Burlington High School

 Burlington, Kansas

Teacher: Devra Parker

 

Balancing a Queen and a Court Jester

By Steely Davenport

12^Th grade

 

When they are little, most young girl’s dream of becoming a queen. I had that dream myself when I was younger. As I am now older, I have grown up to realize that it is a dream which is unrealistic and hard to achieve. Though, I am one of the few girls who have grown up to become a queen. I, Steely Davenport, was named homecoming queen of Burlington High School. I was very flattered to receive my award, knowing that the majority of my school had voted for me… I was also very much embarrassed to become queen as well.  As I stood in front of most of the town, I felt as though my school had put me on a pedestal, and that they were thinking higher of me than they should. I couldn’t celebrate this joyful award as I would have wanted to because I knew in the back of my head most people were not happy for me. Some looked at me and believed that I was only nice to the freshmen to get a few votes for a short amount of time. Others thought that I was two faced and nice before I got the nomination. The reality of this is that I am an all-around nice individual who is looking out for other people before me. I put others before myself, but I am sincerely putting their personal liberty and rights before my own so that they can be happier and know that someone is there thinking of them. Letting them know that they matter is a great feeling I hope to give my friends and acquaintances.

 

There is an image that people are putting into the spectator’s heads. It is that the people being nominated are at a higher rank then everyone else. It is not just in my small town; it is everywhere in the United States.  Having someone put on a higher committee or even given raises in a business…is saying that person is better than the rest of the employees or individual. This is not how we should be acting. In today’s society we should be focusing on what our community and country should be rather than who is better than whom. By putting one in a higher rank, it could have some horrible effects. One effect that would be made is that if an individual was at a higher rank they could feel more powerful and start to take part in dictating the others. Another effect would be that, the people who are not being nominated for rankings could start to rebel or even protest some issues that they feel strong about.

 

Having one’s liberty and rights put before someone else’s is lack of personal responsibility. I believe most Americans and people in general think of themselves first. Putting other people before us is not what we want to do; we want to please and help ourselves and then help others. With this lack of responsibility, it is clear that we live in a selfish society. So, would it be a bad thing for everyone to look out for the common good in the United States first? I say no. It would be a great change for our country if we stopped being so selfish. Maybe then we can start making some productive unselfish decisions for the country. Some considerations for this would be for people to stop driving drunk. It sometimes results in injuring other people.  [Stopping would exhibit responsibility].  Smoking is a nation-wide trend that if we put harsher limits on, we could watch out for one another. Lastly, to help [reduce] the selfishness in our society we could start caring for our environment and stop littering. … Not only does this benefit each of us, but it would benefit others around us.

 

 Our human nature is competitive. … Although every human being at one time has wanted something more then someone else, [no one should] put other people down [to get] what [they] want. [Competition can be constructive or destructive; the choice is up to each individual]. The motive should be to compete [against] self and not [against] an other person. [As Shakespeare said ”Above all, to thine own self be true.”].
 

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?

A1- Justin meant that we in the United States are not a communist country. The fact that we have a choice to choose what we want to accomplishment is a great benefit. If one was to make a large income and go to school it would be his choice, but another side of that is that one also has the choice to make a small income and does not have to go to school. I was not angered with the details Justin informed me on. He had great points. Although, some points were stronger I felt he had a good background on his paper.

 

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?

 

A2- What the quote means is that James Madison had the common good in for the public and he was going to do everything he could to make the public happy. James Madison the father of the constitution was the man Chris was explaining about who he felt knew how to respond to the public.

 

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.

 

A3- The similarities to the Edict of 301 and the topic of the essay would be that they both are labeling prices and controls on everything. There is choice and that people can choice what labels they make even though government has control on us.

 

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.

 

A4- Kelly relates the fact that our rights in America can be taken away from another person. The truth is that ones rights can sometimes be put away and treated like we have none. We as Americans have the freedom to freely practice religion although that does not give us the right to force our religious views on other. People still have the right to choose.

 

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.

 

A5-What Joshua meant by this was that our rights should be taken with care and that they are a privilege though they have a strong meaning they can be somewhat taken away. He relates individual liberty to dictators by insisting that with the dictators all the control is given to him. When individual rights take place it is assumed that one’s rights may get powerful and some may take their rights to the next level which will then lead to dictatorship.

 

Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?  If we are to take away our freedom how will we maintain it?

 

QA-To answer this I would say that there is no way to be safe and have no freedoms therefore, many agree on the subject of keeping our freedom. For if we do not keep our freedoms there will be many arguing and hatred for others.

 

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?

 

A7-Molly Mcglone was the student who suggested this. Yes, I feel that the framers would have more of a protection over the community rather then the individual rights. The reasons why I feel that is because the framers felt very strong for their country and would want the best for them. This does not mean that the framers weren’t passionate about the people because they certainly were.

 

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?

 

A8-Yes, I agree on this because the constitution was our main guidelines for our country. The founding fathers knew that from these guidelines would have many benefits. On the subject of smoking in public places I feel that it should not be allowed. One reason would be that it does indeed harm the people around them and they do not want to be around people who are endangering them.  On the issue of the gun free school zones act it should certainly take place. There should be no reasonable answers to having guns in the school zone. I feel that if we were able to have guns on our school zones that the increase of violence may raise. Now if one was to ask if I felt the gun zone violated a police officer on the area I would agree to that because I feel the police are highly trained professionals that would protect.

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?

 

A9- The name of the book was called The Giver. I personally have not read the book.

 

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?

 

A10- in Jessie Veits essay I would feel that the side of the argument I take is that the government should not retain our rights.  Even though the nation does seem to increase in number and with many different social groups there is no reason for the government to limit our liberty rights.  I feel it is unfair to the people because it is how our world is coming together. With people and society it continues to grow so maybe that means that our rights should continue to grow as times goes on .

 

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

 

A11-An example where personal responsibility would replace a need for laws would be in littering. If one was to stop littering and filling our earth with garbage then our planet would not look like a trash dumpster it’s self. It seems that people today are inconsiderate of other people’s properties. There is not a day that I go down my road to my house and see trash on the side of the road. Another example would be to start recycling. That would help out with the above statement with littering. If people would recycle is would make are resources last longer. Lastly I feel that people today should stop testing animals for human products. It is reducing our species of animals and we should protect them not harm them.

 

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.

 

A12- I some what agree that if people were giving self respect to do the right thing that less laws would be needed. I feel that if the government makes it a law not to have many laws and rely on self respecting issues that then they would abuse it. In reality I feel that if the laws were less that it would make a better community all around. The case of that happening isn’t idealistic for me and I feel that overall the government should keep what the laws are now because it is working well.
 

BACK