Tuesday marked the one-year anniversary of the bombings that took place at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. The families of the late victims and others who were effected by the tragedy gathered in the streets to remember what happened that day and to pay homage to those who had helped to take the city forward.
Many notable Bostonians were asked to speak at the event to comfort and encourage the people moving forward. One of the speakers at the event stated, "There is no way to walk to Boylston Street without being reminded of the evil spilling of precious blood, the hateful strike on a world treasure, but we are also reminded of the amazing capacity of the human spirit to rise in heroism, compassion and sacrifice."
An American flag was lifted on the finish line at 2:50 pm, the time when the first of several bombs went off twelve months earlier.
Mayor of Boston Thomas Menino spoke to all of the people present saying, "I want you to hear this solemn promise. When the lights are dim, know that our support and love for you will never waver. Whatever you have to do to recover and carry on, know that the people of Boston and I are right there by your side."
But the emotional day was to be obscured by another man dressed in black with a rice cooker in his backpack.
The man was reported to be walking around the finish line area and leaving three backpacks unattended. He was later arrested while police and bomb squads did a controlled detonation of two of the bombs, ruling the other to be a fake.
Twenty-five year old Kevin Edson was charged yesterday with "possession of a hoax device, disorderly conduct, and disturbing the peace."
Personally, I think that this was a cruel, insensitive, terrible, and uncalled-for "joke"--if you can even call it that. Edson was probably just trying to make a name for himself, hoping to get the media time that the Tsarnaev brothers did during their investigation. But many people could have been very seriously hurt or killed, and it is never okay to attempt to take the lives of innocent people.
http://backbay.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/boylston-street-shutdown-suspicious-backpacks-at-finish-line
http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/10786467/solemn-tributes-mark-anniversary-boston-marathon-bombing
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
Were We ALL Under Water?
In each of these two articles, the author examines the Great Flood of Noah's day in the Bible. While both recognize that this flood had to have occurred, they take a distinctly separate stand on the magnitude of the catastrophe.
In the article from The Institute of Christian Research, the author argues for the idea that the Flood was a global one and that all corners of the earth were completely covered-- even the highest mountain peaks. He uses Biblical testimonies to back up his point, citing the words of Jesus and Peter, while also using scientific evidence.
In the article from Biologos, the author makes the statement that the Flood was not, in fact, a worldwide one, but a local one. In proving his point, this author uses the original text of Genesis to highlight word choice that point to a more local flood, confined to one region of the world.
Personally, I believe in a world wide Flood that God used to destroy the earth that had become wicked and broken his heart, so he could essentially start over with the one family--Noah's-- that he could find that still followed him. In doing this, I believe that God told Noah of his plans: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (Genesis 6:17) God then instructed Noah to build the ark, a boat of immense proportions, to take two of every animal to be saved from the waters.
Now, one might argue that two of every kind of animal of the millions on the planet would not have fit on the ark, let alone the millions of undiscovered ones. But we must remember, millions of species are marine animals, which would not have to have been on the ark to survive. And with the cross-breeding and whatnot of today, there are probably millions of species here on earth today that were not around during Noah's time.
And how are we to explain the terrain of the whole earth today if the flood was not a world wide one? Take the Grand Canyon for instance. Does a humongous ditch just appear? Or did some sort of huge inundation have to occur to carve such a masterpiece out to the earth's crust? I choose to believe the latter. And what about the marine fossils and sedimentary rock found near the summits of mountains? Did those just happen to be there? Or were they carried there by billions and billions of gallons of water that covered the surface of the earth? The second seems most logical to me.
All in all, there are pros and cons of each argument. The Biologos people make a great point about the ancient Hebrew words used in the actual account, but geographic features of the earth, in my opinion, point to a different story. The ICR people make great use of scientific logic, but I can see where some people would hesitate to believe in the possibility of a worldwide flood.
http://www.icr.org/article/why-christians-should-believe-global-flood/
http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood
In the article from The Institute of Christian Research, the author argues for the idea that the Flood was a global one and that all corners of the earth were completely covered-- even the highest mountain peaks. He uses Biblical testimonies to back up his point, citing the words of Jesus and Peter, while also using scientific evidence.
