Reflection 2

My most difficult situation dealing with teamwork comes from my first job when I worked at Pizza Hut. I began working when I was 17 years old and still in high school. I was a cook at one of the carryout/delivery only stores.
After just a few months one of the managers, an Irish lady named Ellen, took a liking to me and began to groom me for management. She began to let me run the cash register, help her prepare deposits and do inventory, payroll and things of that nature. About a year later I began my official management training. I was all excited and thought everything was going well when, out of the blue, one of the delivery drivers snapped on me one day. This drivers name was Mary and my grandmother knew her from when they were younger and had already warned me to watch out for her. She had made little sly remarks ever since I began working there but nothing I felt threatened by.
She came into the store and commenced to check her orders out herself and go into my cash drawer. When I stopped her and asked her not to go in the drawer she started screaming that I haven’t been working there that long and she is not going to steal any money. She started saying that she was older than my momma and she did not feel she had to listen to me because I was so young. She was cursing and screaming until the entire store just stopped and was staring at us. She went on talking bout how she had been working there for 15 years and felt it unfair that I was being trained.
I stood there and let her get all of her anguish out and then I told her, not too nicely because I was pissed off that she snapped on me, that I had nothing to do with the fact that she was not in management after all of these years. I reminded her that she has been making comments and I have been letting them slide but to make sure this was her last time talking to me in an inappropriate manner. I told her that when I am working I don’t want anyone in my drawer because I am the only one liable for the money inside. My final statement to her was that I really didn’t care if she didn’t like me but we were both there to do a job and while we were there she needed to listen and respect me regardless of my age.
The next day the store manager met with the both of us and Mary was still upset but by the end of the conversation everyone was calm. I never had any other problems with her from that day forward and I worked there for 5 years.

Weblog 3

In his article, Pinker argues that neonaticide is not necessarily immoral and that society needs to understand or be sympathetic to why women kill their babies. He goes on to say that women kill their babies out of instinct to save their childbearing for the time when they are better suited to take on the responsibility. He leads us back to the hunter-gatherer societies where women often had to make this hard decision in order to survive because they may have had other children already or may have been without a spouse to help support them. He writes that many women have made the choice to kill their babies to avoid a possible tragedy later in life, as if it would somehow be easier to cope with now that later because they are not yet attached to the child. He discusses the fine line regarding the ‘right-to-life’ issue, and states society needs to clearly define and draw the line on what could be considered murder. He also writes that the right-to-life should be decided based on certain traits such as if a person can forms plans of their own or be able to have feelings regarding death and making the choice whether or not to die. If they don’t possess these traits then they should not be considered a person.

 

Chapman’s argument is that Pinker is twisting and changing meanings of words and scientific studies in order to get readers to weaken their taboo against infanticide. He summarizes Pinkers words such as, “it may seem immoral but it’s natures way” leading us to believe it really is instinct. He also points out Pinkers right-to-life definition and states that he is trying to draw us in so we don’t feel that the act is immoral because the newborn hasn’t experienced life and can’t make its own choices.

 

I agree with Chapman in the sense that neonaticide is definitely wrong and immoral. I don’t believe that anyone, under any circumstance should kill their children.  Pinker offers the best reasons and support for his argument simply because he takes us to studies and historical cultural patterns as evidence. He points out that it’s hard to prove these mothers have an illness because society has accepted this pattern throughout history and it’s actually common in some cultures.  He takes us through the struggle of some mothers and points out how their children have died because they didn’t have what was needed for them to survive. He gives us real life examples of teens that have killed their babies because they were afraid of parental reactions and didn’t know what other alternatives she may have had. He also does a good job by pointing out that women that kill their newborns get less jail time and softer sentencing than women who kill older children or even adults. In my opinion that also leaves the door open for more women to kill their babies because they know their punishment will be light, if they even get caught at all. Chapman’s argument doesn’t offer any support he is just restating Pinkers’ thoughts and pointing out to the reader how they may sound twisted.

Weblog 2

Should standardized testing have an effect on graduation?

