Mark 1-10

Jesus vs. God?

"And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha Cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment." (5:41-42)

This is the part in which Jesus revived a young girl and I think of it as one of his greatest accomplishments. I mean, who has ever revived someone? Not even God revives people and if they are revived, they are meant to be revived so how is it so accepted that Jesus, the son of God can go walking around reviving and healing people from left to right? I know he is the son of God but playing with life is supposed to be a sin and not accepted by christians.

I wonder, if Jesus could walk around reviving people, whats the big problem with the scientists creating artificial life? Whats the deal with abortion? It seems to me as if anyone with the power to revive someone could do it. I'm not saying that I would like to have my own personal clown that cleaned my clothes, that would be akward but my point is compleately different. Where is supossed to be the limit or the line that divides what is right and what is accepted by our religion?

I knew about this revival since I was a kid and i never thought about it. No one has the right to alter others life so drastically. Yet, another thing is that the story has changed and the girl was only sick and Jesus cured her. In this case that is great, a doctor cured an ill patient. But, brining the dead back to life? In modern days this girl couldve been a lab-rat with a nickname as Frankenstain!

I do beleive that laws are for everyone equally and no one should have the right to avoid them for his or her rank.

Matthew 23-28

Honestly, I would've preffered to read something else in vacations because of the complexity of the bible in terms of grammar. The words used in it distract me from the main point of the stories and I cant seem to get strong connections with my life relating this issues.

Once again, Jesus implores complete obedience rather than "social" obedience. It seems as if Jesus prefered those who didnt follow the rules at all than those who followed them at halves. One of the parables told in these chapters talked about 10 virgins and it grabbed my attention. According to this parable, 5 virgins were wise and 5 were foolish and the wise ones were the ones that ended up with the lord. Untill this point I had a complete understanding. You have to be prepared for everythig because you don't know what is coming and you must be obedient at all times because If you follow God laws when you want (just like the 5 foolish virgins), you wont be granted acces to the heavens. Then, it mentioned that the master of the 5 wise virgins provided them with all that they needed for their journey and that is the part that confused me. According to that phrase, not everyone can be with the lord, only those who are choosen get a chance. This isnt fair at all.

Lets say that you are not choosen and yet, you want to be with God and do everything as you are supposed to. Is this supposed to mean that you cant be with him no matter what? Does this mean that you wont be able to do whats nessesary to be with God even if you truly want to? That parable was very confusing indeed.

Matthew 13- 22

The beggining of these books made me think that we are misinterpreting everything in the new testament. Jesus says that he speaks in parable because you can see and not see and you can hear and not hear. What you have to do to understand anything is to think about it and interpret it. I beleive this is true since you choose what to see. When you don't see you can't choose what to see. You have to think about it and thats when you'll trully learn. Maybe everything mentioned in the bible about Jesus is written in a parabolical sense and we should not take for granted that Jesus walked on water but we should be thinking of the meaning of walking on water. A wild guess about what the walking on water means is that water symbolizes the stablished ideas by society and when Jesus walks on water, he overcame these barries and therefore was free from any "laws" as the law of walking on water would be.

Jesus life presents dozens of ideas that we should think about. I can't say that something is real because i didnt live with them to take it for granted. I mean, how do we know that Homer "epics" weren't real? there is nothing that says that they are real as nothing says that they arent. As I see it, the same applies for Jesus since we cant relly on a text. As Jesus could be symbolical or if he existed, his death for humanity maybe was more than dying to forgive our sins. Maybe the death and his attitude toward it also tried to teach us that there is no reason to fear death. After all, us christians beleive we'll go to heaven and I dont see the downside of it.

I know I am taking all this too far but it could be real. Maybe there is more of his teachings than the superficial ideas that are mentioned on the book. If he teaches in parables, why shouldnt we learn in parables too?

Matthew 1-12

Something in these books that Jesus stresses the most is that you shouldn't do things for God so that others can see. He calls these people hypocrites since they do it for recognition amongst others. Jesus says that the most important thing is to do it because you are willing to do it since God knows that you are doing it.

I liked something mentioned in chapter six. "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full od darkness. I therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"
6: 22, 23

What I understand from this is that your life depends on what you want to see. If you beleive you are sorrounded by goodness and that everything is positive. You'll consequentially be positive since there is no reason to be negative. On the other side, if you see everything as dark, bad and evil. You won't see a reason to support being good to others and therefore you'll be evil. I guess that the eye symbolizes the mind and therefore, its not what you see that causes this. It is what you think.

Tao Te Ching 44 to 66

I found these chapters as the most interesting I've read but i think that the next ones will be even better and so on and so forth. These chapters mostly express the same 3 ideas.

The first one. You have to be a simple person and detach yourself from everything that you don't need. I am sure that this has a great, positive effect in your life but I dont consider myself ready to do such a difficult change in my life. This implies release yourself from every relationship, every material thing that is "useless" and every situation that is not nessesary.

The second one is that you can do more by doing less (which we already discussed in class). A quote I found that really made me think is "The farther you go, the less you know." chapter 47.
This is real because as you see more and more things, you have less time to really get to know these things or places and therefore end up with useless vague ideas that end up being a waste of time. Instead, when you take your time to get to know everything around you, that's when you really get to understand and truly learn. This means that you should take your time since you shouldnt have any hurries.

The last one says that you should take everything piece by piece and then you will accomplish even the greatest things. "See simplicity in the complicated" 63 "In the universe, the difficult things are done as if they are easy". 63 I will definitevly apply it to every situation I face from now one. First, I'll make the problem as simple as possible. This will save me more time and I will just focus on doing the important. Then, I will split what i have to do in little pieces to make it much easier.

I am sure that by combining all these 3 ideas your life will be really easy and serene. I guess that one thing that you can learn is that if you can accomplish simething by doing less and letting things solve themselves, why should you bother on worring about it and make a whole big deal about it. I strongly beleive that life is what you make out of it and if you can make your life easier and better, why shouldnt you at least try?

Tao Te Ching 29-43

Now I'm starting to feel the Ying-Yang that we talked about in class. For almost everything in this book is based on something and its opposite. I dont think that the Ying-Yang ever referst to good and wrong but always refers to A and B. This book shows us the balance of being and Wu and of acting and Wu-Wei. I am not an expert at that subject but I do beleive that Ying-Yang shows us that both sides taken too far are really bad so you have to mantain yourself at the middle, being able to adapt to certain situations and their opposites. As already mentioned in the book, extremes are bad and that is why you shouldn't be trying to look for more than what you need.

I came to understand at this moment a phrase I mentioned in one of my previous blogs that said that it was better to stop short than fill to the brim. I guess that it has to do with what you can do to fix it since to a glass short of water, you can add more water while to a glass with more water than needed, there is nothing that you can do (obviously you can pour some out but it will not be the right way since it'd be to missuse the water. The other idea about this quote is that when you stop short, you can make ammends and align yourself while if you do more, you've become eager and that has a price.

Returning to the balance thing, the Tao tries to tell us to go on, in the path without taking any deviations and this relates to the following quote.

"The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will loose it." chapter 29

Aside from explaining that the universe is greater than ourselves and we are not in control of it. I understand it as to stay in line and face any difficulties. As to myself, I dont beleive in that since I beleive that you can indeed reshape the universe as you want.

I accept the mayority of these ideas but I still have my own grounds, this is the best of the books we've read in class this year along with ishmael and I beleive that it is because of the radical ideas that each of these books present with respect to our lives.

Tao Te Ching 13-28

Alter I read these chapters I have to say that I feel much more intrigued towards this ideas. One thing that I admire is that there is no God, which means those who follow these ideas can fill it out, or that they simply believe that there is the only the way (Tao) and a source, The Source.

Clearly, they all believe in evolution and in life after death and I think it’s great. For many of us, death is one of our greatest fears simply because we don’t know what is expecting us or even if there is something expecting us but to them, they don’t have to worry about it since they know that they can’t do anything to change their future and that they’re lives will continue for eternity.

