Stress is my middle name, really its Nicole, but it should be stress. I stress over everything. I thought that being a freshman would be easier for me since I actually wanted to be in school. This is not true. If anything for me it makes it worse because I started out last fall just wanting to pass and now all I want are good grades. I try to achieve every goal that I attempt. Of course, achieving every goal of mine doesn’t always happen. This is where my family and friends come in.
I am girl, who like any female, loves attention. When I need attention the most I turn to my family and close friends. I love my family and the friends that I have. However, I have a hard time making friends that last. I don’t usually seek out girl friends. I find woman are very hard to trust with anything. When I find a good friend I try my best to keep them around. I have known my best friend since I was eight. It takes a lot to get in my circle of friends but once someone makes it in, they are usually there for life.
My husband is the most important person in my close knit circle of family and friends. It doesn’t take much to start an argument between the two of us but we make up just as quick. Marriage was a big adjustment for me. If I could tell any teenager that really wants to move out something, it would be to be careful what you wish for. My husband and I don’t have the usual relationship, we kind of switched roles. I have come to the conclusion that cooking and cleaning are two things I will never be good at. Luckily for me, my husband is a great cook and he is particular about the house being clean so he usually gets to it before me. I take full advantage of this.
Besides loving my family and friends, I am completely in love with any animal that lives and breathes.I try to stay away from the dead ones. I have depression issues and I find that my animals no matter what always want to be with me. I am an equestrian. It is probably what I am most proud of because it is the one thing that I have stuck with. My one and only horse was given to be when I seventeen. His name is Lightning and he is my over grown baby boy. He is the only horse that I will ride. I am afraid of other horses. It is kind of funny because he is the “wild one” that no one else wants to ride. I had a bad accident when Lightning was two and it took me falling off again in April of 2006 to regain my confidence. I love him with all my heart. He has taught me everything from responsibility to heart break.
I am also a traveler. If there is somewhere to see, I want to see it. I have been to several places that other people may never have the chance to go to. I don’t always like the places I go to but there are, all an experience. London and New York are two places I really don’t care for. I often joke that the only good thing to come out of New York is my spoiled dog. My husbands’ father bought her for me on my first trip to New York. Two of the places I love to visit the most are Destin, FL and the island of Belize. My husband and I go to Destin at least two times a year. There is so much to do there from jet skiing to taking a ride on an old wooden rollercoaster. Belize has a wonderful rainforest that they allow you to walk through. During the walk there are multiple caves that can be explored. I love exploring almost anything.
I am unique and I love being myself. The people that understand me are the ones that are close to me. I am outspoken when needed but not always confident in myself. Confidence is something that I lack. I care for others often more than they know. Even though I am not always confident or happy, I am glad to be me and I know I have a lot of things to be thankful for.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not?
Title:Guilty as charged but?
In order to discuss my reaction to Roswell Gilbert killing his wife, I had to find out more details. Everywhere I looked the same word kept popping up, euthanasia. The people that believed Mr. Gilberts took his wife’s life out of love do not call his crime murder but have renamed it euthanasia. To intentionally take another persons life, no matter what the reason, is murder. I feel that the jury in this case made the right decision, Guilty.
Another interesting fact I found was Mr. Gilbert shot his wife in the head. To mean this seems cruel. To shoot someone that you love and I don’t doubt he loved her, would be difficult for me to do. If like Mr. Gilbert claimed his wife begged him to kill her, why didn’t she do it herself? I have to wonder if he stood to gain relief by ending his wife’s life. It can’t be easy to care for someone with such a disorder. Although he loved his wife maybe Mr. Gilbert was tired of caring for her himself and it was to much to continue to do so.
Something else that stood out for me were the words, “He claimed”. Mr. Gilbert claimed that his wife begged him to kill her. I was not able to find out if there was any evidence that supported Mr. Gilberts claim. Even if there was evidence I am not sure it would alter my decision on whether or not Mr. Gilbert should have been guilty of first degree murder. After all there are laws in effect for a reason. For instance, people with cancer suffer horribly toward the end. I watched my friend suffer for months before she died but no one ever thought to kill her. I am sure there were times that Heather wished we would end her suffering but regardless it is illegal to kill another human being. She died on her own in June of 2003.
