Hogwarts House

If I was placed into a house by the sorting hat, I would probably go into Slytherin. I don't know what really constitutes going into it, but I'm definitely not courageous enough to go into Gryffindor, intelligent enough for Ravenclaw, or whatever enough for Hufflepuff. To be honest I don't even know what characteristics a member of Hufflepuff has because I'm not exactly into Harry Potter. I'm not evil, but neither was Snape and he was in Slytherin so I don't really think evil is the reason people get into it. Maybe just a willingness to do supposedly evil things for the greater good? I don't even know if I'd be willing to do that. Maybe I'm just not cut out to go to a cool wizardry school. I don't even have a concrete example as to why I would go in here because I don't even know what it takes to be a part of it. This is probably just the house they would put me in, but it's not like I really have a preference.

Why Prisoners Should Have the Right to Vote II

Universal suffrage is something that we pride ourselves on here in the United States.  The fact that anyone, regardless of race or gender, has a say in who their rulers are is the basis of any modern society. The fact of the matter, however, is that we don't have the right to vote for all in the US or most of the western world. Prisoners and felons are often overlooked, and even nonviolent offenders are denied a basic civil right. I see this as a serious issue, however I recognize where the opposition is coming from. Why should individuals, they ask, who aren't willing to follow the rules and laws of our society be able to vote on how it's dictated? They are simply trying to protect themselves and their children from degenerates who they deem as not capable of making the decisions that affect them and their families. National and domestic security are their main concern.

Why Prisoners Should Have the Right to Vote

Universal suffrage is something that we pride ourselves on here in the United States.  The fact that anyone, regardless of race or gender, has a say in who their rulers are is the basis of any modern society. The fact of the matter, however, is that we don't have the right to vote for all in the US or most of the western world. Prisoners and felons are often overlooked, and even nonviolent offenders are denied a basic civil right. I see this as a serious issue, not only because it indicates that we don't think our democracy is strong enough to handle the opinions of those we deem as "degenerate", but also because it's unequal punishment for the same crimes. What if, for example, someone is caught stealing during the year of a presidential election and sentenced to a year in prison? They will be denied the right to vote, whereas someone who is sentenced to a year in prison the year before will be able to vote once they get out, provided they didn't commit a felony. This is a critical, because it makes our criminal justice system even more unequal.

What is the Last Thing You Researched

The last thing I researched was the history of the presidency of the United States.  I was curious because I started watching the West Wing and I wondered if the former presidents had as stressful of a time as President Bartlett in the show. Were Andrew Jackson or John Quincy Adams ever as tightly wound or as busy as the characters in the West Wing? Was there constant affairs to deal with, international and domestic? I learned that it was true that modern presidents are often presented with more stress than the presidents of the past, and this is due mostly to the advent of technology. Information is transmitted and received at a much faster rate, and world affairs are dealt with quicker.

Presidential Candidate

Martin Luther King Jr. I know, it seems kind of pandering, I mean sure he was a great liberator and civil rights advocate, but for a president? What sort of thing can someone like that bring to the table in terms of economics or foreign policy? Here's why I think he'd be a good fit for the modern day.  A lot of people don't recognize this, but near the end of his life he was a staunch opponent of the Vietnam war and beacon of hope for the poor and disenfranchised.  He came to the conclusion after winning in the Civil Rights Movement that maybe the legal equality of the races wasn't everything. He asked, "What's the right to sit at the lunch counter, if you don't make enough to afford the hamburger?" He continued to fight injustices wherever he saw them. One of the main reasons he was shunned by the establishment near the end of his life was his opposition to Vietnam, because he saw it as an unjust war effort and the result of a class system that continually kept the working class and poor oppressed. I think he would be an excellent anti-war candidate. In terms of foreign policy, he's beloved by just about every world leader in the modern day, so there wouldn't be a lot of issues there.

Faulty Generalizations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0V_xf3OQgM

A faulty generalization is a generalization made about people or things based upon very little evidence or sparse examples. My example is Adolf Hitler, who is speaking about the Jews and how they have infiltrated European society and begun to "take control" of everything. He is generalizing all Jews as malicious and conniving.