In chapter 23, it says that rains don’t last forever and winds don’t last all morning. If heaven and earth cant make things last forever, how could it be possible for men. I found this very wise and relates to the afterlife, or to our perspective of it. I keep seeing that being able to yield is mentioned often in this chapter and it relates to Wu-Wei because sometimes, to win you have to yield which means that they believe that a balance in our spiritual lives is very important.

Tao Te Ching 1-12

I think that the first part of this book is based on the idea of being selfless and only doing what you have to do. I understood this as going with the flow in other words.

“Better stop short than fill to the brim” chapter 9

This phrase caught my attention because its similar to a typical phrase in our community. What I understand from it is that its better to do what you have to do, or try to do what you have to do, than to do more since it will result negatively and will probably affect others or even yourself.

I believe that these teachings come with the idea that life is set up to you and that you have a predestinated destiny, which I found ridiculous, yet all these principles are full of wisdom and should be taken into acquaintance.

I believe that the Tao Te Ching and Confucius are strongly related although they refer to different aspects of life. I don’t know yet but I have a feeling that this book is going to be much more spiritual than any of the ones we’ve read before and that’s great because I consider myself as a person of a open mind, waiting to learn knew ideas and perspectives.

GO

What i found out about Go after I read all the tutorials is that Go relates to Confucius in a way because both are calm and patient. They are able to think further away from their next step in order to win or in confucius case, to have the smartest answers. Serenity is the key to win in Go and that is why Confucius would've been a world champion at this game, he thinks before acting and he doesnt nessesarily attack since you can attack by deffending yourself.

That is another characteristic i liked about the game, that if you maintain yourself attacking your opponent, you dont have time to defend yourself and therefore you'll loose. I kept seeing in the page that it mentioned that Go is a sharing game and you have to learn to yield and make sacrifices in order to win, in fact I'll post these very own words from the webpage down below.

"Keep in mind that Go is a sharing game - you can't get everything. You have to yield, you have to sacrifice, you have to apologize if you were too greedy. If you were too aggressive, you will lose everything, literally!"

Night, Second part, Analysis

Something that really made me think about this book was its ending. The book ended with obscurely and confusing. Personally, I wanted to hear how he returned to his hometown and moved on and how everything in the holocaust affected him although we see previous of his life when he talks about the future, for example when the Parisan woman gives coins to the starving kids.

Eliezer went through a lot of changes as the book progressed. He gradually lost his faith on God after he abandoned them and left them to die. I don't blame him because I am sure that many did the same. Even myself, when something goes wrong question where is God. If with mere problems I wonder that, imagine the fury and rage that they most have gone through after they were left to die with no reason at all. The other notable change that he undergoes relates to his father. Clearly, his relation with him gets weaker and weaker and as he sees children who beat their parents to death, he questions himself about his father and if he is an important person or someone who absorbs his energy and eats food that could be his. This idea sounds crazy, to kill your own father and it is not backed up, not even under this sircumstances but the line between what is right and what is wrong had already been crossed and what was sane and insane was no longer something different.

Definitively the book is great and the title fits perfecly, specially because there is no day after the book, its simply night and sorrow. The last sentence of the book. when he glances at a mirror and a corspe stares right back at him symbolizes all the pain that they went through and also means that death was pretty much what they went through. It is one of book that makes you question yourself many things and makes even a slight difference in your life. I had already read a book about the holocaust in 7th grade but i dont remember the name. The diffrence was that that book was based on the adventure on how the escaped and etc. This book is more of a memoair with fiction. I am looking forward to read similar books.

Night, Caged Animals

From what I've read, I cant stop thinking on how innocent these people are. Is the fact that they dont know what is awaiting them and the false hopes that they have that it'll all get better what makes them so animal-liked. I beleive that that is how Germans saw Jews with their twisted thinking and that's why they had to go through similar processess.

For instance, think about a pig that lives with his family on a farm and one day, he is taken away, probably suspecting that there is something wrong since that had never happened to him, yet thinking that there is a small chance that the outcome is satisfying. As time passes, he gets closer to the butcher and thats where he sees other pigs like him, being slaughtered and teared into pieces by the butcher. Thats when he definitively knows that he is going for the worst. He thinks about all the moments in which he was warned by his companions, those who knew what was going to happen yet, didnt beleive them because had a false hope and those ideas seemed bizarre at the moment.

Probably he thinks about the moment in which he could've run and tried to escape,obviously with a risk of death but having an option to survive is bigger than having to die at all costs. This reminds me to a part of the story, about in page 16, 17 in which he says that nor the Jews or the Germans were running the Ghetto, it was false hope. It really puts you through a lot of thinking, how someone was able to manipulate a whole country to follow his wicked ideas of freedom or purity which affected consequencially the rights of Jews who didnt do anything to deserve. I beleive that the author's purpose at the beggining of the book was to show their fear and the stress they followed with a hope of something that never came. That makes me thing, how do all these animals feel when they go through this same process? How did all these people felt after they lost everything without any reason. It really makes me thing, were does Karma fits in all this?

Analects 19 & 20

I am really confused about these two last books. The first one is the knowledge of his disciples that is similar to his but nothing as remarkable as what I read in the past books. The one quote I liked in book 19 was the last one. The second book is another of Confucius relations of balance, which I mentioned on my previous post.

19.21 Zigong said, “A gentleman’s errors are like an eclipse of the sun or the moon: when he errs, everyone notices it, but when he makes amends, everyone looks up to him”.

This quote is great but what I liked wasn’t the meaning but what it said. It used a comparison between something that was mysterious back then as an eclipse to the path of a gentleman which I believe is really important in the book because from what I read, a gentleman is that who follows the path to goodness. I’ve liked this book so far for its richness in comparison because after all, no one is able to understand every single quote, mainly because it applied to a whole different system of ideals that the one on which we live.

analects 15 17 18

From book fifteen you can deduce that he was very independent in a way. Confucius didn’t let anyone or anything to change his ideals. I admire that because not many of us can say that they are influenced by what happens around them. Yet, I’m not saying that we should ignore other ideas or points of view but that we shall not take them for granted. For instance, if everyone likes blue and I like red, I should continue liking red instead of blue unless I my self think about it and end up liking blue.

Something that I see often in his passages is that he always questions everything. For example, he might say that gentleman aren’t trustworthy just because they are honest or if someone is smart doesn’t mean he is a good speaker or vice versa. I believe that those are the questions you have to ask if you want to keep your own ideals because if you say that everything that shines is gold, then you’d be following incorrect, misleading ideas or propositions.

I really liked a passage in book 17. The passage is 17.23 and talks about balance. He says that courage without righteousness would end up in being a criminal while righteousness without courage would end up in a political disorder. This makes me think that about all of what he has said on his past books and now I think that the most important thing for Confucius is balance because without balance you have nothing. I believe that he is very wise because I cant think about a philosopher or a successful person that carried an unbalanced life.

Analects 7 8 11

I discovered that one of the secrets of the great philosophers of all times is that they are able to remain calm in all the situations. Confucius manages to remain serene and that, we all know, allows us to take the best descisions. I beleive that what happens around you doesnt have to affect you and therefore, you could remain calm while chaos surrounds you.

I also beleive that music is very important for anyone with such qualities because music allows you to express feelings and let go of emotions that are held up deep inside you. Music is essential and i beleive it could also be used in meditation. I think that Confucius is very similar to Budda in many ways. Both of them didnt have the necessity to bring a God or a superior self onto their teachings. Both, from what I know, beleived on reaching a higher self which Budda calls Nirvana. They beleived strongly on meditation, or rituals in Confucius case and they remained calmed in all of the situations.

One thing I admire about Confuicius is that he accepts other teachers and acknowledges their ideas because after all, in book 7 he stated that he isnt inventing, he is repassing or recreating what others have said. I think this makes you smarter, if you gather many ideas, you end up with your own which make sense, I dont beleive there's been one prophet or philosopher that hasnt been influenced by other's thoughts.

Paraphrase exercises

1. "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.

