Who Are You?
I was born in Germany to a military family. My father had a problem with alcohol. My mother tries her best to make sure we had a wonderful life. I did no have many friends and school was not that important to my family. They were taught that you are to work and take what you get, because it is hard to succeed at life because you are black. I was very quiet a children, and did not blossom until my last year of high school. I had an excellent English teacher who challenged me to be the best I could be. I will never forget Ms. Fields. She restored life into me, and let me know it is never to late to success. After that, I had goals.
I decided to college. I enrolled at Paine College in Augusta, Georgia. I did not have the money like other students, but I thought I had a small college fund. Well, My mother and father decided to take the college money saved, cashed it in and got there divorce. I was crushed, but remembered what my teacher had said. I knew that I had to direct my future. That is exactly what I did without the help of my parents.
I entered into the military trying to escape my problems, and find a solution. The military was one of the best things I could have done for myself respect, confidence, and organizational skills. I learned many trades and talents as a result of my military training. I determined that I could be a Sergeant Major in the United States Army. I pushed myself along with the Drill Sergeant, and the Instructors. After my six year in the military, I meet a wonderful man, and he married. He asked if I would leave the military and start a family. We currently have two children together and a wonderful teenage daughter from his prior marriage. After marriage obstacles came, but I tackled each one with a positive fight. Trust me, it was not easy, but it was and still is worth it.
I decided after both my children were in school and my husband has received his degree I would go back to school. It has been a challenge, but I handle every situation that comes up with a positive attitude. I have learned to take responsibility for my action, and do not blame others for my failures. I have learned that my failures are not final. I must learn from my failures to help me get to my success.
I am a woman that is determined to succeed in life. I have set goal for m life that will affect my family. Over the course of many years, I have had many struggles. My main struggle was people. People always have an opinion about what you should be doing in your life. After concerning the source (people), I decided to make my own choices. The choices I make whether good or bad are made by me. I decide to be the best person I can be for myself, my family, and my future.
I strive to do the best I can do for me. I want to know that I tried everything I wanted to do and have no regrets. Many times, a person will look over there life and travel down “Regret Lane.” I should have done this and I should have done that. I am accountable for myself and must make choices that I can life with. I plan on completely college and receiving my Master’s Degree. I will not listen to people or things that say it will never happen. I have set goals, and I plan to complete all of them.
By me succeeding, I will impact my family. I will be able to provide a future for them this is secured. I have been given a wonderful family that deserves to have a wonderful life. I will be able to assist my loving husband in planning our children futures. I feel the key to success is to love people and loving you. I am placed in my families’ life to encourage them to keep all their dreams alive and never let anyone take them a way from you. My life is an example to show my family that people can talk, but if you know yourself that can not stop what you have plan.
Because I am a positive, encouraging, and loving person, I have improved my future outcome. I know that I will have obstacles, but those are challenges that I know that I can overcome. I am a virtuous woman that is sure of her future, and consecrating on my present. The things I plan to accomplish are not for me alone, but everyone I crosses my path.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A Innocent Crime for Love
Guilty as Charged, But?
Roswell Gilbert truly loved his wife. They obviously shared many wonderful years until she became ill. Day after day, Roswell saw his wife suffering. It was apparent that he did want her to suffer any longer. He felt by taking her life he was honoring the wish of his loving wife. The major problem was he made himself God and the Law. He took life matters into his hands without thinking the consequences through. Although, he was carrying the wishes of his wife; the law had to carry the punishment of the crime. Roswell Gilbert committed a mercy killing or euthanasia, but he still must do the prison time for the crime.
There were many problems that Roswell faced as a result of a murder. The distress that his wife suffered could have been handled differently. The big statement was, “He honored her wishes.” There are other was to honor a love ones wishes. When his wife begged him to put her to rest to free her from suffering, he could have responded with a, “let us talk to a doctor to see what our options are.” Instead he took matters in his own hands. Of course, he might not have been thinking rationally when he committed the crime. He still owed a debt to the law for the crime he committed.
The law was very fair on the punishment he received. He deserved to go to jail for killing his wife. There was no evidence to show that he wife requested him to put her to death. For all the jurors knew, he killed his wife because he could not bare the pain any longer or there was another woman. The answers to the questions of “why he killed” will never be revealed. The wife is dead and the law has already convicted him. However, there are not clear laws to defend a person with the complexities of this case. This murder will help to place laws that will help other society members.
The action that society took was not completely fair. Society will judged a person harshly with knowing all the facts of a case. Society is like a group of people with many opinions. The key word is opinion, not facts. Instead of convicting Roswell immediately, society should have waited until the evidence was presented. This crime was one good reason why society does not convicted people of crimes, but the law does. I do not think that it is fair to judge a man or women without a fair trial. The actions of Roswell was wrong, but that is my opinion. After this fair trial, then he should take the punishment given to him. In this case I do believe that he committed a crime that he should go to prison for and the law was very fair with his punishment. There was not sufficient laws set in place for this crime, but the law cleared addressed murder and the punishment if found guilt in a court of law.
Although he was found guilty by the law; if he truly honored the wishes of his sick wife, then HE knows that he is innocent of all crimes! The heart of a man or woman can set them free, but the words of people can keep them in bondage forever. Roswell's heart can set him free, but only he knows.
