Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Devra Parker

To Do, or Not To Do
By Jessica Menard
12^th grade

 

[Teens] are faced with many choices and problems everyday.  Luckily, we have [the opportunity] to think for ourselves.  In America we are able to choose a direction for our lives and [decide] how we want to live.  As a teenager, what we decide and think is right for us isn’t always right for the others around us.  

 

I am a very active student and have a hectic schedule as a senior in high school.  I have to balance my life and choose what is the most important [item] on my task list.  I have to make time for my family, school work, sports, friends, and extra activities to help me relax and stay happy.  With all of this going on, prioritizing becomes a big deal and I won’t be able to always fit in everything.  When that happens, I am trying to please myself and everyone around me, which is practically impossible.  What’s really going on inside my head is whether this will benefit me and hurt others, or if this will benefit others and cause me strife.

 

Every athlete has had to decide if something she does is helping the team or hurting it. I have had many personal experiences with this, and I believe I have made near-excellent choices.  I was faced with a dilemma that had me worrying for nights.  I really wanted to go and watch Late Night at the University of Kansas because my boyfriend is a basketball player there.  My family is extremely dedicated to basketball and practically lives for the game.  It was going to be a first for my mom, my dad, and myself.  It also was going to be special since Ty was playing, and I heard Late Night is marvelous to attend.  I was all psyched and willing to go, except I had volleyball.  If I were to go, I would have to either skip practice or leave early, and I had a morning tournament the next day.  The coach had stressed to us that we should always have a viable excuse for being absent from practice and that we shouldn’t use weak excuses.  This made me sweat because I figured she would see it as a stupid excuse and I would be punished. [ Also], I really wanted to practice , because I had been sick and I wanted to improve and be ready for the tournament.  After speaking to a nameless coach and my parents, I came up with a solution.  I was going to face the coach, and be honest.  When I approached her I had the best interest for the team, but I also didn’t want to miss [Late Night].  I told her my side and that I understood it might not be an adequate [excuse] for [missing practice]. She said she’d think about it.  Luckily, I was able to go and I made up my missed practice in order to play in the Saturday tournament.  It really was an experience that I will never forgot, and I don’t regret my choice at all.

 

Many people might have seen this as a selfish decision and that I was only thinking of my own good.  However, this was not true.  I was engaging in a family event that would bring us closer and give us bonding time.  I was also being a supportive girlfriend [and those are] hard to come by these days.  Was I being a team player, though?  I made up my practice, was that good enough?  I played [a lot] during the tournament and gave my all, [and] the coaches said that it was all right and dismissed me from practice.  I don’t think that my actions hurt the team whatsoever.  Was it for the greater good and did it help them?  No, but it didn’t bring them down, either.  My actions …neutral … for my team but were very beneficial to my family and me.

 

As humans, I think we stress too much about our decisions and if they are affecting people in a negative or positive way.  Sometimes, it doesn’t even matter.  Others don’t care what we do half the time.  Our selfish desires are what motivates us most of the time, unless you’re Mother Theresa and you live to care and work for the sake of others.  Yes, I think we could learn a few lessons from her, but I also think that sometimes we have to…take care of ourselves before we can help others.  Our choices are what shape us….  You have to push through both the negative and the positive incidents to see what the outcome is.  That’s why I love being a teenager in America and having the liberty to choose whatever I want.

 

Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading

 

Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay? “…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.”  Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?

 

He meant that people looking in at our country will see that we are not equal in the fact that we don’t all have the same material objects and such.  We all are equal in the sense that we have the same freedoms to live by.  To be free, we can’t all be equal and live the same as everyone else; so, to be equal, we have to give up our freedoms.  No, I was not angered by anything Justin said.  All his points were fairly made, and they were easily justifiable.  

 

Q2- Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.”  To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?

 

Chris Carney attributed these feelings to James Madison. Madison felt that we, as Americans, could pursue what we wanted in our lives and, at the same time, contribute to our government and our fellow citizens.  Madison learned from the mistakes of the Romans and decided that he could modify their idea of thinking and mold it into a plan that could easily suit both sides of the spectrum.  

 

Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.

 

Faith describes that people didn’t want personal responsibility in their lives and wanted the government to do everything for them.  They wanted everyone to be equal and happy and have the same lives.  By doing so, they took away any rights the people had and replaced it with a totalitarian government that made everyone miserable.  They thought they were acting for the common good, but instead, they were hurting everyone and everything.  

 

Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.” Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.

 

Kelly States the fact that we have the right to bear arms, but it can get out of hand and someone can be killed, which takes away the second person’s right to live.  American’s are always out for themselves, it seems, and don’t always realize that what they do affects many others around them.  We have the right to consume alcoholic beverages at or above the age of 21.  If someone abuses that and is careless, they can take another person’s life by driving under the influence.  

