1. ¿Quién es Rigoberta Menchú?
• RIgoberta Menchú es una activista famosa en Ameríca Latina y pacifista.  Ella es de Guatemala, y había luchando por derechos de la clase media y pobres.  Además Rigoberta es Maya, y luchaba en contra de racismo para los indígenos como ella.  Rigoberta trabaja para informar la pública sobre su cultura, y los problemas los encuentran.  
2. ¿Quién es (el otro pacifista que escogerion)?
• Escogí Martin Luther King, quien luchaba para derechos civil en America entre los blancos y los America-Africanos.
3. ¿Qué tienen en común?
• Los dos luchaba para derechos de una cultura que encontraban violencia y racismo por muchos años.  Escribieron y hablaron al gente sobre los problemas, por informar.  Por eso, hicieron famosos.  
4. ¿Cuáles son unas diferencias entre los dos?
• Rigoberta Mechu era de un mayoria en su pais, pero MLK era del menoria.  MLK estuve assasinado, pero Rigoberta toavia esta luchando.  
5. ¿Por qué crees que no se incluye Menchú en los textos de historia ni en el curriculo?
• Ella no es de. E.E.U.U. o Europa, que están "más importante" en la educación.  

¿Venezuela?

¿Cuándo se tomaron?

mil noveciento noventas

¿Qué pasó en la primera foto?

hay un hospital que me parece destruido.  Es deprimido

¿Qué pasa en la segunda imágen? ¿Quiénes son?

hay resistencia tranquilo, y la militaría respondieron con armas

¿Por qué estaba allí el grupo en la tercera (third) foto? ¿Quiénes son?

Creo que están turistas. 

¿Cómo es la topografía de este país?

Es variedad.  Hay montañas y playas.  

I compared New Zealand and Ireland, two separate and well-to-do nations.  They are both islands, and have english speaking residents, which gives them some similarities even though they are far apart.  

I focused mostly in the research aspect, which brought me to tough place at the end.  I decided to create a google doc to record all the useful information I found, divided by country and "point."  By the time I had enough information, the project was due and I was left with just a google doc and not a website as planned.  Retrospectively, I should have gone straight to the website after each section. If I could change it, I would definitely fix the entire product.  I'm displeased with the result, and wish I had chosen a different process to get there.  

The five point framework in itself was not too complex.  However it was harder to find good information that was more in depth that a general overview of each nation.  One of my difficulties was separating some of the information.  While researching, I found certain pieces that I thought could be part of more than one point in the framework.  Distinguishing them was sometimes tricky, especially with environmental damage and climate change.  Over all, it was not my best benchmark to say the least, but I still learned a lot about Ireland and New Zealand.  

This benchmark turned out to be far more difficult than I originally anticipated.  I didn't realize how hard it would be to find examples, especially negative ones.  When looking for laws, court cases or executive functions, Just typing in "beneficial laws" didn't get so far.  I decided the easiest thing to do was to think of a life situation first, instead of trying to find any random law and make it applicable.  For example: I'd think of something that I wish I didn't have to do or could do, and then find the law that makes it so.  This helped mitigate my struggle a great deal.  

As I said before, this definitely wasn't an easy benchmark.   I wish I had organized myself more carefully.  I should have found all the examples I  wanted to use first, and then done all the paragraphs.  

I definitely think the government will affect my life more as I grow older.  It will happen as I gain independence and become more involved in politics and national interests.  Some laws won't apply after a while, like student education laws, but others apply more with age and work.  

There is nothing quite like bureaucracy.  Every system contains it, we all have to work through it, but most agree that it can often be a pain in the rear.  With a partner, we (American Government class) were all assigned to investigate the processes behind a bureaucratic system with a partner.   My partner, Aimee, and I chose to look into Food-Stamps (also known as SNAPS)

            SNAPS is a national food-assistance program for families who are struggling to provide for themselves.  Families receive a certain amount of benefits each month, based on their calculated need.  In PA, these families then receive an ACCESS card, which can be used to purchase food (excluding certain items like alcohol.)

            The Food-Stamps system doesn’t seem necessarily difficult, but is very complex.  Although it is a nationally based system, a person must apply within a specific State, and complete the required paperwork.  You can do part of the process online, depending on your State.  However, Aimee and I did it by hand because we would have had to actually create an account, and this is strictly academic. 

Instead, we printed out a 24-page application and tried to fill it out.  They consider a lot, and much of the information gets repetitive.  Since SNAPS is often closely tied to other systems like Welfare Benefits, WIC, or unemployment, there are many factors taken into consideration.  You have to provide social security, who you’re applying for, people in your household, income (if any, including job and other resources), expenses per person in house, whether you own a vehicle…etc.  To receive benefits, you have to meet specific income eligibility requirements, which vary depending on who lives with you.  It’s quite tedious.

