Student Essays

Ethical Dilemmas of Cloning a Human -   (Bill 2000)
 An in-depth look at ethical problems associated with cloning

HOW FREE SHOULD THE INTERNET BE?  (Chris 2000)
Internet freedom in relation to chat rooms, pornography, hate groups.

The Internet Dilemma  (Chuck 2000)
Chuck's essay opens vividly by drawing us into a real-life situation: Dad tells his son to research information for school. Later Dad checks up & sees his son ran across questionable material

Legalizing A Crime   (Andrew 2000)
An  insightful,  personal commentary/warning  from one who has been there

The Model Minority (Michael 2000)
A satirical view of the perfect minority group

Motherhood (Marguerite 1999)
Written by a mother of four children, who returned to school to acquire skills for a position she would love: nursing.

Sexual Harassment Allegations at the Highest Level of Government  (Bill 2000)
Paula Jones: Her intentions & resolution

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE (Chris 2000)
an overview of different types of sexual harassment

Sports:  What Are They Good For? (Ken 1999)
Written by a computer science major who had participated in high school sports in the 80s. He reflects on non-athletic  benefits gained from participating in sports:  setting goals, focusing, friendships... 

William 
Professor Walkup
English 111
14 February 2000

Ethical Dilemmas of Cloning a Human
  You have given them mastery over other creatures, placing all creation at their feet...
           Psalm 8

With the advances and successes in genetic engineering, we are on the threshold of one day of cloning a human. The very thought of cloning may bring to mind a super human race that will be far superior both mentally and physically, and possibly, the catalyst leading to the extinction of naturally born humans. Not only is there this underlying fear of the unknown, we are also faced with numerous ethical dilemmas that arise from the possibility of human cloning. Some of the ethical problems associated with human cloning include the following: doctors might use clones as sources of organs for organ transplants, a clone might have a diminished sense of individuality and a clone might have fewer rights than other people.

If I were to have a chronic heart condition, would it be ethically correct to have my doctor create a clone of me for the purpose of a new heart and to extend my life? If just the organ could be cloned, the ethics would be moot. However, if the new organ would require a complete clone of myself, it would have to grow and mature to a point where the organ would be large enough to sustain my life. I believe that in this situation we would be faced with issues similar to abortion. At what point in development is a human considered to have life? Of course the most likely scenario would be to keep my clone legally dead and on life support until the time that the organs could be harvested for immediate or future use, but in doing so, have we played the role of God and predetermined the fate of a human from forming a sense of individuality?

Another problem with cloning is that there are those that believe that a cloned human would have a diminished sense of individuality. As humans we cherish this aspect of ourselves. I prefer to call it ego. We have a sense of self, a sense of belonging and a sense of knowing that we are unique. I feel that there are many variables throughout our life that keeps our individuality in a perpetual state of change and growth. A clone, assuming self-dentity has formed, will also have a continuously evolving sense of individuality. I don't believe it would be diminished, but be strengthened at the realization that as a clone it is unique and that its experiences would never be the same as their genetic twin. However, a human clone's sense of individuality may prevent it from having the same rights as you or I because of our fear of the unknown.

Due to the lack of uncertainty of how a cloned human will fit and interact with society, its rights will most likely be limited. There is no certainty that they will be an actual or perceived threat to us. So society will take steps to limit their freedoms and rights to ensure that any threat is minimized. Additionally, they could possibility be looked upon as our creation and therefore inferior to the creator. Their very existence would be at our discretion. A creation of a new minority engineered with genetic enhancements, may pose the threat we fear the most: our own existence.

Are we playing God? Or rather, are we manipulating the tools of God to give ourselves a divine ego. Before any sanctioned human cloning is given the green light, careful consideration must be given to all moral and ethical issues. Is it our right to determine if a clone has a soul or not? What limitations would we place on a cloned individual? Is it ethical to grow a human as an organ donor? The list of questions go on and on. Tthere will be no lack of debate of the ethical issues of human cloning. At some point in the future a clone will be developed and given a chance at life and then the debates will continue.

