To what extent do parents have the right to “spy” or check up on their children? What circumstances might allow or prevent this?

Parents spying on their children is very common today. But how far is too far? Is it right for a parent to rummage through their teenager's belongings when the teen is not home? Is it okay to read every text message sent and recieved or every called dialed and recieved? Although parents want the best for their children, and always want to proctect them from any type of danger, these actions would be considered to be "Spying" and irrational. It is an invasion of his or her privacy. Spying is wrong, and will just anger a teen and make them want to rebel even more. Spying also will stress a teenager out. They already have so much stress on their shoulders, why add to it?

Trust is a major factor. If parents trusted their teenagers more, rather than treating them like small children who need to be constantly supervised, I believe that with respect, teens will respect their parent's wishes. If a teen recieves this trust and respect from their parents, he or she will try their hardest not to break what they have because it will make them feel more mature. The newly added trust and maturity, will make the teen think twice the next time he or she gets the opportunity to something that their parents wouldn't aprove of.

I know this, because my parents trust me. There is no need to spy because we have an open relationship where I don't need to hide anything from them. They don't spy on me, and I am thankful for that. It is a more appealing approach to both teenager and parent to have an open relationship. The teen won't break the trust given to them, and the parents won't stress their child out by having expectations for them to live up to when they spy, and see somthing they don't particularly like.

Although spying is wrong, there are some circumstances where it is okay for a parent to intervene. Drugs, alcohol, or physical harm towards the teen, call for parent intervention. For one to stop these bad habbits, sadly their every move should be monitored, so they can have a bright clean future. But that should be the only time that a parent should have to monitor their kid. It's pointless to make a teen live under a magnifying glass if they are doing nothing wrong. Parents should let teens be teens and give them their trust.

Knight's Tale

I do agree with the author of the article's view of the Night's character. In The Canterbury Tales, the Knight is a character who is all about chivalry, honor, truth, wisdom, and helping those who are weaker than he is.
While reading the tale, I felt as though his main character, Theseus, was a reflection of himself. I get this impression because both Theseus and the Knight fought in many epic battles, and have both traveled the world. Both characters also live and love strictly by the code of chivilary. As the tale progresses, I feel as though the characters, Arcite and Palamon, were created to highlight the achievements and mannerisms of Theseus and the Knight, himself. This could be true because both Arcite and Palamon, are prisioners who argue, and eventually fight, for the love of Emily. ( A woman who has never even spoken a word to the men!) They treat Emily like she is property. Arcite and Palamon, show no hints of chivalry whatsoever.

The Canterbury Tales

Do you think the majority of people in monogamous marriages/relationships are faithful to their partner? What percentage of people do you think cheat or have affairs? Does this vary by age group or societal status or class? Explain.


The majority of peole today have many different views on how they handle being in a monogomous relationship. It all depends on how they stand in their religious views, how they have been brought up to treat the opposite sex, and how high their maturity level is when entering the relationship.

I believe that the percentage of people that cheat or have affairs is fairly high. There are so many new ways to communicate weather it being via: email, text, any instant messaging program, social networking sites, cell phones...ect. The list could go on. With the new ways of reaching new people the chances of meeting a person, or getting to know someone better behind a significant other's back, is highly possible.

It all comes down to the age, social class, and status of a couple that determines the likelyhood of their marriage surviving. New, young, couples are probably more at risk for having an unsuccessful marriage than a wealthy couple who is older. They say "I do" but have no idea what they are getting themselves into. Because they are not yet established, money becomes a problem, and the shape that the economy is in, must put a lot of stress on these young couples who are trying to make ends meet. Technology also becomes a factor. Because let's face it, most older people are not as technologically advanced as those who have grown up with using the new technology advances. If one can resist the temptations of new communication, then cheating will not be a problem.

If you lived during Medieval times, what role do you think you would have played? In what occupation/trade might you have worked? Explain your decision.


Being a female during the Medieval times did not offer many opportunities for a career. I would most likely end up being a wife and have kids at a very young age. But regaurdless, I would want to be a physician. In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer describes the doctor as not one who has a degree in medicine, but one who follows the stars. Living in a time when technology was nonexistent, there wouldn't be much to do except study what's around you. I find stars and astrology very interesting, so I would not following a career like the physician described in The Canterbury Tales.

Candle In The Wind - T.H. White

(Third paragraph down on p. 630)-"Was it the wicked leaders who led innocent populations to slaughter, or was it wicked populations who chose leaders after their own hearts?"

Arthur questions this idea when he looks back on his life, and the mistakes he has made. He cannot see how millions of people could allow one leader to force them into doing things they would not normally do on their own. He tries to figure out how the one leader's ideas could win against the million others. Arthur then realizes that the leader must have possesed something that appealed to the people. Something must had stood out in the begining for the people to put all of their trust into one person.

I agree with the latter. Think of Americans and President Bush, for example. How did he get into office when almost everyone has something negative to say about him? The answer is simple: the majority of people elected him into office. He must have had something that appealed to the people. Americans were not looking for change at the time, and stuck with what they knew.

Now four years later, in a time of need, U.S. citizens voted for "change" and chose Barack Obama. No one knows for sure if he'll be a good or bad president. He could be one of the greatest presidents Americans have ever seen, or one of the worst in history. But his speeches were appealing, and his idea of change turned voters onto him, causing him to win by a landslide.

Leaders don't just happen. They need the people to help them achieve their power. If a leader does not live up to one's expectations, don't blame the leader, blame the people for giving them their power.

Arthurian Legends: Real or Make-believe?

Arthurian Legends have been passed down from generation to generation mostly by the spoken word. How can one really pin-point the actual events described in these passed down stories since history was not recorded in England until about the year 500? How can one be sure that the events in the stories being told are true?

Although there may have been a king named Arthur, it is highly doubtful that all of the stories are true. Just think of the game telephone: a person says one thing, passes it down to someone else, and by the end of the game, the origional message is completely different from what the first person actually said.

Arthur may have been great, but his adventures are most likely fabricated with exaggerated details. Dragons, wizards, and other magical themes make it very hard for one to believe that Arthur's tale's are based off of true events. I believe that Arthurian Legends are more like historical fiction stories. The truth- King Arthur's greatness, the fiction- his many magical adventures.