Choices

We make choices on an everyday basis, however, have you ever thought about what impact those decisions you make might possibly have? In "Choices" by Susan Kerslake we are introduced to Peggy, a young female and her "friend", Ken who asks her to go on a trip. During the trip an unfortunate event occurs which leaves Peggy possibly paralyzed below her hips and Ken with a concussion. Peggy left bewildered at the fact of his minor injuries and begins to question Ken's obligation towards her.

The relationship between Peggy and Ken can be seen as "more than friends" but less then lovers. The author showed Peggy's reluctance to joining him on the trip seen from the quote "Peggy had only had a little while to male up her mind". Peggy also mentioned at the beginning of the story that She and Ken's plans were also easily obtainable at her own house, showing more of Peggy's hesitation about the trip. Therefore, you can see that their relationship wasn't exactly close or intimate as you might think, which brings into consideration that Ken doesn't really have that great of an extent of an obligation to Peggy other then the initial impact of the event. The most he'd have to do would probably be to pay for any expenses involving medical, and legal problems.

However, Ken was the person who initially planned the trip and also the driver of the vehicle. The unfortunate event would never have happened if he didn't plan the trip or if he had driven his vehicle more safely. The author tries very hard to describe Ken's posture and actions during the car as well as the car itself. The car itself was seen to be rather old judging from the quality of some of the inner parts of the car itself, it is also noted that Ken's driving posture was also very lax, inattentive and unfit for a driver. If Ken was the one to cause the accident, then he sure does have a role in supporting Peggy during her rehabilitation and being emotional support for her.

Either way. Ken will have consequences to Peggy, whether he caused the incident or not. He will need to pay any expenses from which he caused and settle things between Peggy whether they continue their relationship or end it there.

Does Ken Have an Obligation to Peggy?

Ken and Peggy are the main characters in the book "Choices" By Susan Kerslake. The story follows Peggy, as she agrees to go on a road trip with her estranged friend Ken and unfortunately they become involved in an accident and Peggy is left in a horrible condition, while Ken is left with apparently only a head injury. At the very end of the story, Peggy is seen, unable to move or speak while Ken sits nearby with his face buried in his hands. Peggy is left wondering whether Ken will own up to his responsibility or simply leave her without care. Should he stay? Or should he leave? What are his obligations?

The real truth to Ken's position is unclear. Is he fearful of taking responsibility over her, or is he simply distraught from the entire experience. One can argue that he should- and is obligated to stay with her, Ken was the driver and it is always the drivers fault when an accident takes place because, the driver is driving the vehicle. Without Ken, Peggy would not have even agreed to go in the first place, as he originally extended the invitation. It is clear that Ken is obligated to help Peggy in some way.

Though Peggy is left with horrible injuries that are sure to change the way she lives because of Ken, Is it fair that he is now bound to her side for the rest of her life? It is established in the book that Ken and Peggy do not actually like each other, because they have been busy with their own lives for some time before the accident. So it is quite possible that Ken does not want to stay with her and it is also possible that Peggy does not really want this either, but she only questions this in the end because she is in this new condition and she is scared of being alone. If this is true, than Ken has no obligation to actually stay with Peggy.

Ken does have obligations to Peggy. He is obligated to help her through the initial aftermath, like the medical expenses, trips to the hospital and such. But after Peggy is settled and stable and all of her serious injuries are treated, than Ken's responsibilities to Peggy are fulfilled. Ken was not held responsible for Peggy's entire life before the incident, so he should not be responsible for the rest of her life.

Choices

In the event of a car crash who is responsible for what? In the short story "Choices" by Susan Kerslake, Peggy and her friend Ken get involved in a car crash. Peggy is left with her legs crushed and potentially paralyzed for life. Near the end of the story it is shown that Ken may not feel responsible for her, as he doesn't attempt to talk to her. It is unknown whether Ken will take responsibility for Peggy, or if he is actually not at fault and is not obligated to deal with the problem, or make up for her injuries.

There can be many reasons for why Ken wouldn't be the one responsible for Peggy\s injury. If it was another driver who had crashed into them, it wouldn't be Ken's fault for the crash, therefore he wouldn't be responsible for Peggy's injuries, and the blame would instead be on the other driver. It could also have been other factors that Ken couldn't have controlled or known of such as a large bump on the road or a malfunction in the car. In these situations, Ken might still partially be at blame, however not to the point of having a large debt to her.

On the other hand, Ken may have also been the reason for the crash. There is a lot of textual evidence pointing towards the fact that Ken had not been driving seriously. He was not holding the steering wheel properly, and he also was not seated properly as he had "one knee against the door, the other against the gear shift". If the car crash had really occurred due to Ken's lack of concern for safety, then he should be fully responsible for all the resulting damage, along with Peggy and anyone else who might have also been caught in the crash.