700 words

Chuck 
Professor Walkup
English 111
February 28, 2000

A father walks into his fourteen-year-old son’s room to check how he’s doing on his homework only to find him viewing explicit photographs of adults engaged in a sexual situation on the computer. The father becomes irate and who can blame him, but he is also the one who suggested that his son surf the net to get information on the subject that he is researching for his homework. How does the father protect his son from this type of exposure? Who should be responsible for protecting our children from adult themes when they’re surfing the net? This paper will discuss the following issues: Should the Government impose guidelines as to what can be on the Web? Should the Internet service providers restrict themselves to different levels of security? Should it be up to the parents to protect their own?

I read James Exon’s argument "Keep the Internet Safe for Families" in Current Issues & Enduring Questions where Mr. Exon feels the Government should impose guidelines as to what can be on the Internet. I think Mr. Exon should increase his knowledge on how the Internet works before he starts trying to bring to legislation, guidelines to control what can and can not be on the web. You cannot put restrictions on the Internet unless you plan on monitoring all cable, telephone and satellite transactions that occur in this country every second of every day. First of all it is illegal, as it violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution and secondly it would be too costly. The government can impose guidelines on how the Internet Service Providers provide security levels to their customers.

The Internet service providers can make a difference on how their customers can access the information on the Internet. Currently there are several Internet providers that offer only one level of security to its customers, which a lot of single people prefer. There are also a few providers that offer different levels of security to numerous people in a single household. This type of security could guard children from accessing any adult themes that are on the Internet today. Unfortunately the provider’s security can not protect individuals from e-mail or instant messages, where photographs and lewd or lascivious messages can still be received (Instant messages are monitored by some providers). Another issue is that providers can not determine if a customer is truly an adult. It’s very easy to deceive a service provider if you have a very smart teen. This is where parents can further the security on the internet and make a difference.

Parents have the responsibility to guard, protect and educate their children about situations in life. Parents can’t be looking over the shoulders of their children at every moment; it’s hard to protect them from everything though most parents wish they could. Ultimately I feel it’s up to the parents to protect their children. It is not the responsibility of the government or the service provider to determine what is proper or improper for our children. When parents are choosing an Internet service provider, they should consider using one that has multiple security levels so that they can place restrictions on what their kids can search. Parents need to educate their children on how to use the Internet properly or they will lose that privilege.

As far as the Internet is concerned I feel that if someone wants to put something on the Internet, they should be able to, and if they want to view something they have that right too. I also feel that the Internet service providers should not have to be held to guidelines. People in general will chose a provider that suits their needs. Parents must keep in mind that children as well as teenagers are going to be curious, it’s only human nature to try and see how far they can go. Parents know if their children are mature enough to view certain themes in any form of media offered to the public, such as magazines, video tapes, TV or the world wide web. It’s up to the parents to make sure they guide their children correctly.

Word Count: 707

Andrew 
Professor Walkup
English 111
22 February 2000

Legalizing A Crime

Think of all the changes that have happened over the past fifty years. When I talk about changes, I mean there was a day when a woman couldn’t vote. There was a day a black man couldn’t sit on the same side of a restaurant as a white man. For the most part change is important, but maybe not in every instance. For example, there are some people who want to change the law on drugs. They want drugs to be legalized. Drugs should never be legalized. There are three main reasons why I feel this way: The first, drugs are bad for you. The second, there will be more addicts. The third, there will be more violence.

The first point I’d like to make on why drugs should not be legalized is a very simple one: Drugs are bad for you. If they weren’t bad for you they wouldn’t be illegal. I personally know all about drugs, as I’m a recovering addict. Sure it all starts out as fun. People go out with their friends smoke some weed. Everyone knows weed won’t hurt you. It’s not addictive. That’s why I went from smoking a couple of joints a week to smoking a couple of joints before breakfast. Marijuana is the gateway drug: it alters your mood, it makes you lazy, and in a word,  it makes you stupid. If you experiment with marijuana, your chances of experimenting with harder drugs like cocaine or heroin increases. In the mid 70’s cocaine also was considered nonaddictive; that’s why John Belushi lived the long prosperous life he did. And if cocaine isn’t addictive, why did I go from snorting it, to smoking it, to shooting it? Drugs caused me to lose several jobs, because I couldn’t make it to work or I just couldn’t function on the job. I lost my family’s respect, and I lost respect for myself. The only reason I’m sitting in an English 111 class is because drugs are no longer a part of my life.

