explain to us what works and what does not work. We are all touched one way or another by these philosophers ideas.

Politics This Semester

During this semester I have learned a lot about political philosophy. The first thing that I learned from political philosophy is that as a whole, we learn that we get our political ideas from political philosophers. Political philosophers molded the way our politics works today and the way it will work in the future if we didn't have the foundation of our political philosophers, politics would not be what it is today. When we talked about Karl Marx and Marxism it opened my eyes to what Marxism really is because I thought it was the same as Communism. My thoughts were completely wrong, I know now that Marxism is like Communism but it is not the same thing. Communism took the ideas from Marxism to become a way of government. The difference between Communism and Marxism is that Communism wanted one ruler over all people and Marxism wants the people to rule. I also like what I learned about Leibnitz and how he thought that everything in the world is good and he believed in  predestination. His ideas helped us realized that everything in the world is not good and how we respond to that is knowing that somethings in the world that go on are not always good. This helps to realize in politics, everything that goes on is not good and everything that happens is not always for the good of the people that are involved. I think that this classed opened my eyes to different perspectives that I had no clue about just like the book The Bookseller of Kabul. I didn't really understand what was going on in Afghanistan and why we have been there for so many years until we read this book. Now I see that Afghanistan is going through a lot of turmoil and they need our help to make it better so they can thrive on their own as I country. I am very glad that I took this class because now I know a lot more about the ideas of our politics rather than what I see on the surface.

Final Blog

Over the course of the semester we have read many theorists and discussed the things they talked/wrote about. All of the Political theorists we have discussed had obviously contributed to today's theorists' ideas and also how societies function around the world today. Political philosophy focuses on rights, politics, liberty, etc. and how these things affects different cultures. The study of political philosophy is what helps theorists come up with their theories and this ultimately has an affect on their societies.

Final Blog

The meaning of political philosophy to me is knowing the knowledge and fundamentals of our government and other concerns with the country.  It is important to know the basics of how our country came to be and our government systems.  Looking back at our political history many philosophers strived to bring their ideas which helps us to build our understanding and political ideas.  I found it easy later to understand earlier philosophers like Socrates and Plato where they spoke out against their own form of government and established a new form of thinking.  I enjoyed this class because it helped me think outside of the box.  I expanded my knowledge about some people I already knew about, but continued to increase my knowledge about understanding their political side.

final blog

During the first couple of classes in political science I thought that i would hate the class because of all of the reading. After reading the first couple of assignments I realized that it was interesting to learn about how our society came to be how it is. I didn't like all of the readings but I did enjoy most of them. The main point of what I have learned in this class is how politics were in the past and how they have developed into what they are today. I will remember how each of the philosophers thought and there main ideas for the rest of my life.

final blog

I learned a lot in this course this semester. To be honest going into this class I wasn't sure what it was all about and if i would even enjoy it. The number one thing i noticed was that all the philosophers theories show up some where in this world (or at one point). Most of the readings were interesting and i learned a lot. Over all i really enjoyed this class it really opened my eyes to our society and how it is developing.

Political philosophy

I have learn a lot in this class over the semester. I find political philosophy to be the study of politics and how we shape our government. Reading all of the works of past philosophy helps us make more wise decisions today learning from past experiences and ideas.

Final Blog

I think political philosophy is the study of politics. I think its important to understand what political philosophy is about because it helps us focus on the back round of government and where people get their views  so we can create our own views of politics. In this class we read so many views people have and not everyone will agree with someones view, but that's what this class is about.

Final Blog

I think that political philosophy is using philosophy to understand current politics, and also politics of the past. Leviathan used philosophy to introduce laws. He said that people need laws so their lives are not short and "brutish". We used people like Marx to learn about social classes. Marx talked about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They were sort of upper and middle class. Adam Smith used philosophy to describe the market and economy. I think that laws, social classes, and the economy are all important aspects of politics and government. Leviathan, Marx, and Smith used what they observed and believed was right to help try to create a better government. The works of all of these philosophers help us to realize what works and what doesn't work today. We are influenced by the work of all of these writers in some way.

Final blog

     From all the readings, i have learned so many things during this course. It has opened up my eyes to what Political philosophy means. In my opinion political philosophy is the study of how government is run and the libretiey people have and concepts on how government is run, and operates.

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is the study and interpretation of existing governing bodies and norms which dictate society.  In other words, looking at a form of government and answering questions such as 'is this government needed?' 'To whom does this government apply?' 'Who is benefitting from the way this government operates?' etc. By picking apart questions such as these, we are able to gain a more wholesome understanding of why not only our government is set up the way that it is, but how it works today.  I think it is our duty as citizens under one government to understand the way that our political sphere functions, so that we know our rights and responsibilities, and how to carry them out in the event that they are being oppressed. If we do not understand why our government functions the way that it does, or know how to change the things we dislike about it, then we are blindly throwing our faith into something that is an anomaly to us, and accepting whatever decisions it bestow upon us. By reading the works of political philosophers, we understand the thought process which was followed by hundreds to get to the point we as a society have arrived at today. This is important because it allows us to not only understand how our governing bodies function, but why they have developed in a certain way. Perhaps we may look at a given system such as communism and think, 'gee, that sounds fair. We should use that here.' But when looking back over history at countries that have used communism, we see how they ended up and can view all of the flaws in the system. Suddenly the person who was thinking it was a better system understands why Americas government doesn't strictly follow one social system. Politics, according to wikipedia,  is defined as 'a term that is applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments.' As we better understand how the government is structured and how it functions, we are better able to make decisions on how to shape and mold it to fit the needs of the world today. 

Ending Blog

We have read many different theorists throughout this course, all of which have enhanced our knowledge of what Political Philosophy is. Through the readings by these theorists I have formed my own opinion of what Political Philosophy is. Political Philosophy is the combination of one theorist's ideas with another throughout history and cultures. It allows us to understand how different cultures work and how different ideas put into action within a society will result in what way. Political Philosophy helps us understand politics because it shows us how different types of governments might work in theory and how they actually work in reality.