Antarctica produces the largest amount of cold on earth. It is responsible for keeping our planet and our atmosphere safe and cool and its water currents mix with the tropical waters and stabilize our environment. In fact, Antarctica plays a mayor role on our climate but unfortunately, we risking that stability due to our actions. Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.

2. The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.

80 years ago, things were very different. Back then, drinking was illegal but they all knew of ways to drink it. Mafia spread all around the cities and police officers were unable to stop it. Jazz became popular and it affected the Childs’ lifestyle. Since then everything changed because new heroes appeared, and everything, including the hairstyles and fashion changed. Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.

3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.

Hundreds of people die every year because of riding bicycle. The majority of them are caused by concussions and many of them are students. Studies have proved that wearing a helmet lowers the risk of concussions by remarkable numbers. The purpose of these helmets is to absorb the hit and ensure the safety of the passenger. Helmets save your life. Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.

4. Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.

Matisse is an expert at painting living art. He recreates anything from the gentle wind to the sweet smell of fresh fruits. His ability to recreate life-liked paintings makes him deserving of being one of the best painters in history. It’s the fact that he feels what he is doing that makes his paintings so real and wheather he paints tragic scenes from war or a summer afternoon, he is the best at making you feel it. Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.

5. While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.

How tall can buildings get? The sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois ranks amongst the highest buildings in the United States. Yet, plans don't sop here, there are plans of constructing a building that would reach 800 m in hight which means that it will be two times bigger than the Sears Tower. Not only that, but there are enough materials to build a building with 500 floors. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.

Analects 4 to 6

Analects 4 to 6

I am surprised by the Fact that in chapter 5.9, he mentions someone called Hui which is better than him. If he was better than him, why aren’t we reading Hui’s texts instead of Confucius? I wonder what amount of knowledge and followers do you require to be remembered in history because I think that back then; it was easier than now a days. The guy that invented human clonation isn’t being honoured as he should. Honestly, clonation is far more important than the creation of manners in my opinion. Maybe I’m discarding the fact that these people weren’t as great in the time of their lives as they are remembered these days. Maybe I could be remembered as a hero in the future but I wont be as great in my life. I’m sure this was Jesus’ case and he gained more followers after his death. I hope this is the case because nowadays what we need is heroes, prophets, and people that change our lives for better. If they will appear in a not so distant future, it’ll be great but if not, our civilization will start to decay.

Analects 1 to 3

Analects 1 to 3

What I liked about these teachings is that he doesn’t involve any religion at all. He talks about being good, about being a good person not a god-like person and this makes it easier since our religion shouldn’t affect our behaviours in regards to society and etc. I find it amazing, how he uses radical thoughts for the moment and manages to get all that followers. In my opinion, there is not just one right way to do things and that’s why I think that what he teaches is very important. He has a different way of solving things like for example, he states that he prefers to guide people based on rituals rather than on punishment because rituals makes them feel ashamed while punishments makes them want to avoid them and cause them to brake the law. Another thing that I admire of him is that he stated that he had no plans of ruling a civilization or controlling the world. He wanted to express his teachings, that were enough work to do, and he didn’t want to do anything else.

Job Last Entry

God is never wrong, God can't be wrong because he is God and if he is wrong, He isn't

God states on this text that he is superior in every aspect when compared to humans when really, i don`t see much difference between humans and God. The differences are stablished according to him because we've seen on the text that he doubts to forgive Job and in fact, chapters 35 & 36 are based on proving that God is better and shall not be compared to humans. If he sees us as inferiors in that way, I don't want to imagine the way he treated the slaves because if we were to draw a "Food chain", Slaves are below humans and therefore animal-liked to God.

I have to admit that I was surprised to see that God finally rewarded Job and granted him more than what he had before. I guess that the story we would've been told is that there was a man called Job and he was the best in the world. The devil cheated on him and to grant his loyalty, altough he was guilty of cursing God, God duplicated his belongings and made him even happier and succesful.

The real story, God took everything from Job and he almost accept it but finally lost it and cursed God. He then was mad at God and was looking for answers and then was convinced that God didn't have anything to do with his actions, God being so "generous" decided to forgive him (in my oppinion God was the one that had to apologize) and gave him more goods which arent important because after all, supossedly, material things arent as important.

To prove God's arrogance:

"Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go tom y servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept" Job 42:8

Job 1

Job was the best person in the middle east, according to the story and Satan made him loose everything. Satan, wanting suffering for humanity, convinced God as one of his child (which I guess is in a symbolical way because supposedly God didnt have any kids, except for Jesus. Satan told God to test his faith by presenting him tasks and life difficulties, to see if he would continue being a straight man, or if he was going to blame it all on God.

First, he lost his herds, his camels and even his sons and he didnt care. (He did care but said that if God was who gave him everything, he could also take everything away from him). As if this wasnt enough to prove his straightforwardness towards God, Satan set him up again. In my opinion its a crime. There aren't any lives that are worth 1 man's life. I mean, not even if this guy was our president, no one should die for him because that isn't how things work. Yet, if they shall die for a purpose, it shall be their descision and not anyone's descision because if you aren't willing to give your life for someone else, you dont have too.

The narrator admitted that Angels (or God, or Satan) questioned his purity, as it being stronger than that of his creator. They wondered if he was such a great man and I guess (because I stopped reading) that Satan will convice God to set him up again. I found this unfair because if Job is as great as it says, why should he loose everything? She should've been rewarded instead. Curiosity isn't an excuse for his losses or anyones and that I think is wrong. You shouldnt be hurting people to see if they react violently, or if you have to, do it once because in this cases people will tend to keep their calmness. If they ever respond aggresively, this means that they've reached the limit and that is by no means wrong, its just a limit, and from what I've read, even God has a limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_sign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_under_the_influence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt

All these relate to my speech which has to do with car crashes

Samuel & God

Samuel 1-12

Once again, God is ruthless warrior.

“The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them; the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed” Samuel 2:10

It is clearly Staten on the bible that he is powerful and sinister. He is exactly as the bad guy of all the Hero movies. God could be that person that is always behind a chair in darkness and only appears at the very end. He is the feared ruler and the one that ends up dying at the end. Makes me wonder if this book is included on the Sunday church’s bible. This doesn’t really imply that God is bad, but its just a whole new image of him. I guess that stories change according to the time period and the necessities at the moment. For instance, God was a freedom warrior back then and now, he is a peace promoter and if you think about it. They needed war back then, to be free. In addition, us, that are already free, need peace to keep things that way.

Samuel 12- end

This verses remember me to the Lord of The Rings or 300. God, looks like a Hero, seeking for blood and revenge in this segments. I dont know what stories did the first christians read, because apparently, their God and our God isnt the same. God is cruel and vicious and according to Samuel and he looks for war. The God we see right now is passionate and kind and sees other on top of him in the list of priorities.

God in the crussades was also cruel. According to religion back then, "The end justifies the means" and I think that is not moral. Another comparision from God according to Samuel and modern life is that God would be a Mobster. He'd be the ruler of them all and all would have to run respect for him. He told his Capos what to do and they got the job done. God, the Godfather. It sounds offensive but those arent my intentions, its just the strongest comparison between God according to Samuel and someone else.

Exodus Last part

Exodus 12-40

Exodus has been the most boring literature piece I’ve ever read. Honestly and with no means to offend, the bible has been really boring to me because of it’s writing style. The bible doesn’t have a regular pattern of speech and therefore doesn’t make as much sense. It is a translation of what I would say would be notes gathered up together that lead to this story. In my opinion, someone should’ve already created a novel with the facts mentioned in the bible and I believe that would attract more people into knowing more about this religion.

This part of Exodus talks about the Hebrews, free from the Egyptians and starting all over again. I saw clearly that Hebrews didn’t want to follow God and they demanded him for prove of his existence and power. He didn’t take this necessarily wrong but wasn’t to glad about it either. I was wondering while I read, that what would be things that God expected in exchange of his favors. That didn’t occur to me until I realized that God wasn’t as pure and perfect as I thought he was.

