| (no subject) |
[Oct. 20th, 2008|03:41 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Exam III
October 19, 2008
Silent Spring Essay
In 1962, an environmentalist by the name of Rachel Carson wrote the book, Silent Spring to bring light to the general public on the effects of pesticides, most concentrating on DDT’s and their effects on the environment, the animals that live in it and their effects of human health as well. Throughout Silent Spring, Carson accuses the chemical industry of disinformation to the public and public officials of accepting the industries claims without doing any research of the effects the chemicals had themselves.
DDT’s (Dichloro Dyphenyl Trichloroethane) insecticidal properties were discovered during the second half of World War II. The troops used the chemical as a powder form to kill off the mosquitoes that transmitted malaria and the lice that lived in the soldiers’ hair that transmitted typhus. After discovering that the DDT’s were highly successful in killing off such small pests, DDT’s were made available for agricultural and insecticidal use after the war.
It wasn’t too long when scientists began to have suspicions on the safeness of DDT’s. These chemicals had made a harmful and noticeable effect on the water, soil, vegetation, wildlife, and humans as well.
In the fourth chapter of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson explains the negative impacts that DDT’s have had directly on surface waters and ground waters all over the world. Water itself is a precious commodity, and she explains how of the small amount of good water that we have, we are slowly making what we do have unsafe and unable to sustain life. The problem with polluting water is once you pollute water, you are polluting basically everything. Every living thing needs water in order to survive, so while they are using the water for whatever needs they have, they are becoming contaminated as well. Carson explains how careless and in trouble we really are by using an example of the drinking water from an orchard area in Pennsylvania. The orchard area sometime during the year was sprayed by these dangerous chemicals. They tested the drinking water from this area on fish in a laboratory and realized that there were enough chemicals in the water to kill all of the fish in less than four hours. Carson pointed out another scary example, of water from a stream that received some sort of pesticides that were draining from sprayed cotton fields. It turns out that even after the water had went through a purifying plant, it still killed all of the fish inhabiting the fifteen streams that branched off of the first one. The scary thing is that these chemicals go basically unnoticed unless something drastic, such as all the fish in a river dying, happens. It is also scary that we are daily ingesting the same water that was capable of killing all fish in the matter of hours. Another problem with groundwater contamination is that scientists were finding dangerous chemicals hundreds of miles from its original source because the chemicals were carried underneath the ground and basically went everywhere.
Another problem that Sarah Carson points out in Silent Spring is the negative impacts that DDT’s and other harmful pesticides and insecticides have on the soil itself. In the beginning of the careless distribution of DDT’s and other harmful chemicals era, it was known to be normal to think that a pound of DDT per ever acre was “harmless”. Even if so were the case, farmers were doing multiple sprayings of the chemicals every year. Carson brought up an example of corn soils that had around nineteen pounds of DDT’s per acre and a cranberry bog that had as much as thirty four pounds of DDT’s in just one acre. One thing learned about DDT’s and other such chemicals is that they don’t just die off once they get into the ground. Years after the last application of these chemicals, you can still find decently high traces in whatever crop is grown there. Sarah Carson explained such a thing happening when she talked about arsenic found in tobacco. At one time in the 1940’s, arsenic was used to treat tobacco crops. After everyone realized how harmful and deadly arsenic was, they decided to treat the tobacco with a synthetic-organic insecticide instead. The problem is, even after they discontinued using the harmful chemical, scientists began to realize a 600% increase in the amount of arsenic in the tobacco. A scientist by the name of Henry Satterlee concluded that even though the use of arsenic had been discontinued, the tobacco plants were still picking up the old poisons laid down years and years ago.
Another problem that Carson brings up with the soil is not just that the chemicals are harming the soil and crops, it’s that they are also harming the organisms that live inside and out of it. A great example that she uses is the earthworm, which as we all know makes its home inside of the soil. Studies by Darwin have shown that not only can earthworms add over an inch of soil in a ten year period, but they also aerate the soil, keep it drained, and aid the penetration of roots. Poisoning and or killing these organisms would have dire effects on the soil and the plant life that exists. When the earthworm is contaminated but not killed, there lies another problem. Now the problem becomes even larger. Scientists were now finding birds, specifically robins, lying around dead. Cause of death? Insecticide poisoning carried through the worms that they ate. The thing about DDT’s and other such chemicals is that they are magnified throughout the food chain. After eating a few earthworms, the birds DDT levels were several times higher than the single worms themselves.
