Physicians assisted suicide PLN

One of the topics was Physicians assisted suicide. I chose to write about this because the topic made me consider what I believe. The presentation was about whether it should be allowed or not. Some reasons that the presenter said it was a good idea was because it is morally accepted, if can end the misery of suffering, and you can die with dignity. At first I was totally against it. After this presentation I was on the verge of changing my mind because of the pictures and the idea it will end suffering. Despite this, I still believe that it is very wrong because no matter what circumstance, killing is wrong and no matter what, it should never be allowed even if the other person wants you to kill them. Think about this, if your friend asked you to kill them because they were very sick, would you have the will to do it? Even if you did, would you be glad of fell good about yourself afterwords? NO. and if you did there is something wrong with you. Even though there are some reasons why a physician may do this, it is wrong and should be illegal everywhere.

PLN # 2

As I have began to do some research on airport security scanners and pat downs, it has become clear the two conflicting sides. I have lately been leaning towards wanting security over privacy because I would rather live than be seen on a computer scanner in public. I did find one article that has, what I think is the best solution so far that may be a real possible solution. It increases privacy yet still keeps you quite safe. On www.cnn.com I found an article by Paul Courson titled More up-front disclosure by travelers could cut intrusive screenings. In this article it talks about how, instead of going through the main scanner a traveler would have the option to tell more about themselves up-front. This info would be much more than just a name, etc and would reveal probably a lot of your person info. This option would be for a fee though. I think this is an excellent idea proposed by the head TSA administrator because first of all, it gives travelers who are offended by the screening another option. It would allow those who are paranoid of flying to now be able to again because its still a very safe method. At the same time those who are not bothered by the screenings would continue to go through the standard screening procedure. This is a great option because no matter your preference there's an option for you that will guarantee your safety. This potential possibility is best at pleasing both sides of the argument; it would insure your safety but would also keep your privacy less exposed. The only thing is how much are you willing to go through to know that you are safe the next time you are on a plane?

ISSUE: Airpot Security Scans and Patdowns

After doing some research and looking at some articles, I found there's lots of different opinion on this topic. I learned that many like what the intent of it all is and they know we need to keep our country safe but they hate the scanning. Some say the scanners don't detect when there's a small amount of something. I read a lot about people who argue and complain about being "touched on their junk" One article that sort of seemed as if it summed up the whole thing and gave a good explanation was written by Kevin Brennan on www.politicsdaily.com. He interviewed John Pistole who is the head of TSA. Pistole announced that airport security has become more of an issue to people but he has to have it to protect from terrorism. His job is to find the right balance between the two. I liked this section because it really explains the whole issue right there. He said a Florida senator told him, "I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way these people are being touched." Pistole defended that we need the security for safety. This article led me to believe that it is almost a problem that can't be solved because the government can always argue it's for our safety from terrorist and the citizens can always argue they are being inappropriately scanned and touched. The problem, like Pistole said, is finding the balance. The only question now, what matters more to you, knowing you can get on a plane and be virtually safe from terrorism but have your privacy revealed, or get on knowing your not as safe but have your privacy to yourself?

PLN #3

In The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell, General Zaroff, the best hunter there is, makes Rainsford who's normally known to be an excellent hunter, feel the spot of prey as they play their dangerous game. To begin Rainsford was talking to Whitney about the jaguars feelings. "Bah! They've no understanding." "Even so, I rather think they understand one thing--fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death." "Nonsense," laughed Rainsford." This passage shows Whitney noting that the jaguar might not feel so well about being hunted and Rainsford totally blowing off the thought as if he doesn't care. Well, this is ironic because Rainsford ends up being hunted later on and he finds it to be not of his liking. He only cares about the prey when the prey is himself. To continue, Rainsford set up a pit with sharp sticks to trap the general, "Three feet from the pit a man was standing, with an electric torch in his hand. "You've done well, Rainsford," the voice of the general called. "Your Burmese tiger pit has claimed one of my best dogs. Again you score." This passage symbolizes how no matter how good you are you can be beat. Rainsford, the extremely talented hunter now faces the fact that his skill is of no good compared to the general who just congratulates him for all his effort in making a flawless trap. Once again,  the prey does feel the pain of being hunted. To finish up, Rainsford on last stand makes a daring decision between potentially life and death. "Across a cove he could see the gloomy gray stone of the chateau. Twenty feet below him the sea rumbled and hissed. Rainsford hesitated. He heard the hounds. Then he leaped far out into the sea. . . ." This section teaches a moral in the story of, it's easy to say things about others but until you've experienced there life you have no idea of what you're saying. Rainsford now experiences the meaning of prey and would most likely never question the feelings of something weaker than him again.

PLN # 1

The book Eminem by Stephanie Lane contains graphics and perspectives almost unimaginable in the society we live in. Picture living in one of the most dangerous cities in Detroit where there is huge crime and you are the only white man surrounded by black people. This is the life of Marshall Mathers (Eminems) childhood. As he grew up his wife recals...
 
       "I went through four TVs and five VCRs in two years." One of the family's burglars was bold enough to come back to their apartment and just to make himself a sandwich. "He left the peanut butter, jelly... out and didn't steal nothing.... But then he came back again and took everything but the couches and beds.
the pillows, clothes, silverware-everything."

 So obviously life was extremely difficult. This book makes me think a different way on how privileged we are. It's almost unfair that we live in such a fine world and they have to deal with so much crime. That definitely changes the viewpoint on things. His way of life and his actions have surely impacted his future and intentions. He grew up with pain of unmarried parents, bullying because of his race, getting beat up a lot, and much too hard to explain. this definitely all cooped up inside him and would be the bases for his huge career in angry, over the top raps. Action in childhood affect life and intent when you are a grown up no doubt and Marshall Mathers is a perfect example. Clearly we should think about how grateful we are for a safe living and should realize how hard it was for some people to live in crime, which can eventually lead to "overflow" like what happened with Eminem.

thtjgkh7gk6t

egsrtiluergrygergeirgfierfgerifgerif