Linguistics - English relative clauses in dialects of the GB isles Essay

Linguistics - English relative clauses in dialects of the GB isles - Essay Example Herrmann builds her theory will be examined. In part two, I will examine the basic premise upon which Mr. Sag builds his theories. Part three will examine Ms. Herrmanns theory of grammatical construction and part four will examine the commonalities that the two theories have, by paying special attention to the concept of pied-piping. To begin, one must examine the basic premise upon which Ms. Herrmann built her grammatical constructs. In the â€Å"Relative Clauses in Dialects of English,† the author describes an extensive study of the British Isles. She divided the Isles into six broad sections - Central Midland, Central north, Central Southwest, East Anglia, Northern Ireland and Scotland. She concentrated on the prototypical relative clauses, or adnominal clauses, and she compared these clauses across the different dialects of the sections listed above, with an eye towards identifying the features that have become commonplace across different dialects, and also identified how the commonalities and differences across different dialects identified certain dialects as more closely related to Standard English than other dialects. Her study also can identify where different dialects intersect, which is known as dialectical levelling. (Herrmann 22). In the process, she also identified broad characteristics of the various dialects she studied. Central southwest, Central North and Northern Ireland have broad dialectical speech, ie, the speakers in these regions tend to speak in one dialect, while the speakers in East Anglia, Central Midland and Scotland have more heterogenous speech. (Herrmann 24). Central Southwest and Northern Ireland are almost entirely broad speakers. Broad speakers tend towards more non-standard features, which is gradually transforming into traditional features, and these are influencing Standard English as a whole. (Herrmann 22). The basic findings of the study were that the relative particles (zero, that, what

Which structural form, if any, is most suitable for an SHRM approach Essay

Which structural form, if any, is most suitable for an SHRM approach - Essay Example Management theorists and researchers have emphasized the difference between, and importance of, strategic HRM and human resource strategy, in achieving organisational goals. Therefore, strategic HRM decisions are incorporated into the strategic plan from which HR strategies are derived. According to Price (2007), strategies are means used by organisations to achieve their objectives, in the form of decisions taken well in advance to meet the long-term goals of the organisation. Strategic HRM focuses on widespread aspects of organisation such as organisational culture, individual career development, having right people for the right job, etc. In relation to this, Mabey, Salaman and Storey (1998) have proposed four different perspectives: firstly, SHRM entails complex activities that are beyond the responsibilities of personnel or HRM managers and extend to all aspects of managing people including social and economic context of management of internal and external environments impacting the organisation and its people; secondly, it includes impact of strategies on business performance, and thus emphasizes on measurement of performance; thirdly, management styles are more defined and according to the existing people and goals; and lastly, development of organisational capability is encompassed through strategic knowledge management. Much work on SHRM field has resulted in various models and types of SHRM, which can be broadly classified into two groups, the general and prescriptive approaches. Delery and Doty (1996) and Richardson and Thompson (1999) have framed ‘best practices, ‘best fit’ and the ‘configurational’ approaches (cited by Armstrong, 2000); another perspective by Armstrong (2000) includes high-commitment, high-performance and high involvement models. In the ‘best practice’ approach, organisations adopt best HRM practices such as employment

