Yesterday. Today. Tommorw. its all THE SAME!

The Case

The Supreme Court case of Brown vs. Board of Education can easily relate to every generation, from the Dred Scott Case to the t Jena 6 case. Race laws and controversies are always on the rise.

On May 17, 1954 a combination of 5 school segregation cases defined as “brown,” (the brown case in Kansas, and numerous cases from South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia, and Washington DC) and the Board of Education battled in the U.S. Supreme Court about the segregation issues they were facing in those days. This case had taken a while to make it to the Supreme Court but it made it. Finally the court decided that segregation of schools was to be abolished along with the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine.The plaintiffs (Brown) had won their cases. Stopping all segregation of schools in America but keeping public areas segregated.

(video above contains the Original Footage of School Segregation from that era. Many people were outraged at with segregation)

Yesterday

From my understanding the Dred Scott case was actually not the first supreme court case when the slave was a prosecutor or defendant rather than an object. Dred Scott fought for his freedom and lost the supreme court case because any slave or descendant of a slave had no rights of being an U.S. Citizen. However it created a tremendous amount of awareness of slavery issues to other states.

American Society relates because it was suppose to make schools integrated so you get a chance to be socially accepting of differences. However the segregation of races continues.

Today

In December of 2006 six black high school students had been arrested due to a fight the white students had provoked by hanging nooses on a tree that the black students had tried to sit at the day before. When the students where held on their trial in the small town of Jena, Louisiana (85% of the population is white) all of the jury was white. This upset most of the black community in Jena starting a nationwide controversy about race. The results of the case varied for each student but one thing I didn't read was the white students being punished for provoking the fights:
“The case drew national headlines when the teens initially were charged with second-degree attempted murder after they allegedly knocked out Justin Barker while stomping and kicking him.
After the charges triggered protests, they were reduced to aggravated second-degree battery. One of the teens, Mychal Bell, reached a plea agreement on a battery charge in juvenile court.”

Tomorrow

My final comparison for the Brown v. B.O.E. case is Barack Obama. Had it not been for integrated schooling would he be able to run today? I highly doubt he would have his Harvard law education. Or the chance to run because of his skin . Its funny how everything from the past determines the future, and yet a lot of the past is kept in the present time. I shouldn't have had examples to relate this case to but its sad, will it always be this way?

SOURCES iN ORDER LiNKED (high lighted italic citations are primary sources the blue one is a classmate):

• Bell, Jasmine. "Jasmine's Humanities blogs: Are we going back 1951?." Jasmine's Humanities blogs. 2 Oct. 2008 .

• "Brown v. Board of Education." Brown v. Board of Education. 11 Apr. 2004. Brown Foundation for Educational Equity. 1 Oct. 2008
  

• U.S. Supreme Court. "PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)." FindLaw Cases and Codes. Thomson Reuters business. .

• APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. "Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)." Civil Rights: Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The National Center For Public Policy Research. 1 Oct. 2008 .

• JOHNSON, CLIFTON. "THE AMISTAD CASE and ITS CONSEQUENCES IN U.S. HISTORY." Amistad Research Center :: Where Heritage Meets Vision. 2006. Amistad Research Center, Inc. .

• Press release. 9 May 2008. .

• Goodman, Amy. "The Case of the Jena Six: Black High School Students Charged with Attempted Murder for Schoolyard Fight After Nooses Are Hung from Tree." Democracy Now! The Case of the Jena Six. 10 July 2007. Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. .

• Callebs, Sean. "Judge taken off remaining 'Jena 6' cases." Jude Taken Off Remaininf 'Jena 6' cases. 1 Aug. 2008. CNN. .

• Unknown. "Meet The Candidate." Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need. Obama Biden. .

WHENS MY REVOLUTION!

In the year 1846 Dred Scott and his wife filed for a case to be free in the St.Louis Circut Case
The case was dragged out 11 years and eventually made it to the United States Supreme Court In 1857. The chief justice of the supreme court at time was a former slave owner (so i can imagine this was an automatic classic case of majority/ignorant rules against slaves). The case was lost because 7 of the 9 justices on the supreme court concluded that any slave or any descendant of a slave you were not a United States citizen. No matter if you were born here, worked here, lived here, you just couldn't even become a citizen. Therefore since he wasn't a certified United States Citizen he couldn't sue or be free. He had to remain a slave.

what precedents were set? From my understanding of the word the only precedent from this case is probably the fact that it wasn't a law that a slave wasn't a citizen but the justices conveniently declared that they couldn't be citizens. If they hadn't declared that he would have had a better chance of winning the case or coming to a compromising conclusion.