I believe strongly in the judicial system and I am happy that Mr. Gilbert was denied clemency. There is no excuse for murder even if a person is told to do it. This reminds me of the age old saying, “If someone tells you to jump off a bridge are you going to do it?” Maybe Mr. Gilbert would have followed his wife off a bridge, no one will ever no. Mr. Gilbert passed away in 1994, at the age of 85.
In order to discuss my reaction to Roswell Gilbert killing his wife, I had to find out more details. Everywhere I looked the same word kept popping up, euthanasia. The people that believed Mr. Gilberts took his wife’s life out of love do not call his crime murder but have renamed it euthanasia. To intentionally take another persons life, no matter what the reason, is murder. I feel that the jury in this case made the right decision, Guilty.
Another interesting fact I found was Mr. Gilbert shot his wife in the head. To mean this seems cruel. To shoot someone that you love and I don’t doubt he loved her, would be difficult for me to do. If like Mr. Gilbert claimed his wife begged him to kill her, why didn’t she do it herself? I have to wonder if he stood to gain relief by ending his wife’s life. It can’t be easy to care for someone with such a disorder. Although he loved his wife maybe Mr. Gilbert was tired of caring for her himself and it was to much to continue to do so.
Something else that stood out for me were the words, “He claimed”. Mr. Gilbert claimed that his wife begged him to kill her. I was not able to find out if there was any evidence that supported Mr. Gilberts claim. Even if there was evidence I am not sure it would alter my decision on whether or not Mr. Gilbert should have been guilty of first degree murder. After all there are laws in effect for a reason. For instance, people with cancer suffer horribly toward the end. I watched my friend suffer for months before she died but no one ever thought to kill her. I am sure there were times that Heather wished we would end her suffering but regardless it is illegal to kill another human being. She died on her own in June of 2003.
I believe strongly in the judicial system and I am happy that Mr. Gilbert was denied clemency. There is no excuse for murder even if a person is told to do it. This reminds me of the age old saying, “If someone tells you to jump off a bridge are you going to do it?” Maybe Mr. Gilbert would have followed his wife off a bridge, no one will ever no. Mr. Gilbert passed away in 1994, at the age of 85.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Scissors or the Lawnmower?
Title: Blog on Mailer
Oil,is just one of the reasons Mailer gives for the Iraq war. This reason could have one of the worst effects on people locally around Middle Georgia. The rising cost of gas might just take us back to the days of horse and buggy. It could happen. We could even be flying mini saucers through the air to get to work on time in the near future. If course those saucers would probably use oil too.
If like Mailer said, “That once America occupies Iraq, it will also gain a chokehold on Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East”, this might eventually lead to cheaper prices at the local Chevron gas station on Hwy.96. We as Middle Georgians are just as dependent on oil as the rest of the United States. Employees of the base, or any place in Warner Robins, must get to work somehow even if the employee does not drive their selves. Chances are that however, the local employee gets to work will somehow use oil. Mailer also goes on to say that, oil could never be an admitted reason for war (57). I agree. Oil as a reason far war seems to be a secret that most everyone knows.
Take a step into the yard of most people’s homes in Bonaire, GA this time of year and grass is generally, what you will step onto. That grass has to mowed. The lawnmower we use to cut the grass, you guessed it uses oil also. Even though we have perfectly good scissors in the house, it’s just more convenient to use the oil consuming lawnmowers. If the nation runs out of oil soon people could be out covering the grass with concrete or cutting it with oversized scissors.
Whatever the future holds in one respect I can see how our country could benefit from the war because of the need for oil in the United States. However, there is a need for independence away from oil. Learning to do day to day activities energy efficiently could benefit the country far more than the Iraq war. Its just a thought but it couldn’t be that difficult to the store and it could even help with the weight problem in the U.S..
Oil,is just one of the reasons Mailer gives for the Iraq war. This reason could have one of the worst effects on people locally around Middle Georgia. The rising cost of gas might just take us back to the days of horse and buggy. It could happen. We could even be flying mini saucers through the air to get to work on time in the near future. If course those saucers would probably use oil too.