What about the future? If drugs become legal there would be more addicts, due to easy access. People who would have never used drugs when they were illegal, would probably be more apt to use them if they were sold at your local convenience store. At the age of twenty-one, we accept the fact and find it normal to go to work for eight hours and then go out for a drink. We drink with co-workers, and we drink with friends and family. Alcohol is legal, and it’s acceptable. You may say, "I’m a social drinker," and "I don’t have to drink when I go out." Well maybe you don’t, so count your blessings and consider yourself lucky. Is there such a thing as social drug use? Will it be normal and acceptable to be spending Thanksgiving Day snapping lines with grandma, or rolling a big fat hooter with grandpa? If you think this is funny, think how funny it will be when you’re watching your grandchildren shooting legalized heroin.

Along with an increase in addicts would come an increase in crimes. There is enough violence in the world with drugs being illegal. Could you imagine the crime and murder rate if drugs were legal? They say legalizing drugs will lower their cost, which will make people not have to steal. People will always steal to support their habits. Their drug intake will increase which will make them even crazier. A lower cost will allow children to be able to afford drugs. Drugs make you delusional, paranoid, suicidal, and homicidal. Think of the madness that would happen if everyone who smoked a cigarette over the past hour, smoked crack instead. If drugs were legalized, there would be more senseless murders than ever before. According to Connecticut State Police, 90-95% of domestic violence involved alcohol and/or drugs. The legalization of drugs will cause domestic violence to rise even more.

In conclusion, just these reasons alone should keep drugs illegal. The only one that can take care of you, is you! We are the future. We hold the future in our hands. Do you want your children or your grandchildren to live in a drug-crazed society? If you have to think about this question, I would say you have a drug problem. The best way to solve today’s drug problem would be to educate tomorrow’s adults. Instead of giving children field trips to the zoo, we need to give field trips to prisons and to rehabilitation centers. Let children see the pain people go through, the pain that at one time was fun and cool.

Word Ct. 790

"Motherhood"  was written by a Marguerite,   mother of four.  She decided  to return to school because she wanted a job that she  would enjoy.   She is now studying to become a registered    nurse.      

Marguerite
Professor Walkup
English III
27 September 1999

Motherhood

Since I was a little girl, my dream has always been to be a mother. I used to play house with my dolls, my carriages, and if I could find one willing, a little boy to play the father. It seemed simple then. The dolls never really cried; they always seemed happy and content just to be held. There was never laundry to do, dinners to prepare, or sibling rivalries to referee. It was basically an easy job. You fed the baby, changed the baby, and played with the baby. Well, I am here to tell you motherhood is a difficult job. It requires long hours, a physically demanding schedule, and pays only in benefits and not monetary rewards.

First of all, the job requires long hours. When you bring that first baby home from the hospital, you assume that you will get up once a night, the baby will eat, and you will be able to go right back to bed for a good night's rest. Rarely is that the case. The baby will probably wake up two to three times a night, get a gas bubble, and by the time you finally relieve that bubble, it is time to get up to start the day. Unfortunately, the long hours don't end once the child finally starts sleeping through the night. Once you reach the toddler years, there are always nightmares, stomach aches, and monsters to deal with. At school age, you start the early morning hustle and bustle of getting the kids off to school. As the alarm starts rings at 6:00 a.m., you jump out of bed to begin the morning routine. After putting in a full day of cleaning, running errands, and grocery shopping, it's time for the kids to come home. As they run through the door looking for a snack, you try to direct their energy to homework. Then of course there is dinner to prepare, extracurricular activities to run to, and finally baths to be given. After finally reading the last bedtime story and getting that final glass of water, you have the luxury of doing laundry, dishes, and preparing for the routine of the next day. Motherhood is a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week job. It has been said, "That which does not kill us will only make us stronger."

Not only are the hours long, the work is physically demanding. Initially, you might ask, "How much work can one baby be?" Of course at the beginning it seems easy. "How much can one baby weigh?" you might ask. Well, don't forget all the "stuff" that comes with the baby. The diaper bag, the carrying seat, the stroller, the fold-up crib, the walker, the list goes on and on. Going on an outing to the store can take as long as two hours just to get the baby ready. Once you finally get yourself ready, the baby ready, and all the necessary contraptions in the car, it is time to feed the baby again. Once the baby reaches toddler age, you may not have to accessorize yourself with as many items, but let's not forget that the toddler is now mobile. This requires a lot of running, of both the toddler and the parent. Sometimes by the end of the day, I feel like I have run a marathon. You pass the stage of the toddler years and finally enter the child into school. You think you might now have a life to call your own. Of course, we all want our children to be the "best" and therefore we sign them up for every extracurricular activity imaginable. You now begin the car pool years. From the age of 5 to the age of 16, you will be driving this child to and from every activity. If you have more than one child, a small refrigerator in the car may not be a bad idea.