In the end it really should depend on whether he caused the crash or not. If Ken had caused the crash, then he should take responsibility for Peggy and care for her, and cover any medical expenses and problems that may occur later in the future. This does not imply that he has to be her personal nurse and care for her 24/7, but that he should help her with problems such as getting around or helping her with chores like cleaning.

If he did not cause the crash and it was the fault of something or someone else, Ken should still at least help Peggy. As a friend, or at the very least, the only other one who understands her situation, Ken should help her through the early stages of recovery. Ken had only received an injury to the head, and it is not implied that it is anything serious, so there should be no excuse for Ken not to help her as she deals with her injuries. Whether he is responsible or not, Ken should help Peggy, as she is going through this difficult moment in her life. Even if they don't view each other as a great couple, Ken should still be there for her.

Is it necessary to take action against someone because of what they might do?

                  Have you ever had a thought similar to "I should have done that earlier"? It could have applied to anything from washing dishes or doing homework. Noone can say with absolute certainty what may happen in the future, or if a hunch is correct, but is it okay to take action against someone based on what they might do in the future?
                 
                  Most of us have probably heard of the saying "Better safe than sorry". It is widely known, and for a very good reason. Taking an extra step or doing a little extra work may pay off when it prevents a big problem in the future. If I take a few extra seconds to blow out a candle, it may pay off later if it tips over and doesn't spread a fire. It can apply to people too. If I tell a friend's parents that he is taking drugs, it may prevent a harmful addiction in the future.

                  It is rarely recommended to "wait until the last minute". Whether it is a household chore, or a favor for a friend, not performing a task until the last possible moment may bring problems. There are many things to consider when choosing to wait until the last minute. Wait until the last day to finish a school project, and you may run out of time. Worry too much about your friends cheating on a test, and they may end up getting caught.

                  Taking precautions may even prevent a problem before it even starts. Examples include elementary school presentations about smoking. Teaching children about the effects and consequences of smoking, may stray them away, long before the thought may have even came across their minds.

                   Taking action because of what someone might do in the future shouldn't seen as something bad to do. Taking care of problems beforehand is safer, easier, and more likely to succeed than dealing with them as they come up. Remember, it is always easier to take out the garbage, before it attracts all the flies.

                   
                   

Act II Essay

Power Always Corrupts The Holder

The ideas of power and corruption are closely intertwined. so many leaders of the past have been corrupted because of the power they had over others, like in the Middle Ages, the 1900's, and even today, because the strong and the weak exist, corruption does as well.

History is probably the most detailed source for corrupt power in olden times especially, people were ruled by a lone person or a group. In the Middle Ages the church was a heavy influence on the government, and this amount of power they possessed because of that, lead to their corruption. This also lead to the introduction of scandals such as the system of indulgences in which priests were hired to pray for a person, which would "redeem" them of their sins. Clergymen abused their power and betrayed their faith by keeping mistresses and gambling.

Although it is easier to to possess power when part of a group, it does not take a number of people to achieve power and become corrupt. Probably the most well know case of corrupt power is during the period of the 1900's during World War II when Adolf Hitler came into power and took drastic measures by intentionally decimating the Jewish population. These are the kinds of results that occur when the power is greater, such as power over an entire country. And when the power is greater the corruption is usually devastating. When it comes to corruption, history seems to repeat itself quite frequently.

Corrupt power is rich in the past, literally, because so many absolute monarchs were corrupted...actually all of them were. But today things work differently than in they did in the past. In history, the the events are blatant, but today corruption is behind large companies and firms, like the ones that deal with our food for example. Food packaging companies are huge because of how efficiently they deliver us meat, but they become corrupt when those "efficient" ways involve abusing animals and risking our health. Sometimes the corrupt became corrupt to become more powerful.

Power and corruption are like love and hate, they are tightly connected, and are two sides of the same coin. There are so many unnecessary events in history brought on by corrupt power...because everyone wants to be powerful, and corruption cannot exist without power.



Zaccheus Jackson's Slam Poetry Performance at Fraser Heights

Zaccheus Jackson, also known as "East Van ghetto poet" Is a slam poet who has participated in numerous poetry slam competitions such as the Individual World Poetry Slam and the Inaugural Canadian Individual Poetry Slam. He visited Fraser Heights Secondary to give his performance to students. He quickly made the audience comfortable by starting off with some humorous jokes and small talk also asking questions such as "Does your mother buy your underwear?" to be relatable to the audience. He gave some history about himself, how he grew up, going through addiction, where he is presently in life, and started with a poem. His poems were beautifully recited, he had strong expressions and meaningful words. The rhythm was unique and his tone was varied. He made a point about memorizing poems and also gave background on slam poetry itself. He ended his performance with a light-hearted tone and left the stage.

