Topic: Who Are You?
My name is Aaron Kaminer. I was born in Memphis Tennessee. I lived there for about two years before I moved hear to Geargia. I lived in Warner Robins Geargia for about 8 years. I attended Centerville Elementary for 3 years and then I changed to Central Fellowship Christian Academy. When I was ten my family moved to Atlanta geargia for a couple of years. Eventually we moved on to Fort Myers Florida. I went through 7th, 8th, and part of 9th, grade there. Finally, my parents got a divorce and we moved back to Warner Robins where I finished my highschool and now attend college.
I am a good worker. I don't mind getting my hands dirty. Currently I work for GK Services in Maco. I am a truck unloader there. Before this I worked cunstruction with my step father, in his concrete business. I have worked at Old Navy, Abercombie, and Target also. For a couple summers in a row I did yard work around town for money. This is how I bought my first car.
One of my favorite hobbies is working on cars. Now, Im not talking about your usual tuning you see around town. Those cars that drive by sounding like bumble bee but aren't really getting anywhere are not for me. I do it the right way. To me, there just isn't anything better than to built a motor and ride it. I have always had an interest in cars. I know alot about them and tend to know alot more as I get older and experience more things. Currently I drive a 2007 pontiac g5, not exactly a roadster but it gets me where I need o be.
My parents are divorced, and have been for five years now. I like to visit with both of them every now and then to keep in touch. I have two younger brothers. One is seventeen, his name is Caleb, and the other is 13, his name is Jeremiah. We were all named after Biblical Charaters, by my mother and father.
Another one of my favorite things to do is play baseball. I hav played alomost every year since I could stand straight. My father actually coached my team for a couple of years, we won first place both years as the Devil Rays. I like to play all types of sports. I have been on the wrestling team , football team, track team for several years, and even the swim team. I like to do a little bit of everything. When I worked construction with my step father I even played softball with him and his travel team when I could.
I am attending Macon State college in order to get my associates and move on to GA Tech where I hope to recieve a degree in eletrical engineering. I plan on beeing some type of eletrical engineer because im great with math and good with electronics. I may even strive for a masters in engineering, depending on how the money all falls into place.
I like to hang out with pretty much anyone but really only have a few really good friends. I don't party much, but occasionally I might go have a little fun. I don't smoke at all. I try to keep pretty healthy when it comes to eating habbits. I go to the gym regularly, I like to work out at my house also, if I can't make it to the gym that day.
I haven't really ever had any major bodily enjuries. I cut my hand open once and had to have surgery, but thats about all. I have never broken any bones, I have never even had a cavity. Im really lucky I guess!
Im not very quiet but I don't care to argue. I like to speak out and have fun but I don't really find purpose in arguing with folks. I don't really like reading, but if it is interesting enough I will read it. I grew up on comic books and thats about the majority of my reading there.
Well, that about sums it up. Now you know all about me, atleast what I can remember anyways.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Law and Sympathy.
Topic: Guilty as Charged, But?Gilbert let his wife go in order to end her pain and distress. He mercy killed her according to some studies. I believe that there can be no tolertation for these killings, atleast for now. The legislature has no accomidations made for dealing with this inccident. The law is too bland and broad in this area to accuse properly. If they were to let this man go, free of charge, they would open the doors for others to do the same. An example needed to be made in order to keep this event from reaccuring in the near future.
Gilbert killed his wife at her request, to end her agony. However, he did in fact, kill her. To say that this killing was with different intention from that of a serial killer would open up a gateway for murderers to pass through. No matter the cause nor the intention, killing is killing. Euthanasia it's called. Killing out of sympathy is not to be excused, nor tolerated. Killing to make things better for that person...or for yourself is wrong, no matter the reasoning. I believe it is still a crime to kill under these particular circumstances.
Even though the law is not yet well enough defined to convict accordingly, I believe the court is right in their accusations. Though it is a bit harsh it seems, seeing how he loved his wife and had only good intentions, the courts stood firm. The decision was based in part on the affect it would take on future happening simular to this one. How would they be convicted? Could they really let just one man go? How would the court system hold against hundreds, if not thousands more or the mercy killings.
The problem in letting Gilbert go was that in doing so, an excuse had been made. An excuse that would be used for killers for years to come. The law must be furthur enhanced and explained in order to properly trial a simular situation, next time one should come about. The court system could be modified in such a way that similar crimes couold be delt with in a just manner.