Final Blog

Political philosphy is how we learn about and relate to our governemnt, economy, and society. It is important for us to study the authors and readings that we did because we need to be informed about all of the different politcal ideas out there. That gives us the best basis to choose what we thinks is most moral, just, and practical for our government. The more informed we are, the better our ability to judge what will and wont work within our society. As a citizen in a democracy, especially, it is our right to vote, and therefore our responsibility to know why are voting the way we are.

The end of blogging

In my opinion, political philosophy is the search for the answer to what a persons relationship to society truly is. From the many readings this semester, it is clear that there are many views that range from individual liberty to society working together as one unit. While this is a very simple definition, inbetween these two extremes lie numerous versions that take ideas from both. It is also the study of liberty and justice, what constitutes both, and the true meaning of authority.

The blog to end all blogs.

 I think political philosophy can be interpreted in many, many different ways. The definition of political philosophy is the study of justice, liberty, property, right, laws, and the enforcement of the legal code, and all of the writers we've read of the semester have had their own spin on what those topics meant to them. After reading about Socrates, Marx, Adams, Rousseau, and others, I now see where a lot of my beliefs come from. My favorite writers were the ones that talked about the battle between right and wrong, or justice vs. injustice because I see or experience those struggles everyday and I can connect with the writers I've read using some of the lessons they learned.

Final blog

I think political philosophy is the study behind all of the theories in politics. I think the policies grow off one another and develop when the society changes. What may have worked for one time period would not work for another because of the changes time brings.
I think we need to understand political philosophy to understand politics because without the philosophy we couldn't grasp why they were there. No one just sits there and decides something about politics because they're bored. They put deep thought into what they say. The ones that we read over this course weren't just randomly selected, they were picked because they did a great job at making you think. It's important to know where the different parties came from and what they truly think.

The bookseller of Kabul

I found this book incredibly good and interesting. I think it was very eye opening to learn about the way in which they lived because it is so different than here in the United States. The one thing that stuck out to me the most was all of the rules and regulations that are placed on especially the women. They have hardly any rights which is very diferent than in the United States, I think they should have rights more similiar to the women here.

The Bookseller of Kabul

I found this story very interesting to read. It showed that even today, women are still not treated equally with men in different countries like Afghanistan. We are blessed in the United States to live in a place that has almost taken care of equality of women and not set standards like the ones portrayed in the book. Some of these rules would never be allowed in the United States because of the severity or the ridiculousness of them.

The Bookseller of Kabul

This was one of my favorite readings this semester. It shed light on how women are treated in other cultures and made me think about how they are treated in ours. Definitely glad I gave this book a shot.

The Bookseller of Kabul

I think this book was absolutely fascinating, how it was based on real events and experiences but not told directly in that way. To read this book and consider how these women were treated is astounding. I found myself comparing the way they were treated to the way women in the United States were treated during the late 19th/ early 20th centuries. Sure, the way the Afghan women were treated was a lot worse, but isn't the lack of freedom still the same? I really loved how, in the forward, the author says that he had many good times and was treated so well by this family, yet had never been so angry with something: the way they were to the women. This is a pretty cool book, and definitely provides a point of view that most people never get the chance to see, or even consider.

The Bookseller of Kabul

The Bookseller of Kabul was an interesting story. It gave me another perspective in regards to how women are still treated to this day. Women, along with men, should feel fortunate they do not have the restrictions in their lives like many people in Afghanistan and other middle east countries do. I could also apply ideologies studied in class to better understand situations in the story.

The Bookseller of Kabul

I like this book because I was able to learn about another culture and how they view women. I think that it is important to learn about different cultures in order to have a more open mind. This book helped  me become aware of how Afghan women are treated and how their role in society. I think that we have come a long way in the role of women here in the U.S. I think that with time the women in Afghanistan    roles will change and become more modern. I also didn't like when the girl was killed because she didn't fall in love with the person that of her social class and her parents didn't approve of him. I also didn't like how the parents get to pick the women's husband because I don't think that you can force someone to fall in love with another individual. I think if they are not in your social class you should not judged. Even though I did not agree with some parts of the Afghan culture I thought this book was interesting to read and become informed.

The Bookseller of Kabul

 The Bookseller of Kabul is an autobiographical novel who's story follows that of a relatively affluent Afghan entrepenuer Bookseller, Sultan, and his family, as experienced and told through Anse Seierstad's documentary stay with them closely followed and following the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent  American invasion of Afghanistan.
One thing that this book focused heavily on was the treatment of women and their place in conservative Islamic society. Right from the beginning it deals with this; With Sultan looking for another young wife in addition to his older one, presumably for reasons of the sensual type. I knew that   conservative Islam's treatment of woman was largely materialistic prior to reading this, but I didn't truly realize just how inanimate they are in the eyes of Muslim men until after. Marriages almost never have anything to do with intimate connections and have everything to do with procreation and housework. They're literally used as bargaining chips and currency.
Beyond this, his life  and the history of his work and book collection is told. From the ultra Islamic Muhajideen, to the Soviet occupation, the Taliban regime, and the American invasion. At one point he says something about how his book collection has been both allowed and sought after and also persecuted and burned during different regimes.
So far I have really enjoyed this book.

The Bookseller of Kabul

It is always fascinating to get an idea of how other cultures view things. In this case it's the treatment of women. I don't need to go into detail of how women are treated in other countries with respect to women in the United States. While our nation has had a history, in no way has it ever been as bad as in Afghanistan. Some of the traditions in Afghanistan would not stand in the United States. In Afghanistan, parents choose your spouse for you on the basis of their social status, in America that just does not happen. I look forward to the discussion on this book.