If like Mailer said, “That once America occupies Iraq, it will also gain a chokehold on Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East”, this might eventually lead to cheaper prices at the local Chevron gas station on Hwy.96. We as Middle Georgians are just as dependent on oil as the rest of the United States. Employees of the base, or any place in Warner Robins, must get to work somehow even if the employee does not drive their selves. Chances are that however, the local employee gets to work will somehow use oil. Mailer also goes on to say that, oil could never be an admitted reason for war (57). I agree. Oil as a reason far war seems to be a secret that most everyone knows.
Take a step into the yard of most people’s homes in Bonaire, GA this time of year and grass is generally, what you will step onto. That grass has to mowed. The lawnmower we use to cut the grass, you guessed it uses oil also. Even though we have perfectly good scissors in the house, it’s just more convenient to use the oil consuming lawnmowers. If the nation runs out of oil soon people could be out covering the grass with concrete or cutting it with oversized scissors.
Whatever the future holds in one respect I can see how our country could benefit from the war because of the need for oil in the United States. However, there is a need for independence away from oil. Learning to do day to day activities energy efficiently could benefit the country far more than the Iraq war. Its just a thought but it couldn’t be that difficult to the store and it could even help with the weight problem in the U.S..
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
A Reason For War
Title: Blog on Mailer
There were several arguments I wanted to express my opinion about while reading the book, Why Are We at War. I found reading this book was difficult because Mr. Mailer often had far different opinions than mine. I feel strongly about some of the dicussions mention by the author especially terrorism.
In the appendix, Norman Mailer explained how he believes if the war continues over the next decade it could be in one respect worse, than any other conflict we as a country have every known. The one reason Mailer gives for this, is that we do not really know what we are fighting for. Terrorism to Mailer is not enough. I do not mean the author any disrespect, I just do not agree. However, I don't understand if when he mention the above wether or not it was toward his feelings for the president or not. In the beggining of the book it was almost like Mailer was defending terrorism and Dotson Rader was for sure defending it. Here is my take on it.
I believe that most of our country does believe that terrorism is enough to fight for. It could eventually mean our loss of freedom if control is not gained. It all goes back to a former argument I made in an earlier blog, if we let terrorist feel like they can take advantage, they will. It would more than likely mean more destruction than we have seen done to the United States. I can’t speak for everyone but I do not want to see another attack like the one on the towers. Dotson Rader agreed with me but not for the same reasons.
Even if terrorism was not enough it is clearly not all we are fighting for. Some innocent people have been killed and not just by our soldiers but by their own people. People who believe it is ok to kill someone just because they look at you the wrong way. I feel that it is obvious that we are trying to establish structure for the nation of Iraq, with a government that does not feel it is ok to kill their own people for just anything. After all aren't all people important even if their not important?
I hope that one day we can become true allies with the Iraq people. Not all of the people in that country are terrorist who are out to harm us, and often time they are happy to see Americans. This makes it all the more obvious why we are there, to help others. These people have never known the freedom that we so often take for granted. This is the true reason I believe we are at war.
There were several arguments I wanted to express my opinion about while reading the book, Why Are We at War. I found reading this book was difficult because Mr. Mailer often had far different opinions than mine. I feel strongly about some of the dicussions mention by the author especially terrorism.
In the appendix, Norman Mailer explained how he believes if the war continues over the next decade it could be in one respect worse, than any other conflict we as a country have every known. The one reason Mailer gives for this, is that we do not really know what we are fighting for. Terrorism to Mailer is not enough. I do not mean the author any disrespect, I just do not agree. However, I don't understand if when he mention the above wether or not it was toward his feelings for the president or not. In the beggining of the book it was almost like Mailer was defending terrorism and Dotson Rader was for sure defending it. Here is my take on it.
I believe that most of our country does believe that terrorism is enough to fight for. It could eventually mean our loss of freedom if control is not gained. It all goes back to a former argument I made in an earlier blog, if we let terrorist feel like they can take advantage, they will. It would more than likely mean more destruction than we have seen done to the United States. I can’t speak for everyone but I do not want to see another attack like the one on the towers. Dotson Rader agreed with me but not for the same reasons.