Once we begin to think about the magnification of DDT’s throughout the food chain, we have to start looking at it from our perspective. We are, after all, at the top of the food chain. For the first time in mankind’s history, we are exposed to harmful chemicals from conception up until death. There has been a study that the average human being is storing potentially damaging amounts of DDT’s at all times. Carson brings up a study where scientists studied meals at restaurants and came to the conclusion that every single meal contained some amount of DDT’s.
The question is: Why should we as human beings worry about DDT’s? Carson had facts upon facts why DDT’s are bad news when it comes to their effect on us. DDT’s do multiple things to our bodies ranging from: destroying enzymes that provide our bodies protection from bodily harm, block the oxidation process from which our bodies receive their energy, preventing normal functioning of various organs, and initiation in the certain cells a slow and irreversible change that can sometimes lead to malignancy. The problem with mankind is that we tend to live in the moment rather than think of the consequences it may bring years and years down the road. There are plenty of DDT cases that show no immediate effects, instead it shows up years down the road, a huge example being cancer. Carson explains that since the use of DDT’s has started, the cancer rate of the average American has sky rocketed. For instance, cancer was once a medical rarity in children, and just in the 1960’s alone, more children were dying from it than any other disease. People were also suffering from such things as leukemia, reproduction problems, paralysis, and many other terrible things.
Another problem with using pesticides and insecticides is that they tend to make the actual problem worse. One way they do so is that they weaken the natural defense of the actual environment. What man does not realize sometimes is that nature has ways to effectively control insects already, and once we kill off such things, we’re helping the insects that much more. Another problem that farmers have run into is that unlike humans, these insects can sometimes easily become immune to these chemicals. It would take human beings generations upon generations to become used to certain chemicals, as it would bugs, but what we tend to forget is that bugs reproduce at a much more rapid pace. In the end, farmers have to keep dumping more and more poisons on these bugs to kill them, basically, in the end, breeding super bugs of pests that were unwanted in the first place.
Carson goes on to explain that at the moment there are two roads that man could take, which were: take the easy route which will eventually lead to destruction of our own kind and everything around us or take the road less traveled and do the right thing for future generations ahead, as well as our own, regardless of how hard it may be. She also gave out examples of people that took the other route and it ended up working out better for them. There have been multiple discoveries of natural pesticides such as: producing sterile versions of the pest, sound and protozoa. The state of California is proof that biological control is better than chemical control by putting in $4,000,000 into biological control and getting $100,000,000 in return.
Rachel Carson’s book was so successful at increasing public awareness of the threat of continued careless pesticide use because, in a sense, she used fear. She was able to bring all of this information to the general public and get her message heard. By telling all of the gruesome facts, she installed fear in the people which ultimately led to the birth of the environmental movement. People read the book and were terrified at the predictions of what could happen and what was already being allowed to happen. With a credited name and a well written book, she was able to get the information out there that she wanted to.
Say, a scientist were publishing research results on the bioconcentration of pesticides and its consequences for wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, basically almost the same thing Rachel Carson did, but in a technical scientific journal. I believe its strengths would be obvious. For one, the author is a legit scientist. The other strength is that this whole journal is straight forward facts about what is going on. I believe that one strong weakness with this is that the general public would have a hard time being able to connect. I believe that people want a story, rather than pages upon pages of numbers and graphs and facts that they’ll have to figure out. On that note, I don’t think that the scientist would be nearly as effective as Rachel Carson was on convincing the public. People like a good story with facts strewn in, and that’s exactly what she did throughout Silent Spring.
Now say that a journalist is interviewing several researchers such as the scientist in the last example, summarizing their findings, and reporting to the public in a magazine article. I believe that the journalist’s strength is that magazines, such as Newsweek, are people friendly. People tend to read magazines much more than they would ever read a random scientific journal. The only weakness is the fact that it is in a magazine and not necessarily completely true and could be fabricated to some extent. I think that a magazine could be almost as effective as Sarah Carson on alerting the public, but just not quite as much as she was. They could be just as effective if they kept doing studies about the topic and printing stories about the topic monthly. By doing so, people would slowly but surely become aware of the surrounding problem that we face ourselves with. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 17th, 2008|08:45 am] |
Kirsten Wright
3 Questions
Ethics.