Slam Poet

Zach Jackson, his performance, to me, was inspiration to say the least, his poems were on a level of intricacy and skill upon which i had never seen the likes of in person. he made me take another look both forward on slam poetry and a look back on my experience with slam poetry. he was funny, his performance was fun for everyone, i can't imagine that anybody he would have been presenting to would not have learned something. Zach was original, his poems his presenting style, all original and very engaging, he knew how to engage his audience, he asked questions, he made relatable statements, and he consistently had the mood lightened up with his spectacular humour. i hope as a guest he comes back again with more poems, stories and information again to perform and present for our school once more.

My thoughts on Zack's performance

Zack's performance was really entertaining. Zack came to our school to raise our awareness of Spoken Word, which is an umbrella term that encompasses so many creative outlets. Zack came and specifically presented his slam poetry skills- which were really quite amazing. From his performance I came to the conclusion that slam poetry is a quick spoken poem, Zack's poems, being about life experiences that he has lived through. On top of his original poetry, he told us many stories that were also very personal, these were usually connected to his poems. Zack was also very humorous, and it's always nice to laugh and be entertained in that way during a presentation where you have to sit for long periods of time. I could tell that Zack had been doing this for a while just because of how much skill he had. He recited two or three multi paragraphed poems, right of the top of his head, it was very impressive just listening to his slam poetry, especially understanding that these were real experiences and that he was creative and motivated enough to actually put them into words and make them rhyme, not to mention learn how to speak so fast without combining or skipping words. Overall, i think "cool" is the only way to describe the experience because Zack, an award winning slam poet was nice enough to come to our school and share with us why we should find our own creative outlet.

Slam Poetry

Today at Fraser Heights, we had a slam poet come to perform for the school. His name was Zaccheus Jackson and he is a very interesting person. He not only recited poetry, but also talked about his personal life and how it connects to his poetry, and even made some jokes here and there. He also explained to us about some history about performing poetry. Zack performed really well and got the entire audience involved, whether it was with a question, or by personally interacting with the audience. He recited his poems with a lot of energy and it was hard not to notice the expression he put into his words, although some times it gets hard to hear the exact words he is saying since he talks so fast. I really enjoyed his presentation and hope to see him again if he comes back to Fraser Heights.

You can't have power without making dangerous enemies

During the reign of someone who is in power, it is impossible for that individual to have not made any enemies.  The idea of a “Leader” who has not made any enemies illogical, if such a being existed he or she would be considered a “God” or the perfect “Human Being.

The Cycle of Power has always revolved around someone who will fall from his influence and someone who will rise to prominence. History is a prime example of this: Many Monarchs, Presidents, Leaders, and Prominent figures in our past have all had enemies they’ve had to fight. People such as John F. Kennedy, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr. All people that have had power were assassinated, signifying that they all had made an “enemy” of some sort. It proves that there is no such thing as a powerful individual with no enemies.

Moreover. If such an individual existed, “Conflict” would not be a thing in this world’s principals. Ideas such as War and Violence would be nullified from existence, However, War and Violence do exist.  And they are prominently tied with “power”. Why would an individual of great significance need to to use war and violence? To settle a dispute caused by contrariant opinions and those opinions are from an opposition, an “enemy” to say.

Consequently, with all this talk about conflict, we go back to the fundamental root of it all, Human Beings. Humans are not perfect beings, we are all flawed in different ways, it’s what makes humans human. Each human hold’s a different conscience and opinion, some may agree with what another says and some may not. There will never be a human that all others comply to. It just doesn't exist in our human nature.

To have power and not have any enemies, is an idea that will never exist in this world. It is denied in the basic law’s of this age and society.  It follows the saying of “You cannot have one without the other”.

Loyalty

Whether it is for someone you are well acquainted with or someone you are not, the question stands as to whether or not loyalty can bring about positive or negative consequences. Loyalty is a virtue that may reside within people of different motives, purposes, and behaviors, this being the case; I find it fairly logical to say that it truly depends on the situation. Loyalty indeed may bring about positive or negative consequences, the virtue may prove to achieve what no physical object can or it may drive someone to do things of bad consequences such as going to jail

Now loyalty can be looked upon and seen in many different ways due to its existing in many different situations. In addition, loyalty, when poorly placed, may result in doing fairly regrettable tasks for someone. For example let’s imagine that loyalty is being placed with someone who is untrustworthy and is known for betrayal then running the risk of being horribly betrayed. The situation upon which loyalty is placed where it may be improperly received, presumably, will not end well. As such the improperly placed loyalty would prove to have negative consequences.