The Bookseller of Kabul

I really enjoyed The Bookseller of Kabul. I found it interesting and hard to put down once I started reading it. I like reading about how different the culture is half way around the world. We live in the same time period but if I was in Afghanistan, I would not be treated anywhere near how I'm treated now. It was kind of shocking to think that women are being sold as wives and don't have any say in it. I just couldn't picture that happening to me. 

The Bookseller of Kabul

I found that this book was well written on the parts that talked about the Afghan history and culture.  I learned a lot about how woman were looked at and how their roles were played being a wife to someone who had a rich family background and education.  Being an American we all have different views and traditions that are different than the Afghan culture in which in some parts I did not agree on.  For example in their culture the men have many wives.  Also I thought that the parents choosing who you love by the role they play in society is a little harsh.  I think love finds you and you should choose who you want to love no matter the money they have.  I didn't think it was right how they killed that girl just because she was seeing someone who her parents did not approve of.  I did enjoy the book but just because we all grow up differently we all have different views on how woman and love.

The Bookseller of Kabul

I thought this book was good. I like how it showed how women are treated and I’m glad I don’t have to been looked down upon as women living in America.  Though women in America weren’t as respected back in the day it is nowhere as close as how bad the Afghan women are treated.  Overall it was an eye opening book, but I kind of knew a little about their society from when I’ve seen over the years on the news.

The Bookseller of Kabul

I really liked the novel. I thought it was one of the more interesting things that we have read in class so far. There was several points of the book that I liked, but my favorite was how the author put a spotlight on how women were, and still are, treated in Afghanistan. It was really interesting to me to see how different day-to-day life is between Afghan and American women.

The Bookseller of Kabul

So far I found this book really interesting to read. I like how the issues it presents aren’t presented in the way they are in articles. It’s weird reading about how other women in other societies and religions are treated, since we don't see it here in America. To think of a man having more than one wife, is strange, and to want another wife because one is too old seems a little bit harsh. But that's how it is in their society; however the women of the Islamic society do not seem ok about what is going unlike the men.

The Bookseller of Kabul

The bookseller of Kabul is an autobiography about Afghan entrepreneur bookseller. I really enjoyed reading this novel. It was cool because this is a huge part of history that I was part of. This book centers around the treatment of women and their place in society. Women are looked down upon in the Islamic society.

Star Trek

I have in fact never seen Star Trek, nor do I know much about in general. I found this article very interesting because I never knew the connections to the cold war and other political events. I never really was interested in it, but I've seen most of the Star Wars movies and enjoyed them. I think it would be a different place if writers could not write about the negative things in life like war, that way everything would be positive and propaganda would  not necessarily exist.

Star Trek and Politics

     I personally have never watched Star Trek because I thought it was kind of weird, but this article shed a different light on it and helped me view it differently. The question is brought up whether a world of peace  would be boring, because no one would be a hero. I thought this part was interesting because I don't people think of world peace in this light. I don't think this notion is accurate or in any way worthy of consideration, but interesting nonetheless. The article continues on to discuss the connection between Shakespeare and Star Trek, which seams a little random at first. They explain the use of some of Shakespeare's lines in Star Trek and what it could mean. I think this article is a bit long and wordy, but pretty interesting once you consider it.

Star Trek

Considering I’ve never watched Star Trek it was interesting to read this article. I never expected the show to tie to the Cold War so much. I know my mom watched it when I was younger and it surprised me that the show only lasted three seasons.

Star Trek

I personally never watched Star Trek, nor do I know any of the real background behind it. However, I did enjoy reading this article, it made Star Trek seem more interesting then from what my dad had told me. I did not know that Star Trek was tried into the cold war and other political controvies during that time.

star trek

I used to hate on star trek even though I have never taken the time to watch it. After reading the article I would like to watch star trek because it seems to have more of a meaning in the real world. There are definitely some similarities to the cold war and I would like to watch the show to see if I could understand the underlying meaning of some of the episodes.

Star Trek

I have never seen Star Trek, but I do find it interesting to think what would history be like if there were no wars or violence. I have seen Star Wars many times. Not only in school, referring it to government and politics, but because i actually like it. I have never really given Star Trek a chance.

Star Trek

I am somewhat familiar of Star Trek because growing up my dad would always watch it. I would glance over from time to time but never really understanding the meaning of it when I was little.  After reading this I learned a lot actually and did not really know its smililarity between the cold war. One of the things they talked about was history being dead which I think is false. History never dies it continues to grow because we build it and make it our own.

Star Trek

I have personally never seen Star Trek and am really not familiar with it at all so this reading was pretty confusing for me but I thought the most interesting idea in it was how they questioned if we didnt have war and bad things what would people have to write about. This really made me think, I feel as though its not the war and evil things that writers and painters really like to portray but rather what we have learned and taken away from those bad situations. I think writers would be just as well off without these things to write about because then they can just write about the good things in life.

Star Trek

I have never seen Star Trek or ever thought about watching it. I never knew that it actually had a deeper plot other than just a cool sci-fi show that had people floating around in space, after reading the article I actually learned that it was influenced by actually historical events and figures. The show actually talks about government and the problems in it. The article talks about the end of history, but not in the literary sense more in the sense of how government has changed so much. I am actually excited to see Star Trek this week in class and connect it to the article.

Star Trek

Personally, I am a HUGE Star Wars fan and I never really got into Star Trek. As a matter of fact, I've never seen any episodes at all. After reading the article and doing some further research, I can see how it was made parallel to the Cold War. The events in certain episodes have a direct correlation to the events of the Cold War.

Star Trek

Overall, I was pretty confused with the reading this week. I have never once watched Star Trek, and I don't know anything about it, so I was confused when the author began to refer to characters and situations from the series. Once I could get past the names though, I understood the general points about how there were similarities between things that happen in our own world and Star Trek. I also really liked how the author talked about the connections that could be found back to Shakespeare. I agreed with the author's points about how the relevancy of Shakespeare and others will continue regardless of how long time goes on.

