Check Your Facts

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I think this video from MSNBC does work. It is just informing the public in a semi-brief clip but it really gets to the point. It is trying to show how the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, should really check his facts before he speaks. In this clip it talks about how things he says aren't always true. They talk about the true fact and then show him saying something different. They are trying to make people realize that you shouldn't always believe what you hear.

This first false thing Trump said had to do with the 9/11 terrorists. He said that the families of those terrorists had left a day before the attack happened. First there was never even any evidence that the families were in the U.S. And second when the 9/11 Commission Report came out, it said that Osama's family had left days after the attack after being screened by the FBI.

The second thing Trump tried to say was that Obama wasn't born in the United States. He said his Certificate of Live Birth didn't have a serial number and it wasn't signed. Both of those were false statements. Officials of Hawaii say that the certificate verifies that the President was born there.

This just shows that you should really think about who you are going to vote for president. I also thought this video was straight to the point and got its point across.

New York Times Co. v. United States

The undeclared war in Vietnam caused a great deal of public protest during the late 1960s and early 1970s. A political scientist, Daniel Ellsberg, working for the Pentagon stole and copied a classified paper. The paper was entitled, "History of United States Decision-Making Process of Vietnam Policy" which was then published by the New York Times. The government stopped the Times from publishing the papers. The court sided with the New York Times in a 6-3 vote.

I don't really agree with this decision because one it was confidential papers and two they did not have consent of whoever published it. The public should know how the government makes decisions but not in this type of fashion. The state and foreign policy were in jeopardy in this type of case and the New York Times shouldn't have been able to release the Pentagon Papers.



The per curiam decision made in the Times case was that "any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." This means that the New York Times is allowed to publish these types of things even though it might spark issues. I don't really agree with this because the government should try and maintain order.

Gitlow v. New York

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act. The act defined criminal anarchy as "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive heard or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means." Gitlow had been charged with teaching the necessity and duty to overthrow the government in two publications based largely on Marx's and Engels' Communist Manifesto. In a seven to two vote, they upheld Gitlow's conviction.

I think it was a good decision because they need to maintain order as the government. Also what Gitlow was talking about may have ruined the government. I think if someone is trying to overthrow the government publicly, then it shouldn't be allowed. A lot of people will just go with the flow because they want something to follow. People are very impressionable so it isn't in the governments best interest to let people hear these types of things.

Gitlow's publication and circulation of sixteen thousand copies of the Left-Wing Manifesto violated this Criminal Anarchy Act. The pamphlet went on to advocate the creation of a socialist system through the use of massive strikes and "class action...in any form."

Criminal anarchy; "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive heard or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means." It is good that the government doesn't allow people to try and overthrow the government because without a government it wouldn't be as good as a society.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas is arguably the biggest court case. It overturned Plessy v. Ferguson which stated "separate but equal" was no longer true. Blacks were denied the right to go to white schools which were far superior than black schools. The courts decision was in favor of Brown that blacks could go to integrated white schools.

I agree with the decision full on that blacks should be allowed in white schools. It wasn't fair that Brown's daughter couldn't go to a school that was a couple of blocks away just because it was a white school. I think that it was good that Chief Justice Earl Warren passed this because in his previous years as governor of California, he had mandated the internment of the Japanese. It is kind of ironic that he was the one to approve this after such a harsh ruling earlier.



This court ruling helped the civil rights movement a great deal. If it were not for this case, who knows where we would be today. The difference between this case and Sweatt v. Painter was that Sweatt dealt with universities, and the University of Texas Law School in particular, while Brown dealt with public education facilities for grades K-12.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Clarence Gideon was arrested for breaking into a Florida pool hall with intention to burglarize it. Gideon requested a court-appointed attorney and was denied because Florida only provided free counsel only in capital cases. At court, Gideon pleaded not guilty and conducted his own defense. He was found guilty and had to serve five years of imprisonment. When Gideon was in prison, he submitted a handwritten petition requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to accept his case on appeal.

