When the new law on gun control was passed almost two months ago making Florida the fourth state to allow guns at the workplace, I had mixed feelings about the new legislation. According to the new law, if my employer is not a hospital, prison, power plant or school, I can take my handgun to work as long as I have a concealed weapons permit and the gun is locked inside my vehicle. Is this good or bad news?
In the gun control article “showdown,” it states that Florida has more concealed weapons permits than any other state in the nation. The article also indicates the new law is good news for some Floridians and bad news for others.
What was the true intent of the United States Constitution with regards to the rights of citizens to bear arms?
What is the point in bringing a gun to work? Think a bout it, how often are people robbed or shot at during work hours? Speaking from the point of view of a person who works a normal forty-hour work week and considers himself to be a law-abiding citizen, I have never found myself in a threatening work situation where I felt the need to physically defend myself, let alone pull out a gun.
The people I work with who have dishonorable intentions or criminal minds probably already bring their guns to work, and up until now, I have never felt intimidated by them. I feel intimidated because I do not know who they are, but now that this law has been passed that legally allows guns to be brought to work, it makes me feel that I may be at a disadvantage.
I could be the only one at work unarmed which , in turn, makes me suspicious and fearful of everyone. I think that this new legislation would only put everyone on edge and create a more hostile work environment.
Everyone is already aware of the reputation of the United States Postal Service with regards to workplace violence. As a postal employee, now I know that everyone can legally bring their guns to work. This does not make me feel like I am working in a safer work environment.
In fact, taking into consideration some of the strange people that I work with, it makes me feel just the opposite I am sure that law makers that passed this law had good intentions, but I feel that they failed to make it clear to the public how this law is to be interpreted.
Saying that it is now legal to bring a gun to work is too broad of a statement. Where do you draw the line with the interpretation of this law? What are the limitations?
When I go to a place such as Disney World, am I to assume that it is a strong possibility that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck could have access to a weapon?
When I take my six-year old son to school, or my two-year old daughter to daycare, it doesn’t give me an added since of assurance for their safety knowing that it is a possibility that their teachers may have a gun a work.
When I go to church, knowing that it is a possibility that the pastor, the deacons, ushers or even the secretary may have access to a gun does not make me feel safer either.
Everything has its place and unless you work at a job where you are required to carry a weapon, the work place is certainly no place for a gun. The gun laws are too lax and need to be stricter.
I do not think we as citizens will ever know the true intent of the United States Constitution with regards to who should bear arms. The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed.
What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Defining the intent of the Second Amendment has created a great deal of controversy. Many think that the word “people” does not mean individuals but a collective group.
However, there are others who think that the Second Amendment means the militia has the only right to bear arms, not individuals. “The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee , not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to bear arms” (GunCite).
What do the presidential nominees think about gun control? John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.
Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
Barack Obama thinks we have two conflicting traditions in this country. He stated, “I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.
We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.
And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.” (On the Issues).
So, both McCain and Obama believe the Second Amendment was written to give individuals the fundamental right to bear arms. However, both also think that guns should not be easily be accessible to the hands of criminals.
References
Barack Obama on Gun Control. “On the Issues.” Barack Obama on Gun Control
15 July 2008. 16 August 2008. < http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_
Obama_Gun_Control.htm >
Gun Control. “Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment.”
9 September 2007. 16 August 2008. <>
“Gun Control Showdown.” Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association. 3 July 2008.
16 August 2008. < http://www.economist.com/world/United States
displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670740 >
John McCain on Gun Control. “On the Issues.” John McCain on Gun Control
15 July 2008. 16 August 2008. < http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_
McCain_Gun_Control.htm
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Jesus or Santa Clause? Which Do You Celebrate?
Christmas, is it a religious holiday or an opportunity for retailers to capitalize on society's overwhelming passion of feeling the need to shop?
The time has come to accept the fact that Christmas is no longer only celebrated as a religious holiday, but it is also celebrated and viewed as a business opportunity.
Go to any city in the United States and ask any kid what does Christmas mean. I would be willing to bet a year's salary that between 90-95% of them will respond with an answer that revolves around receiving and/or exchanging gifts.
Today, as a forty-two year old man, I can remember when there once was a time when the true meaning of Christmas was celebrated. Maybe, it was that people back then put forth more of an effort to pretend as though they were celebrating the true meaning of Christmas.
I can recall attending church every Sunday leading up to Christmas. Receiving my Christmas speech from my Sunday school teacher and going home practicing it over and over so that I would not make a mistake during the Christmas program.
