Classmate I am Thankful For: Jennifer Hernandez

Jennifer and I have been friends since we both first came to Whitney Young. We were both in 7th grade and neither of us knew too many people. Both of us were on bus...um actually I can't remember which bus it was, but we were on the same bus. Very quickly we became friends along with the other kids on the bus, and they were some of the first kids I knew that weren't from the other schools I went to. Going into Whitney I actually probably knew more kids than anyone else. I went to 3 different grade schools, Bell, Decatur and Edison, and around 20-25 kids from these schools were going to Whitney. But I didn't have very many classes with them, almost none in fact. This made my situation kind of awkward, because I didn't know most of the kids in my classes. But Jennifer and her friends made a nice bridge for me to make new friends. Some of my best memories and most vivid experiences from 7th grade are of that bus and all the great times we had there. One of the most clear memories I have is the time half our bus got in trouble. Like serious trouble though, as in suspension. See our bus was normal length, but it was some kind of handicapped bus so the back half had no seats. The bus didn't have enough seats for all of us, so we sat in the back. Actually we sat there even if there were enough seats, we thought we were really cool. A lot of us used to play this game where we would taunt the cars behind us. The activities were not always the most appropriate suffice to say. Eventually someone called Mr. Swanson, the then director of the Academic Center, and half of us got suspended and Saturday schools. I didn't very actively participate but it was a lot of fun to watch and talk to all the other kids. We did prank calls, yelled at kids outside with our whole bodies hanging out of windows, ate ice cream, and a bunch of other dumb stuff that really helped me move into Whitney more comfortably. Jennifer was someone that I could talk to and be friends with no matter what. I am really thankful for all the fun times we shared, they were something I looked forward to all day in 7th grade.

Macbeth: Was it worth it?

An interesting notion to say the least when discussing this is the value that we assign to human life. As soon as one begins to consider this question they automatically begin assigning value to human lives. Is one life equal to one year as king? Is someone else's one life better than another's? Macbeth evaluates this question extensively really up until he decides to kill Banquo. It's an interesting thing, human psychology on murder. After a while the killer just stops caring entirely. Sometimes they even begin to enjoy it, like their whole life revolves around it, depending on it to hang onto their remaining sanity. Macbeth portrays this right up until the end. Underneath Macbeth's facade is a slowly deteriorating mind that becomes increasingly paranoid and obsessed with murder. This is often referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder. People who are seemingly normal on the outside, in fact often very charismatic, intelligent, and even with families, who are on the inside a mess of evil intent and madness. I learned about this condition while reading about famous 70s and 80s killer Ted Bundy. Bundy had this same disorder. For years Bundy had a secret life of murder, rape, and pathologically psychotic episodes despite in his normal life seeming like a perfectly normal man. In fact he was the least likely suspect for someone who would do these things. Bundy was a law school student, bright and engaged. He worked with politicians and was regarded by many to be a kind and compassionate individual. Crazy as it may seem he even worked as a suicide hotline operator and was described by his co-workers as empathetic and caring. Macbeth is seen in the same light. He is a cold blooded killer on the inside, but outside he seems like a model man. Someone who is just, noble, righteous and brave; all the good qualities of a Scottish aristocrat. I think when we begin to look at Macbeth's view on the worth of killing it slowly devolves from convenience to enjoyment. Bundy did the same thing. He originally killed his rape victims simply out of convenience of not having a witness, but told interviewers that he later killed for the killing itself. He had an almost cultish worship of his victims, making their murders and deaths rituals, building shrines at their bodies and returning often. He killed because he needed to, it was all he knew. Macbeth originally killed out of desire for power, but slowly devolves to killing out of sheer paranoia, eating at his sanity and driving him into insane blood lust. Because of this he no longer evaluates like we would this situation. We don't take the joy of the murder into our account of the pros. We think of the power, wealth, etc. that stands to gain. But Macbeth thinks on a different plane than that. 

Now the question comes to me, would I follow Macbeth's footsteps? The answer for me would unconditionally no. To be honest, I feel from a religious and moral standpoint that taking another human's life is simply wrong, and should thus be avoided at all costs. Not only that but that we would even consider this question is I believe morally bankrupt. I mentioned this during our class discussion, but as soon as you begin to evaluate from a consequentialist standpoint this question, you are immediately placing value on someone else's life. This is something we talk about in Debate on occasion. Consequentialism could be compared to Utilitarianism. We must weigh the outcomes of two options and discover which choice results in the best world. I think that a question like this needs to be denied in all circumstances. Something that asks you how many lives you would sacrifice to gain for yourself is no matter what going to be wrong, and even stopping to begin considering it makes you corrupt too. The question often complicates itself though. What if you could sacrifice one man to save 10. Or what if you could sacrifice a city to save the world. The list goes on but as the impacts get larger for others the consequentialist approach gets more difficult to ignore. This is a question I can't answer as easily as the first. But ultimately Macbeth-ish actions are wrong, and that's just it. Killing some dude's "babes" and wife is pretty messed up, and everyone can agree with that. And if you chose to go through with it anyways you're going to have to live with the guilt forever, and that, is the worst punishment of all.