Are we born creative?

I found the quotes that Mr.O'Connor had posted on his most recent blog extreamly interesting. As i was reading through them, i found the topic of inherited creativity to be a trending topic. One man said, "If we practice creativity we become more creative. It we practice routine we become robots." I love this quote because it is extremely insightful and, i feel, it is correct. People aren't born able to write amazing songs, or deep and lyrical poems. I think the people who become good at it, are so amazing at what they do because they have a passion for it. Like most skills, if you don't want to learn it, you won't. No matter how hard you work at it, you will never be as good as someone who pours their heart and soul into it. Another person had stated that, "Some people are just born creative." I completely disagree with this because creativity come to you when you work for it, or you have a deep need or passion to express yourself creatively. Do you think anyone can be creative or do you think that people are either born with it or born without it?

Perilous Times

When I think of civil liberties being taken away, I automatically think of out Perilous Times presentations and all the wars from years ago when people foolishly took away out civil rights. I recently read an article that confirmed the fact that our civil liberties are still unsafe. Sarah Palin hosted an event at Fort Braggs for a book signing. However, the US army plans on preventing the media from covering the event. Fort Bragg spokesman Tom McCollum says that he is “worried that Palin's supporters might use the media to express political opinions from the sprawling military installation that serves as a base for some 35,000 soldiers.” I think that this is a clear violation of our right to free speech and freedom of the press. The Fort explains that they do not want the fort to become a place for a political platform. I do understand their reasoning to not want her to be making speeches and causing a big media rush but Palin had previously agreed she wasn't making a speech and wouldn't pose for pictures for the media. I felt it was a a clear example of our fears during war time creeping into our constitutional rights. I feel is she already agreed to not make it a political statement and only be there to sign her books, whats the point of not allowing the press to be present?



Do you feel this violates civil liberties?

Men More Likely to Leave Spouse with a Disease?

Today, I saw an interesting headline on MSNBC.com which stated, “Men more likely to leave spouse who has cancer”. I found this astonishing and as I read the article further, I found it very interesting the conclusion they made based off the fact that they found nearly 21 percent of the couples divorced when the woman was the patient compared to about 3 percent when man was ill. “The researchers suggest men are less able to commit, on the spot, to being caregivers to a sick partner, while women are better at assuming such home and family responsibilities.” I thought this was a great look inside what our gender roles are in this country. Women are assumed to be better care givers and are better at assuming “family responsibilities.” I wonder what exactly the author ment by responisiblities. I find it interesting that the reasearchers thought that it wasn’t just a tradition in our world that the woman is the caretaker but to go as far as to say it is a scientific explination. What I found even more astonishing is what Dr. Marc Chamberlain, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance thought about the study; “Part of it is a sense of self-preservation. In men that seems to operate very highly and they don't feel this codependence, this requirement to nurture their significant other who has this life-threatening illness, but rather decide what's best for me is to find an alternative mate and abandon my fatally flawed spouse." I found this completely sexist in that he thinks men aren’t as dependant on a woman as she is on him. I think that in some cases, the man has a job and the woman stays with the kids, but in other families, it is the other way around. I think this way of thinking holds women back from being able to break away from the stereotype that they are needy and dependant on men.

Cruel and Unusual or Fair and Justifed?

I recently read an article that discussed the Supreme Courts discussion on “whether the Constitution's ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” should be applied in such cases” as the case from West Kensington Philadelphia where a 17 year old boy beat, raped and murdered a twelve year old neighbor.
The topics in their discussion will deal with whether or not it is constitutional to limit “a state's ability to impose incredibly tough sentences on either the young, or in some cases, the mentally retarded," stated Thomas Goldstein, a leading Washington attorney. They also are posing the question, should a minor be able to receive a life sentence with no parole?
In my opinion, I think that someone of that boys age knows right from wrong. He obviously knows its not right to abduct his twelve year old neighbor and beat, rape and kill her. I think he deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail because he took the life away from a little girl and he should give up his own life for the loss of hers. I think that a minor should be able to receive a life sentence because older teens such as 16 or 17 year olds are capable of thinking like an adult and shouldn't be babied in court after they have done something as horrible as murdering someone. However, I do not think those who have mental disabilities should have the same sentencing. I think a minor with a mental disability, in some cases, don't know what is right from wrong as a person the same age would.
Should a minor be able to receive a life sentence without parole? Do you think it is constitutional to do so?