Roswell Gilbert truly loved his wife. They obviously shared many wonderful years until she became ill. Day after day, Roswell saw his wife suffering. It was apparent that he did want her to suffer any longer. He felt by taking her life he was honoring the wish of his loving wife. The major problem was he made himself God and the Law. He took life matters into his hands without thinking the consequences through. Although, he was carrying the wishes of his wife; the law had to carry the punishment of the crime. Roswell Gilbert committed a mercy killing or euthanasia, but he still must do the prison time for the crime.
There were many problems that Roswell faced as a result of a murder. The distress that his wife suffered could have been handled differently. The big statement was, “He honored her wishes.” There are other was to honor a love ones wishes. When his wife begged him to put her to rest to free her from suffering, he could have responded with a, “let us talk to a doctor to see what our options are.” Instead he took matters in his own hands. Of course, he might not have been thinking rationally when he committed the crime. He still owed a debt to the law for the crime he committed.
The law was very fair on the punishment he received. He deserved to go to jail for killing his wife. There was no evidence to show that he wife requested him to put her to death. For all the jurors knew, he killed his wife because he could not bare the pain any longer or there was another woman. The answers to the questions of “why he killed” will never be revealed. The wife is dead and the law has already convicted him. However, there are not clear laws to defend a person with the complexities of this case. This murder will help to place laws that will help other society members.
The action that society took was not completely fair. Society will judged a person harshly with knowing all the facts of a case. Society is like a group of people with many opinions. The key word is opinion, not facts. Instead of convicting Roswell immediately, society should have waited until the evidence was presented. This crime was one good reason why society does not convicted people of crimes, but the law does. I do not think that it is fair to judge a man or women without a fair trial. The actions of Roswell was wrong, but that is my opinion. After this fair trial, then he should take the punishment given to him. In this case I do believe that he committed a crime that he should go to prison for and the law was very fair with his punishment. There was not sufficient laws set in place for this crime, but the law cleared addressed murder and the punishment if found guilt in a court of law.
Although he was found guilty by the law; if he truly honored the wishes of his sick wife, then HE knows that he is innocent of all crimes! The heart of a man or woman can set them free, but the words of people can keep them in bondage forever. Roswell's heart can set him free, but only he knows.
Monday, March 19, 2007
One Step Closer to Ruling the World
Title: America as Empire
Norman Mailer’s book, Why We Are At War, is a great book that shows the events that resulted in the war. He addresses many points that I agree with. A main point that I completely agreed with was, when the campaign in Afghanistan failed, however, to capture the leading protagonist, even proved unable, indeed, to conclude whether he was alive or dead, the game had to shift. Our White House decided the real pea was under another shell. Not al Qaeda but Iraq. The President and his administration team had no logical reason for the present decisions they made. The decisions were based on political gain, better known as capitalism.
Americans need to know that the men and woman that are in office was put there by the wealthy population. The people in office are only there to make money for themselves, not for the common man. The umbrella under capitalism (political power) is not derived from the people, as it would be thought in democracy but from the people on top to the people on the bottom. It seems that everything in America is for sale, even men’s tormented souls. We see the evidence being established in Iraq by the war profiteers. There is billions of dollars being taken from American to be poured into the war by the same corporations that lobbied for the war. Americans must understand that war is money and American’s money is the power that controls that political process.
I see capitalism or the quest for a global empire displayed everyday in my life by the President Bush and his administrative staff when the try separate middle class and the poor. There is such a struggle for classes, that if the wealthy could they would charge for everything. I see the government going towards privatizing all social programs and trying to run them for profit. This is a cycle that will never end until the people see it for what it really is. The problem is, when the people finally realize what is happening it might be too late. The wealthy, including President Bush might have global control. Where will that leave the middle class and the poor?
Norman Mailer’s book, Why We Are At War, is a great book that shows the events that resulted in the war. He addresses many points that I agree with. A main point that I completely agreed with was, when the campaign in Afghanistan failed, however, to capture the leading protagonist, even proved unable, indeed, to conclude whether he was alive or dead, the game had to shift. Our White House decided the real pea was under another shell. Not al Qaeda but Iraq. The President and his administration team had no logical reason for the present decisions they made. The decisions were based on political gain, better known as capitalism.
Americans need to know that the men and woman that are in office was put there by the wealthy population. The people in office are only there to make money for themselves, not for the common man. The umbrella under capitalism (political power) is not derived from the people, as it would be thought in democracy but from the people on top to the people on the bottom. It seems that everything in America is for sale, even men’s tormented souls. We see the evidence being established in Iraq by the war profiteers. There is billions of dollars being taken from American to be poured into the war by the same corporations that lobbied for the war. Americans must understand that war is money and American’s money is the power that controls that political process.
I see capitalism or the quest for a global empire displayed everyday in my life by the President Bush and his administrative staff when the try separate middle class and the poor. There is such a struggle for classes, that if the wealthy could they would charge for everything. I see the government going towards privatizing all social programs and trying to run them for profit. This is a cycle that will never end until the people see it for what it really is. The problem is, when the people finally realize what is happening it might be too late. The wealthy, including President Bush might have global control. Where will that leave the middle class and the poor?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Who is Fooling Who
Title: Why Are We At War?
Why Are We at War is a book that suggests that American soldiers are going to war for nothing and President George Bush is trying to gain his quest for the empire. Norman Mailer makes his case by giving examples of why this war is ludicrous. Mailer makes his case by stating that President George Bush is not protecting Americans but trying to build his global empire. Mailer dissects the administration’s words and actions leading up to the current crisis.