I remember seeing nativity scenes throughout the city in recognition of Jesus. Some where along the way, the commercialization of Christmas began to take over.
Nativity scenes were replaced with sales signs reading 30-40% off. Christmas speeches were replaced with Christmas lists. It seems that the image of Jesus has been kidnapped and held hostage and replaced with Santa Clause.
What does an imaginary fat man in a bright red suit riding around in a sleigh being pulled around by magically flying reindeer have to do with the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
It started decades ago when kids became more and more concerned about being out of school for two weeks for the Christmas holidays than celebrating Christ.
Waking up Christmas morning, and opening gifts to see if they had received the items that were on their list became their main purpose for waking up that morning. Before long, those kids became adults, and it began a vicious cycle of selfishness and American greed.
Clearly, their intentions were to try and buy the biggest and best of everything. The more expensive it was the better.
Retailers realizing this began catering to the consumers' desire to spend more and more money. They began capitalizing on the eagerness of parents to buy their children all of the latest high tech toys such as X-boxes, play stations, MP3s and more.
Since the kids were getting their toys, parents did not want to be left out either. Dads wanted their new 50 inch HDTV, and moms wanted their new necklace or coach purse.
As I reflect back over the topics that we have blogged about during this class, I notice that most of them all seem to have one element in common, GREED!
It is no wonder that greed is considered one of the seven deadly sins. Some may have viewed our topics as American greed while others may have viewed it as just greed by way of human nature.
So, in answering the question that was asked in the documentary "What Would Jesus Buy?", if He was human, and especially if He was an American, He would probably jump into His big SUV and drive down to the nearest mall and max out His credit card. He would first upgrade his wardrobe and then begin buying all of the latest high tech electronics.
But, I would like to think that my Jesus would like to somehow buy enough food to feed the hungry, purchase homes for the homeless, and find world peace between all nations or at least put it on lay-a-way.
The time has come to accept the fact that Christmas is no longer only celebrated as a religious holiday, but it is also celebrated and viewed as a business opportunity.
Go to any city in the United States and ask any kid what does Christmas mean. I would be willing to bet a year's salary that between 90-95% of them will respond with an answer that revolves around receiving and/or exchanging gifts.
Today, as a forty-two year old man, I can remember when there once was a time when the true meaning of Christmas was celebrated. Maybe, it was that people back then put forth more of an effort to pretend as though they were celebrating the true meaning of Christmas.
I can recall attending church every Sunday leading up to Christmas. Receiving my Christmas speech from my Sunday school teacher and going home practicing it over and over so that I would not make a mistake during the Christmas program.
I remember seeing nativity scenes throughout the city in recognition of Jesus. Some where along the way, the commercialization of Christmas began to take over.
Nativity scenes were replaced with sales signs reading 30-40% off. Christmas speeches were replaced with Christmas lists. It seems that the image of Jesus has been kidnapped and held hostage and replaced with Santa Clause.
What does an imaginary fat man in a bright red suit riding around in a sleigh being pulled around by magically flying reindeer have to do with the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
It started decades ago when kids became more and more concerned about being out of school for two weeks for the Christmas holidays than celebrating Christ.
Waking up Christmas morning, and opening gifts to see if they had received the items that were on their list became their main purpose for waking up that morning. Before long, those kids became adults, and it began a vicious cycle of selfishness and American greed.
Clearly, their intentions were to try and buy the biggest and best of everything. The more expensive it was the better.
Retailers realizing this began catering to the consumers' desire to spend more and more money. They began capitalizing on the eagerness of parents to buy their children all of the latest high tech toys such as X-boxes, play stations, MP3s and more.
Since the kids were getting their toys, parents did not want to be left out either. Dads wanted their new 50 inch HDTV, and moms wanted their new necklace or coach purse.
As I reflect back over the topics that we have blogged about during this class, I notice that most of them all seem to have one element in common, GREED!
It is no wonder that greed is considered one of the seven deadly sins. Some may have viewed our topics as American greed while others may have viewed it as just greed by way of human nature.
So, in answering the question that was asked in the documentary "What Would Jesus Buy?", if He was human, and especially if He was an American, He would probably jump into His big SUV and drive down to the nearest mall and max out His credit card. He would first upgrade his wardrobe and then begin buying all of the latest high tech electronics.
But, I would like to think that my Jesus would like to somehow buy enough food to feed the hungry, purchase homes for the homeless, and find world peace between all nations or at least put it on lay-a-way.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Life with Autism
Autism is a disease that can be described as a development disorder that takes on several different forms. It is a disease that appears during the first three years of an individual’s life, and it affects a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others. Overtime, autism can develop from an acute state to a debilitating level.
