Pennsylvania Essay Reflection

Blog Reflection

1) Group Interaction

For group interaction for our essay, it is my opinion that our group interacted very poorly together. We didn't have any really good solid interaction that was productive for the essay and consequently, it reflected very greatly on the essay that we produced. This was because of several factors. One of them would be that some members of the wiki group would choose to be absent on crucial days and therefore we could not interact as a group because one or more group members were missing. Another reason would be a lack of focus on the part of group members, being them being distracted with things that were not work related or not focusing on the big picture of what we needed to be doing, therefore the group could not function. Group members were sometimes belligerent and would not listen to other group members, criticizing them personally. Other times group members would be counter-productive by distracting other group members and showed a general lack of concern about the essay. Communication was extremely difficult because some group members seemed to not care at all about the essay or working on it, while other frustrated group members tried to engage the other members in the work. The result was that some group members did very little work, while others struggled greatly to pick up the rest of the work and it resulted in a poor essay because of it.

2) Use of Contract

Using our contract was difficult for our essay, mainly because there seemed to be a lack of respect for the contract itself. Our contract is short, but very specific and outlines that each group member is supposed to be working equally on the assignments and that each group member that fails to complete an equal amount of work or is absent from class without a legitimate reason, will have their grade on their assignment suffer as a result, and only their grade on the assignment. However, some group members felt that they did not have to do equal work, leaving a very unbalanced amount of work distribution. When threatened at desperate measures of failing the assignment because these group members had failed to do any work for the assignment, there still was a lack of concern about the essay, resulting in, again, a poor essay.

3) Use of Wiki

I am not so sure that the wiki was used to the full advantage that it should have been by all group members. I felt that while there was an ample amount of research that was done, because members that had looked through that research and annotated it and were the ones that were supposed to be knowledgeable on certain topics failed to contribute sufficiently to the essay, the research was then not applied to the actual essay. So, while some group members did focus and research and annotate quite a few sources, because those same group members failed to help apply that information to the essay, it was lost because those group members did not do their part for the essay. Overall, I would say that use of wiki would be graded a four out of ten, because of the above and aforesaid reasons.

4) Individual Progress

For my own individual progress, it is a very touchy subject to address. Because I spent most of my time working on the essay alone and trying but failing to communicate with other group members, it was a very frustrating experience overall. It also would not be one that applied much of what I've learned in arts of democracy, mainly because there was not conflict resolution: despite my several attempts to communicate with other group members, nothing happened. So, individually, I did most of the work on the essay that we did. However, because I was working alone and I also spent so much of my time in class trying to communicate with group members and get them to do work as well, I would say that I in no way was able to do as great of a job on the essay that I could have, had I not had to deal with my group members or if my group members had done an equal amount of work. So, honestly, I felt that overall, because there was a lack of voices coming across in the essay and a group dynamic that clearly didn't work, our final result was a reflection on that generalness I have above mentioned.

Essay; Final Draft

We, the representatives of the Pennsylvania House, have agreed upon the ratification of the New Constitution for the United States, which we are and are writing this to express our support for this document and to advocate the ratification for this document. We made the decision to support and ratify this New Constitution based upon the complications associated with the Articles of Confederation and it is our belief that the New Constitution is the proper document of which to base our government. We have come to the realization that the Articles of Confederation are a defective way of setting up our government and it is absolutely necessary and imperative that we call for a change in our government. It is additionally our firm belief that that will not only best be seen in the New Constitution, but only seen in the New Constitution, that the Articles of Confederation is a document beyond revision and it must be retired from our eyes. Under the Articles of Confederation, our federal government failed to be able to unify and gain support from individual states. Our federal government of Congress under such a document is unable to provide for the defense of our nation and unable to collect money from state treasuries for the federal government, therefore we must realize that a change is necessary and we are in favor of this change.

We have made the decision to support the New Constitution because it is our firm belief that the system of a confederation of states as well as a strong federal government to preside over them is the most desirable way of forming our government. The New Constitution allows for a federal government which is strong enough to serve the needs of the people. We must realize that our government is flawed and under such a separated institution of our states cannot continue if we are to be one people. We as Pennsylvanians have come forward to announce that we are members of a larger union of Americans and that we support a government which ties and unifies us all together. Under the New Constitution we will be strong as one body of many voices, many voices that will be represented equally, no matter which state they represent. The New Constitution supports a unity which is absolutely necessary to our new country. Do we wish to continue with a struggling economy? Our friends in New York must understand this above us all, with the crises that have occurred with Shay’s Rebellion. We cannot repay our war debts if we do not come collectively to improve our economy. We cannot suppose that any of our fellow states wish to continue with our struggling economy, therefore we appeal to those states, that under our New Constitution we can have the political support in which to have an economy which can properly support us.




