author_id
int64 0
20
| prompt
stringclasses 12
values | chosen
stringlengths 396
4.77k
| rejected
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
20
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
To whom it may concern- I definitely believe that gender discrimination exists in society today. It is everywhere from school, to a child's playhouse, to even the workplace. I'm pretty sure that there is always going to be at least a little bit of gender discrimination in this world. It seems as though it has been incorporated into our culture since the beginnings of time. Since men are naturally more muscular than women, they will always be perceived to be the stronger and more dominant sex. Women, by their regular caring nature, will always be looked upon in that motherly sense. Physically, our bodies are made this way. Women can care for infants by providing nutrients through breastfeeding, while the men "take care" of the family with their muscles and toughness. I don't think that there is anything anyone can do to totally eliminate the discrimination of different genders, but it can definitely be changed to a more equal state. I believe that, since society influences gender by producing things relating specifically to girls or boys (generally), there is only one way to get rid of gender discrimination. This way is to raise someone in a world not affected by society's views on gender. This, of course, will basically be next to impossible- but if you want to throw your child on an empty island for the entirety of his/her life, it may be possible. This gender discrimination influenced by society is obviously part of the workplace, since the workplace makes up a good amount of society. I used to be employed by a real estate company, and I was a receptionist/secretary. This is not your typical job for an 18 year old male. My friends would joke around with the idea saying that I had a girly job, which I knew was true. (but hey, it paid good...) This job is definitely a girly job, and I can totally see that. There are more masculine jobs such as construction workers. These stereotypes go back to the physical nature of men vs. women, and how they are perceived. Construction needs muscles, and secretaries need...multitasking abilities??? ha ha. The point is that gender discrimination is DEFINITELY in the workplace, and throughout the world. This is not always a bad thing though- Is it hurting anybody? In these cases no, but that's not to say that it doesn't happen. This type of discrimination is part of human nature- something that we can not help. Thanks for listening! -ID#: 20
| |
20
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
Looking on someone’s privacy within a public school system should be something that is not looked negatively upon if students’ lives are at danger. The fact that school officials prevented a school shooting due to the discovery of a myspace bulletin fills me with happiness. I have talked with public school teachers about safety in the school system, and they said that parents drop students off at school with the idea that the building is a 100% safe place. Some people may believe that the school system’s looking on myspace was an invasion of privacy for the student who was caught. I believe that if the school system has a legitimate excuse for “spying” on a student, such as saving lives, nothing is the matter with what they did as long as they are protecting their students. If a person accuses the school system of spying on the student who was caught, then they need to look deeper into the actions of the student. As stated before, the student posted his intentions on a myspace page about the potential shooting. When looking at what the student did, most individuals do not realize that what he did was an outcry of what he wanted to do to the public. “Bulletin,” as stated on www.dictionary.com, is defined as, “a brief account or statement, as of news or events, issued for the information of the public.” The key words to focus on in this definition are “for the information of the public.” No one would ever post anything on a bulletin, with the intentions of the public not seeing the display. The fact that myspace is on the internet- an area filled with networks with the sole purpose of communication- also shows how obvious the student’s outcry was. Since the purpose of an internet bulletin is for the public to view, I believe that the school system did not invade the student’s privacy. It is obvious that if someone posts something for everyone to see, even people who a person may not like may be able to see that post. The fact that the school system caught this message was nowhere near an invasion of privacy for the student. It was just as easy for the school officials to see the bulletin as a regular person could in their home. The Public School System educates the public and looks after their children during certain hours of the day. The School System did not invade the student’s privacy because, as indicated in the “public” portion of the name, the school has just as much of a right to view myspace profiles as anyone else in the community. The line to draw for the Public School System in regards to privacy for its students should be clearly noted as a point where one student may endanger his/herself, other students, or the school at all. If a threat is not posed, then schools should not go online to look for things to accuse students of. If, however, a threat is posed, then the school needs to do its job by any means necessary to keep its students safe. If something is so obviously displayed to the point where School Officials can go on to the most popular website online and look it up, if the message is too private then the material should never have been entered to the website in the first place. Since the school in this prevention of the shooting helped save lives, then that’s all that should be talked about. Saving lives and safety in general has and will always be a bigger concern than an invasion of privacy within schools and around the country. 29
| |
20
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
During the summers of 2005 and 2006, I worked for a real estate company named Re/Max American Dream. A description of my job consisted of answering telephone calls and setting up appointments for real estate agents to show homes on the market. Another title for this “Desk Management” job, as I liked to call it, would be a secretary. With the world as it is today, being an eighteen year old male who has a job as a secretary is not something to brag about. My reasoning for not wanting to admit to being a “secretary” is solely because of how society today looks upon the stereotypical job and description of a secretary. The public does not see a typical secretary as a hegemonic alpha male, but instead as a woman- the exact opposite of me. Since stereotypes have embedded themselves deeply into today’s society, I believe that gender discriminations are a huge portion of the present day United States. A typical stereotype for a woman consists of cooking, cleaning, and being weak whereas a male’s stereotype would be “macho,” loving sports, etc. These stereotypes are tied into the workforce, and sometimes determine whether a man or woman receives a job or not. The three types of jobs in the world today are stereotypical male jobs, stereotypical female jobs, and jobs for both sexes. An example of each may be a bouncer, a maid, and a pharmacist. If a random person was asked to pick which of these jobs were typically assigned to males, females, or both, the person would most likely get all of their decisions correct. Some jobs such as in construction require strength, and since males are naturally stronger, the majority of construction workers are men. When picturing a stereotypical maid, one could possibly think of the “French maid outfit.” There is no version of this outfit for men, because the job used to specifically be for women. Nothing is stopping a male or female from doing a job typically assigned to the opposite sex, but the reason that many people do not partake in this switch is because of the ways they were brought up. The entire world sees the jobs on television done by stereotypical people. Not only television, but media and other parts of society influence our take on gender and how we perceive it. There have been little girls who like Thomas the Train, or little boys who “want to be a mommy” when they grow up. Gender definition doesn’t set into children’s minds until about the age of 5. It is at this point where they realize that stores do not sell clothing for everything they like, or toys that they want to play with specifically for their interests. It is at this age where boys start to play with G.I. Joes, and girls start to play with Barbie dolls, etc. Since before the United States existed, gender has always had its specific definitions for males and females. Everyone is brought up this way, and have been in past years. For this reason, mothers and fathers pass their views onto their children and so on. These children become heads of companies which then produce these stereotypical male or female toys based upon their views of gender. These toys further influence America’s view on gender to make the idea more steadfast as time goes on. The way to get rid of gender discrimination is to bring children up without gender-specific toys as mentioned above. Children would then play with whatever they want, and become and act how they were meant to act- without being influenced by society. Society has created America’s views on gender, and will not stop unless the next generation is brought up neutrally. 29
| |
20
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
The opinion of people who want the Catholic Church to change according to life in the twenty first century is absolute absurdity. The Catholic Church has always been a target for criticism ever since Martin Luther, or even before him. The media currently loves to focus their attention on the Catholic Church, and all of its faults. It is most likely that everything the Catholic Church is facing is also happening in other religions, such as pedophilia, etc. If one selfishly changes a religion because he/she does not agree wholly with the views, then that person is not dedicated enough to that religion. If a religion is changed, then it is not that religion at all. Therefore, if the Catholic Church changes its ways to accommodate the twenty first century, it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church anymore. There is always a reason for everything within Christianity. A female can not become a priest because the religion specifically said that they can not. The option of becoming a nun was created for women if they wanted to become that committed in the religion. Another ridiculous change would be to allow priests to marry. The priests can not marry, because all of their love is devoted to God. These things are parts of the Catholic religion, and will always be a part of it. Most people who want the Church to change aren’t even Catholic, or are selfish enough to solely stay away from church because they don’t agree with one thing. Normally this “thing” is sex before wedlock. If one stays away from the church because of that, then they should re-evaluate their faith. It is like if a man loves a woman who has a shaved head. If he truly loves her, then the male will stay with the woman. If the man tells the woman to grow hair with the threat of leaving her, then did he actually love her? The answer is no, the man was too selfish to stay with the “love” of his life. Even though the hair would have made her perfect for him, he took his selfish ways instead of his dedication. Just because the media only focuses on the Catholic Church does not mean that the pedophilia does not occur in other religions. The media is one of the only reasons that people dislike the Catholic Church. Every few weeks it seems as though there is another case on a Priest who has committed a crime, or the Pope who has done something debatable. I have noticed that those stories make headlines, whereas if an important person in another religion does something of the sort, it is not magnified as much. If these exaggerations of the Catholic Church’s “mistakes” cause people to form the opinion that the Church needs to change, then they should form another religion similar to the Catholic Church. This, of course, would not be a “true” religion because of the fact that it was not created as a result of some magnificent occurrence. The example for the Catholic Church is that Jesus came down to help everyone on earth. What basis would this reformed version of Catholicism have? The new religion by itself would not have anything to base itself upon other than the religion of Catholicism (a true religion) - not an occurrence, etc.. Changing the Catholic Church to suit modern wants is ridiculous due to the fact that a religion is not its true self unless its followers believe what they were intended to follow.
| |
20
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
To whom it may concern: I feel as though the school officials were not invading privacy at all. The entire point of a myspace bulletin is for people- the public- to see. Why anyone would post something as horrible as a potential school shooting on myspace is beyond me, and even more so if the person does not expect to be caught. The school was doing its job by looking out for all of its students. If anyone within the school system is in danger, someone needs to do something to fix it. The school needs to make sure that its environment is a 100% save place for kids to be. Did the school harm the person who was going to do the shooting? No. The school used myspace- since it IS available to the public- to TURN OVER the potential shooter. I don't see anything wrong with the school turning over a student who was willing to kill others. Where should we draw the line for privacy though? I'd say that the school should not go on the internet to only get kids in trouble. If there are lives in danger, then the school/police should be able to use things such as myspace to get kids in trouble. However, if the school is only looking for pictures of kids drinking, etc., then I think that that is an invasion of privacy. What the school did was good, but if they did the same thing for other reasons (to catch kids drinking, etc.), then THAT would be "taking it over the edge" as an invasion of privacy. Thanks for your time, ID # 20
| |
20
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
To whom it may concern- I believe that gay "marriages" should not exist at all in the U.S. (or anywhere in general). With the occasional events where I am grossed out, I have no problem with gay men or women. I am a Roman Catholic, so it is technically against my religion to allow gay marriages. A marriage was created for a man and a woman to be united. Why doesn't the government create a different word for the union of two men or women? The "union" would not be valid within the Church, but there is no stopping the Church's opinion since the religion won't (and shouldn't) change. I feel that President Bush's "push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage" is half good and half bad. The United States WAS created based on Christian principles whether people today like it or not. For this reason, President Bush is correct in following in our forefathers footsteps. Bush is wrong, however, for interfering with American's beliefs and lifestyles. In a way, it seems as though the government, based upon this legal action, is STARTING be become a totalitarian government, or whatever that is called. If the government could create an official "union" between two men or women, then I think that that plan would be sufficient to meet everyones needs. A marriage would remain sacred within the Church, and gay couples could legally be together. This plan would hopefully make everyone happy and get rid of all the controversy within our country on this topic today. Thanks for your time....again. ID # 20
| |
20
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
To whom it may concern: I think that the Catholic Church does not need to change its ways to adapt with the 21st century. What is the point in changing a religion to suit one's personal wants? I don't think that there is any logic in that. Everyone within the church most likely does not believe EVERYTHING that the Church stands for. I know many people who are religious, but support gay marriages, etc. Why can't people just be like them? I don't think that a religion would be where it is at if people kept changing it to suit how THEY WANTED to live. Religion guides the ways people should live...People should not guide the form of their religion. I personally am not the "Jesus Freak," but I do go to church just about every Sunday. I don't know all about the Catholic religion, but I think that everything within it is there for a reason. The issue with women becoming priests makes me wonder a lot. "Why shouldn't they become priests?" people ask a lot. I say, "why SHOULD they." The Catholic Church is known to be traditionally conservative, so why should they change that? It has always been that males could become priests and women could become nuns. A nun and a priest are basically on the same "playing field" in my opinion, so one is not better than the other. It's just like two different jobs within the same company with different specifications for their job descriptions. Each "job" is working towards the same general goal, but each title does different things. To change the subject, I think that the charges against the Catholic Church are nonsense. That "stuff" goes on every day in other religions, organizations, etc. If the Church would change to fit the wants of the 21st century, it could be a good and bad thing. Yes it is true that, statistically speaking, the numbers of pedophilia would probably go down, but the attention would be taken off of the cases that occur anyways. All of the media's attention would go to the fact that the Church is changing. This would be bigger than if a priest did something gross with an juvenile. People just want what will get their attention most- they could probably care less about what a priest does in his spare time. So if the Church would change, everything that is on the news today (women not becoming priests, pedophilia, etc.) would not matter to anyone. Everyone would focus on this "new change." People like to blame other people, it's in our nature- All in all, I would never consider changing the Catholic Church, because the accusations against it are not even as important to people as it may seem. Very long, but thanks for your time, -#20
| |
20
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
I think that marijuana should be legalized not only in Denver but in all of the United States. Most people who would want marijuana to be legalized are "pot heads," but I can honestly say that I have never smoked pot. Almost anyone who has smoked pot before would not be against its legalization. To state the opposite, most people who never want it legalized most likely have never even tried it before. I believe that the people who don't want marijuana legalized are afraid of the drug and its affects on its users. I actually think that the affects aren't bad at all. If you look at what it does to you, then I would be surprised if you would still dislike the drug with a passion. Here are somethings to consider: -It calms down the user -it slows down one's movement -a lot of times it makes you happy -It has apparently never killed anyone If this drug is legalized along the same lines and circumstances as alcohol, then mostly good things would come out of it. Instead of violent/drunk parents, the "abusive" parents would be calm and stoned (they would ignore children, but it would still be better than physical abuse). Given, I do not know a lot about the drug, and this is only based off of what my friends have told me. In relation to alcohol, the drug can definitely be treated as something very similar. Laws should limit it to adults over 21 years of age, you can't have it in a car at all in an opened bag, etc. The black market would decrease if it were legalized, and "bad batches" would not be smoked. As a closing statement, the government might as well make money off of it since a huge amount of America's youth already does the drug. Taxes on this could be used for schools, etc. which would benefit our country in general. Basically, the good affects of marijuana and its legalization would totally outweight its bad affects on its users/the country. Thanks for your time, ID # 20
| |
16
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
I feel that the legalization of marijuana is a good idea for many reasons. First, as opposed to alcohol, marijuana has no negative side effects. Second, there are no proven health risks to marijuana. Alcohol, on the other hand, has tons of negative side effects, both long-term and immediate. Third, if marijuana were legal, there would be much less crime. In Amsterdam, where marijuana is legal to a certain extent, crime is almost nonexistent. Fourth, if marijuana were legal, its price would certainly drop, and Americans would not have to waste so much money buying it. Whether you drink or you smoke marijuana, both will make you intoxicated in some way. However, alcohol brings with it many negative side effects and health risks. As long as alcohol is legal, marijuana should be legal as well.
| |
16
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
I think gay marriage should be legalized in all states. Some argue that gay marriage undermines the sacredness of marriage in general. However, I believe that two people, regardless of gender, can faithfully devote themselves to each other if they truly love one another. I do not think the government has any authority in deciding who can and can not get married. The only arguments against gay marriage are all based on opinion. No legitimate, objective reasons for making it illegal have been put forth, and that is why the federal government should have no say in the matter.
