Essay #3 Reflections

1) Group interactions

We did pretty well in researching our materials. Though when were planning the outline, I think our group interaction faded. There were some points that our group members disagreed. We argued but we didn't have enough information to back up our argument. The outline then was incomplete but me and another group member brainstormed the outline at the end of the class. I sent emails to the other group members to take a look at the outline in the wiki (and to edit it). When we were doing our rough drafts, we split up paragraphs (from the outline) to write. After the peer reviews, we were adding last minute stuff into the draft. Me and another group member emailed (multiple times) to our group of the corrected essay. Though the other half of our group didn't respond to the emails. Though I got one or two replies by one group member but the email they replied was already old. I guess that the emails I sent is traveling slow?? Since there was no respond to our corrected essay, me and my group member decided to just send the email to Craig and Ben. Me and the other group member kept in touch also with Myspace.

2)Use of contract

According to the contract, I think we did pretty well on distributing work. We split the paragraphs amongst ourselves and had the time to look over on other paragraphs (for transitioning). We did succeed on the completion of the work, but I know that we didn't really laid a hand on the essay during the Thanksgiving break. So we weren't ahead of our work instead the essay became a last minute work. I think that our group members maintained their portion of the work. But the emails I sent, concerned of one paragraph that did not have a hook , wasn't replied or corrected. That work was left to another group member. When we were done correcting the final draft, I sent emails to agree on the finalization of the essay. Only one replied and agreed. It was reaching to midnight and I had no choice but to email the essay (still the other group members didn't agree on the finalization). Attendance wasn't mandatory for us but the work completion matters. When a group member was absent, I emailed them what we did on that day and what they should do for the project.

3)Use of wiki

I noticed that I'm doing a lot of contributions for the wiki. I helped out on the outline. Also, I inserted a notes page where I put the notes from my reading to give a sense of direction of what we'll be writing for the essay. Though I did help on finding sources and annotations, I completely forgot to submit my annotations of the books I used for the paper. I ended up submitting it in the wiki on the last minute. Luckily, I emailed myself the bibliography and the annotations a long time ago.

Final Draft

Vince Coppola
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/28/07 - Hist 121 & Writ 101

Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution

Federalism is the greatest thing that ever happened to this country! Sure some may say this, but it is a huge overstatement. The truth is, anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.

Anti-federalists mainly populated the state of Rhode Island at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island, which contained the rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the Land Ordinance of 1785, where each state boundary extended well beyond the boundaries originally assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay off the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.

How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason for Rhode Island’s refusal to the federalists’ ‘'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island is concerned about giving the federal government too much power (“The Federalist Papers”). Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that it's better for their government to control their state than having all states to be controlled by the central government (Doherty 100). Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism, which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."

An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.

Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a central government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly, “Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.” The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.

For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.

Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.

Sources:
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html

Rough Draft

Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution

The state of Rhode Island was mainly populated by antifederalists at the time of the ratification of the constitution in 1787. A signifigant reason they were opposed the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny much of the rights and power of individual states. Reasons behind this strong dissaproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island which was the manual with rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more effecient. There was also a great deal of concern about the land ordinance of 1785, where each states boundaries extended well beyond the boundaries originly assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay of the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been payed off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.

How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalis Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason in refusing to their 'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island are concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island are content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would be run under a "king".

Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a general government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly,
“Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.”
The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.

For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.

AOD Blog #9 - Building Social Capital

When I thought about what I should write for this blog, I thought of Thanksgiving. On Thanksgiving Day, I forgot to mention about an important conversation I had. I had a conversation with two college students whom were friends of my uncle. One is from University of Washington and the other from Seattle University. The conversation was very helpful for me because they mostly talk about student life in their campuses. They adviced pros and cons on the colleges they go to and the colleges that I'm interested in. Such as Seattle Pacific University. They know that I liked small classes and interaction with students and teachers in college. So one of them said that UW have very large classes and it might not have a close interaction with the teachers; the other, from SU, said that they have small classes. When I mentioned about SPU, one of them (from SU) adviced not to go there because of the students (in the way they behave, present themselves) since she went there on her freshman year. I don't know if that's true, but I will sometime visit the campus.

AOD Blog #8 - Diversity

For Thanksgiving Day, I went to my uncle's house. He invited many of his family and friends over and it was a mixture of American and Filipino. To my uncle's American family and friends, filipino food was kind of new to them. During lunch/dinner, there were many variety of foods from Filipino and American culture. Everyone enjoyed and explored tasting new kinds of food from different cultures.

AOD Blog #7 - Celebration and Appreciation

Last Saturday, I volunteered at Cavanough Pond in Maple Valley with Key Club. We planted trees and tear down blackberry bushes in helping the salmons' environment. This event also included YMCA members. After we were done with our work, YMCA and Key Club gathered and split into groups. I was in a group with students who is in YMCA. In our groups, we played mad libs. We chose words that related to the event and put those in the paragraph provided. After our groups were done, everyone got into a circle and presented our mad libs (we had a great laugh).

Essay #2 Reflection

1)Your progress from essay1 to essay2?