The Unforgiven Essay Example for Free

The Unforgiven Essay For the final essay, the movie I will be writing about is based on the Clint Eastwood’s movie â€Å"Unforgiven.† Clint Eastwood portrays a story of William Munny, a killer and aging outlaw who has taken up one more job after years of external and internal peace. In the movie, the plot begins as to why William does decide to come back for one last rendez-vous with death. Taking place in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, a group of prostitutes, led by Strawberry Alice, offer a $1,000 reward to whoever can kill â€Å"Davey-Boy† Bunting and Quick Mike. The reason that these bounties were places is because these two individuals disfigured Delilah Fitgerald, a prostitute who is one of their own. An important factor to keep in mind in this situation is that the prostitutes greatly exaggerated the factual events that transpired, and the story that was sent out to the public â€Å"bounty hunters† was based on a major over exaggeration and so much to that point that it was not factually based. However, the idea of these bounty that was sent out by the prostitutes upsets Little Bill Daggett, the local sheriff, who himself was a former gunfighter but is not a converted keepers of peace who has taken the law upon himself and has dis-allowed guns and criminals in his town. What Little Bill does in this town is take the law into his own hands. While there is some sort of legal system in place in this town, the prostitutes have no rights under the system and according to Little Bill, it is up to him to decide what should be done in this situation. He is always taking the laws in his own hands. In this specific case, Little Bill gives these two men leniency despite the crime that they have committed. Will, hearing the over exaggerated version of the factual events, decides to come to this town and hunt and kill these two men not only for retribution for the prostitutes but to also collect the reward money. Using the reasoning of Kant, Mill, and Aristotle, I will analyze this entire current situation in the movie and using these different thinkers then compare and contrast who would agree with each other and who would disagree with each other. The first thinker I will bring up is Kant. The first issue that comes up in the state situation is justice which then leads into the rest of the problems presented in the beginning of the story. What the prostitutes did  to Will is actually manipulate him because what the factual events was greatly differed that the story that was presented to him. As a result, Mill was manipulated into making his decision to help solve the prostitute’s problem, and by him being manipulated into making this decision the prostitutes took away his free choice. Immanuel Kant is against taking away people’s free choice. There are three imperatives that are used by Kant to determine if a certain deed should be done. The three imperatives include the universal law based on principle, the means end formula (never treat anyone as a means but always as an end), autonomy formula (act in accordance to the maxim of a member that legislates the law)or the people who make the law are moral and thus the laws must be followed. When taking in consideration the universal law, what Kant is saying is that the acts act according only to maxim and thus must be applied to everybody. In this situation, the following maxim could be read as â€Å"if a prostitute is attacked, then it is ok to pay for someone to come in and seek vengeance.† The maxim for the prostitutes is to pay for justice and if applied to everyone this maxim would definitely not work and the world would become more chaotic and dangerous if this were a true maxim. The second part of the imperative deals with the means end formula. This states that one should never treat anyone as a mean but always as an end. In other words, do not use someone just for your benefit at the expense of another person’s but at the same time the other person should be getting something back in return that they need. All information needs to be presented in a factual way to help the person make a decision that they really want. With this being said, the prostitutes are using Will merely as a mean because what they did was lie to him. By exaggerating the truth, the prostitutes manipulated Will and use him as a mean to get justice among themselves. While there was indeed a reward for him, his decision to do this for the money was based on a wrong assumption because he was told a lie. His free will was taken away to make this decision because he was told the truth about what happened and if he did know the actual true events he may not have made the decision that he made. The last part of Kant’s three imperative is the autonomy formula. The autonomy formula talks about how acts should be followed according to the maxim that regulates law because the people that make the law are moral thus they should be followed because moral acts will help build a moral society.  