| |
16
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
If one school shooting was prevented by delving a little into someone's myspace, that is enough justification for the action. I do not think reading a post that a person intentionally put up on the internet is an invasion of that person's privacy by any means. However, if someone uses illegitimate means to collect information that was never permissably released by the person being researched, that is a breach of privacy. School officials should not attempt to access private information about any student. On the other hand, any publicly posted information (such as myspace, facebook, etc.), in my opinion, can be legitimately used for any good reason by anyone.
| |
16
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
The Catholic Church should adapt to life in the 21st Century with some very important and worthwhile changes. While it is hard to make changes to traditions that seem as permanent as Catholicism itself, there would be many advantages to adopting certain new practices. For example, with regards to pedophilia amongst priests, if the Catholic Church allowed priests to marry, this would greatly lessen the amount of pedophilic incidents. Also, since the Church is experiencing a continuous shortage of priests, allowing females priestesses would help solve this problem. Even though the Church could use many changes in our modern times, this does not lessen the massive amount of good the Church bestows on our world. It is unfair for the media to expound the pedophilia within the Church when, really, it only occurred amongst a very low number of priests. There is no doubt that pedophilia is a sickening crime that should be fought at every turn. Nevertheless, there are thousands of good, innocent men out there who have contributed their lives to God for noble causes, and it is wrong to undermine the efforts of these men and lessen our view of the Catholic Church in general.
| |
16
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
While I initially supported the war in Iraq, I think it may be time to leave. Regardless of why we entered Iraq in the first place, it seems that the progress we are making over there has dropped to a dead standstill. My own brother, who joined the Marines several years ago, has already been over to Iraq twice. It is not worth risking my brother's life and the lives of all the other military we have over there for the little progress we are making in the country. Also, the country's morale and our view amongst the other superpowers of the world are both steadily dropping each and every day. This country, at its time of need, needs to end the war and rebuild while we still can.
| |
16
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
Gay marriage should be legalized in every state. It is wrong to discriminate against someone for any reason, especially if that reason is not under his or her control. Many people say that homosexuals are just confused or sick with a disease and they can choose to be straight. Logically, that is completely ridiculous. No person would ever voluntarily submit themselves to the pain and anguish a homosexual and his or her family inevitably goes through when that person finally “comes out of the closet.” This pain is caused by the media and its everyday assistance in painting an embarrassing picture of homosexuals in general. Therefore, no person holds the right to label a couple’s love for one another as wrong simply because both members of the couple are of the same sex. Furthermore, the Federal government should have no say regarding a couple’s right to marriage. Marriage is neither a legal nor moral concern, nor is it a matter of national security. It is a right that any two people should have to graft their lives together in a beautiful act of love for one another. To deny someone’s right to marriage is a violation of their rights as a human being. Unless the government can present a legitimate reason for the banning of gay marriage, it should be legalized in every state in this country.
| |
16
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
The Catholic Church could certainly use some changes in the modern times we live in. Allowing female priests and allowing priests to marry would certainly prevent any pedophilia from occurring amongst priests. However, I think people in general give the Catholic Church a lot less credit than they really deserve. There are many good men out there who have chosen to be priests. The media, in broadcasting so much about the pedophilia incidents and making it seem more widespread than it really was, hurt all of these innocent men. While the pedophilia was not as widespread as everyone thought, I am sure that some changes to the church will keep these incidents to a bare minimum.
| |
17
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
I honestly don’t know that much about the Iraq War. I’m not aware of many of the reasons people give in support or against it, so all I can say is what I think without having many of the facts. I feel that war was basically a bad idea to begin with. Diplomacy would have been a much less damaging way to go, and would have led to greater results in the long run. We went in with barely any support and basically politically bullied other countries into giving up their own resources for our use in a war we started all on our own. It should have been an issue contained within the United Nations from the beginning. Granted, the UN should have more power in deciding conflicts and authority over member countries. Perhaps its relative ineffectiveness is part of the reason today we are still involved in a conflict that could have been avoided years ago. I honestly think the war in Iraq has done nothing but make things worse. The argument has been made that Saddam Hussein’s regime was an evil that America was right to rid the world of, and his image has been likened to that of Hitler. But in the case of World War II, cries went out from the persecuted groups in Germany that were heard around the world. The people wanted to be helped, and realized that nothing would ever change without major outside intervention. Plus, Hitler posed an immediate threat to America because Germany and other members of the Axis were poised to take over the world if ever the Allied forces let down their defenses for a minute. Saddam Hussein was in no way trying to take over America, or even European countries. All of the “weapons of mass destruction” which posed such an immediate threat to us in 2001 have yet to be discovered, while if they had ever occurred in such quantities as they were thought to you’d think we would at least find a clue as to what happened to them. Even President Bush has changed his opinion, or at least his administration has. “Stay the course”, encouraging citizens to keep supporting the war and discouraging a reevaluation of its execution and purpose, has changed to endorsement of a change in methods as Bush’s approval ratings magically drop. I think a drastic change needs to made in America’s action in this war, or we are going to be in it for just as long as Vietnam if not longer, with even less results. It’s not even clear what we’re trying to accomplish anymore. Are we trying to rebuild Iraq, or just instill democracy, or still rid it of insurgent factions, or keep it under military control so it’s no longer a threat. There are many mixed messages running through that war, and I’m not sure how Bush is even justifying keeping troops there so long after the war has officially been declared over. The war in Iraq is still as much a war as the war in Korea was, although its motives are much less clear. Although since we went in to begin with, we have changed so much and had such an effect on the lives of Iraqi citizens that we have a responsibility not to just pull out and go back to America, and pretend like we were never there. What we should be doing is not trying to patch up the situation by ourselves however, but admitting humility and asking for help. Instead of donating money, time and supplies to giving Iraq new buildings and a new government, we should open up a little bit diplomatically to see what the Iraqi citizens actually expect and want from us, and what the UN thinks we should do. The WAR, at any rate, has to end before any real improvement can begin. If we can’t reach a compromise with Iraq that allows us to help them without them attacking us, then a neutral party needs to step in and take over relations because the way we’re going is leading us nowhere.
| |
17
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
I think the Catholic Church came a long way during the papacy of Pope John Paul II in terms of modernizing and reaching out to people of the world today, but still has many changes to make to fully adapt to life in the 21st century. It’s very hard to balance the value of traditions such as not allowing birth control with modern values today and will by no means be an easy or quick process, although that is what people are calling for. The problem is that such an evolution of society and technology has taken place over the past hundred or so years that an institution like the Church that has undergone a minimal amount of change since its inception 2000 is an anachronism. It will take patience on the part of everyone involved to bring the Catholic Church to a resolution with the standards of modern people. There are many aspects of Church doctrine that should be updated, like not allowing women priests or priests to be married. In a society where women and men have achieved equal roles, or are trying to, it is important that an institution advocating equal rights should put into practice what it preaches. There is no reason except tradition that women should not be priests, not to say that traditions are useless. There are plenty of good traditions the can remind us of our heritage or unite people as a family or even a country, like the Fourth of July. But when traditions are followed blindly for centuries without question, they can turn into harmful biases and inhibit change and growth. There are many traditions the Catholic Church should hold on to, but the Latin Mass wasn’t one of them and celibate priests aren’t either. There is much to be said for keeping strongly to convictions in the face of opposition, and the Catholic Church has been good at that from the moment of its birth. But there is also much to be said for reviewing one’s convictions in light of the situation. In the Bible, God told Moses that lepers were ritually unclean, but Jesus, in a much later place and time, declared that lepers were God’s children as much as any of us and were to be treated like so. Vatican II proves that we don’t have to wait for Christ’s second coming to see changes happen in the Church. Many aspects of Church tradition were changed then and Catholicism didn’t fall apart. It may have lost some members who were upset by a change, but it gained many more who found the new, more modern Church more accessible to them. There are going to be positive and negative consequences to a change in any organization as far-reaching and ancient as the Catholic Church, but long term benefits must be considered as well as the immediate emotional responses that are sure to happen among members. As to the recent bout of pedophilia accusations dealing with Catholic priests, I believe that to be a separate issue from modernization in the Church. Pedophilia is a serious mental illness, and there are both genetic and environmental aspects to the expression of any mental illness. Perhaps there is such a relatively high rate of pedophilia among priests because many men who felt unnatural attraction to children became priests in hopes that the constant exposure to religion and vows of celibacy would keep their urges in check. In any case, they were all well aware that no female priests were allowed and they would never be getting married. If once they were priests they were overwhelmed with the responsibility or felt the call to marriage, they could have left the priesthood. Although this isn’t easy and s heavily disapproved of, it’s not as if you’re going to jail or the Catholic Church will take out a bounty on your head if you leave the priesthood. I think there are a lot of things the Church could do to modernize itself and make itself more in tune to its members, but it can’t influence whether or not priests are pedophiles. Who knows how long this problem has existed - just because in the past few years it has been exposed doesn’t mean it’s new at all. The Church should remove priests with pedophilia from power positions and get them the help they need, but it should concentrate on reaching out to the modern world.
| |
17
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
Marriage is a legal right that everyone in the country deserves to have. If mentally challenged people with Down's syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome have the right to get married and have children, how on earth can we deny that same right to homosexual couples who are functioning members of society? People say that gay marriage is against their religion – well their religion isn't the issue here. Under the Constitution, they have the same right to practice that religion as they always have, and to deny the marriage of homosexuals within their own churches and institutions. But states aren't trying to make priests perform marriages between two gay people - the only right on debate here is the right for two male or two female names to be on the same marriage certificate. There is no way that if gay marriage is legalized, you'll walk into church one day and have to watch two men kiss at the altar. This is in no way the issue, and what needs to happen is that people see that. America has to look at this issue objectively, without the emotional reasoning that thinking about it in terms of religion brings. Only then will we as a country come to see that we are denying people basic rights in the name of nothing more than personal belief. What are the disadvantages of gay marriage? People say that homosexual couples threaten the validity of heterosexual marriage and somehow make it less special. But homosexual and heterosexual couples are so fundamentally different, and yet so similar, that this will in no way happen. Living with a partner of the same sex can't be the same as living with one of the opposite sex, yet they share the same feelings and roles in relationships, go through the same problems, and want the same things out of a marriage. Some people look at homosexuals as simply promiscuous people who want sex all the time without the possibility of pregnancy or commitment. From that standpoint, yes, homosexual marriage would make the institution of marriage look bad. But in fact, this is a stereotype that is in no way true. Homosexual couples have rates of commitment and break-up similar to heterosexual couples. Many live their whole lives together, sharing every experience the same way a married man and woman do. How could a committed couple make marriage look bad? There is no way the federal government should be involved in this issue, unless the constitutionl amendment changes the definition of marriage to include the union between homosexual couples at all. The separation of church and state should keep Bush from passing such an amendment, because other than a phrase written down over 100 years ago and some "morals" conferred on him by his religion, there is nothing behind his push. Such an amendment would be a dangerous thing for the Republican party to pass, since the gay population is a growing minority who has a vested interest in the matter. Besides, the federal government has a responsibility to protect the rights of those under it, not take them away. Whose rights are protected by banning gay marriages? The rights of heterosexual couples to be the only ones with a marriage certificate? That seems like s snobbish kind of right to protect. What about the rights of old ladies not to be offended by seeing a wedding performed between two men? Well, we defended the right of old ladies not to see a black man and a white woman holding hands in public not so long ago. That defense was known as the Jim Crow laws. Is that really where we see ourselves at the beginning of 2007??
| |
17
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
I think the Catholic Church has been in a constant process of growth ever since its conception. It's not like it has never changed - The Protestant Reformation and Vatican II are examples of two massive overhauls in Church doctrine and practice. Yet there are lots of issues today that the Church is not addressing properly - tradition is not a good answer to the issue of women preists or gay marriage. It doesn't attract people to the church when they hear that women can't be priests because 2000 years ago people were not enlightened enough to listen when women spoke in the name of Jesus, so he picked men as his apostles instead. Everyone knows that that has changed, and they want the church to reflect the new status of women in the world. Pope John Paul II did well in his time as Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium. He made the Church more accessible to common people, and by visiting other countries as a sort of ambassador, in effect globalized it. In this era of global trade and world economy, it was good to have a Pope who spoke the languages of so many people, and who showed obvious love for each one of them. But the doctrines of the church are much more entrenched and hard to change than its public image. Supporters of strict laws in the church can find evidence anywhere in the Bible supporting their ideas. But perception of the Bible has also changed over the years - it is no longer accepted by many as literal fact, ever since the Scopes Monkey trial. In fact, among many theologians and Biblical scholars, it is widely accepted that the Bible should be viewed realistically - as a book of meaninful stories and lessons created by Church leaders to unify and teach their followers. If the Bible were to be created today by the same leaders of the church, it would undoubtedly be different in many, many ways. So why should we keep basing our lives on the "laws" written in a book centuries ago, in another place and time entirely? The MESSAGE of the Bible is what's important. Love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, God loves you etc, not "a man is unclean for 24 hours after he has lain with a woman." That one went out the window... so whats keeping the law where gays should be shunned and stoned taken as the word of God himself? In regard to the issue of pedophilia, there is nothing the church could have done or changed to prevent that. A pedophile is a pedophile - it is a psycholigical illness, not just repressedsexual energy. I think that rather than a good proportion of priest becoming pedophiles, a good portion of pedophiles became priests to try and control their urges. They probably thought the church would give them stronger morals and convictions, and that they would be able to control their thoughts and actions better as priests. Instead, what it did was give them even less supervision (hey, everyone trusts a priest) and even more freedom to be alone with small children and to fantasize about them. Allowing female priests and married priests would probably enhance the quality of life among priests, but would not make any greater or smaller percentage of them pedophiles. What the church could have done was to keep a closer watch on the health of its priests. I'm sure none of them entered the priesthood saying "Oh boy, this will give me a chance to have sex with kids." They probably felt extreme guilt over their feelings and actions, and probably would have sought help for it if they thought they would be supported. I'm sure none of these men were particularly bad people, they just had psychological problems and a lack of control. If priests could be assured that they could get psychological help whenever they needed it, and not necessarily from other priests but from real doctors, then I think the incidence rate of occasions like this would go down. Also, the curch should not have covered up incidences when they did occur, but gotten help for the involved priests and let the public know in a timely manner. Instead, the whole thing backfired on them and the newspapers got to have a grand expose. The church should change many of its own internal customs and rules, and that includes trying to always be judge and jury. Sometimes people just need outside help.
| |
17
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
There is no legal reason to make gay marriage impossible. Decisions about whether weddings can be performed in a church and recognized as a religious union should be left up to the leaders of specific religions, and the state should stick to determining whether a union is worthy of a legal marriage certificate. Many gay couples show the same level of commitment as straight couples - they live together, raise children together, and grow old together in sickness and in health. Why should they not be given the same legal benefits and rights as straight couples? Religious arguments are perfectly valid. It is totally dependent on religious leaders to decide whether or not homosexuality is a sin or accepted by their religion, and the attitude members should take toward homosexuals. They can even decide what rights gay people will have within a religion - whether they will ever be allowed to become priests or rabbis or just allowed to be lay people. However, that has no effect ( or shouldn’t, at any rate) on the legalization of gay marriage by the government. Voters and legislators both have to start separating the two issues in their minds. The decision on whether or not to allow gay marriage should have nothing to do with personal feelings of approval or disapproval of homosexuality. Members of the gay community are part of a minority just like Hispanics or African Americans and should be treated accordingly. The government would never think of denying the right of marriage to African Americans, so why should it to homosexuals? There is no psychological difference between gay people and straight people; it’s not like they have a mental defect, they just have a different sexual orientation. They feel the same way about their partners as husbands do about their wives and vice versa, and gay relationships have been shown to be very similar to straight relationships. Children raised by gay parents have been shown to be well adjusted for the most part, and many children raised by straight couples have been shown to have psychological issues. The health of children has nothing to do with the orientation of the parents, just the methods and effectiveness of parenting, and so cannot be used as an argument against gay marriage - especially since allowing it would give children a better sense of stability and normality in their home life. President Bush’s proposal for an amendment banning gay marriage is uncalled for and highly questionable from an ethical and legal standpoint. On what grounds are we trying to deny these people a basic right that everyone else in America enjoys? They are not posing a threat to heterosexual marriage. It’s not as if by seeing the happiness of a married gay couple more people are going to become gay. Heterosexual families and gay families will always remain unique and should be treated as two separate entities, not just a deviation of a single entity. This is especially a legally charged issue because Bush is not only trying to deny a status of equality to a significant minority in the United States, but legal rights as well like housing, tax and health care advantages. The federal government should definitely be involved in this issue, but on the side of the rights of the people that it swore to uphold and protect. If gay people are allowed to live in the United States, own property here, have jobs here, shop here, and be active parts of their communities, then they deserve the same rights as heterosexual people who influence American society and economy in the same ways.
