![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
echoelizabeth's journalLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more
| You are viewing echoelizabeth's journal Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
|||||
|
Echos of Elizabeth  Aggression is a normal, healthy part of life. Humans are aggressive; it is not a bad trait, nor is it limited to men. Girls are born as naturally aggressive as boys, and with America’s social climate changing, more girls are beginning to expressive their aggression physically in sports, relationships, and crime. In James Garbarino’s book See Jane Hit, the issue of female aggression is examined in a holistic way, touching on the good, the bad, and the cause. From the perspective of a generalist social worker, the issues Garbarino presents are best dissected through systems theory. An individual isn’t an isolated being. Humans are constantly affected by the world on a personal level, a family level, and societal level. In order to understand youth violence, the problem must be examined on the macro, mezzo, and micro levels. It is not enough to diagnose the individual; we must diagnose society. ( And the Streets are Paved with Gold ) In passages 48-51, Cicero explains that there are two methods of speaking, conversation and debate. Conversation consists of a friendly manner, which may be used to win hearts and allay fears. Debate is an eloquent, powerful manner of speech that can sway the masses. When glory is the object debate is more effective than conversation. Debate brings glory when it is a combination of eloquence, wisdom, understanding, weightiness, and modesty. It is even more admirable when this blend of qualities is found in a young person. The greatest admiration and glory are given to those who debate in the courts of law. There are two types of speech involved in the courts: defense and prosecution. Defense is more praiseworthy, though prosecution has a place in gaining glory. A prosecuting case should only be undertaken “for the good of the community, for revenge, or to fulfill a patron’s obligation.” Under no circumstances should a man “threaten the civic status of an innocent man by prosecution.” A man may gain glory through the defense of a guilty man, however, so long as the guilty party poses no threat to society. In order to benefit society, a man must have the support of others: thus it is the duty of the young to achieve glory in an honorable fashion. Cicero states that a young man’s method of speech, especially his eloquence and wisdom during debate, bring him glory in an honorable and beneficial fashion. Cicero himself is a prime example of how glory may be gained through public debate in court. He made a reputation for himself in the Roman courts of law, and then went on to hold public office. Julius Caesar wrote that Cicero “won greater laurels than the triumphal wreath, for it is a greater achievement to have extended the frontiers of the Roman genius than those of Rome’s empire.” The glory that Cicero gained through honorable speech benefited society during his own lifetime, and continues to benefit society today. In the modern American court system, lawyers rarely gain the type of glory that Cicero writes about. While the societal benefit of certain cases is unquestionable, such as Brown v the Board of Education, the lawyers involved are less likely to gain personal glory. While the average Americans is familiar with Brown v the Board of Education, very few could name the lawyers involved. Cicero argues that it is a young man’s duty to gain glory in an honorable fashion in order to benefit society – there is no glory if society does not benefit. When applied to the Court System, Cicero argues that while it may occasionally be laudable to defend a guilty man, there is no glory gained if society suffers from the guilty party’s freedom. Celebrity lawyer Johnnie Cochran is an example of how a man gain glory from defending cases of questionable benefit to society: namely the murder case against OJ Simpson and the child molestation case against Michael Jackson. Cochran is an example of how personal glory may be gained at the cost of society. I agree with Cicero’s assertion that honorable speech brings glory, though his argument that the greatest glory is to be gained through debate in court is less true today than it may have been during his own time. When asked who the famous American orators are, most people will rattle off a list that includes Martin Luther King and a few American Presidents, not a list of lawyers. Still, a person’s manner of speech and debate are capable of winning and loosing support from others and glory. I agree with Cicero that when a person speaks with eloquence, wisdom, understanding, weightiness, and modesty, he or she gains glory. ( Frankel ) ( Labels 1 ) ( 23 ) Bigger Thomas is portrayed as a sympathetic character. We feel sorry for him at the same time that we recognize his desire for self realization. His biggest difference from us is that he has no stable emotional resources to fall back on. Without these resources, he has nothing to fall back on. He is a study in emotional extremes, and this manifests itself in the form of violence. Throughout the play, Bigger rarely touches except to hurt. His character is established when the first thing he does is kill a rat and taunt his sister with it. Later, with no strong emotional resources to fall back on, he takes his fear out on those around him. Gus, Buddy, and Bessie all suffer through his expression of fear through violence. Even in the midst of his violence, however, we cannot help but feel bad for him. He is a product of his environment, and each act of violence and confusion only serves to better illustrate this. Elizabeth Dr. Fisher 30 October 2006 