The case was impacting back then because it sparked conflicts between the North (free states) and the South (slave states) right before the civil war in 1861. I dont think the Dred Scott Case allowed for cases such as Brown v. Board of education to happen. I mean it would make sense because black people would know our cases can go to the supreme court and we do matter, However i dont believe a lot of people knew about Dred Scott because thats something the school districts and the government would have held away from everybody. i could be wrong because thats an opinion not a fact.

I believe the Dred Scott case had a big impact on today because just as Fredrick Douglas believed it was a huge way to bring the issue of slavery to the attention of our nation and was a big step to the abolition of slavery in the states. It also showed a enormous amount of determination and passion that the slaves were capable of. Even though Dred Scott did not win this case, it showcased that if at first you don't succeed dust yourself off and try again. The Dred Scott case was lucky to even make it to the supreme court because he was black and not considered a citizen so the fact that they let him try for the case proved that with in time future cases would be won.

Quick Blog Reflection 9/23/08

What are you most proud of on your blog? Why?
Im most proud of my growth in my writing and editing. I can tell when I'm most interested in a blog i find more evidence and get into depth more. I like re-reading my blogs that i wrote well because it makes me proud, i hate re-reading my blogs that are poorly written so those most likely wont get re-edited. I'm also proud of my use of relate able articles.

What will you improve during future blogs?why?how?
In future blogs i will find less blatant ways to connect my blogs to the learning in class because it seems REALLY juvenile. For example if i say "this is a connection to class because it connects to federalism" i need to work a way around the concept. I guess i can observe other peoples writing and look at how they connected i to the class to enhance my writing.

How has the blogging impacted your understanding of you, the media, current events, and old news.
Well i think blogging has mainly effected my knowledge of the things happening with our society today and the current events happening in our country. Before i could barely sit through the news and really pay attention but now i look for "oh is that something that the federalist would believe in or is it an anti federalist move?" or reading news articles has become more appealing with me and i feel like i have the advantage of being knowledgeable about todays common issues that i used to be ignorant about. I feel really smart and proud of my work that i do. Especially with my salvia article.

Why lie i need a beer

The issue of homelessness is always more complicated than it sounds. Coming to school i saw 4 guys with cardboard boxes made into signs pleading for help. I had a few conversations with homeless people on the trolley and there stories are quite fascinating. If they aren't a neglected veteran then they are drug or alcohol addicted victims the thing i noticed most all of them might seem crazy but are highly intelligent have a cousin thats homeless, he let alcohol rule him and ended up on the streets we all tried to help but he chose the streets. One time i was with my friend and i saw him on the bus he didnt recognize me but i felt sick to the stomach at the thought of hed rather be drunk at 2pm on the bus than get help from loved ones. Sometimes this is a choice often time its the only solution but one thing i always wonder where is there family?
Is it the families job to help them or is it the governments? Its hard to ever say if the government should take over and help its argued that it will be giving them crutches not to work and rely on the government to survive. But when is enough enough .
In 1983 a lawsuit between yvonne mcaine and koch was filed. Mcaine was claiming that the city of new york had failed to provide sufficient shelter and creating standards of how the shelters for families should be governed. That was just one of the popular cases of the many others that were to follow. Today i read the quote below and it got me thinking.

"While the number of homeless single adults has fallen a bit, the number of homeless families has risen. There are about 9,000 homeless families, including about 14,000 children, sleeping in city shelters every night this month. City spending on homelessness prevention has risen, to $191.2 million in 2007 from $160.6 million in 2004, and spending on homeless shelters has grown to $603.5 million from $563.4 million, the city’s Independent Budget Office found in a study [pdf] last month." Click here for full article

My question was why are we spending so much money on the upkeep of homlessness when we could simply use the money towards homeless families and grants for college or give them a fully paid house and clothes so that they can get jobs and the kids can go to school and go on to start organization instead of keeping them homeless and spending tax dollars on keeping homeless people homeless. Every state needs to take a step back and really think about this. But then i answered this question in my head and began thinking about the crutches. But have we tried this in history? i think we should just give it a try and see where it goes.
I once heard "well people who cant afford babies just shouldn't have kids" this much is true and i fully agree but why should the kid be put into this situation its not the governments fault that the mother couldn't keep her legs closed or the dad was a sex feigned dummy.

this is really a matter of federalist or anti-federalist should the government step up? or should we make it the job of the kids on the streets to rise above and become motivated for a life they weren't exposed to. This whole thing is a mind boggler and i don't know where i stand. All i know is if millions of dollars are going to be spent on issues that seem to be unresolvable we need to look for another idea for a solution because apparently this one is working.

yesterday i was a federalist

"I know Americans are concerned about the adjustments that are taking place in our financial markets," said Bush, speaking in the White House Rose Garden. "We are working to reduce disruptions and minimize the impact on the [broader economy]."