There are many points in this book that I disagree with because of my own personal beliefs. However, there is one statement made by Mailer that I empathize with. On September 11th when the planes hit the Twin Towers, the government planned to destroy bin Laden and al Qaeda. The government was unsure who orchestrated these horrible attacks. I feel that the government reacted before they examined the situation. The government sought revenges on the terrorist that the government assumed committed these attacks.
America was not prepared for a major attack. On television, the major attacks always happen in other countries. On September 11th, the attacks were unexpected and the government had to find the guilty party. If the government would have waited and study the evident, the government would have been viewed as a weak country. The government immediately starts sending soldiers to Iraq, when they blamed Afghanistan (al Qaeda.) Iraq and Afghanistan are in two different directions. The government should have planned and then prepare for war.
When the government prepared the soldier for war without a solid plan, many lives were lost. I know that soldiers choice to enter the military to defend the enemy for the freedom of our awesome country but where do we draw the line. I was one of those proud soldiers, and now my husband is one of those fine soldiers defending our county in Iraq. We both were given a mission and then expected to execute the task given. With this on going war, soldiers are told to execute without a mission plan. The worst part is that now, the government that insisted President George Bush quickly execute the people responsible for this hideous crime are now wanting to execute the President. The government wanted a quick solution without careful thought.
Who is really fooling who in this war? There was a terrible attack placed on American that should not have happened and it is a tragedy that many people died in that attack. But many Americans are still dying and the government had not solved the problem. If the problem was solved, why are so many soldiers continue to go to Iraq and die daily? Why is the government, the senators, or governors not volunteering to go help the soldiers fight for freedom for all Americans? There are many points-of-views, and opinion what could have been done. I do not agree with much of Norman Mailers book, but I do agree the White House decided the real white ball was under another shell on another table.
Why Are We at War is a book that suggests that American soldiers are going to war for nothing and President George Bush is trying to gain his quest for the empire. Norman Mailer makes his case by giving examples of why this war is ludicrous. Mailer makes his case by stating that President George Bush is not protecting Americans but trying to build his global empire. Mailer dissects the administration’s words and actions leading up to the current crisis.
There are many points in this book that I disagree with because of my own personal beliefs. However, there is one statement made by Mailer that I empathize with. On September 11th when the planes hit the Twin Towers, the government planned to destroy bin Laden and al Qaeda. The government was unsure who orchestrated these horrible attacks. I feel that the government reacted before they examined the situation. The government sought revenges on the terrorist that the government assumed committed these attacks.
America was not prepared for a major attack. On television, the major attacks always happen in other countries. On September 11th, the attacks were unexpected and the government had to find the guilty party. If the government would have waited and study the evident, the government would have been viewed as a weak country. The government immediately starts sending soldiers to Iraq, when they blamed Afghanistan (al Qaeda.) Iraq and Afghanistan are in two different directions. The government should have planned and then prepare for war.
When the government prepared the soldier for war without a solid plan, many lives were lost. I know that soldiers choice to enter the military to defend the enemy for the freedom of our awesome country but where do we draw the line. I was one of those proud soldiers, and now my husband is one of those fine soldiers defending our county in Iraq. We both were given a mission and then expected to execute the task given. With this on going war, soldiers are told to execute without a mission plan. The worst part is that now, the government that insisted President George Bush quickly execute the people responsible for this hideous crime are now wanting to execute the President. The government wanted a quick solution without careful thought.
Who is really fooling who in this war? There was a terrible attack placed on American that should not have happened and it is a tragedy that many people died in that attack. But many Americans are still dying and the government had not solved the problem. If the problem was solved, why are so many soldiers continue to go to Iraq and die daily? Why is the government, the senators, or governors not volunteering to go help the soldiers fight for freedom for all Americans? There are many points-of-views, and opinion what could have been done. I do not agree with much of Norman Mailers book, but I do agree the White House decided the real white ball was under another shell on another table.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Losing Love
Title: The Alligator River Story
The story is about a woman named Abigail who is loved with a man name Gregory. The story never stated that Gregory loved Abigail. She wanted to visit the man she love and made bad choices. These choice caused her shame, but gave her great revenge. She asks a boater to take her to see her lover. He agrees in exchange for sex. She ask a friend to take her to see her lover. He decide to not get involved. She decide to have sex with Sinbad, the boater. She tells Greogory and he cast her away. Abagail tells a person name Slug about Gregory's reaction. Slug beat Gregory up really bad. Abagail is happy with the outcome.
The Alligators: I give the alligators a one. The alligators were the only characters in this story that I respected. They maintain their position in the river. They never compromised or gave in to pressure. Throughout the entire story they did not belittle themselves.
Gregory: I give Gregory a two. Gregory was obviously not in love with Abigail. He knew that the bridge was washed away, and the bridge would not be repaired for several weeks. Gregory was not trying to see Abigail. I respected the fact that he did not do anything to demoralize his character. He was right to cast her aside, but wrong for calling her names. I give him a two because he could have communicated with Abigail to tell her his feeling, if any, and come up with visitation arrangements.
Ivan: I give Ivan a three. Ivan was portrayed as a friend of Abigail. Obviously Abigail had a bad track record because Ivan did not want to get involved at all in the situation. I gave him a three because a friend should always lend a helping hand or boat in this situation.
Sinbad: I give Sinbad a four. Sinbad was a desperate man. The only way he could get sexually intercourse was in exchange for boat rides. Unless, Abigail was the only woman on that side river, Sinbad must have been UGLY. I give him a four for following through with his end of the bargain, but I have no respect for his character.
