Week 6 Blog
When did the sacrifices of the few start to out way the needs of the many? I totally disagree with the commenting on the Holmes case by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Justice Cordozo wrote that that if “none were ready to sacrifice themselves that the human freight must be left to chance the waters”. In an over loaded boat, that is sinking, in rough waters, what is wrong with jettisoning some “human cargo”? If everything else is gone, how else is the crew to save as many people as possible by lightening the ship? I say women and children first (no don’t toss them out first)! The old, the sick, those who are single without young children and then the men that have children if need be. The unfortunate rule of disaster is that some must die so that others can survive on. I would gladly have volunteered my life in order to save the lives of others in the situation that they were in.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Week 1 Blog Post
Week 1 blog
Although testing is an academic function that serves a purpose, after reading the material presented by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner and Diane Ravitch, I believe that the academic community has lost sight of the true purpose. Society as a whole view testing as a competitive action in order to get a job, move forward in a career, obtain licensure and what not. But in academics, the true purpose of testing should be to determine the academic proficiency of students in order to identify those in need of greater assistance in order to learn the subject material.
I agree with Mr Godman that a great majority of students will learn and put fourth only as much effort as to receive a grade that they are comfortable with. For some that’s an A and others a C, but what concerns me the most is that most of the time even the A students do not fully learn or appreciate the material that they are presented with. Instead, the attitude of “what do I need to know to get by” comes to prevail.
Howard Gardner argues the point that SAT testing should test a students ability to problem solve and come up with sound answers without restriction to time. I feel that this is a sound argument. Here is a personal example of why I agree with him. My wife and I appear to have different speeds of possessing information. She takes her time and reads things through and then needs some time to absorb the information and formulate an answer after all of the facts have been taken into account. I on the other hand, generally rip through the material and formulate an answer as I go. By the time I am done reading, I have an answer. Some may think that I have superior intellect than my wife (let me assure you I do not) because of my speed of process. This is not the case. For the most part, we either come up with the same answer to the problem or hers is actually better than mine. Therefore, time restrictions actually may hide true intellectuals that would greatly succeed in college and may even have potentially had a great impact on the world.
“In Defense of Testing” written by Diane Ravitch brings forth the point that testing is an essential and necessary fact of life. I agree with her thoughts that testing protects us from dangers of unqualified professionals and feel that this is a function that testing provides. I wouldn’t want my doctor to diagnose me with an illness or perform a surgery without being properly qualified. Nor would I want to encounter a police officer that had failed a psychological competency exam.
Although testing is an academic function that serves a purpose, after reading the material presented by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner and Diane Ravitch, I believe that the academic community has lost sight of the true purpose. Society as a whole view testing as a competitive action in order to get a job, move forward in a career, obtain licensure and what not. But in academics, the true purpose of testing should be to determine the academic proficiency of students in order to identify those in need of greater assistance in order to learn the subject material.
I agree with Mr Godman that a great majority of students will learn and put fourth only as much effort as to receive a grade that they are comfortable with. For some that’s an A and others a C, but what concerns me the most is that most of the time even the A students do not fully learn or appreciate the material that they are presented with. Instead, the attitude of “what do I need to know to get by” comes to prevail.
Howard Gardner argues the point that SAT testing should test a students ability to problem solve and come up with sound answers without restriction to time. I feel that this is a sound argument. Here is a personal example of why I agree with him. My wife and I appear to have different speeds of possessing information. She takes her time and reads things through and then needs some time to absorb the information and formulate an answer after all of the facts have been taken into account. I on the other hand, generally rip through the material and formulate an answer as I go. By the time I am done reading, I have an answer. Some may think that I have superior intellect than my wife (let me assure you I do not) because of my speed of process. This is not the case. For the most part, we either come up with the same answer to the problem or hers is actually better than mine. Therefore, time restrictions actually may hide true intellectuals that would greatly succeed in college and may even have potentially had a great impact on the world.