Bush didn't offer much detail as the Dow plunged more than 200 points and the finance industry suffered one of its worst crises ever, stemming from its investments in the battered real estate sector.

"In the short run, adjustments in the financial markets can be painful, for people worried about their investments, and for employees of the firms," said Bush. -http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/polls_index.html

I dont really see how bush is planning on reducing disruptions and minimizing the impact on the broader economy. he never really said how in this article. But i do see his view of how in the long run things will be fixed but for right now it will be painful. In class we discussed how bush believed we should just wait it out for the solution to this problem i dont really see it in this article as an obvious statement but the fact that he says it will hurt in the short run for right now i think its safe to say he thinks we should wait.

i agree, because people have turned the stocks into a gambling kind of deal, you never know if your stock is going to go up or down you can have prior knowledge but who knows for sure? just like in craps there may be a 9% chance of you getting a 7 you never know but because you know basically you have almost a 10% chance of getting a 7 you just might play.

I think yes its a shame people are effected but come on now they knew what the stock was all about so they must pay the consequences yes they might have lost but they didn't care when theyre stocks where doing good but others weren't im sure. i think this is a time when i have to agree with federalist bush and it makes me realize i am neither federalist or anti-federalist im more of a kind of sometimes federalist. like an independent. but i don't think bush cares about the people i think he only cares about how it will effect ALL of America. So he will most likely change anything that will effect ALL of america or put little bandages on those but as far as the entire situation and the people getting there money back. noway i dont care what kind of business they were leading just because they where in the top of the pyramid by being ceos and running business, this doesn't change anything. and it makes me wonder, hmmm if this was a whole bunch of stocks poor people owned would it be such a big deal? i bet not i bet i wouldnt even know about it i bet the lower middle class citizens that own shares probably loose money all the time but its never anything anybody cares about because there name isnt "john edward brookes" or some prestigious Harvard graduate.

im so confused about this and i have no clue where the president is going to go with this, but i say just stick it out. because it is bound to happen again stop it now before it gets out of hand and spreads like a virus.

palin

In the readings of federalist 10 and 51 i found that a true democracy was unsafe and 100% of power to one person is not safe, it must  be dispersed. While watching palins interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7611677.stm) she said we are a democratic country, but isn't she a republican? I feel like after her campaigning for a new approach to bushs same ideas is smart for her case, but i do feel like she isn't ready to become VP yet i think if we were to give palin maybe 4 more years she could be a very strong leader and could benefit the people. I feel like she could benefit the people because she definitely relates to everybody but at the same time she doesn't come off as educated and knowledgeable as others. I feel like mcaine chose her because of hilary's popularity and here another strong real woman was at his service. Also palin tries to use obamas "change" campaign but in reality she isn't trying to change shes trying to improve which is a good point but i think people just want to start fresh and some people gave up on bush. You see the battle between the parties but i see palin as a democratic republican she shares opinions and views with democrats without saying it while being a republican, and obama sticks with being a democrat. He is a bit more stable, she actually seemed scared at this interview or caught off guard in a horrible way. I think republicans know democrat means for the people decided by the people like a popularity contest. and mcaine is livening up his campaign with a fresh young VP and a new approach to how they relate to the public to win this contest of popularity. But really i think people know. palin

Getting High Legally?

The video shown below is not for kids. viewer discretion is advised <3

So i was reading through the new york times website looking for an article to catch my eye when i came across the legal hallucinogenic "salvia". I was intrigued by this video on the new york times website because it was referring to kids tripping on salvia then posting it on Youtube. Now there are a lot of questions that came to my mind while watching this; yes it is legal in smoke shops but are these kids of age to even be in smoke shops so this is plain out illegal for kids? What are cops doing to stop this, or should they even do anything? is the government trying to ban it? it must be a big deal to make it into the new york times.

I watched the rest of the video and they where mentioning how senates are trying to ban it in states like Texas, legislators all over America are trying to make salvia outlawed, its become this huge drug craze of my generation.

This drug supposedly last 5 minutes and the long term effects are undetermined.Even though the drug was introduced to America in the 90's it has been in Mexico for decades if not centuries used in rituals. I honestly don't think the government should go so far to ban this drug that appears to not be as serious as.. oh i don't know SMOKING! This drug has medical advantages to help mental illness and chronic pain.

No studies have shown salvia to be addictive or toxic so why is the government trying to ban it? i don't think they should do this, and because something is fun doesn't mean they should ban it, tobacco and smoking are addictive and toxic and kill millions why not ban those? So far the drug hasn't appeared to harm anybody. Reports of people dying on salvia is very rare i have only heard one case. Salvia isn't a drug that makes you destructive to others either. So i just don't understand what the big deal is.

i think the title of it being a drug is what makes people so judgmental about it, and before people just go on rants trying to ban something they need to re-evaluate bigger issues that need laws and solving, like poverty, jail systems, school funding, etc.