Part 1

High schools should not focus solely on getting students to pass the SOL testing system in order to graduate. For years standardized testing has been a part of the education system but students were not required to “pass” a certain amount in order to graduate. Yes, they are important but no child should be left out of one of the biggest moments in their life due to these test results. All students are not “good testers”, and the added pressure of graduation is more than some can handle. In many school systems the curriculum is “SOL based” and the teachers only teach the material necessary for the student to pass the test. Although this is helpful to some students in order to help them pass, it is a long-term hindrance for those planning to attend college. Colleges do not base their curriculum around individual state requirements. The broad range of material that is not taught causes some students to be placed well below their potential when they get to college. These students sit through placement testing and sometimes fall short because they were not taught in all the needed areas and have to sit through remedial classes in order to get on track. This is not fair to the students because that is more time added to their college career and more money for their parents to invest in their education.

 

Part 2–opposition

 As a teacher, I feel that the test should be required for graduation. The students seem to focus more on their work knowing it will have a direct bearing on graduation. They seem to have more motivation to do a good job because they know the consequences of not passing the tests. The graduation stipulation should remain in place because it forces the students to have personal accountability and also acts as a backup for angry parents who can’t understand why their kids are failing. As far as the curriculum goes, we have to teach the stated material because if the scores fall short, the school looses accreditation and over time the state will take over the school. Once the state starts the takeover process many of us teachers lose our jobs. None of us want to be unemployed, therefore; we only teach the test materials in hopes of enhancing the students’ performance. The takeover also affects the schools’ administrative staff. They are the ones ultimately held liable for the students’ performance. If the teachers fail to help the students get good scores, the principal can also become unemployed for not implementing a system to keep their school on track.

Reflection 1

Over the years my writing has taken a drastic formation. In the beginning my purpose of writing was simply to tell a story. All I wanted to do was entertain the reader and perhaps make them laugh. I always tried to write about topics that were not so typical. Some of them were actually more mythical than practical.
The one paper that I will always remember was from middle school and it was titled “Why does it rain?” It told the story of a Greek god and the love of his life. She left him and every time he would think of her he would get sad and cry because he wanted her to return to him. The rain was nothing more than his tears. At that point I thought that was the best story ever told.
I have since learned how to choose a topic and formulate details and supporting facts to properly state my point or truly tell a story. I have learned to think through all of the information and make sure everything is coherent. I have learned to make sure everything flows together versus jumping from topic to topic leaving the reader confused and having to try to interpret what you’re trying to say.
I have definitely learned how to dig deep and find the pain of my topic so my writing has some relevance. I try now to write about topics that will also interest others instead of things only I would care about. By doing so, I can get better feedback because the readers have some familiarity with the subject.

Weblog 1

Part I.

1. I believe that people are often dealt a bad hand in life.
2. I believe that life is truly what you make it.
3. I believe that children grow up to be their own person regardless of what their parents try to instill in them.
4. I believe that happiness comes from understanding who you are and being satisfied with yourself.
5. I believe that the punishment doesn’t always fit the crime.
6. I believe that the government needs to develop a better economic system for the lower class.
7. I believe that goodness comes from within. It cannot be forced.
8. I believe that death is something everyone should do their best to prepare for financially. No one should leave their loved ones with the extra burden of settling financial matters.

Part II.

I believe that people are often dealt a bad hand in life.

Many people run into circumstances that are beyond their control or get caught in a web of deceit that others have created. A very close relative of mine dated a guy for a very long time until he was incarcerated. About two years into his incarceration he told her that he was HIV+ and bisexual. The other man in his life was actually someone that we knew. The other man was openly gay but we had no idea that her boyfriend was bisexual at all. During the time when he disclosed his condition she had just learned she was pregnant. She was so afraid to face the truth that she never seeked prenatal care because she knew the doctors would test her. She never saw a doctor til she went in labor. She later finally faced her demons and got tested for confirmation and discovered she was indeed positive as well. She never saw the guy again who infected her because he died in prison. Needless to say, being that this happened so close to home I go out of my way now to be careful. I ask more questions and just carry myself in a different manner when it comes to guys and sex.

Part III.

An opposing position that I have heard over the years is that people should have done more to protect themselves in that situation. They should have always made sure to use protection. If they had, they would not be dying now and they shouldn’t blame anyone other than themselves. True they should have been careful but in this instance the guy should have been open about his sexuality so she could have made an informed decision. Many people with this view don’t know anyone personally who is suffering through such an event. I believe their views would definitely change if something like this hit them close to home like mine.