Even if terrorism was not enough it is clearly not all we are fighting for. Some innocent people have been killed and not just by our soldiers but by their own people. People who believe it is ok to kill someone just because they look at you the wrong way. I feel that it is obvious that we are trying to establish structure for the nation of Iraq, with a government that does not feel it is ok to kill their own people for just anything. After all aren't all people important even if their not important?
I hope that one day we can become true allies with the Iraq people. Not all of the people in that country are terrorist who are out to harm us, and often time they are happy to see Americans. This makes it all the more obvious why we are there, to help others. These people have never known the freedom that we so often take for granted. This is the true reason I believe we are at war.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
True Love Waits
Title: The Alligator River Story
I am sure most people have heard the saying, “True Love Waits”. In my opinion of this particular situation love was worth any of it. It being, waiting to cross the river, sleeping in another’s bed or crossing a river full of hungry alligators. That is if it really was love but if it was, it could have waited a little longer. Here are my ratings of the characters I this story:
Starting with Abigail, I gave her a rating of five. My impression of her is that she is desperate for something other than love. To sleep with another person other than the one she was with is not conceivably right. I have no respect for anyone who would sleep with another person just to gain something for themselves either. I think that giving up her job and moving to the other side of the river would have been a smart idea.
On the other hand, or the opposite side of the river, lives Gregory. I chose to give him a rating of 4. If he loved Abigail and knew she wanted to be with him why didn’t he find a way to get to her? I do not truly think he was in love with Abigail. The story explained that Abigail was in love with Gregory but never really said he was in love with her. Had Gregory actually been in love with Abigail I feel that things might have been a little less one sided.
Moving away from love and into friends is Ivan. Though I do not believe Ivan was the best of friends I do not know the whole situation. I rated him as a three. For all I know he could have been secretly in love with Abigail and did not want her to cross the river to be with Gregory. I think there had to be a reason that Ivan would not want anything to do with the situation.
Friends and business don’t often mix and that leaves me with Sinbad. I gave him a one. My highest rating went to the greedy boat captain. I had to give him credit; he is truly a self person. Even if I wanted to think of myself over others I could never. I have too much compassion. I find a certain respect in people who can think of just themselves and not others.
I do not have respect for people who abuse others. This is why I thought Slug deserved a rating of five. Hitting never solves anything. Slug should have thought through the situation and looked at both sides. Abigail was just as much to blame, if not more than, Gregory. Slug made a decision based on one person’s account of the situation. Gregory could have been really upset and eventually recanted his decision to cast Abigail aside.
None of this would have ever happened if Abigail had just waited a few weeks. The bridge would have eventually been built and Abigail and Gregory could have lived happily ever after. That is if Gregory was in love with her after all. Guess we will never know. Either way I found the story interesting and the Characters even more.
I am sure most people have heard the saying, “True Love Waits”. In my opinion of this particular situation love was worth any of it. It being, waiting to cross the river, sleeping in another’s bed or crossing a river full of hungry alligators. That is if it really was love but if it was, it could have waited a little longer. Here are my ratings of the characters I this story:
Starting with Abigail, I gave her a rating of five. My impression of her is that she is desperate for something other than love. To sleep with another person other than the one she was with is not conceivably right. I have no respect for anyone who would sleep with another person just to gain something for themselves either. I think that giving up her job and moving to the other side of the river would have been a smart idea.
On the other hand, or the opposite side of the river, lives Gregory. I chose to give him a rating of 4. If he loved Abigail and knew she wanted to be with him why didn’t he find a way to get to her? I do not truly think he was in love with Abigail. The story explained that Abigail was in love with Gregory but never really said he was in love with her. Had Gregory actually been in love with Abigail I feel that things might have been a little less one sided.
Moving away from love and into friends is Ivan. Though I do not believe Ivan was the best of friends I do not know the whole situation. I rated him as a three. For all I know he could have been secretly in love with Abigail and did not want her to cross the river to be with Gregory. I think there had to be a reason that Ivan would not want anything to do with the situation.
Friends and business don’t often mix and that leaves me with Sinbad. I gave him a one. My highest rating went to the greedy boat captain. I had to give him credit; he is truly a self person. Even if I wanted to think of myself over others I could never. I have too much compassion. I find a certain respect in people who can think of just themselves and not others.