I saw that the way he wanted to be paid off was by following the set of rules and specifications he asked for in the dessert. I don’t know how did they manage to remember all that information. I saw that some rules were similar to those imposed by Hammurabi later on. For example the first one, that mentioned something about stealing and to pay it off, you had to pay four times the stolen value. This is very harsh and it relates to that of Hammurabi in that manner.

Exodus first half

Exodus 1-12

Since little kids, we’ve heard this story over and over again but until now I realize that it can be compared to some important things in our life. To start the examination, its obvious that The Pharaoh acted as the majority of us in modern days. He didn’t want to take orders although that he was doing wrong. He denied repeatedly the requirements of God and that led to the death of every firstborn in Egypt.

I recognize that I’ve been in similar situations in my life. For example with a homework, you’re warned about not doing but you still don’t do it and the argument about when are you going to give the homework lasts for ever until one day, when they warned you to hand in the homework for tomorrow, you don’t do it and guess what? There are no second chances and if you didn’t do it you screwed up and this could be compared to The Pharaoh’s behavior.

Now moving on to the deep comparisons. As you mentioned earlier in class, Exodus is almost exact to slavery and independence in the United States. A group of people that believed it was right doing so, or at least didn’t have a problem doing the wrong thing held slaves (or Hebrews in this case). There were several attempts and accusations that the “owners” avoided or ignored and kept them. One day after several attempts, finally, slavery was abolished and justice was made. I haven’t read the rest of exodus but as I already know the story I know that the Hebrews are released and then followed by the Egyptians and that’s when the famous opening of the waters occurs.

The bible Third Entry (Genesis 11-28)

Genesis 11-28

These chapters talked about Abraham, his trip to the Promised Land and his offspring. The thing that caught my attention when I was reading were the actions of some. I always though that the bible talked about flawless people and leaders but I found out that that’s not fully true. For instance, God sends Abraham in a test of faith in which he has to kill his son. At the end he didn’t kill him but putting a person against his family for religion is not right. Probably religion was stronger back then than it is right now but still, in the moral values scale, first goes family and then goes religion (down on the list).

The bible also mentioned another case that goes against the morals. Two daughters got her father drunk to lay with him to preserve the family offspring. This is not only wrong but is actually considered a crime now days! Some people are having affairs and they are destroying towns because God said so. I look at it with huge disappointment because I always thought that as Christians, we were expected to do good because since the beginning of it they’ve been doing it. Who are they to tell us how to behave if they didn’t behave. Yet, I don’t know if this is because I haven’t reach the part in which God’s Commandments are written on the tablets because it changes everything. I mean, if they didn’t have any rules, who could tell them what was right and what was wrong?

I cant accuse my own religion because I haven’t read any other text about the different religions. I am almost 100% sure that they too have flaws on their past. This proves that no one is perfect and that even God made mistakes (or at least in my point of view). I’m looking forward to reading different religious pieces to compare and contrast them amongst each other because I cant say something is the worst, when it’s the only one I know about. For example if I’ve only ate one cereal brand I’d be bias to say it’s the worst cereal I’ve ever tried. It would be the worst cereal indeed, but it will also be the best one.

So to end this evaluation about these chapters I have to say that I was surely disappointed of what I read but its because of my lack of information and it could even be related to the things I was taught as a younger kids by my religion teachers.

Speech Analisis RIchard Nixon"Chekers"

http://www.watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml

Senator Nixon's Checkers Speech

September 23, 1952

My Fellow Americans,

I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.

This introduction has Ethos when he talks about his position and his problem and indirectly presents choice over the judgments made to him and about whether to believe them or not.

The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details.

The fallacy used in this text is the appeal to tradition by saying that when these charges are pressed against politics, most of them either ignore them or deny them. By saying this he indirectly says that he is better than them because he is going to talk about them.

I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.

Nixon uses rhetoric by values by talking about the confidence that people have in those who run for the vice-presidency. I don’t see any kind of fallacies in this text.

I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that's why I'm here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.

Nixon plays with Ethos by suggesting he is a great character by talking about this and Pathos by manipulating people’s feelings toward him by saying that he is an honest person.

I am sure that you have read the charge and you've heard that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.

Nothing special in that sentence. He simply mentions why he is being charged but doesn’t respond to it yet. This is a brief introduction for him to start talking about his charge and about the truth.

Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong—I'm saying, incidentally, that it was wrong and not just illegal. Because it isn't a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is, was it morally wrong?

I don’t know why but that part of the speech reminds me to the story of Ishmael. I think that its because it deals with morals and right or wrong. He uses values in this part by referring to the present and the right or wrong but he uses blame as well, although he is blaming himself. I’ve already read the whole speech and don’t understand why did he write this small paragraph. After all, he is blaming himself not others. It just might be another strategy. To manipulate the audience by saying that they know that what they did was wrong and illegal but he still wants to explain why. This might show the audience that he isn’t a liar, that he has morals and that he recognizes his mistakes. This leads up to the action itself.

I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.

He uses Logos by providing facts about on what did he not spend the money and although he doesn’t present physical proofs just now, he will later on the speech. He is again referring by values by I don’t know if it relates much to rhetoric because he still got to talk about values, he’s been accused of stealing money!

And now to answer those questions let me say this:

Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.
It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on "Meet the Press," some of you may have seen it last Sunday—Peter Edson came up to me after the program and he said, "Dick, what about this fund we hear about?" And I said, "Well, there's no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith, who was the administrator of the fund."

And I gave him his address, and I said that you will find that the purpose of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should be charged to the Government.

I don’t see any fallacies in these two paragraphs. He is just justifying why he is innocent and why should people believe so. I think that there aren’t as many fallacies or as stronger fallacies as in
other speeches because his is defending himself against America and therefore he cant afford to lie, he cant afford to cheat. Most of his speech has to be and is based on Ethos, Pathos and Logos because he has to take it all out, and prove his innocence to the American people or as he likes to call them, taxpayers.

And third, let me point out, and I want to make this particularly clear, that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaign, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent.

I just don't believe in that and I can say that never, while I have been in the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency, or have I gone down to an agency in their behalf. And the records will show that, the records which are in the hands of the Administration.

Once again, uses logos to prove his point and Ethos to strengthen his position.

But then some of you will say and rightly, "Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?"

Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year, a round trip that is, for himself and his family between his home and Washington, D.C.

And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office, to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California is enough to hire thirteen people.

And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the Senator—it's paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his payroll, but all of these people and all of these allowances are for strictly official business. Business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the Veterans Administration and get some information about his GI policy. Items of that type for example.

But there are other expenses which are not covered by the Government. And I think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.

He is blaming the use of his money to the government, that doesn’t provide enough money for senators to spend on business related issues. He evokes Pathos, by talking about the money spent and by saying that it isn’t as easy as it looks.

Do you think that when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio or television, that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the taxpayers?

Well, I know what your answer is. It is the same answer that audiences give me whenever I discuss this particular problem. The answer is, "no." The taxpayers shouldn't be required to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business.

But then the question arises, you say, "Well, how do you pay for l these and how can you do it legally?" And there are several ways that it can be done, incidentally, and that it is done legally in the United States Senate and in the Congress.

His message in this part of the speech is more of less that he is not doing anything wrong. If anyone is misleading is the people who judge him for things which they don’t know and in fact he does it to prevent citizens to pay for it, because he doesn’t consider it fair. I don’t know if it is exactly a fallacy that we’ve learned but I think it is. It is the manipulation of words to convince the audience that he is a hero while he actually is doing what every other senator has done, the right thing. He implies that he should be recognize for caring for the American people but in fact, that’s his job, he shouldn’t be felicitated for doing that’s what he is supposed to do.

The first way is to be a rich man. I don't happen to be a rich man so I couldn't use that one.

Pathos by evoking emotions and using humor.

Another way that is used is to put your wife on the payroll. Let me say, incidentally, my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the payroll. And has had her on his payroll for the ten years—the past ten years.

What he does is try to look better by making others look worse but in reality, it has nothing to do so it’s a fallacy. Just because he got 50 on math class I’m not an excellent student if I got 70, I’m still below the expected. You aren’t good if you don’t do bad things, you are good if you do good things.