Why is this constitution so ideal? It allows for the equal representation among our states, with a complex Congressional system of a House and a Senate. In the House of Representatives, each state will have representation according to their population. In the Senate, each state will have equal representation regardless of population. This legislative system is complex, effective and ideal for our nation of differing populations in our states. It is a government that is neither to be feared by a state of small population or of large, but one which both can coexist together. Coexisting, we might say, is perhaps the most ideal aspect of the New Constitution. For it allows for the coexisting of the federal and state government as well. It allows for a constantly evolving system of government, with the ability to add amendments to it as we as people find necessary. It is a document which is both concrete, but also fluid, as according to our needs as a people.




It is in our hearts to fear a strong central government, as that is what we have endured against in our struggle for freedom from the King of England. However, we must see past this fear and realize as a collective body our need for strength and unification for our states as it is in our best interest. We are not losing our rights or our freedoms as states, we are allowing for unification and strength as a collective body of unified but separate bodies. A central government is necessary for strength and without strength we cannot defend ourselves. Can we afford to be powerless to our enemies that may take advantage of our country? We must remember that we no longer are under the protection of the British army, that we are dependent upon ourselves for strength. Can we defend our democratic nation without a strong federal government that can protect and defend ourselves? We must remember that it is imperative as people that we are able to defend ourselves against any threat to our country. Without defense there is no nation, a nation without defense will not stay a nation long. This is why it is imperative that we make the decision to be strong and why we are supporting strength and why we are asking you to support and ratify this New Constitution.




We have heard it argued that the New Constitution is a document which will strip the states of their rights as individuals. However, this claim shows a lack of understanding of the New Constitution and the complexity which dictates it. The New Constitution is not a document that takes away the rights of the states, but rather a document which so intricately and completely protects their rights that it is both impossible and unconceivable that under this document that the rights of the states could be taken away. The New Constitution presents a government of checks and balances, that it is constantly checking itself and ensuring that the government is not becoming an instrument of power which takes away the rights of the individual states. Instead, it is a strong federal government which is in fact the sovereign of the rights of the states, not a power force which will inhibit us from our rights. A joint government between the states and the federal government is the most ideal authority that we can aspire to. This idea of a “compound-republic” of cooperation between the states and the federal government is one that we have tweaked and found middle ground. It is one that allows both for strength as a federal government and rights as individual states. We cannot believe that the New Constitution supports a tyrannical government! It is far from it; it supports a government of helping hands, a government of perfect unity between federal and state government, a union which is equally beneficial and munificent to both, a union which is imperative, necessary and perfect for our United States of America. In our time of need let us join together so that we may stand our ground and flourish as a nation, our nation, The United States of America!

Pennsylvania Federalist Essay Rough Draft

Support for Federalism

We, the representatives of the Pennsylvania House, have agreed upon the ratification of the New Constitution for the United States, which we are and are writing this to express our support for this document and to advocate the ratification for this document. We made the decision to support and ratify this New Constitution based upon the complications associated with the Articles of Confederation and it is our belief that the New Constitution is the proper document off which to base our government. We have come to the realization that the Articles of Confederation are a defective way of setting up our government and it is absolutely necessary and imperative that we call for a change in our government. It is additionally our firm belief that that will not only best be seen in the New Constitution, but only seen in the New Constitution, that the Articles of Confederation is a document beyond revision and it must be retired from our eyes. Under the Articles of Confederation, our federal government failed to be able to unify and gain support from individual states. Our federal government of Congress under such a document is unable to provide for the defense of our nation and unable to collect money from state treasuries for the federal government, therefore we must realize that a change is necessary and we are in favor of this change.

We have made the decision to support the New Constitution because it is our firm belief that the system of a confederation of states as well as a strong federal government to preside over them is the most desirable and unequal way of forming our government. The New Constitution allows for a federal government which is strong enough to serve the needs of the people. We must realize that our government is flawed and under such a separated institution of our states cannot continue if we are to be one people. We as Pennsylvanians have come forward to announce that we are members of a larger union of Americans and that we support a government which ties and unifies us all together. Under the New Constitution we will be strong as one body of many voices, many voices that will be represented equally, no matter which state they represent. The New Constitution supports a unity which is absolutely necessary to our new country. Do we wish to continue with a struggling economy? Our friends in New York must understand this above us all, with the crises that have occurred with Shay’s Rebellion. We cannot repay our war debts if we do not come collectively to improve our economy. We cannot suppose that any of our fellow states wish to continue with our struggling economy, therefore we appeal to you, that under our New Constitution we can have the political support in which to have an economy which can properly support ourselves.