This capitalist country is willing to toast to the blood of the lives lost to smoking over a fancy dinner paid for by the souls of the addicted. And it is a shame. Even alcohol can be dangerous because it can be poisonous, salvia is just an herb.That would be like somebody ODing on marijuana. you just cant. Any thing can be created for specific use then overused and become harmful. If the government bans salvia but keeps other harmful things legal then at this point they have way to much control and are not using it to the most beneficial health of our countries citizens.

budget cuts

WHAT IN THE WORLD! was my first reaction to this quote i read on a website i came upon today..

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget for 2008–09 has sent shock waves through the education community. He has recommended a $4.8 billion cut for K-14 education, on top of a $400 million reduction for education in the current year. The net effect is about $750 less per student than K-12 education would normally receive or about $18,750 per classroom."

-http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/tabid/182/Default.aspx


UM OK. so what happen to his statement that he made in 2005

"Now, let’s talk about the red ink. As you know, when I ran for governor, the state of California was getting deeper and deeper into debt. So when the people sent me to Sacramento I told them that I will go right to work, and I will clean up the mess in our state. Last year we stopped the bleeding. This year we will heal the patient. So I have declared the year 2005 the year for reform in California. We’re going to take action and overhaul the political, educational and financial institutions in our state. "

http://gov.ca.gov/speech/2274/


We were suppose to be out of debt a long time ago, why are we paying for it still today? Why is he taking funds away from education if anything we NEED the money to go towards education these are the kids of tomorrow they may have innovative ideas to bring america up. you never know! By overhauling the educational institutions in our state why must great teachers get fired, and why do students have to pay for the miscalculations of a few big white business men because i know Arnold wasnt the only person responsible. How are children going to better themselves and take advantage of there freedom of speech if they're not givin every resource available to them to get knowledgable. This makes absolutly no sense. Take money from the rich why dont cha! what do the kids of the less fortunate have to do with this. how do you explain to little daveon that mommy cant afford a computer for the house because the government is taking more then last year and daveons school doesnt have computers so how is he to do research for his project? walk in the streets of compton to the library overlooking his shoulder to see if he is going to get robbed? its ridiculous!

7 years ago

i was searching for an article when i realized that sept. 11 was coming up. i remember the day we were attacked by terrorist, it was a very gloomy day even if it was sunny in san diego. I was kept home from school and stayed glued to the news for once (this was usually very hard to get me to do while as a 9 year old). I remember bush's rash decision to go to war with the terrorist who had attacked us which where from Afghanistan..but it had stricken me as odd when the war was later known as the war in Iraq. i mean, call me a dumbly but im more than 100% sure that these are 2 different places. I remember that week my dad telling me he was going to get deployed. WHY did bush make his decision so fast? We also heard the war was because it was believed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which were never found thanks for the waste of time and money bush. Next The war was given many titles such as "freedom for Iraq" "war on terrorist" wait freedom for iraq? HOLD ON woah buddy! i may not know all of my American history but im pretty sure we don't free the terrorist. Which is why im sure bush knew the terrorist where from Afghanistan and he just wanted to have a war with iraq, but the "WAR ON TERRORIST" was catchier than "I WANT A BATTLE THAT I CAN CONVINCE AMERICA IS FOR THERE JUSTICE" so this leads me to my huge question of why we are at war. natural sources we rape iraq of ($OIL$)? freedom for iraq? or the protection of our in debt country. i don't know about you but id rather have more funds for my education and retirement than watching this oh so boring game of battleship bush is playing with our troops. BORING give me a reality show why dont cha!

so back to the remembrance of everybody's lives lost on September 11th 2001. the day people where robbed for there rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty they may have because at least there not in this mess of a country now, but there lives where taken. Bush used them, he used them to tame his crave to play in this endless war that makes no sense. in an article i read in fox news they quoted bush saying:

“Five years after 9/11, America still faces determined enemies. We will not be safe until those enemies are finally defeated,”

he said this 2 years ago. i don't understand who our determined enemies are last time i checked those enemies where in Afghanistan those , i thought after we captured Sadan Hussain and Osama bin Ladden the war would be over!! Bush has too much power, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine had believed no ONE person should run everything i think its safe to say we have enough anti bush movements to have had him empeached years ago. why hasnt he been? i hate politics, there so sneaky. i mean i wanna say YAY obama but im wondering what hes got up his sleeves, but im sure hell be ALOT better than bush.