NY Times Review

For years, it has become a tradition that marriage be the union of a man and a woman as committed lifelong partners. According to the Bible, marriage is “An intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman in which the two become one physically, in the whole of life.” However according to the law, marriage only needs to satisfy three requirements: the parties' legal ability to marry each other, mutual consent of the parties, and a marriage contract as required by law. The practice of same-sex relationships dates all the way back to the times of ancient Greece, yet still is not a fully recognized and accepted practice.

Likewise, Supreme Court justices are also quite mixed on the issue at hand as well. More conservative justices such as Scalia and Alito are hesitant on breaking tradition , whereas more liberal justices such as Breyer have come to recognize same-sex relationships as a growing part of society.

“As far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“The answer we get is, well, people have always done it. You know, you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.” -Justice Stephen G. Breyer

The first question that comes up for the issue at hand is the accountability of the Supreme Court justices. The result of the decision would most likely change America forever, as the official definition of marriage itself could possibly be altered for future generations to come. Should merely nine appointed individuals really make a decision on behalf of the thousands of same sex couples in the United States? Since Supreme Court justices are not elected, they are sometimes viewed to be not very representative of the public. Likewise, in order to stay impartial, the Supreme Court's decisions do not always take in public opinion, no matter how sensitive and widespread the case.

Currently, support for same-sex marriage has increased from the initial nine states to thirty-six, with many states accepting and legalizing same-sex marriage. It's here where the federal and state governments may clash. Whereas of right now, marriage is currently held in the states' boundary of control, each one able to decide the legality of same-sex marriage. However, once the Supreme Court makes its decision, state law will be overridden, creating a great deal of outbreak and opposition in the public if same-sex marriage fails to be legalized.

In order to make the proper decision, the Supreme Court must choose how to approach the issue at hand first. What method should the Supreme Court use when formulating conclusions? Should the justices hold back and make the decision based more on previous precedents and traditional values? Or should the justices actively interpret any implied parts of the Constitution and make stretches? It's nonetheless a battle between judicial restraint and judicial activism. While judicial activism in this case would favor same-sex couples more, it would also mean drifting off from the Supreme Court's ability to be impartial and unbiased since more personal interpretation and opinion from the justices would be required.

However, in my personal opinion, marriage is not gender-binding. In the social sense, love doesn't necessarily have to stem from the opposite sex, it can develop in multiple ways. Love develops from romantic and affections feelings for another individual, and this person does not necessarily have to be someone of the opposite sex. By human nature, the range of romance can vary from person to person. Other than the exception of being unable to produce offspring, same-sex marriage shares many of the same elements as traditional opposite-sex marriage.

In the constitutional sense, same-sex couples deserve to have the right and freedom to pursue love like any other couple in the United States. After the ruling in Grisworld v. Connecticut, the implied right to privacy in the 4^th amendment was established. Intimate relationships between couples were included in an individual's sphere of privacy, giving them the right to use any birth control devices or medicine in their relationship. Similarly, the “who” a person chooses to be his or her lifelong spouse is also under this sphere of privacy. In addition, the 14^th amendment guarantees all U.S citizens the natural rights aforementioned in the Constitution. Back during America's segregation era, interracial marriage between colored and whites was not allowed. Today's situation with same-sex couples is related in the exact same sense. Colored men have been given the natural rights to marriage just like any other American, and it would only seem constitutional to given same-sex couples the same right as well.

Political Polarization

How Incivility Divides Us

In political debates, there will always be the so called “good guy” and  “bad guy” that can vary depending every individual. Each side presents different arguments and beliefs, and although the debaters and viewers don't always blatantly show disgust and disinterest for the other side, on the inside these negative feelings very much do exist. Overall Mutz believes that the act of explicitly expressing these negative feelings and showing uncivil behavior can lead to political polarization because these actions cause partisans to think even less of the opposing side than before by strengthening and stimulating their emotional feelings.