Autism is “defined by a certain set of behaviors and is a “spectrum disorder” that affects people differently and to varying degrees” (“About Autism” ).
In the documentary “ The Musical,” I think the message that the director was attempting to convey to his audience about Autism is that a person can live a somewhat functional and meaningful life, despite the fact that they have this mental disorder.
I found the character, Neal, very interesting. He was not able to form words to speak. He communicated by learning how to use a specifically design keyboard and screen to type out his thoughts.
Wyatt was another character who I thought was more fascinating. His knowledge of dinosaurs was at a level that would impress the most experienced paleontoligist. The fact that he could sit down and engage you in an intelligent conversation on the facts about the different species of dinosaurs, while correctly pronouncing their name was absolutely amazing.
Just with those two little boys, the director was able to demonstrate differences in the levels of severity with autism.
The documentary left me with a few questions.How does a person develop autism? Is it a disease that develops at birth? Can a person grow out of it? Can a person be cured from autism?
There is no known cause for autism, but it is “generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in the brain structure or function” (What Causes Autism). Some people think it is hereditary or it may be connected with certain illnesses or disabilities that may already exist.
Some people think that women who have children at forty or older may have a higher risk of having a child with autism.
Usually a child may develop autism anywhere from birth to up to three years of age. Children do not grow out of autism because there is no cure. There are resources and information available to make life with autism better.
About Autism. 19 July 2008 Autism Society of America 21 January 2008 < http://www.autism-/
society.org/site>
What Causes Autism. 19 July 2008 Autism Society of America 21 January 2008 <http://www.autism-/
society.org/site>
Autism is “defined by a certain set of behaviors and is a “spectrum disorder” that affects people differently and to varying degrees” (“About Autism” ).
In the documentary “ The Musical,” I think the message that the director was attempting to convey to his audience about Autism is that a person can live a somewhat functional and meaningful life, despite the fact that they have this mental disorder.
I found the character, Neal, very interesting. He was not able to form words to speak. He communicated by learning how to use a specifically design keyboard and screen to type out his thoughts.
Wyatt was another character who I thought was more fascinating. His knowledge of dinosaurs was at a level that would impress the most experienced paleontoligist. The fact that he could sit down and engage you in an intelligent conversation on the facts about the different species of dinosaurs, while correctly pronouncing their name was absolutely amazing.
Just with those two little boys, the director was able to demonstrate differences in the levels of severity with autism.
The documentary left me with a few questions.How does a person develop autism? Is it a disease that develops at birth? Can a person grow out of it? Can a person be cured from autism?
There is no known cause for autism, but it is “generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in the brain structure or function” (What Causes Autism). Some people think it is hereditary or it may be connected with certain illnesses or disabilities that may already exist.
Some people think that women who have children at forty or older may have a higher risk of having a child with autism.
Usually a child may develop autism anywhere from birth to up to three years of age. Children do not grow out of autism because there is no cure. There are resources and information available to make life with autism better.
About Autism. 19 July 2008 Autism Society of America 21 January 2008 < http://www.autism-/
society.org/site>
What Causes Autism. 19 July 2008 Autism Society of America 21 January 2008 <http://www.autism-/
society.org/site>
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Wild Wild West
When the new law on gun control was passed last week making the Florida the fourth state to allow guns at the workplace, I had mixed feelings about the new legislation. According to the new law, if my employer is not a hospital, prison, power plant or school, I can take my handgun to work as long as I have a concealed weapons permit and the gun is locked inside my vehicle. Is this good or bad news?
In the gun control article, " Showdown," it states that Florida has more concealed weapons permits than any state in the nation. The article also indicates the new law is good news for some Floridians and the bad news for others.
What is the point in bringing a gun to work? Think about it, how often are people robbed or shot at during work hours? Speaking from the point of a person who works a normal forty-hour work week and considers himself to be a law-abiding citizen, I have never found myself in a threatening work situation where I felt the need to physically defend myself, let alone pull out a gun.
The people I work with who have dishonorable intentions or criminal minds probably already bring their guns to work, and up until now, I have never felt intimidated by them. I feel intimidated because I do not know who they are, but now that this law has been passed that legally allows guns to be brought to work, it makes me feel that I may be at a disadvantage.
I could be the only one at work unarmed which, in turn, make me suspicious and fearful of everyone. I think that this new legislation would only put everyone on edge and create a more hostile work environment.