However, the prostitutes would not have to follow the law based from Little Billy because this certain law was made from an immoral person and thus since it comes from an immoral person that only means that the law will be immoral. The next thinker that we will use to examine the following situation is the great mind of Mill. Mill says that a right is an expectation that society will help protect other people’s rights. Just can vary from each person and that the difference that does exist in society means that there is a different kind of equality. Utilitarianism is what brings the ideas all together. This states that if the majority of the people are happy then the act or deed should be done. The idea presented my Mill in utilitarianism is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. In the following situation from Clint Eastwood’s movie, Mill would don’t condone what has occurred because it is unjust to deprive anyone of anything that is legally their liberty or property. It is unjust to kill the two cowboys because he was never convicted of the crime that he did commit. The prostitutes should have had rights, and the two cowboys should have their voice heard in a trial. Mill would say that there is a bad law in place towards these prostitutes and the sheriff has rights in this town that he should not have. According to utilitarianism, it is wrong to harm certain individuals in order to make other people happy. In this instance, Will is killing these two individuals because this will make the prostitutes happy. John Stuart mill would be against this and so for Will to go and kill these two men is wrong in the eyes of the great philosopher Mill. The final thinker that will be used to examine the following situation is the great Greek philosopher Aristotle. To Aristotle, the law should be respected and if you do not respect the law then what you are doing is rejecting the government. The sheriff in town has placed un-just laws to the people. However, if these laws are not followed then what the people are doing is doing un-just to the community. To Aristotle, in order to have properly fixed the problem is that there needs to a mediator, one whom is un-biased and will look at each individual case down the middle and determine whether or not a disciplinarian action needs to occur. There needs  to be the right to a trial for a person to be properly convicted. This directly relates to the two cowboys who were punished without the mediator and â€Å"their day in court.† Aristotle would also say that the prostitutes should have right and the males who committed the crime should be trialed by law and a proper punishment, if any, would be warranted by an un-biased mediator of who would not include Little Bill. He is a very biased individual and Aristotle would be very against him and the actions that he is placing on society. To Aristotle, it will be no surprise to have heard that Will would take this job and to go back to killing. To Aristotle, it is very hard to break a habit that one did for so many years. Aristotle would not say that Will does an evil behavior, but instead Will has bad character traits. The habits he grew up with were not very good with the constant killings he did. As he killed more and more he got into the habit of killing, and for him to break this bad habit of killing is only going to get harder and harder as he not only kills but gets older continuing to kill. Deep down he already knew how to kill, and when the situation presented him his old habits came out and decided to go back and kill again. Aristotle would be against Will’s killing because it is not adding to his own happiness . These acts are immoral and his happiness is not reaching his full potential with the action that Will has done to these two other cowboys. After going over what the three great philosophers have said about the same situation, in my opinion Aristotle and Mill agree with each other the most because they both say how you need the community to be happy. They both correlate with each other. Aristotle is about the action itself and this directly disagrees with as to what Kant believes. This is why Aristotle and Kant both disagree with each other the most. As Aristotle is more about the action itself, Kant is all about the intent of the action. Aristotle and Mill would again agree because he says that the prostitutes should have rights and that the males should have been held on a fair trial. This eliminated the sheriffs and what he feels right according to himself and instead there would be a non-biased individual who will not already be prone to one side or the other like Little Billy was evident by his actions in the movie. In conclusion, Mill, Aristotle, and Kant all have some similar but different points about how the same situation should have been handled. Some were similar, and others were very different. It is my opinion that I agree most with Aristotle. He talks about having a non-biased individual (the judge in today’s society) and how everyone deserves rights including the prostitutes who had no rights in the movie. He is against Will going to kill for vengeance and also agrees with how people who have too much power and make immoral laws should lose that power for the benefit of the community. Ultimately, I agree with all of them because they bring up different but valid point. In the end, I agree the most with Aristotle because what he says is very similar in what steps would be taken in modern society today. With this being said, justice is still very unfair in today’s society. There are still these bounty killings and many of them do get away because of a lack of evidence or some other cause that prevents a judge from getting a conviction. Nevertheless, justice is many times unfair in today’s modern world, but improvements are being made and the judicial systems are doing the absolute best job they can do to bring justice to criminals and to get modern bounty hunters off the streets to make society a better and nicer place to live in.