 

Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” How does he relate individual liberty to dictators?   Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.

 

Joshua Spencer means that having freedom is very delicate and motivating.  If we have to go about day to day by ourselves we will strive to be the best so we can survive.  If we have freedom and can fend for ourselves, then we won’t need someone to always look over us and support us.  We will be able to take care of ourselves because we will be independent.  He related that to dictators because dictators try to take away the freedom and the independence.  If he takes away all that from the people, the people will have to depend on him and look to him for all their needs.  This means the dictator has all the control and the people are “happy” being all the same, because they don’t know any better.  I agree with him, because I think it’s absolutely true that there will be no motivation to rise up to find a better life if all you need is handed to you on a plate.  He uses welfare as an example and I think it is the perfect example.  The U.S. citizens have become too dependent on the government for their money, and they don’t feel like they need to go out and get a job to get money.  Why would anyone go and work when they can have money handed to them?  If people have individual rights then they will work and strive to better everything around them.

 

Q6-Luke Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?

 

I think that we will maintain our freedom.  We have people overseas fighting for our rights and our liberty.  People take advantage of the independence they have and don’t see it as something they should cherish and protect.  I think as Americans we should test the boundaries and always make sure the government is giving us our rights and what our founding fathers stood for.  

 

Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.”? She doesn’t agree.  Do You?

 

I don’t agree, either.  Molly Mcglone was right. I think the framers understood that we would have problems and they left us a set of guidelines to follow for when those aroused our attention.  We have the ability to make amendments and laws to protect the citizens and the framers knew that was a power that we should be granted.  Of course they didn’t know everything that was going to come up or be introduced into our society, but they perfected the Constitution as much as they could so it could fit into today’s time.

 

Q8- “Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution.” Do you agree or disagree?  Aaron Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act.  How do you personally feel about these two issues?

 

I think that if a law is passed for the good of man, than it can override the Constitution.    Those bans and acts were placed in our law to protect the people.  Our Constitution is based solely on the trust of other people, and, frankly, in this day of age it’s quite hard to be that trusting with the populace.  I think the Gun Free School Zones Act has some good in it.  I have many family members that are registered gun carriers and have their licenses, so I can speak from both sides of this case.  I think people should be able to carry guns to protect themselves, but I also agree that there are certain areas where guns shouldn’t be allowed.  1000 feet from a school is a little much, though.  A person could live within 1000 feet of a school and have a gun; does that limit them from having one in her home?  The smoking ban is one that I really believe in.  I don’t think people should be able to hurt someone else’s health in a public place.  Of course, it takes away the smoker’s right, but I’m sure they don’t want a lawsuit for giving someone cancer.

 

Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where “the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.” What was the name of that book?  Have you read it?

 

The name of the book that Annie St. Romain referred to was The Giver, and yes I have read it.  In the book it depicts a “utopian” society, and I feel that sometimes, foreign governments try to achieve that with communism.  Luckily, in the United States, we have freedom.

 

Q10- “As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups.  Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty.  Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved.” This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay.  Which side of the issue do you support and why?

 

I don’t necessarily support either side.  I don’t think that as nations grow the government will always restrict the rights to its individuals.  Maybe, it will give more power to the people to solve solutions.  I also don’t think that the government should be granted all the power to take away rights to fix complex problems in a time of crisis.  Yes, they need to be there to provide help and support, but they shouldn’t have all the power to make changes.  The people should be able to voice their opinion in such situations.  

 

Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.

 

The law states that people over a certain blood alcohol level are not supposed to be able to drive.  If people took the responsibility to not abuse their right to drink alcoholic beverages were accountable of their actions, we would not need this law.  Unfortunately, people do not know their limits and where they are supposed to stop when drinking.  Another example would be littering.  There are laws against littering to try and keep people from vandalizing our earth.  Everyone wants a clean environment to live in, but some people can’t wait until they get to a trashcan to throw away their McDonald’s bag, so they think the ground is suitable enough.  If people would take into consideration the damage and harm they are doing to not only humans, but to the animals that live there, they might think twice before they toss that soda bottle out the window.  A third example is recycling.  Many larger cities have recycling laws to keep our resources flowing.  Large amounts of people waste paper and plastic without thinking of future generations.  If we took the initiative to help our planet we wouldn’t have to have the laws that force people to do what is good.

 

Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic.  In his essay he claims when the founding fathers “wrote the constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility. … These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing.”  Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.

 

I believe in that to an extent.  I think in general, yes, people will try to make decisions that will not hurt others around them.  They will try to make the area where the live a safe and great place to be.  However, there is always the person that goes and screws things up for people.  As they say, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”  If one person causes uproar, then everyone else has to go through the consequences.  Yet, our founding fathers had trust in us and placed the government into our hands.  I think people can have the push inside of them and the conscience to make the right decision for everyone.