Star Trek

This reading was very interesting, but I found it extremely hard to follow because I have never watched Star Trek before so the use of the story in the text confused me. I think how the put history into context was really cool. They said that history ended and not because history stopped happening, but because we reached freedom and achieved a democratic government, and that was what they thought the means of history was all about.

Star Trek

I have never seen Star Trek so I learned a lot about the show from the very beginning of the reading. I find it interesting that that the show is about the collapse of Soviet Union in outer space. The reading talks about "the end of history". History didnt end in the sense of events happening but history has ended because freedom, democracy and representative government has been recognized all over the world. Also the reading talks about how there is a lot of Shakespeare used throughout Star Trek. I find the quote "no matter how electronic it all becomes, great literature will still exist" I find this very true because even after hundreds of years great philosophers writings are still relevant to this day.

Star Trek

So, like others, I have never watched Star Trek, I have always been a Star Wars fan. From the start of this reading, it's thrown out that Star Trek was influenced by the Cold War, and Shakespeare. But what had me thinking was "the end of history" that was thrown in; that history had stopped around the 19th century or in that time. I think that's ridiculous, history has never stopped and never will until there are no more living things to have a history of. I'm not sure whether they were referencing something to the show or what but the idea of history stopping is very odd. I do wish that the article would have given more of a background of the show before going into the main points of the reading. Overall, I think the writers of Star Trek mirroring the Cold War was a very effective way to get a story line.

Star Trek

I have never really watched Star Trek so I did not know anything about it. Right from the start they introduce ideas of the Cold War and Shakespeare. It would have been nice to have a little more background on the show. As they went more into depth on the show and its connections I found myself more confused because I had no idea who the characters were. It was confusing for me to read this article. However, I did get a few points from the reading. They talked about the "end of history". I do not agree with this. History is always happening because everything we do is history. The author also made connections between democracy which linked the show to the US. Star Trek does not see it the same as the US does because their mission is "to seek out new civilizations and destroy them". I thought it was weird that that was their goal if they try to have a democracy. Heroism was brought up in the article along with Shakespeare. Although I have not seen it, from what I read Shakespeare was quoted until one person died, which signified the end of a type of monarch or ruler.

Star Trek

First, let me say that I have never watched Star Trek before. So I've had to do a little research before reading the article for the week. Besides, I'm more of a Star Wars fan. I did not know until reading this article, that Star Trek had such a parallel with the Cold War. In Star Trek VI I believe it was, when the Klingons suffered an event that was similar to Chernobyl, that they collapsed and were no longer a major threat to the United Federation of Planets. After that, the crew of the Enterprise began to question their usefulness and ultimately, their purpose. This can be related back to our current military situation in the United States. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US was left standing as the sole superpower of the world. Even so, we can continued to increase spending on our military, despite spending more than the next 10 countries combined. (Figures here may be off a little.) This has perked my interest in Star Trek and I look forward to watching it and seeing more correlations.

The End of History

I never realized that Star Trek had historical parallel  but that is also partly due to the fact that Star Trek was before my time (The series, not the recent rendition that entered theaters a couple years ago) But I think it is interesting how they say we have reached the end of history by establishing a democracy is most of the industrialized countries, which we all know have most power and authority in the world. I am not sure that I agree with the idea of the world reaching a goal (end of history) and history ending, because of two reasons. 1. I do not believe in perfection, and i believe we must always strive to make ourselves better, whether it is individually, or nationally, or even internationally. and 2. Because of my disbelief in perfection, I believe that History has proven that humans are in no way perfect, so because of human flaw, people will always mess up and there will always be wars.

Star Trek Politics

This reading shows the connections in Star Trek and Shakespeare. Personally, I have not seen the original Star Trek, so I will be more able to speak on the connections to the Cold War and the implications of  war on the human condition and the works that we have produced. One of the biggest points that was made was how the heroes become, in a sense, useless once there is no threat of war with the Klingons. This is then related to works such as Shakespeare that were produced in times and views of war and conflict. It raises the question: If there was no war or no conflict, would the world be less interesting? Would writers find less to write about, and artists less to create? I think that this is true to some extent. Conflict, in any regards, is one of the main creative sparks. If people didn't feel pain in such a way, things wouldn't be as powerful. However, it does not take in to account the positive creativity such as love stories, etc. However, I do feel like it is an insightful and thought provoking question.

Feminizing the Economy

I really enjoyed this reading because it talked about how woman are equal. Back in the day woman did not have as many rights as men and were treated as a secondary status.  Today woman have the chances to be able to have more rights like vote.  There are still some circumstances in which woman are not as equal, but maybe one day woman will be give the chance to be seen to be just as equal as men.

Feminizing The Economy

I liked this reading because it talks about women's rights more and how it relates to the economy. Its sad to think that we didn't have as many rights back in the day, but its getting better. Women are now having higher positions in the work force.

Rubin

I really liked how Rubin fought and compared her ideas on feminism in society with the ideas of others. I don't think its necessary to have a revolution to equalize men and women but I see nothing wrong with women fighting for equal rights. The role of women in society has changed so drastically over time, but even so, women and men are not equal.

In some way, I think de Bouvior was right in calling women the Other. After all, we are different from men, but from the woman's perspective the men are the Other. It's just the way biology is set up. It would work against biology for men and women to be viewed completely equal because in order to make women and men equal we would have to view them as the same, which we aren't.

Feminizing The Economy

This was another interesting reading regarding women’s rights. Its unfortunate the way women were restricted from so many social and work opportunities in century’s prior. Even to this day women still fight for their rights, to party; and be seen equal in society. I agree with the writer, women should not be less powerful than men and they should have the same opportunities. Many more women are independent and need to be treated equal in order to make it financially. 