During Murtz's mock political talk show experiment, she observed two very different groups: one polite and proper group of actors that debated respectfully and peacefully and one loud, impolite group of actors that debated harshly and blatantly. The more offensive and harsh group was the one that sparked the most interest; the attitudes toward the opposing group became more and more negative with every emotional and dramatic exchange being made. Therefore, polite debates are considered "boring", as they are monotonous and no different from any regular conversation while active, uncivil debates are "interesting" since they're unique and gain attention.

While people's level of emotional arousal increases from the exposure of uncivil behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean these people actually wholeheartedly enjoy the content of the debate. In fact, the actual content could really be quite offensive to the viewers if certain negative, unacceptable remarks such as racial slurs or gender/sexuality insults are made. (Martin.8. 2015) It's not that people love the statements and wish to continue watching for the sake of pleasure, but rather they almost have no choice but to do so due to shock or curiosity. Likewise, it could also be the very opposite. Incivility brings in an increase of paid attention. Bill and Hillary Clinton actually only use their TiVo to records programs so that they can go back, play over them, and rant on debaters's positions and arguments.

In addition, people may not even understand the actual content of the exchange itself, as the actual things said aren't the most interesting. People will only remember any striking insults or yelling. And it doesn't necessarily have to be for a publicly filmed debate. It could be for a prerecorded advertisement or article. For example, back during American's early days, the election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson sparked a great deal of interest. Opponents of Adams called him a, “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." and opponents of Jefferson called him a "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." (Jackson. 24. 2015) If you were to ask someone why Jefferson was a mean spirited person, chances are that person wouldn't even know. They only remembered the big part: The impolite insult. The various reasons behind it don't matter as much.

Modern day media and technology only make things worse, possibly making the general public think society is more polarized than it really is. The up close camera shots create tense situation where certain individuals are being focused on. One reason why the Obama-Brewer tip off attracted more attention than the also very famous Bush-Webb tip off was simply because of greater camera exposure. (Jackson. 13. 2015). In addition, the mere act labeling groups, such as blacks and whites, Democrats and Republicans, or men or women, can cause people to believe society is more divided than it really is due to everyone being placed into different categories. (Levendusky, Malhotra. 3. 2015). For example, during the survey on the issue of capital gains tax cuts, many Americans though the public was 84 percent more polarized than they actually are. With people already thinking society is more split up than it really is, political polarization is bound to happen to some degree. Political polarization has increased over the years, and the greater exposure and emphasis on civil disobedience from the media will only worsen it.

Overall, incivility has the ability to both spark interest and cause a debate to lean towards the extremes due to the extreme nature of incivility. No matter what time period we look at, we will find several occasions and effects of this happening. With the growing use of media and technology in society, emphasis on these extreme statements will only continue to growing, reinforcing people's outlook of the "good guy" and "bad guy" and diminishing the similarities and agreements of the two opposing sides.

MLA Citation
Jackson, David. "Obama and Incivility: A Presidential Tradition." USA Today. Gannett, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2015. <http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obamas-presidency-and-the-tradition-of-incivility/1#.VMjMYGiUeZM>.
Martin, Michel. "Sparking A Better Political Discourse." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2015. <http://www.npr.org/2012/01/09/144904623/sparking-a-better-political-discourse>.
Levendusky, Matt, and Neil Malhotra. "The Media Make Us Think We’re More Polarized than We Really Are." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/05/the-media-make-us-think-were-more-polarized-than-we-really-are/>.

To what extent does Citizens United Threaten Democracy

Citizens United
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnL9YFLqwwM

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions could not be banned from spending money on campaigns, stating that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights to speech as individuals, only in the form of campaign spending. Therefore, money is equivalent to speech and corporations are equivalent to people. However, with corporations being the powerful, influential figures they are, the power of unlimited spending becomes an issue since they dominate campaigns and shut out the outside opinions of the people, the ones who are actually supposed to determine the outcome of the election. With money, corporations can spend funding on various forms of campaigning, such as advertisements and voter registration, to persuade citizens to support their side. In an election, swing voters play a very significant role. Depending on which side they eventually choose to support, swing voters can essentially determine who wins an election, especially in the case of a very close election, such as the one between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Theoretically, corporations basically have the power to control the election if they can spend all the money they want on campaigns.