I do think it was a good decision to approve Gideon's appeal because it made it so everyone could have a counsel if they couldn't afford one. If the person isn't appointed a lawyer, then they could have no idea what to say or what not to say. If both sides have a lawyer it is more fair to both sides because they know the law more than anyone.



When Gideon was in prison, he wrote a petition requesting an appeal on his case in the U.S. Supreme Court. I think this is very good because it is a person sticking up for themselves. If he had never done this, there wouldn't have been such a monumental case. This video shows parts of his case and how he clearly asked for a counsel and then the judge said he could only ask for one if it was dealing with the death penalty.

Miranda v. Arizona

In 1966, the Miranda decision actually dealt with four similar cases dealing with constitutional issues. The persons involved had been convicted on the basis of confessions made after very long and miserable interrogation. None of these people were informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent. In the title case, Ernesto Miranda, had been arrested by the police for questioning on charges of rape and kidnapping. Miranda wasn't advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. After his interrogation, he signed a written confession. He was then found guilty later.

I agree with the decision because the Fifth Amendment clearly states that "no person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I don't agree that he was let off the hook but it does allow people to be aware of their rights. If a criminal doesn't know his rights, then it's not really fair to him.



The Fifth Amendment guarantees that you don't have to tell on yourself. That is why when someone asks you a question and you don't want to answer, you can say I plead the fifth, which means you don't have to answer. It is better than having someone lie, rather then just keeping quiet. That way you can get no information rather than false information.

This whole decision means that when you are being arrested, you must be read your "Miranda" rights. It makes it so that when you are being arrested you are more aware of your rights. Your Miranda rights are; “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

In 1978, Allan Bakke was denied admittance into the Medical School of the University of California of Davis. At this time, the school used different admission processes for minority students. Allan Bakke, a white applicant has reasonably good grades and was denied admittance. When he was denied, he sued the Regents, the University's governing board, for a place at the medical school. California's Superior Court found that the special admissions program violated the federal and state constitutions and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Even after that, Bakke was still denied into the school. On appeal in the California Supreme Court, they supported Bakke, citing the Fourteenth Amendment, he was admitted into school. The Regents then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

I think it was a good decision because just because they are a minority doesn't mean they should have it any easier. If someone wants to make it into the medical school, then they should have to work as hard as the next person. This doesn't make it equal, this gives other people an easier opportunity. That is why I think when you apply to college you shouldn't have to put your ethnicity because it shouldn't matter. They should only look at your grades and what really matters. If they have your ethnicity, they might take you because they want diversity.



According to the decision, the Fourteenth Amendment isn't aimed at any particular minority or minorities. The Amendment was framed in universal terms, without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. I thought this video was pretty interesting because in the end, it says "search on" which is very broad yet powerful. If Allan Bakke didn't "search on" then this wouldn't have happened.

I think it was good than Bakke challenged the system because he fought for what he believed. If he didn't and just kept quiet, none of this would have happened. I think it was good because he was being treated unfair because he wasn't a minority.

Miller v. California

In 1973, Miller sent out advertisements of "adult" books and films that were unrequested. The brochures had sexually explicit photographs and drawings. Miller was found guilty under California's obscenity laws.
When I think of the First Amendment, I always wonder why we can't say things on live television or on the radio. I wish we were allowed to have an actual freedom of speech because they are just words. But in this case I do think that the decision was right. Those types of things shouldn't be allowed because they could get into the hands of impressionable kids that are to young to understand. I think that the state should have legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material.

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. 

The new guidelines that Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested  were; First was would the average person find that a work, when viewed as a whole, appealed to "prurient interest"? Second, does the work depict or describe certain specifically defend conduct in a patently offensive way? Third does the work lack "serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value"?