It does seem that his punishment was a bit more that expected , conseidering the unusual circumstances under which this crime took place. Maybe a slightly smaller sentence would have proven a point, maybe not. One thing is for sure though, no matter the reason, the American court will not tolerate mercy killing, and tghey made a prime example out of Gilbert.
Over all, I think that the courts stood firm and took the necessary action. I can't say I completely agree with the sentencing, but a crime is a crime. Although my sympathy seems to sway torwards freedom for Roswell Gilbert, I can still clearly see the correction that needs to be made. I can still see right from wrong, and I can still see that despite the great sorrow and depression Gilbert was growing throught,he was wrong, and he broke the law. An example was made, a crime was justified, end of story.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
We All Want More
Topic: America as Empire?
Mailer argues a complex opinion in his book. It is very difficult to argue an opposing view point. He raves on about anything from a common conservative's outlook on the war to what seems to be a logical explanition, in truth, to the entire subject. Mailer voices his opinion very strongly, insisting that Bush is leaning torwards spreading America to lead a global empire. Many questions are discussed and even disclaimed in the book, yet still remain unanswered. Although the arguement still goes on, Mailer's explanations for his beleifs are clear and precise.
It is not uncommon, in our everyday lives, to observe an individual reacting dramatically to an emotional happening. For example, you don't ever love someone as much as when their leaving you; or, you just really don't care too much for America until someone strikes it. Is this true? Was the war effort an immediate act of desperation we took in order to ease our own conscience? Mailer speaks of Flag Conservatives in his book. Is this a colorful illustration of his own opinion, or a demonstration of the facts? We just didn't care as much before the attack as we do now.
It is quite obvious that Mailer's main idea is that of Bushs' desire for empire. Mailer explains that Bushs' underlying motive is the ever so common need for power. This is something I struggle with in everyday life. Is it so hard for me to believe that one administration with the power to do nearly anything would also face such a struggle. No, it seems to be a repetative obstacle.
I won't say that I agree with Mailer on every aspect of the circumstance, but, I can understand the majority of his stance because I see it every day. Mailer presents the was as a power struggle more than anything, much the same as most any battle we face daily.
Mailer argues a complex opinion in his book. It is very difficult to argue an opposing view point. He raves on about anything from a common conservative's outlook on the war to what seems to be a logical explanition, in truth, to the entire subject. Mailer voices his opinion very strongly, insisting that Bush is leaning torwards spreading America to lead a global empire. Many questions are discussed and even disclaimed in the book, yet still remain unanswered. Although the arguement still goes on, Mailer's explanations for his beleifs are clear and precise.
It is not uncommon, in our everyday lives, to observe an individual reacting dramatically to an emotional happening. For example, you don't ever love someone as much as when their leaving you; or, you just really don't care too much for America until someone strikes it. Is this true? Was the war effort an immediate act of desperation we took in order to ease our own conscience? Mailer speaks of Flag Conservatives in his book. Is this a colorful illustration of his own opinion, or a demonstration of the facts? We just didn't care as much before the attack as we do now.
It is quite obvious that Mailer's main idea is that of Bushs' desire for empire. Mailer explains that Bushs' underlying motive is the ever so common need for power. This is something I struggle with in everyday life. Is it so hard for me to believe that one administration with the power to do nearly anything would also face such a struggle. No, it seems to be a repetative obstacle.
I won't say that I agree with Mailer on every aspect of the circumstance, but, I can understand the majority of his stance because I see it every day. Mailer presents the was as a power struggle more than anything, much the same as most any battle we face daily.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
One Mans Empire
Topic: Why Are We At War?
Mailer presents our was efforts as useless. The book states that Bush is not trying to protect America but rather up lift himself. I can't say that I agree with Mailer when he describes this was as meaningless, a coax, or a trick. On the other hand I do agree with some of the arguments pertaining to our reactions directly after the 9/11 incident.
Mailers seems to suggest that our present state of war was means of power building for Bush. While that could be true I think it is also a will of our nation to avenge a horrible attack. Im sure our nation as a whole is undecided in their own stance in our recent events, if even knowledgable of them. On one hand you could demand proof of progress, on the other you could explain the reliefe obtained through revenge.
I don't know if I agree with Mailers expressions torwards Bush and his administration. I do not know Bush's motives nor his reasoning behind this war. I do know that he set a goal to capture a criminal in the beginning and has since then done so. I do not think I would go so far as to say the Bush is simply tring to build and empire, but I will agree with his extreme point; this war is not 100% in order to stop terrorists act nor obtain more oil.