In the first article, Perriello and Rosenbaum talk about the case limiting the voices of the people. It all starts with the corruption of the system. As donors provide funding to the candidates, they in return must also receive something. This could range from ensuring friends high political positions (spoils system) to using the money on a plan that benefits the donor. The second article, on the other hand, presented a completely different argument. Sherman stated the exact opposite, that money wasn't the biggest key factor since voting was and still is based on the judgement of the people, not through the persuasion techniques of a candidate.

However, I don't believe that money is the key to persuading people to be on your side. After all, “Money can buy many things, but not friendship”. Money can only do so much. At the end of the day, it's the voters and their opinions to decide the vote. As studies show, a majority of people who vote tend to range from ages of middle aged to senior. Such people do not change their ideals and positions very easily since years of supporting and growing up with them have embedded it deep into their values. In this case, the money spent on campaigning would be better aimed at persuading the young generations, who still have much to experience and hold immature, underdeveloped values that can still be changed. The only problem with this is that younger generations tend to have little interest in mature, or so called “boring”, topics such as politics, government, finance, or economy. Money does not necessarily threaten democracy since many Americans don't have much of any interest or objective in widely supporting it.

In addition, history has shown many cases where money fails to ensure everything. During the election between Romney and Obama, Romney had spent millions of dollars on campaigning, but still didn't get the position at the end. Likewise, money doesn't necessarily determine the winners and losers of a election. It may influence people's decision, but it doesn't necessarily restrict since voters are the ones who make the final call when casting their vote.

Bibliography

Perriello, Tom. Rosenbaum, Amy."Citizens United: Democracy for Sale".Politico.2012.Web.Dec. 15.2014.

Sherman, Paul."Citizen’s United Didn’t Kill Our Democracy".USA Today.2012.Web. Dec.15.2014.

  

Which protest movement has more to learn from the other, The Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street?

Tired of Great Britain's tyrannical rule and pointless taxes, the colonies desired some self-control. In response to Britain's tax on tea imports, the colonies threw millions of crates worth of Britain tea, approximately 92,000 pounds, into Boston Harbor as an act of rebellion (The Aftermath, 2014, 1) with a message clearly implying, “WE WILL NOT DRINK SUCH TEA”. The tea partyers succeeded in one aspect: their rebellion was an act of defiance that showed that the colonists weren't simple obedient pushovers. The downside, however, was that the King soon imposed more rules, known as the Intolerable Acts, which ranging from closing off Boston Harbor, to allowing British soldiers to live in the colonists homes, to outlawing freely called town meetings and elections (Intolerable Acts, 2014, 4-8). The Boston Tea Party might not have been the most thought through idea in American history. What the whole point of putting up such a show when you're most likely going to get punished even harder for it?

The Occupy Wall Street movement was much more recent, happening not long ago in 2011. Due to a great deal of wealth inequality, political corruption, corporation influence of the government, people began to protest on such differences. They protested to reduce corporate influence on the government, have more and better jobs, more balanced income distribution, bank reform, and relief to indebted students (Occupy Wall Street: It's not a Hippie Thing, 2014, 4).Protesters came up with the slogan, “We are the 99%”, because the other 1% was made up of all of America's unfairly advantaged, wealthy figures.The protesters poured into Zuccotti Park, a park located in New York City's Wall Street financial district, and began their encampment, hence the name "Occupy Wall Street". The protesters and supporters were most likely made of up those with low income, looking for the chance for it to be raising. Here, the protesters simply ran their daily lives at the park, eating and going to the bathroom at nearby restaurants and stores, sleeping under blankets, and using bicycle powered electricity for surfing on the Internet (With Generators Gone, Wall Street Protesters Try Bicycle Power, 2014, 5). It was their way of protesting against the corruption of Wall Street. Although they did succeed in getting notice, they still have yet to fulfill their goals.

