lilphil06's blog

I'm tired of hearing all these studies and statistics that say our generation will be the first generation to have a lower standard of living than our parents. I believe it's all just a bunch of baloney. Then I watch a TV show that documented the achievements of the "baby boomers" and said that the generations that proceeded the baby boomers have big shoes to fill...

Well here's what I have to say: Apple ipod, Ethanol fueled cars, solar panals, numerous technological advancements, environmental safety...and the list goes on. Now we're not the SOLE purpose for all of this, however, we are the forerunners of the above mentioned. Sure, we can be called lazier becuase, in general, we don't spend as much time outside as previous generations...but would they have spent time outside if they had everything we have? Yeah, we do blame everything on others...(generation Y)...and that needs to stop...but I don't believe we're any less qualified or achieved than previous generations. I think the only reason we're being scrutinized is because we're different. We don't conform to the norms of society, and anytime that happens...LET THE BURNINGS BEGIN! Well it's time for the "baby boomers" to realize it's our time to shine. They've had the lime light long enough, pass on the torch...and don't sabatoge it before handing it to us.

O.J.’s “Hypothetical” Murder

According to CNN.com, famous football star and infamous murder suspect O.J. Simpson plans to release a book detailing how, if he were the murderer, he would have killed his wife and her friend. “In a deal that some media executives called revolting, O.J. Simpson plans a book and TV interview to discuss how, hypothetically, he could have killed his ex-wife and her friend -- a story his publisher considers ‘his confession.’”[1] There are many moral issues that I believe arise when dealing with this subject. Morally speaking, does O.J. Simpson have the right to mock and exploit the death of his ex-wife and friend? His motives seem to be egocentric and narrow.

What Constitutes Humanity?

A question I never pondered much about until today. My English teacher asked us, and immediately one student raised his hand and responded. "In order to be considered human, one must be generally accepted by society." Ouch. Does that go to say that the hundreds, if not thousands, of Chinese girls who are abandoned every year in China are non-humans, simply because they are not generally accepted and thought to be inferior to the Chinese men? Furthermore, does that go to say that they are humans in America, but not humans in China? Were black slaves in the 18th and 17th centuries not humans, because they were generally not accepted by white society in America? Continually the student repeated, "There's a sort of grey line, hard to decipher." Well that's a problem there. Why pose and argument, acknowledge its flaws, and then not compensate for those flaws?

My personal belief is that society could never constitute "humanity." In itself, society can, at times, be much too ignorant to realize its immoral or unethical judgment. So what constitutes humanity? In my opinion there are three major (but not sole) criterion which constitute humanity:

So I learned in my Information Systems class today that there is a new "craze" hitting the online world. People are investing in "Virtual land" where they can then advertise, buy drinks, build houses, etc. And, from what I understand, other people come to this "virtual land" (of course not without paying a virtual entry fee which can be converted into US dollars) and buy virtual drinks (with real money). Does anyone know anything about this? And if so, why would people buy things they can't ever use, touch, smell, or taste? I asked my professor but he couldn't come up with an answer.

So it has come to my attention that certain powers want to charge Internet users for their use of search engines such as Yahoo!, Google, AltaVista, Lycos, etc. Apparently these companies are not pulling in enough revenue from the immense amount of ads posted on every page of these websites (apparently $342.8 million per quarter is insufficient). Is this what big-business has come to: Unnecessarily charging consumers to use search engines, a vital source for research? The only ones this would benefit would be, of course, the big-businesses who charge internet users. Once again, money proves to be the determinant (or could prove to be, I should say) in public policy.

Should the public education system take it upon itself to educate children on certain morals? Should they take it upon themselves to teach right from wrong, better from worse? Or should this be left to the parents to decide what is right for their children and what is wrong?

It seems that society is falling in to a pit of despair and, for a lack of better terms, "evil." What is the cause of this? I'm sure we all can postulate many answers, but ponder this: Can the teaching of basic moral principles at a young age help improve the morality of America? I'm sure there are many who will argue "What seems right to one person may seem wrong to another," however, I'm sure the majority of America can agree on a set of basic moral principles:

Is it only me who realizes the extreme hypocrisy of public figures who antagonize teenagers about being overweight yet provide us with lunch menus at school that include fried foods and fattening desserts? I mean, I'm a college student and I was expecting a lot more than what I am currently getting. The only "healthy" foods they offer at my college include:

Affirmative Action...huh?

Ok, so I was in my ethics class the other day and we had a discussion about the morality of affirmative action:

There are two forms of affirmative action the first, it's most simplistic form, is meant to, more or less, "level" the playing field in a society structured to cater to the white man. Unfortunately, the second form has spiraled out of control into a form of over-sympathetic nonsense, ultimately implying that women and minorities - but in my cares - blacks are intellectually inferior. Some forms of affirmative action have lowered the standards for blacks, assuming that we are incapable of attaining higher standards. I've received many letters in the mail that, when all the nonsense is removed, state, "We have reviewed your test scores and realize that they are outstanding....for a black boy." Pure nonsense...pure nonsense. Why should my achievements be judged based on the color of my skin? I will be glad to let you know that I scored in the 83rd percentile on my SAT Math, and the 90th percentile on my SAT Vocabulary, a comparison that includes Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, both young women and young men. My achievements have intrinsic value, not value because a black kid is performing them.

Other forms of affirmative action profess (in terms of public education), "Your grades aren't too good...but we realize that you grew up in a lower-income school district, and will still offer you....blah blah blah" Should that really be done? My answer is no...if we realize there is an imbalance in the public education system maybe something should be done about it. Let's close the wound, not simply cover it with a band-aid (although I am stuck on band-aid brand!)

So...I'm a black kid who is against the latter form of affirmative action. An act that lowers standards for minorities and has many, many......many negative consequences in the long run. We should look to the more basic form, eliminate any "upper-hands" that the dominating white men may have, and allow equal competition among all.