The nation was greatly shocked and left in aw at the sight of the Twin Towers collapse. It was a defining moment in American history. A terror that would live with and haunt us for how long? Immediately after 9/11 we saw tremendous religous outbrake amoungst americans. We saw people coming together and reciting under God as if we had said all the time before. Now, many years later we don't see as much. Something that stunned us before has grown to agitate us now. Is the war relevant, necissary, meaningful? How can we be sure? I think it depends on us individualy. Who we are, what we believe and our own people.
Mailer presents our was efforts as useless. The book states that Bush is not trying to protect America but rather up lift himself. I can't say that I agree with Mailer when he describes this was as meaningless, a coax, or a trick. On the other hand I do agree with some of the arguments pertaining to our reactions directly after the 9/11 incident.
Mailers seems to suggest that our present state of war was means of power building for Bush. While that could be true I think it is also a will of our nation to avenge a horrible attack. Im sure our nation as a whole is undecided in their own stance in our recent events, if even knowledgable of them. On one hand you could demand proof of progress, on the other you could explain the reliefe obtained through revenge.
I don't know if I agree with Mailers expressions torwards Bush and his administration. I do not know Bush's motives nor his reasoning behind this war. I do know that he set a goal to capture a criminal in the beginning and has since then done so. I do not think I would go so far as to say the Bush is simply tring to build and empire, but I will agree with his extreme point; this war is not 100% in order to stop terrorists act nor obtain more oil.
The nation was greatly shocked and left in aw at the sight of the Twin Towers collapse. It was a defining moment in American history. A terror that would live with and haunt us for how long? Immediately after 9/11 we saw tremendous religous outbrake amoungst americans. We saw people coming together and reciting under God as if we had said all the time before. Now, many years later we don't see as much. Something that stunned us before has grown to agitate us now. Is the war relevant, necissary, meaningful? How can we be sure? I think it depends on us individualy. Who we are, what we believe and our own people.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
True Character
Topic:The Alligator River Story
This story was rather disturbing. In judging these characters I will try to base my answers strictly on the information provided by the author. I will rate these characters in terms of my respect for them on a number scale from 1 to 5. A number one being the highest down through the number five. My judgement begins with Gregory. The story does't provide much information at all about Gregory. He is Abigail's lover who live directly across the river that devides them. In the story ,his lover, Abigail chooses to have sexual intercoarse with a man to get across the river in a desperate attempt to see Gregory. When she gets there Gregory is hurt and pushes her aside. I believe he in correct in doing so. I give Gregory a one on my scale of respect for realizing that which is most important. I bilieve that a woman that is willing to lower herself to anothers demand in order to see her love, outised of a true emergency, is a woman who would do so in order to achieve whatever else she might desire.
Next I will rate Sinbad. I look poorly upon this man because of his wicked eye in the story. Sinbad saw Abigail in desperate effort to see the man she claims she loves and he took extreme advantage of the circumstance. Sinbad offered to take her across the river only if she agreed to having sexual intercoarse him first. He knew that this was her only way to see Gregory and that in order for her to get what she wanted, she would have to give hime what he wanted. I rate Sinbad with a 5. Knowing that the two were lovers he shamelessly had his way with her knowing the damage it would cause furthur on down the road.
There is another man in this story with whom I am disgusted. His name is Slug. When Slug heard Abigail's complaint concerning Gregorys action's he took the matter into his own hands. The story explains that Slug felt compassion for Abigail. I believe that a more proper way to show his compassion for her would have been to comfort her personally rather than taking her pain out on Gregory. I believe he allowed himself to be used by Abigail. Instead of talking the matter over or simply suggesting forgiveness in both persons hearts heat beat Gregory brutally and solved nothing. I rate him also with a 5.
My father once taught me that a lie isnt just when one distorts the truth but also when one says nothing and avoids the truth. When Abigail ran to Ivan for advice or comfort he avoided the cituation. I do not think he is a bad person for doing so, but I do not respect him for having no insight. I think that some good advice could have turned this entire story around. In fact I think that providing her with a more patient alternative might have saved the relationship between Gregory and Abilgail. I rate Ivan with a 3. I have no reason to dislike this man, yet no real reason to respect him.