Everyone is already aware of the reputation of the United States Postal Service with regards to workplace violence. As a postal employee, now I know that everyone can legally bring their guns to work. This does not make me feel like I am working in a safer work environment.
In fact, taking into consideration some of the strange characters that I work with, it makes me feel just the opposite. I am sure that the law makers that passed this law had good intentions, but I feel that they failed to make it clear to the public how this law is to be interpreted.
Saying that it is now legal to bring a gun to work is too broad of a statement. Where do you draw the line with the interpretation of the law? What are the limitations?
When I go to a place such as Disney World, am I to assume that it is a strong possibility that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck could have access to a weapon? When I take my six-year old son to school, or my two-year old daughter to daycare, it doesn't give me an added sense of assurance for their safety knowing that it is a possibility that their teachers may have a gun at work.
When I go to church, knowing that it is a possibility that the pastor, the deacons, ushers or even the secretary may have access to a gun does not make me feel safer either.
Everything has its place and unless you work at a job where you are required to carry a weapon, the work place is certainly no place for a gun. The gun laws are too lax and need to be stricter.
I do not think we as citizens will ever know the true intent of the United States Constitution with regards to who should bear arms.
In the gun control article, " Showdown," it states that Florida has more concealed weapons permits than any state in the nation. The article also indicates the new law is good news for some Floridians and the bad news for others.
What is the point in bringing a gun to work? Think about it, how often are people robbed or shot at during work hours? Speaking from the point of a person who works a normal forty-hour work week and considers himself to be a law-abiding citizen, I have never found myself in a threatening work situation where I felt the need to physically defend myself, let alone pull out a gun.
The people I work with who have dishonorable intentions or criminal minds probably already bring their guns to work, and up until now, I have never felt intimidated by them. I feel intimidated because I do not know who they are, but now that this law has been passed that legally allows guns to be brought to work, it makes me feel that I may be at a disadvantage.
I could be the only one at work unarmed which, in turn, make me suspicious and fearful of everyone. I think that this new legislation would only put everyone on edge and create a more hostile work environment.
Everyone is already aware of the reputation of the United States Postal Service with regards to workplace violence. As a postal employee, now I know that everyone can legally bring their guns to work. This does not make me feel like I am working in a safer work environment.
In fact, taking into consideration some of the strange characters that I work with, it makes me feel just the opposite. I am sure that the law makers that passed this law had good intentions, but I feel that they failed to make it clear to the public how this law is to be interpreted.
Saying that it is now legal to bring a gun to work is too broad of a statement. Where do you draw the line with the interpretation of the law? What are the limitations?
When I go to a place such as Disney World, am I to assume that it is a strong possibility that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck could have access to a weapon? When I take my six-year old son to school, or my two-year old daughter to daycare, it doesn't give me an added sense of assurance for their safety knowing that it is a possibility that their teachers may have a gun at work.
When I go to church, knowing that it is a possibility that the pastor, the deacons, ushers or even the secretary may have access to a gun does not make me feel safer either.
Everything has its place and unless you work at a job where you are required to carry a weapon, the work place is certainly no place for a gun. The gun laws are too lax and need to be stricter.
I do not think we as citizens will ever know the true intent of the United States Constitution with regards to who should bear arms.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The electric car
What happened to the electric car? I think instead of asking that question, one should, first, ask the question, why was it killed? Let’s consider the advantages that an electric car would present.
The first would be the most obvious reason, and that would be the elimination of the need for gas. Why would anybody be against a car that would eliminate the need and dependency for engine oil?
A car that would have no need for an emission system, therefore, would undoubtedly be environmentally friendly.
Next, a car that has been proven to perform just as well as the standard cars of today, and in certain situations, it may perform even better. Also, people were beginning to develop a demand for them.
Some would argue that it had too many disadvantages such as the limitation of distance in which one would be able to travel before there would be a need for a recharge.
Others may say that trying to map out a route to which there would be enough locations where you were able to recharge would create much of a hassel.
Or the uncertainty about how well the car would perform over the long term, and the unknown problem that it may present in the future. These were the risks that some were unwilling to take.
But taking in consideration the history of the automobile, I am sure that when Henry Ford invented the first automobile that it presented problems that had to be worked out.
As evidence of the high performing cars that we drive today, a lot of these problems were resolved, and the evolution of the car was set into motion.
The electric car definitely presented some obstacles that needed to be addressed, but those obstacles were not so overwhelming that you could deny the justification of at least attempting to put forth an effort in developing the car.
So, to answer, the questions of who killed the electric car or why was it killed, all one needs to do is follow the money. Then, ask, who would the electric car hurt the most?