Rubin

Feminising the Economy

This reading gave an interesting perspective on the economy. Women have become much more influential in recent times . Women are not equal in the work place yet but they are making huge strides and eventually will become equal with men.

Feminizing the Economy

 I agreed with the writer, women should not be looked at as less powerful than men. The population would not survive if it weren't for women. I think some men need to understand that women are now just as equally important to society as males. There are women now in very high up positions all over the world working harder than a lot of men do. There is no need for a "revolution", because women have already proved that they can work the same positions as males in today's society.

Feminizing the Economy

This reading was very interesting. I have always been really interested in womens' rights and this reading gave me a lot of information. Women have become very much more independent than they were in centuries before. When it comes to men and women being equal in society I think that women are slowly progressing and that one day they will be equal. Early feminist would be happy to see how women are evolving in society.

Feminising the Economy

I found this reading to be interesting. I agree with what was said in the first section, metaphors of economy, that what women used to do while they stayed at home helped the economy in its own way. Marx said that they were important for social reproduction and economic production while others saw it as unimportant. I personally think that women who stay at home are helping the economy and society because they raise children and teach our future generations. The diagram of the cake was very helpful to look at. It showed the different sectors of the economy. The top half is more business oriented and the bottom half is more about nurture. I think the setup of the diagram is important because it shows that without the mother nature and the "love economy" aspects in society, you cannot have the big businesses and the private sectors.

Rubin

I thought that this reading was interesting, but also a little outdated. Rubin's ideas of women's need for equality were progressive at the time, but are now obvious. This reading shows just how far women have come in the time since this was written. Gender equality is something that, in this day and age, seems to be guaranteed, but in Rubin's time it was a luxury to be treated as an equal to men.

Feminising The Economy

I thought this reading was interesting and I liked how it had diagrams to explain what they were trying to say which was helpful. In the introduction I agree with that women did depend on men much more than they do now in the 21st century. Many women can provide for themselves and dont need a husband to provide everything for them. I see this as one of the main reasons why divorced is increasing. I found the diagram of the cake to be interesting. It makes sense, without the bottom two layers the private sector and the offical market could not exist. Basically the reading explains how women are more important than some may think.

Feminising the Economy

I like this reading a lot because it talks about the role of a women. When it was talking production it was referring to the role of a women in the 50s. Now I strongly believe that this has changed a lot. Just like the reading that Rubin wrote this is talking about about empowering women and how we should have a bigger role in society. I think this is true I think we should be treated as equals toward men and not inferior to them especially when we are doing the same job that is just not fair. As, we are seeing now the roles of women and men are changing in terms of a stay-at-home mom. Now we have stay-at-home dad. I agree that we has women can do it all like work and be a good mom.

Feminising the Economy

I think that this reading was very interesting. I always am interested in reading about the ways women used to be treated and they had to go through to get us where we are today. I personally am so happy that I don't have to be a woman that hardly ever leaves home. I am glad that I now have the freedom to go and do as I please. Even though there are still some ways that men have advantages over women, it is no where near how it used to be and for that I am very thankful.

Rubin

When I read this I'm thinking more of now than what it was like when she wrote it so I feel like she's almost over exaggerated. There might have been oppression at first but now our society has equal opportunity. There may be some oppression in relationships but that's not a general thing. I feel like it's a lot different now then what it was. 

Feminism in the Economy

I found this piece to be pretty interesting, specifically the part about "production v. reproduction." In the 50's this concept fits perfectly and was accepted by most, I think. Some people still choose to live this way or view men and women's roles this way. I do not. I personally can't wait until the day I have my first child but I will certainly work and have a rich social life outside of my home. Women will never been seen as equal to men, that's just the sad truth, but in ways we have many attributes and skills that men will never have to be able to do, and I think it's hugely important that women realize this and still achieve what they want to achieve in life, while being an awesome Mom and wife.

Rubin

I found this article somewhat interesting to read. Women have always been oppressed in soceity and still are in some small way or another. But despite all of the attempts to be seen as equal, women will still be oppressed in one way or another. This article brought up a lot of interesting points when it comes to womens rights and how they are treated by society as well as their husbands, fathers, and brothers.

the sex gender system

"The sex gender system" is the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into the products of human activity" (page 159) i agree with Ruin in disagreeing with that idea. I don't believe that you should ever do something just because you are a man or a woman. If you are born a woman you should have just as much of a right to run for president as any other person. Obama is an example, until this era we had never had a black president and now that we do have one i feel like the racial/sexual prejudices and stereotypes can be put to an end.

Rubin

I think that she had some good points about inequality and stereotypes, but I dont think a revolution is necessary. I think that like anything, once its decided by the majority that change is required, it takes a while for trends to change. Things have been getting better for women; its a work in progress, given some time, it ill fix itself and there wont be any bad blood or hard feelings. That's not to say that women should accept inequality when it is presented to them, just that in general, its takes a while for change to become complete.

Political Theology

I thought that this reading was pretty interesting from time to time although I had to sit and think about each point Schmitt was making.  In Schmitt's Political Theory he argues that in political values are based on sovereignty.  He describes it as an exception and to decide whether it exists or not.  I think his purpose for writing this had to do with how the government needs to maintain order and structure.

Rubin

I found this reading pretty interesting considering women's rights have been a problem in the past. We have made great progress through the years and there is no need for a "revolution" but I definitely think there are some men who don't consider women to be equal to them still. Men and women have different roles in society but that they should be treated equally.

Political Theology

This weeks reading was not as easy as others in the past, but was still readable and somewhat interesting. Schmitt had a great deal of influence on politics and sovereignty. Schmitt’s view of sovereignty would go to influence the Nazi party and the way Adolf Hitler ran his military. I do not think Schmitt was actually affiliated with the Nazis, but I do believe he influenced them. It was interesting to see how different governments defined and went about achieving sovereignty.   