| |
17
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
This is possibly the biggest waste of the court's time ever. I fail to see, time and time again, how a bulletin posted on a public website for tens and probably hundrends of users to see could be considered private in any way shape or form. Even just signing up for a Myspace, you are informed that your website is subject to inspection and censorship by the owners - no part of myspace is truly private. The very act of posting a bulletin shows that he didn't want his actions to be private - he wanted others to know about and read about them. The issue here is that the wrong people (school officials) came across a notice that was otherwise public property. You can't defend your mistake of not being careful by saying they invaded your privacy by catching you in that mistake. If the post was on a private, password protected site that only you had the keys to and shool officials hacked in, then a case could be made. Still, kids post things every day in their web sites and blogs and expect other people to read them. The inference of the kid posting a bulletin was that he expected other people to read it. Just because he got in trouble when people fulfilled his expectations doesn't give him a justification for his defense. School officals should draw the line at actual private property. Search and seizure of a purse's contents is different from a review of a student's public website. With a purse, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A purse is used outside of school in many situations. Myspace is not used for anything but communication with other people. Noone creates a Myspace and adds no friends and just keeps it for themselves to look at, and noone posts a bulletin on Myspace without expecting other users to read it. It's the same situation as passing out fliers at school that say "IM BRINGING IN A GUN TOMORROW!!!" If a school principal happens to pick one up and freaks out, you can't say "Hey, you had no right to read that because I was only passing it out to my friends!" The fact is, the responsibility of school offials to keep the students in their care safe has always and will always outweigh the privacy rights of students. School officals have more leniency even than the police because a school is supposed to be a safe and sheltered environment. If kids think they are constantly in danger, how can they learn? If parents don't think offials are doing a good enough job, they will switch their kids to a different school. Parents and the government support the school system in doing what it takes to protect their children. Anything brought to school should be under the authority of the school to search - purses, backpacks, locker contents, notebooks... bottom line, if you don't want it to be seen by school officials don't put it withink their reach. This means realizing that school officials use the internet as well, and even if they don't other students may turn you in. This was just a stupid decision by one kid that school officials were well within their rights to crack down on.
| |
17
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
I have a problem with the legalization of marijuana both in theory and in practicality. In theory, people argue that marijuana has similar effects to alcohol so if alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too. In reality, marijuana's effects are NOT the same as alcohol's. Marijuana is an unclassified drug: it has characteristics of a halluicogen and narcotic, among others. Alcohol is simply a depressant - it slows down the body's nervous system and thought processes. Marijuana, on the other hand, has different effects on different people, and affects many different parts of the brain. It does not simply slow reaction time, but works in many different ways to change a person's perception. People also argue that cigarettes, which contain the harmful and addictive drug nicotene, are legal, so why not joints? I say not only should smoking joints remain illegal, but eventually cigarettes should me made illegal as well. Nobody wants to get cancer from other sources, like radiation, so they make the government heavily control them. In the meantime, smokers are diagnosed with and die of lung cancer every day. Alcohol causes health problems of its own, but at least an alcoholic can't give one of his family members secondhand alcohol poisoning or liver disease. Smoking in general is a public health risk, and I don't see why we should add to that with a substance as questionable as marijuana. Even if the idea sounded good in theory, in practicality it would never fly. Police already have a hard enough time regulating dug traffiking in major cities like Denver - now we're going to add on the additional element that suddenly everyone over 21 has become a potential dealer. The rate of sales of drugs to minors will skyrocket as it becomes easier and easier for them to get their hands on it, and kids will start smoking and getting addicted to pot younger and younger. Rates of high school graduation will probably decline significantly. I say we should make it as hard as possible for kids to get their hands on substances which are illegal for them... whether alcohol or marijuana. Plus, who is going to regulate whether or not the "allotted amount" of pot is used wisely? It's going to make the jobs of police that much harder to pull over every drunk or high driver on the highways, and new regulations and laws will have to be set into place to determine the legal blood content of marijuana. Plus, how would amounts be regulated? And what is to stop a man from buying his allowance of pot in one store, and then going next door and getting more so he can sell it? Leagalizing marijuana opens a Pandora's box of problems that the legislative and judicial systems just don't have the resources to fix right now. It will just end up a big headache and the right will be revoked in a few years. Legalizing marijuana is just giving young people one more way to get into trouble, and the government one more hassle.
| |
7
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
Saying that students have rights that need to be protected is like saying that the sky is blue. Young people have the same rights granted under the constitution that adults (in most cases anyway; drinking, voting, and some financial concerns being different). These rights aren’t shed at the schoolhouse gate, as one Supreme Court Justice noted. This doesn’t mean that administrators can’t take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the entire student body, though. Another major issue of concern is that of the nature of the internet itself, which is one that American courts will be increasingly forced to confront in the next decade. Questions of whether the internet a completely public forum, how much personal information can be considered protected, as well as other issues related to copyright, fair use, and financial dealings all will need to answered more explicitly. In this particular case, however, I think tat school administrators acted within reason. Myspace is an open forum. Placing information there is like tacking a note up on a billboard. To expect that someone out in Wichita can post information on it and that someone else in Bangladesh doesn’t have the right or the ability to access that information is ludicrous. The student who exposed his plans in such an obviously public place had it coming; to do something like that can only be labeled sheer stupidity. There are ways to post private information on the web that only one’s friends and other pre-approved persons can access, and Myspace is just not one of them. In fact, it is an internet phenomenon that encourages voyeurism, in every sense of the word. Parents should be glad that school administrators are checking out their kids myspace pages, and not forty-year-old pedophiles (and hope that administrators don’t fit both classifications...). The line administrators should draw needs to make the medium of communication its primary focus. Posting on a public forum, announcing things in the lunchroom, and hanging banners in the hallway are all forms of communication that administrators can, and sometimes should, check. Writing in private online journal (which Myspace isn’t), sending e-mails to friends, and phoning other people are not acceptable forms for them to check. The difference lies in what can reasonably be considered a public form of communication. If I call down the hallway to my friend Bob, who’s at his locker, that I’ve contracted mono, syphilis, or something else I would reasonably want to keep to myself, then I can’t prevent others from hearing. But if I call Bob and explain it to him, then there’s no way another person has the right to overhear it. The same holds true for the internet, despite it being written down instead of spoken. If I go to an on-line forum and post, “I think I’m going to wake up tomorrow, eat breakfast, and then go slaughter sixteen people and several small dogs,” then of course I’m going to b arrested. That would be the equivalent of me shouting it at school football game. Common sense is always a must.
| |
7
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
Of course gender discrimination is still an issue. It would be ludicrous to expect that a society born and bred on millennia of European paternalistic social modes would shed them in under a century. The problem is that examples of discrimination have become harder to recognize; it’s no longer kosher to avoid promoting a female worker or to make overt and unwelcome sexual comments to them (not to say that this doesn’t happen). Gender discrimination has just become a deeply imbedded part of life, instead of a more visible one. One could argue that the reason there aren’t as many females in high-level corporate or political roles is that there aren’t many clamoring for the positions. There is some truth to this, at least in the political realm; there simply aren’t as many female candidates as there are males. But a more truthful outlook asks another question: why not? Despite the advances made by the feminist movement, we still live in a society in which a female’s role is predetermined to involve child-rearing and, to some extent, housekeeping, although I think the latter has shifted a fair amount within the last quarter-century. More women are leaving their homes for the workplace, but this is often greeted with a kind of lukewarm encouragement from certain portions of the political and social spectrum, and sometimes snarling discouragement (anyone remember Rick Santorum’s remarks to this effect? We should all be thankful that he’s out of a job now). In the eyes of many people, the equality between genders exists in name only. For example, ponder whether or not the government will consider reinstating the draft anytime soon. Answer: nope. They’d have to wrestle with the question of whether to draft women, and no politician wants to touch that issue with a thirty-nine and a half foot pole. On the flipside, men sometimes receive backlash from the phenomena known as “reverse discrimination.” It occasionally happens that the perceived need to promote female employees on the part of managers and otherwise could result in qualified males being ignored. Much the same argument is made in regards to race. While I don’t have statistics sitting here in front of me, I can’t imagine that this would be a large portion of the working male population though, and probably actually involves very few (think “the fingers on my two hands”). What we do about gender discrimination is a complicated question. There are a lot of possible answers. First should be our language, I think. It sounds absurd, but male-oriented linguistic formations help shape the way we understand and order reality. Here’s a smattering of examples: the ubiquitous use of phrase such as “mankind” or “man” to describe all of humanity, the preference for male pronouns when referring to non-specific persons or person in hypothetical situations, and the bizarre attribution of female gender to thoroughly unsexed objects (ships, for example). Another route to go is the old tried ‘n true method of education. People need to be taught about gender differences and similarities so that they don’t go around building absurd notions based upon faulty foundations. This won’t take care of the issue, but it won’t take care of itself, either.
| |
7
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
As with any institution that’s been around for a millennium or so, the Catholic Church is inherently resistant to change. That’s a nicer way of saying “conservative.” Because of this, it’s acquired the outward semblance of a frat, a good ol’ boys organization. The hierarchy has the power and money to preserve itself by any means necessary, and frequently the means involves covering up the less tasteful deeds of its rank and file members. A similar principle operates in political machines. That’s not to say that the Church hasn’t done and doesn’t continue to do a great deal of good in the world; rather, that the insular character of the Church as an organization can sometimes promote systems of abuse which remain carefully hidden. Asking the Church to adapt to life in the 21st century, though, is a little like asking a duck-billed platypus to fly the space shuttle. The theological character of the Church is at odds with many aspects of modern life on basic points. Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I present for your edification exhibit A: The Church’s attitude toward homosexuals, or “inherently disordered persons,” as they’ve quaintly come to term them. Most people have come to accept homosexuality as part of everyday life in the 21st century world. The Catholic Church, however, insists upon seeing it as either the product of bad parenting (often in bizarrely Freudian terms), an “accident” in the gene pool, or just straightforward perversion. While most advocates for gay rights these days do indeed argue that it’s genetic, none of them would apply “accident” as the nominal word of choice. The Church’s views on women, after having had years of spit and polish applied, still look musty in a modern context, too. It’s hierarchy is of a doggedly paternalistic bend. Certainly, there have been many famous nuns and female lay members (Mother Theresa and Dorothy Day, for examples), but these women have wielded little power in the actual operation of the Church. This seems odd, especially in view of the fact that Catholic dogma reiterates repeatedly the idea that men and women were made for each other. If that were so, why are there no female priests? It would seem to lend a good deal more balance to the picture. Maybe balance isn’t the end goal, but I can’t conceive of what else it might be, and it certainly isn’t pedophilia. Marriage itself has been a big point of contention with and within the Church for some time now. Priestly marriage was initially banned because social views on inheritance complicated things for Church landholdings; priests with children often tried to bequeath the land to their offspring. This seems like a remarkably un-theological reason for enforced celibacy. These days, it isn’t as though a way around that contingency couldn’t be found with some creativity. Protestant ministers and others have been “ministering to their flocks” for centuries while keeping families at home, and this doesn’t seem to have caused any widespread detriment. But the Church likes to remain static, and so we’ve seen no motion toward the idea of a married priesthood, although, from a sociological standpoint, this would have a good deal of beneficial impact.
| |
7
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
Dear CMC Study, I think the primary reason that marijuana is illegal is because the government can't tax it. It's long-term effects are no worse than those of cigarettes (and some would argue markedly better), and the immediate effects it produces are similar to those of alcohol. I think that the other major reason it's illegal is because it has a social stigma attached to it, which is a little ridiculous when you examine the other behaviors society is willing to look the other way on. Denver has made a brave and ultimately very good decision. Even from a logistical standpoint, courts are frequently overwhelmed by cases of petty drug charges (and so are prisons, oftentimes), and a law like that helps to lighten that load in the long term. I think that if the government were to begin (trying) to strictly regulate the drug traffic and to legalize small amounts, as Denver has done, it would be a much preferable situation to the one they're dealing with now. Peace, #6 Your Agent in the Field
| |
7
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
How do I feel about the war? (Runs outside, yells incoherently at the top of his lungs for several minutes, comes back, sits down). Okay, better now. I’m against it. The United States went to war on false and shifting pretexts to satisfy the twisted policy notions of a foreign-relations-ignorant administration. Case the first: Saddam has ties to Al Queda. False. Case the second: Iraq is developing chemical and biological weapons along with various other WMD’s (all caps to increase the scariness quotient) which pose a huge threat to our country. False. Current Case: Saddam was just a really bad dude and it’s in everybody’s best interest to have him out of power. It was our job to do it since we’re the U.S., and are just generally awesome. Also false, but in a more complicated way. This line of logic sets the U.S. up as an international police force which not only can intervene in anything, but is obligated to intervene in any kind of conflict. This might sound like a good idea to some people. The main problem is that it means we don’t necessarily intervene in other country’s best interests, but only what we perceive to be their best interests (which, coincidentally, we usually decide have to be in line with our interests). This line of thinking is only a step above the Bush Doctrine, known as that of “preemptive strike” in the general media. Essentially, this breaks down to mean that the U.S. has the right to attack other countries who may or may not pose a threat to it at a whim, regardless of the larger ramifications to whatever region of the world that country is situated in. The ramifications in Iraq so far have been widespread political, social, and economic instability and unrest. The idea of preemptive strike is probably the single worst foreign policy promulgated by an American administration in the last twenty-five years, or even the last half-century, if one makes a very large exception for the “domino theory” and its entire progeny of policies. It’s probably even a worse idea than that of “mutually assured destruction.” The war has gone on long enough. The further back one steps from it, the more it looks like Vietnam (Oh no! Taboo analogy!). American troops are battling against a whole slew of splinter groups and radicals who only employ guerrilla tactics with which the military still has trouble contending. Many scholars have made the argument recently that Iraq is so radically destabilized right now because of the American presence. That isn’t just a pretext for “cutting and running,” as the swollen rhetoric of the Bush administration would label it (or at least until they have their next policy meeting and elect a new phrase-of-the-month). Much of the fighting in Iraq happening right now is the work of hyper-nationalist groups operating from one very basic premise: get the Americans out of here. If America pulled out now, the country would stay messy for quite sometime, but if America stays then it will be a mess for even longer.
