William F. Buckley, Jr.

Buckley was a very intelligent and respected man who had a great impact on many people. "He inspired and incited three generations of conservatives, and counting. He retained his intellectual and literary vitality to the end." Buckley had a passion for debating and was a tough competitor on "Firing Line". He was very honest and spoke his mind no matter what but did it in a respectful, classy manner as well. He was also very devoted to his family and his Church before he became a conservative.
I think he would be just fine competing in today's 24/7 wworld. He stood up for what he believed in and did not let anyone get in his way. Although some people might attack his views in today's world, he would not let that bother him.
Everything that I wrote above about him I could learn to use in my own career- to be a passsionate debator and stick up for what I believe in and just to believe in myself and my work to help impact others.

Obama, plagiarism??

The facts here are that Hillary Clinton is accussing Obama of stealing parts of someone elses speech after he borrowed a riff about the power of words that was used two years ago by his friend, Massachussetts Governor Patrick and delivered it in his own speech. The main ethical principle is did Obama commit plagiarism? Some ethical issues to try to figure this out are is it ethical to borrow the words of someone else and use them in your own speech if that person allows you to do so? Did Obama give credit to Governor Patrick when he borrowed or used his words? We do not know the exact answers to these questions so it is hard to decide who is right or wrong. One other question to think about is, Is Hillary just doing anything she can to make Obama look bad because she knows she is behind in the democratic race? This is politics, and it gets dirty. I do not think Obama really did anything wrong. He is way too smart too plagiarize, and I think Clinton is desperate to make him look bad...

Bull Run vs. Iraq

The Battle at Bull Run and the war in Iraq had similarities and differences. The articles were similar in the fact that they both portrayed the devastation and destruction of war. People risked their lives in both of these tragic events. The article on the Battle at Bull Run by Henry Villard seemed like one that had come out of an old history book. It is very factual and is pretty much in chronolgical order with no dialogue. I found it to be less interesting to read than the article on Iraq by Tom Roeder. Roeder's article uses more descriptive and exciting words allowing the reader to visualize what is going on at that time. It also contains dialogue between the soldiers and sergeants as well as the people who live in Iraq. Bull Run was one specific battle while the situation in Iraq is a continuous war that is still going on today. Bull Run occurred almost 150 years ago which was at a very different time than today.