I think I did better in Essay#2. I used my time well and put much effort into this essay. I have researched well and tried to do my best to implement my character's point of view into the essay. Unlike Essay #1, I did not procastinate for the Essay#2! My rough draft was done by Friday including all the work cited sources. In the weekend, I used my time to edit, cut out, add in some 'rap' paragraphs. I did my best to follow the requirements of the rubic. Such as explaining historical context and, again, puting into my character's point of view. I worked hard that I acknowledge not only to my grade, but for my partner's.

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

I think I did most of the work into the essay. My part of the essay was done, done, done. All I had to do is wait for my partner's part and put it into mine's, over the weekend. The only time I recieved my partner's part of the essay was just last night. When my part of the essay was finished for the "rough draft day" all my partner had to do is to implement her argument relating to the paragraphs. My partner's paragraphs were good in the rhyming and stating her argument, but it wasn't that informative. I do critique on my partner's work. But it was too late to do so when I just got my partner's essay last night.

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

My partner and I did well in the beginning because we had good communication including Myspace and cell phones. But when the days proceeds to the due date, I think it had faded away. It was kind of frustrating when parts of the essay weren't being done on time because the communication was poor. I was done with my essay part and all I had to do was to wait for my partner's part. It took a while to get my partner's essay over the weekend. Since we had the communication, it would be understandable if my partner contacted me if some event came up. Though I didn't recieve any, I assumed she was procastinating. I have contacted her through email on what to put for the essay, but no response.Then again, I felt like I did most of the work (I felt like I was being depended on). Such as organizing, structuring the essay. I felt like I was being a leader planning out for the essay. There was no response, objections, or critiques of the essay. It was more like of a "Okay, that's good" and we'll just do more. I got critiques mostly from other peers. Overall, the essay was good. The arguments are relevant to each other.

Loyalism vs. Patriotism Essay

"The Whig versus The Tory"

By Junalyn Dela Cruz and Naomi Rinehart

The characters below, Barton Albert and Bradford Kaine, are in conflict in the American Revolution. Barton was appointed in 1762 as a royal governor who portrays as William Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s son. Barton was a loyalist who was sympathetic towards patriots’ views, before he was appointed in 1762. His views changed when the Stamp Act controversy occurred. Barton Albert is considered as the “tory”, which was a label used by patriots. Barton, as the loyalist, labeled patriots "whigs." Bradford Kaine portrays Thomas Paine. He was born in Britian and came over to live in America to take part in the revolution. Bradford was a patriot. All this took place in 1762. The ‘rap debate’ starts from the Stamp Act leading up to the start of the first war of the American Revolution.


Barton Albert: Colonel Dincklage wrote that
"Neighbors are on opposite sides
Children are against their fathers"
What side should I decide (Raphael, 152)?
Well I’m the royal governor
Please call me Barton Albert
I took an oath in sixty-two (’62)
Against my father's whiggish view ("William Franklin of New Jersey", 360)
Whig listen up,
I want to tell you something,
You’ve come here as a British,
You’ll always be a British,
We’ve helped you as one whole,
We’ll treat you as our subjects.
Well what do you want more?

Bradford Kaine:I'm New York's own Bradford Kaine,

letting you know they are much too vain.

We came to America to be free,

how else to express it but to pour this tea?

Barton Albert: Listen up, do you hear?
Remember the war of seven years?
We fought alongside against the French (The American Promise, 182)
For they were “trespassing on [our land]” (The American Promise, 175)
For they wanted to trade for furs.
In the War, they allied with Indians
What did the British do
Against them?
We all use our men (The American Promise, 175).
Seventeen-seventeen-sixty-three (1763),
The idiotic French withdrew
The British signed the Treaty of Paris
But the Indians still continued
What else did the British do?
The British “called the Proclamation of 1763” (The American Promise, 182)
“Influenced [by] Lord Bute” Lord Bute influenced Barton Alboert into loyalism (“William Franklin of New Jersey”, 362).
To limit trade with brutes [Indians],
I agree with him to post an army,
And to protect from our enemies.
The Proclamation of 1763 aims at minimizing violence between the settlers and Indians by limiting trade. Lord Bute’s decision was to post a British army to separate the Indians and the settlers (The American Promise, 182).

Bradford Kaine: One to the seven to six to the three.

Look what your people have done to me.

They want us to contribute, to their stupid army.

You agree to help them, silly little tory.

Nine, count them nine. That's how long they've fought.

France and England want to expand their territories, I simply do not.

Yet you agree and I'm unsure why.

For they are only using us.

This thought i have expressed is something you should apply.

Barton Albert: I was “sympathetic towards [the] whiggish views”
But all had to change
In seventeen-sixty-two (“William Franklin of New Jersey”, 362).
Northern colonist suffered an economic depression
After Seven Years we’re heavily in debt
Borrowing loans kept the debt growing (“William Franklin of New Jersey”, 363)
I proposed an act
To issue a new paper money
I sent this act to the king
To make a prosperous colony
The king disapproved it
because “the notes had in effect been made legal
Tender at the loan office” (“William Franklin of New Jersey”, 364)
The Stamp Act comes along
Whig, you think it’s a threat
But who would pay off the money?
You’re the British Subject.

