what I would like to learn

I think I am a fairly good writer.  I rarely ever have a problem grammatically and I am usually a good story teller.  The only thing I think I need help with is how to write a good conclusion.  I can write good introductions and good overall papers, but for some reason I just do not know how to write a good conclusion.

in class freewrite

1.) Sanders proposes the hike into the mountains with his son because it is very peaceful and calm in nature.  Sanders and his son fight a lot so he thought it would be a good idea to go for a hike to try to become closer.
2.) Sanders son tell his "you always ruin everything" because they were trying to get away from everything and get along a little better, but they always find the need to argue.
3.) In the hike in the mountains, Sanders learned that him and his son are not the same and he needs to try to be more understanding of him and see things from his point of view.
1.) When the author got dumped, he moves outside into his own backyard into a tent.
2.) The living conditions in the tent were not good.  It was raining the night he moved out, there was nothing but dark forest in front of the tent door and even when he was ready to move back in, he couldn't because his parents rented out his room.
3.) After talking about previous girls, he eventually finds contentment with a girl named Heidi.  He also gets contentment out of his job by traveling and writing.

Officer Schoolcraft

In my response on what defines a trouble-maker, I said that a trouble-maker is someone who goes against societies norms.  In this sense, it is plausible to classify Officer Schoolcraft as a trouble-maker.  Most police would just do what they are told without question because they do not want to lose their job.  However, in this case I would not label Officer Schoolcraft as a trouble-maker because of the circumstances surrounding his situation.  The reason Officer Schoolcraft did not follow orders to issue more tickets is because he did not have a family, so he did not worry about losing his job as much and he thought it was not only illegal, but immoral what the chief was trying to do.  For this reason I think that Officer Schoolcraft is much more of a truth-teller then a trouble-maker. 

I think that what Officer Schoolcraft did was very stupid and very brave at the same time.  I think it was stupid because he could have gotten into a lot of trouble.  He failed to realize that it was him against the whole New York City Police Department and a lot of things could have gone wrong by him letting out secrets.  He was stupid for trying to play superman, but I also think that takes a certain amount of bravery.  Surely Officer Schoolcraft was brave by standing up to the whole police department even when they entered his home and arrested him.  I think most people would agree with me that Officer Schoolcraft was doing his job correctly.  Even though the chief’s orders were to issue more tickets, he did not follow those orders because he knew that that was not the right thing to do.  Officer Schoolcraft was the only officer to remember that he was there to protect the rights of citizens, not to dismiss them.  Even if other officers were not comfortable with the new orders and they had a problem with them, they still carried them out, making Officer Schoolcraft the only “good cop.” 

If I were in the same situation as Officer Schoolcraft I would have handled it a little differently.  At first, I would have done the same thing as him by not listening to orders and continuing on with the correct way of enforcing the law.  The thing I would have done differently though is as soon as things started to get out of control and when he started fearing for his own life, I would have quit the job.  There are plenty of other cities in the country and plenty of other opportunities as a police officer.  I also would not have told anyone about the extortion that was going on inside the police department.  This is what led to all of the trouble he faced throughout the story and the police department trying to get rid of him.

facebook

Probably the biggest characteristic that defines our generation is the use of computers and the internet.  Computers and the internet have been around before our generation, but it wasn’t until recently that they have become as widespread as they are today.  Along with this technology being available to more and more people, we see a rise in social sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.  Sites such as these are known to have their pros and cons.   One pro of a site like Facebook is to stay in touch with friends from high school or college.  Another pro is that you can say what is on your mind, so in a way it helps relieve stress.  This pro can easily turn into a con though.  As we saw in Joe’s story, he took this a little too far and got the police and homeland security involved.  This is another con about sites such as Facebook.  Even though they allow us to speak our mind, we lose the benefit of body language and tone.  Had Joe said this in person there probably would not have been a problem because you could tell by his tone that he was joking. 

            I do not think Facebook pages or similar sites should be censored.  I think that if you are stupid enough to say something such as you are going to kill someone on a site where around a few hundred people can see it, then you should deserve the consequences.  It is common sense that if you make a bomb threat in an airport that you will be arrested and detained.  The same principle applies to Facebook.  Some of the people reading your posts might not even know who you are, therefore how are they supposed to know if you are the kind of person who would actually do that or not?  They don’t and the police are not any different from them.  As far as Facebook getting me into trouble, that has never happened yet, although it has helped me uncover some truths.  A girl I was dating for a long time was talking to another guy and I found out by comments back and forth between them on Facebook.  Soon after, we broke up and never talked again.  Other than that though, I have never had any stories or heard of any from my friends about anyone getting into major trouble because of Facebook.

what is truth/trouble?

When I think of telling the truth, I get a picture in my head of a child being punished and the parent saying, “if you tell me the truth, you won’t be in trouble.”  All throughout childhood we are rewarded for telling the truth and even sometimes as adults.  For example, a suspect of a crime might be offered a lessened sentence if he agrees to talk.  This happens every day in this country.  One example of this, even though it is a movie, is Law Abiding Citizen.  The suspect brutally rapes and murders a family, but gets away with a few years for talking.  Another example is the way police deal with drug dealers.  Say the police catch a cocaine dealer, they can easily get a sentence of 8 years, but just by the dealer saying a few names, somehow the sentence gets reduced to one or two.  As children we are also always told that when we lie, our conscience will know and it will eat away at us until we tell the truth.  Personally, I do not like to think of the conscience as anything spiritual, but rather conditioned.  Generally, when I think of telling the truth, I also think of the classic devil and angel on the shoulders, truth vs. lies, good vs. bad, right vs. wrong and so on.  Not only do we need to tell the truth to authority figures, we also need to tell ourselves the truth.  In my opinion, lying to yourself is one of the most destructive things anyone can do.

            When I think of troublemakers, I think of simply going against societies norms.  This means, to me at least, that whether you are a drug dealer, bank robber, extortionist, j-walker, or murderer that you fall in the same category, which is a troublemaker.  Troublemakers do not always have to be breaking the law or doing something wrong though.  If a group got together to overthrow the government because they think the government is getting to powerful, does that make them troublemakers even though the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms specifically for this reason?  I do not think so for the same reason that I do not think the pilgrims were troublemakers.  Yes, they went against societies norms, but I do not think this should classify them as troublemakers.  But what about lawbreakers?  Surely, if you break the law then you must be a troublemaker and again I disagree.  I disagree for the fact that sometimes the socially wrong decision, is also the morally correct one.  The classic example of this is to picture a man whos wife is dying.  There is a cure for her disease, but the man does not have enough money to afford it so he breaks into the pharmacy and steals it.  This man is breaking the law, but I would not classify him as a troublemaker.  We are not robots, so everything is not black and white.  There are some exceptions that come into play because as humans we have morals and the ability to reason.