1. In the video, Eric Idle mentions the difficulties he had working with other members of the Monty Python Comedy team. What difficulties have you experienced working with other people? How did you resolve those difficulties?

   I used to oversee the daily operations of the front desk and receptionist.  The receptionist had been working for the company for more than a year before me.  I soon found out that the receptionist had a habit of doing tasks just good enough to make it look like they were complete.  She would go back by the end of the month to make sure everything corresponded, though she always did end up with several mistakes.  I like doing things right the first time.  If I’m going to go through the trouble to look busy, I going to at least get something accomplished.  It drove me crazy that the receptionist was being so lazy at her job.  Not to mention the fact that her performance was supposed to be supervised by me, so that I could report to her manager if there were any problems.  I was in a tuff position.  She had obviously been handling the front desk in this manner for a while now.  With me being new, I felt awkward  telling her she wasn’t doing her job correctly.  Finally I decided to slowly commit on things.  Instead of fussing her out while giving her a list of her flaws, I decided to take another approach.  Each time I went up to the front desk, I would check on different logs to see if they were current.  If not, I would simply ask the receptionist to help me get the logs current.  I told her the CEO had asked me to make sure all of our logs were current. (This was half way true.)  By doing this though, I was able to get everything current & correct, and I did it with having to insult or embarrass the receptionist.

2. At the end of the video, Idle tells about finally finding another writer he can work with. Is there someone you work well with? If so, describe how your partnership works.

   At one time I was employed at this little italian restaurant as a waitress.  There was another waitress there named Beth that I worked very well with.  On several occasions we were the only waitresses working the whole restaurant.  Usually this would be a very difficult task, but not with the two of us.  We always had each other’s back.  We worked together to give great customer service.  If I was behind, or ‘getting in the weeds” Beth did what ever was needed to get me back on track, and I did the same for her.  She was definitely the best co-worker I ever had.

“Our nation’s current organ donation system relies on altruism alone.  A regime of donor compensation would be better.”  This statement written by Sally Satel in her article “When Altruism Isn’t Moral” is the focus of her paper.  She claims that organ donors should be compensated for their donations.

Satel tells of a particular situation where a man, Sonny Davis, was in need of a kidney transplant.  After his wife had sent out 140 letters to their friends and relatives asking if they would consider helping, a friend of a friend responded.  When Matt Thompson offered Sonny Davis his kidney, to their surprise, the transplant program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California turned him down because he was not a close friend or relative.  Kaiser was worried that Thompson might be donating for reasons other than altruism, say some financial gain.  After some considerable time, Thompson and Davis were able to convince Kaiser that their intentions were completely innocent of any illicit activities and Davis did receive his transplant.

Satel acknowledged other points of view on compensating for organ donation.  She pointed out that some people believe that giving compensation would de-value the gift or that organ donation should be a self-less gesture.  Others think that if you compensate for the donations, then people in financial trouble will donate even though they do not want to just to receive cash quickly.  Satel had a very good idea to fix this problem.  Instead of cash rewards, compensation could be in the form of tax credits, tuition vouchers, tax-free retirement account or lifelong health coverage.  A month long waiting period would deter impulsive decisions for quick cash.

Peter Laird, M.D. responded to Satel’s writing with his own view on the issue in his paper “When Altruism Isn’t Moral Isn’t Right”.  In his writing, he definitely is not happy with Satel’s criticism towards the Kaiser transplant program.  In fact, I think Laird totally missed the point Satel was trying to make.  Laird’s writing is more about state laws and physicians rules and regulations explaining why Kaiser did not approve the donation at first versus his opinion on whether or not organ donors should receive some type of financial gain.  I understand that Kaiser followed state policies, but that’s the point.  The policies need to be changed.

About 78,000 people are in need of kidney donors and there just are not enough people that donate.  If people are compensated, then there would be more people who would donate and in return, more lives would be saved.  Just because you receive some type of reimbursement for a good act, does not mean that it is any less appreciated.  Blood donors get paid cash for their donations.  Rewards are given to those who return lost items.  How is it okay to compensate for these “acts of kindness”, but not for the act of donating organs?