1. Could "deep ecology" almost be considered a religion of some sort?
2. In "Is God In Trees", the author talks about if religious people say that God is in trees, then he must be in such things as cancer as well, but wouldn't religious people put a twist on that and say that that is the devil and his evil?
3. Is the author of "The Meaning of Life" atheist or theist? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 10th, 2008|03:13 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
3 Questions
1. How can Kant say that animals are not self conscious? While that may be true for some, there are others, take dolphins for example, that have their own language and know what's going on around them.
2. Pete Singer talks about how they make veal, and I'm wondering how we as people can even think that it's okay to do something like that to animals. Maybe they aren't self conscious, but what if they are and know what's going on?
3. In an Animal's Place, I think I most agree with the author. He explains that as long as the animals are treated humanely, that it shouldn't matter if we eat meat. Why do people look so far down on eating animals, because I believe that it's part of the food chain and life. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 3rd, 2008|02:00 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
3 Questions.
1. When Warrens, in "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion", says that aomw human beings are not people, i'm assuming talking about the handicapped, is she saying that it would be fine to abort them and it not be murder?
2. How can Marquis, in "Why Abortion Is Immoral", compare and adult baby and cells of a fetus as the same thing, comparing them with saying if it's wrong to kill an adult human, than why wouldn't it to kill it earlier on?\
3. Is Warrens saying the young children are even "abortable", in a sense that they are not even really humans yet? |
|
|
| second |
[Mar. 27th, 2008|04:43 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics Topic Paper
26 March 2008
Is Abortion Moral?
For years now, the argument of whether or not abortion should be kept an option to expecting mothers has been heated. You have one half of the spectrum, pro-life, who believes that abortion is wrong and immoral. There are different degrees of “pro-lifers” ranging from totally against any abortion, regardless if it has to do with the baby being conceived through rape or that the mom’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, to people that believe that while those two situations are acceptable, getting abortion just because you don’t want a child is unacceptable. On the other side of the spectrum, there’s pro-choice. Pro-choice believes that it is a person’s right to decided whether or not they should have to carry out a pregnancy or not. The question is who’s right? What is the moral thing to do?
In the 1970’s, the court case Roe vs. Wade was held. Roe argued that the laws against abortion were unconstitutional. After all the debating was done in court, Roe ended up winning in the supreme court, uplifting restrictions and laws against abortion that were there previously throughout the United States. But, even after this judgment, the fight still continues.
Throughout the last thirty years, the pro-side of the spectrum has come up with several plausible arguments on why abortion is not moral and wrong. A large portion of “pro-lifers” will argue the fact that abortion is murder, because they claim that even though the baby is in the womb, it is still a person, or at least a potential one. Philosopher, Don Marquis, in “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, points out that clearly we see it as wrong to kill an adult human being, so why would we draw the line and say that it’s okay to kill a human that is just unborn for the time being? (420) “Pro-lifers” feel that it is wrong that someone should play God, and take someone’s life in their hands and decide whether or not it gets to live, depending on just how they feel about the situation. The general conception of the public of murder, is that it is wrong and immoral, which leads to support for the pro-life side, if people are unsure of the true definition of being human and murder.
Pro-choice people believe that abortion is a right that a woman is entitled to, and should get to choose, and not be cheated out of just because one thinks it’s wrong. While pro-life argue that abortion is the murder of a human being, pro-choicers, such as Mary Anne Warren, disagree. Warren says that the definition of a human being is a “full-fledged member of the moral community”. (393) Sure we have genetic capabilities of being a human being, but, as we know, fetuses are unable to be a member of the moral community. Later on she explains traits of “personhood”, which include: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and the capacity to communicate. (394) None of which a fetus is able to do. If the fetus is not a human being, then it can not be murder, therefore making it okay. Pro-choicers also argue that it is no ones business, but that of the impregnated parent to decide what she can and can not do with her body. While that woman is pregnant, she is the one in charge of what gets to happens to her body, the fetus just lives off of it. If we don’t feel bad about killing viruses that need our body to live on, then why should it be that big of a deal if someone gets an abortion? Someone doesn’t want to host the “virus” in their body any longer. As Warren says, “…a woman’s right to protect her health, happiness, freedom, and even her life, by terminating an unwanted pregnancy, will always override whatever right to life it may be appropriate to ascribe to a fetus, even a filly developed one.” |
|
|
| first one |
[Mar. 27th, 2008|04:42 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics
27 Feb. 2008
Is Abortion Moral?