Abigail: I give Abigail a five. Abigail truly demoralized herself by giving sex to a man with a boat. She had other means of seeing the man she loved. If she truly loved Gregory, she would have drove fifty to the next bridge. Although she had to work the next day, she could have requested the day off, she could have returned home late that night, or went straight to work from Gregory’s house. Her character was a very desperate, unbalanced, and easy woman. She made quick and unthought-of decisions. Because she did no think this process through, she received exactly what she deserved.
I did not rate Slug because he/she was probably told half the story or just felt sorry for Abigail.
The story is about a woman named Abigail who is loved with a man name Gregory. The story never stated that Gregory loved Abigail. She wanted to visit the man she love and made bad choices. These choice caused her shame, but gave her great revenge. She asks a boater to take her to see her lover. He agrees in exchange for sex. She ask a friend to take her to see her lover. He decide to not get involved. She decide to have sex with Sinbad, the boater. She tells Greogory and he cast her away. Abagail tells a person name Slug about Gregory's reaction. Slug beat Gregory up really bad. Abagail is happy with the outcome.
The Alligators: I give the alligators a one. The alligators were the only characters in this story that I respected. They maintain their position in the river. They never compromised or gave in to pressure. Throughout the entire story they did not belittle themselves.
Gregory: I give Gregory a two. Gregory was obviously not in love with Abigail. He knew that the bridge was washed away, and the bridge would not be repaired for several weeks. Gregory was not trying to see Abigail. I respected the fact that he did not do anything to demoralize his character. He was right to cast her aside, but wrong for calling her names. I give him a two because he could have communicated with Abigail to tell her his feeling, if any, and come up with visitation arrangements.
Ivan: I give Ivan a three. Ivan was portrayed as a friend of Abigail. Obviously Abigail had a bad track record because Ivan did not want to get involved at all in the situation. I gave him a three because a friend should always lend a helping hand or boat in this situation.
Sinbad: I give Sinbad a four. Sinbad was a desperate man. The only way he could get sexually intercourse was in exchange for boat rides. Unless, Abigail was the only woman on that side river, Sinbad must have been UGLY. I give him a four for following through with his end of the bargain, but I have no respect for his character.
Abigail: I give Abigail a five. Abigail truly demoralized herself by giving sex to a man with a boat. She had other means of seeing the man she loved. If she truly loved Gregory, she would have drove fifty to the next bridge. Although she had to work the next day, she could have requested the day off, she could have returned home late that night, or went straight to work from Gregory’s house. Her character was a very desperate, unbalanced, and easy woman. She made quick and unthought-of decisions. Because she did no think this process through, she received exactly what she deserved.
I did not rate Slug because he/she was probably told half the story or just felt sorry for Abigail.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Two Worlds Colliding
Topic: Human Rights v. Majority Rule
True love is an emotion that most human beings experience at some point in their lives. It is like finding a million dollars. Love itself comes in many different forms, some of which are experienced at different stages of life than others. Different people acquire the ability to experience true love at different times in their lives. Who has the right to love and find love? Who is the majority? Should the majority rules who and were you are to love? According to Wikipedia human rights refers to the concept of human beings having worldwide natural rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localize factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex. When these two worlds collide; humans rights verse majority: we have a major problem. For instance, breasting feeding mothers decided they do not want to cover there baby or there breast while feeding. The majority say, “No.” That baby has the right to feed and not suffocate in the process. Did the majority include the baby in the decision process? However, I feel if majority is going to rule then the principles of human rights must be enforce. The majority need to consist of a diverse group, make decisions in a timely manner, and look at the big picture of the issue at hand.
When a topic is presented before what is called the majority, the topic or subject should include someone who is directly impacted by the issue. For example, if breastfeeding is to prohibited in public, then a breastfeeding women should be part of the majority processing team. This women can describe reason that breastfeeding should not be banned. A male that does not have a child that they must breastfeed can not relate. What if the woman that is breastfeed has no money to buy milk and the three month old baby just happen to get hungry on the public bus. The mother has neither blanket nor any covering for her chest. Does the mother let the baby cry to the top of their lungs or does she whip out the milk and feed the child? Many people on the public bus would rather hear silence than a crying baby. When decisions like these are to be made by the majority, having a person that can relate can help with an achieved agreement that can bring balance to the final approval. This decision should not only be made my opinion but looking at human rights that say, “Individual Freedom is the right that a person should be allowed to do what they would like to do as long as if does not harm, hurt, or injury another person.”
When the majority is making a decision it should be made in a timely manner. Sometime making a simple decision can be madness. In the grand scheme of things making a decision like picking a restaurant is not that hard. The difficulty arises when you include too many opinions. Making decisions about family and children, money, work, relationships, education, church, faith and spirituality, rules, laws, ethics, morality: that is another account. Depending on what is at stake, making these types of decisions can be both time consuming and stressful. Making a decision needs to be placed on a calendar, given a specific date/time, and then following through. The decision should be made before a society member has committed a horrific crime. Time is of the essences when making a decision for society.
Not just having the right diverse group and making a timely decision is important, but looking at the big picture. Who will be affected by this decision? Why will this better society as a whole. Part of this process is being aware of whom you are, how you make this decision will affect people, and the factors which influence the decisions you are making. The first part of looking at the whole picture is becoming objective not subjective. If you do not directly relate to the topic for which the majority is voting, look at facts not your personal opinion. This could cause delay in the process time and develop animosity. Examine every part of the issue, just like dissecting a frog and viewing all pieces under a microscope.