The first would be the most obvious reason, and that would be the elimination of the need for gas. Why would anybody be against a car that would eliminate the need and dependency for engine oil?
A car that would have no need for an emission system, therefore, would undoubtedly be environmentally friendly.
Next, a car that has been proven to perform just as well as the standard cars of today, and in certain situations, it may perform even better. Also, people were beginning to develop a demand for them.
Some would argue that it had too many disadvantages such as the limitation of distance in which one would be able to travel before there would be a need for a recharge.
Others may say that trying to map out a route to which there would be enough locations where you were able to recharge would create much of a hassel.
Or the uncertainty about how well the car would perform over the long term, and the unknown problem that it may present in the future. These were the risks that some were unwilling to take.
But taking in consideration the history of the automobile, I am sure that when Henry Ford invented the first automobile that it presented problems that had to be worked out.
As evidence of the high performing cars that we drive today, a lot of these problems were resolved, and the evolution of the car was set into motion.
The electric car definitely presented some obstacles that needed to be addressed, but those obstacles were not so overwhelming that you could deny the justification of at least attempting to put forth an effort in developing the car.
So, to answer, the questions of who killed the electric car or why was it killed, all one needs to do is follow the money. Then, ask, who would the electric car hurt the most?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Don't Get Sick In America
One probably cannot afford to get sick in America unless he is financially able to pay for his own medical bills out of his own bank account.
God has blessed me with pretty good health. He has also blessed me with a job that offers a descent health care plan.
But up until the night when I got the opportunity to watch the documentary “Sicko,” I thought that I would be thoroughly covered medically with the health insurance plan that I have in place. Now, I am not sure.
It’s a scary thought to think that I could someday find myself in the position of needing medical treatment, and then discover that the medical insurance that I have will not cover me.
It is a disgrace what these insurance companies are doing to the people of America. It seems that they only are interested in insuring the people that have perfect health and do not need help.
For an insurance company to hire someone whose only job is to find loop holes in a person’s file so that the insurance company does not have to pay for their medical expenses seems to be so dishonest and deceitful. I sometimes wonder whether or not I would be better off without health insurance and just save my money and pray that I don’t get sick.
If the American government really and truly cared about all of its citizens, then I don’t understand why it cannot implement some type of health plan where everybody would be entitled to free government assisted medical care.
In Canada, Cuba, and some European countries, it has been proven that health care provided to their citizens by their government for free can work. So, why can’t America model a similar health care plan?
I recently watched a report on CNN regarding this gas crisis that we are currently experiencing. It stated that we, as Americans, should feel lucky to only be paying $4.00 per gallon for gas because in some European countries, the gas has been $6.00 per gallon for years.
Well, after finding out that they do not have to worry about getting sick and paying for medical treatment and medications, I can understand why they don’t make a big issue about paying $6.00 per gallon for gas.
The bottom line is that the American government does not care enough about its citizens when it comes to providing an adequate health care plan.
If you investigate deep enough, you will find out that it’s all about making money for these insurance companies. The best and maybe only alternative is to just pray that you do not get sick in America.
God has blessed me with pretty good health. He has also blessed me with a job that offers a descent health care plan.
But up until the night when I got the opportunity to watch the documentary “Sicko,” I thought that I would be thoroughly covered medically with the health insurance plan that I have in place. Now, I am not sure.
It’s a scary thought to think that I could someday find myself in the position of needing medical treatment, and then discover that the medical insurance that I have will not cover me.
It is a disgrace what these insurance companies are doing to the people of America. It seems that they only are interested in insuring the people that have perfect health and do not need help.
For an insurance company to hire someone whose only job is to find loop holes in a person’s file so that the insurance company does not have to pay for their medical expenses seems to be so dishonest and deceitful. I sometimes wonder whether or not I would be better off without health insurance and just save my money and pray that I don’t get sick.
If the American government really and truly cared about all of its citizens, then I don’t understand why it cannot implement some type of health plan where everybody would be entitled to free government assisted medical care.
In Canada, Cuba, and some European countries, it has been proven that health care provided to their citizens by their government for free can work. So, why can’t America model a similar health care plan?
I recently watched a report on CNN regarding this gas crisis that we are currently experiencing. It stated that we, as Americans, should feel lucky to only be paying $4.00 per gallon for gas because in some European countries, the gas has been $6.00 per gallon for years.
Well, after finding out that they do not have to worry about getting sick and paying for medical treatment and medications, I can understand why they don’t make a big issue about paying $6.00 per gallon for gas.