In the article from Biologos, the author makes the statement that the Flood was not, in fact, a worldwide one, but a local one. In proving his point, this author uses the original text of Genesis to highlight word choice that point to a more local flood, confined to one region of the world.
Personally, I believe in a world wide Flood that God used to destroy the earth that had become wicked and broken his heart, so he could essentially start over with the one family--Noah's-- that he could find that still followed him. In doing this, I believe that God told Noah of his plans: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (Genesis 6:17) God then instructed Noah to build the ark, a boat of immense proportions, to take two of every animal to be saved from the waters.
Now, one might argue that two of every kind of animal of the millions on the planet would not have fit on the ark, let alone the millions of undiscovered ones. But we must remember, millions of species are marine animals, which would not have to have been on the ark to survive. And with the cross-breeding and whatnot of today, there are probably millions of species here on earth today that were not around during Noah's time.
And how are we to explain the terrain of the whole earth today if the flood was not a world wide one? Take the Grand Canyon for instance. Does a humongous ditch just appear? Or did some sort of huge inundation have to occur to carve such a masterpiece out to the earth's crust? I choose to believe the latter. And what about the marine fossils and sedimentary rock found near the summits of mountains? Did those just happen to be there? Or were they carried there by billions and billions of gallons of water that covered the surface of the earth? The second seems most logical to me.
All in all, there are pros and cons of each argument. The Biologos people make a great point about the ancient Hebrew words used in the actual account, but geographic features of the earth, in my opinion, point to a different story. The ICR people make great use of scientific logic, but I can see where some people would hesitate to believe in the possibility of a worldwide flood.
http://www.icr.org/article/why-christians-should-believe-global-flood/
http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
So, Plagarism... Yeah, It's Wrong.
If I was ever convicted of serious plagiarism, I would certainly accept the failing grade that I would likely receive and not argue over whether or not it was deserved, because I have been clearly told--and tons of times-- that plagiarism will result in serious consequences. I would make every effort to apologize to my teacher and even thank her for her intolerance of cheating. If I ever was convicted of a less serious case of plagiarism (i.e. improper citation, incorrect paraphrasing, etc.) I would certainly be upset, but nevertheless, I would take the same measures with the addition of a request for help in the areas of documentation that I tended to struggle with.
My parents would absolutely agree with my teacher's actions in giving me a failing grade. They have made it clear to me over the years that they hold me to a high standard of integrity, and they always tell me, "We would rather you do your own work and fail than using someone else's and make an 'A'." They would in no way go against my teacher's guidelines and possibly even have consequences for me at home.
I am not entitled to any grade that I do not earn--regardless of whether or not I pay tuition to come to school here. In fact, no one is. Money should have no bearing whatsoever in a student's passing or failing average, because that would be unfair to students in other schools that do not require tuition payments.
Having been told all my life not to plagiarize, I know it is wrong and have seen the consequences in the lives of other students. But this article appalled me to see that parents are standing up for their kids who have obviously broken the contract signed at the beginning of the year. And they claim that their kids didn't know that they were plagiarizing by copying things off of the internet! As if sophomores in high school don't know what plagiarism is. Honestly, I'm just shocked.
This article has just reinforced in my mind that plagiarism is wrong and should not go unpunished.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/14/us/school-cheating-scandal-tests-a-town-s-values.html
My parents would absolutely agree with my teacher's actions in giving me a failing grade. They have made it clear to me over the years that they hold me to a high standard of integrity, and they always tell me, "We would rather you do your own work and fail than using someone else's and make an 'A'." They would in no way go against my teacher's guidelines and possibly even have consequences for me at home.
I am not entitled to any grade that I do not earn--regardless of whether or not I pay tuition to come to school here. In fact, no one is. Money should have no bearing whatsoever in a student's passing or failing average, because that would be unfair to students in other schools that do not require tuition payments.
Having been told all my life not to plagiarize, I know it is wrong and have seen the consequences in the lives of other students. But this article appalled me to see that parents are standing up for their kids who have obviously broken the contract signed at the beginning of the year. And they claim that their kids didn't know that they were plagiarizing by copying things off of the internet! As if sophomores in high school don't know what plagiarism is. Honestly, I'm just shocked.
This article has just reinforced in my mind that plagiarism is wrong and should not go unpunished.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/14/us/school-cheating-scandal-tests-a-town-s-values.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)