MyTAYTAY

REFLECTION/3

tiffany2350 — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:47:48 +0000

When I begin to do any writing I first have to put myself in a very relaxing and quiet place. I like to take a shower and have a cup of coffee before I began. The most common place that I write is in my room, I write in my room because it’s very clean , I can light my candles and set myself free. I also write in my room because everyone in my household knows that when I go to my room and lock my door I am in a place where nothing else matters and I just want to be left alone.
I write personal feelings down in a journal almost every night. I chose night time to do this type of writing because I can write about everything that has happened to me from morning up until night, also because that’s when my home is the quietest. Some times I just sit there and say “DAMN” what a life I live. Depending on the topic, if I am doing my own personal writing I think about what is bothering me, why it bothers me, why did it happen this way or what could I have done to change the outcome. I like to put my thoughts down on paper because it helps relieve the pain or pressure that I may be feeling at the time. It also makes me feel as though I have spoken to someone about it and that everything will be okay. I prefer personal writing because I am not a poetic type of person. I just like to write about me because it helps me later on in life to remember the obstacles I have gone through and how I have overcome.

Weblog 5

tiffany2350 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:13:46 +0000

Garrett Harden article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor” is his opinionated metaphor regarding regulating poplulation control and assistance for the unwealthy. Harden states that the “environmentalists use the metaphor of the earth as a spaceship in trying to persuade countries, industries and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources.” Arguing that because Americans do not inhabit this planet, that we share it with the other conteninents and therefore it is not our government’s sole decision to spoil or destroy resources. Harden believes that this metaphor can be interpretated by misguided individuals that can utilize information as such with dangerous consequences. Harden states that world is not under the direction of any sole captain, but that all presidents and leaders answer to one board, the United Nations. However, the United Nations do not have access or the ability to control population control. Harden’s example of the lifeboat is to regulate and control entry into the United States and the utilization of the resources from this country. The main question that is presented is, “we are all descendants of thieves, and the world’s resources are inequitably distributed” therefore why does the government regulate who can and cannot live in the United States? The government isn’t going to give the surplus and monies back the native Americans, therefore being hypocrital and denying others entry to live the American Dream is unamerican. His platform of the “commons” regards the consequences of the land, ocean, and donations all lead back to survival of the fittest. Who prepares for the worst and takes care of what they have will outstand others that do not. I do not believe that Harden is anti-immigrant. I believe Harden’s point in his article is that the United States government is setting this nation up for failure. That if the citizens do not maintain what they have and monitor population control that we will be apart of the downside to Harden’s metaphor. The United States will follow suite and be apart of the other countries “swimming in the ocean” instead of in the “boat.” We, as a whole, have the ability to control our population. Having a good health system, we have access to birth control and the education on how many children a family can take care of; a self-regulation more-or-less. We have the ability to supply poor countries with aide and it benefits our country because those that supply, manufacture and ship those supplies are reimbursed for their services. Therefore other’s pain and suffering ultimately help maintain our economy. I do believe in survival of the fittest. I may not agree or like the concept. I believe that those that prepare for the worst will ultimately come out on top. If we as American’s want to continue to thrive, we “we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat.” If we become over populated then those that live here will soon lose the resources that allow them to survive. Therefore, I do believe in immigration control and Harden’s boat metaphor may prophesize as true. Unfortunately, “U.S. immigration policy is promptly charged with bigotry, prejudice, ethnocentrism, chauvinism, isolationism and selfishness.”