After reading the writing by Peter Singer, The Singer Solution to World Poverty,  it is clear that he believes that any extra money an individual earns should be sent to organizations over-seas to save the lives of children.  This is a very noble idea, but I think an unrealistic one.  Greg Schaefer responded to Singer’s writing with an opinion of his own in his writing Singer’s not-so Persuasive Solution to World Poverty.  Jeff agreed at first with Singer’s idea of everyone sending some extra money to help save children’s lives.  Though, he does not agree with sending all of your extra money to someone else.

Singer tells about children who die from easily curable diseases like diarrhea.  He reasons that if people have additional money for luxuries, then that money should be spend to save a child’s life.  Not doing so would be as morally incorrect and the same as sending the child to death yourself.  The evidence that Singer gives is definitely compelling.  The idea of letting a child die so you can buy that new pair of designer boots that you’ve been wanting is outrageous.  But as Singer pointed out, people do it everyday.  I think most people do it without even thinking.  I mean, it is so easy to change the channel or turn down the radio when an advertisement for donating money comes on.  The old statement “out of sight, out of mind” is true.  If you do not see the children that are sick, hurting and dieing, then you do not think about them.

Schaefer thinks that Singer went overboard with his intent to get people to donate.  Singer went from talking about everybody sending in $200.00 to sending in all extra money.  Schaefer believes that most people would be unwilling to do this.  In fact, Singer’s unrealistic expectations actually angered Schaefer, making him not want to donate anything at all.  Singer speaks of “luxury” items as being things like going out to dinner, buying new clothes and going on vacation.  Depending on your financial situation though, the meaning of luxury verses necessity can be very different.  Singer defines “necessity” as something that is essential to the preservation of you life or health.  But what about mental-health?  Happiness is directly related to mental health.  Being able to buy those things that you want, but do not necessarily need, would definitely make you happy.  I think if people gave away everything they worked so hard to make to someone else, they would end up very unhappy.  This consequently would cause people to stop trying to make themselves better.

In Singer’s writing, he seems to be talking down to the readers, though he does this in a calm tone.  I think he unjustly critics anyone that disagrees with his ideas.  I think one main reason is that he assumes that everyone that is reading his writing has the financial ability to contribute to saving these children’s lives.  The truth is that there are millions of Americans that can’t even afford their own kids, let alone ones that are clear across the world.  I don’t think Singer has taken a realistic look at what people’s financial situations are or what would be a reasonable expectation of them.  Schaefer has a much more logical view.  He believes that people should definitely help that can, but that the amount of help should be divided evenly to everyone.

Reflections Assignment

How has your writing evolved? What changes have you noticed in your writing over time?

I would have to say that my writing has evolved a lot, but probably the most in the last year.  I was never a big writer as a child.  I always hated writing assignments and reports.  I would always write my words extra large just so I could fill up the page quickly.  Unfortunately though, when you get to high school you have a word count versus page count to determine how long your paper has to be.

High school was probably the start of me actually trying to write papers.  There I started putting a little effort into my work.  I remember in 11^th grade I had to write a five minute speech which I also had to recite in front of the class.  I was determined to write a paper with meaning.  I really wanted to do a great job.  I did all the research for my subject.  I took the time to organize my ideas and wrote my rough draft.  I re-read and revised my paper about 3-4 times.  Then I practiced my paper in front of a mirror to make sure that it lasted the mandatory five minutes.  I was totally prepared for this speech, well so I thought.  As I stood in front of my class, I was so nervous that I read my speech way to fast.  In about 2 minutes I had read off all the words, but never paused for the punctuation or to make points on the issues.  Even though I received an “F” for the speech portion of my report, my teacher gave me an “A” on my written portion for the amount of research that I put into it.  Overall I came out with a low “C” average, but I was at least proud of the grade that I received for what I had written.