Emerging Themes In A Country Doctor English Literature Essay

Emerging Themes In A Country Doctor English Literature Essay A Country Doctor is a short story written by Franz Kafka (1883-1924), a Polish Jew renowned for his distinctive literature. It is the story of a rural doctor who is called upon to attend to a patient in circumstances of perfect difficulty-deep in the night, amid a severe snowstorm, to travel ten miles when he has lately lost to the cold the life of his horse that draws his carriage. His maids efforts to search around for a borrowed horse are fruitless-as the doctor himself anticipates. Acting in frustration he kicks open an old disused pigsty, and from it proceeds help: a groom and two horses to his aid-or so he believes-only for the groom to set him up for the journey and then unexpectedly remain to embark on fulfilling his violent lust on the doctors defenceless maid, as he has wickedly proclaimed intent. The doctor arrives in no time and is briskly shown to the patient, who immediately makes his desire to die privately known to the doctor, causing this journey to reveal itself to the doctor as an exercise in futility, especially as he recollects the desperate situation he has left his maid in on account of his own imprudent departure, and as he initially fails to see what is ailing the invalid youth. He rejects the old hosts courtesy of a drink of rum offered, feigning attention to the patients case in spite of his foregone conclusion. It soon becomes clear that he plans to leave the young man unattended, but amid all the unease this realisation causes on the hosts, he is helped by a maidens holding of a bloody cloth to see the patients wound near his hip-a festering ugly rose-like wound with large worms wriggling inside. The hosts soon strip off his clothes and cast him beside the patient on the wounded side as children sing strangely outside, and the two are left alone together. The doctor is forced to calm the patient to tranquil death with somewhat self-excusing arguments. He is keen to escape this situation and hurriedly climbs a horse naked, dragging the other one, the carriage and fur coat along, but the horses make no haste, painfully suspending him in the moment of feeling empty and wasted. Challenged first with the requirement to be capable of responding urgently to a patients call in spite of inconvenient timing, distance and weather; secondly with the requirement to procure means in a situation of unanticipated lack which highlights his precarious unsociability (or that of his neighbours); thirdly, the requirement to protect his vulnerable maid from an explicit threat of a sex predator at a time when duty calls elsewhere; and fourthly, the requirement to make a correct professional decision, faced with a patient who wants to be helped to die and amid feelings and thoughts of guilt, the doctor is dismayed to find himself failing too often. Even after he finds these challenges daunting, he is left to wallow in frustrations he encounters: one being his ultimate inability to rescue his maid; he is incapable of being urgently helpful to her despite meaning to be all along since he left for duty. Things do not work out for him as he had hoped, though initially it is a frustration to him as well that she is abandoned to this vile groom who prefers to delight himself in her misery over accompanying the doctor as the doctor had expected. Yet another is that he finds himself unable to treat his patient-he does not end up curing him. Furthermore, the patient does not even wish to be cured; he wishes to die, and is hostile to the doctors attendance. The doctor finds the whole journey amounting to a response to a false alarm, with added professional frustrations, which rubbed it in how truly unhappy and humiliated it makes his life. Initially, the death of his faithful old horse was a frustration that he hoped to overcome, but it persists as he finds that the horses he is newly experiencing only serve to complicate his predicament, as if by some conspiracy of circumstances, in the manner which they ride him off when he wishes to stay and help his frightened maid; and they walk him ever so slowly back whereas he wishes to escape his unpleasant ordeal and return to redeem his already his already molested Rosa. Perhaps we can call this short story a nightmare. Perhaps it is a literal nightmare-that is plausible-owing to the psychological intensity of the narrated experience. The author almost seems to rush and club together the doctors experiences, giving him such little control, and all along portraying how intense the doctors emotions and thoughts are over the whole ordeal. Or it may be viewed as a metaphorical nightmare; a narration of events that anyone would hate to experience in real life as they fictionally occurred to the country doctor, the main character of the story. Arguably, though, some events in the story occur in a manner somehow fraught with mystery, such as the plot-convenient and plot-rescuing presence of the pigsty, from which come this groom and these horses which serve to deepen the doctors personal crisis; the mischievous and uncharacteristic but highly aware songs which the children sing and the intelligent behaviour of the horses. But there are themes which emerge in this story. One is the dilemma of professional occupation and domestic or private obligation. This theme is demonstrated especially in that moment when the doctor helplessly witnesses his maid being ambushed by the groom, as he is ridden off in his carriage to work. The predicament haunts him throughout his call of duty, and is regularly brought to stark remembrance as he works, causing in him an inner restlessness and emptiness. Some commentators have shown this theme as being pertinent in Kafkas life-he is torn between happiness in relationships and his writing career. Another is the moral complexities professional ethics face, as in the case of euthanasia in the medical profession. Is it right to cure a patient who wishes to die? Should a doctor have to make such a decision? Might a doctor sometimes lack the will or form to be helpful to a patient owing to a personal or private crisis? What happens then? Should he be forced to work-is such compulsion successful anyway? Moreover, there is an apparent thematic conspiracy of circumstances, and its potential to change a persons perspective to life. Is it an ordinary thing-and is it good? Especially because we see another theme: the doctor is plunged into an existential crisis. All what he values in his life -both private and professional-is under attack, and he fails to satisfy his own standards and expectations of himself. Is private life worth sacrificing for profession-particularly if profession is potentially life-saving? Could it be that sacrificing private life ends up destroying ones professional competence? Clearly though, the choices sometimes may have to be mutually exclusive, and the individual risks suffering helpless regret whichever way. Kafka, Franz. A Country Doctor. Trans. Ian Johnston. Nanaimo, BC: Malaspina University-College, 21 Feb. 2009. Web. 18 May 2010. Soman, Ebey. Literary analysis: The Country Doctor, by Franz Kafka. Helium, Inc. Web. 21 May 2010. Bernardo, Karen. Franz Kafkas The Country Doctor. www.storybites.com. Web. 21 May 2010.

