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.