a•bor•tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn) :
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. (site 2)
In the past few years, the argument of whether abortion is right or wrong has been heating up. The questions is, which is right? Pro-choice or pro-life? The obvious definition of each is pro-choice believes that it’s a womans choice to decided whether or not she should be able to have an abortion, and the pro-life people believe that abortion is just wrong in general and should not happen.
Pro-life believe in their minds that abortion is murder. They’ll go as far as saying you never know what kind of person you’re denying the world of, for all you know, it could’ve been the next president. The reason that they believe that abortion is murder is because they say that as soon as the fetus is actually concepted, it therefore has to be a human in their mind. Some have even argued that allowing abortion will raise the percentage of child abuse because by allowing someone to throw a life away, you are saying that children are disposable, and won’t cherish them as much.(site 4) The argument most “pro-lifers” like to lean on the most is that the bible forbids it, because he did afterall, forbid murder. Pro-lifers just don’t believe that it is a womans right to decide whether or not someone gets to live or die just because of how they feel. To sum it up, pro-lifers believe that the choice of abortion is immoral, completely wrong.(site 3)
Pro-choice on the other hand believe that it is a human right for a mother to choose whether or not she should keep the baby. Their rebutle to the pro-life argument is that a baby is not actually a human being until shortly before it is born, which shoots down the argument that it is murder. They believe that no one has the right to tell a mother what she is supposed to do about her pregnancy, and that only she should have an opinion on what is to happen.
So which one is right? Is abortion moral?
One pro-life philosopher said that of course abortion is unethical, calling it “the deliberate destruction of a human being”.(site 5)
On the other hand, a pro-choice philsopher said, “abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.”
Most people will accept the fact that murder is not moral, so it must all sum down to is abortion really murder? Pro-life people explain it as it can not be murder if the fetus is not independent from it’s mother’s body. While the fetus is inside of its mother’s body, she has a right to decide what to do from there. (site one) Pro-choice argue that since it is a potential person, it is murder, because of what could have been.
The fact of the matter is nobody really knows if abortion is ethical or not, because there’s not one real distinct line drawn showing what is right and what is wrong. Until we as people can agree on some kind of line, the argument will just continue to get heated because of the fact that both sides are very passionate, whether it’s for “what god wants”, or human rights.
Cites So Far
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html
http://peter.outspoken.us/blogs/2004/09/define-abortion.html
http://www.biblequery.org/Practice/Abortion/Abortion.htm
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/10rguments.htm
http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/abortion.html |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 25th, 2008|05:54 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics
3 Questions
1. In The Unselfishness Trap, it explains that you should put the value of other peoples happiness in front of you own. Wouldn't that cause you in someways to feel empty and unfulfilled, since you know that most don't go by that "rule" anyways, so you'd be getting nothing out of the deal?
2. Would The Unselfishness Trap be talking about the same thing as Pojman, when he calls it altruism?
3. Isn't Pojman saying that the idea is a bad idea then? And that it would be only depressing? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 19th, 2008|10:12 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics
3 Questions
1. In Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, in the intro it explains that the author of the piece is a minister, but in the beginning isn't he kind of making God look like bad person, and not one that loves you?
2. Also, is he saying that instead of loving God, you should be fearful of him?
3. If I'm grasping this right, in Self-Deceit, does the author claim that self-deceivers are the people that do charity, such as soup kitches, to make them feel better about themselves, and care very little for the people they are actually helping? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 12th, 2008|03:47 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics
3 Questions
1. In Filial Morality, are they saying that a filial relationship is one that parents deserve after they have taken care of their children and they are grown, where the child owes some sort of attention to them for life?