I think that the decision as a whole was good. Protecting innocence is good and little kids being exposed to that isn't fair to them. They may want to see that, but their parents don't. Little kids get persuaded very easily and this is good becuase it is one less influence out there.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Louisiana law in 1890, commanded railroads to "provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races". If this law was violated, there was a fine of twenty dollars of twenty five days in jail. Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black, sat in the white section of the train going from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. When ordered to move from his seat, he refused to move, then was arrested. Louisiana Supreme Court found that the statue under which Plessy had been arrested was valid.

I don't agree with the decision. When there is segregation it is implying inferiority of a race in my view. If you have segregation, then it implies that races cant intermingle. This case paved way for racial equality and made it so everyone was considered equal. I think it is good that we don't have laws about segregation because it is not fair to people who have no choice.



Seperate but equal isn't fair. Why can't two people of different races share the same water fountain. To me it is just two different people but back then it was considered much worse. I don't think seperate but equal is fair and I don't think people of the court were fair. People of the court need to people the type of people to promote change, not stay the same. Justice Brown labeled inferioty of other races because of segregation as fallacy. I disagree with this because I think segregation is makes people feel inferior.

This trial paved way for more change in later years. This paved way for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. People needed change and this sparked the idea that everyone is created equal. It was unfair to Plessy that this had to happen to him but if it didn't, no one would have noticed the unfairness of the law at the time.

United States v. Nixon

In 1974, burglars from the Committee to Reelect the President broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters. Their headquarters were at the Watergate office and apartment complex. The president had many taped conversations from the White House's Oval Office and Nixon refused to give up the tapes. He claimed executive privilege, which protects the Office of the President from being compelled by the Judicial Branch to turn over confidential Executive Branch material.

I do think that Nixon should have to turn over the tapes. The president was just trying to save himself by not handing over the tapes but the I don't think the president should be trying to cover up anything. He shouldn't have special privileges especially when it comes to federal court. When it comes down to the president lying and cheating, that's just not right. So I do think that it was a good decision that he had to give over the tapes because just because he is a president doesn't mean he gets special privileges in court.



This video shows some outtakes from Nixon's resignation speech and his actual resign at the end. I think that executive privilege should only be in lower courts and something that isn't as important as this case was. If it was a minor case then executive privilege should be properly asserted but not when the president is being considered a crook.

This is important for presidents because it sets a standard for them. They can't have special accommodations in court just because they don't want to lose a case. I can see why Nixon didn't want to give up the tapes because he didn't want to resign as president. I don't blame him for not wanting to give them up but I am glad they made him.

Roe v. Wade

In 1973 a woman named "Jane Roe" wanted an abortion. District Attorney Wade of Dallas County, Texas, argued that it went against state law to have an abortion unless it was protecting a mothers life. Roe's life was not endangered, so she wasn't able to get an abortion in the state of Texas.

I believe that this was a very big case dealing with woman's right. I believe that a woman should have a right to choose and it was good for progression as people. If woman had to have a baby and didn't plan to, her life could be ruined. This case paved way for women having more rights.



In this interview with Katie Couric, Palin and her are having a discussion about the case. Palin can't come up with a straight answer to the question. I would find this interesting considering that she is a woman. If I were a woman I would like to know that I have the choice or not. Also Palin can't come up with any other court cases, so I don't think she is very qualified to be in politics.

I think the opposite of Palin. I think that it should have been a federal case instead of state. If only one state had to deal with this problem, and then passed it, many women that would want an abortion would have to go to that state. It is good that it was at a federal level so that it would pass in all of the states. Also the constitutional origin of the right to privacy is First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Trying to Help out Everyone

Part I:

Everyone could use a helping hand. No matter if it is taking groceries out to the car, or having people give you free food and clothes. That is why community service is such a major role in society to make us grow as people. Giving back to the world is just as important as taking from it. That is why I feel that what our school does in the way of community service is necessary for all schools. Kids need to realize that it is not just all about them. We are all human beings and deserve as much as a chance as everybody else. Not everyone is lucky enough to be born into wealthy communities, but everyone should feel obligated to help out other people when they are in a time of need. Other schools should have community service because we are the people of the future. If we do not learn how to give when we are young, how should we be able to learn to give when we are older? Community service is such a viable thing because it teaches us a lot of things about other people and ourselves. Through community service, people learn compassion for others and understand that the world is not as perfect as it seems.