I do not have respect for people who abuse others. This is why I thought Slug deserved a rating of five. Hitting never solves anything. Slug should have thought through the situation and looked at both sides. Abigail was just as much to blame, if not more than, Gregory. Slug made a decision based on one person’s account of the situation. Gregory could have been really upset and eventually recanted his decision to cast Abigail aside.
None of this would have ever happened if Abigail had just waited a few weeks. The bridge would have eventually been built and Abigail and Gregory could have lived happily ever after. That is if Gregory was in love with her after all. Guess we will never know. Either way I found the story interesting and the Characters even more.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Unique Decisions
Title: Human Rights v. Majority Rule
Majority rule is exactly what it says it is… Majority! Your average person tends to always lean with the overall idea of the group. Human Rights makes you think twice about exactly what it is, the concept of human beings as having universal natural rights. For some of us who are not necessarily with the group decision majority rule can be a big pain in the gluteus maximus. The same can be said for human rights because depending on the group there can be argument as to what certain decisions are a right. Both majority rule and human rights can make living a normal life for some people not so easy.
When majority rule clashes socially, people are often left being judged. For instance, I could personally care less who the designer of my jeans is or where I bought my shirt. I tend to go for comfort. Although, I do not have problems with this others often do because socially majority rule has an effect on everyone thinks they should wear. This can make deciding to go to dinner a tough decision because the group consensus is that as women we should have make up on before we walk out of the house. I hate taking the time to do my makeup especially when I am hungry!
If it isn’t the clothes you wear, it’s your decision not to like the opposite sex but the same one. Although this is a human right gay people are often judged as if it shouldn’t be their choice. I was raised in a family where my parents thought that being gay meant you were condemned to hell. It is like that many places across America. I have many gay friends and I love them for who they are and not what they are. If we as humans could let others make their own choices we might realize that gay people make the best friends and tend to be a lot less judge mental of the things that really matter. A particular gay friend of mine is a teacher but when he applies for a job he tries not to let on about his sexuality because many times he won’t get any further than the interview if they even suspect he is gay. Even though it is his human right it is not accepted to the majority of society today. Public discrimination is still around and not just in the gay community.
Whether it is majority rule or human rights the two will continue to frequently clash in society. I think that it is ideal to make choices that are not exactly what the general decision is. Making those different decisions is what makes us interesting and without interesting people the world wouldn’t be the same and human rights activist wouldn’t have anything to talk about! In my perfect world I would not have to choose which side I am on because there wouldn’t be a side to choose. Everyone would like everyone regardless of race, sex, or political views. I know in my heart that this won’t happen but I also know it is possible.
Majority rule is exactly what it says it is… Majority! Your average person tends to always lean with the overall idea of the group. Human Rights makes you think twice about exactly what it is, the concept of human beings as having universal natural rights. For some of us who are not necessarily with the group decision majority rule can be a big pain in the gluteus maximus. The same can be said for human rights because depending on the group there can be argument as to what certain decisions are a right. Both majority rule and human rights can make living a normal life for some people not so easy.
When majority rule clashes socially, people are often left being judged. For instance, I could personally care less who the designer of my jeans is or where I bought my shirt. I tend to go for comfort. Although, I do not have problems with this others often do because socially majority rule has an effect on everyone thinks they should wear. This can make deciding to go to dinner a tough decision because the group consensus is that as women we should have make up on before we walk out of the house. I hate taking the time to do my makeup especially when I am hungry!
If it isn’t the clothes you wear, it’s your decision not to like the opposite sex but the same one. Although this is a human right gay people are often judged as if it shouldn’t be their choice. I was raised in a family where my parents thought that being gay meant you were condemned to hell. It is like that many places across America. I have many gay friends and I love them for who they are and not what they are. If we as humans could let others make their own choices we might realize that gay people make the best friends and tend to be a lot less judge mental of the things that really matter. A particular gay friend of mine is a teacher but when he applies for a job he tries not to let on about his sexuality because many times he won’t get any further than the interview if they even suspect he is gay. Even though it is his human right it is not accepted to the majority of society today. Public discrimination is still around and not just in the gay community.