Why is this constitution so ideal? It allows for the equal representation among our states, with a complex Congressional system of a House and a Senate. In the House of Representatives, each state will have representation according to their population. In the Senate, each state will have equal representation regardless of population. This legislative system is complex, effective and ideal for our nation of differing populations in our states. It is a government that is neither to be feared by a state of small population or of large, but one which both can coexist together. Coexisting, we might say, is perhaps the most ideal aspect of the New Constitution. For it allows for the coexisting of the federal and state government as well. It allows for a constantly evolving system of government, with the ability to add amendment to it as we as people find necessary. It is a document which is both concrete, but also fluid, as according to our needs as a people.

It is in our hearts to fear a strong central government, as that is what we have endured against in our struggle for freedom from the King of England. However, we must see past this fear and realize as a collective body our need for strength and unification for our states as it is in our best interest. We are not losing our rights or our freedoms as states, we are allowing for unification and strength as a collective body of unified but separate bodies. A central government is necessary for strength and without strength we cannot defend ourselves. Can we afford to be powerless to our enemies that may take advantage of our country? We must remember that we no longer are under the protection of the British army, that we are dependent upon ourselves for strength. Can we defend our democratic nation without a strong federal government that can protect and defend ourselves? We must remember that it is imperative as people that we are able to defend ourselves against any threat to our country. Without defense there is no nation, a nation without defense will not stay a nation long. This is why it is imperative that we make the decision to be strong and why we are supporting strength and why we are asking you to support and ratify this New Constitution.

We have heard it argued that the New Constitution is a document which will strip the states of their rights as individuals. However, this claim shows a lack of understanding the New Constitution and the complexity which dictates it. The New Constitution is not a document that takes away the rights of the states, but rather a document which so intricately and complexly protects their rights that it is both impossible and unconceivable that under this document that he rights of the states could be taken away. The New Constitution presents a government of checks and balances, one that is so intricately webbed that it is constantly checking itself and ensuring that the government is not becoming an instrument of power which takes away the rights of the individual states. Instead, it is a strong federal government which is in fact the sovereign of the rights of the states, not a power force which will inhibit us from our rights. A joint-government between states and federal is the most ideal that we can aspire to. This idea of a “compound-republic” of cooperation between the states and the federal government is one that we have tweaked and compromised. It is one that allows both for strength as a federal government and rights as individual states. We cannot believe that the New Constitution supports a tyrannical government! It is far from it; it supports a government of helping hands, a government of perfect unity between federal and state government, a union which is equally beneficial and munificent to both, a union which is imperative, necessary and perfect for our United States of America.

AOD Blog

hello.

AOD Blog

hello.

Essay Number Two Reflection Post

1) Your General Progress

I am not so sure that I progressed really while working on this assignment in general terms. The idea of the word progress is that at the end of the assignment that my writing and/or writing style had changed a lot since before I worked on the assignment. So, I honestly don't really know that I progressed so much with this assignment. I know that I'm supposed to be writing all these ways in which I progressed, but to be honest if I were to do that I would just be making it up, so I'm just going to be honest and say that I didn't really progress and if I did I don't really know how I progressed.

2) How did your process mesh with your partner's?

My process meshed fine with my partner's. We sort of worked independently on our own parts of the assignment without too much of our processes crossing paths so I think that all in all they meshed well. I personally work best independently, so since my process is an independent process, I would say that it meshed perfectly with my partner's. My partner and I shared the workload of the assignment and I felt that it was easy working with my partner because we were able to work together, holding each other's weight because we were equally willing to put effort into the assignment in order to do well. If I were to assess what my grade on this assignment would be, I felt that I followed the rubric for the assignment really well and that I worked hard. If I were to assess my partner's grade, I would say that she worked really hard on the assignment as well in order to follow the rubric and to earn a good grade. So, I would say that both of us worked hard and we deserved to get the good grade we earned.

3) How do you handle creative conflict?
If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?

My partner and I didn't really have any creative conflict together. Our collaboration worked because we were able to agree together on what our project was going to look like and after we agreed on it once, we just did the assignment and so there really wasn't any reason for there to be creative conflict. Our collaboration worked because we really didn't have any conflicting opinions on how the paper should look. We were able to listen to each other's ideas and decide what we wanted to do from there. It wasn't as though either of us deliberately went out of our way to disagree with the other person.

