Inherit the Wind

The phrase "Inherit the Wind" is a part of the Book of Proverbs. After researching the Book of Proverbs I found out that, "This Book is so called, because it consists of wise and weighty sentences: regulating the morals of men: and directing them to wisdom and virtue. And these sentences are also called PARABLES, because great truths are often couched in them under certain figures and similitudes" ( http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/proverbs.htm). The Proverb which contains, "Inherit the Wind" comes from Proverb 11:29 which reads: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."

Reference to the Book of Proverbs appears in Act Two Scene One. Reverend Brown holds a prayer meeting in which he displays a firm disbelief in the actions of Bertram Cates. When giving this sermon Brown says, "O Lord of the Tempest and the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner, as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharaohs! Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his sould writhe in anguish and damnation--" (Inherit the Wind, 66). His daughter who is friends with Cates chimes in pleading her father not to pray to destroy Cates. Brown answers back by calling down the same curse on Rachel for asking for the grace of Cates. Brady stands up now and says, "Reverend Brown, I know it is the great zeal of your faith which makes you utter this prayer! But it is possible to be overzealous, to destroy that which you hope to save--so that nothing is left but emptiness. Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs-- "He that troubleth his own house...shall inherit the wind." The Bible also tells us that God forgives His Children. And we, the Children of God should forgive each other" (Inherit the Wind, 66-67).

He is trying to warn Brown that his harsh words against Cates and creating problems within his own family could come back in the end leaving him with consequences and ultimately nothing at all. This is true in Act Three when Reverend Brown's daughter Rachel leaves him for Cates. Brady dies while giving a victory speech. Creating problems in this book left characters with nothing; they were left fools to Cates wisdom and heart.

Left and Right Ends of Political Spectrum

On the first test, Political Quiz Show, I scored (-4.75, -2.72). Economically I am left and socially I am Libertarian. I most closely related with Gandhi who believed in the supreme power of the individual. Gandhi believed heavily in peaceful civil disobedience and a struggle towards civil rights (Wikipedia). I believe that people have the right to marry whom ever they choose, have an abortion, and make another other choice as long as it doesn't disrupt the civil rights of others. As the time changes and the years pass by, more and more new ideas and technology are expressed throughout society. Our government and country need to keep up with the of the rest of the world by allowing new ideas, new laws, and new customes under the Constitution. Providing more funding for stem cell research and alternative resources for oil help us expand into the present time.

On the Political Quiz Show my score was a nine. Most closely related with Hillary Clinton and very Liberal. Hillary Clinton, being very Liberal, is pro-choice. She is on the left side of the political spectrum. On the last quiz I scored a 39 with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. I scored the highest with Dennis Kucinich, a score of 47. The issues we disagreed on were Iraq and social security, which I don't have much of an opinion on anyways considering I don't know enough about each issue. Next in line was Chris Dodd, a score of 42. We disagree on Iraq, social security and immigration. Out of my top five on this quiz they were all Democrats. In my top ten there were only two Republican Candidates. I agreed with candidates on issues involving choice, freedom, and civil rights. Issues such as; universal health care plan, provide funding for stem cell research, legalizing abortion, opposition to a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as something only between a man and a woman and opposition to the death penalty.

Overall I can say that I do agree more with the left side of the political spectrum. However, I am not a complete Liberal; there are some things I agree more with the conservative right side. I agree with the left side; the government should provide equal opportunities when it comes to services because it will help the average and poor. I agree with the right side and the idea that people make choices; some choose to become doctors and lawyers while others don't graduate high school and work a minimum wage job. It doesn't seem fair to tax the wealthy more in all cases such as the one I just mentioned and it should be a choice whether or not the wealthy give away money to help these people. I agree with the left side; the government should protect political rights but they should not intervene to the point where they infringe on civil rights. I disagree with the status quo on the right side of the political spectrum. There are no preferred values and the government has no place in exposing and using these values as a standard for the country. The government should act as a catalyst for change; time changes why don't we move with it.

Agreeing with both sides of the spectrum showed in another quiz where I scored as a Centrist. The results had said that Centrists try to keep an open mind and hold a middle ground on most issues. Sometimes they favor government intervention and other times they favor individual freedoms. They also tend to go with a "practical" solution rather than taking the side on a political extreme.

Victimless Crimes

In the movie we viewed Friday we were exposed to different victimless crimes. These crimes don't always effect other people or involve other people but laws are simply put into place to make people behave better, act more civilized to form a healthier society. Some people argue that we hold the free right to do whatever we want to our own bodies. There are also those who feel the need to protect innocent people from living in fear because their streets are unsafe.

