Prompt: The Alligator River Story
In this story, a group of five people are put through a situation where their character, decision-making skills, and loyalty is put to the test . In terms of respect for their decisions throughout the story and the roles they play, I believe they are all idiotic...but then again, some i respect more than the others:
#5-Least respect goes to Ivan. Ivan turned his back when Abigal came to him with her plight of how to get across the deadly, alligator infested river. He simply did not want to be involved in the situation, so he neither helped her nor stood up for her. To me, someone who cannot accept a friend's request for help is selfish and cowardly, but I also think that everyone, at some point, has turned their back on something they should have come forward about. The idea of staying neutral is an "easy-out" for not having to deal with anyone else but yourself.
#4-Almost as bad as Ivan is Sinbad. I mean seriously. I have no respect for someone who would even think of using sexual intercourse as a type of toll. That's just wrong.
#3-Then there is Abigal. I placed her at #3 because her situation was the trickiest one to analyze and be critical of. I respect her for the unfailing love and devotion that she felt for Gregory, yes, but I do not respect her for letting that same love consume her mind that she would go and subject her body to be used in order to see Gregory. I believe that is foolish and stupid, honestly. Obviously, she was not thinking about the consequences it would have once she told her man. She should have waited PATIENTLY for the couple of weeks needed to rebuild the bridge, and then gone to see him.
#2-Seond most respected goes to Gregory. Yes, the guy does sound like a meany when you first read the passage, but after thinking about his decision, I began to understand his motive. Abigal should not have had intercourse with Sinbad. Period. End of Discussion. Gregory had a right to kick her to the curb! She obviously wasn't very intelligent anyways! Too bad he got beat up for it...
#1-And out of all the bafoons in this story, I respect Slug the most. He is a true friend in my eyes. He showed understanding, compassion, and loyalty when Abigal came to him with her teary woes, and then he took action! Slug didn't say, "Oh, it'll be ok." and turn his back on her as Ivan did. Instead, SLUG TO THE RESCUE!!! He goes to the source of her misery, Gregory, and promptly beats him to a pulp. Ok, so probably not the best way to handle it, but my respect is for Slug's great heart.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Faux Americans: Are You a Fair-Weather Fan?
Prompt: Mailer Blog #1
In Norman Mailer's book "Why Are We at War?", he actually describes Americans, after the tragic September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, as showing newly devoted "flag-waving" because of the event. This means that he said because of an attack on the security of their nation, many Americans were suddenly all for supporting the United States and showing their "love" for their country. Mailer also bluntly describes this "flag-waving" as "promiscuous patriotism" on the part of Americans.
Promiscuous behavior is defined as casual, haphazard, random, and irregular.
Patriotism is defined as devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
Put the two together under what Mailer believes and you get "Casual and irregular devotion for one's country.
Ouch.
I agree with Norman Mailer on this point. After 9/11, I heard many people speaking about the United States with sickeningly, fake enthusiasm when not a week before, they had absolutely nothing good to say about the country or its leaders or policies on foreign affairs. Every where I looked, there were American flags hung out around every porch; patriotic pins on the front of everyone's jacket. Hymns about love of country and "God Bless America" were sung in churches and support groups were formed all with the same attitude of patriotism.
And then a few months passed and it all fell apart.
Most people went back to their "America-Bush-Iraq"-bashing ways, and threw their flag pins in the trash. I had actually gotten excited about people stepping up and defending their country's ideals and beliefs, but I guess most of it was fake anyways. Mailer makes a valid point about our slack expressions of love for our country, but I believe we should take a stand and bring our patriotism back to the forefront of our nation!! We should be supporting our leaders even through the most difficult moments and decisions they must experience every day. Don't be a "fair-weather fan" and only support the home team when they're winning. Be proud of where you are from!!!
GO AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
In Norman Mailer's book "Why Are We at War?", he actually describes Americans, after the tragic September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, as showing newly devoted "flag-waving" because of the event. This means that he said because of an attack on the security of their nation, many Americans were suddenly all for supporting the United States and showing their "love" for their country. Mailer also bluntly describes this "flag-waving" as "promiscuous patriotism" on the part of Americans.