Majority rule never requires approval for consensus for a group action. These decisions are made my voting with a preponderance group making decision for the entire group. This process has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of having a group make decisions for the majority is generating a prompt and clear decision. It is very difficult to have your children to decide which restaurant they want to eat after Sunday Morning Service. Imagine having the consensus make a decision for you. It could be a year or two before they reach and agreement on a decision - if they can agree at all. The disadvantage is once a winning decision has been made, the parties are at will to ignore the interest of other participants. I feel if one key controls the lock, what happen if that lock is changed. In society thing are going to change. Having one majority ruling everything can cause hatred, bitterness, violence, and a divided country.
It has been stated that we have individual freedom, equal protection, voting rights, freedom of speech, individual property and due process. What good is having this freedom if the large majority is going to tell us how to define these items? There has to be a balance between human rights and majority ruling without these two worlds colliding.
True love is an emotion that most human beings experience at some point in their lives. It is like finding a million dollars. Love itself comes in many different forms, some of which are experienced at different stages of life than others. Different people acquire the ability to experience true love at different times in their lives. Who has the right to love and find love? Who is the majority? Should the majority rules who and were you are to love? According to Wikipedia human rights refers to the concept of human beings having worldwide natural rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localize factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex. When these two worlds collide; humans rights verse majority: we have a major problem. For instance, breasting feeding mothers decided they do not want to cover there baby or there breast while feeding. The majority say, “No.” That baby has the right to feed and not suffocate in the process. Did the majority include the baby in the decision process? However, I feel if majority is going to rule then the principles of human rights must be enforce. The majority need to consist of a diverse group, make decisions in a timely manner, and look at the big picture of the issue at hand.
When a topic is presented before what is called the majority, the topic or subject should include someone who is directly impacted by the issue. For example, if breastfeeding is to prohibited in public, then a breastfeeding women should be part of the majority processing team. This women can describe reason that breastfeeding should not be banned. A male that does not have a child that they must breastfeed can not relate. What if the woman that is breastfeed has no money to buy milk and the three month old baby just happen to get hungry on the public bus. The mother has neither blanket nor any covering for her chest. Does the mother let the baby cry to the top of their lungs or does she whip out the milk and feed the child? Many people on the public bus would rather hear silence than a crying baby. When decisions like these are to be made by the majority, having a person that can relate can help with an achieved agreement that can bring balance to the final approval. This decision should not only be made my opinion but looking at human rights that say, “Individual Freedom is the right that a person should be allowed to do what they would like to do as long as if does not harm, hurt, or injury another person.”
When the majority is making a decision it should be made in a timely manner. Sometime making a simple decision can be madness. In the grand scheme of things making a decision like picking a restaurant is not that hard. The difficulty arises when you include too many opinions. Making decisions about family and children, money, work, relationships, education, church, faith and spirituality, rules, laws, ethics, morality: that is another account. Depending on what is at stake, making these types of decisions can be both time consuming and stressful. Making a decision needs to be placed on a calendar, given a specific date/time, and then following through. The decision should be made before a society member has committed a horrific crime. Time is of the essences when making a decision for society.
Not just having the right diverse group and making a timely decision is important, but looking at the big picture. Who will be affected by this decision? Why will this better society as a whole. Part of this process is being aware of whom you are, how you make this decision will affect people, and the factors which influence the decisions you are making. The first part of looking at the whole picture is becoming objective not subjective. If you do not directly relate to the topic for which the majority is voting, look at facts not your personal opinion. This could cause delay in the process time and develop animosity. Examine every part of the issue, just like dissecting a frog and viewing all pieces under a microscope.
Majority rule never requires approval for consensus for a group action. These decisions are made my voting with a preponderance group making decision for the entire group. This process has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of having a group make decisions for the majority is generating a prompt and clear decision. It is very difficult to have your children to decide which restaurant they want to eat after Sunday Morning Service. Imagine having the consensus make a decision for you. It could be a year or two before they reach and agreement on a decision - if they can agree at all. The disadvantage is once a winning decision has been made, the parties are at will to ignore the interest of other participants. I feel if one key controls the lock, what happen if that lock is changed. In society thing are going to change. Having one majority ruling everything can cause hatred, bitterness, violence, and a divided country.
It has been stated that we have individual freedom, equal protection, voting rights, freedom of speech, individual property and due process. What good is having this freedom if the large majority is going to tell us how to define these items? There has to be a balance between human rights and majority ruling without these two worlds colliding.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A Hostile Take-Over: Make a Choice
Hijack
Looking back into history, there has been large number of threats and promises to the security of this loving, peaceful, and harmonies nation. Some of these threats have caused great bloodshed, property damage, economic unbalance, and people thrown into poverty. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or force against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation or coercion. Terrorism is not just a plane crashing into a building but also includes assassinations; kidnappings; bomb threats; cyber computer attacks; and hijackings to name a few. Imagine walking out your door and seeing a 747 launched through a building. Stepping over all those dead bodies will cause a person to wonder what in the world is happening. Instead of reacting immediately, find out why America was targeted. I decide to take a stand and find out the root of the matter. The root is not the person(s) that carried out the attack; he or she is just the stem. I would evaluate our past, examine the present, and make plans for the changing future.