Rubin

I agree with the writer I think that women have always been inferior to men because we have allowed ourselves to. I think that women should be treated the same way as men because we are all human beings. Although women getting equal rights has increased we have not seen it be totally equal. Women still get paid less in some Corporate America jobs, and I think this is ridiculous if women have the same schooling as men. I don't think that having a "revolution" is a good thing because I think that would make things worse. I think we should just keep fighting for women's rights the way we are because we are seeing more and more changes.

Political Theology

I didnt enjoy this reading as much as some of our other readings. It was somewhat difficult to understand what Schmitt was trying to say. Schmitt defines sovereignty as the decision over what is an exception. A soverign is he who decides on this exception.

"There exists no norm that is applicable to chaos. For a legal order to make sense, a normal situation must exist, and he is sovereign who definitely decides whether this normal situation actually exists."

That quote tells me that the sovereign can decide on what it wants to and can decide if a legal order makes sense. The exception is reflected in the doctrine of natural law tendency and the rationalist tendency.

Rubin

This reading was kind of interesting. Women's rights have always been a touchy subject. I agree that women have always been inferior to men. I don't think that a female revolution is necessary. In the recent past women have become almost completely equal with men. They can run for president and hold any job that a man could. I think that women should have every opportunity that men do.

Rubin

I agree completely with the writer, I feel as though women have always been inferior to men and although women and men may have different roles they should still be equal. We have definitely progressed a lot over the decades and I think things have become much better for women so I dont think there is a need for a "revolution" but I think men should be aware of the way they treat women and strive for equality.

Political Theology

After reading Political Theology, I do not think that Schmitt was affiliated in the Nazi party. Schmitt had a lot of interesting views on politics and I do think that his views were influenctial in some of the policies and regulations that the Nazi party used. It was a good read and was quite interesting.

Schmitt's Sovereignty

I'm going to be brutally honest and say I hated this reading. Full of flowery legal language, not only was it incredibly difficult to get a comprehensive understanding of most subjects he talked about, but it was also a lot longer than most of the the readings so far. This was almost as enjoyable as reading the bible for pleasure. Not fun.
   Among the few things I did get out of this book was his idea of the 'exception' and it's relation to the sovereign. (although his definition of sovereign wasn't so clear to me) The 'exception' being the point at which  severe economic of political disturbance require the application of extraordinary measures by the 'sovereign'. And then he explains the two tendencies there are when dealing with the exception. The natural law tendency and the rationalist tendency. This concept reminded me of the old saying about how if you drop a from into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out. But if you place him there before it's boiling and slowly being to boil it, it will stay until it is dead. 

rubin

This weeks reading wasnt to bad, but I am never intrested in reding about womens rights and what not. I do agree with her with some things, like how women have always been less infier to men. Also how she described marriage, the women being the gift and the man being the giver. I feel like everything she says is true about women and women oppression. However i feel like this is how it should be that might sound bad i feel like men are suposed to be infier women, so i dont agree with her when she thinks there should be a female revolution.

Political Theology

I liked the reading this week. It was pretty easy to understand and follow. I definitely see how people could think that Schmitt is affiliated with the Nazi party, but after really paying attention to the things that Schmitt says in Political Theology I don't think he was. I can understand how people would think that they are closely related. Some things seem very similar, but over all I think that there are differences.

The Traffic in Women

My favorite thing about the reading was how Rubin pointed out the places in other writer's (men) pieces where they discussed the roles of women without directly saying certian things. Intentional or not, this showed how women were just cast aside and separated into their own category as opposed to being included with the men. Even Marx had places where he spoke separately on women. One would think, "What does gender have to do with economic systems?" The point is that its just the way things were, not that it was anything special. She needed to point out the current system in order to have the possiblity to redifine it.

Political Theology

I don't know how many of you have seen the movie He's Just Not That Into You, but when I was reading the first section of Political Theology I just kept thinking of the part when Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) was talking about being the exception to the rule. In the movie Gigi is talking to her co-workers about stories of friends, or friends of friends, falling in love and meeting "the one". Gigi and her co-workers figured those girls to be the exceptions. Every girl is is the rule until she is the exception. If you're confused, it makes more sense in the movie. I recommend it, it is very funny.

Anyway, where Schmitt brings up the term exception, he was defining sovereignty. Schmitt says that the "sovereign is he who decides on the exception." What Schmitt means by exception is something that directly threatens the State. The Sovereign is the person who decides what is considered an exception and what can be done to protect the State.

Something I noticed about Schmitt was how critical he was of States based on liberal constitutions. He definitely didn't like division of power. He thought that division of power meant that it was too difficult for the sovereign to have power over the exception. Overall, I thought Schmitts' ideas were interesting. I don;t really agree with him but I can see how the Nazi party would pick up and run with his ideas.

Political Theology

Carl Schmitt provides an interesting view on politics and the sovereign. I don't believe that Carl had any direct affiliation with the Nazi Party but, I do believe that he influenced their policies. Adolf Hitler and the rest of the party leadership warped Schmitt's ideas into their own.

The Traffic in Women

I enjoyed the reading even though it was a little much. It brings out a lot of points on how women are not treated as fairly or offered the same opportunities as men. Even though all the points Rubin brings out are negative towards women, they happen to be a reality. I also noticed that some of the points are from other people's opinions.

Political Theology

There is no doubt the Caral Schmitt is a very intelligent person. You told us to think about whether we thought he was part of the Nazi clam or not, and that's what I tried to do. After reading this I don't think he had direct affiliation with the Nazi Party. However, I do think that they may have influenced their beliefs from. The biggest one being idea they took being the definition of sovereignty.    

The Trafficing of Women

Rubin has a valid point in my opinion, women were definitely held back from their dreams for most of history. Rubin really digs into the struggle of women trying to reach the top, and uses some theories from big Psychology founders like Sigmund Freud. I thought this reading was more of a research paper than anything else, Rubin seemed to get all of her ideas from other people. I would much rather read what she thought about the struggles of women, and sex than what theories and systems people before her had came up with.