Weblog 4

tiffany2350 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:18:55 +0000

After reviewing both articles “Is Google Making Us Stupid” by Nicholas Carr and “Why Abundance is Good: A Reply to Nick Carr” by Clay Shirky, Carr’s opinion is more a reflection on technology as a whole, not necessarily an attack on Google. Google being a massive search engine that it is provides its public the ability to gain knowledge easier and more frequently. That frequency of information and the ability to skim information according to Carr is a con in his work. Carr feels that the public is taking less interest in literature and the written word as a whole. That it taking the ability to sit and read an entire novel and rewired our brain for convenience. Carr believes that his own personal experience of not being able to focus on tasks at hand or to read without being distracted is the fault of information technology. Somehow he generalizes his feelings as an overall depiction of all individuals that are literate.
Clay Shirky’s opinion in his article to Carr has stated that he believes that Carr is more motivated by idea that Google and the internet as a whole has made people that regularly use it inapt to maintain the attention and to focus on one topic. Almost as if multitasking is not a good characteristic. Shirky states how his personal relationship with one of Carr’s sources makes him believe he interpreted his source the wrong way. This makes the reader, who uses Google and search engines on a regular basis, skeptical of his opinion. Shirky believes that Carr’s article is not a bashing session of Google itself, but Carr’s inability to recognize what he fears has already come true. A fear that readers no longer read “War and Peace” willingly, not because of the concept and plot of the novel but because of the length and lack of interest.
I believe in both authors to a certain extent. I believe that Google, has offered its readers the ability to search through information faster, but with the speed to me comes more knowledge. I would much rather sit down at a computer and type a few key words in and find what I need opposed to searching through a card catalog for hours and not ascertain any valid results. I believe that those that are learning how to read may be missing out on wonderful works of literature because of the speed the internet or media brings. (I.e. waiting for a movie to be released opposed to reading the book) but it does open doors that would not normally be available to the average person. I am pro-Google, I am pro-Internet, and I am pro-speed of technology. I do not see how the progression of knowledge is a bad thing.

Reflection 1

tiffany2350 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:15:58 +0000

When I was raised, we were instructed on the proper usage of nouns, pronouns, verbs and the other parts of a sentence. We were taught that a sentence had to have certain subjects to make it complete. Therefore, compiling words to make these sentences were the basis of my writing all throughout elementary. It wasn’t until high school that I became accustomed to short hand and texting for say in note taking. Abbreviating and slang became a way of life. Suddenly, -ing turned into –in. Vowel sounds took on an entirely new sound. After awhile my language incorporated into my writing.
My writing took an entirely new turn after I had children. When I would teach them the proper ways to say things, I found myself forgetting punctuation and had to relearn how to pause and put emphasis on words. It really struck home when my son came to me one day and was corrected by his teacher because he was using language that he hears me say on a regular basis, by not using complete sentences and word structure. At that time I took it upon myself to revisit my reading and writing methods and to reinvent myself. To go back to how I originally learned how to write, and to evolve from it.
I have read many novels and take from them foreshadowing, pros, oxymorons, anything that can enhance my writing. I try to better myself, to help better teach my children. Losing the interest or ability to write makes you lose a part of yourself; a part that allows you to express how you feel, your imagination and the ability to make your opinion known.

Weblog 3

tiffany2350 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:32:19 +0000

Neonaticide is the killing of a newborn within the first twenty-four hours after birth. Neonaticide dates back to Bibilical times and it was appropriate and legal for fathers to have the right to murder their newborn babies on different basis. Over the generations, in different cultures it was also acceptable. The Chinese murdered their female newborns because they were unable to carry on the family name, were considered the weaker gender, and not useful in the workforce. Eskimos killed the infants that had congenital anomalies. Mohave Indians killed all newborns that were half-breeds. In today’s generation, neonaticide is frowned upon and immoral and unlawful.

According to Steven Pinker in “Why They Kill Their Newborns,” he tries to decipher the ethical and lawful lines of neonaticide. He states that “nurturing an offspring that carries our genes is the whole point of our existance” then counters different physcological theories that “a capacity of neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions.” I found his article thoroughly confusing and unexplainable. He did not give the complete medical and legal definition of neonaticide. He assumed that the reader knew what the definition was, and juggled between pros and cons. I do not know his stance on whether he is for the parental ability to kill a newborn or if he was trying to justify it as an illness if a parent did take the life of their baby.
Bruce Chapman constantly critisize’s Steven Pinker’s essay . He feels that Pinker does not believe teen mothers who kill there babys should get a harsh punishment. Chapman also feels that Pinker is twisting the evidence of neonaticide and that he doesn’t make it clear whether or not neonaticide is wrong.