How the Houses in Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights Compare :: Emily Bronte Literature Essays

How the Houses in Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights Compare Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange are two exact opposites separated by the neutral territory of the moors, a dreamlike place thought of as heaven by Heathcliff and Catherine. Although both estates are wealthy, there is a definite difference in class between them and this bears greatly on the characters from both estates ability to socialise with each other. The two different buildings have their own strengths and weaknesses and the characters reflect their features. On the one hand there is Wuthering Heights with its stark and intimidating appearance but strong magnetism representing savagery and Thrushcross grange with its refinement and pleasant appearance representing civility. Wuthering heights has the characteristics of being a very strong, prominent structure and is described by Mr Lockwood as being a misanthropists heaven. It is a very desolate and lonely place up on a hill exposed to stormy weather with no real beauty and can be seen as an uncivilised place to live. Thrushcross Grange is a very classy, civilised estate and living in a place like this would bring a lot of status with it. It is quite a sheltered place down in the valley and this is something that is common with its children - they tend to be sheltered and spoilt. Thrushcross grange is comfortable and decorative whereas Wuthering Heights is basic and down to earth. Whilst Wuthering Heights has great power in its commanding position up on the hill, it will never be in the same class as the Grange. The features of the estates have a strong association with the people who live in them in terms of mood, emotion and appearance. Heathcliff is a very dark and stormy character of Gypsy blood and is the person who has the greatest association with Wuthering Heights. Mr Earnshaw who found him alone and starving introduced him to the place as a child where he grew up with Catherine and Hindley as an interloper. In adulthood he becomes more and more antisocial and puts up a stone barrier when it comes to showing his emotions. He and the building suit each other as though they were one and the same because whilst he displays all the strength and pride of the Heights, he also has the roughness. Isabella is Edgar Linton's sister and although being a pleasant, well-educated person has the soft and civilised traits of Thrushcross Grange. Heathcliff marries her as a way of revenge against Cathy and Edgar and as part of his overall plan to own both estates. Not realising Heathcliffs intentions she is taken in by his magnetism and strength but is too soft a character to stand up to his might and