Whether it is majority rule or human rights the two will continue to frequently clash in society. I think that it is ideal to make choices that are not exactly what the general decision is. Making those different decisions is what makes us interesting and without interesting people the world wouldn’t be the same and human rights activist wouldn’t have anything to talk about! In my perfect world I would not have to choose which side I am on because there wouldn’t be a side to choose. Everyone would like everyone regardless of race, sex, or political views. I know in my heart that this won’t happen but I also know it is possible.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A Time to Die
Title: Hijack
“Is it really time for me to die now?” I am sure this question floats through the mind of any innocent victim of terrorism. You never want to be the deciding factor as to whether some one lives or dies but in the situation of terrorism losing a smaller amount of life is better than risking the life of billions. Would I personally, if the decision was left to me, decide to give our United States criminals in exchange for that of terror victims, I would not. In the greater scheme of things to give into terrorist, even one time, would likely cause more destruction to United States property, more wars, and more loss of American life.
Looking at the where the Twin Towers once stood would only confirm my decision not to give in to terrorist. The amount of destruction caused to the heart of the United States on that faithful day is inconceivable. There are reasons that we have policies such as that of counterterrorism and that’s because policies such as these keeps us a country just a little safer. I can only imagine the amount of damage that could be caused on United Stated soil if we were to give in to terrorist every time they took a hostage and demanded something in return. In my opinion it all goes back to a saying we have all heard before, “If you let them get away with it once, they will do it again”.
As for the wars that we have overseas, can you imagine them being here? We will always have war just hopefully not in the United States. I believe this would be one of the thoughts of mine in making the decision not to save a plane full of human lives in exchange for criminals. Not only would I be allowing the terrorist to get away with such nonsense but I would be handing over bad guys to the bad guys! That just does not make sense in a world where we strive on our countries laws.
In any term that you choose to look at this particular situation lives would be lost. Even if I was to give into my beliefs and give into terrorism eventually it would come back around to haunt me. I would have to take into account that if I did trade our criminals for the hostages on the plane the terrorist would likely come back with even greater demands. Who’s to say that they would not kill the hostage no matter what I chose to do. I would however have heartfelt sorrow for the victims and even for the terrorist who, for some reason, have chosen to do something so horrible.
To let the United States become vulnerable to terrorism is something I could not allow myself to do. We as citizens of the U.S. tend to say this is a free country but people loose their lives everyday so that we can have the freedom to live out lives the way that we choose. In order for this to remain a free country there are tough decisions to be made daily. My decision would be based upon saving as many lives as possible and I can not see how giving into terrorist would save lives in the long run.
“Is it really time for me to die now?” I am sure this question floats through the mind of any innocent victim of terrorism. You never want to be the deciding factor as to whether some one lives or dies but in the situation of terrorism losing a smaller amount of life is better than risking the life of billions. Would I personally, if the decision was left to me, decide to give our United States criminals in exchange for that of terror victims, I would not. In the greater scheme of things to give into terrorist, even one time, would likely cause more destruction to United States property, more wars, and more loss of American life.
Looking at the where the Twin Towers once stood would only confirm my decision not to give in to terrorist. The amount of destruction caused to the heart of the United States on that faithful day is inconceivable. There are reasons that we have policies such as that of counterterrorism and that’s because policies such as these keeps us a country just a little safer. I can only imagine the amount of damage that could be caused on United Stated soil if we were to give in to terrorist every time they took a hostage and demanded something in return. In my opinion it all goes back to a saying we have all heard before, “If you let them get away with it once, they will do it again”.
As for the wars that we have overseas, can you imagine them being here? We will always have war just hopefully not in the United States. I believe this would be one of the thoughts of mine in making the decision not to save a plane full of human lives in exchange for criminals. Not only would I be allowing the terrorist to get away with such nonsense but I would be handing over bad guys to the bad guys! That just does not make sense in a world where we strive on our countries laws.
In any term that you choose to look at this particular situation lives would be lost. Even if I was to give into my beliefs and give into terrorism eventually it would come back around to haunt me. I would have to take into account that if I did trade our criminals for the hostages on the plane the terrorist would likely come back with even greater demands. Who’s to say that they would not kill the hostage no matter what I chose to do. I would however have heartfelt sorrow for the victims and even for the terrorist who, for some reason, have chosen to do something so horrible.