In compensation for the long hours and the physical demands, the pay is poor with only fringe benefits as reimbursement. If the average mother were to be paid minimum wage for the hours she worked, she would gross approximately $1,050.00 per week, or approximately $55,000.00 per year. She does not receive a Christmas bonus, travel expenses, vacation pay or sick days, and yet is expected to work tirelessly . There is no 401K or pension plan. The only retirement plan available at this job is the hope that your children will choose a competent nursing home for your golden years. The benefits a mother does receive in payments are the love she sees in her child's eyes when she picks him up from school, the hugs she gets at night, the kisses when nobody is looking, and the "Thanks Mom" every once in awhile. There is also the possibility of promotion after working at this job for approximately twenty-five years. You will receive the title Grandmother.

I have worked at this job now for a little over 11 years and I have to tell you, even though I work long hours with a physically demanding schedule and no monetary rewards to speak of, this is the best job I have ever had. I am going back to school to become a nurse, which I feel is a very gratifying job, but I don't think there is a more fulfilling job in the world than being a mother. If I do this job with everything I have, the results will be amazing.




9/99
931 words

 1

Michael 
Professor Walkup
English 111
28 February 2000

The Model Minority

Do you think we live in a multicultural society, a society that formally (laws, institutions, and governmental policy) treats all groups equally in the educational and political process. Most of us would say we are relativists. However, most of us have an image of the perfect minority group: one that would behave in a particular way, much as Asian Americans have been described as a "model minority." Our "model minority" group would be successful, quiet, and probably remain centralized in a particular area.

The "model minority" would be successful, but only successful in our eyes. If success is in the eye of the beholder, they wouldn’t actually obtain success. They would earn an average annual wage or salary of about $35,000 ,give or take, depending on the price of living where they reside. They would never need financial assistance (i.e. food stamps, medical expenses, college funding). They would work twice as hard to earn the same status as a "majority" (to prove they are trustworthy, or course). And their salary would never exceed ours. They would always know upper management was unattainable as they bust their butts working up the proverbial corporate ladder. As Ronald Takaki stated in "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority", "only 8 percent of Asian Americans are ‘officials’ and ‘managers’, compared with 12 percent for all groups." The "model minority" would have a limited governmental representatives of their ethnicity. They would be figureheads that held little power. Their purpose would be to give the "model minority" an appearance their voice would be heard. Minority representation is very poor today. The only protection minorities have is the judicial system Not to worry "model minority"--the "majority" politicians will try to use their "zealous might" to bully the courts. Despite the obvious hardships, the "model minority" will be expected to be pleased with their level of obtainable success.

In addition, the "model minority" wouldn’t draw attention to itself.  it would be a quiet grup. They shouldn’t expect media coverage when acts of bigotry and violence occur against them. The dress Jennifer Lopez wore to the Grammies and the Pokemon frenzy are more pressing issues. The only attention the "model minority" will receive is negative press. The "model minority" gangs will be highlighted by the media. The fact that anti-Asian incidents rose from 335 in 1993 to 452 in 1994 went almost unnoticed. When an anti- "model minority" incident occurs, they shouldn’t expect a quick or efficient investigation. The retarded investigation will be their fault, because of the language barrier between the law enforcement officials and themselves. The "model minority" shouldn’t be upset when the media does not individuate them from other ethnic groups. It will be the same lack of identity the Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese go through today. Most Americans won’t be in contact with the "model minority", so their silence of the bigotry and violence will be misconceived as acceptance.

Finally, the "model minority" wouldn’t invade "our society." They would stick together in the larger cities. An example in today’s society would be Chinatown. Consequently, we wouldn’t have to learn their culture. Schools wouldn’t have to teach their history or contributions to society. This lack of education will equal a lack of understanding. Ignorance will make the "model minority" an easy target for misplaced anger. Asian countries experience this today. They receive misplaced anger because of wars and economic competition in the past. Many Americans blame the Japanese for their economic woes in the 80’s and early 90’s, but do we expect them to blame us for our economic superiority through the late 90s? Many Americans blame the Vietnamese for the Vietnam conflict when it was clearly a political battle that many Vietnamese and Americans did not understand. Despite our benightedness, the "model minority" will always be understanding and appreciative of our culture.