Eventually the show had to go. They couldn't occupy the park forever. It had to get cleaned for maintenance. When the protesters tried to reoccupy the space, the police, more prepared this time, would shoo them away.

I'd say that the Boston Tea Party has more to learn from the Occupy Wall Street Movement. To begin with, the Occupy Wall Street Movement was simply much more eco-friendly. Pouring millions of boxes of tea into the ocean POLLUTES THE OCEAN. People always talk about how water pollution today is terrible. Part of that pollution might have been from the Boston Tea Party. Coincidentally, Boston Harbor is one of the most polluted ports in the world. Although the Tea Party happened centuries ago in 1773, some people say the harbor's brown color comes from the leftover traces of tea. In addition, tea might not be the healthiest substance for aquatic life such as fish, shrimp, and seaweed. It's very possible that a great deal of fish died afterward, making life for a fisherman much harder. If I was a person during that movement that happened to have access to a box of tea, I would sneak off with it rather than throw it into the ocean. A box of tea that's fated to become part of the ocean may as well be taken and enjoyed.

Second of all the Occupy Wall Street Movement tackles a more in depth problem than the Boston Tea Party Movement. In the case of the Boston Tea Party, the Patriots were so passionate and focused on breaking away from Great Britain and didn't take the time to satisfy the needs of every person that may or may not have agreed to the plan. At that time, a great deal of colonists either disagreed with the idea of the Boston Tea Party because they were Tories who supported the King and didn't mind paying taxes or didn't even know about it since they were from farther, southern states like Virginia. In America at this time, one third of the population were Patriots, one third were Tories, and the other third were neutral (Tories, 2014, 3). Basically, a group of people was trying to make a life changing decision without the consent of the majority or minority. The Occupy Wall Street Movement, on the other hand, It dealt with the inside economic and financial conflicts with the United States. These protesters were doing the opposite of the Tea Party protesters. They were trying to give all of those who were underrepresented and ignored, such as those with meager incomes, better opportunity by protesting for better wealth and income distribution.

The sad problem with the Occupy Wall Street Movement is that sometimes protests aren't enough to completely change the course of action because the government does not necessarily always take in account of the public's interests. For this very reason, the gap between the rich and poor is still very big today and doesn't seem to show any signs of shrinking soon.

Of course, these differences might be understandable. These were, after all, two very different movements that happened in two very different time periods. In the 1700's, people most likely didn't realize how important it was to take in account of the opinion of the minorities or/and majority, especially since at that time the colonies technically weren't even independent. In addition, they probably had little knowledge about the consequences of pollution since the ocean was much cleaner at the time. It only goes to show that the Tea Party movement could try to use more eco-friendly and moderate actions. The less extreme it is, the less likely you'll get hit back.

Bibliography

"The Aftermath." Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum December 16, 1773 A Revolutionary Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/the-aftermath>.

"Tories." Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum December 16, 1773 A Revolutionary Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tories>.

“Intolerable Acts”Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum December 16, 1773 A Revolutionary Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tories>.

"With Generators Gone, Wall Street Protesters Try Bicycle Power." Internet Archive Wayback Machine. N.p., 30 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20131204041430/http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/with-generators-gone-wall-street-protesters-try-bicycle-power/>.

"Occupy Wall Street: It's Not a Hippie Thing." Businessweek.com. N.p., 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20130526104046/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/occupy-wall-street-its-not-a-hippie-thing-10272011.html>.

Is the freedom of speech too free?

Every American living in the United states is entitled to the right of free speech. While the freedom of speech is important for the people to freely express their opinions, it cannot be unlimited. There are always the extreme sides of the expression of speech. Having expression whatsoever would lead to a cold, empty nation where people can never express what is on their mind without fear of breaking the law. To much expression of speech could lead to many inappropriate comments being made about others. During times when a certain act of speech can possibly falsely endanger the lives of people, such as shouting "BOMB!" in a movie theater, freedom of speech definitely has its limits.