For my community service I worked for two organizations. One of the two organizations was Christmas for Everyone. This was an organization was about helping out families in need so they could enjoy their Christmas without any stress. My second organization was for Walnut Creek Warriors Lacrosse which is a non-profit youth sports program. I did most of my blogs about youth sports, but for this paper I decided that poverty has much more community need. Considering that the income earned by the richest 50,000 people in the developed world almost exactly equals the income of the 2.7 billion poorest (DeRouen) is far more of a problem striking our world. This number is unfair but will not be changed for awhile. If these numbers can’t change, then people need to help out the 2.7 billion who are barely surviving. Anything can help whether it is a dollar a day to a charity or if it is going to a third world country and building the town a school or a family a home.

“The UN measures poverty with a three-part index comprised of education, health care, and economic strength” (DeRouen). This shows that poverty is not all about the amount of money you have. Money is a big part of poverty because if someone had access to a lot of money, then they would not have to worry about getting good education and health care. The poorest communities score low in this category because they have no access to money. And no access to money means no access to food or water which can ultimately lead to death. “Life expectancies are very short in the poorest nations of the world. For example, 2008 data from the World Health Organization indicate that life expectancies are less than 42 years in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe and less than 47 years in Lesotho, Chad, Central African Republic, and Angola. This is in contrast to people in developed countries who can expect to live over 75 years and can reasonably expect to see their grandchildren grow up” (DeRouen). It is unfair that people do not get as good as a life because a lack of money. I feel that everyone should have the same exact chance as everyone to be able to enjoy life. A lack of money should mean no fancy vacations or no five star meals, but not a shorter life. If people in richer countries live about thirty years longer, this should tell developed nations to help out. It should be a moral duty to try and help out the weak when you are the strong.

I believe that when someone is done, you pick them up. Whether they have fallen or they have no home is no different. Many kids I know go to Mexico every year and build homes for the less fortunate. They can’t shower for a week, work hard all day long, and get paid nothing. People care about other people. That is why they would sacrifice their time for other people’s happiness. There is also National Charity Leagues where people do community service like working at food shelters. People like giving their time and are happy to put a smile on someone’s face. Developing nations aren’t the only place where there is poverty. In the United States, 37 million which is 12.6% of the population lives under the poverty line (Smith). If 36.5 million people live in California, which is basically our nation’s most populated state living under the poverty line. And that number is poverty number is growing. In five years, five million people in the United States became poor (Smith). This probably has to do with a bad economy or not being able to get a job. And it is not just that. “Forty percent of children born in the bottom income quintile will remain in that quintile as adults” (Smith). People who are born into poverty have a big chance to stay there. If these people do not have the will power to get out of their current position, then they will have no reason to leave. The government has many shelters for poor people. These people can go there and get food, water and a bed to sleep in. This is probably the best they could get without going to prison. A hot meal, some cold water and a place to sleep that isn’t a park bench is better than what they are used to. The government is also looking into health care so this could possibly help out the people that can’t afford it. Considering that 19 % of children in poverty and 11.2 % above poverty do not have health insurance, this could really help. President Obama has made it so that kids on their parent’s health care plans now have to be on it until they are twenty five. I think this is good because many of those people would probably not have health care because a lack of money.