I personally do not believe in neonaticide. I believe that if a female is old enough to carry and deliver a child, she should be mature enough to take the responsibility of carrying it and giving birth to it or to have an abortion. Delivering a baby to turn around and kill it in my opinion is immoral. The examples Pinker gives in his article examples of different women giving birth to their children and had different up bringings and could not be compared to each other. Amy Grossberg, 18-year-old that gave birth to her baby in a motel then killed the baby to leave it in a dumpster, was old enough to understand the consequences of her actions. Many states have laws that you can leave a newborn in a safe place, fire station or a hospital, and not be perscecuted for abandonment. Shanta Clark, 17-year-old that hid her newborn in her closet prior to her mother finding the baby, had the comfort of a home and parents that she resided with to help her take care of the baby or give the baby up for adoption. The end result is both of these teenagers gave birth to a baby and did not provide the care that they needed. Unfortunately, one resulted in a murder.
In my opinion, there should be litigation and consequences for murdering an infant, whether it is hours after birth, days, or years. Taking a life is inexcusable when there are so many other options and a way out. I do not agree with the “philosophers” that Pinker says “concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder.” If a person can receive a murder sentence for murdering a pregnant woman and get two counts of murder, there should be the same laws for murdering an infant after delivery.

Weblog 2

tiffany2350 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:16:06 +0000

Marriage is a religious term used by religious citizens as a union between a man, a woman and God. According to dictionary.com the definition is listed as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” In my opinion marriage is a union between two persons that aquire new relatives and close relations and for people who will sacrifice and expect sacrifices from you. Those two persons in my opinion can be man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man.

Same sex relationships can be traced back to the Ming Dynasty and the Roman Empire. It wasn’t until 342 C.E. that Constantius declared same sex marriages illegal. At which point it became religious and ethically immoral to marry the same gender, cohabitate or participate in sexual activities with the same gender. In 2001, the Netherlands was the first modern nation to legalize same-sex marriage. Then in suit they bacame legal in Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, and Norway. Economically, legalizing gay marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships can offer many benefits. Couples could prospectively lose their home from expenses if the other were to become ill or suddenly die because their spouse isn’t recognized. Expensive costs of private insurances for partners and children not offered by employers that do not recognize their union, legal costs to establish power of attorneys for litigation and healthcare, and tax laws are all also issues that homosexuals have to deal with routinely. Recongition of homosexual unions could prospectively improve the economy just by decreasing the extra funding from the couple’s incomes to provide benefits that are automatic with traditional marriages.

With that said, I support same sex marriages. I am a very religious person and try to stand by the word of God and His will. However, I believe everyone He has created has freewill and is ability to be happy. If that means being married to the same or opposite gender, than each to there own.

Half of the United States opposed gay marriages but ¾ of the Unites States support gay rights. As contrary as it seems, the majority of the American population believes in equality but not the ability to join legally with whom they chose without controversy. I do not support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 defining marriage as a woman and man. I have family members that are open with their relationships as lesbians, and their family and employers have accepted them as such. They do not discriminate or attempt to shun them for their decisions, but yet openly accept them for who they are and the love they have for eachother. It may be said in several places throughout the Bible that same sex unions are against religious beliefs, but no one can deny other’s what is in their hearts.

Controversy

Marriage is defined religiously, legally, ethically and morally as a union between a man and a woman. Same sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships is the one greatest moral and social evil to occur since the legalization of abortion. Lobbying to legalize same sex marriages will propsectively undermined traditional marriages and possibly destroy the basis of family.

For generations, the single family home has been looked down upon for not having a mother and a father in the home to have children grow up with. And, now it is being currently thrown for a loop again, what happens when mommy and mommy break up or daddy and daddy? How is that mentally healthy for a child to deal with? It can be assumed that neither of the situations is mentally healthy for a child. However, to take the later of the two scenarios out the situation can ultimately cause a lot less disturbed children in society.

Same sex marriages are a threat to Christian norms of sex and sexuality. It is stated in several books of the Bible (Genesis and Leviticus) that it is God’s will that marriage is covenant between a man and a woman. And it is thought that legalization of same sex marriages will prospectively encourage people to act upon homosexual compulsions opposed to investigating counsel from religious advisors or counselors.

The legalization of same sex marriages causes rifts between tradition, religion, and politics. Although it is currently recognized in 16 countries, it is not legal in the United States. Several states have made addendums to allow civil unions legal despite the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996. With the support of President Obama, it is hopeful that he will keep tradition in mind and support the definition of a marriage between man and woman.

Weblog 1

tiffany2350 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:57:12 +0000

Part 1

I believe that people … should be judged by what’s in their hearts and minds and not by their gender or ethniticity.

I believe that society… is going to realize soon stepping up for a change is the only way change is going to happen.

I believe that government … is sometimes corrupt and in just but entail laws per their beliefs, religion and citizens.