Now just let me say this. That's his business and I'm not critical of him for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point. But I have never done that for this reason. I have found that there are so many deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work that I just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on the payroll.
My wife's sitting over here. She's a wonderful stenographer. She used to teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was when I met her. And I can tell you folks that she's worked many hours at night and many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office and she's done a fine job. And I'm proud to say tonight that in the six years I've been in the House and the Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on the Government payroll.

He deviated completely of the main point, whether did he steal money or didn’t. He could apply to Pathos by talking about his wife, etc. He might been using Ethos too, by suggesting he is a great man.

There are other ways that these finances can be taken care of. Some who are lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law. But I haven't been able to do that. I'm so far away from California that I've been so busy with my Senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal practice.

And also as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the relationship between an attorney and the client was 80 personal that you couldn't possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before the Government.

These paragraphs aren’t very important for the development of the speech.

And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made, the speeches that I had printed, for the most part, concerned this one message—of exposing this Administration, the communism in it, the corruption in it—the only way that I could do that was to accept the aid which people in my home state of California who contributed to my campaign and who continued to make these contributions after I was elected were glad to make.

And let me say I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me for a special favor. I'm proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill other than as my own conscience would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and shouldn't be charged to the taxpayers.

Finally he talks about the usage of his money. He spent it on his speeches, business trips etc. I don’t think that he deserves to be punished for that. The problem is that people are always trying to make their enemies look bad and what to the innocents get because of that? False accusations and hatred of crowds. This is clearly logos because he provides facts of it on the next paragraphs.

Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that's all right, Senator; that's your explanation, but have you got any proof7"

And I'd like to tell you this evening that just about an hour ago we received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Gov. Sherman Adams, who is the chief of staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign, that an independent audit and legal report be obtained. And I have that audit here in my hand.

I admire his previous preparation of the points in which people might’ve had questions and how he answers them to end up with them having no choice but deny his accusation. Again, Logos but this time with proves.

It's an audit made by the Price, Waterhouse & Co. firm, and the legal opinion by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law firm and incidentally one of the best ones in Los Angeles.

I'm proud to be able to report to you tonight that this audit and this legal opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower. And I'd like to read to you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and based on all the pertinent laws and statutes, together with the audit report prepared by the certified public accountants.

“It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain from the collection and disbursement of the fund by Dana Smith; that Senator Nixon did not violate any Federal or state law by reason of the operation of the fund, and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith directly to third persons nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon to reimburse him for designated office expenses constituted income to the Senator which was either reportable or taxable as income under applicable tax laws.

(signed) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher by Alma H. Conway."

There aren’t any fallacies as I see it. On the last paragraphs he provides the so longed evidence of his innocence although some might argue that that he paid them to say this he answers more of this questions in the rest of the speech because this is just the middle of it. If it were up to me I would’ve declare him innocent immediately because as we can see it, he is clearly innocent, he was simply misunderstood.

In my opinion, his speech was based on Pathos and Ethos but depended on Logos to prove his innocence, because as charming as you might be, if you kill someone, you shall be punished. I found it a great speech and in fact its rated as one of the top 10 speeches in the U.S. history. He uses small fallacies that I mentioned but I don’t think they were meant to convince them because he had no further evidence but I see his fallacies as strategies to spice up his speech and strength his position and alter the decision of his fellow Americans.

I honestly find this speech great because it uses real evidence and all all-round strategy to convince the public and show his point. However, as I said before, this speech this different to most others because it is answering accusations and most of them aren’t meant to do that.

Bible Second Entry

Genesis 5-11

This story is about Noah and all his descendants. I remember that in Gilgamesh there was a similar success and I’m guessing that there was a great flood which became these two stories eventually. In my opinion, the flood symbolizes purification of the earth and the humans. I don’t know how did the civilization arouse from that small group of people having in mind they all were related and then supposedly all their kids would be born with mental problems. Imagine if that story were true, we’d all have mental problems cause we’d all be direct descendants from Noah.

That was a shallow analysis but getting into the deeper thoughts, the flood. The flood mean the end and only those in the arch were saved. If you think about it, the responsible for the flood wasn’t God, it was us. We were responsible (the people that lived back then, when I say we I am referring to us the humans) because of our behavior. We weren’t behaved as we should’ve behaves so god sent us a flood to kill us all. Fortunately, this cant happen as precisely in real life but it could really happen in a long term. As Ishmael said, we might seem to be on an uplifting process in humanity but that is just covering up the real deal, the major problems like global warming, international affairs related to worldwide wars and the resources, that might seem abundant in the moment but one day we’ll wake up and realize there is nothing left.

In my opinion we should be prepared for the oncoming and try to slow the process down because after all, you never know if you’ll be granted access to the next Noah’s arch which might even be the spaceship to the moon!

Bible First Entry

Genesis 1-5

These chapters are basically talking about the life of Adam and Eve, and all their descendants. I found the beginning boring because of its repetitiveness and my previous knowledge of the subject. I don’t know why they always said to me that after they ate the fordibben fruit, they were punished and removed from the paradise and struggled to get back to it again (by convincing God) but when I read this bible, (not that I’ve read any other bible) they weren’t punished as harsh as I learned they were.

Aside from this, one thing that brought my attention was the ages that they all lived. Its been proven scientifically that people at that age lived less that what we live now so I don’t know why did they all lived almost 1000 years! Symbolically, it might’ve meant that people were pure back then and not as corrupted as we live today and their long lives could’ve been a reward. I don’t know if its just me who thinks this but the ages of the sons and grandsons etc. were decreasing as the family tree grew longer and longer and this could mean that people began to change more and more and turned into egocentric people as the time passed.

When I started reading the bible, I remembered the story of Ishmael because if you think about it, it totally makes sense. For example, when the Adam and Even ate the fordibben fruit that symbolized the knowledge of right or wrong, they could now say what was right or wrong according to them which wasn’t really right or wrong at all. This means that they didn’t kill animals if they weren’t to eat them but after they ate the fruit, they could say that it is right to kill the animal if I am not going to eat it. I think that aside from our mental abilities, that is what makes us different than any other species in the planet, we supposedly have the right to say what is right and what is wrong. I cant imagine our world if we would’ve never tried that fruit. I guess we would be extinct but who knows?

Myths 18th entry

Atalanta

This is the story of Atalanta that suffered from marriage. She was warned about marrying. The oracle told her, “Atalanta, do not marry, marriage will be your ruin. “ Pg 113

I’d read about this before but never evaluated it. Greeks and Romans strongly believed in destiny. Now, not all of us believe in destiny because we’ve discovered that we are the only creators of our destiny. I Think that the kind of faith they lived had to do with religion because destiny is supposedly controlled by the will of god. I don’t have much to say because I am no one to argue the roles of God or the gods in our lives. I personally do believe in god but believe that I’m the forger of my own destiny.

In my opinion life is better that way. You do what you do and life will do that to you. It kinds of relate to Karma but in a logical way. Cause and effect. For example, if decide to practice tennis weekly, you’ll be good at it but if you wait to be good at it but don’t do anything about it, there will be no chance for you at the sport. I’m not looking for an argument but I’m expressing my point of view, which I consider the right one, if not, why would I be following it?

Hercules

Hercules was a hero that did everything that was sent to him and at last gained the companion of the Gods. Hercules might’ve symbolized a city that surpassed all of them by conquering the surrounding territories and by travelling to all the different places and winning them over with flawless efficiency.

Maybe he wasn’t a city after all but he was simply an invented character to prove humans that if they tried, they could be better than the gods. This story might’ve encouraged many to do their own thing without attaching themselves to religion because after all, if Hercules did it, we all can.

This story is much different than the story I knew about him in which he was a great guy because you can see in the story that in fact, he had problems controlling himself but still made good deeds. I think that he didn’t do the tasks for the benefits of no one but for those of his own and although the tasks were meant to please others, he did them to prove he was better. I guess that that was his flaw and the reason why he wasn’t fully godlike (in a symbolical way).