HUMT 150 Free Will I believe my will is free and unconstrained. My actions are my own, and no one else has any control over them. My decision to obey the mugger’s demands is as free as my decision to scratch my nose. I do not believe that there is a puppeteer who controls my life, nor do I believe that my path through life is predestined. I believe that a series of circumstances brings me to any particular decision. The summation of my existence is the series of circumstances that have brought me to any particular moment of my life. I believe that someone who knew everything about my life leading to a point in time would be able to predict my decision at that moment with a high rate of accuracy. Did circumstances make my decision? No. I made it, because situations and moments define me. Free will is not a question of influence; it is a question of control. I am influenced by everything, from a gun pointed at my face to a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon. The things that have influenced me are what make me who I am. They define me. Whether my will is free or is not free is not an issue of identity. Control is the true issue at stake in the question of free will. There is nothing controlling my will except myself. I was born in 1987 to a strongly Catholic family. I grew up in suburbia, attended Catholic school, and went to Mass every Sunday. My parents taught me to obey the law and be an upright citizen. I was taught good ethics and strong faith. When I reached high school I began to teach Sunday School. With this knowledge about me, a person is able to make certain assumptions about me and the decisions I am likely to make. They understand what influences shaped me, and thus know me. This knowledge in no way constrains my free will. Knowledge of my circumstances is knowledge of my self. If faced with Blatchford’s rabbit, someone with knowledge of me would be able to make predictions about my actions. They would know that, given the opportunity in the past, I have never willed to shoot an animal. They would also know that I was raised to respect all living things, and not to take life unless it is to sustain life. Someone who knew my self would know that I would not shoot the rabbit. This ability to predict my actions does not mean my free will has been taken away. I believe my will was still free when I decided not to pull the trigger on the rabbit. I could just as easily have pulled the trigger or reacted differently. Sometimes it is impossible for anyone to predict another’s actions. In a debate with my mother, the issue of murder was raised. I stated that I could never will to murder, because everything that I am and everything that I believe in is against it. But what if murder meant saving someone I loved? Given the opportunity, I would not will to shoot the mugger holding a gun to my face, because it is not in my nature or in my training. If I walked in on that mugger hurting my sister, however, would I will to murder him? It is not in my nature or in my training to be capable of willing to kill another living being. On the other hand, it is in my nature to fiercely protect those I love. In this case, I have no more foreknowledge than anyone else of what I would will in this instant. I believe that my will in this is free. My belief in free will is tied to my belief in the moral responsibility of human beings. In order to be held responsible for my actions, I need to be the one who chooses them. If someone is literally yanking my strings, than I have no reason to feel responsible for what I do. If this were true, the murder question changes drastically. I would have no reason not to murder, because I would not be at fault for the deed. After all, without free will it wouldn’t be me that pulled the trigger – it would be whatever was controlling me. I believe in free will because I don’t believe that anything pulls the trigger except the person holding the gun. I believe that a murderer is morally responsible for their actions and that those actions were freely chosen. Another reason that I believe I have free will is because I have experienced the power of free choice. My life led me to a point where everything pointed to a specific decision. I was taught by my parents to value tenacity and scholastics. As a child, I would no sooner miss a homework assignment than murder the family dog. In high school, when I began to have health issues, I refused to give up on my school work. Giving up is not an option, especially in regard to school. My past actions and my training indicate that I will always decide to weather out tough times in school. Halfway through my first year of college, however, I began applying to new schools. I exercised my free will and chose to discontinue my education at WSU. This free decision came as a surprise to everyone who knew me, because it was out of keeping with the obvious set of circumstances that brought me to that point in life. My belief in God also influences my belief in free will. I believe that people make choices in their life, and God only guides them - that is why He sent Christ to save us. Jesus came to set an example for us to live by, to help guide our free choices. The Lord is my shepherd. He is not my dictator. I could not believe in a God who would treat the world as a doll house. A belief in free will is necessary for me to sustain a belief in God. My belief in free will is as much a state of mind as it is a reality. I cannot stand the idea of someone else controlling my life. Conversely, I acknowledge the effects of my circumstances on the decisions I make. Thus, I have made up my mind that I have free will and that it can function unconstrained because my circumstances define me. This belief has as much ability to affect reality as my will has to levitate a spoon. But in the end, reality does not matter very much. Whether I really have free will or not is unimportant. Even the question of belief is secondary. The question I must ask myself is not “do I believe I have free will?” but more than that, “do I act as though I have free will?” The answer is yes, I hold myself responsible for my own decisions. I act as though I have free will because I believe I have free will. ( Amara Parenting & Adoption Services ) Poverty in America 23 October 2006 1. Democracy is dependent on the participation of society, and those living in poverty are disinclined to participate. 