“In Defense of Testing” written by Diane Ravitch brings forth the point that testing is an essential and necessary fact of life. I agree with her thoughts that testing protects us from dangers of unqualified professionals and feel that this is a function that testing provides. I wouldn’t want my doctor to diagnose me with an illness or perform a surgery without being properly qualified. Nor would I want to encounter a police officer that had failed a psychological competency exam.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Week 2 Post
Michelle Horner
Week 2 Blog
For this week’s blog, I read 3 other students summaries of Derek Bok’s essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus.” The summaries that I read were Kelsey Webb’s, Taylor Effling’s, and Michael Noel’s. I was surprised to find a large number of similarities between our four summaries. For example, we all commented on the First Amendment’s guarantee to free speech. Some pointed out that this specific event was ruled on previously by the Supreme Court and thus we have precedent to follow. The Supreme Court’s decision was regarding all public institutions. We all noted the difference between the public institutions that the Supreme Court ruled on and the fact that Harvard is not a public but is rather a private institution. Maybe not directly stating it, but we all noted that Bok and the Harvard officials realized that even if this act was censored, the individuals would find different ways to torment or insult people. We all pointed out that the Harvard officials decided that the best measure to take would be to educate and try to persuade the individuals not to partake in this form of expression.
I had also noticed that there were some things that I included that others did not and that they did but I did not. My summary was the only one out of the four that included a direct quote from Bok. I also noted that the other student’s did not include Bok’s key distinction that the appropriateness of the actions does not affect the situation dealing with their legality under the First Amendment. It seems that there were other important items that I failed to perceive. For example, all of the other articles noted that other universities had set forth codes and others had ignored the problem. I also did not mention the Supreme Court’s decision yet I did comment on it’s implications regarding Harvard being a private institution. Reading these other summaries helped me to see perspectives that I would not have realized on my own.
I do think that by summarizing, the writer does partake in an “editorial exercise” that can easily provide a different “spin” on the article. I noticed in all four summaries we noted the issue and the solution. Other than that the different information that we each chose to include as the most important allowed for each to have it’s own “spin.” Kelsey’s focused on the event the issue and the action while Taylor’s focused on the issue the First Amendment and the action taken. Michael included all four; the issue, the event, the First Amendment and the action. Mine however was much shorter and just included the issue and the action taken. I do not see an ethical problem with placing the importance in different places. I think that it is the responsibility of the reader to realize that every writer does have his/her own opinion and will write with that opinion at heart. Each story, article, or message will have it’s own importance to the writer thus creating a different spin on the article. There should be no ethical consideration with placing emphasis in a different area of someone’s essay.
Week 2 Blog
For this week’s blog, I read 3 other students summaries of Derek Bok’s essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus.” The summaries that I read were Kelsey Webb’s, Taylor Effling’s, and Michael Noel’s. I was surprised to find a large number of similarities between our four summaries. For example, we all commented on the First Amendment’s guarantee to free speech. Some pointed out that this specific event was ruled on previously by the Supreme Court and thus we have precedent to follow. The Supreme Court’s decision was regarding all public institutions. We all noted the difference between the public institutions that the Supreme Court ruled on and the fact that Harvard is not a public but is rather a private institution. Maybe not directly stating it, but we all noted that Bok and the Harvard officials realized that even if this act was censored, the individuals would find different ways to torment or insult people. We all pointed out that the Harvard officials decided that the best measure to take would be to educate and try to persuade the individuals not to partake in this form of expression.
I had also noticed that there were some things that I included that others did not and that they did but I did not. My summary was the only one out of the four that included a direct quote from Bok. I also noted that the other student’s did not include Bok’s key distinction that the appropriateness of the actions does not affect the situation dealing with their legality under the First Amendment. It seems that there were other important items that I failed to perceive. For example, all of the other articles noted that other universities had set forth codes and others had ignored the problem. I also did not mention the Supreme Court’s decision yet I did comment on it’s implications regarding Harvard being a private institution. Reading these other summaries helped me to see perspectives that I would not have realized on my own.
