When I grow up, I want to be a director. I want to make good movies and hilarious movies. So I decided for my 20% Project I will direct a short film. My film will be a comedy that will appeal to the teenage audience. The possible obstacles I foresee is glitches in the screenplay of the film and budget problems.
I want to experiment with different camera angles and comedy. Right now I have no one I can consult about. I am determined to be a director when I grow up and I will definitely make good movies with an innovative story.
I believe that the decision to disconnect Terri Schiavo was right because of several reasons. First we will discuss about this issue. This issue has sparked many debates over the last few years. Her husband wanted her to be dead while her family wanted her to be kept alive. During this time, the Democrats were in favor of "pulling the plug" and the Republicans were in favor of keeping her alive. George Bush favored keeping Terri Schiavo alive. This debate has been with a national topic for a couple of days. The debate is still a widely discussed matter today.
In my personal opinion, the plug should have been pulled by Terri Schiavo. This is because of several reasons. The first reason is because Terri Schiavo was not in a state of response to external stimuli. Other-words, she could not respond to everything. This would be a bad condition because she is just a constant depression to everybody. One other reason is because she is a constantly taking money away from her family members. When I say this, I do not mean that money is more precious than life. What is the point of living anymore if you are not "living life to the fullest?" Also another reason to "pull the plug" is because there is no way she will get back to a normal state. If you know that there is no way to bring her original form back, why not pull the plug?
To me, Terri Schiavo is still a person. But she is not the same person. Her heart is beating, but her brain is not working. In class we had a debate in which most people agreed that DNA is what makes us a person. I personally disagree with this. This is because DNA is basically information. If we just had information inputted into us, there would be no difference between a robot and a human. This is what makes humans so special. They have emotions. And emotions are not written in DNA. It is what makes us special. It is what distinguishes us from robots and plants.
The time article we read in class was both interesting and thought-provoking. I felt that this was a great ethical dilemma. It tested my opinion because I was not sure which side i should be on. If I supported DNA testing, it would feel immoral. If I did not, I would feel weird.
In the end though, I made a decision to support DNA Testing. I feel that it may lead to more benefits in the future.
If one gets DNA testing early, many diseases can be spotted and treated early. The one trade-off to this is that there might not be treatment for all diseases found and this might ruin the mood of life. But technology and medicine are improving and there will be a cure to most diseases in sometime in the future.
Another opinion of mine is that since there is no treatment to all diseases, DNA testing should be held off into the future.
If a genetic trait runs through the family, genetic testing may be beneficial to figure out if the person has that trait.
If I was a doctor, I would tell the patients everything. If I don't this would be considered lying. As a patient, I would want to know everything. As the geneticist/genetic counselor, I would tell everything the patient wants to know. As the parent, I would want to know everything. As the child, I would want to learn only things that I wanted to know.
In 2012 I learned about my true religion. (I made the right decision by converting.) I learned that the world is much better off with liberals and I learned that English Spin bowlers can bowl better than Indian Spin bowlers on Indian Pitches. I learned from the India vs Eng series that anything is possible and with West Indies clinching the T20 Final in Colombo to never underestimate anybody, especially the West Indies bowling attack. (Of course, beside Sunil Narine.)
This year I resolve to play in a cricket team or Start one here at Northern. I also I resolve never to betray my religion by watching Manipreet Gony bowl.
Cricket is a sport which is a true balance of skill and stamina. It tests the inner soul of teamwork and sportsmanship.
Today cricket is the second most popular sport in the world. It is played in over a hundred countries. It's following is over 1.5 billion.
I have a question to answer, why isn't cricket the most popular sport? What makes soccer the superior?
After all, in my opinion, soccer is very boring to watch. It shows players kicking the ball around forever and ever. There is no action in soccer until someone scores. Typical Soccer scores are 4-3.
In cricket, however with the flick of the wrist a ball smashes over the boundaries for six runs. This can happen a lot, and typical t20 scores range from 100 runs to 205 runs. So, in cricket there is crazy action.
But the number one reason why soccer is superior to cricket is because of its simplicity. In cricket there are over 200 rules, whilst in soccer players are trying to simply kick the ball in the goal.
In Soccer, all you need it two sticks for the goalposts and the ball. In cricket you need a bat, a seamed ball, stumps, and protection.
But Someday that day will come where Cricket will be the number one sport. It is expanding slowly and steadily...
This is great video for the introduction of cricket.
This is a great video that shows the velocity of cricket.
Watch this highlights from 4:54 to 5:58 for full intense cricket action.
This match was between the West Indies and the Australians.
In my opinion, Social Media can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing. It can be related to a t20 cricket match, because the social web is what you make of it, just like bowling in a 20 over match.
Our online personality should live on after death, like a monument and remembrance to those deceased. It could live on, with correct and ethical posts from family members.
In my opinion, the decision of whether it should live on or not is up to the family of the deceased person.
To me this is not defeating the purpose of death in anyway. Social Media should live on in a positive way after death. As long as people don't take it too far.
If a celebrity dies, its up to the fans and followers to update the social media.
But it is ultimately up to the person to decide what happens to their social media after they die.
