Killer Whale Attack

Just yesterday, at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida, a killer whale named Tilikum attacked and killed his trainer after a show. The trainer was standing on the platform, stroking Tilikum, when the giant whale grabbed her by her ponytail, dragged her under the water, and drowned her with the horrified audience watching. And what is SeaWorld doing about it...? Just about nothing. In fact, they say that they are going to continue to let trainers work with him, they will just “reevaluate” how they do it. I think that that idea is absolutely ridiculous. It seems obvious to me that Tilikum is dangerous and needs to be destroyed.

The attack was not simply a fluke accident. The killer whale, whom they believe had become agitated for some reason, intentionally grabbed and killed his trainer. It isn't the first time either. Tilikum has been involved in two other incidents in which he killed a human. Killer whales are very intelligent, so if Tilikum has killed three people, he probably knows that he has the capability of doing it again. Thus, there is a very good chance that it will happen again if trainers continue to use him for shows. Even though he is a beautiful, rare creature, he cannot be allowed to attack people like this. When a dog attacks or kills someone, it is immediately put down. This incident is really no different.

SeaWorld is claiming that they can change the way that they work with Tilikum so that the trainers will be safe. I, however, don't see how that is possible. Because of the previous two deaths, trainers were already forbidden to get into the water with Tilikum. The trainer was following these regulations and standing on the platform. Still, the irritated killer whale was able to attack her. I don't see how SeaWorld could possibly create an environment where Tilikum could be used in shows and the safety of the trainers could be guaranteed.

Now it is true that there are other options aside from destroying Tilikum. He could be released into the wild or simply cut off from all shows and contact with trainers. While both of these options would keep trainers safe, they wouldn't necessarily benefit Tilikum. Even though people may feel better by releasing him or keeping him than killing him, I am fairly certain that neither choice would be much better than death. Tilikum was raised in captivity, so it would be next to impossible for him to survive in the wild. SeaWorld has made it clear that this is not an option that they are considering. If they were to keep Tilikum in a way that was safe, he would basically have to be kept in a tank, never doing any shows and never having any contact with trainers or other people. Would it be worth the money it takes to keep him, for him to live a life he probably wouldn't enjoy? Unless SeaWorld can afford it and provide an environment that would be enjoyable for Tilikum, I do not think that keeping him would be the most reasonable or humane option.

In light of Tilikum's violent pattern of behavior, it seems clear to me that he is too dangerous to participate in shows. Despite SeaWorld's claim, there is not any obvious solution as to how the program could be revised to guarantee the trainers' safety. Since freeing him and keeping him present problems, I think that destroying Tilikum, unfortunately, is the best solution. SeaWorld, however, is not choosing this option. It is sad that they might not consider it until someone else gets hurt.

World Vision

It's easy for people in our society to get caught up in our their own little world. Parents may have to go to work, pay the bills, take care of the house, or watch the children. Young adults and teens may be concerned with things like school, sports, friends, dating, or getting a part-time job. Within our busy lives, is the cultural pressure to always have the newest cell phone, the fastest car, or the best of anything that we can afford.

I think that most people, including myself, don't usually bother to think about the children in third world countries who are lucky to get one meal a day, or the people who have to walk miles from their home just to get water. Those who can afford to do so, ought to support charities and organizations that help impoverished people in the world. One great organization that I know of is World Vision, a Christian humanitarian organization that helps families in the United States and many other countries around the world. World Vision has a child sponsorship program, disaster response teams, and a gift-giving program to help people in poverty.

The sponsorship program allows someone to provide for a specific child or family in need by giving a monthly donation to World Vision. For thirty-five dollars a month, someone can provide their child with food, clean water, health care, and opportunities for education. Children who live in areas that are affected by AIDS are also given health care that helps to prevent AIDS. The money goes toward caring for a parent that is suffering from AIDS as well. It is also possible to sponsor an entire family through World Vision. For forty dollars a month they can have food, clean water, health care, educational opportunities, and better housing. It also helps them start a family business, so that they can support themselves. World Vision allows the sponsors and the sponsored child or family to write letters to each other, so it's a personal connection, instead of simply giving money and walking away.