| |
7
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
Dear CMCC Study, I'll have to try to put aside my strong distaste for myspace for the moment (it's a disgusting excuse for internet voyeurism and cheapens more legitimate forms of human interaction and communication). People need to keep in mind that myspace is an open forum. This means that anything posted on it can be viewed by anyone else. Myspace does have a "privacy" option, but I'd argue that anyone who places information they wouldn't want other sot see on the internet is asking for trouble. I think that since myspace is an open forum, school officials were within their rights to use the information they found posted. The student who was dumb enough to make the posting acted the same as if he had posted it on a regular billboard in a hallway somewhere. There are, of course, limits to the lengths law enforcement and school officials can go, and I believe that those lines need to be more sharply delineated. The Supreme Court has dealt with the privacy rights of minors in the public education system many times before, but questions involving the internet are relatively new and need to be worked through. An important Supreme Court ruling in the 1960's (the name of which escapes me) involving students wearing arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War commented to the effect that "Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse gate." I think that a students use of any form of internet communication which could reasonably be considered private should be respected as such. Peace, #6
| |
7
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
Dear CMCC Study- The federal debate over gay marriage is asinine. Constitutionally speaking, I believe it's a matter which should be left to the States. My feelings about President Bush cannot be described in polite terms, so I won't go there. The erroneous line of reasoning that concludes that the banning of gay marriage will protect "family values" is also absurd in itself. First of all, in order to follow this logic, one has to first posit that there is a coherent standard for what can be considered "family values." This ignores the plethora of cultural norms and values present in American society, and therefore begins on false premises. Second, the conservative push for "family values" is ridiculous in itself. Mark Foley, anyone? Government funding for South American countries to slaughter their own peoples during the Reagan Administration? Economic policies which consistently widen the gap between the top and bottom of the wage-earning spectrum? These don't really jive with any notion of "family values." Our country is predominantly homophobic. The ability for gays to get married in civil ceremonies wouldn't have have any practical negative consequences for our country. The right would involve just that: civil ceremonies. People can go on holding whatever uptight ideas they please within their own religions, which have nothing to do with government sanctioned unions. Peace, #6
| |
15
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
Once again, we come to an issue that many people have strong feelings on. In my previous response through the email, I believe that I had a different opinion from the one that I have now. Gay marriage is an issue that should have a 100% overall agreement. I do not believe either side is wrong in their beliefs. We are in the 20th century- times have changed and people should be more accepting of the changes in sexuality. As for President Bush’s push for an amendment to ban gay marriage, I do not agree. Studies may differ, but with others knowledge and with the information presented to me, I feel that genetics is the cause for a person to be homosexual and not heterosexual. I do not feel that it is due to a person’s environment, or they way they were brought up. This type of sexuality has existed all the way back to the time of our creation. It has always been there, people just decided to avoid the subject. I do not agree with the federal government trying to intervene in a person’s private life, especially if they are trying to decide who an individual can marry- it is ridiculous to even think about! Marriage was created to bring together a man and a woman; rules have been bent for other issues less important than gay marriage. Why are people so afraid of this change? I know I am uneasy of the idea, but I have to accept it, because we can not change a person’s genetics or who they are attracted to. The ancient philosopher Plato, described humans as beings searching for their other half. He described the original humans as beings in the shape of a ball with two pairs of sexual organs. One ball had two male organs, one ball had two female organs, and the other ball had one male organ and one female organ. When the gods feared the power of humans, Zeus split them in half; they wandered the world searching for their other half. This is how love is described, the search for our soul mate, and the search for the deep connection that we cannot describe. The side opposing gay marriage is not wrong, they believe they are acting for the good of the people, but how do they know what is good for these people different from them. The federal government is not needed for this issue; they have greater things to worry about, and marriage is not one of them.
| |
15
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
I believe that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present day United States for both men and women. I feel that women and men are equally discriminated against in the workplace. Discrimination has existed for so long in our country, I do not feel that it will be easy to rid ourselves of it. People have created their ideas and views and do not want to change them. When faced with the issue, people seem to turn their head or look the other way. Yes, to an extent I do believe that there is gender discrimination in the work place. I believe that some people are set in their ways and feel that men can do a better job in a certain profession than women. I also believe that some people feel women can do a better job than men in a certain profession. I do not think that we can change this, because people will view the world the way they want to view it; it is very hard to change a persons view when they are set in their ways. Another point to this issue is that yes men and women are equal, but there are some jobs that men will do better in then women and vice versa. I do not believe this is an attack on the genders, but reality. From my personal experience at a job, I saw that women were treated better then the men. The women were treated as if they could do no wrong. The boys were reprimanded for when they did something wrong, even if a girl did the same thing and was never spoken to. My job was a part time job, it wasn’t serious, and so I do not know what it is like in the corporate world. Movies will portray discrimination in the work place for both sexes. I almost feel that the media “plays up” this discrimination. I do not really know what we could do to change this. I mean, how do you go about changing cultures norms and they ways things have been? Gender discrimination does not seem to affect women as much as it used to, as we hear stories about the women in the corporate world, and husbands at home. The changing roles have become a topic of discussion in the 21st century- things are changing on their own.
| |
15
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
The war in Iraq has been a major issue since the time I was in the 8th grade, after the collapse and attack on the World Trade Center. When I first heard about the incident, I didn’t know that it was a terror attack nor did I know what the World Trade Center was. All I knew was that something happened in the city, and kids were being taken out of school early. I arrived home and the attack was all over the news. I kept seeing the word “war” on the screen; it made me nervous. I had studied about wars in school and thought to myself how lucky we were to not be in a war and how lucky I was to never have had to experience a war. All of a sudden, we were in a war. This kind of war seemed scarier to me though. It was a war not being fought on our battlefields between men who hopefully wanted to be there, but a war on innocent individuals who could not have seen it coming. On September 10th, I had travel basketball try-outs with my coach from the previous year, Coach Farrell. Mr. Lynch was Katie’s father, a girl that I had been in school with since kindergarten; we weren’t close friends, but we played sports together. The first try out had ended and he gathered us all around him. I do not remember exactly what he said to us, I can still remember his smile and how happy he was to see us all back on the basketball court. He had a way of encouraging us to do our best, he never made us feel that we could not succeed; he was stern, but never mean. It never mattered if we lost as long as we did our best. Mr. Lynch was a great man who loved his family, his friends, and teaching others a game that he had loved as a child. I may not remember what he said to us after practice, but as we were leaving he said, “See you tomorrow girls!” That was the last time I would ever see Mr. Lynch. His office was located in one of the World Trade Center buildings. They had found an intact check he had written that morning among the rubble; the Lynch family has that check. I do not remember seeing Katie that day, I remember her mother speaking at his funeral, telling us that Farrell lived a good life and would not want us to dwell on his death, but to move on. Mrs. Lynch brought a note card that he had left for her on her dresser before he left for a business trip one week. She read the note card and began to cry. Mrs. Lynch was a strong woman but not that strong. There were 22 people in my parish that had died from the collapse of the towers. These 22 people all left behind families and children. Mr. Lynch’s brother had also died in this tragedy. Because of this memory, I do not feel that the war has gone on long enough. I believe that our troops are doing a good job in Iraq, and we should be commending them, we should be supporting them, we should not be questioning whether we want them home or not. They are protecting the thousands of innocent people, like Mr. Lynch, who died for no good reason. Why that day? Why those people? Why those buildings? I think that war is an awful thing. I wish mankind was more peaceful and never had to go to war, but that is a dream and will never be. So for now, let’s pray for our troops and pray for each other that nothing like this will ever happen again.
| |
15
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
I think that alcohol has a more potent effect than marijuana. Marijuana seems to relax individuals. It seems normal for guys to drive when they are high, but then they would never drive when they are drunk. Weed seems easier to obtain then alcohol, which is strange because the easier one to get is illegal. I think any form of smoking is unnecessary..people are just killing their lungs, so if cigarettes are legal, then they might as well make weed legal. But then, on the other hand, when I think of weed and the people that smoke it, I consider them "dirtbags". So I do not think that would create a good image. If we legalized it people would take advantage of it. We seem to overly consume everything..so I take back my previous statement, because if weed was legal, there would be no moderation, just like there is no limit for alcohol.
| |
15
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
I do not feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present day United States. This may be because I have not been out into the "real world". I held a part time job in high school for 5 years and the only time I felt singled out as a girl was when I was unable to work past 7 o'clock. There were two valid reasons that I was not allowed- first, I think 14 year olds are only allowed to work a certain number of hours, and my boss did not want to leave me alone with the older boys working there..because after hours our store was dead! (I'm glad I had that restriction!) Once I became a freshman in high school I was able to work the rest of the night. At this job, I actually felt that the guys were discriminated..girls never got in trouble. The same mistake could be made by both a guy and a girl, and the guy would get fired. Once again..this was my store-very different from most. I mean...I guess I have been taught that there is discrimination towards women..I don't know by who, but I always grew up feeling like women were second best to men. I don't see it and it doesn't affect me. Idealy, I would hope not to even have to get a job when I graduate college. I would love for my husband to make enough money that I can be a stay at home mom!
| |
15
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
Another controversial issue is the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana seems to entice many people when they just want to “chill out”. Marijuana has been studied for years with scientific findings that prove that marijuana does not have positive effects on individuals. I do not think that most people truly know the side effects of marijuana and therefore feel that this is the drug, if any, to abuse. I believe that the city of Denver has made a mistake in legalizing small amounts of marijuana for people over the age of 21. Now, just like with alcohol, 21 year olds can buy for underage individuals. An underage individual does not even necessarily need a 21 year old; they just need his or her ID. I do not agree with the city of Denver and their decision to legalize small amounts of marijuana. In my email portion of this study, my response was different from what it is now because in between the time, I learned more about the effects of marijuana and what it is doing to a persons body. Personally, I do not feel that marijuana provides any great feeling; I do not think it is that great to risk killing brain cells, or to risk damaging ones lungs. My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer almost one year ago. The doctors told him that he had two years to live. He smoked almost ever day of his adult life, cigarettes in the early years and then cigars in the later years. My grandfather was not smoking marijuana, he was smoking tobacco-there is no difference because they produce similar results. I went to visit my grandfather last weekend; he lies in a bed, it hurts to sit up in a chair, he can not move on his own, he needs two nurses to help him go to the bathroom. The cancer moved from his lungs to his bones; he fell a few times, first breaking his left arm and then his hip. My grandfather is 75 years young and was told that he had seven to ten months to live. I do not know what it would feel like to know this. I would probably wonder why this had to happen. My grandfather can not go home in his final months of life; he was placed in a nursing home on Thanksgiving Day. My grandmother can not take care of him on her own- she says all she can do is pray for him. With my grandfather in mind and the memory of him I do not agree with the legalization of marijuana. I do not feel that marijuana should be legal, but I feel that marijuana’s effects are not as great as alcohol. I do not want alcohol to be illegal, but I feel that it is more lethal then marijuana. Many people abuse alcohol; they believe they can become a different person when under the influence. All alcohol does is make one lose their inhibitions and place one in a situation that they will most likely regret the next day. Marijuana can be used without making a person totally incapable of functioning. I have seen more people pass out or “black out” from alcohol then from marijuana. I have also seen that more people drive when under the influence of marijuana, rather then alcohol, showing that people feel the same or close to the same. Most would not risk getting into a car with a drunk driver, hopefully they would not let a drunk driver in the car seat, but many would not think twice about getting in the car with someone who was high. People are going to make their own choices about the matter of marijuana whether it is legal or not. I believe that Denver took a step in the wrong direction and hopefully other states do not follow in their footsteps.
| |
15
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
As a member of the Catholic Church, I do not feel that the church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st century. I disagree with the cases of pedophilia and agree that they do need to be addressed and dealt with. I do not think that these cases could have been prevented if the church changed or adapted its ways to the 21s century. To begin, I have been a member of my church since I was born. I went to a private grammar and private high school, both with churches on the property. There would be days that we would dress in our church attire and miss class to attend mass. From the 4th grade to the 12th grade (up until I came to Loyola) I was a member of my parish’s chorus. I was also a lector at the teenage mass on Sundays. Holidays were always a big deal in my family; our holiday dinners and gatherings would be planned around what mass we were going to. I would buy a new outfit to wear for Christmas and Easter, just so I look nice at mass. This is the church I know, I do not need it to change; I like it the way it is. I do not think the church should change because it was created this way and should stay the way it was created to be. I think that the 21st century has destroyed the image of the church and the mass. For my parish in particular, people no longer get “dressed up”, but sometimes come in their “beach” attire after a morning under the sun. People even walk into mass 20 minutes late-I just don’t see the point. People seem to have lost their respect for the sanctity of the church. I do not think that the cases of pedophilia could have been prevented. The church could not have known that these people would turn out to do such horrible things. If they did, then they were very wrong in trying to hide this information. I have no sympathy for any of these men that took advantage of boys using their power and situation. I do not believe that priests should be allowed to marry nor should women be able to become priests. These ideas were not involved in the early days of the church-it would just be weird if it were to change. Like the example I gave in the emails with the show “7th Heaven”, seeing Lucy as a reverend seems strange to me. I am accustomed to seeing males as the priest or reverend figure. This may sound old fashion, I am 18 and not old fashion, but concerning the church, I like the things they way they are. If I were immediately affected by the scandals in the church I do not think that my opinion would be any different. I do not think allowing women to become priests would have made a difference; women are just as capable as committing these acts, as are men. And the question for whether a priest should be allowed to get married, well married men have committed acts of pedophilia also. The church has changed its ways, it has become more lenient, it has adapted.
| |
10
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
What really is “gay marriage”? It is a socially, governmentally, and religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Many supportive of same-sex marriage often use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights. Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions. I feel that the suggestion of reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions is the best answer. Does our declaration not say all men are created equal? So, why should same sex couples be denied the same rights as heterosexual couples? I feel that civil unions between same sex couples should have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next of kin status, and shared parenting responsibilities. Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. My issue with this argument is that then we should not allow couples that cannot have children to be married either. Also, those who do not plan to have children should also not be allowed to be married. The procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children. Supporters also argue that making it available to more people would strengthen the institution of marriage, and furthermore that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Others argue that marriage no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax credits and assistance regardless of marital status. The example in our government of calling marriage an institution between a man and a woman infuriates me. It is just a bit more proof of the fact that the separation between church and state no longer exists. The fact that our president called for an amendment banning even a civil union between same sex couples is appalling. The president is the last person who should be allowing his religious opinions to cloud his judgment. It is understandable that gay marriage inspires its own set of passions, with opponents decrying it as a step that will undermine the very fabric of society while supporters posit it as an inevitable next stage in step-by-step acceptance of homosexuality by mainstream America. But why, is that wrong? Should we not accept our fellow man in all his many shapes and sizes. If religiosity is the main contender against gay marriage, is it not true that most religions advocate acceptance and the matter of turning the other cheek. My belief is that homosexual couples are no different from heterosexual couples and should be treated as such.
| |
10
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
People who say gender discrimination isn’t alive and well in our culture are dead wrong. Have they never heard of the glass ceiling? Sadly gender discrimination cuts both ways. It’s aimed both at men and women in our day and age. I think most people also aren’t sure what gender discrimination really is. It can be something small, like a man assuming the only reason a woman is upset is PMS, or a woman making a statement making the excuse “its because he’s a man”. Or it can be something much bigger like a difference in pay for two people doing the same job, with the only difference being their gender. How does gender make you any different from others? It shouldn’t even be a characteristic, which is counted. As if gender is the only thing that could be wrong, or causing a problem. Maybe the angry woman with “PMS” is just mean, and bitter and angry. And maybe the man, who made the mistake, actually had a reason for it. It even gets involved in careers. There was a very prominent film a few years ago, “Meet the Parents”. The father in this movie assumed that the main male character had become a nurse only because he couldn’t be a doctor. The character had actually scored well above average on his entrance exams for medical school. He made the decision to go into nursing, even though people always make the comment that it is a woman’s job. Which brings up the point, why do we have these kinds of distinctions? Is that not a form of gender discrimination in and of itself? Anything one person can do, another can do, regardless of gender. Now I’m not saying that restrictions should be lowered. In some cases restrictions need to be strict. Tests for firefighters should be the same for a woman as it is for a man. This may mean there are fewer women in the field but the women who are there can actually do the job. Restrictions and limits should be the same for women and man, sometimes restrictions are there for a reason. Another thing to talk about is the glass ceiling. It seems in some gender dominated professions the opposite gender can only rise so high. They then hit a barrier, which they cannot go through. Others will be advanced ahead of them merely on the merit of gender. Others will receive raises while their salary remains stagnant, again on the merit of gender. It sounds suspiciously like racism. How is it any different to discriminate by gender rather than race? Simple answer: It isn’t. It is the same as not allowing someone a seat on a bus due to their race, only this time it has been accepted for much longer. Gender is not something which raises someone above another, men and women are different in many ways, but those ways complement each other, they should not battle against each other. I’m not sure how the problem can be solved, but it certainly won’t happen immediately. It will take some time.