I do think that by summarizing, the writer does partake in an “editorial exercise” that can easily provide a different “spin” on the article. I noticed in all four summaries we noted the issue and the solution. Other than that the different information that we each chose to include as the most important allowed for each to have it’s own “spin.” Kelsey’s focused on the event the issue and the action while Taylor’s focused on the issue the First Amendment and the action taken. Michael included all four; the issue, the event, the First Amendment and the action. Mine however was much shorter and just included the issue and the action taken. I do not see an ethical problem with placing the importance in different places. I think that it is the responsibility of the reader to realize that every writer does have his/her own opinion and will write with that opinion at heart. Each story, article, or message will have it’s own importance to the writer thus creating a different spin on the article. There should be no ethical consideration with placing emphasis in a different area of someone’s essay.
Friday, July 6, 2007
On Gay Marriage
Week 7 Blog
Nicole Hunter
The topic of gay marriage is almost as intensely heated as abortion because it combines ethics, religion, personal beliefs, and legalities. I personally feel that who a person chooses to marry is their own decision and should not be dictated and controlled by the government. It is a fact that almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce. This shows that half of all people were not ready to get married when they did. I am sure that even though divorce is not allowed or shunned upon in many religions, as is gay marriage, that did not stop most couples when divorcing. It makes me wonder what the statistics of gay marriages would be in comparison. It is almost too easy for a heterosexual couple to get married, and might be of their benefit to have to go through what homosexuals do to legalize it. I really don't think it is fair to judge someone because of their sexual orientation and discriminate against them. Isn't banning gay marriage in some way similar to segregation? They are segregated from the married community. I feel that it is a relatively new issue in our government and legal system and agree with Glen Drew when he said that society just needs more time to accept gay marriage. I feel that in time gay marriages will be legalized.
Nicole Hunter
The topic of gay marriage is almost as intensely heated as abortion because it combines ethics, religion, personal beliefs, and legalities. I personally feel that who a person chooses to marry is their own decision and should not be dictated and controlled by the government. It is a fact that almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce. This shows that half of all people were not ready to get married when they did. I am sure that even though divorce is not allowed or shunned upon in many religions, as is gay marriage, that did not stop most couples when divorcing. It makes me wonder what the statistics of gay marriages would be in comparison. It is almost too easy for a heterosexual couple to get married, and might be of their benefit to have to go through what homosexuals do to legalize it. I really don't think it is fair to judge someone because of their sexual orientation and discriminate against them. Isn't banning gay marriage in some way similar to segregation? They are segregated from the married community. I feel that it is a relatively new issue in our government and legal system and agree with Glen Drew when he said that society just needs more time to accept gay marriage. I feel that in time gay marriages will be legalized.
Monday, July 2, 2007
An interesting veiwpoint
So I was reading an article on www.slate.com and I felt that it is relevant to the gay marriage topic.
I have personally never understood how someone else's marriage (a homosexual marriage) would ever impact the marriages of heterosexuals. This article explains that viewpoint in very clear, level headed prose (although it is from an admittedly "leftist" author who does not hide his leaning). Basically Sen. Edward's wife publicly stated her support of gay marriage in opposition to her husband's views and that statement was the impetus for the article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169615/fr/flyout
I have personally never understood how someone else's marriage (a homosexual marriage) would ever impact the marriages of heterosexuals. This article explains that viewpoint in very clear, level headed prose (although it is from an admittedly "leftist" author who does not hide his leaning). Basically Sen. Edward's wife publicly stated her support of gay marriage in opposition to her husband's views and that statement was the impetus for the article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169615/fr/flyout
Gay Marriages
Note: This is my view on gay marriage. This is not to be offensive to any one: IT IS MY OPINION. I do not intend to hurt anyone in my essay.
Gay marriage has been an issue pending in the United States. The last state election in South Dakota, as well as other states, in November had a bill regarding this issue. The issue is hugely controversial and exactly how to solve is the real question. Should gay marriage be legal in all fifty states? How to start thinking about this subject can go with remembering what marriage means according to Christianity. Marriage is between a man and woman, therefore so a family can then be created. Gay marriage does not fit this statement. The benefits of marriage are what are lost in not legalizing gay marriage. Although not legalizing gay marriage would hurt many gay couples, gay marriage goes against the meaning of marriage in Christian faith.