To let the United States become vulnerable to terrorism is something I could not allow myself to do. We as citizens of the U.S. tend to say this is a free country but people loose their lives everyday so that we can have the freedom to live out lives the way that we choose. In order for this to remain a free country there are tough decisions to be made daily. My decision would be based upon saving as many lives as possible and I can not see how giving into terrorist would save lives in the long run.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
I Choose Morals
Title: Right or Wrong
A relativist believes that everyone’s points of view are equal; for me, this is not the case. Throughout my life, my decisions have always been based upon my morals and the way that I view different situations. To be a relativist is just not the right decision for me. Therefore, I am more of a moral absolutist. Cases such of such as those of child sex predators, Elizabeth Smart, and Andrea Yates, are all the more convincing in my decision not to be a relativist.
Child sex predators are one of the many reasons I believe in my morals. I can not, in any sense, bring myself to believe that it is okay to take advantage of a child. Obviously, I am not the only human being that feels this same way. Recently, John Walsh helped to pass the Adam Walsh Protect Act in memory of his son, who was murdered by a child predator. This act will help to protect our nation’s children from violent sex crimes. Just one more reason I can appreciate being a moral absolutist.
The case of Elizabeth Smart is another good example of the views I have. While reading the book, “Bringing Elizabeth Home”, I was shocked to learn that Elizabeth’ captors actually thought that the crime they were committing was for God. The captors held Elizabeth for many months and even changed her name. According to my reading a relativist would have been more open to the ideas of Elizabeth Smarts captors. This due to the fact they believed in what they were doing and that it was for God. In my opinion, God or not kidnapping is not morally correct.
Finally, there is the case of Andrea Yates; though it was a little different it was still not morally sound. In this case Mrs. Yates murdered all of her children by drowning them. In court, the deaths of her children were blamed on post-partum depression. The idea of this disease is that new mothers often fell depressed and overwhelmed. I do believe that women suffer from this post-partum depression but not every woman suffering from this disease murders their children. Take the case of Brooke Shields, she chose to seek help and it all worked out for her.
Morals for me will always prevail, in any decision that I am forced to make. I would like to think that I am a fair person but in situations as those above it makes it hard. Was it fair for any of these children to go through what they suffered? Not to me. I am happy with my choice to be a moral absolutist. It is the right decision for me.
A relativist believes that everyone’s points of view are equal; for me, this is not the case. Throughout my life, my decisions have always been based upon my morals and the way that I view different situations. To be a relativist is just not the right decision for me. Therefore, I am more of a moral absolutist. Cases such of such as those of child sex predators, Elizabeth Smart, and Andrea Yates, are all the more convincing in my decision not to be a relativist.
Child sex predators are one of the many reasons I believe in my morals. I can not, in any sense, bring myself to believe that it is okay to take advantage of a child. Obviously, I am not the only human being that feels this same way. Recently, John Walsh helped to pass the Adam Walsh Protect Act in memory of his son, who was murdered by a child predator. This act will help to protect our nation’s children from violent sex crimes. Just one more reason I can appreciate being a moral absolutist.
The case of Elizabeth Smart is another good example of the views I have. While reading the book, “Bringing Elizabeth Home”, I was shocked to learn that Elizabeth’ captors actually thought that the crime they were committing was for God. The captors held Elizabeth for many months and even changed her name. According to my reading a relativist would have been more open to the ideas of Elizabeth Smarts captors. This due to the fact they believed in what they were doing and that it was for God. In my opinion, God or not kidnapping is not morally correct.
Finally, there is the case of Andrea Yates; though it was a little different it was still not morally sound. In this case Mrs. Yates murdered all of her children by drowning them. In court, the deaths of her children were blamed on post-partum depression. The idea of this disease is that new mothers often fell depressed and overwhelmed. I do believe that women suffer from this post-partum depression but not every woman suffering from this disease murders their children. Take the case of Brooke Shields, she chose to seek help and it all worked out for her.
Morals for me will always prevail, in any decision that I am forced to make. I would like to think that I am a fair person but in situations as those above it makes it hard. Was it fair for any of these children to go through what they suffered? Not to me. I am happy with my choice to be a moral absolutist. It is the right decision for me.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The World As I See It
Topic: Perception
Knowledge of ones self, is a power that I feel is very strong. Evidently, from what I have learned Socrates felt the same way. Though, Gorgias had some of the same ideas he also had some incredibly different beliefs. I happen to find the beliefs of Gorgias a little more interesting that those of Socrates. With that said this is the way I see the beliefs of the certain sophist in today's world.