Yet however, if we take a look at someone loyally inclined only a bit more wisely placed we may find that the virtue may end up being quite beneficial along with having a good set of positive repercussions. For example, if we imagine that this person has placed their loyalty very wisely and is loyal to someone very kind as well as great full. The situation would imply tasks given with less likely hood of no consideration due to a good kindness, and perhaps the possibility of a great reward for your loyalty due to an appreciative gratitude. And so indeed, when put into this perspective, loyalty may be seen as something of great positive consequences. As such on a side note, with well known loyalty honor and respect for one’s self may be found along with the respect of others.

Now taking a look at someone with loyal obligations may prove to seem to be of negative consequence. For instance, let’s imagine a person who works for, or is loyal to, someone who asks this person to do something they did not want to do. They would find themselves both facing something they didn’t want to do and the reason as to why they didn’t want to do it. Moreover it is easy to think that within this situation loyalty may leave you with a very negative consequence, however, when looking past the bad we may see some good to the situation, like what if they are getting paid or they are doing it to get through school. It changes the perception of the loyalty entirely, instead of being seen with a negative consequence there is a counter balance that neutralizes the situation into being a win win scenario, upon which loyalty is passed when received and received when passed.

In conclusion, I feel that after all the thinking, consideration, and analysis that loyalty can have good consequences as well as bad. As such it would seem that the cause of loyalty being one or the other lies with the placement of the loyalty and the way it gets received.

Why it is sometimes necessary to use immoral means to achieve certain goals

It is our duty as individuals to push ourselves to become better and set goals that focus our actions so that we may achieve this, but sometimes obstacles arise and achieving our goals becomes difficult. Often these difficulties lead us to use ways that are dishonest and taboo, but they are justified if these goals are revolutionary achievements. 

Emotions are powerful things, and it is very possible that great emotional investments in specific goals can sway personal judgments. As in the case of John A. MacDonald, his dreams of the Canadian Pacific Railway were just beyond his reach. The only way he could grasp them was to stoop to dishonesty and sell the contract to Hugh Allen in return for 360-thousand dollars in political donations. Those actions were debatable. MacDonald's eventual success in completing the Canadian pacific Railway proved life changing for Canadians.

Lying is an immoral way to achieve goals, but sometimes it is the society that is in question. During the reign of King Charles I, his abuse of his subjects, led by his strong belief in absolute monarchy caused much anger. with their patience wearing thin, the people were faced with the decision to either rebel, which in their society was forbidden, or to continue being abused by an irresponsible ruler. Their decision to fight despite their society's laws, resulted in the people achieving their goal and successfully establishing a constitutional monarchy.

Sometimes our goals are the goals of others. And when many people are willing to fight for the same goals, the obstacles are presented in larger scales, like wars. In times of war, many undesirable tasks must be undertaken to achieve lofty victories. When lives are at stake, and all other precautions are taken, these tasks must be carried out because the goals are greater than the fears and inhibitions.

Doing something wrong to achieve a goal, however lofty, is like walking through a dark forest to reach a clear field. But sometimes it is truly necessary to walk through that forest to reach the clearing. 

Positive change can be brought about through violence

         A war with over 700,000 casualties. Many would find that a point of history with so much death would be considered horrible. This was the American civil war. A historical event which brought freedom to many slaves across the United States. Violence does not always lead to negative outcomes. It can also help bring positive change. It can help spread a message, draw attention, and show commitment to a cause.

It is difficult for people to forget about violent protests going on right in front of their faces. Curious people may even look further into the issue for a reason or purpose. At times it may even gain people's interests faster than a peaceful method. It is easy to ignore a flyer at your doorstep or a poster on a wall, but it is hard not to acknowledge a riot.

If you are the mayor of a city and know that there are violent protests going on, it would be a good idea to stop them as soon as possible. There is a lot of pressure on authorities to stop violence when it shows up. People who feel threatened will often seek help from higher authorities who are able to do something. This may be the head of a school board or even the country's political leader. Depending on the number of people who feel threatened, solving the problem in a peaceful manner may become one of their top priorities. They may make a compromise easier to obtain.

 Violence contains a lot of risk. Resorting to violence may introduce the risk of injury or even death.Understanding the risks and going through with using violence often requires a lot of commitment to the cause. Risking lives for a cause will often mean that the cause is worth risking lives for, which may influence some people.

Violence does not always lead to just suffering. It can help bring positive change where being peaceful will not. Violence can help spread awareness, speak a message, and shows commitment. Violence is not always a good idea, but it isn't always a bad one. Next time you see violence being used, think it over. Does violence really never lead to positive change?