AOD Blog

hello

PORTFOLIO: 2ND ESSAY

A Petition to the Hearts and Minds of the People of Massachusetts

Dear Friends, it has come to my concern the nature and state of our colony. The recent events which have plagued us cannot be disguised under any mask that causes them to appear less dangerous. We must guard our colony, guard our thoughts, lest they soon become a hook in our sides. For those among us who have openly shown their beliefs in their actions, we must now as a body realizes the grievances we have committed. It is my firm belief that it is our utmost duty to remain loyal to our King and to England, for only with this can we as a people survive.

It is foolish to believe that our actions of rebellion are not treason against our king. We have tricked ourselves into believing that our actions have not crossed the line of open treason against our sovereign. We have, in our complaints, not only come against the British parliament, as we have supposed in our cries, but against the King himself. For our King is the guardian of Parliament and to commit crimes against parliament are to commit crimes against our King. I tell you, my friends that this is the most dangerous mistake that we can make, is to not realize the consequences and weight of our thoughts or our actions. Our actions are treason. Are we or are we not British? A house cannot stand divided; if we are as colonists, members of the British Empire, then it is our duty to act as members of the British Empire. And if we are in fact, members of the British Empire, then we are subject to the jurisdiction of this empire.

If we as colonists demand protection from our sovereign, we then also owe to our sovereign tribute. We cannot be quick to forget the sacrifices that our sovereign bore in order to protect us from our enemies. The burden that our sovereign took for us in our struggle was one that we as colonists have the right to demand from our protector. But, if we have this right, then so our protector has the right to demand tribute for their sacrifice. With the stamp act that was imposed against us as colonists was enacted for the British Empire to gain revenue for the loss they felt during the seven years war. Through our continuance of bickering over our rights for legislation, we have forgotten our duty that we have towards our protector. We have continued to argue our right for representation and forget so clearly the very nature of our situation. For a whole body of ocean rests between our colony and England, thus can we argue so for representation when nature so clearly has prevented this?

Finally, I must request of you, my friends, that we must remain steadfast to our mother country. We cannot forget our duty as Englishmen to our King and we must realize that our actions are leading us to treason against our sovereign. We cannot forget that our King was chosen by God and we must remain loyal to our country and to our King. I entreat ye, my fellow countrymen, let us not forget our place as Englishmen, let us not be taken away with these sweep of rebellious treason against our King, but let us remember who we are.

James Lewis

AOD Blog

There is a particular episode of the "The Office" called "Conflict Resolution" which I think would be a perfect example of all of the things that you are not supposed to do when it comes to mediating conflicts between other people. The general background to the episode is that it is a typical office where employees will have complaints about their fellow co-workers that they will submit to their HR representative. When the boss, Michael Scott, who, although is a very caring person, is also very immature and injudicious individual, decides to solve his employee's conflicts, it ends up to be a negotiation nightmare.

One of the main conflicts that he "negotiates", while it would be an excellent example of creative conflict, it unfortunately satisfies neither of the two parties. The two fueding parties, both accountants, Oscar and Angela, are arguing over a poser Angela has on the wall that Oscar dislikes seeing. In order to achieve a perfect, "win-win-win" solution (a solution where both parties and the mediator win), Michael suggests that Angela make the poster into a t-shirt that Oscar wears. While this is a very creative solution to the problem, perhaps a better one than the secretary Pam's idea of a compromise of having it up Tuesdays and Thursdays, it really didn't satisfy Oscar or Angela.

Continuing with his quest, the boss Michael, furthur stirs up controversy when he forces additional fueding parties to meet with each other to "resolve" their conflicts. The problem would this would be that neither party had come willing to meet with each other and therefore were not ready to meet, nor were they coming with a willing heart to compromise to find a solution. The end of the day resulted in several employees mad at each other because controversy had been stirred up without a proper plan of action for a resolution. So, basically, I think that this would all be an excellent example of what not to do when it comes to mediating a conflict between a group of other people.

Long Live the King II

Today:

1. I researched several different prominent loyalist writers during the American Revolution and found letters and articles that they had written concerning their opinion.
2. I researched general information articles concerning loyalists during the American Revolution to help develop my character.
3. I began formulating the style and approach of which to have for the newspaper that we are going to write.

Revisions:

1. Unsure about my character choice and no longer think that I want to do a merchant, but would prefer to have a laywerish character instead. I think that it would be better suited both for the argument that I have began formulating and also for the style of the paper that we are going to be writing, so I am revising which type of character I am going to be doing.
   

For Tomorrow:

1. I will begin working on my annotations and evaluating the sources that I have already found as well as finding more sources. Starting tomorrow and over the weekend I will begin working on how I want to structure my argument and what my argument will be and how that will fit my character.
2. I also will be working on my character just to formulate who the character is, where they are coming from, ect. other than just their occupation.