Bradford Kaine: How dare you think it's ok to be taxed?

They tax our documents, permits, comercial contracts, newspapers, playing cards, pamphlets, and wills.

The fact that you find this acceptable gives me chills.

Barton Albert: Bradford, you’re responsible
In paying the Stamp Act tax
For the Seven Year’s Debt
Taxed any paper like
Bills of lading
The tax was designed to raise more money (The American Promise, 186).

Bradford Kaine: "No taxation without representation."

Remember the Magna Carta that formed this nation?

This isn't fair,the way you just don't care.

We left to be free, They're keeping us from that.

Don't you see? Let us govern ourselves

and let them keep to themselves.

Barton Albert: I know that you say
“No tax without representation” (Nardo 13).
You said
That the parliament has no right to tax
“The Americans are represented
[As British] in the virtual sense” (Nardo 30).
You should not exempt
Americans are Englishmen
Although I want to tempt
Taxes were levied
By American whigs and tories (Nardo 32).

Bradford Kaine: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. "

Come to our side and bring your men.

We are not british subjects, but Americans at that.

Come here so we can have a little chit chat.

I believe we should be seperated from Britian.

Why don't you agree my goodman?

Barton Albert: I have no patience with these rioters
I consider it as a serious offense
I’d be happy to remove all these grievers
But I must make an example
The laws that they trample
America wanted protection
Mother country provides them
A supplied stationed army

Bradford Kaine: Seventeen seventy, five were killed.

Killed by the Brit's own hands.

This is what started our silly little war.

How dare you treat us like the poor?

We have no rights!

My anger now ignites.

We are being weighed downthis was suppose to be our town!

They can't invade like this,

How can you side with them?

Look at how they cause mayhem!

We are enslavedjust because of how we've behaved.

Barton Albert: Americans have the same right as the British
Parliament is abusing rights
As you wish
You are confused with you rights
There are two types, right?
One is personal
The other political
Now tell me what’s the difference?
Let me tell you good riddance
Your personal rights are in common with the British
Your political rights are local
You want power for yourselves
That means you’re selfish (Nardo 51).

Each colony signed an agreement

to become a British Corporation

to regulate trade and to tax

and quartering troops, relax.

These are not abuses

Your personal rights are not abused.

Bradford Kaine:I'm not selfsih whig!

We just want to be free.

Our rights are being abused!

Can't you see?

Barton Albert: Again being you as selfish

Believing British rule

To be an elimination

So you loyalists can rule.

There'll be no reconciliation

Something I had hoped for

But if there was

Everything will go back to normal

Bigger population

Value to the land

Increasing prosperity to all.

The things I had hoped for (Nardo 63-65).

I feel that the war is starting

The tensions that are lurking

I had tried my best

i cared for the colonies welfare

Give me a rest

I had so little to gain

Too much to lose

Parting away with father and friend

Overthrow the Mother (Britain) they'd choose

But I believe in compromise

The King, Parliament are right

But better the overthrow you might ("William Franklin Of New Jersey" 378-380)

Bradford Kaine: Let's see how the war will be doing

You'll be gone, gone, going

Barton Albert: Yes, let's see.

Sources:
1) William Frank lin of New Jersey
Fennelly, Catherine. "William Franklin of New Jersey." The William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser. 6.3 (1949): 361-382. JSTOR. Highline Community College Library, Federal Way. 1 Nov. 2007 .
2) The American Revolution
Nardo, Don. The American Revolution. San Diego: Greenhaven P, Inc., 1998. 6-143.
3) The American Promise
4) Music of the American Revolution (for our music background)
"Music of the American Revolution." National Park Service Museum. 17 Mar. 2005. 2 Nov. 2007 .

The audio is in process...

AOD Blog #6 - Active Listening

On Monday, our standing juniors went to the National College Fair in Seattle. This was a great opportunity for me because I can be able to come out of my shell and talk with the dean of admissions/admission counselors. I took the freshman recruiter's advice in making good impressions and good communication with the admissions (should shake hands and give good eye contact). I asked questions, such as "what is the average class size?", and encouraged the speaker to answer with relevant information which helped me understand about more of their school and helps me picture myself in that school. I asked follow-up questions, such as "how is the relationship between students and instructors?", if the speaker did not elaborate on the first question. Sometimes I paraphrase or repeat what they said but add a twist of a question if I misunderstood. In the end, showing interests in their college I follow-up with comments like "excellent."

AOD Blog #5 - Public Dialogue

At home together, my family and I talk together about situations that's been going around in the world. We usually talk about news that we read in the newspaper or in the internet and/or watched from television. Most of the time, we state some opinions about the situation. Such as we either agree or disagree or what they've could have done better or what we can do about it. Not too long ago, we read articles of the enormous Californian fires. This was of course a concern to my family because we have relatives that was surrounded by the fires. We called our relatives if they were safe and talked of what we can do to help them. For example, we talked about shelter.

Research

Today, me and Naomi researched further for more resources (articles) and started planning out and typing up annotations.