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church (shown above), the freedom of speech is used to the point where politeness has no meaning whatsoever. These followers actively hold signs in public places that say, "GOD HATES FAGS" and "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL". Obviously for very actively religious Christians and Catholics, the words,"YOU'RE GOING TO HELL", would not sound very pleasing or reassuring. The WBC holds many unique, but offensive views such as:

1) God hates homosexuals and they were deliberately put in the world to be punished

2) religious priest rape young children

3) 9-11 was a direct unleash of God's wrath and the ones who died during the bombings were sinners that God himself picked

These are only a couple of the "unique" views the WBC has. The WBC has every right to hold their own views and opinions; however, the way they exercise their power is too extreme. They openly criticize the views of other religious groups when it is not necessary. Other people of other religious groups never criticized or mocked the WBC for their views the way the WBC did. What gives the WBC the right to do so? Homosexuals, who have every right to hold their own views, are obviously deeply offended by hearing these words. To them, it's almost seems a discriminatory since the WBC specifically targets and criticizes them especially. These people even go to the point where they raise their children to hold these type of negative views from early ages. If these children were to develop highly racist, sexist, or discriminating views, it could be very possible they could grow up to become future criminals or terrorists. Children must at least be raised in a manner where they can at least respect and understand the various beliefs and ideals of other people rather than believe that their method is always superior. 

The members of the WBC were announcing in a public area where other passersby could easily hear what they say. In the video (Significant Minority), a police officer politely told the group that their actions were causing public alarm and annoyance. Although First Amendment Lawyer Floyd Abrams stated that public alarm wasn't a big enough justification for limited freedom of speech, the officer's statement did relate to the whole idea of public safety. Clashing beliefs could lead to conflict or fighting among the two sides. In these cases, where the safety of other people are also put at risk, the police are allowed to regulate situation for safety reasons. 

Freedom of speech is a power that can be both beautiful and assuring, yet dangerous and wicked at the same time. In can inspire both good things and bad. It's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. It is impossible to stop what has already been done; however, it is possible to amend, and alter, and regulate it for the better.

Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor?

Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor?

The case of Edward Snowden is a situation still going on today. When Snowden was young, he was not the best student, as he did not even get a high school diploma. However, he talent and interest in computing allowed him to gain a job at the CIA on IT security in 2007 and quickly rise up the ranks. In 2009, he left the CIA to join the NSA. Over time, however, Snowden began to realize the true nature of the U.S government and how much hidden surveillance it performed on its citizens. As an employee of the NSA as well as the U.S Government, he was able to see the various collections of data the U.S government had gained from spying and surveying. Snowden noticed how such actions deeply violated peoples' right of privacy as well as their Fourth Amendment rights, protection against unwarranted and unjustified searches. Sympathetic to the citizens of the United States, he decided to leak out some of these documents, mainly those from the surveillance program he had been working on, PRISM, in order to show Americans what was truly happening in the American government system (Wilmore 4).

His action was met with various responses (Krumboltz 2) and opinions that were quite close. In a poll, 59% of Americans found Snowden to be a respectable hero, while the other 49% found him to be a traitor (Raphael 4).Many citizens were horrified by the fact that they were constantly spied and surveyed on without their consent and considered Snowden a whistleblower, or informant, or even to an extent, hero. The U.S government officials obviously were not pleased about the idea of top secret government plans being suddenly sent out to the public and hurting their image. To the U.S government, their actions would have had justification, as surveillance can help identify any signs of terrorism or national danger. As a result, Snowden was be charged with a sentence of 30 years for leaking confidential government. In order to avoid this, Snowden fled to Hong Kong and later Russia. Snowden originally had plans to later seek asylum from South American countries such as Venezuela and Nicaragua; however, the U.S government soon revoked his passport and travel documents, leaving him stuck in Russia.