Terrorism did not just start with a plane crashing through the twin towers. It goes back to the history of the “Crusades” in the years of 1189-1311. We always considered terrorism to be foreigners, but we have always had “home grown terrorist.” The blood bath just did not start in the recent years. There is an old saying, “You do not take a knife to a gun fight.” For too many years, Americans have went to a gun fight, but brought a knife to battle. The current President, past Presidents’, homeland security team, secret services, and other government agencies should not react out because of feeling or personal vendetta. It is time for Americans to do there homework and understand the history.
Examining the present starts with know why American was targeted. One day third world countries did not just say, “let us fly planes into the twin towers.” This was careful planning that had aided from people living right in our back yards. We never examine nor argue the issue that angry terrorist was flamed from local citizens of our wonderful; harmonies United States of American. There are behind the scene activities many Americans will never know. The United States has many deals with foreign nations that usually back fire in our faces. We are so far in debt that we must “borrow from Peter to pay Paul.” I think we he need to research before we react.
I must express that we live in a changing world. I think we can set plans that can give us clear direction, but must know that people, places, and things change. We never expected the 911 to occur, but killing people and destroying are not going to bring those towers and lives back. We must remember, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Everyday in third world countries people and things are destroyed. Why don’t we try to save those people and things? The reason is because it does not affect our supposedly peaceful life. When we make plans we must know that you are going to deal with irrational people; do not carry a small stick, pull out the big stick. The big stick is look at all the plans and carefully examines them. Americans need to stop changing the plans because of popular vote. Imagine if the White House put on their Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) and went to war. They would probably be ready to come home after the first week. I can make this statement because I was prior “Army.” It was no fun operating on a plan that was planned poorly and having to repeat a different plan fifty times before getting it right. It is time to make and study the plans from every angle.
I know that we live in an imperfect world. Wars and Terrorism are not just going to go away over night. It is time to stop blaming others and take responsibilities for our actions. It is fine to say, “I made a mistake” and work on fixing it. Too many times have “Pride” overtaken our judgment. Instead, we the popular majority feels war is the way to solve our problems; as long as the popular majority do not have to go to the front line.
I would try to make a deal with the terrorist. When the plane get close to harm other citizens beside the people on the plane. The plane would be shot down!
Looking back into history, there has been large number of threats and promises to the security of this loving, peaceful, and harmonies nation. Some of these threats have caused great bloodshed, property damage, economic unbalance, and people thrown into poverty. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or force against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation or coercion. Terrorism is not just a plane crashing into a building but also includes assassinations; kidnappings; bomb threats; cyber computer attacks; and hijackings to name a few. Imagine walking out your door and seeing a 747 launched through a building. Stepping over all those dead bodies will cause a person to wonder what in the world is happening. Instead of reacting immediately, find out why America was targeted. I decide to take a stand and find out the root of the matter. The root is not the person(s) that carried out the attack; he or she is just the stem. I would evaluate our past, examine the present, and make plans for the changing future.
Terrorism did not just start with a plane crashing through the twin towers. It goes back to the history of the “Crusades” in the years of 1189-1311. We always considered terrorism to be foreigners, but we have always had “home grown terrorist.” The blood bath just did not start in the recent years. There is an old saying, “You do not take a knife to a gun fight.” For too many years, Americans have went to a gun fight, but brought a knife to battle. The current President, past Presidents’, homeland security team, secret services, and other government agencies should not react out because of feeling or personal vendetta. It is time for Americans to do there homework and understand the history.
Examining the present starts with know why American was targeted. One day third world countries did not just say, “let us fly planes into the twin towers.” This was careful planning that had aided from people living right in our back yards. We never examine nor argue the issue that angry terrorist was flamed from local citizens of our wonderful; harmonies United States of American. There are behind the scene activities many Americans will never know. The United States has many deals with foreign nations that usually back fire in our faces. We are so far in debt that we must “borrow from Peter to pay Paul.” I think we he need to research before we react.
I must express that we live in a changing world. I think we can set plans that can give us clear direction, but must know that people, places, and things change. We never expected the 911 to occur, but killing people and destroying are not going to bring those towers and lives back. We must remember, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Everyday in third world countries people and things are destroyed. Why don’t we try to save those people and things? The reason is because it does not affect our supposedly peaceful life. When we make plans we must know that you are going to deal with irrational people; do not carry a small stick, pull out the big stick. The big stick is look at all the plans and carefully examines them. Americans need to stop changing the plans because of popular vote. Imagine if the White House put on their Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) and went to war. They would probably be ready to come home after the first week. I can make this statement because I was prior “Army.” It was no fun operating on a plan that was planned poorly and having to repeat a different plan fifty times before getting it right. It is time to make and study the plans from every angle.
I know that we live in an imperfect world. Wars and Terrorism are not just going to go away over night. It is time to stop blaming others and take responsibilities for our actions. It is fine to say, “I made a mistake” and work on fixing it. Too many times have “Pride” overtaken our judgment. Instead, we the popular majority feels war is the way to solve our problems; as long as the popular majority do not have to go to the front line.
I would try to make a deal with the terrorist. When the plane get close to harm other citizens beside the people on the plane. The plane would be shot down!
Sunday, January 21, 2007
My Human Conscious
Topic: Right or Wrong
Who is man to judge another man? I do not consider myself to be judge nor a jury. I do have my own opinion because of my personal beliefs. For example, I believe if a man steals a pencil and another man commits murder they both need to pay the price for the crime. Although, one crime is more severe than the other, they are both crimes against society. I consider myself to have traits of both “moral absolutist” and “moral relativist” because situations dictate that right and wrong standards of a person. For instance, if a woman kills because of self defense, I feel that she should not be punished. But if a woman kills because of jealousy or anger, she should be punished. I can not but myself in anyone category because it depends on the situation, the law, and the crime.