2. Farther into Filial Morality, there's a letter to Ann Landers from a parent who asked if her children owe her money, cause now that she's broke, she claims that she's in debt because she put them through college and paid for their weddings. Wouldn't it be her fault, since she obviously didn't have to do any of that?
3. In the Ethics of Virtue, the author writes a list of what virtues are and explains how all of these are qualities a person should hope for, but aren't there times where being virtuous could put you in a bad place, take courage for example. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 28th, 2008|01:34 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
3 Questions
1. In Happiness and Virtues, in the beginning sentence it goes along the lines of saying that every action or pursuit is considered to aim at some good, but aren't there times where an action is intended to be malicious?
2.In Of The Morals of the Catholic Church, the authot claims that following God is a happy life. Does he mean that this is the only way to be happy? Because I have a hard time believing it if it does mean that, because I've met plenty of atheists that are quite happy with their own.
3. In Happiness and Virtues, it says that happiness ranks highest of all practical goods, but isn't it possible that someone out there has something above that? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 13th, 2008|01:50 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
3 Questions
1.In Uganda's Women:Children, Drudgery, and Pain, is "In any places, women treat wife-beating as an accepeted practice" a typo? (any supposed to be many)
2.How is it possible to never hear of condoms, but know about an injectible birth control?
3.Why haven't people there heard of condoms in the first place if their is an AIDS crisis there in the first place? I was told that it's because the missionaries that go down there teach them abstinence and look down on condoms, which I don't know if that's right or not, but this is a deadly disease and people are going to have sex regardless, so I don't understand why they would rather press their religious views rather then actually help them. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 6th, 2008|01:54 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
3 Questions
1. In The Holocaust and Moral Philosophy it talks about how the Christians apologized about the Jews being evil in their eyes and their religion and that they take it all back. Aren’t there things now that they consider evil in their eyes, then until the whole world disapproves of it, they’ll end up changing it to not look so bad?
2. Isn’t there another example of this when the pope got rid of purgatory for little babies? People didn’t like the thought, so they changed it.
3. So how can people possibly rely on religion if it’s been changed so many times for reasons such as certain rules just didn’t rub people the right way? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 31st, 2008|10:42 am] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics
3 Questions
1.In Moral Doctrines and Moral Theories, it says that in Mills’ book, that “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness?” Does it mean that every action is viewed by one person as right or as wrong? Or, does it mean that actions are only right when they promote happiness, because going back to my first question, can’t one action that promotes happiness, be bad in anothers eyes?
2. Mills says that happiness is pleasure, but couldn’t it be the opposite. Say, you’re in a game and you’re upset that you lost, but couldn’t you be happy for the other team? |
|
|
| gay. |
[Jan. 29th, 2008|10:21 am] |
Kirsten Wright
Environmental Science
My final topic is going to be the effect that we have on coral reefs, such as pollution and global warming.
Sources:
1) Coral Reefs (e-journal)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/100407/
The website itself is full of different articles of coral reefs in general. The one I focused on most talked about the environmental impact that tourists have that come and visit the coral reefs, which is usually negative, whether it’s throwing trash in it or stepping all over it.
2) Global Warming Is Destroying Coral Reefs, Major Study Warns (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213152600.htm
I believe that the title of the article is pretty self explantory. It focuses on the damaging effects that global warming is having on the coral reefs of the world, and if we don’t take action now, pretty soon there won’t be much left.
3) Coral Reefs On Brink Of Disaster, Scientists Urge Action Now (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071021225256.htm
The article talks about how we only have a limited amount of time to save the coral reefs. It explains that when corals die, thousands to millions of organisms are effected, because they are their habitats.
4) Empty Ocean: plundering the world’s marine life. By: Richard Ellis (Book)
The author talks about how we as people are ruining the ocean as a habitat for other animals to live in. He explains how polluting the ocean is killing off things leading into a chain reaction of death, basically.
5) Climate Change: Impact on Coastal Habitation. By: Doeke Eisma (Book)
Like many books are focused on, this one focuses on how out drastic climate change is effecting the ocean as a habitat. It talks about how us overpolluting and our ignorance together, do not make for a good mix for the ocean and the creatures that inhabit it. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 24th, 2008|02:23 pm] |
Kirsten Wright
Ethics
3 Questions
1. Isn’t it possible that even though two people do the same thing, with different motives, one could be worse? In Billy Budd it says that military courts don't listen to the motive, because it is the action that they did. But, if two people have different reasons, shouldn't they be looked at differently?
