Masslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Q1) How does Masslow compare to Aristotle? How does the self actualized person in Masslow compare to a person who is living a good life in Arisotle?
Q2) Can you obtain it by buying a product?
Q3) Should you try to sell a product by implying that you can obtain this?

1) I think they are very similiar, mainly in one aspect. They both have at the end two forms of the pyramid and his discussion - happiness - In Masslow this is Self Actulization and Aristotle is Achieving Happiness. They both feel happiness is the end result, so I do think they are similair.

2) No, you can't. I know some very rich people, and they have anything they could ever want, they claim they are happy, but deep down I don't really think they are. This goes for stars, actors, athletes, anything...sometime this fame dies down, they retire or fizzle out...then what? You can buy anything, however, that doesn't mean you are going to be happy in the end. No one product is going to make someone truly happy. This is something I believe. Yes, I want to work has hard as I can to make as much money as I can, so I can buy myself "toys" and provide for my future family and to spoil them, but I also want to become truly happy with where I am at, who I am with, and what I do...and I do not think one or multiple products is going to do this for me.

3) Yes and no. Yes, for the reasons of making money, making yourself look better (if you are a sales person or trying to get a promotion, etc), landing a client. No, if you are a moral person or group of people, you shouldn't play on people's emotions at this level by saying, "hey, this product will give you true happiness, you won't need anything else other than this," because no one product or group of products can do this. However, people probably think the products can, espcially if they have money. However, it all comes down to the end of the day if you can ask yourself if you are truly happy or not.

Obama Plagerism Thoughts

The facts are Obama's opponents are trying to say he is stealing ideas of people, because he used a governor's speech, even though it was his friend, and I would assume he said it was alright. In the end, he did give credit to the speech, and so therefore, no plagerism. But just like the photo, Hillary is trying to discredit Obama and make him look like he is something that he is not. The ethical principles I would say this is more on the side of Hillary, because her side is more or less tattling and making things up (in the case of the photo), trying to do anything to stop Obama, which now looks like isn't going to happen. It is more wrong for her to accuse him of plagerism, because she is playing dirty and in desperation mode.

3 Question Survey

What’s the clearest point? Pretty much the name of the case Row v. Wade (example), it just shows exactly who is being prosecuted and who is defending themselves.

What’s the most confusing point? Sometimes finding the heart of the subject in a case, just kind of hard because there is so much legal wording in a document or brief.
Anything three things that I want to learn in this semester.
1) More about basic law when it comes to the media – can and can’t do.
2) Theories behind law
3) Maybe some more history on how we got to were we are at.

Two Other Cases

b. Whitney v. California.
Facts of the case - "decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society...Anita Whitney, a member of a distinguished California family, was convicted under the state's 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state charged was devoted to teaching the violent overthrow of government. Whitney claimed that it had not been her intention, nor that of other organizers, that the party become an instrument of violence." (Wikipedia).
Issue of Law - The conviction was upheld.
Quote - "Men feared witches and burnt women." p86


c. Near v. Minnesota.
Facts of the case -"was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press from prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment)." (Wikipedia).
Issue of Law - The court decided censorship is unconstitutional.
Quote - "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything...and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." p 93.

Seditious Libel comments.

Yes this would provoke the people against the governor and government. This mainly I would think would provoke more of southeren and central Illinois versus Chicago. They support him up here ALOT more than we do down here. However, when it comes to tax dollars, and if the people find out their tax dollars are catering to his flying needs...then I would feel everyone would be a little upset, to say the least. Posting an article would provoke people as well. The supporters would get upset because you are bashing his policy and what he is doing. Also, they would probably say who are the sources and where did you get your information. This would cause a great controversy too, because they would be extremely upset, and figure it was just another "Bush hating" act. I think we could have free and open elections, but keep the negative aspects down or gone completely. Who knows, we may actually have an honest election for once, because there would be no bashing or hating on the other person. Maybe it would be kind of refreshing to see this for once! Just about all the photos would be prosecuted for seditious libel because they make fun of Bush mainly and other politicians.