Hebe and Ganymede

The only thing that this story says is that Hebe went with Ganymede instead of Hercules and this shows that myths might’ve been corrupted from their original version while they were told. There is nothing to do about it because that is expected to happen but I guess that there could’ve been different morals beneath some of the stories than those that were actually written in this book.

myths 17th entry

The Golden Fleece

At the end of the myth, it says that this store could be the same of Noah’s Ark. People accept that these stories have both real facts and fiction. I disliked the fact that this story starts by talking about the kids that travelled around the world and ends up talking about a challenge that a hero solves. I understand that the kids are mentioned to introduce the story but I think that the change shouldn’t have been that abrupt because you spend the whole story waiting to hear the whole story about these two kids.

This story is the typical story about a hero that is challenged by a king and ends up winning the challenge and getting the girl. You see this same story in all the knight tales, they are all the same and I guess they came from this story in a way. I think that the story of the Golden Fleece symbolizes the beginning of the quests of that time period and the battles for territory amongst the different kingdoms. The tasks mean the hard it was for one to defeat the other although some had an advantage. The kids that went to different places means that each place took a different path and ideology although they all came from the same roots.


Medea and Jason

Its obvious that Medea was a witch. She looked innocent at first but when I heard about the serpents chariot, I knew that she was as dark as the night. I’d always thought that sorcery started in the castle ages, but it never occurred to me that those things came back down from ancient Greece and Rome. I’d say that even the saints feel the need for revenge at any time of their lives. I couldn’t imagine who life would be if we never felt the need for vengeance. I think that as long as there is envy, there is vengeance because revenge comes from envy or jealousy in a way.

I’ve surely felt the need to revenge many times in my life. In fact, it happened to me in the past days. A friend kicked me but not in a looking-for-a-fight way and I kicked him back. Then he hit me because I kicked him and I hit him back. This turned out into a vicious cycle in which we almost end up hitting ourselves in the face but fortunately, I was able to think back the situation and calm myself down as well as my friend.


Meleager and Atalanta

It’s a shame, how a mother killed her own song in revenge of her brothers. I don’t know but from what I think is right, sons are ranked higher in the importance scale than brothers do. Maybe in some cases brothers are more important but I don’t think that they reach that point in which their death becomes the son’s death. She could’ve renounced to her son or ignored him for the rest of eternity but she didn’t have the right to kill him. A hero died because of his mother and that is just unfair. What we need right now and what we needed back then are heroes and I think that there will never be enough of them.

Op Ed Pipe Dreams

Pipe Dreams

By ROBERT D. MORRIS
Published: October 3, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03morris.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Seattle

IN a time when we endlessly scrutinize the ingredients of our food and insist on pesticide-free peaches, why are we still mixing carcinogens into our children’s lemonade? From herbicides to arsenic, the Environmental Protection Agency has set standards for 80 different chemicals, specifying how much of each should be allowed in our drinking water. Yet no regulations exist for thousands of other contaminants that make their way into our drinking water.

The author has fallacies in this text. First, by saying that we are still mixing carcinogens into our children’s lemonade. With that comment he appeals to tradition by saying that we are all doing it. He also uses fallacies when he writes that because he makes us feel inferior but invites us to join the elite of the human race, those who don’t put carcinogens into the children’s lemonade. I cant remember the name of that approach but I think its called Snob.

These unregulated contaminants include industrial byproducts, agricultural chemicals, drugs and even most of the toxic compounds that are formed when we add chlorine for disinfection. The combined effect of these contaminants has never been evaluated.

In this paragraph, he uses logos to prove his point, that the chemicals that we often drink aren’t healthy and he uses fallacies in the last sentence because he blames indirectly scientists and the FDA for providing us chemicals that may not be healthy for our body.

There is nothing we ingest in greater quantities than water. In light of this, here’s a radical concept. Our drinking water should be water. Nothing more. Paradoxically, the best way to make that happen is to purify less of it. Here’s why.

I cant find any fallacies in this text but I am starting to get interested. I am one of those persons that drinks “fake” lemonade on the daily bases and I cant wait to see what is wrong with it.

The technology exists to remove all of these chemicals from our water. But the E.P.A. balks at insisting on the elimination of all hazardous chemicals and microbes from the 10 trillion gallons of water we use every year because the cost would be so great.

I can see a slight fallacy where he says that E.P.A. disagrees with the purification of water because although he explains why they don’t agree with it, he makes them look as the bad ones.

Merely maintaining our water systems will cost $274 billion over the next 20 years, according to the E.P.A. Upgrading our water supply to eliminate all public health risks from chemicals and microbes in our drinking water would be far more expensive.

I have to discredit what I wrote before, he now explains why they cant do it and I don’t see any kind of fallacies in this paragraph.

But money is an obstacle to clean drinking water only because the E.P.A.’s assumptions rely on old ways of thinking. Our water infrastructure is old and decayed, and so are the fundamental ideas behind it.

Now I don’t know what to say. He attacked once again the E.P.A. Basically what he says is that they are in charge of it so there is nothing that we can do but that they are doing it all wrong. I have to say that he attacked violently the E.P.A: and for all of us that aren’t quite sure about what it is, we are seeing as if they are wrong and that there is something else that most be done.

Every drop of water produced by water treatment plants must meet E.P.A. standards for drinking-water quality. But we drink less than 1 percent of that water. Most of it goes down toilets, into washing machines, onto our lawns or down the drain.

Again he is using fallacies against the E.P.A. and now I understand what is his problem with it. We should concentrate on purifying fully the 1 percent of water that we are drinking and the rest of it, shouldn’t be purified as much because after all, dogs are content enough with the water they’ve been drinking.

The largest single consumer of water in most cities is not a consumer at all. Water pipes, often more than 100 years old, leak millions of gallons per day in every major city in the United States. Because of damage from Hurricane Katrina, the water pipes in New Orleans alone now leak 50 million gallons each day.

Once again, fallacies. He blames the US because they haven’t fixed the pipes in New Orleans since the Hurricane and not only in new Orleans but everywhere in the U.S. Ask me but I`d say that these facts are absurd. More than 50 million gallons per day are wasted and there are people out there dyeing for lack of water.

Right now, improving the quality of the water we drink requires extraordinary expense to improve the quality of the water we flush. This adds enormous costs to any effort to improve the quality of our drinking water and forces us to tolerate the presence of chemicals in our water that we would ban if they were food additives. It forces New Yorkers to drink unfiltered water even though 114 wastewater treatment plants dump treated sewage into the city’s water supply.

In this paragraph, he is saying that there isn’t much that we can do about the waste of the pure water because the costs are absurd.

The underlying systems for our water supplies were laid out more than 100 years ago. Over the past century we have made incremental improvements to these systems, adjusting their design and operation as new threats to our health were identified. We now have terrific water for irrigating lawns and washing cars. Our drinking water, however, falls short.

I cant see any fallacies. Maybe that he says that they’ve done it all to improve water and therefore you could say it’s a patriotic approach and makes Americans proud of their country when in a way, they shouldn’t. (they should but not in regards to their water purification system)

To improve the quality of our drinking water, we need to rethink our entire approach to providing it. Our drinking water should have a different status from the water used to flush toilets.

What a coincidence, I said that before! Our drinking water should be separated from the water used to flush the toilets. I don’t see any fallacies on this piece.

Pure water will require filters in restaurants and workplaces and at the tap where children fill their glasses. Millions of homes already have these filters, but they are installed haphazardly. To avoid a two-tiered water supply in which safe water goes only to those who can afford it, these filters must become a universal, integral part of the water supply system.

In this paragraph he uses same approach he used in the first paragraph. He separates those who have a filter into higher superior beings. There is not much that others can do about it, if they don’t have the money, the cant have it but he suggests them to get one because after all, that’s the only way to drink safer water.

Utilities should select, install and maintain point-of-use water filters. Design improvements can make the filters more effective. These changes are possible and affordable. Americans already spend more than $15 billion each year for bottled water.

One fallacy could be that he says that we are all wasting lots of money in bottled water while if we bought a filter, I’d be much more cheap. It is a fallacy although he is right because after all, who is he to tell us what should we do?