The bottom line is that the American government does not care enough about its citizens when it comes to providing an adequate health care plan.
If you investigate deep enough, you will find out that it’s all about making money for these insurance companies. The best and maybe only alternative is to just pray that you do not get sick in America.
Monday, June 9, 2008
American Man
As a man, I couldn’t disagree more with Paul Theroux’s opinions about what it is like to be a man. To me, being a man is one of the things that brings the most joy in my life. The comradeship that is shared between my male friends and I is something that I have enjoyed and look forward to for the rest of my life.
Not only did I disagree with the majority of his narrative, “Being a Man,” but after reading it, it left me a bit confused. He hates being a man, but yet, he does not like the idea of being a woman either. So, what does he considers himself to be? In his narrative, he expressed his
hatred with being an American male because he did not like American society’s definition of a man. His personal paradigms he experienced along with not having a desire to be molded into an American male caused his hatred of what he represented. He stated, “I have always disliked being a man.
The whole idea of manhood in America is pitiful, in my opinion” (p. 160). Before, I read further, I was thinking that Theroux may have wished he was a woman instead, but that was not the case. He went on to describe femininity as “an oppressed sense of nakedness” (p. 160).
I think while he was growing up from a little boy into a man, he grew tired of hearing boys should do this and men should do that. I would imagine he grew tired of hearing what little girls were suppose to do as girls and what things women where only to do as women.
He had a desire to be a writer, which was unheard of during his time because men did not grow up to be writers. Writing was a career for women not men. If he would have not listened to his heart to become a writer, then he would have had a more than unhappy life.
He ended up traveling or moving out of the country in order to be embraced as a writer. He simply abhorred the stereotypes of American men. He did not fit any of them. He even felt that the mere definition of men separated men from the company of women.
He went on to say that he hated organized sports. To him engaging in sports did not define masculinity. Overall, Theroux does not like being a man, and he does not care to be a woman either. I guess he is a person who does not want his life’s work to be defined by society’s definitions. He is a successful writer and teacher whose career has taken him all over the world.
Not only did I disagree with the majority of his narrative, “Being a Man,” but after reading it, it left me a bit confused. He hates being a man, but yet, he does not like the idea of being a woman either. So, what does he considers himself to be? In his narrative, he expressed his
hatred with being an American male because he did not like American society’s definition of a man. His personal paradigms he experienced along with not having a desire to be molded into an American male caused his hatred of what he represented. He stated, “I have always disliked being a man.
The whole idea of manhood in America is pitiful, in my opinion” (p. 160). Before, I read further, I was thinking that Theroux may have wished he was a woman instead, but that was not the case. He went on to describe femininity as “an oppressed sense of nakedness” (p. 160).
I think while he was growing up from a little boy into a man, he grew tired of hearing boys should do this and men should do that. I would imagine he grew tired of hearing what little girls were suppose to do as girls and what things women where only to do as women.
He had a desire to be a writer, which was unheard of during his time because men did not grow up to be writers. Writing was a career for women not men. If he would have not listened to his heart to become a writer, then he would have had a more than unhappy life.
He ended up traveling or moving out of the country in order to be embraced as a writer. He simply abhorred the stereotypes of American men. He did not fit any of them. He even felt that the mere definition of men separated men from the company of women.
He went on to say that he hated organized sports. To him engaging in sports did not define masculinity. Overall, Theroux does not like being a man, and he does not care to be a woman either. I guess he is a person who does not want his life’s work to be defined by society’s definitions. He is a successful writer and teacher whose career has taken him all over the world.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Murderball
After viewing the documentary,” Murder Ball”, I can confidently say that it was difficult for anyone not to take a moment to reflect on how blessed they are to have good health and full functioning of their arms and legs. I can only imagine the difficulties that are associated with an injury that are so devastating that it leaves one paralyzed from the waist down or worse. After experiencing the initial shock and devastation, the people depicted in the documentary had to come to the realization and accept the fact that their lives, as they knew it, changed in such a drastic way that it would never be the same. It was so imperative that they were strong mentally and had the support of their families. It was obvious to me that the characters in the documentary received the much needed support from their families and friends. It was also obvious to me that they were strong mentally. I think it was amazing the way they adjusted to their new lives. To have the desire to compete in a sport forced me to recognize that that having a disability does not change a person’s inner drive and motivation. Having to deal with all the hard stares from people along with the ignorant comments that they heard on a daily basis, was painfully obvious to me that we, as a society, have a long way to go to learn to be empathetic toward people who are disabled. One of the characters stated that he gets the comment very often that people are happy to see him out and participating in the Special Olympics. The comment was offensive to him because the event is not called the “special Olympics”; it was a rugby tournament.