Part II

“Americans donate $300 billion to charity every year, according to Giving USA 2009” (Dorian).  This is a great start to such an important cause. If every developed country could help out developing countries, those countries would be able to have proper education and health care to live better lives. In the United States, people have a different view on how the government should respond poverty. “Some people believe that the government should be doing more, some believe it should be doing less, and some feel that the current role is about right” (Gorman). I think our government should do a little more about poverty. We have a progressive income tax which I think is good because it deals with income inequality. Our government also has public assistance programs. These programs include federal unemployment insurance, Medicare, and federal welfare programs like food stamps to help poor and temporarily hard-pressed households to make ends meet (Gorman). These to me are very good ways of helping out. These families may be embarrassed of using food stamps but if comes whether to eating or not, I am sure they would rather use the food stamps. “Nearly 40 million Americans received food stamps -- the latest in an ever-higher string of record enrollment that dates from December 2008 and the U.S. recession, according to a government update” (Abbott).  This number isn’t very shocking to me. Everyone struggles to put food on the table and they have got to do it anyway they can. Food stamps are an easy way for them to get food to feed their families and still pay bills. But critics of helping the poverty more and the way the government measures poverty are still there. “One on-going critique is of the types of income that are included in (or excluded from) the poverty measure. By failing to include income that many low-income people receive in the form of public assistance, some critics maintain that the extent of poverty is over-stated. If the value of food stamps, publicly provided health insurance benefits, and cash welfare payments were counted as income in the poverty calculation, many people would no longer be considered poor” (Willis). Maybe we should give these poor people cash payments instead of these benefits and maybe they wouldn’t be considered poor.

As we learned in economics, money is a tricky thing. You can invest your money in the stock market to help you get more, but if you don’t have money you can’t. We learned about capitalism and about how it is all about the greatest good for yourself. I am glad we don’t live in a capitalistic society because then we wouldn’t help the poor. No one would care about the others suffering and would only worry about getting more money. Also we learned about taking loans out on homes, but some people can’t afford homes so they are forced to live out on the streets. We also learned about having disposable income and savings but people in poverty don’t have enough money for that. “Having access to saved income or other assets (e.g. a home) creates stability in a person's financial life” (Tax Policy and Poverty). These people can’t create themselves a sustainable life and then end up living on the streets due to money problems.

Part III

In Thomas Friedman’s, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, a major topic he talks about is how our world’s population is getting very big. If our world is getting bigger and bigger, we need everyone to have an equal opportunity for a good life. This means we can’t have people in developing nations living thirty years less. This is a major disadvantage that no one has a choice because some people can’t choose where they live. If people in developing nations don’t have access to education then they will not be able to have a job that pays a decent wage. And if they don’t get paid a decent wage, then they can’t pay for health care. It is a cycle that needs to be address if more and more people are going to live on this planet.

During winter break, my fellow teammates and I went to Christmas for Everyone where they collected Christmas presents for the less fortunate. There was a whole gymnasium filled with donations of new and slightly used items. There were tons of toys, clothes and miscellaneous items stacked up in huge barrels. The organization was using what looked like a church and Sunday school to help people in need during the holidays. The other great thing about this event was that they were collecting food. They were collecting food so families could have a nice family dinner and not have to stress about coming up with the money to pay for it. It was nice to know that people still cared for other people. We need to have more organizations like this so people can help others. A lot of people are better off than others so I think that those people should give back. Not everyone can be successful; it's hard to make a lot of money. But we can't as people not help out the needy. It felt good knowing what we were doing was for a great cause. I am also glad to see that there were so many people there helping out. Every one could use a helping hand, and for that Christmas it was our hands. It was an eye opener about how many people actually do need help. Even though most of my hours were helping out with youth sports, working for a poverty based organization really put it into my mind that I should help out more with my free time. Poverty is all over the world and you can never stop helping the cause. I knew if I didn’t have a home or food to eat I would love a helping hand and would forever be thankful. That is why many people do community service and give money to charity. “Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity” (Stossel). This is a good thing because people need to help out their friends and others in their situation. If my community service was for just one Christmas, then there has to be at least five gymnasiums in every city around the world to help out the needy every day. Even this does not seem like enough to help out everyone. It is hard to say whether we can fix this problem as a whole or not but we need to make steps forward to change it. We are all part of this world so we should treat each other like family.