Promiscuous behavior is defined as casual, haphazard, random, and irregular.
Patriotism is defined as devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
Put the two together under what Mailer believes and you get "Casual and irregular devotion for one's country.
Ouch.
I agree with Norman Mailer on this point. After 9/11, I heard many people speaking about the United States with sickeningly, fake enthusiasm when not a week before, they had absolutely nothing good to say about the country or its leaders or policies on foreign affairs. Every where I looked, there were American flags hung out around every porch; patriotic pins on the front of everyone's jacket. Hymns about love of country and "God Bless America" were sung in churches and support groups were formed all with the same attitude of patriotism.
And then a few months passed and it all fell apart.
Most people went back to their "America-Bush-Iraq"-bashing ways, and threw their flag pins in the trash. I had actually gotten excited about people stepping up and defending their country's ideals and beliefs, but I guess most of it was fake anyways. Mailer makes a valid point about our slack expressions of love for our country, but I believe we should take a stand and bring our patriotism back to the forefront of our nation!! We should be supporting our leaders even through the most difficult moments and decisions they must experience every day. Don't be a "fair-weather fan" and only support the home team when they're winning. Be proud of where you are from!!!
GO AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
"I Believe!!!...Oh, You Want Me to Shut Up? Ok..."
Prompt: Human Rights vs. Majority Rule
Ok, so this is a hard topic. It's hard because no matter what, somebody's going to get their toes stepped on. But, here goes...
The subject of sexual preference (hetro/homo) has been increasingly debated upon over the past few years and has now reached the workforce, as shown in the situation in Miami. If a person decides he/she is gay: more power to ya. I do not have a problem with anyone's sexuality, as long as it doesn't become obnoxious. This is true with homosexuals AND heterosexuals. Both can be obnoxiously...well...sexual! I still believe that no matter what preference a person has, he/she can still contribute to society: we are all humans, after all.
In the situation of a member of the gay community participating in the workforce as an outwardly-open homosexual, I still don't think there is a problem. If he/she is a teacher, a child can still learn and benefit from him/her just as he would from a heterosexual teacher. (The kid should also have been taught not to pry into his teacher's personal business!) There should be no discrimination against sexual preference.
Then again, majority rule has been a decision making tool since the birth of this nation. If a collective group of people who have the same argument out numbers another group with a different argument, Group A wins the debate. The majority of the people believe in that argument, therefore it is the proposed solution for all. In America today, the majority of people still make up heterosexuals and the minority is still the homosexuals: tough love, baby.
Yes, all humans are created equal and all have the right to live freely in every aspect of the word, BUT our country’s government makes decisions based on majority rule, and the majority thinks that a person’s sexual preference should be considered when applying for a job. The question is: do you fight for your rights to live happily and freely, or do you abide by the “rules” and wait for things to change?
Ok, so this is a hard topic. It's hard because no matter what, somebody's going to get their toes stepped on. But, here goes...
The subject of sexual preference (hetro/homo) has been increasingly debated upon over the past few years and has now reached the workforce, as shown in the situation in Miami. If a person decides he/she is gay: more power to ya. I do not have a problem with anyone's sexuality, as long as it doesn't become obnoxious. This is true with homosexuals AND heterosexuals. Both can be obnoxiously...well...sexual! I still believe that no matter what preference a person has, he/she can still contribute to society: we are all humans, after all.
In the situation of a member of the gay community participating in the workforce as an outwardly-open homosexual, I still don't think there is a problem. If he/she is a teacher, a child can still learn and benefit from him/her just as he would from a heterosexual teacher. (The kid should also have been taught not to pry into his teacher's personal business!) There should be no discrimination against sexual preference.
Then again, majority rule has been a decision making tool since the birth of this nation. If a collective group of people who have the same argument out numbers another group with a different argument, Group A wins the debate. The majority of the people believe in that argument, therefore it is the proposed solution for all. In America today, the majority of people still make up heterosexuals and the minority is still the homosexuals: tough love, baby.