Passing: Debut Albums and Best Friend Essay

What is going to happen now that the deed is done? What is the future for Irene? Did she push her or did she just fall? Clare was supposed to be Irene’s best friend. How could she push her? Clare has been passing through and now was spending a lot of time with Irene and Brian. Irene has now started to think that Clare and Brian are together. This hurt Irene her husband with her best friend how could they do that to her. Now she is spending all her time trying to find a way to save her life and family. Clare is having fun keeping her husband from knowing that she is half black. Clare’s husband finds out and goes to the party that they are at, and Irene knows that if Clare gets freed from her husband. She will take Brain for sure. It all happened so fast Clare fell. Irene pushed her out the window. She didn’t think she just pushed. What is going to happen to Irene was she seen and will she get in trouble? Irene has been upset for a week before the party. Clare, Irene’s best friend, was spending a lot of time with Brian and she is still hiding the fact that she is half black from her over racist white husband. All he does it insult black people constantly. Clare was beautiful as Irene would say. Irene didn’t start to think there was anything wrong until a week ago. Irene was sure that Brain was mad at her. He had been is a bad mood all that last week. Then when Clare came over it was all good. This is what told Irene the truth she knew right then and there that Brian had been cheating on her with Clare. Irene was hurt but what could she do. How was she going to be able to keep Brian? What was going to be her next move? Irene was thinking a lot she was not sure what to do. She thought about telling Clare’s husband, but she didn’t know how to tell him. That wouldn’t work if Clare was free from John then what is holding her back from taking Brian away. No she couldn’t let that happen. She couldn’t lose Brian she just couldn’t. That night they were going to go to a party Irene didn’t really want to go she and Brian had just had a fight. She got ready to go. On the way up to the party Brian had Clare and Irene on his arms. It was bothering her the way they acted around each other. Clare was standing by the window when John started pounding on the door. All Irene could think was John found out. Irene couldn’t let her get freed. She just couldn’t let it  happen. She ran for Clare and grabbed her arm. Then it happen it was so fast Clare fell out the window. How did it happen? What will happen next? Did she push her? Did she fall? Irene was freaking out, knowing what she had done. Then she had a terrible thought. What if she is still alive? She would lose Brian for sure if she was alive. She was going to have to go down. â€Å"Should she put on her coat? Felise had rushed down without any wrap. So had all the others. So had Brian. Brian! He mustn’t take cold!†(pg.178) So she went down the stairs. When she got down there she went to Brian. She gave him his coat, but he rapped it around her. People were asking what happened. Someone asked Irene what she saw, did Clare get pushed by her husband. â€Å"You’re sure she fell? Her husband didn’t give her a shove or anything like that?†(pg.181) Irene’s answer was short and sweet. Irene told them that Clare just fell. She said no one pushed her. I bet that Irene was going crazy after that. Would they find out? All Irene wants was to be free of Clare and live happily with her husband. Now her life is unpredictable what’s next what going to happen to her family. It is mostly going to be like this. Now that Clare is died Irene and Brian will be happy again. For a while then Brian will get sad again and maybe he will want to leave Irene but won’t because of their kids. Jack will feel the loss for a while but then he will go back to his racist way he will leave and go home to his daughter and he will tell her that he hates her and that her mother was have black and a lot of other horrible things. He will try and kill her or he will send her away to a boarding school. He will never want to see her again. He will find a racist white women and marry her. Irene will be scared and looking over her shoulders her rest of her life. Always worrying if they found out. Irene will want to start over and forget. She will never get too thought she will have to ask Brian to let them move. Irene will want to leave or at least move to a different house. She will never want to think about Clare again. That won’t be possible because every party ever event she goes to she will think of what she has done to her best friend. She pushed her best friend out of a window after all she been though thou it still does not seem right and the biggest reminder of all is Brain.  Every time she looks at Brian she will remember that her cheated on her with her best friend. Irene will never get away from the fact. She killed Clare. She was the one that pushed her out that window! Irene went through a lot. I was still not right for her to push Clare out of the window though. Irene was cheated on with her best friend. Brian was always miserable when he was with her and then when he saw Clare his mood did a flip. Clare was beautiful and Irene was not there was no way else to get Brian. She couldn’t tell Clare’s husband he would have freed her and she would have taken Brian away. Then she would have been left with nothing at all. She had to keep Brian. So she pushed Clare out the window. That when her life changed she would never be the same. She would be worried all the time and unhappy. She would have never been happy again she had killed her best friend I know she was with her husband. It was still not right of her to push Clare out of a window. She did not deserve to die and for killing her Clare will suffer more then she has ever before. She will live the rest of her life with regret, and sorrow. She killed her best friend even if it was for the right reason. It was still wrong to kill her. Irene will never again have a happy family. She will always have the pain that she didn’t deserved in a way it was Clare’s last way of making her suffer.