Abigail is the main character of the story. She is sad, yet mad, in love, yet seeks revenge on her lover. I despise this woman. First of all things, she lowered herself to another mans will and broke a special bond between her and her lover not to see him, but to have her way. When she was rejected for doing so rather than trying to fix the situation and keep the man she supposedly love, she showed her true feelings and shared the story with Slug. When Slug heard the knews and began to beat Gregory Abigail did nothing but life and take comfort in seeing her once claimed lover take his punishment. I believe she is a selfish individual. I think that the river in this story was symbolic to her sinful desires being the true seperation between her and Gregory. I rate Abigail with a 5.
This story was rather disturbing. In judging these characters I will try to base my answers strictly on the information provided by the author. I will rate these characters in terms of my respect for them on a number scale from 1 to 5. A number one being the highest down through the number five. My judgement begins with Gregory. The story does't provide much information at all about Gregory. He is Abigail's lover who live directly across the river that devides them. In the story ,his lover, Abigail chooses to have sexual intercoarse with a man to get across the river in a desperate attempt to see Gregory. When she gets there Gregory is hurt and pushes her aside. I believe he in correct in doing so. I give Gregory a one on my scale of respect for realizing that which is most important. I bilieve that a woman that is willing to lower herself to anothers demand in order to see her love, outised of a true emergency, is a woman who would do so in order to achieve whatever else she might desire.
Next I will rate Sinbad. I look poorly upon this man because of his wicked eye in the story. Sinbad saw Abigail in desperate effort to see the man she claims she loves and he took extreme advantage of the circumstance. Sinbad offered to take her across the river only if she agreed to having sexual intercoarse him first. He knew that this was her only way to see Gregory and that in order for her to get what she wanted, she would have to give hime what he wanted. I rate Sinbad with a 5. Knowing that the two were lovers he shamelessly had his way with her knowing the damage it would cause furthur on down the road.
There is another man in this story with whom I am disgusted. His name is Slug. When Slug heard Abigail's complaint concerning Gregorys action's he took the matter into his own hands. The story explains that Slug felt compassion for Abigail. I believe that a more proper way to show his compassion for her would have been to comfort her personally rather than taking her pain out on Gregory. I believe he allowed himself to be used by Abigail. Instead of talking the matter over or simply suggesting forgiveness in both persons hearts heat beat Gregory brutally and solved nothing. I rate him also with a 5.
My father once taught me that a lie isnt just when one distorts the truth but also when one says nothing and avoids the truth. When Abigail ran to Ivan for advice or comfort he avoided the cituation. I do not think he is a bad person for doing so, but I do not respect him for having no insight. I think that some good advice could have turned this entire story around. In fact I think that providing her with a more patient alternative might have saved the relationship between Gregory and Abilgail. I rate Ivan with a 3. I have no reason to dislike this man, yet no real reason to respect him.
Abigail is the main character of the story. She is sad, yet mad, in love, yet seeks revenge on her lover. I despise this woman. First of all things, she lowered herself to another mans will and broke a special bond between her and her lover not to see him, but to have her way. When she was rejected for doing so rather than trying to fix the situation and keep the man she supposedly love, she showed her true feelings and shared the story with Slug. When Slug heard the knews and began to beat Gregory Abigail did nothing but life and take comfort in seeing her once claimed lover take his punishment. I believe she is a selfish individual. I think that the river in this story was symbolic to her sinful desires being the true seperation between her and Gregory. I rate Abigail with a 5.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The Majority Rules
Topic: Human Rights vs Majority Rule
It is very difficult to contrast human rights and the will of the majority. In many cases human rights are in fact an interpretation made by the majority. One subject matter commonly argued upon is homosexuality. Most would argue that homosexuality is a natural right that each of us are born with. Others would claim otherwise. I personally believe that homosexuality is an abomination, on the other hand I do believe it is ones right to choose their own preference.
How are we to decide between rights and will? While one might argue it is their right to roam around without clothes, the majority of our entire nation would differ in opinion. Or, that same person might state that revenge on the killer of his wife and kids is his own affair, while the laws of our land state opposingly. Who is to decide whether the will of the majority or the firm laws of our country should reign? I believe that in this situation a decision can only be based on circumstance.
I believe that human rights are derived from an interpretation of our own people. In many ways what were once established human rights, could have very well been a majorities will at the time of establishment. Now the will of our popular folk has changed, so has our rights. The more and more acceptable certain actions become, the more and more they are learned to be natural.
Free will is very well known to be perhaps the most crucial of all human rights. But how far can we stretch this? What can be allowed and what cannot? I believe that our country was built on demorcray and a foundational theory that majority rule. What other way can a sound government be maintained? Human rights are endless. A man is born with the right to do just about anything, but is it right? Is it ok to allow one to do something just because he/she is capable? No, the majority rules.