Yes, all humans are created equal and all have the right to live freely in every aspect of the word, BUT our country’s government makes decisions based on majority rule, and the majority thinks that a person’s sexual preference should be considered when applying for a job. The question is: do you fight for your rights to live happily and freely, or do you abide by the “rules” and wait for things to change?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
To Sacrifice? Or Not to Sacrifice? THAT is a Terrible Question...
Prompt: Hijack!!
Although, I would never even dream of becoming the leader of this country, let’s, just this once, pretend that I am the President of the United States of America…it does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it??
The nation’s current policy on terrorism is as follows:
Now, now. Before you get your panties all in a wad, let me finish. Imagine that terrorists hijack an American plane and threaten to blow it, and everyone aboard, to pieces if my country doesn’t release from custody certain terrorist criminals. If it was my responsibility as president to come to a decision I would decide to say “Nope. No way.”
I believe that no negotiation is the best way. How many times in movies has the pretty girl been captured by the villain and used for bait/ransom to get the handsome hero to do what he wants? And how many times has that same pretty girl desperately told the hero “Don’t listen to him!!! Don’t do it!!”? Take the animated Hercules for instance. (Bear with me…) Meg is in a chokehold thanks to Hades who is telling Hercules to give up all his immortal powers or the girl gets it. Meg tells Hercules not to listen to Hades, but what does the oaf do? He agrees and gives all his godlike ability over to the lord of the dead. Sadly, Meg made a deal with Hades from the beginning that she would serve as bait to get Hercules’s powers as long as Hades didn’t kill him. So, not only does the hero lose all his cool powers, but he gets his feelings hurt as well. Meg did tell him though…
See, what if I agreed to hand over the criminals, and the hijackers had already planted a bomb on the airliner and they kill the passengers anyways? And even if they didn’t blow up the plane, those newly freed criminals could be the very ones to develop another terroristic attack where even more innocent lives are lost. In my view, I would not want my country to stoop low enough to even make out what terrorists are saying, much less actually negotiate with them. Any person who thinks it’s cute to just randomly blow up buildings with thousands of people inside, is not even good enough to look at.
Some people, including myself when I first read the prompt, may question the morality behind this decision. The idea that my decision could kill 100 people just to keep, maybe, five captured terrorists in American custody is frightening even to me. But, what if the criminals crack and give up information about the other terrorists, for example: where they all LIVE! :) You could be saving hundreds of thousands of people in the future!
Governments are not godlike. They are made up of humans: Humans who fumble and make mistakes and are not perfect. The job of deciding who may die and who may live should not be on any person’s shoulders, but somebody’s got to do it. Personally, I am very glad it isn’t me.
Although, I would never even dream of becoming the leader of this country, let’s, just this once, pretend that I am the President of the United States of America…it does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it??
The nation’s current policy on terrorism is as follows:
- The US will not negotiate, pay ransom, or make any agreement involving hostages with people supporting terrorism.
- Although, the federal government will do everything in its power to return any persons being held against their will by terrorists in as safe a manner as possible.
And I whole heartedly agree.
Now, now. Before you get your panties all in a wad, let me finish. Imagine that terrorists hijack an American plane and threaten to blow it, and everyone aboard, to pieces if my country doesn’t release from custody certain terrorist criminals. If it was my responsibility as president to come to a decision I would decide to say “Nope. No way.”
I believe that no negotiation is the best way. How many times in movies has the pretty girl been captured by the villain and used for bait/ransom to get the handsome hero to do what he wants? And how many times has that same pretty girl desperately told the hero “Don’t listen to him!!! Don’t do it!!”? Take the animated Hercules for instance. (Bear with me…) Meg is in a chokehold thanks to Hades who is telling Hercules to give up all his immortal powers or the girl gets it. Meg tells Hercules not to listen to Hades, but what does the oaf do? He agrees and gives all his godlike ability over to the lord of the dead. Sadly, Meg made a deal with Hades from the beginning that she would serve as bait to get Hercules’s powers as long as Hades didn’t kill him. So, not only does the hero lose all his cool powers, but he gets his feelings hurt as well. Meg did tell him though…
See, what if I agreed to hand over the criminals, and the hijackers had already planted a bomb on the airliner and they kill the passengers anyways? And even if they didn’t blow up the plane, those newly freed criminals could be the very ones to develop another terroristic attack where even more innocent lives are lost. In my view, I would not want my country to stoop low enough to even make out what terrorists are saying, much less actually negotiate with them. Any person who thinks it’s cute to just randomly blow up buildings with thousands of people inside, is not even good enough to look at.