The first reason I can not classify myself as moral relativist or absolutist is because the situation plays a major role in determining if a person is a moral absolutist or a moral relativist. I do not feel that a person should make a judge on another without knowing the circumstances of the situation. According to Wikipedia, to say that you are true absolutist means that the situation must be contingent only upon itself and nothing else and to say that you are a true relativist is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. A relativistic position often views moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. For example, if a mother or father flees from a city or state with their child(ren) and lies about there identity to save there life and there child(ren); an absolutist would declare this to be immoral. Although, the mother or father felt they had no other choice but to take their child(ren) in order to save their child(ren), an absolutist stand point is definitely immoral. A relativist would probably deny that this situation is uniquely important over other situations. Because I feel that this mother or father did what they need to do to protect their child(ren) and the law worked to slow, I could not classify myself as either moral relativist or moral absolutist.
The second reason I can not classify myself as moral relativist or absolutist is because the law determines the outcomes of certain situations. I believe that we must obey man’s law as well as God’s law. God has given men the ability to establish law. Many time members of society corrupt the laws that were established to help us. On August 3rd an article was written in Montgomery, Alabama about whose law should we obey. This question caused controversy surrounding Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments (http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/godslaws.html) . Chief Justice Moore did not want to remove the 5300-pound granite monument. Judge Byron Thompson of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued an order to remove the monument. Finally, the appeal from Chief Justice Moore was rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Many citizens stated that the monument violated the Fifth Amendment. Many citizens also voiced their opinion and said, “How can a monument stop or prevent anyone from practicing another faith. A monument does not make Christianity the official religion of Alabama.” Although, this was a monument with words, some people were offended. The law made the finally decision. I do not agree with the monument being removed because it cost money to make it, place it in the specific location, and to finally remove it. I do agree that these monuments did not stop anyone from practicing their faith. If that momentum prevented people from practicing their faith, then we should remove billboards with women and men half dressed, remove the use of all Halloween pictures and items, and remove anything that has written upon it. These might prevent a person from practicing their faith.
The finally reason I can not classify myself as moral relativist or absolutist is because of the nature of the crime. If a woman or man kills in self-defense then I do not think they should be sent to jail. There should be consequences to the crime, but not treated as cold-blooded killer. For example, a man beats his wife and/or children; the woman defenses her child and herself and kills the man. The law did not protect her, and then she should be given grace for the crime. On the other hand, a women or man that kills for revenge should be treated as a murder. I think the circumstances should make the decision for the punishment of any crime not a person’s beliefs or strong convections. I do not believe in killing because I do believe the Ten Commandments and the Bible but I will not condemn a person for self-defense.
I will not put my self in the category of moral absolutist or relativists because it one says that I believe that belief and nothing else. I try to stay objective, not pushing my belief upon other people because the truth always prevails.
Who is man to judge another man? I do not consider myself to be judge nor a jury. I do have my own opinion because of my personal beliefs. For example, I believe if a man steals a pencil and another man commits murder they both need to pay the price for the crime. Although, one crime is more severe than the other, they are both crimes against society. I consider myself to have traits of both “moral absolutist” and “moral relativist” because situations dictate that right and wrong standards of a person. For instance, if a woman kills because of self defense, I feel that she should not be punished. But if a woman kills because of jealousy or anger, she should be punished. I can not but myself in anyone category because it depends on the situation, the law, and the crime.
The first reason I can not classify myself as moral relativist or absolutist is because the situation plays a major role in determining if a person is a moral absolutist or a moral relativist. I do not feel that a person should make a judge on another without knowing the circumstances of the situation. According to Wikipedia, to say that you are true absolutist means that the situation must be contingent only upon itself and nothing else and to say that you are a true relativist is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. A relativistic position often views moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. For example, if a mother or father flees from a city or state with their child(ren) and lies about there identity to save there life and there child(ren); an absolutist would declare this to be immoral. Although, the mother or father felt they had no other choice but to take their child(ren) in order to save their child(ren), an absolutist stand point is definitely immoral. A relativist would probably deny that this situation is uniquely important over other situations. Because I feel that this mother or father did what they need to do to protect their child(ren) and the law worked to slow, I could not classify myself as either moral relativist or moral absolutist.
The second reason I can not classify myself as moral relativist or absolutist is because the law determines the outcomes of certain situations. I believe that we must obey man’s law as well as God’s law. God has given men the ability to establish law. Many time members of society corrupt the laws that were established to help us. On August 3rd an article was written in Montgomery, Alabama about whose law should we obey. This question caused controversy surrounding Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments (http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/godslaws.html) . Chief Justice Moore did not want to remove the 5300-pound granite monument. Judge Byron Thompson of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued an order to remove the monument. Finally, the appeal from Chief Justice Moore was rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Many citizens stated that the monument violated the Fifth Amendment. Many citizens also voiced their opinion and said, “How can a monument stop or prevent anyone from practicing another faith. A monument does not make Christianity the official religion of Alabama.” Although, this was a monument with words, some people were offended. The law made the finally decision. I do not agree with the monument being removed because it cost money to make it, place it in the specific location, and to finally remove it. I do agree that these monuments did not stop anyone from practicing their faith. If that momentum prevented people from practicing their faith, then we should remove billboards with women and men half dressed, remove the use of all Halloween pictures and items, and remove anything that has written upon it. These might prevent a person from practicing their faith.