| |
10
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
Of course the war in Iraq has caused controversy. All war causes controversy. Most people have been connecting 9/11 to the Iraq war, and that’s just plain not true. The government itself has even said there is no connection to 9/11. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. There were no mobile labs. There was no anthrax. That being said, I disagree with the reasons we supposedly went into Iraq. Perhaps it was for oil, perhaps it was depose a dictator, but frankly, America is not the protector of the world. It is not our job to take care of everyone. Saddam Hussein may have been a horrible tyrant, but it is not our job to change that. The big question is, what do we do now? We have gone in, whether the reasons are valid or not, we are there. So, what next? We can’t just leave; we’ve left them with no recognizable system of government. We took theirs away and have left it in shambles. The “government” that’s in place is a puppet it’s not real. How can we leave them now? If we pull all of the troops out of Iraq in one fell swoop the society would collapse. The bigger question is whether they even want a democratic government. Perhaps, a democracy like we have here in the United States would not work in Iraq. The society has been around much longer and is much more set in its traditions. Who are we to decide that they should be democratic? We can’t choose what’s right for their country any more than we can force the rest of the world to give up their prejudices. I think the war itself has gone on far enough. Why is the US building permanent military bases in Iraq? It quite seems as though we are there to stay, which is not why we went in there in the first place. Besides which, we keep sending more and more troops in, but not many are coming home. We do not need so many troops there. Unless we are trying to create the American colony of Iraq, bring some of them home! Also, no one thinks about the fact that maybe, just maybe some of them just plain are not happy that we stuck our noses into their countries business. Who gave us that right? We are not the big brothers for the world. It cannot be our job to be the police force and the protector for the planet. We do not have the right to take over, and force our views on others. Not everyone in the world should necessarily be a democrat. It will not work in some cultures, they are just too different. I think this war was started on false pretenses and needs to end. However I do not know how that can be done, I am not a government strategist, we need to rely on them to pull us out gradually without allowing the government in Iraq to collapse.
| |
10
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
First things first we have to make a decision. Is anything put out onto the world wide web truly private? The Internet is a public domain, no one owns it, and so how can it be private. No matter how many security protocols you have on something someone somewhere will be able to see it. Since the advent of the Internet age people have put everything on the internet from pictures to credit card numbers. Most people don't know about or use security features set up on their computers. There are open networking sites which allow you to make a profile, post pictures and tell the world about you and your life. People think "Only my friends can see this". A quick google search will reveal your myspace to a future employer, or even to a potential friend. The situation in question is a relatively easy question for me to answer. No this was not an invasion of privacy. The school officials did not search this information out it was given to them. Myspace bulletins can only be seen by thos people who are "Myspace" friends with the person. I highly doubt this person was friends with the school officials. This student was stupid enough to tell the world about his plan. He placed information onto a publuc sever. That information came back to haunt him. It also cannot be an invasion of privacy if someone is given the information. When you are given such information you need to act upon it. Yes it could be a prank but it also could be very real and very serious. I think the main issue is that people do not realize that something put onto the internet is not private. It's public.
| |
10
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
One of my big problems with marijuana being illegal is the complete hypocrisy of the fact that I am allowed to kill myself by smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, or eating transfats, but I am not allowed to make the responsible, adult choice of smoking/eating/vaporizing marijuana. It is almost impossible to kill yourself by smoking pot as I'm sure we all know. Don't even get me started about the fact that marijuana doesn't cause the violent, aggressive behaviors that alcohol does. Alcohol in general affects the mood more by jacking it up and then becoming a depressant. The detrimental health effects from the smoke are much less than those from smoking cigarettes, but inhaling any smoke does cause problems. These problems can be minimized by eating or vaporizing though. I also think there is a major problem with it being classified the same as other drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. When kids are told that smoking pot will ruin their lives/make them crazy etc. and they realize that this doesn't happen, it illegitimizes the warning entirely, making it really easy to believe that since they were lied to about weed, then the adults must also be lying about the other drugs. It's really, really dangerous. The fact that its illegal also makes it somewhat easier for many kids to obtain than alcohol, since while many people would never sell to a child, many people don't care due to the profit potential. The illegality also creates so much unnecessary crime and violence that just wouldn't happen if it were legal. How many people sell their homebrewed moonshine for incredibly jacked up prices? Why not legitimize and tax its sale, using some of the tax money for real drug education and rehabilitation programs? The way it is now, our prisons are out of control and filled with nonviolent offenders and the only government money being made from marijuana is a result of corruption. And court fees and or fines. By making it illegal, we also dramatically limit the amount of research that is done on its health and medical effects, whether they be positive or negative. Even though the federal law overrides the states that have medical marijuana programs, its still a positive step and I believe that if more states follow this trend, real results can happen. I'm not sure how I feel about the legalization of other drugs. I do think there are harmful drugs out there and of course there is a potential to abuse any substance really. I do know that what we are currently doing is NOT WORKING and that there are millions of lives ruined by both drug abuse-not marijuana-as well as the drug war's effects. The punishment should not exceed the crime, and in the case of marijuana, as well as some other drugs, this is certainly not the case. The drug status of marijuana was in the very beginning yellow journalism. William Randolph Hearst and other lumber heavy-hitters in the 20's gave hemp its "evil" makeover by redubbing it "marijuana" which gave it a foreign/exotic /unfamiliar/distrustful sound.
| |
10
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
Privacy rights…That is a hot button issue all right. In the information age, well, privacy is a hot commodity. Whether that is on the Internet, in your home, in everyday normal life, privacy is hard to find. Now that we have the Internet things are even worse. People place everything on the Internet. Pictures. Stories. Credit Card numbers. Everything is out there for the world to see. Most people don’t even enable security features; even more don’t know security features exist. We have things like Facebook.com, and Myspace.com. These were originally made as networking sites. Myspace.com came first. It allowed people to make profiles, send messages, and post bulletins. You aren’t supposed to be able to have a Myspace.com account until you are fifteen, however, no one checks and so it easy for children to lie and retain an account. What was originally a networking web site, has now become a free for all of teenagers and college students playing around on the Internet, showing off their mischief. Let’s move on to Facebook. Originally a networking site meant for college students. You had to have a valid college email address to have a profile. Rather recently it was opened to the public. Students have pictures of them drinking underage, engaging in numerous illicit and illegal activities. They don’t seem to realize that things on the Internet are open to everyone. Once something is anywhere on the Internet it is public domain. The Internet is a public domain. You put it out there someone is going to see it. Your RA, your principal, your teachers, or even your parents. Don’t be shocked if you get a phone call about a picture, which was shown, to your parents of you “totally wasted”. In reference to the situation in the prompt, no, it’s not an invasion of privacy. First of all, to see bulletin’s on Myspace.com you have to be that person’s MySpace “friend”. It does not seem like the teachers were trolling the MySpace boards just trying to find problems. It seems that this was brought to their attention by another student. How can that be an invasion of privacy? The job of the supervisors at the school was to protect the majority of the students, not only teach them. They had to act even though this may have just been a joke by this student. I think this example should show teens as well as children and adults that when you say something, especially on the Internet, it can come back to haunt you. You could be joking, you could be serious, perhaps you just weren’t thinking but these things can come back to haunt you. This is a big issue in colleges right now, due to Facebook. Students post pictures of them at parties, or drinking with their friends. They forget that their RA, and their dean , and their teachers ,and even their parents could easily have a facebook account and be viewing these pictures. Some colleges are even using facebook pictures as “evidence” in the judicial process. There’s a fine line, but people need to realize that once you put something on the internet, it’s no longer private.
| |
10
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
Oh boy do I have a lot to say about the Catholic Church. How does an institution that guides millions of people allow itself to become so stagnated? It makes no sense. The point of life is to grow and change. As society grows and changes our guiding forces must change and evolve as well. One of my main issues with the church is that most of its rules come from the Bible. The Bible is a learning tool ,not a set of laws. Not only that, but the Bible was written by man, and man is prone to error. God did not write it. Not only that but if there is a God would he really denounce the fork? At one point Catholics denounced the fork because it was a "tool of the devil". Also the Bible was put together by a man that did not become a christian until he was on his deathbed. I understand that the Church has views of its own, but many of those views are horribly outdated. Women are no different from men in their ability to be spiritual leaders. We have women in positions of power in every other walk of life, why not in the Catholic Church. Another bone to pick is about priests. The concept of celibate priests was not originally in the Church. It was a political ploy to gain the Church more money, because the Churches priests were building were being handed down to their sons rather than the Church. This is preposterous. These men who are our spiritual leaders are not allowed to live their own lives as humans. The Catholic church is stuck in a rut, and I dearly hope they will escape it soon or else they will lose their flock eventually.
| |
9
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
I don’t feel that the Catholic Church needs to change if it does not want to. The beliefs within the Catholic Church are their beliefs and it is not up to anybody but themselves to decide whether to change their ways or not. Though I feel it would be nice if they were to become more open about certain issues (allowing female priests, allowing gay marriage, etc) I don’t feel that it is in my power, public power, or the governments power to force them to change. This would be no different than them forcing their beliefs on everybody else. The whole ordeal with pedophilia within the Catholic Church has been restricted to only several locations and people tend to make a bigger deal out of it than it actually is. There is pedophilia in many more places than the Catholic Church and people only see it as a big deal there because priests are supposed to be moral teachers to those who attend the church. In order to deal with this issue it would be best if they were to get background checks on who is becoming a priest and determine their real motive. Most priests and members of the Catholic Church frown upon this behavior and see it as a disgrace. While some of the views held within the Catholic Church are outdated, nobody should force them to flow with the sands of time. If part of their belief system relies on following works of the past, then so be it. As long as they allow me to go about my own personal business, I have no problem with allowing them to go about theirs. They disagree with what I believe and I may disagree with what they believe. That is how our society functions. It is not a “one way” nation. Freedom is what allows us to keep our same views, even if they are the same views that we’ve had for centuries and it is what allows us to change our views, even if it goes against the grain. I don’t think that anything can really be done to prevent cases of pedophilia or any other kind of church corruption since this is all reliant on the person. Whether it be those who are in charge of the church or the priest themselves, what happens relies on them and it is up for the people of the church to speak up against it, not someone who is not a member. For example: I am not an employee of a McDonalds, therefore I have no right to rise up against the McDonalds manager and try to bring him down. Granted, changes could be made for the better of the employees, I would not have a full blown knowledge of the entire situation. This is not to say that what is going on is right. By no means is it right to allow this to take place. That is why we have the court system, where religion is forgotten and the law is brought in. Separation of church and state does not protect crime.
| |
9
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
Yes, I feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the United States. While advancements have been made towards closing this gap, there still exists many places where we have not been doing too well. While people are taught in elementary school that both boys and girls are equal and we should always be respectful, many children learn from observation. Their father goes to the office everyday while their mother may either stay at home or hold some sort of part time job. This teaches them, by observation, that men are the workers and women are the ones who take care of the family. In order to make some kind of change, we have to continue on the same path that we have been. That is, more and more women need to pull themselves out into the workplace and prove that they can do it too and defy aged boundries. Also, both men and women need to learn to accept the change as a good thing rather than as a battle. This only increases tension and increases the discrimination.
| |
9
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
I personally believe that the possession and use of marijuana should be legal to certain extents. I feel that age would be one limitation that they would need to place on it, just like alcohol. It would only make sense considering both tobacco and alcohol have age restrictions. Though the age would have to be debated about, there still needs to be some kind of limitations so that minors (who may be ignorant to its effects) are not allowed to get their hands on it and ruin themselves. Marijuana’s effects are very minimal compared to alcohol and are not nearly as dangerous and life threatening. The only times the use of marijuana can become fatal are if the user has a serious heart problem or consumes up to 2 pounds of it. The lethal dose of marijuana’s active ingredient (THC) is far unreachable even by some of the most frequent and avid of smokers. Alcohol on the other hand can very quickly become fatal. We have all heard about cases of someone giving themselves alcohol poisoning. This can occur with a very minimal amount of alcohol or a very grand amount of alcohol depending on the tolerance of the user. While in many situations like this the user can recover after a visit to the hospital and an unpleasant charcoal smoothie, sometimes this can turn into a fatal incident. It is not often that you see someone sent to the emergency room for smoking too much marijuana. Marijuana also has much fewer inhibiting effects than alcohol does when ingested. Vision is not so much distorted and the person actually becomes more cautious and aware of their surroundings. Those on a marijuana high do not overestimate their own abilities, but in fact have a tendency to believe that they are capable of doing less and therefore avoid situations such as driving or walking through a bad neighborhood. Alcohol on the other hand helps to boost a person’s ego, making them feel invincible. They believe that they can do anything, even drive. This will cause them to make some of the bad decisions that someone who has just smoked marijuana would not. While those who are drunken worry more about themselves and whether or not they are going to get laid that night, those who are high worry more about whether they made it back to the couch in time to catch the Animal Planet special on chimpanzees. While compared to alcohol, marijuana is virtually harmless. It also has a lot fewer damaging effects on the body. Alcohol can cause massive damage to the liver and brain. While it can be argued that marijuana has negative effects on the lungs and brain, studies have started to show that marijuana use can prevent cancerous tumors in the lungs and can even stimulate brain cell growth. Comparing the two cannot be a valid argument, however, because the only reason alcohol is legal is because of the fight against prohibition. Though, it is apparent that marijuana is a much safer alternative and really doesn’t have much to argue against it. As with the gay marriage situation, many people fight the legalization of marijuana because of their moral standpoint.
| |
9
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
No, this was not an invasion of privacy. The internet is a public domain and anything that is put on the internet is accessable to many people. The fact that the message was in the form of a bulletin is also another give away that it was meant to be seen. By posting information like that in a bulletin rather than a message of some sort, they were destined to get some kind of negative reaction. I feel that it is an invasion of privacy when they take a small hint that someone might be plotting something, maybe by saying "I hate my school" or something, and digging deeper into it. They progress to ordering searches of that student all because of one very ambiguous statement. While preventing school shootings is a necessity, they need to be able to have some key factors that draw the line between an angsty stressed student and an actual murder hungry savage.
| |
9
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
I think both sides are wrong. While legalizing it is what I WOULD support, I also am very supportive of separation of church and state. The government should have no say in a matter like this. Though being married does create paperwork for things such as taxes, just because the partner is someone of the same sex does not mean that this will become a problem. I think that it is up to the church to decide matters like this, that way people will always have an option if they want it and always be able to avoid it if they don't. I am wholely against President Bush's THOUGHT about implementing an amendment of the sort. Amendment's are supposed to tell us what the government can and cannot do, not tell us what WE can and cannot do. That's for state law. In all honesty I feel that President Bush has absolutely no clue about how the government is supposed to work and likes to cross lines that have been in place for scores and centuries.