Some people, including myself when I first read the prompt, may question the morality behind this decision. The idea that my decision could kill 100 people just to keep, maybe, five captured terrorists in American custody is frightening even to me. But, what if the criminals crack and give up information about the other terrorists, for example: where they all LIVE! :) You could be saving hundreds of thousands of people in the future!
Governments are not godlike. They are made up of humans: Humans who fumble and make mistakes and are not perfect. The job of deciding who may die and who may live should not be on any person’s shoulders, but somebody’s got to do it. Personally, I am very glad it isn’t me.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
This is Right, right? Wrong. It is wrong? Right. Wait...what?
Prompt: Right or Wrong?
What is “right” and what is “wrong”? These are questions that have plagued centuries of individual people, governments, and even entire nations. Is it a moral thing or a conscious choice that can change due to religion, politics, culture, generation, or tradition?
In my own life, I was raised to apply absolutist views to certain things, but in the end I always come to the conclusion that there is a legitimate reason for someone thinking differently about that situation. There are decisions that I make that are based solely on what I believe to be completely “right”, but I always think of how another would act in that situation. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with it in my mind and yet another person would never even think about attempting it.
Relativist views are defined as seeing different moral issues or decisions as subject to culture or tradition, therefore it is racist to try and have rules/regulations that are imperious to all. How can you have moral codes that are necessary for everyone to follow when everyone has their own subjective views? There are people who believe that no crime should be punishable by death. I personally believe that if a person plants a bomb in a certain building and consciously decides to kill everyone in a 500 foot radius by the push of a button, he/she deserves to die. Simple as that.
This same bomber, though, could have come from a culture that prides itself on the terrorist way it deals with situations, and encourages their men and women to do their “duty” to the society no matter what is required of them; even murder.
I also strongly believe that the knowledge and technological advances that come with each new generation should be the bases for new laws and/or moral beliefs. In the early 1900’s, it was believed to be a terrible insult to associate with anyone from a different class or race. It was considered immoral. Yet one hundred years later, anyone can be the head manager of a large corporation, or marry outside of their race, or live in the biggest house in town.
I think, in some ways, being absolutist is just a narrow-minded way to not have to think for yourself. There are set rules for everything. You do not have to question anything and you live your life accordingly. If there is nothing to question and nothing to learn from investigation, how will you ever find the real truth?
What is “right” and what is “wrong”? These are questions that have plagued centuries of individual people, governments, and even entire nations. Is it a moral thing or a conscious choice that can change due to religion, politics, culture, generation, or tradition?
In my own life, I was raised to apply absolutist views to certain things, but in the end I always come to the conclusion that there is a legitimate reason for someone thinking differently about that situation. There are decisions that I make that are based solely on what I believe to be completely “right”, but I always think of how another would act in that situation. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with it in my mind and yet another person would never even think about attempting it.
Relativist views are defined as seeing different moral issues or decisions as subject to culture or tradition, therefore it is racist to try and have rules/regulations that are imperious to all. How can you have moral codes that are necessary for everyone to follow when everyone has their own subjective views? There are people who believe that no crime should be punishable by death. I personally believe that if a person plants a bomb in a certain building and consciously decides to kill everyone in a 500 foot radius by the push of a button, he/she deserves to die. Simple as that.
This same bomber, though, could have come from a culture that prides itself on the terrorist way it deals with situations, and encourages their men and women to do their “duty” to the society no matter what is required of them; even murder.