Reinstated!

As this video shows, CAL baseball has been reinstated. The long trip to get their sport back is finally over. These players will play another season. It is great to know that these people who worked so hard will be able to see the feild again. Playing sports at a young age has taught them to pursure their dreams and this is a perfect example of where it can take you. No one knew how this incident would end up but the players never quit. They had hope and a good reason not to quit fighting. These players must be filled with joy because their legacy will live on to see another day.

Hopes are High

There must be millions of thoughts running through the CAL baseball players minds. To know that your program may be saved will make their college years less stressful. These players deserve more years for their determination and will power. When all odds are stacked up against you, some people wouldn't try. But all of the odds were against these players and they didn't back down. These players were told that this would be the last years of their baseball careers at CAL. Usually someone would cry and blame others but the team did the oppostie. They held their heads high and wanted to change something that seemed unchangable; getting their team back.

Five teams were cut from Cal's slate back in September, but rugby, lacrosse and women's gymnastics were reinstated on Feb. 11 after $12 million to $13 million was collectively raised. Although the campus had earlier set a $25 million mark for the restoration of all five sports, it said that baseball and men's gymnastics would not return for the 2011-12 season because they did not meet their respective targets of $10 million and $4 million for long-term sustainability.

These kids learned at a young age you win some and you lose some, but no matter what you give it your all. These kids wanted their future to be through CAL baseball and that is what they are trying to do. One step closer for these young men to get their team back for years to come. They will make history for CAL baseball for years to come.

Reinstatement Please

If you have a team that has won two national championships, five national championship appearances, and over 55 players sent to the major leagues how can you get rid of this program. This is a very good record and some schools haven't even come close to being in the championships. If a legacy like this can be shattered, then other schools should be careful of what may happen to them. I am sure that these kids will never give up. They have to big of a heart to let this bother them. The kids are trying to get pledges and money so their program will live on for years to come. As the coach said in the video, these kids are looking into other schools so this won't be their final year playing baseball. I am sure this is heartbreaking to everyone involved with CAL baseball and they are hoping this will be resolved. Why would they cut a team that won a double header which is tough enough in itself. Hopefully they can see that this is a team worth saving.

Rapping for a reason

Who would listen to a bunch of college kids rap? Maybe someone. But these kids are rapping for a reason. These kids want the ability to play baseball for the rest of their college years. They didn't have to make a rap about how they want their team to be able to play next year but they did. they want their message across that this isn't fair and they want another chance. Like they said in the video, they don't have any fans, but they play anyways. They have a passion to play whether anyone is watching or not. As you can see these kids are having a lot of fun just making a song so they must have tons of fun when they are out playing. Hopefully things change and they are able to play next year. I know it would make all of the players and coaches extremely happy. Also i would like to point out Katie Bruzzone who is an ex-Acalanes student. I thought it was pretty funny to see her in the video. She is in the video around the 3:30 mark.

Off to Alameda

Last Saturday I had to go out to Alameda for a girls lacrosse game. The game was between the Walnut Creek Warriors and the Alameda Attack. The game was at ten o'clock and considering I have never been to Alameda, I had to wake up pretty early. We got there and the town was really nice. I was surprised of how nice it was because it was on the outskirts of a not so nice part of Oakland.

VS.

The first half was heavily in favor of the Attack with a three to nothing lead going into half time. The referees were new to reffing so the coaches had to help them out. Because of that, the Attack girls were getting away with what should have been fouls but did not get called for them. That is why they had such a big lead. After the fouls were clarified, the Warriors scored three straight unanswered goals. They had a chance to score at the end of the game but unfortunately the time ran out.

Even though the girls had been roughed by the other players, when the game was over they were really happy they came back to tie it up. As score and time keeper I got a close look at how happy they really were. They were all smiling and saying great game to their teammates. I am glad to see how they didn't get mad at the refs but played on and still were able to come back at the end.