The need to replace aging pipes and equipment over the next two decades offers an opportunity to reinvent the way we deliver our drinking water. We cannot allow the water we don’t drink to prevent us from purifying the water we do.

I agree with the last paragraph, there is something that needs to be done although its hard to do. I don’t think that he is going to make much of an impact with this op-ed but its good to see that there are people out there who care for our health. If our drinking water was purified, we’d live longer for sure.

I tend to become aggressive against the writer of these articles but its because my job is to do that. I have to prove that his supports are mistaken and that we shouldn’t believe what he says. I have to say that I totally agree with what he wrote but I think that he ended up writing a bunch of paragraphs without coming with an exact and flawless solution. Maybe his job is only to write about it, let the scientists and the government to the rest of the work.

Robert D. Morris is the author of “The Blue Death: Disease, Disaster and the Water We Drink.”

Myths 16th entry

Monsters

Giants

Giants were immense creatures that lived on earth at the same time as humans did. They were so strong, that they managed to scare the gods and almost defeat them in one occasion. I don’t think that giants were created by gods because knowing them, they’d never create something that would be able to defeat them. How strange would it be to have a dominant specie in our planet? Imagine that you were a dog and lived on the earth, knowing that there was an advanced specie which ruled you and you couldn’t do anything about it.

“While the war lasted the giants proved for a formidable enemy”.

Imagine that dogs for instance, reveled to the human race and began attacking us in an unpredictable way. Probably we’d still end up winning for our advance technologies and weapons but they’d surely make a formidable enemy. We should not be thinking about war but its kind of a similar concept to that related to the gods and the giants.

The Sphinx

This story shows a resume of the whole story of Oedipus which if I’m not wrong, was also mentioned in the bible. The story of the Sphinx has been common to all of us since young age because of its moral I guess. The puzzle he solved was pretty difficult and when I read it again, I was reminded of a puzzle that I solved in my camp, on this summer. It asked something like, what is better than god, worst than the devil. The rich don’t need it and the poor have it. The dead eat it and something by the sort. The answer was very obvious but you had to think about a lot. When you are faced with these kinds of questions, the first thing you do is think for the most complicated answer when most of the times, the answer is right in front of our nose.

Pegasus and the Chimera

I always thought that Pegasus belonged to Hercules but then again, Disney has distorted our minds as young kids. Pegasus was indeed important in mythology but for different things than those that the movie showed. I found it amazing, how once you get a taste of power, you want to get it all. That’s part of what makes us humans and I can connect this to Ishmael. According to that book, humans are the only ones that are always wanting more than what they need and I guess that doesn’t only apply for food and territory but it definitively applies for power too.

“At last Bellerophon was by his pride and presumption drew upon himself the anger of the gods” pg 101

This statement shows that he wanted more and ended up suffering the wrath of the gods. According to Ishmael, we’ve been doing it all wrong and therefore, we are going to destroy our human race and destroy the world. This also reminds me to a song I saw on TV yesterday that was called De-evolution. The song showed that people with lower IQ’s are having more children and that’ll lead up to a civilization with much less intelligence in the not so far future.

Myths 15th entry

Io

Io is also the name that a famous house music producer and Dj created to be known in the whole world and I personally enjoy very much his songs. (Actually the name is Iio but I think that his intention was to have the name of this Greek character. I liked that this story turned out with a happy ending because it looked like Io was going to stay in suffering for the rest of her life. I don’t believe in that kind of punishment for being unfaithful because after all, the one who deserved punishment was Jupiter, not Io. The story of Iio reminds me of the movies that I saw as a little kid from Disney. These movies made the innocent suffer until the last 10 minutes in which they’d all end up living happily ever after. I think that its highly probable that those stories were written using the same format that these myths used because they are very similar indeed. Again, as a conclusion, Greeks were highly influential to the development in every aspect of our lives.


The Halcyon Birds

This is a story in which love interferes and keeps the couple together, surpassing the strength of death. I can compare the birds in which they transform at the end of the story to the birds that represent peace. Birds have always been a personification of freedom, peace and love (I’m talking about the little white birds that are called “Palomas” in Spanish). Their transition to the other side, a better one, could be symbolized with their transformation into the birds that fly freely around the seas and islands, doing what they please to do and with the ability to explore and fulfill their curiosity. At this point of my life, I’m not sure about what happens to us when we die but I certainly hope that its an evolution, a step into a higher dimension in which we can have a better life with a higher state of consciousness.

“But indeed he did felt it, and by the pitying gods both of them were changed into birds.” Pg 60

In that moment, both of them become the free birds that roam around the seas. This story reminds me of a book we read last year in English class, “Jonathan Livingston Seagull”. In this story, a curious bird, who believes that there is more in his life than flying, decides to challenge himself and eventually he evolves into a higher self, the only difference is that in this case, the human evolved into the bird.


The wedding Fest

Now I’ve read this story twice and I haven’t understand the ending. Did Perseus become a stone as all of his enemies and some of his friends? Alternatively, did he simply walked out of there and married Andromeda later on? I didn’t understand it but I had clear that Perseus was a true Hero. He faced 3 different enemies and much more in the wedding fest and I think he was able to defeat them all (I’m not sure about those in the wedding fest).

I think that some of these stories were invented with the sole intention of creating their own heroes. Everyone, everywhere and every time, people are looking for their own heroes, does that can be looked at and admired. I myself would like to have a personal hero, but I guess I already have, just that mine is not a guy who killed 3 different monsters and accomplished much more.

myths 14th entry

The water Deities

This story, more than a myth is a description of the family of the rulers of the seas. How strange it is that Achilles, the hero of the battle of Troy, was related to Neptune, the chief of the water deities and the ruler of the seas. I imagine that whole family, Neptune, Triton, Amphitrite and all of them as Triton was shown in the Little Mermaid so that is why it is so hard for me to assimilate Achilles with a guy who’s half-fish and half-god.

Another thing that I can relate from real life to this story is Neptune’s trident. “The symbol of his power was the trident, or spear with three points, with which he used to shatter rocks” In Christianity, the Devil has been represented with a trident too. This makes me think that Neptune may’ve been evil in some point or maybe the devil has a trident because it symbolizes power.

I’d say that the Greeks and the Romans made us what we are today and that things would’ve been much more different if those cultures wouldn’t succeeded. They were highly influential in every aspect of our lives and they are found in our daily activities. For example, Nike, the most recognized sports merchandise brand was named after a goddess.


The Camenae

I read this short fragment and it briefly talks about Egeria, a fountain nymph and her relationship with Numa, the second king of Rome. She supposedly helped Numa in the building of the rising empire and he was filled with wisdom and lessons. I don’t even know why were these two characters referred in this book because after all, the roman king, wasn’t even in the vocabulary of Microsoft word and Egeria, she didn’t do something of great importance. “After the death of Numa the nymph pined away and was changed into a fountain”. (Pg 141) You could deduce from this sentence that these two were having an affair rather than a relationship in which the share wisdom because from what I know, if I happen to die, teachers will not accompany me in the other side.


The winds

I have to say that today I picked the worse stories because they don’t have much of a plot. These stories are plain descriptions of families, loves and affairs. Actually, this specific story was the one I disliked the most. It talked about the different names that the different winds had. They were personified and even had affairs and fights with other people at the time. I discovered that the best stories are the largest ones, because although they take more time to be read, they develop a stronger story with fully described characters from which you can find interesting thoughts and etc. My conclusion after reading this is related with a saying in Spanish that says, “El peresoso trabaja doble”. This means that lazy people have to do much more work and its funny if you think about these phrase a lot, because there are lots of situations around the day that recall to this phrase.

Fallacies

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/opinion/27havel.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Op-Ed Contributor
Our Moral Footprint

By VACLAV HAVEL
Published: September 27, 2007

OVER the past few years the questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we humans contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them. Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean danger for all people on all continents.

This paragraph doesn’t contain any kind of fallacies. I hope that the other ones do and this one doesn’t because it is an introductive piece but who knows.