| |
9
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
I've been against the war from the moment we entered it. When I first heard news of an invasion of Iraq, I asked myself, "What did they have to do with 9/11? Shouldn't we have our focus on Osama Bin Laden?" I had no clue how President Bush had even come to the conclusion that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," but now it is apparent that is sources were flawed. While it's impossible to say that the invasion was all bad, considering we removed a brutal dictator from power, it still doesn't cancel out all of the negatives. The thousands of lives lost, the families of soldiers on both sides, the innocent lives taken are all to remove a dictator and leave a country in a larger state of chaos than it has been in a long time. We have gotten ourselves stuck in a situation, trying to impose our own system of government on a group of people whom a great amount of do not want. It's like trying to fit the square block in the round hole. It just won't work.
| |
9
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
I think that gender discrimination is an ongoing issue in the United States. While it’s being shown that we are slowly improving this, there is still much room in which we can eliminate discrimination. Statistics even today show that women make lower wages than men do in many companies. Some places this difference is really subtle, but in others the gaps are much more apparent. Just the fact that employers must show their employees videos about sexual harassment and gender discrimination proves the existence of many places in which this discrimination is still existing today. I feel that this is a continuing idea of an outdated mindset that women are inferior to men and their place is in the home rather than in the business. This mindset not only restricts the rights of other human beings, but also slows down progress that could be made by having women do the same jobs as men. The job market is not even the biggest source of discrimination of women. A lot of this discrimination comes from in the home or even just at social gatherings. Many families assign roles based on gender. The man will mow the lawn, fix broken appliances, etc while the woman does the grocery shopping, cleans, and does the cooking. While this is not true in all families, it is in many. A child growing up in one of these families will assume that this is the way it is supposed to be and in turn become discriminatory, even if not intentional. The best way to work on getting rid of discrimination in the workplace and at home is for women to show that they can do all of the same things as men, and for men to learn to accept change. This should not be a forceful thing, but more of a mutual issue that should be solved. The use of force may solve the problems revolving around earnings and jobs held in the house, but will only increase tensions. This in the long run will only lead to make the situation worse and in reality, nothing will be solved. However, if both sides can stoop down to the same level, neither will be able to overpower the other and eventually change will make way. While gender related jokes can get you a good chuckle sometimes, it is best to try to get rid of these. Though the message is supposed to be “out of the loop” and only meant to be funny, it also plants stereotypes in your mind. So all in all, the best ways to get rid of gender discrimination would be for men and women alike to begin ignoring these jokes and stereotypes. After the stereotypes have been eliminated from both men and women, both sides can begin to progress to a more efficient non-discriminatory society. Women will get more jobs and men will learn not to question this, wages will level out for both genders and soon enough these will even apply to the household.
| |
14
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
Privacy rights are a big issue in our nation today. Honestly, I am not sure why this is. I think it is because I am one of the norm. I am a white, catholic, American girl with absolutely nothing to hide. I do not believe that the government would ever want to invade my privacy. However, if they did, I trust my government enough to know that they must have had a valid reason for doing so and that it was for the betterment of the country, which I am all for, especially after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. My beliefs about privacy rights are as follows, if you do not trust your government to have valid reasoning for invading privacy, then you should leave. The government’s intention is only to protect you from potential danger or to keep you from endangering the country. This angers me so much when people do not agree with the government having access to some personal aspects of a citizens life. If you do not want the government invading your privacy, don’t do anything that would make them think that you’re going to endanger the country, that is not asking for much. The government has many other things to do and much more important things to do than to tap you phone call with you friend Jen about you plans for the weekend. What I am trying to say is that the government wont invade your privacy if you don’t give them a reason to. It is that simple. Like the school officials, that kid gave them a reason to suspect him of endangering the school and its students. I do believe that this was not an invasion of privacy because by putting that information on myspace, that kid no longer had any privacy. Myspace is a public network. I don’t believe anything on the internet is private. Invasion of privacy or not, the school officials made the right decision because they prevented a potential life threatening act. Who knows how many children and teachers could have been killed that day? Is this kids privacy really the top priority? I think that is ridiculous to even be thinking about that. I believe that the only reason the government should only invade privacy if they have reason to believe that that person is going to endanger themselves or someone else. I also think that I have these views because I am a part of the majority. If I was a teenage boy from Afghanistan I would probably have a different outlook on privacy rights. I think privacy rights and racial profiling however are two separate issues. And, unfortunately, because I was personally effected very much by September 11th, I do not have any problem with racial profiling. If it will promote the safety of our country then I do not have a problem with it. If they do not like it then they do not belong here. As harsh as that is, I do not believe that we should cater to anyone just because that would be abiding by their privacy rights. When it comes to national security, I believe that privacy rights do not matter at that point.
| |
14
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
In the terrorist attack of 2001, I lost many close friends and relatives. I live right outside the city so I was affected greatly. When this first happened I was in eighth grade and even at that age, I developed a prejudice against middle eastern people. I could not stand the sight of them. I got chills when I watched the news and the re-runs of what happened that day. When I first witnessed the attacks on the towers, the first thing that popped into my mind was war. I wanted to get revenge on the terrorists so badly. I can only imagine what President Bush thought that day. His people were attacked and killed that day for no reason. Of course he was mad, upset, angry and distraught. I think President Bush had the hardest job of all that day and they days after the attacks. My first decision, as his, would have been to go to war. Although this was a rash and irrational decision, I think it was necessary at the time. We could not just let the terrorists kill our friends and relatives and just stand there and watch. Something had to be done as a response to what they did. We had to at least try and stop them. President Bush’s only mistake, I think, was how long we ended up staying in and occupying Iraq. I think by staying in Iraq we are only killing more of our men and women and we are getting nothing done. And, what we have done, will fall apart the second we leave. Those people are just not able to function in a normal society. If they cannot get along with and work with each other, how are we supposed to organize rules and laws so that they can live in peace? I think the men of the middle east are the most ungrateful people. By occupying Iraq further, we are not making any progress. All we can do now is protect ourselves because we know that they will always be a threat because they hate the United States. Because I was affected so greatly that day, it is still hard for me to look at middle eastern people not be disturbed, scared, or angry. I think it is in our best interest to pull out of Iraq and try not to deal with them at all. As the war has shown, there is not much that we can do that will stay in place. If they cannot get along with each other, I don’t think anyone can expect President Bush to solve all of their internal problems. All he can do now is protect out country with all that he can. I think the men and women that are stationed in Iraq should return home and we should heighten security instead of trying to solve Iraq’s problems. I think that the government should focus on the United States’ gaps in security and problems. This is all that we can do. President Bush cannot create miracles.
| |
14
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
> Dear CMC Participant, > > Hello. Please reply to the following topic and questions to the best > of your ability. Please be thorough in your answers and explain and > reasoning as best as you can. Feel free to use personal experience > if it helps you clarify (but please leave out any names). Although > there are specific questions, feel free to bring in other points that > you feel are relative to the topic. > > The topic is privacy rights. Recently, school officials prevented a > school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace > bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy? Where > should school officials draw the line as to whether or not they are > invading privacy? > > Thank you! > -Dr. Sabin > > This was not an invasion of privacy. Myspace is a public website that anyone in the world has accesss to. I cannot believe that people would even argue about a privacy right with this issue. It saved a school! I trust that the officials of schools and in the government have reasons for invading the privacy of citizens. I believe that if they do invade your privacy that it is for a reason. They do not have time to just tap phone calls to see what Jenny is doing tonight nor do they care. They should draw the line by only going on concrete evidence. The school officials in this case were well within their rights. They recieved a threat to their students and they did something about it. This is what we would hope they would do. And I think that if they didn't do anything about it because of this kid's provacy rights people would be slightly upset! I think that as long as they have a good reason and concrete evidence for invading someone's privacy, then they are only doing their job, to protect.
| |
14
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
The city of Denver has decided to make small amounts of marijuana legal. I do not think that this is a good idea at all. Who is to say what amount is a small amount? What is a large amount? There is no way that people can agree on how much is a small amount. If you are going to legalize the drug then legalize the drug in its entirety. Do not do it half way. There is no reason for it. Studies have shown that this drug is not only harmful to your body, but, it is also the gateway drug to more intense drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy and heroine. This drug is meant to give you a high, or a good feeling. Other drugs such as alcohol are meant to do the same thing and that is illegal for people under the age of twenty one. If they wanted to legalize it, I guess it would be more practical to set and age limit which is much more clear to the public than “a small amount.” The only problem with this would be, who decides what age is appropriate to make this decision? Should it be the same as alcohol? These are all questions that people must find a clear cut answer to before anything is finalized. Children, younger and younger each year, are experimenting with marijuana and for most, it leads to other drug use. These other drugs are illegal so why legalize something that has been proven to lead people to the use or experimentation with them? If they United States plans on legalizing a small amount of marijuana they should just make it all legal. Sometimes, it is the fact that it is so wrong and against some law that makes rebellious children experiment. They get such an adrenaline rush from the fact that it is not allowed. I do not agree with the use of this drug, however, if it were legal, and almost a norm, I think less people would be inclined to do it. Then it could also be taxed and more expensive which will turn people, especially kids, away from it. A friend of mine who uses marijuana somewhat often says that that is one of the big reasons for why he got started. He does not regret it, but, he said that the thrill of going against what your parents and society told you to do gave him such a high. He loved making decisions on his own instead of abiding by what was drilled into his head since he was a small child. He has nothing but good things to say about marijuana. It’s strange. Out of all of my friends, marijuana users and non marijuana users, he has the highest average in school, has a job, and does service learning. He also plays lacrosse, soccer, and basketball. This can only make you wonder if the drug really is as harmful as they say. I guess we will just have to do more research.
| |
14
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
I think that the war has definitly gone on on long enough. Becuase I was greatly affected by 9/11 I can see why Bush sprung into action so quickly. At that time when everyone was emotional, I would have done the same thing. There was no other option. We could just not retaliate. However, we have been over there for years now and have made little progress and have spent way too much money into trying to better another country that, in my opinion, will be in ruins for years to come. If they cannot even get along with each other, then how are we suppose to go in there and expect to change their minds and ways of life. There is no way. I think by staying there we are just digging ourselves into a deeper hole. We are loosing soldiers and money to what has no become a lost cause. I feel that the only way that we can do anything is by bringing our troops home and heightening security on the homefront. That is the best that we can do. We cannot keep getting ourselves tangled in other countries' affairs. Although we are not going to be there, we still have to keep an eye on them because whether we like it or not, Iraq and the Middle East will always be our problem.
| |
14
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
> Dear CMC Participant, > > Hello. Please reply to the following topic and questions to the best > of your ability. Please be thorough in your answers and explain and > reasoning as best as you can. Feel free to use personal experience > if it helps you clarify (but please leave out any names). Although > there are specific questions, feel free to bring in other points that > you feel are relative to the topic. > > The topic is the Catholic Church. Do you feel the Catholic Church > needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century? > Regarding all of the accusations against Catholic priests dealing > with pedophilia, do you think these could have been prevented if the > church changed? (ex. Allowing female priests, allowing priests to > marry, etc.) > > Thank you! > -Dr. Sabin > > The Catholic Church is one of theoldest institutions known to man. It is crucial for any instution to be adaptable to the changing times but also to keep their tradition alive to some extent. They have already modified the fasting laws and the age that people are allowed to fast. I think that there is no reason why women should not be able to further themselves by becoming priests. They even had women priests in Jesus' day. Women are equal to men in this society and if the Church refuses to recognize that then I think they are up against a very large community of angry women. I also understand that priest take an oath to be faithful and married to God, however, I do not understand why God would not want them to experience the joys of married and family life and for them to share God with their families. I think it would only benefit the Catholic communtiy seeing the priest with his family and how they act. It would be a good model for the community. It would also keep mentally ill men from joining the priesthood to cover up their pediphilia. This is a sick thing that has happened in the Church and I believe that it could be avoided by giving priests the option to marry.
| |
14
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
Unfortunately, gender discrimination is still a problem in our society today. Although it is much more subtle than it ever was it still does exist. I believe that gender discrimination is most prominent in the business world. Our society is trained to automatically think that the owner of a business or company is a man and all of his top managers and CEO’s are men as well. I think that we get this image from things such as television, movies, and sadly, real life. Most children grow up their fathers out working. It is rare that the father is the stay-at-home parent and the mother is out working. I also think that there is discrimination based on what want you choose to be your occupation. You rarely see a male preschool teacher, nurse, secretary, day care owner, or stay-at-home parent. I have personal experience concerning this issue. While my brother, my sister, and myself were growing up, my mom was always at school functions, always home to answer the phone, and always available to pick us up from school and friends houses. All of our friends’ mothers thought that was mom was a stay at home mom and so did their dads. So, when all of our families would all get together during the year, the fathers were automatically gravitate toward each other and talk business. Little did they know that my mother was the owner of the Universal Advertising Agency. She had began the business when we were all very young and she ran it from our house so that she could easily double as a stay-at-home parent! All of my friends fathers was amazed at how much she knew about the business world. Another example is my friends father. Most of my other friends’ mothers were lunch “ladies” at my old high school. Well, one father decided that he was going to become a lunch “man” because he worked nights and he had the whole day free. Although it was sort of weird at first, we ended up loving it because he would be the best cook there! He also gave out some free stuff here an there. What I am trying to say is that either sex has the potential to do anything they want whether that occupation is dominated by males or females. To help the problem of gender discrimination across our nation, I think that we just have to keep doing what we are doing already. We have to be open-minded, accepting, and not so ignorant to assume anything. I think we also have to expose the younger generations to different things. Learning tools such as flashcards with women nurses on one and a male doctor on the other does not help this cause. Young children are learning to decipher these two occupations by which sex dominates it. They are growing up thinking that females can’t be doctors and that men can’t be nurses. It is little things like this that is hindering our young generations.
| |
6
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
I believe the catholic church has lost there way, No longer is church about serving the poor and helping those who need spiritual guidance, its basically a way for people to point out whose wrong and whose right. Now granted this is the way I see it as the Catholic Church as the whole but upon interacting with a few Jesuit priests here at Loyola this notion is steadily changing. Actually these priests at Loyola I belive are the new wave of priests who are adapting Catholism to college students in a way that they will understand. Because I know personally I struggle with understanding the Bible, and the priests here put the Bible in general terms that can be adapted to college life. I believe that even Catholism is finding it hard to live strictly according to the Bible so why not change it according today's lifestyle. Or even make more general statments instead of being so specific. I feel like God will be ok with the fact that we are praying and understanding the Bible. I believe that Bible wasnt meant for us to understand every little thing but so that we could be able to relate to it and find God in it. How can we do that if we are constantly worrying about the little things? I dont think the Catholic Church should change anything marriage wise for the priests because it sets the Catholic Church apart from all the other religions. But what I do question is are the people that commit these crimes really meant to become priests? Are they mistaken in their calling? I believe that God provides for every and anything we need, so if these priests are commiting these crimes maybe God is showing them that they need to chose a different profession. Granted arousal is a very strong urge that humans can get, however if they were really meant to be priests wouldn't God suffice for this urge?
| |
6
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
What does invading privacy even mean? Does it mean that school officials can look at your myspace page and they can ask you questions about it in school? Or is it just as simple as sitting in front of your computer screen reading a stranger’s face book wall? I think before one can judge when the school officials can invade someone’s privacy they must distinguish what is privacy? What’s private versus non private? What does invading mean? Frankly invading can mean something as serious as invading someone’s house or discreetly listening in on someone’s conversation. Personally I feel that invading privacy can be mix of all the things previously mentioned. In this case I feel that school officials are going to look at myspace and facebook regardless of whether they are in school or not because of them probably have on anyway. I believe that it is fine to look at a student’s facebook or myspace page as long as they don’t act on anything unless someone is in danger. Moreover I believe that this was an invasion of privacy. The school officials just stopped what potentially could have been a deadly school shooting. I think that where they should draw the line: on life and death situations. If students are just trying to express themselves in there own way then no I say the school officials should just leave the students alone. But when it comes down to innocent children dying as a result of some demented child who wants to take his personal problems out on people, then I would say that the school officials are allowed to take action here. When I was in high school, three girls where asked to withdraw because of pictures they posted on face book in they displayed girl-on-girl action in the school’s bathroom facilities. My high school was a girl’s catholic high school which some would think would give them reason to ask the girls to withdraw but I don’t think so. I believe that action between girls like the way they posed is totally normal. If you think about isn’t that a characteristic that is unique to girls; we are more friendly, more sexual with our friends than boys are. But I digress, the main point is that I believe in that instance the school was using the face that the internet is a big free-for-all to incriminate the girls. I feel that school officials should draw the line at life and death situations. They should not interfere with students and their natural want to express themselves. Although the internet isn’t the safest place to express their feelings; it still gives kids a place to say what’s on their minds and not bottle it up inside. However, kids need to realize that the places like myspace are open to the public. I think that they think because it has there name on it and they are the ones controlling it that they are the only ones looking at it, however naïve that may be. Kids should understand that the World Wide Web in public domain and anyone can read their “personal” business.