It appears our "model minority" will be stuck in a vicious cycle. It will be a society created  for our comfort. We won’t need to help them financially. We won’t listen to their complaints 

Sexual Harassment Allegations
at the Highest Level of Government
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman. ... I never told anybody to lie."

On May 6, 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit alleging that then Governor Clinton sexually harassed her in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel three years earlier while she was a state clerk during a state-sponsored conference. This lawsuit was filed under a Federal civil rights law from the Reconstruction Era since filing under the standard sexual harassment law had expired. Ms. Jones claimed at the time that this filing was not for monetary gain and that any judgment that may be awarded, less expenses , would be donated to an undisclosed Little Rock charity. This lawsuit by Paula Jones was for monetary gains in addition to proving Clinton was guilty of inappropriate sexual conduct. The allegations of sexual harassment by Paula Jones involved the highest office of the land seeking $700,000 in damages which raised questions about Paula Jones' true intentions, about the extent of sexual misconduct and perjury committed by Bill Clinton, and about the impeachment proceedings that ended in acquittal; testing the integrity of the Office of President.

"She told me she went up to the room and seen him, and she told me he made, you know, sexual advances," Ms. Brown said. "She told me whichever way it went, it smelt money." Do we have a gold digger here? It is claimed in an affidavit signed by Little Rock business man, George L. Cook, that Paula Jones' attorney, Daniel Traylor, tried to get money from the White House in return for Jones' silence, if not, then she would embarrass Clinton publicly. If this had not been for money, why wait until the last day before the statutes of limitations was to run out? Something this severe would have warranted immediate action while Clinton was still Governor of Arkansas, but here was Paula Jones living up to the stereotype of a preacher's daughter where innocence is not a virtue. In my opinion, she was in it for the money, unlike her claims that she would donate any awards to charity. The only charity to receive any award would be Paula Jones and her six lawyers; their legal bills were up as high as three million dollars when the $850,000 settlement was accepted. She may have gone along with Clinton's advances knowing full well that there might be a possible windfall in her future such as money, books, movies or television. This does not mean that Clinton was innocent in this whole matter. Judging from his past and other occurrences while in the Office of the President, there is no lack sexual misconduct given the scandal involving Monica Lewinsky.

"I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. ... It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible." This statement came sometime after events inside the oval office between President Clinton and White House. intern Monica Lewinsky were disclosed by the taped conversations between Linda Tripp and Lewinsky. Not only had the president denied his sexual misconduct with Lewinsky, but he also denied allegations that he had encouraged her to lie in a signed affidavit during the Paula Jones law suit. It was not until Monica Lewinsky was granted immunity from prosecution that she admitted to falsifying the information on the affidavit concerning a relationship with Clinton. This scandal and an accusation of sexual harassment by Kathleen Willey during this same time, gave Paula Jones' accusations more credibility and could no longer be shrugged off by the White House as a baseless grab at Clinton's wallet. Clinton, as far as I am concerned, was guilty of the accusations claimed by Paula Jones. Hearing tales of Gennifer Flowers before her and Monica Lewinsky after, to me proved that President Clinton was no stranger to infidelity and cover ups. His admissions concerning his conduct with Lewinsky in the oval office not only caused his credibility to be undermined, but also put him in a position where he would face additional legal actions such as impeachment proceedings that would threaten his presidency.

Dec. 11 (1998): House Judiciary Committee approves impeachment articles I, II and III, which accuse the president of perjury in the Jones deposition, perjury in his grand jury testimony and obstruction of justice in the Jones case. The House Judiciary Committee's approval for impeachment articles and obstruction of justice charges were not as far reaching as other possible criminal charges that could have been handed down to President Clinton. Unfortunately, lying to the public is not a crime since its not a court of law. I feel that Clinton got off very easy when he was acquitted by the senate. Should he have faced more harsh charges? Frankly, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Either acquit Clinton and let him finish his term in office, or remove him from office and have Vice President Al Gore move into the presidency . I prefer the first. However, had Clinton been a private citizen, he would not have gotten off so easily. He would not have kept his position if it had been determined that there was probable cause for the accusations and the legal proceedings would not have been limited to Paula Jones, but would also have included the allegations of Kathleen Willey. Lastly, the misuse of his position concerning his conduct with Monica Lewinsky would have been met with immediate dismissal from his position.