What does the film suggest about people with disabilities? I think that it is not society as a whole that is insensitive towards people with disabilities, but rather, some people may be insensitive and not be aware that their comments are offensive. It is not every day that most people come in contact with disabled individuals. Therefore, people who do come in contact with people with disabilities on a regular basis need to help educated others on how to be sympathetic and accepting of disabled people. The film forces us to focus on their difficulties and their way of life.
I think it was great that the federal government created the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to ensure that disabled people are treated fairly. The film focuses on human emotion s of sympathy, gratefulness, and being appreciative towards human life. It showed how society views or acts toward disabled people, and it forces us to recognize our common human characteristics of being fearful of the unknown and having respect for disabled people.
What does the film suggest about people with disabilities? I think that it is not society as a whole that is insensitive towards people with disabilities, but rather, some people may be insensitive and not be aware that their comments are offensive. It is not every day that most people come in contact with disabled individuals. Therefore, people who do come in contact with people with disabilities on a regular basis need to help educated others on how to be sympathetic and accepting of disabled people. The film forces us to focus on their difficulties and their way of life.
I think it was great that the federal government created the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to ensure that disabled people are treated fairly. The film focuses on human emotion s of sympathy, gratefulness, and being appreciative towards human life. It showed how society views or acts toward disabled people, and it forces us to recognize our common human characteristics of being fearful of the unknown and having respect for disabled people.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Greedy Enron
Greed is a powerful human trait that is possessed by many and controlled by few. The dictionary defines greed as a selfish desire beyond reason. In most situations, it leads to the demise of all.
The movie that we were shown in class about the rise and fall of Enron spoke volumes about the power of greed, and the effect that it has on individuals once they get a taste of success and power. The events that lead to the fall of Enron, and the effects that it had on its employees and shareholders went beyond tragic. The lack of accountability and responsibility displayed by the executives only added to the pain and misery felt by the people that were affected as a result of it.
The first priority of a corporation is to make a profit. In the case of the Enron executives, their first priority was to make money. Their second priority was assuring that the future of their kids and families were secured. Acquiring as many big boy toys such as cars, boats, planes and more was high on their priority list along with keeping their mistresses happy. It wasn’t until after all of those things were accomplished that they felt the need to address any type of loyalty or responsibility to their employees other than paying their salaries.
It would probably be asking too much of a corporation such as Enron to always be open and honest with its employees. The company was deceitful with information it circulated in regards to the strength and future direction the company.
Expecting a decent salary for an honest day’s work would be a great start. It should also be expected of them to provide their employees with a 401K plan, health benefits, a safe working environment, and adequate training that would allow the employees to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities.
The responsibility that a corporation should have toward its customers should include having a quality product and service, a hassle free, customer service department, and a non-threatening work environment.
As a corporation, these responsibilities and the commitment to their employees and customers is something that should be accepted and viewed as an entitlement owed to them. It should not be viewed as a dreaded consequence of owning a business. The greediness of the Enron exectutives lead to their tragic downfall.
The movie that we were shown in class about the rise and fall of Enron spoke volumes about the power of greed, and the effect that it has on individuals once they get a taste of success and power. The events that lead to the fall of Enron, and the effects that it had on its employees and shareholders went beyond tragic. The lack of accountability and responsibility displayed by the executives only added to the pain and misery felt by the people that were affected as a result of it.
The first priority of a corporation is to make a profit. In the case of the Enron executives, their first priority was to make money. Their second priority was assuring that the future of their kids and families were secured. Acquiring as many big boy toys such as cars, boats, planes and more was high on their priority list along with keeping their mistresses happy. It wasn’t until after all of those things were accomplished that they felt the need to address any type of loyalty or responsibility to their employees other than paying their salaries.
It would probably be asking too much of a corporation such as Enron to always be open and honest with its employees. The company was deceitful with information it circulated in regards to the strength and future direction the company.
Expecting a decent salary for an honest day’s work would be a great start. It should also be expected of them to provide their employees with a 401K plan, health benefits, a safe working environment, and adequate training that would allow the employees to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities.
The responsibility that a corporation should have toward its customers should include having a quality product and service, a hassle free, customer service department, and a non-threatening work environment.