            The 24-page application was for other benefits, including healthcare.  We soon found a much shorter form for just SNAP benefits, and filled that one out for a (non racially stereotyped) single mother of two. 

            In some way I see why there is so much to consider in application.  They have to consider just about any possible scenario a person can have.  When it comes government money, they don’t want to leave any loopholes.  It’s very specific, but probably needs to be. 

            It was very frustrating trying to figure out how to put all the steps and things to consider into one cohesive “flow” that made sense and didn’t exceed our 60-object free trial on Lucid Chart.  There are probably more specific details that could have been included, but we tried to pick out the most important bits.  I would like to see this professionally done, with every detail, just to grasp the complexity. 

La película "Mar Adentro" se trata de la vida de Ramón Sanperdro, un tetrapléjico que quiso morir. Es una película muy intensa, pero vale la pena. Mar Adentro hace la pregunta, ¿qué hace una vida vale viviendo, y nos tenemos el derecho para morir si nos quisiéramos? Para mi, vida es muy personal, aunque la afecta otras. Creo que sería mejor buscar para los apartes de la vida que son buenos, pero yo respeto la decisión de Ramón. Me frustró que el sistema pudiera la permitir, pero no hizo.  Pero también me enojó que Ramón quiso morir. La situación es muy deprimente, pero es posible que si yo fuera en este situación habría el mismo.

The embed box is inconveniently small, but there are formatting issues either way.  Here is a link to the doc.  

The evolutionary paths concerning vegetarianism seem to be less a matter of biology as they are an issue of cultural ideals.  Physically, humans have the internal organs, systems and other mechanisms for meat consumption.  However, it has become a growing trend in society to opt out.  Some people today choose not to eat meat because they are morally against mass-market animal slaughter.  Others do it because it goes against religious values or simply because they believe it to be a healthier life choice.  However, it’s hard to go back and pinpoint one specific turning point that “began” vegetarianism. 

            Back in the day (talking thousands of years,) people got sustenance through “hunting and gathering.”  This required a fairly nomadic lifestyle, traveling around to wherever the food source went.  By this process, early man spread across the continents.  The food that was eaten was not always about choice, but more about availability.  If meat was scarce, then less was eaten.  However, it is unlikely that people lived a fully vegetarian lifestyle. 

            Many scientific researchers agree that humanity would not have developed as it did without a meat-laden diet.  According to N. A. Barnicot, “It is virtually certain that diet, as a major component of the human environment, must have exerted evolutionary effects, but researchers still have little good evidence.”  Meat and animal products do contain vital proteins and nutrients humans need, especially fats for brain growth.  Many believe that this is the primary reason our brains grew to what they are today.  Scientists have additionally stated that our teeth would not have formed the way they are if humans were not meant to tear through meat. 

Though it is disputed that animal-product nutrients can be found elsewhere, meat is often the “best” source.  According to Dr. Stephen Byrnes, “Vegetarianism and veganism are neither natural nor healthy diets…and it is not primarily meat-eating which is responsible for the spread of cancers and heart disease.” There is cause for concern with vegans, who are often malnourished in essential vitamins and minerals such as B12 and iron.  People need these to survive and develop, and it is usually not recommended for children to be vegan.  Some argue that the same goes for vegetarianism.    

            Whether or not someone believes vegetarianism is the right step, the idea developed in society as a choice.  Once people learned how to farm and grow their own food, they had more options.  As agriculture grew, so did population size, and with it religion.  Today, vegetarianism is still highly connected with religious values, especially in Buddhism, Jainism and devout Hinduism.  According to Daniel Lazare, “Vegetarianism is most fundamentally about the importance of not taking life other than under the most extreme circumstances.”

            This is not to say someone can’t be a perfectly healthy vegetarian.  In fact, Einstein said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."  I just wouldn’t choose it for myself.  The convenience of modern supplements has made it easier to make the switch in a healthier fashion.  However I’d argue that if there suddenly were no more animal products, humanity would be weakened.  Even if I’m wrong and it isn’t evolutionarily disadvantageous to not eat meat, I don’t think it’s advantageous either. 

http://www.diet-and-health.net/Diet/veg_diet.html

http://www.biblelife.org/abrams2.htm

http://www.theecologist.info/page14.html

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Barnicot, N. A. "Human Nutrition: Evolutionary Perspectives." Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science 40.2 (2005): 114-117. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=105&sid=097bc83a-1caf-42ca-ac7c-7ad011a0e422%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aqh&AN=24225923#db=aqh&AN=24225923

LAZARE, DANIEL. "My Beef With Vegetarianism." Nation 284.5 (2007): 25-29. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=105&sid=097bc83a-1caf-42ca-ac7c-7ad011a0e422%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aqh&AN=23749985