Reflection 2

There is someone that I work well with, my husband, Craig. As cliché as it might sound, we work very well together. Craig is very nonchalant and thinks outside the box. I am more meticulous and like to follow the rules. This makes me think in a way that is more “inside the box”. Whenever there is a problem or situation we do things in completely different ways. If we were walking down a road and there was a bush blocking it, I would go around the bush and Craig would go through it. We are very different, but when we put our ideas together they work very well. Or, if I am stuck on something he always has a new and innovative way to help me. And vice versa, if he gets too carried away with his crazy ideas I am there to rein him in. In the end, it works out very, very well for a great marriage.

Weblog 4

In the article When Altruism Isn’t Moral”, Sally Satel discusses organ donations and whether or not a system of incentives for organ donors should be put into place or not. She believes that incentives would let many more people get the organs they need as well as helping the donors with their financial troubles. Sally Satel shares a story of how the transplant program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California would not accept an organ from a man without further investing the relationship between him and his patient She says that “Transplant professionals would have allowed a 65-year-old man to languish on dialysis for years or die while waiting for a kidney, out of fear that he might be remunerating someone for an act that would save his life”.(paragraph 17) The transplant eventually took place after the doctors were sure there was no exchange for the organ.

Sally Satel also says, “Yes, it is lethally obvious that altruism is not a valid basis for transplant policy. If we keep thinking of organs solely as gifts, there will never be enough of them”. (Paragraph 6)  She has actually received a kidney from a former casual friend herself, so she knows first hand the acts of altruism. Sally believes that even though people donate organs out of generosity, they are still gaining a sense of accomplishment. They can say “Hey, I donated an organ for free, what have you done?” This is, in a sense, the same as getting physical compensation for it.

In another article, Dr. Peter Laird opposes Sally stating “My complements to the Kaiser physicians who requested, accepted and amended the offer of a kidney by Matt Thompson. This is a wonderful story of the system working well; it is not and was not an example of Altruism being immoral.”(Paragraph 6) He believes that the physicians did their job correctly so that they could not be punished for wrong doing. He also believes that Sally Satel should have spent more time educating her readers about the obligations that doctors hold, especially since she is a doctor herself.

I do believe that Sally Satel has a good point. There is a shortage of organs. She says that “there are about 78,000 people in queue for a kidney from a deceased donor. In places like California, the wait can be up to eight years.”(Paragraph 4) That is enough time for someone to die waiting for an organ. I do not understand why we would not want to give people incentives in order to save other people’s lives. It is a win-win situation. Although, I agree with Sally Satel, I also see Dr. Peter Laird’s point. There are certain rules and regulations that doctors have to follow. He says “Any physician in California that does not document appropriately their compliance with all rules and regulations is at the mercy of the California Medical Board should any inquiry take place.”(Paragraph 3) So, with the current organ donation system in place the doctor’s at Kaiser did their job. But, if the system changed then those policies would change as well.

If the system changes and there is an incentive plan in place I can see more people living and getting the organs they need. There would not be such a shortage. As sad as it is, people do not do things out of the goodness of their hearts anymore. And although some people would do it for the incentive, I still believe there would be people doing it out of acts of altruism.

Satel, Sally. “When Altruism Isn’t Moral” The American. January 30, 2009. October 23, 2009 <http://www.american.com/archive/2009/when-altruism-isnt-moral>

Laird, Peter. “When Altruism Isn’t Moral isn’t right” Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle. July 26, 2009. October 23, 2009 <http://www.billpeckham.com/from_the_sharp_end_of_the/>

Weblog 3

Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher which means that he looks at situations and decides if the acts are right or wrong. He wrote an article in The New York Times Magazine called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. His article explained how Americans live frivolously while children are starving to death around the world. He believes that everyone who has any money should donate at least $200 to charity instead of spending it on luxuries. He then goes on to state that “the formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (paragraph 22). He went from having his readers’ very intent on donating money, to pushing readers away by demanding they give all their “extra” money to the homeless.

In response to Peter Singer’s article, Greg Schaefer wrote “Singer’s not-so Persuasive Solution to World Poverty”. In this he summarizes Singer’s article and claims that “Singer obviously cannot force anyone to donate money, so he creates two hypothetical situations to support his argument and to get the reader to ask the question, ‘am I going to donate or not?’”(Paragraph 1). Greg also says that “the argument loses its strength later on and the reader becomes less persuaded and motivated to donate when Singer beings to demand that people donate every cent of their extra money”(paragraph 1). Greg’s claim is that he was very moved by Peter Singer’s article until Peter demanded that every cent of “extra” money be donated. He says that “ I went from being irritated at the people who do not donate anything and very persuaded to donate $200 to being very unsure as to whether or not I wanted to donate” (paragraph 10).