When discussing the issue with marijuana and other drugs the movie had made the point that making drugs illegal causes more violence. The drugs are scarce causing people to pay high prices which leads to violence when money isn't handled correctly. If drugs were legal there wouldn't need to be drug dealers and the alley attacks. However, legalizing substances that lead to health problems does not protect our citizens which is something the Government is supposed to enforce.

Another issue was prostitution. Should it be legal for a women to sell her body. This is another debate topic. Prostitution isn't considered moral; it goes against God and religion but should religion have a place in Government and stand as a reason of forbidding something. Isn't it a choice what a woman wants to do with her body. A lady on the film was talking about how it was just her job then she added "I don't think people would scrub toilets for a living" continued by saying because you think people wouldn't do something doesn't mean it should be considered a crime. However there are safety issues that go along with prostitution such as spreading diseases like HIV.

One last topic was the right to die with dignity. Giving people the privilege to demand a doctor to let you die or give you medications when your ready to die. Some people don't want a slow painful death, or to grow to an age where they don't remember their own family; they wish to die with dignity. Should they be allowed medications to speed the dying process. What if a person is not in the right state of mind or capable of making a decision like that. This seems like assisted suicide and the person is abandoning family but do people have the right to do whatever they want when it's their body?

All of these victimless crimes seem debatable. The questions remains; should freedom and free rights come before causing harm to ones own body or hurting the image of the society in which we live?

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

The battle involving Evolution and Intelligent Design is long from crowning a victory. There are arguments and different ideas about how things should be taught causing a difficult time when choosing a side. I am not very religious myself; my family doesn't attend church on a regular basis and I've yet to have been baptized. However, I do believe in God.

Although I believe in God I do not believe Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes. Science classes inform students on the facts. A different class might be able to teach Intelligent Design without teaching religion in the classroom but as Joseph Conn, Spokesman for Americans United for separation of Church and State said, "The bottom line is that schools can't teach religion as science, no matter how it's disguised" (78).

Even one of America's founding documents, "The Constitution prohibits the states from endorsing or promoting a religious view" (76). Intelligent Design is a religious view therefore schools under the state laws should not be allowed to promote Intelligent Design in the classroom. In the Epperson v. Arkansas case a point was made that if the teaching of evolution was removed from education policy it would be unconstitutional (77). In order to try and satisfy both sides as well as remain true to the Constitution, teachers should have the constitutional right to be allowed to educate or inform their classroom of Intelligent Design as long as it is not a Science class. Science classes should be allowed to educate students on evolution by supplying both evidence for and against it and the proven facts. Gerry Wheeler a nuclear physicist said, "It's an emotional topic. If we have any ounce of spirituality in us, these are high-stakes questions and we have to honor everybody on the spectrum of the debate" (76). This is very true; many people have strong religious beliefs or believe heavily in the facts. It's important to respect every ones beliefs and understand the importance of each side.

Promote Democracy Abroad?

I agree with Joseph Siegle's ideas in "Developing Democracy: Democratizers' Surprisingly Bright Development Record." However, Tamara Cofman Wittes had good points about U.S. involvement with the regimes in Iraq and the war. In his essay Josephy Siegle pointed out that more than two-thirds of the countries in the world rule democratically in some form. He also stated how democratic countries are more likely to have political and economic ties which increases peace and stability. He left no doubt that a democracy is the best thing for a country with his explanation of "life expectancy, illiteracy, and access to clean drinking water" (42). A good point made was "that while established democracies are less prone to engage in risky behavior, states undergoing the process of democratization are more prone than others to do so" (41). This can relate to the situation in Iraq with the whole war causing a lot of controversy allowing more room for engagement in risky behavior. If we are over in Iraq we need to hold our ground and make enforcements. Re-direct the money from rewarding Arab governments for limited reform to establishing accountability institutions. Joseph Siegle stated in his essay: "the transition to democracy is difficult and likely to fail in the Middle East unless the United States dedicates itself to creating the institutions necessary to make it work over the long haul" (41). This is where Tamara Wittes and Joseph seem to agree. Some of the institutions were pointed out in Joseph's essay when he said, "...internal efforts should focus on enhancing the capacity of deomcratizing countries' institutions of accountability: strengthening the caliber of the civil service, the judiciary, the oversight of the executive branch, and the autonomy of the private sector from political in fluences" (49).

We have been involved in the war in Iraq too long to quit now. We have to fufill our goal in order to feel accomplished. If we left now I believe we would be leaving Iraq in a much worse state than when the war started. Tamara said, "America cannot promote democracy in the Arab world unless its strategy is credible. That requires staying the course in Iraq" (56).