Airplane Attack

Topic: Hijack


In a situation regarding airplane hijack people always think the worst case scenairo. If the decision was left up to me, I don't believe in negotiating with terrorist. So no matter what the threat is I wouldn't let any convicted criminals go.

Compared to how the airline's work twenty years ago and how they work now, I think it's safe to say it would be a lot easier to take down a terrorist. Since the nine eleven attack in two thousand one our airports and securities are stricter. Most airliners have trained agents aboard and trained flight associates' aboard. I would make sure that the agents understand that the passengers come first, and it would be in the best saftey to get the passengers off as soon as possible.

It would be mandatory that the agents not allow letting their cover to be blown. There are several compartments to an airplane that allow passengers to sneak out. If there is a way to keep the terriorist occupied while some of the passengers attempt to sneak out. I wouldn't recommend all the passengers sneak out first just a few.

There are other ways of taking control of the situation by lying to the terrorist. If I was somehow to let the pilot know that by announcing to everyone on the airplane that a convicted criminal was just released, the terrorist could believe that. If they're up in the air, the terrorist really has no proof that someone was just released.

You can't negotiate with terrorist because if anything else were to happen to someone else in America then you would have to negotiate with every other terrorist that happens to make a threat or attempt to hijack an airplane. Negotiation is not an option. In cases like this I would let everyone to remain calm and never think the worst. There are other ways out of the situation.
Due to nine eleven and the way security works; I believe the possibilities of another hijack are five in ten. Precautions are still needed and choices still need to be made.

Relativist in the Judicial System

Topic: Right or Wrong

When it comes to the judicial system and judging someone else's life it can become a problem to say the least. I don't agree that judging the punishment of a human life can be left up to another human being. If the prosecutor provides good evidence but it's false evidence against the defense team, should he or she be sentenced to life in jail? In this case it would be wrong.

Being a lawyer can be one hell of a job. You must examine your audience, trust that your client is telling the truth, and prove to the jury that your client is innocence. The defense team can provide great evidence and a good argument that is equally right, but not true. As a human race we think it's wrong to put an innocence man behind bars when we are the ones that made the decision in the first place to put him there. As a relativist both sides provide good evidence that is equally right in the judicial system, but has proven to American society that whether the evidence is good or bad as long as they have someone behind bars it's ok.

The judge plays an equal part in it as well as anyone else. The judge can decide if he feels both sides are out of line and if the defense team overrules the prosecutor or vice versa. The judge can be right in this situation, but should hear both sides out before overruling.
Next the person that is being convicted can put up a good argument, but not good enough to convince the jury. Due to the fact that the evidence pending against him decides how he spends that rest of his life in jail when he may not have been there at the scene of the crime. It is a proven fact that people can be framed for a crime that they did not commit, but due to the evidence is a sentence life in jail.

Being a relativist can provide good sides from both teams, but it's not always the correct evidence. As a human race we don't have that right to take someone's life by saying guilty or not guilty.

Billion Dollar Industry

Topic: Perception

I was told before coming to work for Wal-mart, that's the place to make money, get more work hours, and build a career. Let me tell you folks, Wal-mart is not what it's made out to be!

Don't get me wrong I enjoy my job, but I don't get paid like everyone percieves. People would swear I was a living billionaire. I'm lucky if my pay check can see over three hundred fifty dollars. Just because Wal-mart makes a lot of money it doesn't go to the employees. In one day one register can make up to twenty thousand dollars. No employee is exactly sure where that money goes. You would have to ask management about that one.

When it comes to how many hours you get, it depends if you are full-time or part-time. If you are full-time you'll get all the hours you need and more. People view Wal-mart as having enough employees to cover all shifts. Wal-mart is understaffed. So if it says you are part-time, there is a good chance you will be working a full-time shift. You don't really have a chance to see your family because Wal-mart becomes your first home.

Wal-mart is a great place to build a career if you plan on staying there the next thirty years. I have seen people at the age of nineteen walk into the store and become a manger right away, but then you have people who have been there for the past fifth teen years and are still cashiers. It takes time and dedication.

Wal-mart is a great place to shop. Ask around first before you get a job there. It's not everything people make it out to be. Just ask the employees.

My name is Princess Harris. I was born in Warner Robins, Georgia. I was born September 21, 1987. For the most part I'm a pretty funny peson. I try to do things that will keep people laughing. In class I keep quiet, just to keep from getting in trouble. I'm a cashier at Wal-Mart on Waston Blvd. In my spare time I enjoy listening to music, playing the keyboard, and writing poetry. Although I enjoy making people laugh, I'm very shy. I won't speak to someone unless they speak first. So if you enjoy a good laugh e-mail me sometime at Anntonette06@aol.com