Going back to the first days of man, there was Adam and Eve. God created a woman from man so he would have a partner in life. God took ribs from Adam to create Eve. This little story from the Bible is a key story that should remind people God created man for woman. A woman is made for man perfectly; a woman is not made for a woman and a man is not made for a man. Any anatomy class teaches the form of the man and woman. God created our bodies perfectly for the opposite sex. Us as humans reproduce because of just how beautifully God created our bodies. This may sound like a lesson one hears in church, but the truth be told, our bodies were meant for the other sex, not the same sex. That is why marriage is meant for man and woman.
A large argument for gay marriage involves what marriage gives to a couple. Marriage ensures benefits from the government and insurance companies. It also gives legality for each other in case of serious health issues and even death. So obviously then if gay marriage is not legal, gay couples cannot receive the benefits of marriage. Gay couples also cannot share the name of one another either. This hurts gay couples, but gay marriage is against for marriage is meant for.
The family life that happens in a marriage seems to have a mother and father. In gay couples who adopt children or have a child with an opposite sex have a twist to the usual parenthood. A mother and father cannot truly exist for a child of a gay couple. A mother is woman and a father is man. Gay marriage would allow for a child to not have a female and male in their life as parents. That goes back to how marriage is meant for man and woman.
How to solve the issue of gay marriage seems to be difficult. Gay marriage is pretty much an “oxymoron”, which is said by Lisa Schiffren. I agree with that statement because I know gay and marriage cannot go hand in hand. I know of gay couples, and I know that not legalizing gay marriage affects them. But, family life will change so much if gay marriage is legal in every state. I am strong in my faith and I will not look bad on those who are gay. They cannot help it, but marriage is meant for man and woman only.
Gay marriage has been an issue pending in the United States. The last state election in South Dakota, as well as other states, in November had a bill regarding this issue. The issue is hugely controversial and exactly how to solve is the real question. Should gay marriage be legal in all fifty states? How to start thinking about this subject can go with remembering what marriage means according to Christianity. Marriage is between a man and woman, therefore so a family can then be created. Gay marriage does not fit this statement. The benefits of marriage are what are lost in not legalizing gay marriage. Although not legalizing gay marriage would hurt many gay couples, gay marriage goes against the meaning of marriage in Christian faith.
Going back to the first days of man, there was Adam and Eve. God created a woman from man so he would have a partner in life. God took ribs from Adam to create Eve. This little story from the Bible is a key story that should remind people God created man for woman. A woman is made for man perfectly; a woman is not made for a woman and a man is not made for a man. Any anatomy class teaches the form of the man and woman. God created our bodies perfectly for the opposite sex. Us as humans reproduce because of just how beautifully God created our bodies. This may sound like a lesson one hears in church, but the truth be told, our bodies were meant for the other sex, not the same sex. That is why marriage is meant for man and woman.
A large argument for gay marriage involves what marriage gives to a couple. Marriage ensures benefits from the government and insurance companies. It also gives legality for each other in case of serious health issues and even death. So obviously then if gay marriage is not legal, gay couples cannot receive the benefits of marriage. Gay couples also cannot share the name of one another either. This hurts gay couples, but gay marriage is against for marriage is meant for.
The family life that happens in a marriage seems to have a mother and father. In gay couples who adopt children or have a child with an opposite sex have a twist to the usual parenthood. A mother and father cannot truly exist for a child of a gay couple. A mother is woman and a father is man. Gay marriage would allow for a child to not have a female and male in their life as parents. That goes back to how marriage is meant for man and woman.
How to solve the issue of gay marriage seems to be difficult. Gay marriage is pretty much an “oxymoron”, which is said by Lisa Schiffren. I agree with that statement because I know gay and marriage cannot go hand in hand. I know of gay couples, and I know that not legalizing gay marriage affects them. But, family life will change so much if gay marriage is legal in every state. I am strong in my faith and I will not look bad on those who are gay. They cannot help it, but marriage is meant for man and woman only.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Week 6: Abortion
Kelsey Webb
Week 6 Blog Assignment
Abortion
Abortion is an issue that has been troubling America since the founders of this nation created common law. Not until Roe v. Wade (1973) did the issues finally take on legal terms. However, the issue was not resolved. Recently, South Dakota voters tried to change the precedent but failed. This is an argument that will not end for this nation but continue to be paid attention to.