In conclusion, the Paula Jones lawsuit from the start involved two people of little character. Paula Jones seemed to have appeared from nowhere with accusations of sexual harassment charges against Clinton right after he entered the White House. Then, there is Bill Clinton with his blatant lies and opinions of what legally constitutes sex or a sexual act, who puts this country through a very expensive period of investigations that were big media soap operas and jokes to the rest of the world. So who made out in the end? Paula Jones got an $850,000 settlement and lawyer fees of around $3 million, but no public apology from Clinton. Clinton on the other hand, got away with misuse of office, sexual harassment, legal and settlement fees paid by insurance companies or by his supporter contributed legal defense fund, which had amassed about $2 million since its inception soon after the White Water investigations began.

Word Count: 1207

The following essay entitled,  "Sports:  What Are They Good For?" discusses the benefits of participating in sports.  It was written by Ken,  a student who had participated in high school sports  in the 1980s.  He still enjoys sports  and is studying Computer Sciences.

Notice how well Ken supports each of his "transitional topic sentences."

Ken
Professor Walkup
English 111
27 September 1999 

Sports:  What Are They Good For?

One day while attending a high school football game, I couldn’t help but overhear a conversation between the two people in front of me. The conversation went something to the fact that sports are over glamorized, over rated and over all unnecessary in a society that should focus more on educating than on running and hitting. My jaw dropped! I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! Having played high school football myself, and not turning out to be a million dollar per year linebacker for a national football team, let me say it was an experience I wouldn’t trade for anything. Playing on the team helped me to discipline myself physically as well as mentally, improve myself individually as well as collectively, and focus myself immediately as well as futuristically towards obtaining specific goals.

Playing sports develops a person physically and mentally. Athletes need to be in the best physical condition they possibly can or they risk injuring themselves. Team practices and workouts were mandatory. Defensive and Offensive drills, calisthenics and running sprints in full pads were grueling enough to make you want to quit. Two hours of practice followed by ninety minutes of heavy weight training would leave me physically drained at the end of the day, but it had to be done. Sure, taking care of the body is a major part of an athletic program, but it finishes second to the mental discipline needed to partake in such an activity. Weekly meetings to discuss blocking, passing , and running routes were one part of the game where thinking was the only activity we needed to perform. During games you need to constantly be thinking, anticipating the play before it happens then adjusting to it to make a play. The discipline obtained from sports is something you will carry over into your life long after you stop playing. I haven’t played football in over ten years, but I wake every morning at six thirty a.m. and run a couple of miles. I don’t need to do it, and sometimes don’t want to do it; I just know that if I don’t run, the whole day will be out of sync somehow.

The physical and mental condition an athlete endures serves as a foundation for them to improve themselves and their teams. In a team oriented sport individuals will strive to be the best they can be at their specific position, while counting on their teammates to do the same. If a team is functioning properly, then it is possible for two good players to be better than one great player. I was a linebacker on my football team, and it was my job to tackle whoever had the ball. One game in particular I had two Quarterback sacks at the half, which wasn’t bad, but an adjustment by one of the linemen allowed me to finish with six sacks for the game. The adjustment by my teammate allowed me to have one of my best games statistically, but more importantly helped get a victory for the team. Is this a concept to remain solely on the playing field? Take a financial consultant who specializes in blue chip stocks, and a financial consultant who specializes in mutual bonds. Individually, they are good brokers in their fields and make their clients a lot of money. Together, they can combine their knowledge to cover a broader range of the financial sector, making them even better than they were individually.

Perhaps one of the most beneficial realms of the sports experience to me was that it helped me to focus on obtaining goals, through the use of self-discipline, and self-improvement. Back while I was playing ball, I would set goals for myself at the start of a season, and each game I would focus on areas that would allow me to reach those goals. If I wanted a higher sack total, I would concentrate on finding the shortest, quickest route to the Quarterback. If I wanted a higher tackle total, I would concentrate on following the ball and getting to It as soon as possible. Currently my goals are focused on education and job advancement. One goal is to obtain my Associates degree in Computer Sciences, so concentrating on and passing my current classes is a sure way to bring me to that goal. Once I obtain the my degree, hopefully job advancement and financial security will follow.