| |
6
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
I believe that gender discrimination still exists towards men in that they are still looked down upon when they consider low key roles like being a stay at home dad or a nurse. For example in the movie Meet the Parents on the character’s Gaylord Fauker was constantly made fun of by her fiancée’s father because he was a nurse. I believe that men will never get out of the role of being the one that in authority, take a look at our world today there are constant examples of males in power: the Pope, and even the president up until next year’s candidate. Gender discrimination is a mindset, and the world even today is still stuck in the mentality that woman aren’t supposed to be leaders and men are. It’s a mindset that subordinates women just because we are more sensitive about others. Society sets us as being missionaries, housewives, nurses, models, and even porn stars; these are traditional female roles, and although some men choose to occupy them they are deemed the ones who aren’t “man enough” to occupy leadership roles. Gender discrimination still takes place in the workplace and in our society as a whole. If you look in magazines or in advertisements, women are always held by men or the men are always protecting the women. If a woman is holding a man or caressing a man it is seen as dominating and the man as being a punk. The I Love New York 2 series is breaking this standard. No longer is a woman looking for a man who is going to stand up to his wife and be the head of the household. New York is looking for “her wife” someone to have dinner on the table for her when she comes home. When I heard her say this I was stunned because honestly I was like “what self-respecting man want to be called his wife’s wife”? Why does our society think this? Why was this my initial reaction instead nothing like it would have been had I heard a man say this? Once again I believe it was because of our society, our society engrains in us than the man should be the protector even if he is in subordinate position like a housedad or a secretary. From previous discussions with my friends who are adamant about our gender discriminations problems in our world today, I remembered them saying that women make less than men in corporate industries. I was at first totally oblivious to this notion but apparently it is still something that goes on to this day. I often think about situations like this in our world were we recognize something bad going on, now the next step is what do we to prevent it. The U.S. tries to make laws about it but there are always ways around laws. And if the woman speaks up she may be harassed at work. So if we recognize all these problems with the workplace how do we fix it so that the workplace can be a fair and just place where everyone can receive equal opportunities.
| |
6
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
Honestly like many Americans on september 11th I was for the war in Iraq. I wanted the U.S. to go there with our big guns and show them who they messed with. But now I'm not as sure and to be honest I'm not actually sure about the details of the war. The main thing is that now I believe that the war in Iraq is wrong. I believe that Bush is trying the colonize Iraq and make it a middle east U.S. I believe that Bush figures its a win-win situation, the Iraqis will have protection from anyone that tries to harm them and the U.S. will have control over their oil, which we so desperately need. If Bush hasn't come up with a set plan on what he is going to do with Iraq he needs to give them back control of their country. Which I believe is even more detrimental to the U.S. because we will probably be leaving there country in shambles. No government, no schools, no resources to live off and begin a new a life. What are they going to do if we leave? But if we stay I feel like we will be over there for years to come because Bush would most likely want to give them a democratic government which is probably unheard of over there. In a democratic government that would give women equal rights, what would they do if that happended?!?! All-in-all im kind of stuck in the middle on my position on the war, I believe the U.S. should pull out but I don't want another 9/11 because of it.
| |
6
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
My best friend went to college this past year and she began smoking marijuana. And so to scare her I wanted to find out if there was any particular cancer or disease that you can get from smoking marijuana and I found nothing. Marijuana is a product of the earth, it doesn't hurt the body you can't get lung cancer from it, there are no toxins in it that can harm the the air and other people. So I couldnt tell her to stop because it wouldnt harm her. My only problem with marijuana is that it wastes your time. In the time it takes for someone to get high they have to sit there and get off there hgih which could take hours. In the question you mention about the effects of marijuana, like I said before I dont think there are any other affects according to what I have researched. Especially none as harmful as alcohol. you have always heard of alcohol poiknownsoning and drunk drivers killing innocent people never of any one who harmed themselves while getting high on marijuana. Now I may take back the word never but etiher way if there is a case it doesnt make channel nine news at five like drunk driving does. With that being said, Im actually up in the air on my oponion of the legalization of marijuana in that is doesn't harm anyone it just wastes away peoples time because once they feel that high they tend to not want to do much of anything else. But also if we were to legalize it, would people stop trying so hard to get it and the excitement of getting it would go down. But then that goes to say should we legalize other drugs like speed and cocaine...I dont think so!
| |
6
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
I think that although either side is entitled to their opinion the overall idea is that there are American citizens who chose to love people in a nontraditional way, and are chastised for it. For people, like me who are for gay marriage I believe that homosexuals should be offered the same rights as heterosexuals because I feel that if they are feeling the same thing that I feel when I say I am in love with a man and are held back from taking the next step of marriage then its unfair. I also believe that we have to keep fighting for gay marriage because never in American history is something ever truly remembered and recognized if there wasn’t a struggle. Also its understandable, the opposition, because our society was built on heterosexual relationships, and for many this style of living is very weird, and different. What makes accepting homosexual relationships so difficult for some people is the sexual freedom, homosexuals can have sex with whomever they please and never get pregnant. I know from my friends that are homosexual that sometimes I feel the same way that people who oppose gay marriages feel because many of my friends have sex with their best friend’s partner like if its nothing and it’s something that should be expected because they are gay. So sometimes I understand where the opposition comes from because who would to legalize a sex free-for-all? However, I do believe that once homosexuals work out their kinks then people would be more receptive and vote to have gay marriages legalized. President Bush needs to stop worrying about this small problem. No one is dying, no families are being left without a home, and no children are running around with guns, from homosexuality. But he has innocent Iraqis who aren’t for his never-declared-war being homeless and killed from the anger that other Iraqis have toward the U.S. If I remember correctly from my government class isn’t it up to the states to declare legalization of gay marriage before the federal government gets involved? Once again I believe that the federal government has bigger issues than this. President Bush is allowing his personal opinion to take precedent over society’s needs. Legalizing homosexual will not hurt anyone, so why is this such a huge deal in our society. I believe that President Bush is pushing this problem as a scapegoat for dealing with the bigger problems. The U.S. has bigger problems like there huge debt and the fact that many children die because they don’t have health care, but yet he wants to meddle in the lives of people who are different then him.
| |
6
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: While some states have legalized gay marriage, others are still opposed to it. Do you think either side is right or wrong?
|
I believe that every side is entitled to there owm opinoin on gay marraige but that doesn't mean that they should limit the other side either. If you don't like gay marriage thats fine but that doesn't mean that there are people out there who aren't gay. Personally I believe that everyone should mind there own business, people are so concerned with what everyone else is doing that they are geting side-tracked. Especially the government, they are so worried about who should marry who that they are not thinking about more important things like the war in Iraq. I bet you that many of the soldiers over there are alot more concernend about safely evacuating Iraq than about if gay people should get married. Also I believe Bush is trying to ban gay marriage because he is trying the stick to the traditional foundation that has built this country. But slavery was a foundation that built this country, and that is now illegal. Moreover my point is that it shouldn't matter who we are allowed to marry, if there is love in the relationship why should people who don't like it care? Because it looks weird and its different? Well alot of stuff looks weird and different but that doesn't mean we should shun it. And further more aren't homosexuals granted the right of a civil union, which is the same as a marriage except for the benefits? Well if thats the case then they should be at least happy that they got that far and work toward geting the whole U.S. to give them that right. Because if you think about it there are ways to get all the benefits of marriage, its just alot of paperwork instead of automatically getting it in marriage.
| |
8
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
I think that is it good that school officials were able to prevent a school shooting, regardless of how they came about this information. Which issue is more important: the death of a student, or the fact that a student’s privacy might have been violated? In my opinion, there is a clear cut answer: the student’s life is much more important. Frankly, I don’t even really see this as an invasion of privacy, since the information was posted on the Internet. The information on the Internet is available for millions of people to see and when you post anything online, you need to be aware of this fact. Even though I am glad that the school official saw the bulletin on myspace since it saved a student’s life, we can still ask the question of whether or not this was an invasion of privacy. To do so, we must know how the school official came across the information. While I do not have a myspace profile myself, I know that myspace has certain privacy controls. One of the settings is that you must grant someone permission to see your profile. If this student had this setting on, then in order for the school official to have read the posting, the student must have granted the school official access to his or her profile. If this was the case, then it was not an invasion of privacy, since the student gave permission. If the student did not have this setting on, then he or she must be aware that anyone who has access to the Internet also potentially has access to view the information that is posted in his or her myspace profile. If this was the case, then I still do not see this as an invasion of privacy, since the student posted information that is visible to everyone. When ever you post any information on the Internet, you must realize that virtually anyone has access to this information. Thus, it is up to you to monitor what you post. If there is something that you do not want everyone to see, then you must be responsible and sensor what you post. Think twice before putting anything on the Internet, because you never know who will be reading it. Now, all of that said, I will admit that it is a little weird and we must question why the school official was looking at the student’s myspace profile. (I am happy that he or she was looking at it since it prevented possible loss of lives, but I will admit that it is kind of strange.) Was the school official just randomly on the Internet and just happened to see this bulletin? I highly doubt it. What is more likely is that this student was suspected of being up to something or was profiled as a troubled kid. The school official was most likely intentionally looking at this student’s profile in an effort to come up with more information. It is hard to say where to draw the line here. On the one hand, you might say that a school official should not be sitting around snooping through students’ myspace profiles. But I still can’t get over the fact that had this school official not done this, innocent lives might have been lost. And to me, it is more important that lives are saved, than that we protect the privacy of teenagers.
| |
8
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
I do feel that in some ways, the Catholic Church needs to change in order to adapt to life in the 21st century. I do, however, completely understand the reasoning that some people would have who would be opposed to this change. But for those who would say something along the lines of the following, I disagree: “The Catholic Church should not need to change its ways to adapt. What is happening is that people are just drifting further away from the Church. Yes, the world is changing, but that just means that we need to hold stronger to the truths and ways of the Church.” I disagree with the above reasoning because I believe that many of the “laws” of the Catholic Church were made merely by humans who were looking to further the Catholic Church politically, not to enhance the spiritual lives of its followers. For example, if you look at the example of not eating before receiving Holy Communion, you see that this rule has change over the years. A couple of decades ago, pre-Vatican II, you were not allowed to eat anything from around late Saturday night until after church on Sunday morning so that your body would be empty and ready to receive the body of Christ. Now, that rule has been changed to be that you should refrain from eating approximately one hour before receiving communion. Who came up with either of these “rules” and who changed them? Humans. I do not feel that I am lacking spiritually because I can eat closer to the time of communion than, say, my parents, who when they were younger had to follow the earlier rule. Many trivial rules such as this deter people who were raised as Catholics but not choose not to practice their religion. From my personal experience, and from talking to other people, I get the impression that with all of the rules and regulations, many people adopt an “all or nothing” approach; if they don’t feel that they can play by all of the rules, then they figure why bother. Because of this, I feel that the Catholic Church is losing members. Many people are raised Catholic, but do not actively participate in the Church once they get to the age where their parents no longer force them to attend mass. I believe that if some of the rules were adapted to the 21st century, then maybe more people would play an active role in the Church and truly practice the Catholic faith. Regarding the issue of allowing priests to marry, I think that they should be allowed. As a member of the congregation, it is sometimes difficult to connect with the priest because he leads a life that is so different from your own. Were priests allowed to marry, they would have much more in common with their parishioners and could better reach them spiritually as a result. I think that if priests were allowed to marry, this might prevent some of the instances of pedophilia. I think that in many cases, some of the men who are priests today became priests during an era when homosexuality was not as openly accepted as it is today. If they did not want to marry, another option for men was to become a priest, because this avoided the question of why you were not getting married. However, some of these men had built-up sexual tension, which they took out inappropriately on children of the church.
| |
8
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
Recently, the city of Denver, Colorado has decided to make it legal for people over 21 to purchase small amounts of marijuana. Personally, I do not feel that this is a good idea. I do not have very strong reasons to back up this view, but basically I feel that the government should not be making it easier for its citizens to use drugs. While marijuana has not been shown to be addictive, it is still a drug that impairs the body. Like any other drug or alcohol, marijuana is certainly a drug that can be abused or overused. Although Denver might legalize marijuana only in small amounts, once the city allows people to purchase the drug, they can not control what people do with it. The government can decide that only people over 21 can use the marijuana, but surely it will get into the hands of people under 21. In this regard the situation is similar to alcohol: while alcohol is only legal for consumption or purchase by people over 21, people under 21 find a way to get alcohol. Although marijuana is not legal in the United States (other than in Denver), people still smoke. Just because it is against the law does not stop people from finding ways to obtain the drug, but I don’t think that the government should make it even easier for people to get marijuana. In the United States, we already have a huge problem with people drinking and driving. So many lives have been lost because people drive under the influence of alcohol. Even though the punishment for drinking and driving is significant, people still do it anyway. We have a hard enough time keeping our roads safe from people who drive drunk. It doesn’t make sense that we would legalize marijuana, since this would just provide another way in which people can impair their senses. We will just have the problem of people driving under the influence of marijuana, which could be just as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Obviously, just since marijuana is not legal doesn’t mean that the road are free from people who are high, but by making marijuana legal, we would just be increasing the risk that there would be people on the road who will be endangering the lives of others. Another reason why I do not think that it makes sense for the city of Denver to legalize marijuana is because it seems very strange to me that a drug would be legal in only one city. I really don’t see how it will be possibly to control the distribution of the marijuana. If we think that we have a problem with drug trafficking now, I believe that it would get even worse if we made it legal in once city. At least when it is not legal at all, the rules are cut and dry. But by allowing marijuana to be sold in Denver makes things much more complicated. How do you control whether a shipment truly makes it to Denver or if it goes somewhere else instead? This all just seems very complicated to me and much more trouble than it is worth.
| |
8
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Recently, school officials prevented a school shooting because one of the shooters posted a myspace bulletin. Do you think this was an invasion of privacy?
|
I think that whenever you post anything on the internet, you have to be aware that what you are posting can be read by pretty much anyone. If there is something that you don't want EVERYONE to be able to see, then you should think twice before posting that information. So if you put something online in your mySpace, you should know that MANY MANY people will be able to see it. For this reason, I don't really think that it was an invasion of privacy for someone from the school to have read a bullitin that indicated there was going to be a shooting. If the student posted this information on the internet for all to see, then they should have been aware that it is possible for anyone to read it. I don't personally have a mySpace profile, so I am not exactly sure how the privacy settings work. I can only speak from my experience with a Facebook profile. I do have a Facebook, and I have currently have my settings so that only "friends of my friends" at Loyola can see my profile. So if accept a friend request from someone, any of their friends who go to Loyola will be able to see my profile as well. I initially had it set up so that anyone at Loyola could see my profile, but I recently restricted it further. There are stil a large number of people that fall into the category of "friends of my friends." So I know though, that any information that I post on my profile can be viewed by many different people. It is sometimes tricky to figure out what information I want to post, and what I don't. For example, I have my AOL Instant Messenger screen name and my campus address on my Facebook profile. This information is posted because I would like people from my classes or my friends on campus to be able to contact me or to stop by my room. However, I don't really want EVERYONE in the world to know my screen name or where I live on campus, because that is kind of dangerous. But I am taking that risk by posting that information online. So if a student posts something online, the information is available to a wide group of people. If a student has written something threatening about a school shooting, then I think that it is great that a school official happened to see it and was able to prevent lives being lost. I'm not sure how exactly the school official came across the student's message though. It would be kind of weird WHY exactly the school official was looking at students' profiles anyway, but I am glad that they were able to save lives.