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception"

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception" This is a powerful yet simple thesis which precedes the rest of the chapter. I really like his logic in saying this because if you think about it, the people in powerful positions in society are the ones who make the close calls whatever they may be which raises the question, are we actually free? How many 3rd party candidates did you see at the 2nd and 3rd presidential debates in the last couple weeks?

political Theology

     Political Theology is a interesting read for me. The way Schmitt voices his opinions on  sovereignty is unique and in such a way i would have thought about sovereignty. It was intriguing to see how different governments viewed sovereignty through the reading and how they put to use what they believed. I see how Hitler took and used Schmitt's concepts and corrupted it or in a negative way which is sad but understandable.

Political theology

I think that this book is interesting so far. I think his ideas are believe able and that people would follow them. Especially the one where he says "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." This means that you can decide on an exception that breaks the law, but you're still doing what is right in your eyes. However, I also think that people could use an idea like this in the wrong way. It is based on your own opinion whether something is right or wrong so if you think you found an exception someone else might not.

The Traffic in Women

This was a very interesting reading. It gave many examples of men and women are compared to women and it pretty much states that women are inferior to men. In the reading it even goes to say that women "do not have full rights to themselves". And that in marriages, women are nothing more than a "gift". I do not think that those are actually the author's thoughts, but thoughout that writing she pretty much shows how the relationship between women and men have transformed.

Political Theology

So far I have enjoyed reading this book. It is really interesting the things that the author has to say when it comes to politics. I also like how the author incorperates governments and politics from the past as well as the future. All in all I like what I've read so far and am interested to see how the author ends this book.

Where do we go from here?

I really enjoyed this reading. MLK makes many good points throughout the reading about the racist terms black people have to hear everyday.I agree with MLK that violence is the the answer to solving racism. He believed the only way to overcome racism was peacefully. This is not 100% true because all though a lot of what MLK did was meant to be violence free, a lot of violence still broke out during this time.

The Traffic in Women

This reading gave an interesting perspective on the widely accepted idea that women are inferior to men. The author gave many different opinions on why people think women are inferior and some of them were fairly surprising. Rubin goes on further to examine the trade of women between men such as when a daughter is given away for marriage. This writing has some interesting concepts from different cultures about the roles of women.

Where Do We Go From Here

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most influential speakers and individuals in history. Luther’s speech “Where Do We Go From Here” is considered to be one of his best works. His thoughts regarding race, citizens, and the role and power of government are something I can agree with the majority of. If only the citizens and his followers would have taken his advice, rather than riot at the majority of his large speeches and continue on a high rate of violence. Regardless, MLK was an amazing thinker and person with great intentions. 

Where do we go from here

I really enjoyed the reading this week. I found that I really agree with the things MLK had to say. I really liked how he said that the start of a change starts with yourself. You have to actually believe that it is possible and envision it for it to be plausible. I also really loved that he thought the only way to overcome racism was peacefully. He said, "through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate." I think this quote is a perfect representation of what he stood for and was all about.

MLK- Where do we go from here

    When I read the title of this reading I immediately thought of a song written by a group in Blacksburg shortly after the shootings at VT. It had the same title, and more or less the same basic meaning: where do you go when things have gotten so bad that it seams nothing can fix it? MLK, in my opinion, was right on point. He says that for anything to change, you must change yourself first. You must believe that it can be done and envision it happening. For African Americans, he urged them to look inside themselves and see someone who is equal to a white man. I think MLK really believed this and did this himself, which is why he was so successful and influential. Just like the students and families of VT, African Americans had to stand up, believe that their horrific past did not define them, and move on.

where do we go from here

This week’s reading was very interesting. I really enjoyed reading about Martin Luther King because he is very clever speaker he was very convincing. His speeches are very meaningful. I agree with him that people try to solve problems to fast when they really need to take a step back and think it out before acting and harming the future.

where do we go from here

I liked reading DR. Martin Luther King Jr's speech Where do we go from here? In these times black people were not created equaly. He made me think of how terrible segregation was back in the day. This reading made me think of how our society is today and all of the things that have changed. It is inspirational how Martin Luther King Jr can be so brave and state his opinions knowing that there are many people that disagree.

Where do we go from here

I thought this was a really interesting reading. There were quite a few interesting points that were addressed by Dr. King about civil rights. I liked the way he explained the reasoning behind his thoughts and backed his statements up with facts.

On the duty of civil disobedience

I found that I really liked this reading. It was Relatively easy enough to digest. Thoreau starts of by making the quote which I very  much like, "The government is best which governs least." He then continues to explain his opinion of government and how it should relate to the people. A lot of quotes that I really liked were in this reading. One being, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." Meaning, the reason and intentions of the law should always be respected more than actual government authority. Another, "The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority." Explaining that simply voting for the 'good' isn't always 'good enough'.   and more indirectly, just because the government says it's so, doesn't mean it is so, or should be so.

Where Do We Go From Here

I really liked the reading this week. I think that Martin Luther King is such a talented speaker anyway, and this only made me more convinced. I love how in all his speeches, he finds a way to send a message that goes further than the specific situation he is speaking on. I especially liked reading 'Where Do We Go From Here'. It was interesting and the message was so strong that I think it would stick with anyone long after they've read it.

Where do we go from here

I thought it was really smart the way he says we cant figure out where to go from here until we realize where we are now. I think a lot of times people will try to solve problems so quickly that they dont actually plan things out well and only solve things for the near future. King thought that more money should be given to the poor and less fortunate because we spend so much money on other causes that arent as important, which makes sense and I would agree. My favorite quote from this reading was "As long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free." I think this is very inspiring and true because in order to be able to do things and make changes you have to be able to believe that you can do it and you have to not only have confidence in your abilities but also be able to make a good plan to solving problems and be able to literally use your brain. I liked a lot of Kings ideas.