Snowden's number one supporter through his whole case would be the secret information distributor organization, Wikileaks. Despite the possible risks, Wikileaks still supported Snowden all the way with his actions, one action possibly being their common goals and views. This was shown when Wikileaks covered his expenses in Hong Kong and when Wikileaks member Sarah Harrison even accompanied Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow during his run. Since she aided Snowden, she could not go back to her home in the United Kingdom, where she herself could possibly be arrested, and had no choice but to live in exile in Germany. When asked why she sacrificed so much, Harrison said,"For future Snowdens, we want to show there is an organization that will do what we did for Snowden — as much as possible — in raising money for legal defense and public advocacy for whistleblowers so they know if they come forward there is a support group for them.”(Jay 1) It simply shows that Snowden most likely will not be the only person who will leak federal information, and that there are most likely any other people in the world with similar views as him. In fact, it could be very likely that there are many people such as Snowden who have committed similar “federal crimes” and went unnoticed. If this were the case, is Snowden really the major issue to be focused on? It could be very possible that his “traitorous” acts aren't as extreme as they seem. His leaks tell us that the government seizes the phone logs of millions of Americans without any authority or warrant to do so, and that the NSA tracks user data from large sites (Raphael 2). Generally speaking, the U.S government betraying the very Constitution it promised to uphold. As Snowden himself stated, “These programs don't make us more safe. They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak, think, live, and to be creative.” (Raphael 3)

At the same time, many people believe that Snowden is nothing more that a traitor who committed a terrible act of treachery. By becoming a worker of the U.S government, Snowden promised that he would safeguard the nations' secrets the moment he was employed. By leaking out some of the nation's important secrets, Snowden betrayed the trust that the government gave him. Society is dependent on trust. If all bankers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, and police officers were to live without trust, the society would filled with a bunch of individual sections where nobody can trust or help each other (Jay 14). According to successful millionaire Bill Gates, “I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn't characterize him as a hero. If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in civil disobedience or something of that kind, or if he had been careful in terms of what he had released, then it would fit more of the model of 'OK, I'm really trying to improve things.' You won't find much admiration from me (Guarini 3). Snowden may have taken the extreme side of the issue by suddenly revealing a portion of the nation's secret activities and attempting to disappear soon afterward. By all means, there may have been a better and more civilized option of trying to reform the govenment's operations. Because of this, some people may consider Snowden to be a coward for running away from his problem rather than being brave and facing them directly. Snowden claims to use the power of the Internet to expose the corruption and wrong-doing of totalitarian regimes. However, he has told us almost nothing about countries such as North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba and Venezuela. Instead, Snowden has spilled secrets from the countries that organize the peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, combat nuclear proliferation, champion human rights, fight terrorism and human trafficking, and hold free and fair elections. His actions have undercut the major world’s countries of freedom and given aid and comfort to the world’s totalitarian regimes.

In my opinion, Snowden is a hero. Casting away the fact that he committed a “federal crime”, Snowden is no different from anyone else. He is simply human. Humans are not perfect and can never have every single person in the world on their side. There will always be those who support him and those who oppose him. However, Snowden's “crime” was for a good cause and had good intentions. He only meant to help Americans regain some footing in the case of their own natural right of privacy. Although Snowden may appear to be quite cowardly for running away from his problems by traveling to foreign states for safety an seeking asylum, he does face a thirty year sentence in prison if he were to go back to the United States. As a man in his early thirties, he would be sixty by the time he would be able to leave, excluding the likely chance of long term probation or any additional sentences. While Snowden may seem to be viewed as a traitor and criminal by some, he was simply doing what he felt was right. Sometimes we must defy authority in order to do what is truly right, and what Snowden did may not necessarily be a hundred percent wrong. In a way, he was simply exercising his freedom of speech, only is a passive way. Through his actions of leaking the documents and from what he said from the interviews, Snowden simply wanted to express his belief that he felt what the government was doing was wrong. Since the Constitution does guarantee freedom of speech, Snowden may not have necessarily done something wrong.

Krumboltz, Mike. "Is Edward Snowden a Traitor or a Hero? The Debate Continues." Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. <http://news.yahoo.com/is-edward-snowden-a-traitor-or-a-hero--the-debate-continues-200122522.html>.