The finally reason I can not classify myself as moral relativist or absolutist is because of the nature of the crime. If a woman or man kills in self-defense then I do not think they should be sent to jail. There should be consequences to the crime, but not treated as cold-blooded killer. For example, a man beats his wife and/or children; the woman defenses her child and herself and kills the man. The law did not protect her, and then she should be given grace for the crime. On the other hand, a women or man that kills for revenge should be treated as a murder. I think the circumstances should make the decision for the punishment of any crime not a person’s beliefs or strong convections. I do not believe in killing because I do believe the Ten Commandments and the Bible but I will not condemn a person for self-defense.
I will not put my self in the category of moral absolutist or relativists because it one says that I believe that belief and nothing else. I try to stay objective, not pushing my belief upon other people because the truth always prevails.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Who is Who?
Topic: Preception
Gorgias and Socrates both agreed that objective perception is not possible for humans. Socrates had a different opinion about human perception. According to American Heritage Online Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/perception) perception is the process, act, or faculty of perceiving. Gorgias argued in his work that (1) nothing exist, (2) if even anything exist, nothing can be know about it, and (3) Even if something can be know about it, knowledge can not be communicated to other. (http://www.answers.com/topic/gorgias) Gorgias did not have a family to be concerned about, lived a long life caring for him only, and never settled in one location for him to elaborate on perception. Socrates on the other hand believed (1) human wisdom begins with the recognition of one's own ignorance; (2) the unexamined life is not worth living; (3) ethical virtue is the only thing that matters; and (4) a good person can never be harmed, because whatever misfortune he may suffer, his virtue will remain intact. (http://www.answers.com/topic/socrates) Although Socrates did not write anything, he had strong beliefs and loyal followers. I feel that Gorgias’ philosophy would have the greatest possibility of distorting my perception because he never examined life, he did
feel that life was worth knowing about, and he did not think things that are known could be explained.
First of all, in order to have an opinion about life it should be examined by the person with the opinion. Gorgias did not have to deal with the issues of supporting a family and a household. He was not concerned with the care of life. He worked very hard to turn small issues into great debates. Many of his followers respected the straight-forth- one-minded debates that were not ambiguous. Although he lived a long life, he never explored outside his small circle of thinking. I know that Gorgias’ philosophy would greatly distort my perception because I think outside the box.
Second of all, he refuses to think life was worth knowing about. Socrates had a wonderful conviction that, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Without examining life, Gorgias made a statement “nothing exists and if something does exist, it is not worth knowing about.” In my opinion, this quote is an understatement because Gorgias made an assumption based on no facts. How can you say nothing exist if you never researched wait exist? Although many supporters agreed, there were no facts to support Gorgias’ philosophy. My perception would greatly be distorted because Gorgias’ had no facts and did not have numerous life experiences to support his philosophy.
Finally, my perception would have been distorted because Gorgias did not know how to explain something if it was known. When a situation needs to be explained and an answer is not know; it is easier to avoid the situation altogether. Gorgias may not had the answers, so he stated, “if something can be know about it, knowledge can not be communicated to other.” The statements that Gorgias could not explain were clearly explained by Socrates. Although it is personal opinion, I feel that Socrates was able to explain life better because he did not rely on his opinions only. Socrates step outside of the thinking box; expanding his audiences. That is the final reason why my perception would have been distorted by Gorgias.
Socrates and Gorgias were both great philosophers in their time. Gorgias thought single-minded while Socrates thought corporate-minded. Gorgias thought only for him, his perception would have greatly distorted my perception.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Introduction of Angela R. Lewis
My name is Angela R. Lewis. I was born in Frankfurt, Germany to Mr. and Mrs. Presley. I have a younger sister. I entered the United States Army right after high school. I served my country for seven years until I met my wonderful husband. My husband and I reversed roles; he rejoined the US Air Force and I got out of the US Army. I have two percious children that God has blessed me with.
For several years, my occupation was a childcare owner. In the last two years, after both my children were in primary school, I enrolled in college. I have always wanted to become an Early Childhood Educator. I love children and want to see them accomplish all that their hearts direct them to. There are many children that are without good, dedicated teachers. I plan to be one of those dedicated teachers.
My family and I just moved to Georgia in July of 2006. I enrolled at Macon State College in August of 2006. My major is Early Childhood Education. I would like to teach Special Education or Kindergarten through Second grades. The first impression that I got from MSC was challenging. I found that MSC has many test to test the test. I am ready for a college to challenge me and at the same time teach me.
It is my honor to be a student at MSC and learn all that this wonderful college can teach me.
For several years, my occupation was a childcare owner. In the last two years, after both my children were in primary school, I enrolled in college. I have always wanted to become an Early Childhood Educator. I love children and want to see them accomplish all that their hearts direct them to. There are many children that are without good, dedicated teachers. I plan to be one of those dedicated teachers.
My family and I just moved to Georgia in July of 2006. I enrolled at Macon State College in August of 2006. My major is Early Childhood Education. I would like to teach Special Education or Kindergarten through Second grades. The first impression that I got from MSC was challenging. I found that MSC has many test to test the test. I am ready for a college to challenge me and at the same time teach me.
It is my honor to be a student at MSC and learn all that this wonderful college can teach me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)