Unit 3 - What I learned....
This unit was fairly straight forward. I learned a lot more about sexual harassment then I ever thought I would. It’s tough to place a set definition on a term like ‘sexual harassment’ because it is really all an interpretation. But the definition cannot be broadened so as to make it so that some one can sue an employer or a teacher for something ridiculous; an act to get even, or make a few dollars, rather than doing it because they truly did feel as though a hostile environment had be created and that psychological damage had been done. These days people sue others for just about anything; it’s sad, but I feel safe in saying that our courts do a pretty good job of keeping people straight and not letting criminals take advantage of the laws we create to protect ourselves. It is always interesting to read cases which are over turned by the higher courts, so I really enjoyed the Sandra Day O’Connor decision. I agree 100% with it too. I think it is great that people are allowed a second chance at justice. America is a beautiful place and I am proud to live here.

unit 3 - Goodman and Greenberger/Willams
“It was the conduct itself, and not the sex or motivation of the people involved, that determined whether sexual harassment amounted to ‘discrimination because of sex’ within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” I couldn’t agree more with the previous statement. Sexual harassment should not be limited to occur only between a man and a woman. We need to round up all sexual preferences when having this discussion, because lesbian could easily sexually harass another woman, and a gay man could easily sexual harass another man. We can’t let homosexuality not play a role in sexual harassment situations. Should gay people be exempt from sexual harassment because of sexual preference? No way! It’s the people involved, it’s the behavior. Another concept that seems unjust to me is to say that sexual harassment can only be created in the workplace. This blows me away. I feel that someone can be sexual harassed in most any place, most any situation. If we place a limit on sexual harassment and say that it can only occur within the workplace, then we aren’t doing a very good job of protecting kids in schools. Employers and Teachers are probably the two most common professions to have sexual harassment charges stapled to them. We cannot place limits such as ‘where’ sexual harassment can take place, and ‘who’ can sexually harass someone. It can happen anywhere and be done by anyone.

Unit 3 - Sandra Day O’Connor
The Key elements in the decision which overturned the lower courts decision were that an “abusive work environment harassment need not ‘seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well being’ or lead the plaintiff to ‘suffer injury.’”
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. Hardy, Teresa Harris’ boss, on numerous accounts displayed inappropriate behavior. Referring to Harris as a “dumb ass woman”, suggesting that they discuss her raise in a near by hotel, tossing different items onto the ground and asking female employees to pick them, repeatedly asking female coworkers to retrieve change out of his front pants pockets, and not to mention the reoccurring sexual innuendos. Harris confronted Hardy and told him that she was uncomfortable. Hardy apologized, said he was only joking, and vouched to elude inappropriate comments and behavior in the future. Later Hardy asked Harris if she promised a customer sex in order to receive his business; Harris collected her check and quit. Harris then sued Forklift, claiming that Hardy’s conduct created an abusive work environment because of her gender. Defining ‘psychological well being’ and ‘abusive work environment’ is a never ending task. They are both interpretations and this case seemed to arouse this issue. I couldn’t agree more with the court’s decision to overturn the decision. I believe that an abusive environment was very well created, and that Harris psychological well being could easily have been seriously effected.

Unit 2 - What I learned....
Unit two was interesting. I explored the constitution in a manner that I wouldn’t have expected to do in an English class; but I enjoyed it. I learned more about the rights we encompass as Americans, more about the freedoms our country was founded on. I was also turned on to a feature film which had significant impact on constitutional rights, “The People vs. Larry Flynt.” Reading arguments for both sides of the film really gave me a new understanding of ‘seeing both sides’. Although I think that phrase is limiting; there are way more than just two angles to look at something, especially a film like with such historical relativity and conceptual interpretations. I have discovered a new format of writing; an argumentative tone and I understand that it is extremely important to back up your ideas with facts. I must say, it was nice being able to apply the constitution to such a large case, and a more present day one as well. I haven’t had a lot of teachers who incorporated movies into the curriculum but I thought it was nice, it was like learning outside the classroom; it was nice to watch a movie and write about it instead of the typical read then write set-up.
I was surprised to find myself so interested in a historical document. I never really enjoyed history, and so I never really took the time to research the constitution, or any historical document for that matter. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to do so though, I know understand the influence the 200 year old document has on our country.

Unit 2 - What the first amendment means....
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment gives us, United States Citizens, the right to worship a god of our choice, a religion we believe is true and correct, without intervention by any level of government. It also allows us to gather as we please, publicly, to discuss matters we deem necessary; this includes problems we see within the governmental levels. Finally, the first amendment also ensures are right to free speech. We can speak as we please, whether in public or privately; this includes libel and freedom of the press. With this defined, we as Americans assume that we can think and speak as we please without government intervention. Our forefathers gave us this write more than 200 years ago. But as most things in life have, even the first amendment has limits, and those limits were pushed and tested in the film “The People vs. Larry Flynt.” Some examples of limiting the first amendment are, “shout(ing) fire in a theatre when no fire exists,” “Verbal threats cannot be tolerated on airliners,” and “individuals must be protected from slanderous falsehoods uttered in public.” But the aforementioned circumstances are understood by the common person to be wrong and unjust; no one should have the right to make verbal threats on an airliner, but the limits Larry Flynt pushed were different, they are more median so arguments both for and against him are easily aroused.

