Crito

1. The setting of Apology is in a courtroom full of many people, including the prosecution. The setting of Crito is in Socrates's jail cell. Only Socrates and Crito are there. In the first setting, Socrates had to defend himself against many enemies, but in the second one he explained to a friend his reasons for not escaping.
2. It would have been a harder decision for Socrates if he were young because he would not have as much experience and wisdom to make his choice. He also may have felt that he would be more valuable alive than dead because he would have more time to explain and defend his principles to others after he escaped.
3. Socrates was attached to Athens because it was his home, and he had grown up and been educated there. He felt, however, that nothing was more important than his principles, even Athens. Socrates is a martyr for both the Laws of Athens and the cause of philosophy. He wanted to help the Athenians to live better, more moral lives, and he also wanted to stick to his philosophy to the end.
4. Socrates believes that by escaping and breaking the laws, he would be confirming that the jury's verdict was correct and just.
5. Socrates's argument that it is wrong to harm others even they do you harm does make sense. It just like the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Apology" questions

The charges against Socrates are that he "is an evildoer... who searches into things under the earth and in the heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others" (p.7). They are accusing him of being an atheist and teaching this to others and corrupting the youth.

Socrates's main arguments are that others are envious of him, and that they are angry at him for pointing out how unwise they really are. He also argues that he cannot be an atheist because he believes in spiritual entities and demigods. He says that he is only obeying God's command and standing up for what is right. He claims to be the gadfly of the Athenian people and awaken them to virtue.

Socrates believes that what he has done is right. He does not want to discredit himself by begging for forgiveness, promising to change, or using his wife and children to get pity. He wants to be brave and die as a martyr, which he feels is the only honorable thing to do in this situation.

Socrates did live and die by his own philosophy. There was no way he could have stuck to his philosophy and not been put to death once the trial began. Sometimes self-appointed martyrs are sticking to their beliefs, but not always.

There is virtue in being a martyr because it means that the person gave the ultimate sacrifice for his or her beliefs.

Socrates thinks that he is no wiser than others as far as knowledge goes, but he knows that he lacks knowledge and that his wisdom is not even close to God's, so that makes him a little wiser than most people.

Living by one's ethical principals is worth dying for. Socrates had a philosophy and the strength to stand by his beliefs even in the face of death. Depending on the situation and what was at stake, my ethical principals might also be worth dying for.

Electoral College

The Electoral College has both its pros and its cons. The pros of the Electoral College, as stated by Michael Hough, are that it ensures that less-populated states are not overwhelmed by big states and that the winning presidential candidate has a broad range of support from many regions of the country. It does this by forcing candidates to get at least 270 electoral votes, which means they must get votes from large and small states from all over the country, not just from several populous states in one region of the country. The Electoral College is also a part of the Constitution. The cons of the Electoral College, as explained by Mathew Spearman, are that a person's vote does not necessarily count towards the person he or she voted for, the majority does not always rule under the system, and the swing states are more important to the candidates than the other states. Currently, when voters vote in a presidential election, they are not voting for the president. Instead, they are voting for a group of electors that will vote for their candidate. If a person's candidate does not win in his or her state, then the vote, essentially, didn't actually count towards the actual election of the president. In 2000, George W. Bush won the most electoral votes but not the most popular votes, so a majority of Americans actually voted against him. Another argument against the Electoral College is that it protects swing states. States that usually vote Republican or Democrat are more likely to be written off by candidates while the swing states become the main focus of the campaigns. This does not give states that aren't swing states as much voice in the election.
I can see both sides of the argument about the Electoral College. On one hand, it does protect small states and force candidates to have support from many different regions of the country, but on the other hand, it does not allow people to directly vote for the president, the majority might not always rule, and swing states are protected while others are ignored. I am not sure which side I am on, but right now I am leaning towards getting rid of the Electoral College. Whatever the senators decide, they should carefully think about each side of the argument.