Peter Singer did a very good job at convincing readers by showing two hypothetical situations. One involved the Brazilian film “Central Station” where Dora is given a chance to get $1,000. All she has to do is take a homeless child to a family who is going to adopt him. She takes the boy, receives her money and buys a new TV. She then learns that the boy is too old to be adopted and he will be killed. So, she goes and takes the boy back. The readers see her as the good person. Peter also gives a situation from Peter Unger’s book, Living High and Letting Die. In this a man, Bob, is given the choice to flip a switch that will send a train into his new sports car or save the life of a child. He chooses to let the train barrel into the child and lives his life with his sports car. He is seen as bad. Peter then says “Bob’s situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to overseas aid and differs from Dora’s situation” (paragraph 9).

Both authors agree that Americans should donate $200, but Peter Singer takes it too far in the end and loses his audiences cooperation. If Peter had left his article at the $200 mark, many people would have been persuaded to donate money to the homeless. He enraged people with his demands and lost their interest. Peter had the most supporting evidence and good examples to persuade his readers, but I do not agree with how far he took his claim. However, Greg Schaeffer seems to be more logical about the situation and is able to step back and look at what readers will think about the article. He is able to show that American’s should donate money if they have it, but not all of their money. His stance makes the most sense to me, as I am sure it does to other readers.

Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” The New York Times Magazine. Sept. 5, 1999. Pages 60-63.

Schaefer, Greg. “Singer’s not-so Persuasive Solution to World Poverty.”

Reflection 1

My writing has evolved a lot over the past 5-6 years. In middle school I don’t remember writing very much, but when I entered high school I had to write a lot of papers. I remember one teacher, in particular, who really got us into writing and learning the process of writing a paper. This is when my writing really began to evolve. In high school I really got the chance to explore topics that I enjoy, which made me want to write. I learned the correct format for writing and how to get my point across. I can now put together a paper pretty easily, where as before now I would have to do lots and lots of revising. I have learned how to get my thoughts out and write them down and put them into a cohesive order to get my point across. As I get older I am more able to look at the entire paper and really get my papers to make sense to the reader. When I was younger I don’t think I was able to get my words to flow as easily or to make as much sense. I also elaborate more now and have more of an opinion on what I am writing. I strongly think that just being older and reading more has helped me in my own writing.  I have also realized that I do not like writing research papers. I would much rather write an argument piece or just write on a topic that interests me. I have a lot more to say than I used to and I like to write down my thoughts and feelings. Where as in high school we were given the topic, and we had to spend hours researching that topic just to be able to write something about it. Overall, I think that the biggest change in my writing is that I actually enjoy it now and I think that comes across in my papers.

Weblog 2

Part I

1. The health care reform that has been proposed from President Barrack Obama.
2. The military proposing that BAH rates be raised for military members.
3. Taylor Swift being interrupted at the MTV Movie Awards
4. My husband’s training is beginning for yet another deployment.
5. The falling economy
6. The safety of my neighborhood
7. The making homes affordable program
8. The re-construction of my historical elementary school after demolishing it
9. The president’s speech to children
10. Jimmy Carter calling everyone “racist”

Nancy Reynolds Elementary School

I lived my entire life in Westfield, North Carolina up until I got married at age 20. Westfield has no stoplights, lots of deer and other wild animals and one elementary school. This elementary school is and has been the heart of my community for 86 years. Recently it has become clear that the school is falling, it is so old and has been through so much without any major repairs. The county came up with 3 solutions to the problem; One is to make significant repairs to the building to bring it up to code, two is to demolish the building and replace it with a completely new building, and three is to demolish the building and build a replica. It was decided that the elementary school was to be demolished and a replica built. Somehow, this is still really hurtful to me. That school has educated three generations in my family and to think that it will no longer be there is devastating. Even though a replica is being built, it still isn’t the same. Could it have been that much harder to make improvements to the existing building? This school holds many, many memories of people all over my community. And, the county has also decided that the best way to do this is to burn the building and use it as a “controlled burn” to teach local firefighters. I guess one last teaching assignment isn’t too bad. I think that if I had to watch the building burn though it would pull on my heart strings. I remember so many things there; my first boyfriend, making lifelong friends, playing sports, holding softball tournaments, fundraisers, PTA meetings, Christmas plays. It’s sad to see it go.

Part III

The way that the county decided this was by holding a board and voting among the members. I guess that’s a good way to go about it. The problem is that this board consisted of people from different communities than mine, communities that have more people and care less about sentimental value. I believe that this is how the decision came about to demolish the building. It was a cheaper way to go about fixing the building, but it didn’t take into account the significance of this elementary school to my community. At least they have decided to build a replica, which is the only piece of mind I can get from this event. These people who made this decision did not attend my school, do not live in my community and obviously can’t know the importance of the building first hand. I will say that they are looking out for the safety of the children that attend Nancy Reynolds today, which had to be done no matter what decision was made.