As a registered voter, I decided to leave the ballot blank on the abortion issue. However, as a female, I do feel strongly about this issue. I ponder it with friends and with myself but I feel that my conclusion is not necessarily final. Justices Harry Blackmun and Willilam H. Rehnquist disagreed on the issue and both has valid points. Blackmun wrote delieved the opinion of the court while Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion. Some believe that perhaps Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion could someday become the majority opinion.
This case is so different because it’s not a black and white issue. It’s a grey issue that has many more gray attributes. As Blackmun states in his opinion, “One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion.” I agree fully with Blackmun because so many aspects will influence one’s idea about the legal issues concerning abortion. The real question is how consistent one can be regarding this issue. As the text asks, can a person consistently believe that a woman doesn’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy? Does a human embryo or fetus have the right to life? And what about abortions when they save the mother’s life?
I think that it is impossible for a person to consistently believe all three questions without exceptions. It’s understandable to support the idea that a woman doesn’t have a right to an abortion because a human embryo or fetus does have a right to life. As the opinion states, if a fetus is a “person,” then “personhood is established (447). Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees rights. However, as Blackmun stated, most are “not in position to speculate an answer to when life begins” (448). This means that everyone’s opinion will determine their belief in abortion. Concurringly, how can a person believe that abortion should be illegal but only with exceptions, as in saving the mother’s life? This creates another set of issues, as in which case of saving the life is different than the next?
I believe that abortion is a murder. I believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion, even in the first trimester, is murder. However, I respect the right of a woman to choose. Personally, I will never be at an abortion clinic. But I cannot speak for someone who is there to terminate a case that involves rape or incest, or even worse, both. This issue will continue to haunt Americans for a long period of time.
Week 6 Blog Assignment
Abortion
Abortion is an issue that has been troubling America since the founders of this nation created common law. Not until Roe v. Wade (1973) did the issues finally take on legal terms. However, the issue was not resolved. Recently, South Dakota voters tried to change the precedent but failed. This is an argument that will not end for this nation but continue to be paid attention to.
As a registered voter, I decided to leave the ballot blank on the abortion issue. However, as a female, I do feel strongly about this issue. I ponder it with friends and with myself but I feel that my conclusion is not necessarily final. Justices Harry Blackmun and Willilam H. Rehnquist disagreed on the issue and both has valid points. Blackmun wrote delieved the opinion of the court while Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion. Some believe that perhaps Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion could someday become the majority opinion.
This case is so different because it’s not a black and white issue. It’s a grey issue that has many more gray attributes. As Blackmun states in his opinion, “One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion.” I agree fully with Blackmun because so many aspects will influence one’s idea about the legal issues concerning abortion. The real question is how consistent one can be regarding this issue. As the text asks, can a person consistently believe that a woman doesn’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy? Does a human embryo or fetus have the right to life? And what about abortions when they save the mother’s life?
I think that it is impossible for a person to consistently believe all three questions without exceptions. It’s understandable to support the idea that a woman doesn’t have a right to an abortion because a human embryo or fetus does have a right to life. As the opinion states, if a fetus is a “person,” then “personhood is established (447). Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees rights. However, as Blackmun stated, most are “not in position to speculate an answer to when life begins” (448). This means that everyone’s opinion will determine their belief in abortion. Concurringly, how can a person believe that abortion should be illegal but only with exceptions, as in saving the mother’s life? This creates another set of issues, as in which case of saving the life is different than the next?
I believe that abortion is a murder. I believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion, even in the first trimester, is murder. However, I respect the right of a woman to choose. Personally, I will never be at an abortion clinic. But I cannot speak for someone who is there to terminate a case that involves rape or incest, or even worse, both. This issue will continue to haunt Americans for a long period of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)