Donations can also support World Vision's disaster response teams. These teams help people who are suffering from floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, drought, food shortage, war, and other natural and man-made disasters. They supply necessities like water, food, blankets, and shelter. They often stay quite a while to help rebuild homes that were destroyed.

The World Vision gift catalog offers many ways to help those in need. Someone can choose what they wish to provide for an impoverished person and donate the necessary amount of money. A person that doesn't have much money to spare could provide a thirteen-dollar chicken, someone who is quite rich could buy a well that costs over 2,000 dollars, and there are at least a hundred other choices in between. Most people in the United States would be capable of contributing something.

Almost everyone knows that many people in the world live in poverty, but only some choose to do anything about it. Humanitarian organizations like World Vision make it very easy to help someone in need. I believe that anyone who is capable, ought to do something to help those in poverty. Next time you see that iPod that you just have to have, think about how much of a difference that money could make in someone else's life.

Tolerance

Tolerance. A word that ranks almost as high as “green” in the sense of being politically correct. For many people, hearing this word would evoke images of peace and happiness. I roll my eyes. Now tolerance—true tolerance—isn't bad at all. In fact, the idea of people getting along with and respecting those with differing opinions is wonderful. The problem is that “tolerance” by today's definition isn't tolerant at all.

Modern-day tolerance says that everyone will get along if we all agree with each other. If one person has one opinion, and another person has a different opinion, they are not only suppose to say that it is alright to have a different opinion, but they are suppose to say that the other person's opinion is just as right or correct as their own. That is simply not going to work in the world we live in. A Muslim and a Christian are not going to agree with each other on everything; a Mormon and a Buddhist are not going to agree with each other. If an atheist says that that those who believe in a divine power are just as right as they are, are they really atheist anymore? This issue doesn't just apply to religion. There are lots of contradicting moral and political views that can't agree with each other. The sort of tolerance that people are trying to instigate is really just relativism, the belief that there is no truth.

The problem with relativist tolerance, is that although it is suppose to agree with everyone, it definitely does not agree with intolerance. Actually, many people who believe in tolerance are very intolerant of those who don't. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. One example of this is banned books. Many books are banned because of “intolerant” content that might offend someone. However, doing so is being intolerant of the views expressed in the book. Oftentimes, those who think that someone else's opinion is wrong are labeled as hateful, intolerant snobs. It is now seen as wrong to say that someone else is wrong, unless the person who is wrong is someone who says that others are wrong. Along with contradicting the right of free speech, this mentality is extremely confusing.

People often equate disagreement with intolerance, but they are actually two very different things. It is possible to disagree with someone and still be truly tolerant of them. For example, I think that smoking is a very unhealthy choice. If I'm standing next to someone who's smoking, I have the right to tell them that I think they are doing something unhealthy or walk away if I don't want to breathe in the fumes. (Disclaimer: If you are offended because you think I am saying that smokers are stupid, please understand that this is not my intent. There is no need to have my blog taken off this site.) However, if I try to forcible take the cigarette, or attack them, I'm doing something that's wrong and truly intolerant. Another, rather controversial example would be same-sex marriage. I am straight and believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. (Disclaimer: If you are offended because you think that I'm trying to impose my moral values on you, please understand that this is not my intent. I am simply stating my beliefs. There is no need to sue me.) Obviously, I disagree with lesbians. However, I do not hate them. I treat lesbians with the same respect that I show everyone else, and I am a very respectful person. I disagree with them, but I'm still tolerant of them. True tolerance is respecting others' opinions, not necessarily agreeing with them.

Our society needs to recognize the real meaning of tolerance and intolerance. Relativist tolerance is not possible in our world. It contradicts itself and condemns people for expressing their views. We need a society that respects everyone, not a society that agrees with everyone. (Disclaimer: If you are offended because you think that I'm trying to convince you that modern tolerance has gone too far, deal with it. This is a persuasive essay.)