Weblog 1

I believe that people…are inconsiderate and selfish. People don’t stop and take the time to care about others anymore. It’s who can get ahead and do it in the quickest manner. It doesn’t matter who they hurt along the way.

I believe that society…is on a fast downward spiral. Since when did it become “cool” to get pregnant, be anorexic, have plastic surgery, be gangster, get divorced, etc.?

I believe that government…is good and bad. It’s good because we have leadership and we get vote and make choices on who our president is. It’s bad because I believe a lot of things happen behind closed doors that the public will never know about. Is our government trustworthy? I have no clue.

I believe that justice…doesn’t always show its face. Lots of people spend years in prison that haven’t even committed a crime. While others who deserve to be in prison or worse roam our streets.

I believe that knowledge…is a powerful tool that everyone should possess. Knowledge can give you an edge in school, work and life in general. Knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean you are an A-plus student, I believe it means more of what you know and the experiences you have under your belt.

I believe that science…is a hard subject for me to comprehend. I don’t believe in experimenting and I definitely don’t believe everything science tells us. Yes, it helps discover cures for diseases and such, but I think that people tend to take it way too far.

I believe that reality…is hard to accept. It’s easier to live in a fantasy where everything is perfect. But, at some point everyone has to wake up and smell the roses. Life isn’t perfect, that’s the reality of it.

I believe that life…is great. We have a chance here to better ourselves and our world. We get to meet new people and make differences. The opportunities are there as long as you take them and use them for the good.

I believe that happiness…is in each of our hands. Happiness is what you make of it. If you are sad, mad, upset only you have the power to change it. Why spend your life miserable and pessimistic. Just smile, be happy and go about your day.

I believe that goodness…is in all of us, some just have a hard time finding it. For all the selfish, mean and rude people I have met, I have come across just as many good people. Good people are what keeps this world going and nothing will put a smile on someone’s face quicker than just being good to them.

I believe that death…is inevitable. I know that my time here on earth is limited. Yes, death is scary to me. I don’t want to be in pain, or for my family to be sad, but I know that God has plans for each of us in Heaven. And that makes death not so scary.

I believe that God…created the earth, the heavens and man. How can you look around you at all the beautiful things he created here and not know that something is greater than us out there?

God

When I look and see a beautiful sunset, it reminds me that God is watching over us. When I am back home in North Carolina and looking at the mountains and they look like someone painted them there, it reminds me that God is here. For me to think that humans and this world came from tiny organisms is hard to comprehend. There has to be something bigger than us out there. I was not raised in a church. All of my friends went to church and my family went occasionally, but it wasn’t a big deal if we weren’t there. As I got older I became more and more interested in where we came from and how we got here. I had a bible of my own and I began to read it. I started going to church with my great-grandma, I went to church camp with my youth group, I started talking to my preacher. I had always had my beliefs, but these things made them stronger and stronger. I decided to get baptized, and it was a great day. It was like I was turning over a new leaf. I had decided that I was a Christian and I wanted to make it clear. I wanted God to know that I do believe in Him. To this day I still have a relationship with God, and although I’m not in church like I should be I believe that’s ok. I pray, I make decisions based on my religion and I try to be a good person. Sure, I make mistakes, but God will forgive. I believe that God created us along with everything else.

Part III

People who oppose the belief in God usually believe strongly in science, and why not? Science is hard evidence. People can touch and feel of it and do experiments that prove things have happened. Science explains everything to people. I believe that that’s good. But, who’s to say that God didn’t put the organisms on earth that created humans. He would still have created us. You can’t touch God. You can’t see Him. All you have is your faith that He is there. I think that that is hard for some people, believing in something that you can’t see. Children do it all the time, but we seem to lose this ability as we get older. We need proof of things. I have also heard people say, “what kind of God would allow people to be murdered and raped?” Well, I believe that God put us here and gives us the tools to come to Him, but we have our own free will. We make choices, good or bad. We lead ourselves down different paths. God doesn’t orchestrate us like puppets. Bad things will happen to good people. That’s the way it is. It’s not God’s fault it’s just how the world works. And in the end, people will pay for the mistakes they have made and the good will prevail. The only thing that people who oppose my views seem to have in common is a belief in science. I don’t think that any of them had the same experiences that led them to this belief. Everyone has a different past. Even some people who believe that God doesn’t exist have grown up in church. I don’t mind if people don’t believe in God. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and I’m not in any position to judge them for it. I understand that and I expect people to understand my beliefs as well. Sure, if someone asks me about my beliefs I will be glad to share and I do hope that they see my side of things. But, if they don’t that’s there prerogative.

Blog Introduction

Well, I guess we are getting ready to really get into the writing part of this semester. I’m excited. I’m ready to get reading, writing and learning along the way. I’m new to this whole blogging business, so hopefully it will go well.  So far so good. I guess it’s like the first time with anything, I don’t want to mess anything up even though I know it’s fixable, but I also have to try it out in order to learn it.  So here’s to my first blog post!