-Wilmore, Kathy. "All Classroom Magazines." Hero or Traitor? Scholastic, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://magazines.scholastic.com/news/2014/03/Hero-or-Traitor>.

-Raphael, Daniel. "Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Nov. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-raphael/why-edward-snowden-is-a-h_b_4227605.html>.

-"Yes, Edward Snowden Is a Traitor." The Diplomat. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. <http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/yes-edward-snowden-is-a-traitor/>.

-Jay, James. "Snowden Is a Traitor in All but Name." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2014/1/snowden-is-a-traitor-in-all-but-name>.

-Goodman, Amy, and Juan Gonzalez. "Exclusive: WikiLeaks Editor Sarah Harrison on Helping Edward Snowden, Being Forced to Live in Exile." Democracy Now! N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/1/exclusive_wikileaks_editor_sarah_harrison_on>.

-"Profile: Edward Snowden." BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22837100>.

-Stone, Geoffrey R. "Edward Snowden: "Hero or Traitor"?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 June 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/edward-snowden-hero-or-tr_b_3418939.html>.

-Goyette, Braden. "Edward Snowden Gets Permission To Stay In Russia For 3 More Years: Lawyer." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Aug. 2014. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/edward-snowden-russia_n_5657481.html?utm_hp_ref=edward-snowden>.

-"Statement by Edward Snowden to Human Rights Groups at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport." Statement by Edward Snowden to Human Rights Groups at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport. Wikileaks, n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <https://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html>.

-Guarini, Drew. "Bill Gates: Edward Snowden Is No Hero." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-snowden_n_4964311.html>.

-Edwards-Levy, Ariel. "Americans Still Can't Decide Whether Edward Snowden Is A 'Traitor' Or A 'Hero,' Poll Finds." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/edward-snowden-poll_n_4175089.html>.

Socratic Seminar 1 Reflection

Depending on how we interpret it, America's original founding principles can vary in many different ways. The founding principles could mean the core ideas that inspired the creation for the nation. Some people might believe that America was based on the basic beliefs of self-government and liberty, since these were the very reasons why the colonies broke away from Great Britain. In order to be released from the strict grip of the British government, the colonies broke away to govern themselves and do what they pleased. Some people might believe that it was based on equality. The colonists, who were treated differently from the British citizens, felt that they were viewed unequally and deserved to be treated on the same level as any other British citizen. Some people might believe that America was based on opportunity. After the unsatisfactory experiences with Britain, America was the start for new beginnings.

It is for these very reasons why America is a nation "in search of itself--a country striving to realize its founding principles". Today, the exact founding principles of our nation are still unclear and arguable. It could be possible that all proposed ideas are right in a way, but some are simply more "right" than other. As a nation, we are still progressing and reforming our society today for the common good of the people. For example, our initial definition of "equality" during the nation's founding was very weak. As a result, for decades, women, slaves, and other minorities were neglected and ignored when they should have been guaranteed the rights any other man was given. Over the years, equality has been improved and built upon and is still reforming even today. America is currently trying to shrink the gap between the rich and poor not only to reduce the number of people living in poverty, but to also put the two classes of people on closer levels. America's original founding principles were never perfect. This the very reason why the Constitution has been lengthened with several amendments over the years. 

Today's debate wasn't bad for a first try. For a small debate with only five people who all had no idea of what to expect, it could have been much worse. Of course, the debate was a bit shaky. There were a couple of times when I wasn't exactly quite sure of what was being discussed since the questions and arguments were a bit hard to follow. Of course, this can be avoided by asking simplified questions that save time explaining. Every discussion will always have its awkward breaks and mutual silences from time to time. In order to keep the discussion moving, I need to learn how to naturally fill in these awkward spaces by feeling free to speak what is on my mind. One big inner flaw that people have is pride. While pride has its benefits by boosting our self-confidence and pleasure of fulfillment, it can hurt at the same time. No one likes to be wrong. In these debates, I need to learn to admit that I can be wrong, especially a lot of the time.