Gorgias believed that persuasion was of the highest importance and greatest value. As a child, when you are told "No", about anything that you may want at the time you usually begin with the more than common "I will do anything, even clean my room". At this point, you have already began to learn the power of persuasion. I happen to agree with the sophist Gorgias for a multitude of reasons. One of those reason being that persuasion, if you think about it, is used on a daily basis in the United States. It was at the root of George W. Bushes election into presidency and all the presidents before him. President Bush has by far not been my favorite electoral candidate but somehow, he convinced me through all of his speeches, that I should vote for him. In order to be elected all candidates of any electoral race have to give us reasons on why we should give them our vote thus, the power of persuasion.
I also feel that we are subjective to the beliefs of our parents and those who closely surround us. For instance, I like my mother was raised in a baptist church with baptist beliefs. My husband on the other hand was raised in a catholic church with catholic beliefs. Changing your beliefs to another persons, is not as easy as it may seem. This is where I feel I am most subjective especially to the beliefs of my family. Gorgias argued that only being exist. Could this possibly mean that there is no reason to believe in religion? If that which most of us know as God does not exist, then what is the point of religion at all?
The important thought to remember is that Gorgas, Socrates, and all great sophist never agreed about all of the same ideas. This is what makes each of them stand out in history. I am sure the same could be said for you and I because we probably do not agree about all the same beliefs. This is what makes the world so interesting for if we agreed on everything in my opinion it would be and extremely boring world.
Knowledge of ones self, is a power that I feel is very strong. Evidently, from what I have learned Socrates felt the same way. Though, Gorgias had some of the same ideas he also had some incredibly different beliefs. I happen to find the beliefs of Gorgias a little more interesting that those of Socrates. With that said this is the way I see the beliefs of the certain sophist in today's world.
Gorgias believed that persuasion was of the highest importance and greatest value. As a child, when you are told "No", about anything that you may want at the time you usually begin with the more than common "I will do anything, even clean my room". At this point, you have already began to learn the power of persuasion. I happen to agree with the sophist Gorgias for a multitude of reasons. One of those reason being that persuasion, if you think about it, is used on a daily basis in the United States. It was at the root of George W. Bushes election into presidency and all the presidents before him. President Bush has by far not been my favorite electoral candidate but somehow, he convinced me through all of his speeches, that I should vote for him. In order to be elected all candidates of any electoral race have to give us reasons on why we should give them our vote thus, the power of persuasion.
I also feel that we are subjective to the beliefs of our parents and those who closely surround us. For instance, I like my mother was raised in a baptist church with baptist beliefs. My husband on the other hand was raised in a catholic church with catholic beliefs. Changing your beliefs to another persons, is not as easy as it may seem. This is where I feel I am most subjective especially to the beliefs of my family. Gorgias argued that only being exist. Could this possibly mean that there is no reason to believe in religion? If that which most of us know as God does not exist, then what is the point of religion at all?
The important thought to remember is that Gorgas, Socrates, and all great sophist never agreed about all of the same ideas. This is what makes each of them stand out in history. I am sure the same could be said for you and I because we probably do not agree about all the same beliefs. This is what makes the world so interesting for if we agreed on everything in my opinion it would be and extremely boring world.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
All About Me
My Name is Brandi, I am 23 years old. I have been married for two years to my wonderful husband Chris. Chris and I live in Bonaire, with our two Siamese cats and a spoiled rotten Yorkshire terrier. I guess you could say that we are stationed here but I grew up in Macon most of my life. I work at the Enlisted Club on base part-time in the bingo program. Working in the program has been one of the best jobs I have every had. My favorite thing in life is my quarter horse, Lightning. When I am not at school, studying, or at work you can usually find me at the barn. It is one of my favorite places to be. I love school but, I am a little obsessive-compulsive about my grades. When I truly want something I strive for it and college is one of those things I truly want. Hanging a diploma on my wall will be one of the greatest days in my life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