I also strongly believe that the knowledge and technological advances that come with each new generation should be the bases for new laws and/or moral beliefs. In the early 1900’s, it was believed to be a terrible insult to associate with anyone from a different class or race. It was considered immoral. Yet one hundred years later, anyone can be the head manager of a large corporation, or marry outside of their race, or live in the biggest house in town.
I think, in some ways, being absolutist is just a narrow-minded way to not have to think for yourself. There are set rules for everything. You do not have to question anything and you live your life accordingly. If there is nothing to question and nothing to learn from investigation, how will you ever find the real truth?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Things You KNOW Are Actually UNKNOWABLE
Prompt: Perception
"The Truth will set you Free!!"
Ok, so not necessarily. Maybe The Truth is not just one, concrete thing. And anything that isn't concrete is hard to define. So, if the Truth isn't concrete and is actually more complex to discover, what makes it so difficult?
My mind usually seems to agree well with change. I don't mind changing my ideas, plans, opinions, and even perceptions. My perception of people comes about initially from first impressions: "Hi. my name is John and I am a Georgia fan." BAD. "Hello. I'm Samantha and I ride horses." GOOD. This is generally what most people base their thoughts of others on; that initial impact a person makes. I must say that even though a leading perception is crucial, I also believe that people don't show their true selves until later on in the game, no matter how many times a person says "Man, I'm just being true to myself...blahblahblah." Yeah...right. I think this is true of all people. Not until a person is completely comfortable in their surroundings do they actually become their "true selves".
Perception is subject to change. I believe that when you encounter another's perception on a topic, you automatically take into account what they believe and meld it with what you thought you believed. Therefore, maybe objective, or the bigger picture, perception is actually impossible. The knowledge you gain can, in fact, bring you closer to the actual truth of a matter, but I believe a person is still subjective no matter what they have learned.
And so if subjective-perception is flexible, maybe you become closer to objectivity by the many other subjective-perceptions you encounter. Subjectivity is defined as an "internal reality". I think it should be everyone's goal to get out of that internal world and try to understand what is outside their own minds.
"Hi my name is John and I'm a Georgia fan...but I also love horses!"
SWEET.
"The Truth will set you Free!!"
Ok, so not necessarily. Maybe The Truth is not just one, concrete thing. And anything that isn't concrete is hard to define. So, if the Truth isn't concrete and is actually more complex to discover, what makes it so difficult?
My mind usually seems to agree well with change. I don't mind changing my ideas, plans, opinions, and even perceptions. My perception of people comes about initially from first impressions: "Hi. my name is John and I am a Georgia fan." BAD. "Hello. I'm Samantha and I ride horses." GOOD. This is generally what most people base their thoughts of others on; that initial impact a person makes. I must say that even though a leading perception is crucial, I also believe that people don't show their true selves until later on in the game, no matter how many times a person says "Man, I'm just being true to myself...blahblahblah." Yeah...right. I think this is true of all people. Not until a person is completely comfortable in their surroundings do they actually become their "true selves".
Perception is subject to change. I believe that when you encounter another's perception on a topic, you automatically take into account what they believe and meld it with what you thought you believed. Therefore, maybe objective, or the bigger picture, perception is actually impossible. The knowledge you gain can, in fact, bring you closer to the actual truth of a matter, but I believe a person is still subjective no matter what they have learned.
And so if subjective-perception is flexible, maybe you become closer to objectivity by the many other subjective-perceptions you encounter. Subjectivity is defined as an "internal reality". I think it should be everyone's goal to get out of that internal world and try to understand what is outside their own minds.
"Hi my name is John and I'm a Georgia fan...but I also love horses!"
SWEET.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Introduction
My name is Rachel and I am currently a student at Macon State College. My major is English but is definately subject to change. I have a feeling it might because I'm not really sure what to do with my life, but we'll find out. I am a working girl, but not your typical "Welcome to Cheddars. May I take your order?" college kind. I work at an equestrian center teaching young students horseback riding lessons. Another point that is not typical, is that I actually love my job! It makes me feel like I am contributing to young minds around me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)