I believe that justice … doesn’t always come from the law but by a higher power that passes judgment.

I believe that knowledge … is the key to changing your circumstance and is powerful.

I believe that science … can only go but so far before faith takes over.

I believe that reality … is setting in and a lot of people are facing what they didn’t prepare for.

I believe that life … is worth living and that you should not go day to day surviving, but to live life to the fullest.

I believe that happiness … is underrated; too many people believe that they don’t have enough instead of being happy with what they have.

I believe that goodness … is found in almost everyone.

I believe that death … is inevitable and is the beginning of eternity.

I believe that God … is our savior and with my faith in Him I shall overcome triumph over all obstacles.

Part 2

I believe that society is going to realize soon that stepping up for a change is the only way change is going to happen. Our government is based on a set of regulations and a ladder of thieves and liars and those out for their own agendas. To pass goals and laws and litigations that suits their own public or those that fund their campaigns. I believe that most polititicians are going to lie and tell the public what they want to hear until they are elected and then do as they wish for however long they serve. The latest presidential race has proven to me that society, or the American society as a whole, as stepped up for a change. They are tired of the United States government bailing out other countries and assisting them in their financial needs instead of starting at home. With President Bush starting these two wars during his presidency term has created nothing but havoc for the United States. We are supposedly helping another country that isn’t entirely willing for our help. There are thousands of soldiers dying every year to help change their government, when many of them feel there is nothing that needs to be changed. To be raised in a totalitarianism government and to have men tell women that they are inferior and to allow it to continue despite our soldiers being there to help them gain freedom is ridiculous. Bush destroyed a country to turn around and rebuild it to just catch a few terrorists. Yes, originally it may have been what American’s wanted to hear and wanted him to do. Was to take a couple of nukes and bombs and blow them away in retaliation for knocking down the twin towers. But, years later, looking back what did it really accomplish. Now we have a President that is willing to step up for what he and the majority of the country believe in. Society has stepped up finally and demanded a change. We have demanded that our homeland be taken care of, that the we be helped with the economy, taxes, foreclosure rates, healthcare, school systems, crime rates, unemployment, corporate takeovers, global warming, fossil fuel and gasoline, the list goes on. Politicians normally lie during their campaign but with him taking on numerous of President Clinton’s cabinet they have the experience that he does not. And, will lead him to the correct decisions and bring peace and surplus back to this economy. And, society has stepped up for this to happen. Not only here in America but many countries world wide have rejoiced to the newly elected President. We have demanded the change and it is going to happen.

Part 3

The American society is a melting pot of different races and immigrants. We each have the undying desire to succeed and to maintain our political status in the world. We like to think that despite our downward spiraling economy, there are countries that still look for the help of the United States. In the last two presidential terms, republicans have taken the economy from a surplus downward in the hopes that it would better the civilizations of the world, terrorist filled and third world countries. Bush was advised by his military staff, that going to war in retaliation with the Middle East was the best solution at the time as retaliation to 9/11. It would give an iron fist to those that struck the heart of America and it would tell terrorists that they couldn’t walk into the United States and without circumstance.

Unknowingly, President Bush declared a level of victory and gave peace of mind to the citizens of our country. However, with a war there come finances. It cannot be won cheaply and it cannot be won without heroes paying for our freedom. Society looked towards Bush to save us from fear. Many people believe that he did the best he could with the information that he was provided. Many people believe that Bush’s cabinet investigated to their fullest capability what the costs of the wars were going to be and attempted to compensate the decreasing economy to win the war.

When President Bush term was over and President Obama took office, many people looked forward to a change in America. A hope that he would bring the economy back up, maintain or complete the war and help the Middle East on their feet as quickly as possible and that he would continue to fight terrorism to his extent of being Commander in Chief. However, President Obama relies on bringing peace to all countries and to destroy the terrorists together. Not by continuing the war long term, but by passing economic plans of relief, closing down military facilities (Guantanamo Bay) and releasing terrorists back into their society to regroup. President Obama’s plan is to start anew and to try to extend a hand of help opposed to torture. Society is watching President Obama’s every move via magnifying glass to make sure he holds to his declarations. It may not be how most would handle the situation but society as a majority asked for this change. Now we hope it doesn’t bite anyone in the rear. Maintaining government officials and active duty in the Middle East may be the resolution to this problem for some people but it’s time to cut the cord and let the new government fight their own battles.