Teds speech put many different ideas into my head, some contradicting each other. 

He spoke on first on technology, and how sometimes it seems that only negative things come from it, how there is always some out there who is there to argue and make things much more difficult.

Later on in his speech he talked about github, a website in which some Senators a state allow people to see the bills that they sponsor and so it gave people a chance to see what their leaders were up to. 

I think that technology can be a great thing, or it can lead to complete destruction. Have you ever heard the saying, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'? Well this speech helped me understand that quote much more than I ever did before. It means that something can be great in the eyes of person looking at it. I think that technology definitely falls under this quote because it could really benefit every one, but only if the user decides to use it in that way.

Certain programs could really improve our country, like a website in which people could actually make the laws that we, the people, have to follow. It could make our government an actual democracy, because people would be able to submit whatever they feel fit, and no one would take that right away from them. 

With technological advances being made, it opens up many different doors for people and for groups of people. 

This could be the start of people really working together and taking charge of our government like they should, and changing the way our country, or bigger yet - our world - works. People would finally be able to stand together and decide what laws would be best for everyone. And not just specific people, the great thing about this program would be that anyone would have a say. 

This doesn't mean that any idea for a law thrown out there would become official, but it when good ideas for laws were placed out, they could have an actual shot for becoming official. 

Technology can help people to work together and take charge because they don't all have to be in the saemme place, so this way more people from more place can work together and really take charge of an issue in which they are bothered by. Working together like this can totally change our world, think with out team work we probably wouldn't have all the great things that we have today in our world.

Taking charge is a huge process in reaching success, because that is where it all starts and so it is an important step to be taken. When taking charge, the more people the merrier, because it spreads the weight of the task evenly and it can make it much easier for people to handle.

I think that technology and social medias are really benfitting the idea of working together and taking charge because it has gave more oppurtunities to people who might not have had them before.

With technology and the internet and social medias and everything else that comes with technology could, and will be, very beneficial for our country and making it the place that it is supposed to be.

The Twilight Zone episode that I watched yesterday was titled "The Obsolete Man", obsolete means no longer important, or the use of the object is no longer needed. In the episode it was about a man whom was a librarian, and the state was trying him for being obsolete, because books were not a good thing to the state, they were useless; Therefore making the librarian useless.

The state is working together to change the world, but not in a positive way. They are trying to dictate what the people in the country think and how they feel. They are trying to brain wash them into believing all the things the state says are true and books and things like that are wrong. 

In the Twilight Zone the librarian chose how he would die, where he would die, and asked for an audience. With that he chose to have his death be by a bomb, in his room, with the cameras on him, recording. I think that he did this because he planned to teach people a lesson.

The state recorded the librarians death because they like to work together are use scare tactics to keep people from revolting against them, and to make sure people realize that that could happen to them if they choose to do something wrong. 

Later in the night, when the time is close to the time the librarian will die, he invites Chancellor over to his room to talk with him, but actually he locked him in the room with himself. In this way he put Chancellor in the shoes of the himself and made him realize what it was like to be killed and the courage he had and the things he had to say before his death. Don't forget all of this was being recorded for the whole population to watch.

Seconds before the bomb goes off, the librarian lets him out of the room. 

Chancellor is removed from his position, and the man who replaced him declares he is now obsolete. 

This Twilight Zone episode goes to show that just being people are working together, it may not always be for the best. But sometimes taking charge, like the librarian, can make the most difference.

When the president of the United States is elected, he is given many powers. A few of those powers are not commonly known among Americans, such as the president has the power called 'signing statements'.
Which is when the president can say whether a bill is good or whether it needs more work, it is all up to him and what he feels is right. Some people may agree with this privilege he gets, because is voted president for a reason, and that is a powerful position. Others disagree with this statement because of how often they can use this power, when they can use this power, and the fact that the president does not have to have much reason behind why he is doing a signing statement. 

In the article "Read the Fine Print" is speaks on the presidency of George W. Bush, whom used his power of signing statements quite frequently. When the article speaks on President Bush using the power it is said that he used is as "part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts." ('Read the Fine Print' NY Times p. 1). I believe that the article is titled the way it is, because whatever the president writes is how it goes. If he messes up, its  still a done deal. This aggravates Americans, because why should one person determine whether a bill is fit for the country or not. What if his opinion isn't right? What if the bill has a loop hole and creates problems? 


The government likes to tell people only what they feel fit, meaning that they don't necessarily tell us every little detail of the things that they do.   They share only the information that are required to share, so not many people know of all the small details of the powers the each political person holds. With that, not a lot of citizens realize what the president can do, like vetoing a bill just because he doesn't think it sounds appealing or because that's not how he wants it to be. The fact that one person has this power over our country can be a little scary to think about. What if he becomes power hungry? What if he is feeling selfish and only see what is fit for him?


Signing statement is a very independent power that the president holds, because it requires no one but himself. He doesn't need team work or any one to help him. So when the president acts on this power, he is using zero team work and is taking charge in a way that may not always be beneficial to our country or even our world. 
When writing up a bill, it takes a lot of team work from the congress. There is a long process and debate over what should be in it, what should be said, and how it should be said. Which is good, because it is taking the opinions of a mass amount of people, but when it  comes to signing statements the president can veto the bill as fast as they congress can say the word 'bill'. Which seems a little bit unfair if you ask me. 

In the article "A Slip of the Pen" it speaks on exactly that. The fairness of the power. How can one person determine what is right? In the article it is said that this is "the threat to our Republic..," (NY Time p. 1). This is a very true statement, because of the fact that this could be their way of taking away the rights of the people and forming a dictatorship, in a sense, because of all the power that the president contains, who is to say that that isn't dictating the way the governement works?