Skiming and ? Answering

1) 1) What all these have in common is some form of patriotism, protection, and staying true to your country. They also almost have a paranoia feel tied in with some Xenophobia, which is fear of foreigners. All these are meant to umbrella us with a sense of protection, some being a false since like the fries and cabbage, because honestly that was just used to make us supposedly feel better at the time. With freedom fries, people (mainly on the east coast) renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because of France not supporting the war and such. Liberty Cabbage was sauerkraut back in WWI, and people called it Liberty Cabbage because they didn’t want to talk about or acknowledge Germans. The PATRIOT Act was all about terrorism and ,” the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.” (according to Wikipedia.com). The Espionage Act of 1917, “which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.” (according to Wikipedia.com). Finally, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, “claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government.” (Wikipedia.com).

2) 2)Today, and in the past 50 and even 100 years, that act could have gotten just about anyone into trouble. If you think about it, people bash leaders, politicians, presidents, candidates, and just about anything in this area in everyday conversation and with pamplets, in magazines, newspapers (back then and even today) and today on television and the internet. A die hard, right winged conservative is probably not going to have much, if anything, nice to say about a die hard, left winged liberal. Also, people of foreign decent would be targeted. To your American with Middle-Eastern decent. Even if they moved here from that country, like Iraq, they are still a citizen of “over there” and part of the “enemy power.” If one of those people where to speak out against what the U.S. (their own country now), is doing, then they would be in violation of the act. So would anyone who helped them. So today, those people would have to keep quiet and make sure not to throw any leaflets bashing the U.S. in the early hours of the morning...

3) 3) Abrams v. U.S. is the one I picked.

facts of the case – Espionage Act case. Four refugees from the Czarist Russia. 3 = anarchist 1 = socialist. All outraged at Pres. Wilson’s decision to send troops to Russia after Bolshevik Revolution. They through leaflettes in NY at night, urging a general strike to protest what was going on in Russia. Charged with an attempt to harm American prosecution of the war against Germany. P 76.

issue of law – According to the Act, it is breaking that law/act. Clearly with what was written about the Act above, what the four men did was wrong. However, looking at it today, all they really did was yes they did denounce what was going on, but they dropped leaflets and didn’t really harm people. The language of the leaflets, according to the book, is got the crime label. P76.

Quote – Justice Holmes, “I never have seen any reason to doubt…that the questions of law that alone were before this court…were rightfully decided.” p 77.

Due Process and Other Questions

Due Process - I didn't want to just copy and paste this, but try and interpret it and put it in my own words...Due process is the government has to adhere to a person's rights, all of them, and not just one, two, or a few when it comes down to legal business and in the court of law. When it comes down to it, everything must be fair to everyone.

Walter Burgwyn Jones - He was an Alabama court judge and later on a politician. Since he was a judge, I am guessing he was an honest, thinking man. Back then, since he was from the south, he was probably a "southern gentelman" as well. Looking at a few websites about the man, he ran in 1956 for president and receieved only one electorial vote, getting destroyed in the race. He wrote "Citizenship and Voting in Alabama," "Confederate War Poems," "Alabama...Practice of Law." He was the judge in the in the below case. Jones did everything in his power to not allow the African Americans to not have any rights in the case. Jones apparently overruled his own book, which is ironic.

T. Eric Embry - He was a defense lawyer, and a member of the Alabama Supreme court as a judge (justice). Embry, "who as a trial lawyer represented The New York Times in what became the landmark libel case New York Times Company v. Sullivan." (according to query.nytimes.com)

King John would not have approved because the due process system all comes down to fairness, and in this case there was no fairness going on. The climate in Alabama at the time was ignorance and blatant racism, as well as complete unfairness as to how the case was handled.