September essay

The tragedy of Oedipus Rex tells the story of a king who was cursed by the gods for killing his father and marrying his own mother. The play ends with Oedipus blinding and exiling himself out of guilt for his deeds, and in order to save Thebes from the plague. I think that the plague and the punishment he received were somewhat unfair. The events of Oedipus' life were not entirely his fault. It seems to me that the gods, specifically the god Apollo, were more responsible for these crimes than Oedipus.

The gods caused these things to happen indirectly, but were well aware of what they were doing. They brought about the misfortunes of Oedipus' life through the self-fulfilling prophecies that Apollo's oracle gave. By self-fulfilling, I mean that the events which the prophecies spoke of wouldn't have come about if the prophecies had never existed in the first place. When Oedipus was first born, Laius and Jocasta left him on a mountainside to die. The only reason they did this was because the oracle said that Laius would be killed by his own son. So if Laius had never received the prophecy, then he wouldn't have left Oedipus to die. Instead, Oedipus would have been raised in Thebes, would never have met Laius at the crossroads, and, most likely, would never have killed Laius. Thus, the prophecy itself is the only reason that it came true, and the gods are responsible for starting the events that would lead to Oedipus' downfall. But the gods didn't just start a chain of events. They also kept it going. If the first prophecy had been the only one given, Oedipus' life still would have been quite happy and successful. The shepherd rescued Oedipus on the hillside, and he was adopted by King Polybus of Corinth. He could have simply been raised as a Corinthian prince and never have returned to Thebes. But instead, when he asked an oracle about his parentage, the gods told him that he would one day kill his father and marry his mother. This frightens Oedipus so much that he flees Corinth in hopes of getting as far away from his parents as possible. While he is traveling, he meets and kills Laius at the crossroads, and goes on to become King of Thebes and marry Jocasta. Again, the prophecy is what caused itself to come true.

One might argue that the gods are not responsible, because it was the choices of people who brought about Oedipus' fate. This is partially true. Laius and Jocasta made the choice to abandon Oedipus. The gods did not force them to do it. Then, the shepherd rescued Oedipus and King Polybus chose to adopt him. These are acts that the gods didn't influence at all. Oedipus could have avoided his fate if he had reacted differently to the prophecy. Instead of fleeing Corinth, Oedipus could have simply decided that he would never murder anyone or marry anyone. He chose to go to Thebes, he chose to kill a group of men at the crossroads, he chose to challenge the Sphinx, and he chose to take the throne of Thebes as his reward. The gods' prophecies are only a few of the many things that caused the events in Oedipus Rex.

Why, then, do I consider the gods to be more responsible than any of the other characters? Because of knowledge and motivation. Most of the characters' choices were made with ignorance. Oedipus didn't know that Polybus wasn't his real father when he fled Corinth. Jocasta didn't know that Oedipus was her son when she married him. And all of the characters had some sort of reason or motivation for their choices, even when their choices were wrong. Laius abandoned Oedipus because he was afraid that Oedipus would kill him one day. Oedipus ignorantly killed Laius when they fought on the road. In the play, Oedipus explains this to Jocasta. “The groom leading the horses/ Forced me off the road at his lord's command;/ But as this charioteer lurched over towards me/ I struck him in my rage./ The old man (Laius) saw me and brought his double goad down upon my head/...I killed him.” (page 232). The gods, on the other hand gave the prophecies knowing full well that they would cause all of this to happen. I can't think of any motivation the gods would have to do this except for the sake of making Oedipus and his family miserable. Oedipus seems to know that the gods are partially to blame for his fate. On page 256, after he has discovered his identity, Oedipus says, “Children, the god was Apollo./ He brought my sick, sick fate upon me.” I can't find any way that the prophecies benefited the gods or any of the people. Thebes suffered a plague, Laius was killed, Jocasta committed suicide, Oedipus was exiled, and Oedipus' children were seen as cursed because of their parents.

All of this came about because the gods gave self-fulfilling prophecies. Without the oracles, Oedipus could have had a joyful life. Although Oedipus and many other characters made choices that helped the prophecies to come true, the gods knowingly helped to cause these events for no obvious reason other than spite. The gods are just as much at fault, perhaps even more at fault, for Oedipus' fate than Oedipus himself.