2. A paradigm is a set of rules through which one filters incoming data. We form biases that affect how we perceive issues such as poverty, regardless of what the truth is. 3. In 1971, Robert Lampman predicted that poverty would be eradicated by 1980. 4. Economic mobility is prevented by both direct and indirect means. It is directly prevented by a lack of tangible resources such as money or a permanent address. It is indirectly prevented by the hidden rules of the class system. 5. One of the big factors shaping the current trend of poverty is condo conversion. People are getting evicted from their apartments, and they can’t pay to move or don’t have anywhere to go. 6. One broad consequence of poverty is that is eats away at the middle class, destroying our market. 7. One myth about poverty is that poor people don’t work. In fact, many poor people hold more than one job. 8. Adam Smith defined poverty as the “lack of necessaries, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.” 9. Peter Townsend defined poverty as “the lack of sufficient income for people to play the roles, participate in the relationships, and follow the customary behavior which is expected of them by virtue of their membership in society.” 10. One of the resources identified by Ruby Payne was physical mobility and health. Good health and mobility are imperative in finding and keeping jobs, housing, and a multitude of other things. 11. One hidden rule of the middle class is the ability to speak in the formal register. We look down on people who cannot speak in full, grammatical sentences. 12. Three ways to organize society for survival are economic policies. The command system, where someone tells you what to do, the tradition or custom system, where you do as your parent did, and the market system, where you do as is best for your own gain. 13. A Market System requires land, labor, and capital in order to function. 14. Means of production are required to gain profit and expand. Without the means of production, you cannot move into a higher economic class. 15. In the 16th century, the system was changing. Instead of serfs working land, new crops and livestock was coming in. This forced many of the serfs out of their homes with no skills and no place to go. 16. Prior to the 19th century, America viewed poverty as a disease that you caught by being a horrible person. Poor people didn’t deserve help, because it was their own fault that they were poor. They needed to help themselves by getting work, etc. The only people who weren’t to blame for their poverty were children and the elderly. 17. Adam Smith believes that the variety of labor necessary in producing any one item is such that everyone benefits. Smith uses the example of a wool coat; every workman and merchant who handled that coat before it reached the hands of the man wearing it receives a piece of profit. 18. Adam Smith sets forward two laws that propel the market system; the law of accumulation and the law of population. The law of accumulation highlights the good of a capitalist society. One of the three means of production is capital, and Smith says that to keep a market system going, people need to continue accumulating capital in order to reinvest it and gain more. 19. According to Marx, an excess of labor creates surplus, which is profit. 20. According to Davis and Moor, the underlying economic mechanism that ensures society will fill the important positions necessary for success is stratification. Stratification motivates individuals to want certain jobs by providing rewards according to the difficulty of filling such a job. 21. Protestant Asceticism says that work is a calling, and it is important not to squander your talents. It is okay to make money, because that just glorifies God by using what he gave you. 22. According to Schumacher, western economies view natural resources as income rather than non-renewable capital. This is important as income is something to be used, as it is constantly replenishing itself. Capital, however, is to be conserved, accumulated, and invested. By viewing natural resources as income, western economies are squandering what they ought to be preserving. 23. Schumacher believes that if, instead of trying to decrease the need for work, we increase it, everyone would benefit. Faced with real work, people would be useful. Productivity would remain the same, and people would be happier. 24. The materialist believes that labor is a means to an end. A person must work in order to gain capital. The Buddhist believes that labor is the end itself. A person works for the sake of working, not in order to gain more capital. 25. According to de Tocqueville, Americans are particularly attached to physical comfort 26. The “Winner Take All Market” leads to wasteful patterns of consumption. Because everyone is competing to be top dog, exaggerated emphasis is placed on certain names. Education is one example. If a lawyer is educated at Harvard, he is much more likely to be hired on Wall Street than a lawyer educated at Seattle University, simply because of the name of the school. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||