Unit 2 - Steinman, Goodman, North.
Gloria Steinman is a feminist and protestor to the Hollywood film “The People vs. Larry Flynt.” Her stance on the subject, as one might have easily assumed, is in opposition of the film and the contents within. Steinman states that, “A pornographer is not a hear, no more than a publisher of a Ku Klux Klan books or a Nazi on the internet, no matter what constitutional protection they secure.” She feels that material within Flynt’s magazine differs greatly from the material shown in the film. Such images of a woman being gang raped on a pool table, or a woman being hand cuffed, shaven, raped and apparently killed, never found there way onto the big screen; only onto the pages of Hustler.
Ellen Goodman has a similar stance. She feels that Flynt was depicted in a less honest way; that he was built up to be a better man than he is, when really all of the truth just wasn’t shared with the audience. Goodman thought that it would be good idea for an issue of hustler be handed out to each viewer after the movie; some reading material to aid in their discussion of the film.
Oliver North agrees that the film is bias and shares one side of the story. He sees the film as idolizing a man who is trying to make smut safe in America. North says, “It’s not every day a drug abusing panderer or pornography is depicted on the silver screen as the man who saved the constitution.”

Unit 2 - The Constitution
The Constitution is a document that was written more than 200 years ago. It recognizes and defines humanistic rights we encompass just for being United States citizens. It also establishes and identifies a system of government which distributes the power of government so as to place limits on its power; limiting power within the federal government, the authority the federal government has over the states, as well as the power both governments have over the people of the United States. The constitution is the document that the United States flag is wrapped around; it holds our freedoms as individuals; our rights as mankind. It protects us from unfair treatment from the higher powers; keeps us safe from unnecessary government influence by means of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the constitution). The document also provides the structure and outlines to the three branches of government; the judicial branch, the executive branch, and the legislative branch. It also defines the three levels of government; the federal government, state government, and local government. The Unites States Constitution binds our country together to become a better and more free nation.

Unit 1 - What I Learned
Overall, I enjoyed Unit One. I guess you could say that I’m a big arguer (not in a bad way though) so I was pretty excited when I flipped through the pages in Part One of our books and found The 'Structure of Argument', 'Written Argument', and 'The Language of Argument'. I’ve never really had the chance to completely think out an argument and then put it down on paper. So that was new to me and definitely interesting.
I wish I would have put more time into my first essay; but writing a ‘critique’ was a new thing, and I learned a lot. The ‘critique’ format makes complete sense, and I’m glad that I can add it to my garage of writing tools.
It was interesting to touch on the different types of argument; inductive and deductive, however they were covered extensively in a book I read last year, 'How to Argue and Win Every Time'. But a nice refresher is never a bad thing.
I also enjoyed learning about language within a culture. It’s a concept I never thought too much about, but learned enough to understand that language certainly does have an impact a culture, a large impact at that. I was surprised by this.

Unit 1 - Jealous of Myself
Jealous of Myself

Faceless, am I just another from the crowd? My presidential tie, button down Oxford, bowler hat and rain jacket. I stand alone, lost in an epitome of emptiness. My hands are clenched holding on to the nonentity that I feel I am. Two buttons encase me from flowing freely. This jacket is all I’m brave enough to show. Underneath the layers lies more emotions then I fear I will ever be bold enough to reveal. Green, the color of envy, masking my face, hiding emotion that I’m too scared to show. I’m jealous of the way that I once felt; jealous of myself. My hands look soaked in blood and have fought more rounds than Ali ever dreamed of. They lie at my sides, worn and denied; more blood on the surface than my veins inside. I’ve fought until my arms won’t raise, and then I fight some more. Standing where I did when she walked away, standing here so alone. In a world so empty, with a jealous mask, and a costume concealing what I’m afraid to show. I’m jealous of myself – jealous of what, you may never know.

Unit 1 - Language shapes a culture?
Language Shapes a Culture?

“Language shapes a culture.” I so infrequently find myself strongly vouching for one side of a statement like the afore mentioned, so attacking this topic with an argument coming from one end of the spectrum might be difficult.
Language is undoubtedly a key factor in the shaping of a culture. Its impact is easily seen even centuries later as we examine a cultures language and how it has evolved. The way we speak is more or less passed on to us by preceding generations, and is therefore subject to change. Our culture is shaped by the tools of language our ancestors used.
The absence of a singular form of expression, such as “I”, could be the Athapaskin Indians way to unite the tribe as a whole, rather than individuals. The head tribesman/woman might have felt that this form of unity was essential to the tribes existence; possibly in the way to eliminate some of the less favorable humanistic traits, such as greed or envy; one might steal from a neighbor, but not from oneself.
In other ways, one could look at a language and see where a culture rests much of its substance. The Chinese language, for instance, has numerous words to describe all members of the family, ranging from five words for uncle to 24 expressions for wife. The Chinese culture has been very family oriented for centuries, and this doesn’t seem to be ceasing. Its language is evidence of where much of the Chinese Culture places substance; in family.