| |
8
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: The controversial war in Iraq has made news headlines almost every day since it began. How do you feel about the war?
|
The war in Iraq is certainly a very controversial issue indeed. Honestly, I am not even sure exactly how I feel about it. I do not believe that I know enough about the current situation or about the whole history of the situation to truly make a decision. I would like to be more knowledgeable about current events such as this, but I don’t watch the news or read newspapers enough. One thing that I do feel about the war is that I would like it to end as soon as possible. I would like our troops home and safe. Too many innocent lives have been lost already. I am, however, very supportive of our soldiers. I also feel that since the United States intervened in Iraq and basically eliminated whatever political structure existed in Iraq, it is up to us to finish what we started. It would not be fair for us to go in, knock out whatever form of government existed (no matter how tyrannical or harsh it was) and then just leave the Iraqi people to clean up the mess that we made. So while I would like for our troops to be able to come home soon, I do see the need for us to remain to keep peace while the new democratic government gets on its feet. I just don’t want us to stay longer than is necessary. This war has gone on long enough. As far as the start of the war goes, I am not sure if I feel that we should have gone there in the first place. After the events of September 11th, I could definitely see the reasoning and the logic behind the war in Afghanistan: our nation was terrorized and attacked and we wanted to find the people responsible for that. It would have been very odd if we had not done something in response to the attack on September 11th. However, the war in Iraq is not directly related to September 11th. After the terrorist attacks, naturally our country was on the watch for anything that might pose a threat to our safety. Security everywhere was heightened. When news came out that Saddam Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction, obviously we were very concerned. We did not just want to stand by and wait until these weapons could possibly be used against our country. On the other hand, we wanted to exercise diplomatic ways of going about it first, before just starting a war. But Iraq would not allow the United Nations officials to search the country for the weapons. This made us even more nervous. We didn’t want to wait. We tried to get approval before just going in, but this led to the whole issue with France. This is where I am confused on whether or not it was the right decision to wage war on Iraq without the consent of the United Nations. This is also where many anti-Bush people bring up the issue of oil, stating the Bush just wanted to get oil and that that was the primary motivation for going into Iraq. What I can think of, is that if we had not gone into Iraq and it turned out that they did have weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein sold to terrorist organizations which then attacked us, we would be very sorry and would be wishing that we had done something as a preventative measure. It just seems like a huge shame that so many lives have been lost along the way.
| |
8
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
I definitely think that gender discrimination is an issue in present-day United States. There are certainly obvious differences between men and women. I think that although women have come a long way in terms of being less discriminated against than in the past, they stil face much discrimination. The roles that have typically been associated with women in the past has lead to stereotypes which still exist today. I think that the root of this gender discrimination comes from stereotypes. Until these stereotypes are completely eliminated (which I don't really think will ever happen), I'm not really sure what can be done to change this. My best guess would be to say for everyone just to try to keep as open a mind as possible and never to assume that a man or a woman could do a certain task better. As women keep proving that in most cases they are just as qualified to do a certain task as a man is, then maybe over time, the stereotypes will start to lessen and, possibly eventually, go away. One of the main places in which I feel that gender discrimination occurs is in the workplace. Studies have shown that often in situations where men and women are performing the exact same job, the man makes a higher salary. I find this completely unfair. If two people are performing exactly the same job duties, there should be no difference in their salary based simply on gender. There is also the situation that we hear about of the "glass ceiling". This is where women and look up and see the men above them, but they can't actually get to that point themselves. While there are certainly women in high positions in business and management, most of the TOP officers are men. Again, I am not saying that this is ALWAYS the case, but this situation does occur quite frequently. The way I see it, there is no real reason for this other than gender discrimination. I believe that women could do equally as well a job as men. Howwomenever, this bring up another issue. If women were to hold these top positions, then they would inevitably be "bosses" to both men and women alike. Since stereotypes and discrimination do exist though, the woman could be less effective at her job, since some of the men might not respect her or follow her orders as much as they would if a man was their boss. An example that I have of this is from my friend. Her dad works in an office where his boss is a woman. He is extremely resentful of this fact, and I have heard him make comments about her several times while I have been at the house. Now I am sure that she can perform the regular job duties equally as well as a man in her position, but here is a situation where one of her employees does not hold the same respect for her as she deserves. I also think that women are discriminated against in situations where physical strenght is required. Yes, it is a fact that women are built differently than men. Most men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. But again, this is not always the case. Personally, I know that I am rather weak in comparision with males my age, but I know girls who are stronger than some of the guys. So if there is a woman who possesses great physical strength and would like to do a job that requires physical strength (ex: military, firefighter, police officer, etc.) then I believe that they should be allowed to. I don't really think that men face the same sort of discrimination as women do. The only type of discrimination that I can think of off the top of my head that males face would be that they would be "tougher" than women. Generally, personality-wise, the stereotype is that men are "tough" and women are more emotional.
| |
8
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
I definitely feel that gender discrimination is an issue in the present-day United States. I also feel that women are discriminated against much more than men, especially in the workplace. Regardless of opinions, studies have been done which show that on average, men receive higher salaries than women who perform the exact same jobs. To me, this seems completely unfair. If two people do the exact same thing, have the same role and perform the same tasks, why should the male get paid more than the female? This is gender discrimination. You often hear about the glass ceiling that women fact in the workplace, particularly in the business world. They can see above, where they might like to go, but they can not actually reach it. In the hierarchy of Corporate America, most (not all) of the highest ranking positions are held by men. Yes, women are involved in management and have high level jobs, but the majority of the top positions are filled by men. It often seems that women can climb the ladder, but they can not quite make it all the way up to the top. I can’t see the fairness in this. If women are equally as qualified, why can’t they hold the same positions as men? I don’t know how to solve this problem until the stereotypes are eliminated. What I mean is that until we as a society get over these misconceptions, we will not be able to eliminate gender discrimination. For example, say that two people are being interviewed for a top management job. They both have identical resumes, but one of the applicants is female and the other is male. If the general atmosphere in the office is that men can perform these leadership jobs better than women, just this stereotype works against the woman. If the employer feels that the man will receive more respect from his peers than the female, this will help the male to better perform his job and thus it makes sense to hire the man over the woman. This vicious cycle will repeat itself over and over again. The women never get the chance to earn the respect that they deserve because in order to earn the respect, they have to be given the opportunity to prove themselves worthy of that respect. I do not feel that men are discriminated against nearly as much as women. One way that I can think that men face discrimination is in the stereotype of women being more nurturing and better at taking care of children. For example, when a couple gets divorced, often the mother is more likely to get custody of the children. This situation has begun to improve greatly. Another example of this stereotype against men would be to think of a situation of a day care center. Imagine that you went to drop your kids off to daycare and all of the teachers at the day care were men. You might me somewhat more hesitant to leave your kids with these men than you would to leave them with a group of women. But in general, I feel that women face much more discrimination than men do.
| |
8
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
I do not think that marijuana should be legalized. I don't really have a good reason why, but I just don't like the idea of the government legalizing a way for people to get high. I think that it is particularly strange that just one city, Denver, has legalized marijuana. This makes things even trickier. For example, it just seems weird to me that you would be allowed to smoke in Denver, but not in the next town over. It's not even that marijuana is legal in the state of Colorado, but only in one city. That is just weird to me. And how can we be sure that we are keeping this under control? How can the government regulate whether or not the marijuana is really being brought to Denver. Let's say there is some shipment or something that was coming from Mexico and was headed for Denver. What's to say that the marijuana isn't going to be brought elsewhere? Like how can you guarantee that it will wind up in Denver. On the other hand, when everyone goes to Denver to legally purchase marijuana, there is no guarantee that they will smoke it in Denver and not just bring it back to wherever they came from (where it is illegal). We already face this sort of an issue with fireworks. They are allowed in some states, but not in others. So people just go across the border and legally purchase fireworks. It is so hard to regulate though, so people bring them back to states where it is not allowed. We are talking about a similar situation here, but instead of talking about fireworks, we are discussing a drug which affects how a person acts and behaves. Drunk driving is already a huge issue in our country. Sure, it is illegal to drive while intoxicated, but people do it all the time and lives are lost as a result. Even though marijuana is not legal in the United States now, it doesn't mean that people don't smoke. But why would we want to make it legal to purchase a drug which would just mean that more people could be on the roads under the influence. I have never smoked myself, and so I am not sure exactly what the effects of marijuana are on a person but I would say that they are probably rather similar to the effects of alcohol. So I would not want to have more people who are high driving around and going to work, etc. It just doesn't seem right to me to make it legal to add another harmful drug to your body.
| |
13
|
Write an approximately 500 word essay to the following prompt: Do you feel that gender discrimination is still an issue in the present-day United States?
|
It is a silly question to ask if gender discrimination still exists. No offense to the creator of the question, but it is really self-evident. One cannot ask if a certain mindset exists, whether it is one of good or evil, because it always will. The world will never be rid of any state of mind, any hatred, any prejudice, because somewhere someone will always hold every mindset and belief. The world is just too damn big to think that something such as discrimination, whether it is religious, sexist, racist, or whatever, will ever not exist. There will always be bigots. In this way, there is nothing we can do to end gender discrimination. We can work to diminish it, but it will unfortunately always exist. So on that note, does it still exist in the workplace? Certainly. If it exists in the mindset of employers, then it exists in the workplace. Now we must take a second here to draw a distinction, because there are obviously situations where discrimination is necessary. After all, discrimination at a basic level means no more than the ability to distinguish between two things. That being said, there are certain jobs where an employer needs to pick a man over a woman, or a woman over a man. If a job involves heavy lifting, an employer is always going to pick a man over a woman, unless the woman used to be a professional weight lifter. This is not a bad form of discrimination: being able to make distinctions between what a woman’s capabilities are and what a man’s capabilities are is a necessary part of being an employer. The only cases we are looking at are when a woman and a man are equally qualified to hold a certain position, and the employer chooses solely on gender, or perhaps when the gender not chosen for the position is better qualified and the other sex wins solely on gender. Even this is very hard to call, because all choices are opinions and perspectives anyway. What may seem like a case of gender discrimination to one person may have actually been a judgment call based on personality on the part of the employer. It is very hard to come out and call something discrimination because the discrimination only exists in the mind of the employer. The employer will never come out directly and say, “I pick you for the job because you are a man and I don’t want a woman working here.” So what can be done about this problem? Nothing, really. How can one expect to change how people think? Should we try some sort of affirmative action for females? Absolutely not. First of all, it’s not really working for minorities, so why should it work for women? And second of all, won’t this just give women an unfair advantage? There is really no way to ensure perfect equality as far as job opportunities go. All we can do is set standards for what we expect out of our employers, and hope for the best.
| |
13
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: The city of Denver has decided to legalize small amounts of marijuana for persons over 21. How do you feel about this?
|
Marijuana. I'm gonna approach this topic a little differently then I normally do and go ahead and say that marijuana should not be legalized. Why is this? Have I suddenly changed my mind and decided that marijuana is bad? Absolutely not. Marijuana is a great drug. Probably safer than drinking yourself to death, in fact. The thing with marijuana is, I like the fact that it's illegal. It makes smoking more fun when you know that you are breaking the law. It's part of the drug's appeal. Why do you think so many underage kids drink? Because it's not allowed. I love that. It makes one feel like a rebel. Another thing to keep in mind is drug dealers. You are basically killing one of the fMarijuana. I'm gonna approach this topic a little differently then I normally do and go ahead and say that marijuana should not be legalized. Why is this? Have I suddenly changed my mind and decided that marijuana is bad? Absolutely not. Marijuana is a great drug. Probably safer than drinking yourself to death, in fact. The thing with marijuana is, I like the fact that it's illegal. It makes smoking more fun when you know that you are breaking the law. It's part of the drug's appeal. Why do you think so many underage kids drink? Because it's not allowed. I love that. It makes one feel like a rebel. Another thing to keep in mind is drug dealers. You are basically killing one of the few industries that is sustaining the lower income families in urban areas if you start legalizing drugs. Some of these people are selling drugs just to get by and you wanna legalize the drug and turn it over into the hands of big corporations? What is the world coming to? Way to steal jobs from the poor, Denver, Colorado. Therefore, my proposal is not to make drugs legal. That would just be ruining all the fun and mystery that surrounds the drug. I suggest that the United States enact a policy of non-enforcement. This way, everybody wins. The college kids who just want to experiment win, The cancer and glaucoma patients win, the drug dealers win, and the cops win cos they have less work to do. The only people who don't win are the big money grubbing corporations. And nobody wants them to win.ew industries that is sustaining the lower income families in urban areas if you start legalizing drugs. Some of these people are selling drugs just to get by and you wanna legalize the drug and turn it over into the hands of big corporations? What is the world coming to? Way to steal jobs from the poor, Denver, Colorado. Therefore, my proposal is not to make drugs legal. That would just be ruining all the fun and mystery that surrounds the drug. I suggest that the United States enact a policy of non-enforcement. This way, everybody wins. The college kids who just want to experiment win, The cancer and glaucoma patients win, the drug dealers win, and the cops win cos they have less work to do. The only people who don't win are the big money grubbing corporations. And nobody wants them to win.
| |
13
|
Write an email response to a someone who asked you the following: Do you feel the Catholic Church needs to change its ways to adapt to life in the 21st Century?
|
Well first off, let me start off by saying I don't really care at all what the Catholic Church decides to do. I've already decided for myself that religion is not something I'm interested in being a part of, and would rather not hear anything about religion for the rest of my life. That being said, my responses can be put into the context of a nonbeliever. Should the Catholic Church have to change it's ways to adapt to 21st century life? I don't personally know if they need to. What I mean is, Is the Church's popularity waning? I'm not really up to date on the numbers but it seems as if they are still holding strong in Europe and growing exponentially in Africa and Latin America. In the U.S., it's hard for me to say, especially since I go to a Catholic school, where there are Catholics everywhere. If they really are in need of some kind of change, we have to look at the process of change since its conception. I mean, think how many thousands of years it took just to allow laypeople to read the people. I'm pretty sure that took over a millenium. And to allow translations of the bible, and to accept versions of the Bible as valid besides for their precious Vulgate? Also took thousands and thousands of years. However, the main difference between that millenium and this one is that people live outside of religion. What I mean by that is that until the modern era, God was a generally accepted truth. Nobody didn't believe. Today we have barriers set up between believers and the rest of the world. It's much easier to attract people to your religion when everybody already believes. So do I think the Church needs to change? Absolutely. The church is still operating under the idea that the way they worked during the middle ages, the way they worked during the renaissance, still works. And it doesn't. Unfortunately, my advice to the Catholic Church is a little too radical for Catholics to accept. My first piece of advice: Forget the pope. Really. Why is there a pope? Someone thats holier than all of us? Someone thats between us and God? Why do you listen to what he says, holding on to his words so closely? He wasn't chosen by God, he was chosen by men. That should probably tell you something right away. Stop making people think they need a pope to be in contact with God, cuz it's a lie. That's really all the advice I have to give to the Catholic Church. I really don't care what else they do. I'm just tired of the pope.
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 7