Last semester in my English 111 was the first time that I could remember writing a paper since high school.  I was a little nervous on how I would do in the class.  But I surprised myself.  Every paper that I wrote came to me pretty easily.  I don’t really know what has changed.  Maybe it’s the fact that I’m much older now, or maybe because I’m more determined to make good grades.  Maybe it’s that I have more life experience and I can relate to topics more personably.  Either way though. I made a 95 or higher on all my papers, which really surprised me.  Making good grades made me feel more confident about the papers that I wrote.  One thing that I found was easier for me though is to just dive right into writing.  I know this isn’t the way you’re taught to construct a paper, but it seems to work for me.  When I try to come up with particular ideas for brain storming, I have a hard time thinking of things.  But if I just start writing then all these ideas start flowing out.  It does usually mean that I’ll have a lot of revisions to make, but that okay as long as the end results are good.

Part I

1. Health insurance (private vs. government ran)
2. Prisoner’s rights (Should they have any?)
3. Picking your child’s school (mandatory zoning)
4. Texting while driving
5. Leaving children unattended (What’s acceptable, what’s not?)
6. Racism
7. Divorce agreements
8. Unemployment
9. Restraining orders
10. Sexting (A prank or a crime?)

Part II – Sexting

Kids today are being charged with adult crimes like Procession and Distribution of Child Pornography.   This charge is no longer just for perverted old men.  Now even twelve and thirteen year old children are being charged with these crimes.  They are committing these crimes by “sexting”, which is sending provocative pictures through your cell phone.

Now I understand that children have no business sending pictures of this nature to other kids, but calling it child pornography seems ridiculous.

Police officials say that there is no lesser charge that can be given to these kids right now.  I think this definitely means that legislature needs to get on the ball to catch our laws up with our technology.

Anyone can see the difference between a 45-year-old man looking at pictures of a 5 year old vs. a 12-year-old girl sending explisive photos of herself to her 13-year-old boyfriend.  The senerios are obviously different, the laws should be too.

Part III

Some might argue that “stiff” laws are needed to stop this new trend among our young ones.  That only heavy penalties will make these kids realize that our society will not tolerate such acts.

Part I

1. I believe that people are good by nature, but that their life experiences  can change that.
2. I believe that society is what molds as an individuals almost as much as our families do.
3. I believe that government is there to help our nation be the best that it can be, although I don’t think its been doing such a great job in recent years.
4. I believe that justice is not always there, but it’s something that everyone should strive for.
5. I believe that knowledge is one of the most important things a person can have.  Its one thing that others can not take away from you.
6. I believe that science has come a long ways.  Its what the center of inventions, medication and understanding of how things happen.
7. I believe that reality is different through everyone’s eyes.  Your reality is how you percieve your situation, and everyone  can look at a particular situation in a different way.
8. I believe that life is what you make it.  Everyone has one life.  Things don’t always work out the way you want them to, but the way you can circumstances makes you who you are.
9. I believe that happiness can be achieved in any circumstance, you just need to find the “silver lining”.
10. I believe that goodness is a choice and not necessarily any easy one.  The harder it is to be good, the more sincere it is.
11. I believe that death is inevitable (obviously) and that because of this, we should live as if tomorrow is the last.
12. I believe that God is GREAT.  He is all-knowing and very hard to understand.  Nevertheless, we should believe his words and not question what he ask of us.

Part II

I believe that knowledge is one of the most important things in life.   The more you know about the world, the better off you’ll be.  It helps you throughout your entire life.  In school, work , family or teaching your children knowledge is your most useful resource.  In fact, knowledge gives you power over others not only in the fact of being smarter, but people will select or come to you over others.  Knowledge is free and its something that can not be taken from you.  Once you have it, its yours forever.

Part III

Some people may believe that knowledge is actually harmful.  In certain societies, especially those that have not been industrialized, people believe that the old ways are the best ways.  Because of this, people are not encouraged to learn.  Learning causes thinking, thinking causes questioning and questioning causes people to have to explain why things are done a certain way.  Some societies don’t want people questioning why things are done the way they are.  ”Its always been done this way” isn’t always a good enough answer for someone with knowledge on a better way of doing it.  Knowledge causes people to think on their own which is not always appreciated.

Hello everyone!!

My name is Rachel and I’m currently attending TCC to get my Paralegal degree.  I’m a stay-at-home mom that’s hoping to re-enter the workforce with a career once my youngest son starts school.  Hope everyone enjoys the semester!