I played sports for four years. Did I turn out to be a professional sports star? No. Am I any better for having participated in them? Yes. Participating in sports is a learning and developmental process that extends far beyond just the physical aspect that most people see when they watch a sporting event. I was able to better myself physically and mentally. Playing sports also made me realize that with self-discipline and improvement there are no goals which I cannot obtain. Maybe the people in front of me at that football game should ask Governor Ventura, the current governor of Minnesota and a professional wrestler, what are sports good for. 

868 words

In Defense of Capital Punishment
 (5-paragraph augmentative essay)

Capital punishment is and continues to be a controversial issue. Capital punishment is an issue that every person has a firm opinion about. The pros and cons are debated in every aspect of our lives: our upbringing, our politics, and our religion. In the next few paragraphs, I intend to address the morality of the issue, its effects as a deterrent, and its constitutionality

First and foremost, I would like to address the morality of the death penalty (morality being the socially accepted standards of right and wrong). As far back as biblical times, the death penalty was in practice. In the book of Exodus, the law of retaliation was spelled out: an eye for an eye, or as Exodus states, "He that smiteth a man so that he shall die shall be surely put to death." On the other side of the coin, the Bible also states, "Let he that is without sin case the first stone." or the sixth commandment in Deuteronomy, 5: 1 7, "Thou shalt not kill." For centuries people have been debating the morality of capital punishment. Most religions support the death penalty, even tough they hold life high, they feel the legal execution of a murderer is just because of the moral disapproval of killing the innocent. Through many studies, it is shown that the people who want capital punishment abolished live in "an ivory tower" and are far away from the streets of these crimes.

Secondly, I would like to address whether or not capital punishment is an effective deterrent. A professor of philosophy at Tufts University and author of "The Courts," "The Constitution," and "Capital Punishment " believes the death penalty is not an effective deterrent because it is not carried out consistently, and that no punishment can deter effectively unless it is carried out consistently. With an annual average of 20,000 homicides a year, only about 100 death sentences were given with the average prisoner spending about three years on death row. Such a smal1 amount of first-degree murderers are sentenced to death and even fewer are actually executed, that inconsistency is what makes people believe it is not an effective deterrent. Crimes of passion would not be deterred by the death penalty, and many believe in premeditated murder. The criminals never expect to be caught. On the other hand, Carol S, Vance, District Attorney of Harris County in Texas, interviewed robbers who refused to kill the only eyewitness to their crimes citing their fear of the electric chair as their reason. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI for many decades, believes the death penalty is an effective deterrent. In a study of 99 criminals who were asked why they did not use a weapon in committing their crime, in a ratio of five to one, the reply was that they were deterred by fear of the death penalty. Frank Carrington of the federal justice system offers these statistics: between 1967 and 1977 when the death penalty was dormant, the homicide rate jumped from an average 10,000 to an average 20,000 per year. Carrington also believes that if the deterrence issue is that uncertain, we should resolve the issue in favor of the potential victims instead of the convicted murderers.

Thirdly, I would like to address the constitutionality of capital punishment. The American Civil Liberties union (ACLU) states that the death penalty is applied randomly at best, but at worst discriminatorily. Capital punishment violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection ender the law because it seems to be imposed almost exclusively against racial minorities. The ACLU believes that the poor and uneducated are discriminated against in the sentencing process or just cannot afford to hire the expert council available to the educated, and financially well off. In 1967 all executions were suspended by federal courts until constitutional objections could be resolved. Several states set out to revise their death penalty statutes immediately. By 1976 some 37 states had conformed to the Supreme Court guidelines and capital punishment was reinstated. The Supreme Court upheld "guided discretion" statutes requiring objective standards to guide, regularize, and make rationally reviewable the process for imposing the sentence of death. "This is Statute was meant to ensure that a death sentence would not violate the constitution.

In conclusion, the morality issue is still a hot issue on many debate floors. Each person, no matter how he is raised or how he is educated, will continue to have his own view. As far an effective deterrent, I feel it is to some, whereas some will still kill no matter what the consequences. Constitutionally the laws and statutes have been revised to eliminate violations in the constitutional rights. My personal feelings are the legal execution of a murderer helps the murder victims’ families and friends go on with their lives because they feel justice has been done. I can also sleep well knowing these murderers wil1 never be able to kill again.

(825 words Jan 99)