Response to Prompt #3

I believe that many people believe that women do not make good leaders. They think that women are not strong enough in mind, body, and spirit to lead a people. I think this an unfair judgment. Women can be just as good as leaders as men can, maybe even better. I concede that weak-willed women are not fit to lead, but neither are weak willed men. Both Lady Macbeth and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher show amazing perseverance and bravery. These qualities may be called manly, but I think they are just the signs of a strong person, and a person does not have to be male to be strong. If a leader is weak-willed then it does not matter if they are man or woman, they are just a bad leader. I would rather our country be led by a strong woman than a weak man. Some may argue that all women are weak and to be at all strong they have to act like men. To this I say, no, to be strong one has to act like a brave person, not like someone you are not. No matter how much a woman wishes to be like a man, such as Lady Macbeth asking the spirits to ‘unsex’ her, they will still be a woman. And yet, it is not Macbeth, the big, manly war hero, who concocts a plan to murder Duncan and become king, it is Lady Macbeth, with her cunning, not her brawn. She even says that she would have killed Duncan has he not looked so much like her father. This is not a show of womanly weakness, for what man would readily kill his father? A true leader is wise, brave, and true and these qualities do not only describe men, they can describe women, too. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher never gave up even when everyone was putting her down. Her own husband didn’t even agree with her decision, he told her to give up. But Thatcher never gave in, and she did it, not for herself, but for her beloved country. That is what makes a strong leader. I have personally met more women school principles than males and at McNick I like the woman principle better than I liked the male principle and I think she runs the school better. Just because someone is male or female, doesn’t mean than one is better than the other. What really counts is how they lead.

Rsponse to Prompt #2

Murder is the taking of one person’s life by another. One of the Ten Commandments, the basic rules of the Church, is ‘Thou shall not kill’. So the very essence of murder is wrong. Even if you are not the mastermind behind the murder you are still in the wrong if you kill a person under orders, even if your life is a stake. The only murder I find at all justifiable is that of self-defense, not defense from an organization or man, no I call that self-preservation. When I say self-defense I mean killing someone who is threatening your life through violence at that very moment, not some far away dictator. Non-action can be as disastrous as outright murder as well. While some may argue Victor Capesius is the more evil of the two Germans in the article because of his outright cruelty and nonresistance to the Nazi murdering of Jews Konrad Jarausch is as guilty of murder as Capesius is. Jarausch said he opposed the Nazi regime, yet he did nothing to stop it or help it. Others risked their lives because they believed Hitler was wrong. Jarausch did not, and he even worked in the reserve German military and was in charge of POW camps for the captured Russians. He could have made a difference, could have saved even a few lives, but he just watched and did nothing. In Macbeth those who carry out Macbeth’s orders are as much to blame for the murders as Macbeth himself is. Any excuse involving “I was just following orders” doesn’t cut it. They killed people, perhaps not innocent people but still people. They were not forced to do this at gunpoint or ‘spear point’ as the case may be, but of their own (mostly) free will. Following one’s leaders should not involve doing immoral things just because one is told to do them. The men Macbeth sent as murders did this job, maybe not because they personally wanted the victims dead, but because they wanted to serve their king. Free choice is still involved. Protesting orders, in both scenarios, and helping to save those hunted would keep you in god moral standing, but could endanger your life. I guess it’s just comes down to whats more important to a person, morals or staying alive. Knowing you did something as horrible as killing someone might not be preferable to a death in which you know you did the right thing. Killing is never right, regardless of the circumstances of the murder; it can be justified, but never made moral or right. And once the deed is done, there is no turning back the hands of time.