Civil Disobedience

I like this reading a lot, I like how he is basically saying that we govern ourselves. That is how it should be, as citizens we should be able to have just as much say in our government and allowing us as a whole to decided what should be allowed. There should always be a form of authority because not everyone is not going to automatically do whats right or on the same page. People/Citizens agree more and are willing to corporate if they had some part in what is trying to be accomplished. They feel important and want to do the right thing.

Where Do We Go From Here

My favorite part of this selection is when he talks about love and power. He talks about how most see love and power as opposites, "Love is identified with the resignation of power, and power with a denial of love." I found this sentiment interesting because although I've never thought of it this way before, that's entirely true. Throughout history, when one group has been wronged or oppressed, the general consensus has been to rise up and equally oppress the oppressor. MLK refutes this, highlighting the hypocrisy of some he considered extremists. Definitely an interesting read.

Where do we go from here

I enjoyed reading Martin Luther King's speech where do we go from here. While reading this I also asked myself that question.  It made me thought about how America all started and how we came today with the systems that we have and the society that we have developed.  During that time it was hard for the blacks.  King made points which he stated how they were seen to society.  For example he stated that "The rate of infant mortality among Negros is double that as whites and there are twice as many Negroes dying in Vietnam as whites in proportion to size in population."  I really liked reading his speech because he was a strong speaker and got the attention of the people. 

Satyagrha

I truly wish that I could think like Gandhi. I wish that it were as simple as conversation that could settle every problem, but it's not. While that may work for some issues it does not work for all. That is just my personal point of view. I do like what he said though about it is the job to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer. I never really thought of it that way and it was kind of interesting.

MLK - "Where Do We Go From Here"

I thought it was interesting how MLK asked certain questions that sounded communist based but then points out that he has no affiliations with communist theorists. I like how these ideas/questions that MLK brings up in his speech tie in directly to the things we talk about each class period. MLK was a very religious person and like his other speeches, he uses the power of God and positivity as a foundation for the struggling people in the country. For example in this speech he uses the story of Nicodemus and Jesus to get his point across to the people who were present at the time.  

thoreau

  I enjoyed this reading. I love how it talks about how the government is corrupt and when you realize that you have to stand up, and decide when enough is enough. When you make a stand do it in civil disobedience. Because we as the people are suppose to have a voice in out government. Not just people  who were elected.

Where Do We Go From Here - MLK

I really enjoyed the reading Where Do We Go From Here by Martin Luther King. It was a very inspirational reading and the fact the Martin Luther King could still be that noble person after everything that he had experienced personally and had to bear witness to is unreal. I like at the beginning of the reading, how MLK had to determine where he was before he could determine where they could go. Negros were really treated unfairly back in his days, and it makes them all the more courageous for the ways they stood up for themselves. "I'm not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love, I'm talking about a strong, demanding love" was my favorite line from the reading. MLK stated that he would progress through love because he had seen to much hate and that if people could live in hate then they do not know God.

Duty of Civil Disobedience

I really enjoyed this reading. It goes very well with my personal beliefs on the roles of citizens and the government. The government, while it holds power to legislate, etc., is not above the citizens of this nation. The government and the people in it are public servants to the electorate and sometimes it is this basic truth that gets forgotten sometimes. It is up to "We the People" to stand up at times and remind the government that they serve at our discretion.

Where Do We Go From Here

The 1950's and 60's of American history were dark times to be living in and were pitch black especially for African Americans. But in every dark time, heroes tend to be forged, and for many African Americans, Martin Luther King Jr was that hero. I personally love Martin Luther King Jr., he always was a peaceful man, with good intentions. In my opinion, he was one of the greatest public speakers ever, King was excellent with communicating his point, with love, to his audience. In this speech, King uses the phrase "Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate," really kind of stuck with me through the rest of his speech. I totally agreed with King on his belief that if anything was to be done about racism, the only way to do it was through peace.

A Time to Break the Silence

I really enjoyed this reading by Dr. King. The way he speaks is great for me because he is not only really insightful, but he makes things incredibly relatable and he appeals to our innate sense of good and humanity. Perhaps the most powerful things that he says is that "there comes a time when silence is betrayal." I find this to be incredibly true in almost every situation where something bad is going on. If your boyfriend was cheating on you and your best friend knew but didn't say anything- that's betrayal. If you know that somebody cheated on an exam but don't say anything, you are betraying your university and its honor code. That is why we have laws stating that if you know of a crime going on, you are required to report it, or you will be help partly responsible. When we do nothing or say nothing, we become part of that crime, and are partly ok with it happening, and letting others know that as well. This is another way that he is able to relate it to civil rights so well. Our passiveness about Vietnam would just translate to other internal aspects of our nation. If we allowed that to go by without questioning its correctness, we are even showing others that it is ok to not care about certain things and just let them keep happening. I also really liked the three points he made in respect to the relation between civil rights and the war. It is even just common sense that, although these black and white men can fight and die next to each other on a foreign land, they can not share a bathroom or live on the same street back at home. For the black man to have more equal rights while he is at war than when he is not, is just completely absurd. It is easy to see how Dr. King had such an influence on the country.

Civil Disobedience

Mr. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience was a reading that I found to be very interesting. This was my second time reading it. This time I feel like I got more out of it because I knew what I was looking for because of taking this class. I was comparing its ideas with other readings in this class. Like Leibnitz for instance Thoreau and Leibnitz are very different because Leibnitz think that everything is good and the government cannot be unjust. While Thoreau is saying that we have an unjust government and as a people we should protest it. He used slavery for example and how the government back then supported it and since it was unjust we should have went against it. I think this is true to some extent, people should learn to speak up and fight when something is wrong. It is not good to be a supporter of something that we know is morally wrong.