Many times our country is faced with the question of will. Where do we draw the line? Human rights are pratically limitless, but ones allowance isn't. In saying that the majority should rule I think that human rights are valid to a point, a point to which they harm or upset the majority. I am not the judge the validity of this theory, but I am one to say that since I live in the nation, I will follow this theory.
It is very difficult to contrast human rights and the will of the majority. In many cases human rights are in fact an interpretation made by the majority. One subject matter commonly argued upon is homosexuality. Most would argue that homosexuality is a natural right that each of us are born with. Others would claim otherwise. I personally believe that homosexuality is an abomination, on the other hand I do believe it is ones right to choose their own preference.
How are we to decide between rights and will? While one might argue it is their right to roam around without clothes, the majority of our entire nation would differ in opinion. Or, that same person might state that revenge on the killer of his wife and kids is his own affair, while the laws of our land state opposingly. Who is to decide whether the will of the majority or the firm laws of our country should reign? I believe that in this situation a decision can only be based on circumstance.
I believe that human rights are derived from an interpretation of our own people. In many ways what were once established human rights, could have very well been a majorities will at the time of establishment. Now the will of our popular folk has changed, so has our rights. The more and more acceptable certain actions become, the more and more they are learned to be natural.
Free will is very well known to be perhaps the most crucial of all human rights. But how far can we stretch this? What can be allowed and what cannot? I believe that our country was built on demorcray and a foundational theory that majority rule. What other way can a sound government be maintained? Human rights are endless. A man is born with the right to do just about anything, but is it right? Is it ok to allow one to do something just because he/she is capable? No, the majority rules.
Many times our country is faced with the question of will. Where do we draw the line? Human rights are pratically limitless, but ones allowance isn't. In saying that the majority should rule I think that human rights are valid to a point, a point to which they harm or upset the majority. I am not the judge the validity of this theory, but I am one to say that since I live in the nation, I will follow this theory.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A Firm Back Bone
Topic: Hijacker
http://litmuse.net/prompt_hijack
Terrorism is a major threat to the morale and character of a country. When a building is taken down, the spirit of the nation goes with it. If a hijacker takes over an American plane and demands the release of many convicted criminals, what is he really asking for? Is it not the bowing down of an entire nation. At this point the lives on that plane become standing ground for our country. Their lives are no longer their own affair.
What can we do in response to such a threat? Have we lost a battle we haven't yet begun to fight? I believe no proposal should be made, no deal be cut, and no allowance be given. I believe we strike down the motive of the enemy in giving him a solid, firm answer. No. Let them die then. Not only does this response render his actions pointless, it disables any attempts related to this in the future.
When you let a child get away with wrong doing..he/she learns that wrong to be ok. The same basic principle applies to this circumstance. If we were to let our criminals free and by some chance save our passengers, who has won? The enemy has. He has taken our pride, and given way to other terrorist acts. We have saved the lives of a few, and damned the lives of our entire country.
It is ilogical to think that giving in to his demands could save ourselves, now or ever. No negotiation should be made. He and all other terrorist should learn at that moment that we are not a weak country...and we do not give in to the demands of terrorists, no matter the cost.
http://litmuse.net/prompt_hijack
Terrorism is a major threat to the morale and character of a country. When a building is taken down, the spirit of the nation goes with it. If a hijacker takes over an American plane and demands the release of many convicted criminals, what is he really asking for? Is it not the bowing down of an entire nation. At this point the lives on that plane become standing ground for our country. Their lives are no longer their own affair.
What can we do in response to such a threat? Have we lost a battle we haven't yet begun to fight? I believe no proposal should be made, no deal be cut, and no allowance be given. I believe we strike down the motive of the enemy in giving him a solid, firm answer. No. Let them die then. Not only does this response render his actions pointless, it disables any attempts related to this in the future.
When you let a child get away with wrong doing..he/she learns that wrong to be ok. The same basic principle applies to this circumstance. If we were to let our criminals free and by some chance save our passengers, who has won? The enemy has. He has taken our pride, and given way to other terrorist acts. We have saved the lives of a few, and damned the lives of our entire country.
It is ilogical to think that giving in to his demands could save ourselves, now or ever. No negotiation should be made. He and all other terrorist should learn at that moment that we are not a weak country...and we do not give in to the demands of terrorists, no matter the cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)