Think Before You Act

Think Before You Act Everyday someone loses a person dear to them. You never know if it will be your last day here in this world. We all just live day to day and don’t realize tomorrow could be our last. It’s even worse when it could have been prevented. Choices we make can impact our lives and individuals around us. People say things happen for a reason, and that God has a plan for all of us. We won’t know the truth until something tragic happens each of us. June 24, 2011 was the day that I lost a close friend forever. I remember that day like it happened yesterday.You don’t forget days like that when your life changes forever. The night of the accident, a young man decided to leave a bar and drive with his blood alcohol content over three times the legal limit. He ended up driving the wrong way on the highway and collided head-on with another vehicle. Both drivers were pronounced dead on the scene. My friend was a victim of a drunk driver. He graduated f rom high school two weeks before his death. Not even eighteen years old and still had a life to live. Bryant Hernandez was an individual who left a mark on everyone he came in contact with.You wouldn’t think a seventeen year old would have a huge impact on people he came across, but he did. Bryant did everything he could to put a smile on your face. He seemed to always know what to say to cheer you up. I met Bryant when I was a senior in high school. Since I had to have an elective I ended up taking a child development class. Walking through the class I noticed that we were all girls except for one. He was sitting at a table alone and looking very uncomfortable. I would feel awkward to taking a child development class with a bunch of girls.Bryant looked in my direction when I started to approach him. â€Å"Do you mind if I sit with you? † I asked. â€Å"Well you are already sitting down so I guess I don’t have much of a choice. † Bryant said with a smirk on his face. I couldn’t help but laugh. I knew from that moment I was going to like having him in this class. Eventually it turned out to be one of my favorite classes. He was my go to guy for everything. Bryant knew how to make me feel better when things got tough. At the time small things like that weren’t that important.But now I would give anything to go back and cherish those moments with him. It’s been over a year since the accident and I’ve realized choices you make can have major consequences. When I was a teenager I made stupid decisions like the guy who killed my friend. I didn’t think about anyone else. All I cared about was having fun and living in the moment. I didn’t care when people told me not to drive home drunk. Well living in the moment doesn’t get you anywhere. You may get away with it a couple of times but eventually it will catch up to you.After his death I thought a lot about my actions. Watching his parents say there last words to him and how tired they looked, I couldn’t imagine what they went through and what they are still currently going through. I imagined how my parents would react. I can’t help but want to cry. It makes me sick to know how selfish I was when I was younger. Bryant’s death was a wakeup call for me and hopefully several others. Driving drunk will never cross my mind again. With everything I do now I take a moment to think about it and to make sure that it is the right decision to make.I know Bryant is looking down smiling and saying â€Å"About time you changed, you hard headed girl! † My friend may not be here anymore but him passing on made his family and friends realize things you love can easily be taken away from you in a flash. Selfishness is very common and realizing that our actions can affect our own lives and the people we love so dearly. If moments can be prevented then prevent them. Teaching others to think before they act can i mpact a lot of people from making the wrong decisions. In time everyone with have their own personal reality checks some faster than others.