2. Also, isn’t giving the same punishment wrong since different people need different punishments to react?
3. I know that this is basically a question in the book, but isn’t The Moral Insight basically the golden rule, just drawn out with more words? |
|
|
| Senior trippin'. |
[May. 2nd, 2007|10:07 am] |
Been a while.
Senior trip @ Florida:
-Front row to Cartel.
Met them afterwards.
Got signed.
-BFE to The Fray.
Pretty voice, dull show.
-Found the hot back up dancer.
anddddd got a kiss.
-An incredibly large amount of rude black people.
Not being a racist, but holy lord.
-Booozed.
And didn't get busted.
-Rode THE GREATEST ride that ever existed.
The sling shot.
-Pet me some dolphins.
and sting rays.
and whatev.
-Had a random guy sing to me on the beach w. his guitar.
and it was surprisingly good.
and saw the coolest old guy that's ever existed.
I dig Regina Spektor these days. |
|
|
| Nothing important. |
[Jan. 22nd, 2007|11:00 am] |
| [ | music |
| | It's Dangerous Business...-Underoath | ] |
It's been months.
Volleyball. We've lost, oh you know, every single game of the season so far. Impressive, I agree. I'm so sick of this.
Softball. Fat people that try to replace me. Kinda cute.
Party this weekend. Amazing. I told the chick she had nappy hair. I am the winner of this war of words.
The boyfriend. Amazing that I've been able to settle down. Usually, after a few months, I'm sick of people. Different this time. Bangin' = The best.
College. Two acceptance letters. Now who to go to? Go far away or stay close to the family? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 23rd, 2006|07:54 pm] |
| [ | music |
| | checkmarks-the academy is... | ] |
[[Normal everyday questions.]]
1. Would you kiss the last person you kissed again?
Of course.
2. What song describes your relationship status?
Uhhhrm. Give me a second to think about that.
3. How much does your dog weigh?
Don't own one.
4. Are you a heart breaker, or the heart breakee?
I'm just cool.
5. Ever waxed your legs?
Sounds unfun.
6. Earrings or necklaces?
Earrings. Well, both.
7. Who have you talked to most today?
Joeyyyyy.
8. Ever taken a myspace survey without any questions missing?
Pretty sure yes.
9. Friend of the opposite sex that lives closest to you?
Hmm. Coty.
10. Color of your shirt?
Pink && blue. && white.
11. How many years have you taken a language?
Just two of latin.
12. Who's on speed dial 5?
Doesn't exist.
13. What color is your background on your computer mainly?
More blue than anything.
14. Do you wish on 11:11?
Yessss.
15. Good advice if you ever go camping?
Pee before you leave.
16. Are you a bad influence?
So I hear.
17. What color are your eyes?
Lame brown.
18. Would you rather have your name or your siblings name?
Prolly my own.
19. Would you do anything for someone?
Certain people.
20. Have you ever been called a whore?
Who hasn't?
21. Favorite color?
Silver.
22. Do you use smiley faces on the computer a lot?
No. Not really.
24. Are your grades good?
Course. A's and a B.
25. Do you have any friends with benefits?
Nopeee. Gots a boy.
26. Would you date anyone on your top friends?
Am.
27. Does your best friend have a myspace?
All of em do.
28. Who's page did you last visit?
Coty's.
29. Last time you went out to lunch?
Today w. my pal.
30. Do you watch the Gilmore Girls?
It's pretty gay.
31. Have you ever enjoyed listening to Jack Johnson?
I freaking love him.
32. Have you ever seen or enjoyed watching the O.C.?
Lame.
33. Do you have one or more Britney Spears C.D.s?
Like 4. lol.
34. Which radio stations are your favorites?
Not a radio fan.
35. Are you a Lost fanatic?
Nopppe.
36. Still have pictures of your ex?
Yup.
37. Do you have a song by Ozzy Osbourne in your library?
Sure do. w. Kelly.
38. Alannis Morsette?
Nope.
39. Do you watch Family Guy Regularly?
Semi regularly.