As a corporation, these responsibilities and the commitment to their employees and customers is something that should be accepted and viewed as an entitlement owed to them. It should not be viewed as a dreaded consequence of owning a business. The greediness of the Enron exectutives lead to their tragic downfall.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Government Assistance Programs
Not only are government assistance programs a benefit that should be provided for people who are in need, but in some cases, it is a necessity for some families just to survive.
Before we can begin a discussion about government assistance programs, we must first acknowledge and accept the fact that public assistance comes in many different forms. There has always been and will always be debates over whether or not the government should provide assistance to people who are in need. It may also be debated as to whom public assistance should be provided, under what circumstances and what capacity it should be provided. Many people share the opinion that it is not the government’s responsibility to bail people out who find themselves in a difficult situation, as a result of bad choices they personally made. To a certain degree, I agree. There are many people out there who are undeniably taking advantage of government assistance. On the other hand, there are people who can not survive without it.
Many people look negatively upon government assistance programs because they envision an able-bodied person sitting at home taking advantage of the system. They may even envision an unemployed, single mother who is continually having babies that she cannot afford while collecting welfare. It is an undeniable fact that circumstances such as these do exist, but these are not the only conditions in which people receive assistance. As I stated previously, government assistance programs come in many forms. Some examples are the Federal Emergency Management Assistance program (FEMA), Medicaid, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), financial aid, grants, food stamps, Veterans Assistance (VA) and other types. Without government assistance programs, one may find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue one’s desire for a higher level of education.
As a veteran of the military service, I personally benefited from a VA mortgage loan when I purchased my first home. I have witnessed several other veterans who benefited from government aid with the assistance of health issues. As a veteran, I made a personal choice to define the freedom of the United States of America, the policies that it implements, and all the citizens within it. Some veterans have even made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives. How can anyone argue that a veteran or their family should not receive assistance from the government? In fact, I think that the government should feel a moral obligation to provide assistance to its veterans.
The fact of the matter is that there are some dishonest people out there who are going to benefit from some other type of government assistance, such as the able –bodied individual who chooses not to work so that he can receive unemployment payments and welfare. The system is not perfect. There are loop holes that exist that allows for dishonest people to benefit. However, the same government that provides public assistance to its veterans is the same government with its policies that veterans fought for and defined. That, too, allows dishonest people to benefit. I am not tying to equate a veteran with a dishonest person who chooses not to work and still collects benefits. The good far outweighs the bad of a few dishonest people. Therefore, I think not only should government assistance be provided, but in some cases the government should feel some moral obligation to provide it.
Before we can begin a discussion about government assistance programs, we must first acknowledge and accept the fact that public assistance comes in many different forms. There has always been and will always be debates over whether or not the government should provide assistance to people who are in need. It may also be debated as to whom public assistance should be provided, under what circumstances and what capacity it should be provided. Many people share the opinion that it is not the government’s responsibility to bail people out who find themselves in a difficult situation, as a result of bad choices they personally made. To a certain degree, I agree. There are many people out there who are undeniably taking advantage of government assistance. On the other hand, there are people who can not survive without it.
Many people look negatively upon government assistance programs because they envision an able-bodied person sitting at home taking advantage of the system. They may even envision an unemployed, single mother who is continually having babies that she cannot afford while collecting welfare. It is an undeniable fact that circumstances such as these do exist, but these are not the only conditions in which people receive assistance. As I stated previously, government assistance programs come in many forms. Some examples are the Federal Emergency Management Assistance program (FEMA), Medicaid, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), financial aid, grants, food stamps, Veterans Assistance (VA) and other types. Without government assistance programs, one may find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue one’s desire for a higher level of education.
As a veteran of the military service, I personally benefited from a VA mortgage loan when I purchased my first home. I have witnessed several other veterans who benefited from government aid with the assistance of health issues. As a veteran, I made a personal choice to define the freedom of the United States of America, the policies that it implements, and all the citizens within it. Some veterans have even made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives. How can anyone argue that a veteran or their family should not receive assistance from the government? In fact, I think that the government should feel a moral obligation to provide assistance to its veterans.
The fact of the matter is that there are some dishonest people out there who are going to benefit from some other type of government assistance, such as the able –bodied individual who chooses not to work so that he can receive unemployment payments and welfare. The system is not perfect. There are loop holes that exist that allows for dishonest people to benefit. However, the same government that provides public assistance to its veterans is the same government with its policies that veterans fought for and defined. That, too, allows dishonest people to benefit. I am not tying to equate a veteran with a dishonest person who chooses not to work and still collects benefits. The good far outweighs the bad of a few dishonest people. Therefore, I think not only should government assistance be provided, but in some cases the government should feel some moral obligation to provide it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)