It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren’t we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays?

Rather than fallacy, this paragraph is using blaming as a rhetoric to say that we shouldn’t care much about it. When the author says, “By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren’t we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays?” You could say that he intends to make us realize that we are wrong and therefore, you could say that he is using “Argumentum ad Populum” (argument to the people) to prove his point. In this case, it would be a combination of Bandwagon approach, in which he says everybody is doing it but saying that they are all wrong. The fallacy could also be a Snob approach, by making us all believe that smart people, are the ones that think like him and therefore, you could say that that paragraph contains fallacies.


Maybe we should start considering our sojourn on earth as a loan. There can be no doubt that for the past hundred years at least, Europe and the United States have been running up a debt, and now other parts of the world are following their example. Nature is issuing warnings that we must not only stop the debt from growing but start to pay it back. There is little point in asking whether we have borrowed too much or what would happen if we postponed the repayments. Anyone with a mortgage or a bank loan can easily imagine the answer.

In this paragraph, the author blames everyone but Europe and United States in special, according to him, they are responsible for what’s occurring in regards to global warming. I’d say that this paragraph uses Genetic fallacy to attack the people of the U.S. and Europe but there are too many people being attacked by him. I think that with this fallacy he wont win any more votes up on him because it attacks rather than convinces.

The effects of possible climate changes are hard to estimate. Our planet has never been in a state of balance from which it could deviate through human or other influence and then, in time, return to its original state. The climate is not like a pendulum that will return to its original position after a certain period. It has evolved turbulently over billions of years into a gigantic complex of networks, and of networks within networks, where everything is interlinked in diverse ways.

This paragraph doesn’t have any kind of fallacies but the trick I think he used is to try to confuse ordinary readers by using word repetition. If you read this, you wouldn’t understand it unless you were really interested in this subject. He also used metaphors but I think those were to decorate the text.

Its structures will never return to precisely the same state they were in 50 or 5,000 years ago. They will only change into a new state, which, so long as the change is slight, need not mean any threat to life.

I cant find any kind of fallacies in this paragraph. Yet, the author uses rhetoric by logic to prove his point.


Larger changes, however, could have unforeseeable effects within the global ecosystem. In that case, we would have to ask ourselves whether human life would be possible. Because so much uncertainty still reigns, a great deal of humility and circumspection is called for.

The author asks us to re-think about the situation but there arent fallacies in the text.


We can’t endlessly fool ourselves that nothing is wrong and that we can go on cheerfully pursuing our wasteful lifestyles, ignoring the climate threats and postponing a solution. Maybe there will be no major catastrophe in the coming years or decades. Who knows? But that doesn’t relieve us of responsibility toward future generations.

He blames us for fooling ourselves and for avoiding our responsibilities and what I realized is that the author uses inverted fallacies than those stated in the text you gave us in class. He appeals to tradition in saying that we keep making the same mistakes so instead of saying that we should do it because we’ve always done it, he is saying that we should stop from doing it although we’ve been doing it from years. I don’t know it those statements are fallacies but I’m writing them down because I haven’t found fallacies mentioned in the text given in class.

I don’t agree with those whose reaction is to warn against restricting civil freedoms. Were the forecasts of certain climatologists to come true, our freedoms would be tantamount to those of someone hanging from a 20th-story parapet.

In this paragraph, he uses abusive fallacy when he says that people are wrong and compares them with people that hang on to 20th-story parapets. I don’t think that he should attack people just because they think differently to him.

Whenever I reflect on the problems of today’s world, whether they concern the economy, society, culture, security, ecology or civilization in general, I always end up confronting the moral question: what action is responsible or acceptable? The moral order, our conscience and human rights — these are the most important issues at the beginning of the third millennium.

I don’t see any fallacies in this paragraph but I have to say that I like his writing style. I don’t know what how he writes that makes his pieces highly attractive.

We must return again and again to the roots of human existence and consider our prospects in centuries to come. We must analyze everything open-mindedly, soberly, unideologically and unobsessively, and project our knowledge into practical policies. Maybe it is no longer a matter of simply promoting energy-saving technologies, but chiefly of introducing ecologically clean technologies, of diversifying resources and of not relying on just one invention as a panacea.

There aren’t fallacies either in this piece of text but I noticed that he tries to convince us by playing the boss. He supposedly knows what to do and what do we have to do and blames us all for things that he is probably responsible too! Maybe he is right on what he says but I think he is no ones boss to be telling us all what should we do.

I’m sceptical that a problem as complex as climate change can be solved by any single branch of science. Technological measures and regulations are important, but equally important are support for education, ecological training and ethics — a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared responsibility.

The author doesn’t use any fallacies in this paragraph.

Either we will achieve an awareness of our place in the living and life-giving organism of our planet, or we will face the threat that our evolutionary journey may be set back thousands or even millions of years. That is why we must see this issue as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger of the end of the world.

He doesn’t present any fallacies but I can clearly see that he uses rhetoric by choice or in future tense.

The end of the world has been anticipated many times and has never come, of course. And it won’t come this time either. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us. But that doesn’t mean that the human race is not at serious risk. As a result of our endeavours and our irresponsibility our climate might leave no place for us. If we drag our feet, the scope for decision-making — and hence for our individual freedom — could be considerably reduced.

In this last paragraph, he uses fallacy by appealing to emotions when he says that the world isn’t going to end but our lives are in danger. He also blames scientists because of their anticipated “ends of the world” and he concludes that we have to behave in a different, more responsible way if we are planning to survive the occurrences related to global warming.

I think that this author is really talented with his writings. If your plan isn’t to find and evaluate any fallacies used on the text, then you’d be surely convinced by him. He is very persuasive and as I already stated in one of the paragraphs before, he tends to write in a style in which he doesn’t try to convince us but he tries to make us do what he wants us to do by taking a superior position than the readers. I enjoyed this op-ed and I found it interesting to evaluate this kind of writings in a different way.

Vaclav Havel is the former president of the Czech Republic. This article was translated by Gerald Turner from the Czech.

Mr Tangen

Hy Mr tangen, I am ricardo Moseres and I would like to tell you that i couldnt do tonights homework. nytimes nor nypost worked in my internet and you wouldnt belevie how slow it is today. I tried like for an hour so I decided to do tomorrows homework today, instead of doing it it tomorrow because tomorrow, Ill do todays homework. You wouldnt beleive how hard I try to open these pages and i would like if you understand what occured and accept these changes I had to do. You can see that it was not that i didnt want to do homework but that i wasnt able to do it.

myths 13th entry

The myrmidons

In this story you can see that everything has a happy ending. Would you think that the plague will continue for the rest of eternity? I think that the death of all these people was a symbolical process of purification. The old persons (the ones filled with greed, anger and lure) vanished and new ones came, the better versions. This means that people who were changed into better persons and not necessarily by dying. Maybe they were introduced to a new religion, or they were taught from a great philosopher. What this story deeply means is that people transformed into a better race, which was more attentive, more emotional, and they were fearless and exited about new things.

Niobe

Niobe dared Latona, by saying that her offspring was better than hers. This caused death amongst them all, 14 in total. Then, his husband was killed and she was turned into rock, representing eternal grieve. I learn from this story that there is no good in bragging because after all, whether you say it or not, it won’t change the fact that you did. it and You don’t need anyone making you feel better about what you did because that means that you aren’t truly confident about your actions and you need someone to tell you that what you did was great.

The Sea-Monster

After I finished this story, I remembered a famous quote that says, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall”. This quotes means that the greater the challenge is, the greater the pleasure you fell after you are done. This story didn’t have a great theme behind it except one I’ve talked about it much in previous blogs. You have to do what you want to do and I don’t mean in a rebel way but in a fight-for-your-rights way. People that don’t suffer much before taking decisions tend to do better in life in every single aspect. For example, I am a soccer goalkeeper and if I doubt a penalty and take more time that necessary to act, the other team will score. That’s why I dive into the air, lead by my instincts and some times I am able to grab the ball, sometimes they score a goal. A 50% chance is way higher than a 0% chance isn’t it?