40. King of the Hill?
Nopeeee.
[[Admit it]]
41. Do you read trashy romance novels often?
haha. Yessss. They're the best.
42. Do you ever forget to give a Christmas/birthday present?
All the time.
43. Do you sing obnoxiously in the car?
Often.
44. Do you sing obnoxiously in the shower when no one's home?
Good time.
45. Have you ever watched a little kid's show when you were over 12?
Got little brothers and sisters.
[[The Necessary Love Questions That Aren't So Necessary]]
46. Have you ever pretended your crush was with you when they weren't?
Weird. No.
47. Did you draw pictures for your first crush back in elementary school?
Probably.
48. Have you ever liked a girl/boy but didnt ask her/him out because you were afraid?
I don't ask people out.
49. Have you ever written a poem or story about your life?
Um. No.
50. Have you ever spent over an hour thinking about nothing but your crush?
Yeah. Prolly.
51. Have you ever liked someone solely for their appearance?
Yuppppp.
[[The Questions You Love:Completely and Utterly Pointless Ones]]
52. Do you eat all the servings in the food groups on a daily basis?
No way.
53. Are you ever a freak about cleanliness or organization?
Not at all.
54. Have you ever been to South America or Africa?
Can't say that I have.
55. Do you know how to knit?
No.
56. Do you have a cell phone or iPod with a patterned cover?
Nopeeee.
57. Have you ever written love song lyrics yourself and put them in your profile?
No. Sounds lame.
58. Do you keep a diary or journal online?
Kinda what this is.
59. When you open your closet, what is the dominant color?
Brown.
1.) Where did you ring in 2006?
Cody Scott's house.
2.) What was your status by Valentine's Day?
Taken.
3.) Were you in school (anytime this year)?
Well duh.
4.) How did you earn your keep?
What's a keep?
5.) Did you have to go to the hospital?
When?
6.) Did you have any encounters with the police?
Nah.
7.) Where did you go on vacation?
Hawaii.
8.) What did you purchase that was over $500?
Notta.
9.) Did you know anybody who got married?
Nopeee.
10.) Did you know anybody who passed away?
Another not. God this survey is gay.
11.) Have you run into anybody you graduated high school with?
Haven't graduated yet.
12.) Did you move anywhere?
Nope.
13.) What sporting events did you go to?
Football games.
14.) What concerts/shows did you go to?
Guhhh.
15.) Are you registered to vote?
Not yet.
16.) If so, did you do your patriotic duty on Nov. 7?
Pff.
17.) Where do you live now?
Hartford.
18.) Describe your birthday.
Yesterday.
19.) What's the one thing you thought you would never do but did in 2006?
lol. There's a huge list for that.
20.) What is one thing you regret from this year?
No names.
21.) What's something you learned about yourself?
I can't really stand many girls.
22.) Any new additions to your family?
Nope.
23.) What was your best month?
Prolly August.
24.) What from pop culture will you remember 2006 by?
Uhrrrrrm. Britney was caught shopping w. Paris. ohmgad.
25.) How do you plan to ring in 2007?
Partyyy |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 25th, 2006|04:13 pm] |
Sitting here talking to my long lost friend in college && eating cheetos.
Hating myself && my recent decisions.
Remembering that livejournal even existed.
Riddle me this.
Why do people, mainly myself, make decisions that they know are the wrong ones?
Good fucking idea Kirsten.
He cheats on his girlfriend he was w. to be w. you.
After prom, he gets wasted && makes out w. a fat ugly chick, && cheats on you.
Get back w. him when you get back from Hawaii because he tells you he misses you && how sorry he was.
He avoids you for an unknown reason.
See eachother at a party && randomly hook up && plan to go back out.
He avoids you because he slept w. yet another chick.
You take him back, because he still "really likes you".
The weekend after he goes out w. another girl.
He tells you he still likes you, you pathetically eat up every word.
He cheats on this girlfriend w. you this weekend.
Goes back to her like nothing happened.
Huh.
Used. |
|
|
| European boys. <3 |
[Jul. 8th, 2006|10:47 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Fineish. | ] |
| [ | music |
| | newport living-cute is what we aim for | ] |
I freaking love European boys.
They are just wonderful. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
chickakirsten's journal