St. Matthew, Chapters 1-12

Reading the Bible made me realize how glad I am that we're reading it in English class, because it's a really important text and left alone there's no way I would have been to force myself to read it.

St. Matthew talks about Jesus, his birth, his life, and it seems to be starting to lead up to his death. One thing I find strange is that though you always hear about the birth of baby Jesus, and all the stories of how he cured all those people, in the actual Bibles those stories basically take up half a page. I guess as far as the world is concerned, it's really quality, not quantity, that matters.

One thing I found interesting was the difference between how Jesus and God dealt with the devil. In Job, when the Satan told God to do something in order to test Job, He did it, whereas when Jesus was told to do something to test his faith in God, he refused, replying, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," (4:7). Of course, if I were religious I would probably have a lot more faith in God than in a human, but I found it nice that Jesus didn't feel the need to torture God to test his faith.

Jesus reminds a bit of Robin Hood in the way he gets his disciples. They both just walk around, meet random people, ask them to become their followers, and the men, "straightaway left their [insert what they left], and followed him." (4:20, 4:22). Jesus also insists that people who don't do so means they aren't worthy of being his disciple ("He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." 10:37). I find it strange that people could just pick up and leave like that, not caring about their family and not feeling any need to say goodbye to their friends. I guess it's true that men are much less attached to their home and hearth than women.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (5:38-39)

When I read this, I wanted to point out to Jesus that his father was the one who said that, and yet in 12:31 he says that anyone who goes against the word of God will never be forgiven. But I still like the saying, even though I myself don't follow it. It's a good, though slightly idealistic, idea.

Jesus is also going around healing everyone, making the blind able to see, the dumb able to talk, the lepers cleansed of their sickness, and making the dead come back to life. For some reason, though, that seems to annoy the Pharisees, "[who] went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." (12:14) Is this the beginning of the end of Jesus Christ?

I have to say, I like Jesus a lot more than I like God. Jesus is so pacific, so kind and forgiven, whereas God says things like, "If I don't like someone, I'll curse his ancestors for millenniums." I have much more confidence in my chances of getting into Heaven knowing that Jesus is up there.

Tao Te Ching, 77-End

"Knowing ignorance is strength./Ignoring knowledge is sickness." (Seventy-One)

Here's another example of Lao's dislike for learning. The poem then goes on to say that since a sage didn't know, he could not ignore his knowledge and therefore could not become "sick of sickness." Though I agree that ignoring knowledge is sick, I don't think that simply being ignorant will help. In both cases, you end up making decisions without any real understanding of what you're deciding on and the decision would ultimately be the same. Lao's hate of learning reminds me of the Catholics and their hate for science. Does Tao also think it's disrespecting the Tao to try and learn about it, or that the Tao is so mystifying there's no use trying to understand it because it can't be understood?

Seventy-Five is also a good poem. I like how it explains that a government that's too complicated would cause trouble, although I don't agree with the idea. Tsu seems really anarchist, and I think that if there wasn't a central government everyone would just do whatever thy wanted, which could work if everyone was good, but since we're obviously not then it just spells trouble. And a lot of it.

'"The hard and strong will fall./The soft and weak will overcome." (Sixty-Six)

At first I didn't understand what this meant, but then I thought of another book I'd read that explained it better (Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell). An old lady is explaining to Scarlett O'Hara that she was a survivor because, like grass, she bended but never broke. It's also something that Confucius talked about; you should never be completely rigid, you should adapt yourself to the environment you're in, not expect it to adapt to you because that wasn't going to happen. The analogy was that hard branches were broken by strong winds, but the grass always rose back up in the end.

"The Tao of the sage is work without effort." (Eighty-One)

I just thought I should put this in because it's the closing line of the Tao Te Ching, and it restates what seems to be it's most important moral, wu-wei. I already gave my interpretation of wu-wei so I won't write it again.

I like this book,though at first I thought it was really confusing and must've been written by some sort of madman. But when I started to think about some of the things he said, I saw that it usually made sense, even though I didn't always agree with him. It also helped me understand some aspects of Confucianism, such as the rigid part I just mentioned; and even the parts I didn't understand we're so beautifully written I liked reading them anyway.

Tao Te Ching, 44-66

I think I finally understand what wu-wei is. I realized I'd been looking at in the wrong way for the past week. I thought wu-wei was the belief that if, for example, you didn't plow the field, some ghost would come along and plow it for you. I was, understandably, a bit confused.

"The world is ruled by letting things take their course./It cannot be ruled by interfering." (Forty-Eight)

I just realized that what he meant by "doing by not doing," is that things will happen by themselves. You don't need to act to make things happen, the Tao makes it so that things happen away. By interfering you're just stopping the things from taking their own course. Sixty-Four enforces my belief; "Deal with it before it happens./Set things in order before there is confusion." I think he means that if you don't act, then you won't cause trouble. It's only if you act that bad things happen, which is why you should let everything be.

"If I have even just a little sense,/I will walk on the main road and my only fear will be of straying from it." (Fifty-Three)

I don't think Tsu would like Robert Frost. Lao wants to do things the simple way, which could also be considered the "easy" way (although I think that if it were so easy more people would follow the Tao), while Frost wanted to take the more difficult and complicated path, feeling that he would get more of a reward from it. I actually agree more with Robert Frost, although that's probably because I'm thoroughly westernized. I tend to think that things that are more difficult and complex are "better." Lao Tsu probably wouldn't approve of me either.

I like Fifty-Seven, even though I don't agree that having less laws would make less bad people. Certainly they wouldn't be punished for doing unjust things, but wouldn't that just motivate the cowards to do things they wouldn't have dared doing if they knew they could get punished? I think it wouldn't solve anything.

Tao Te Chang: 29-43

In the introduction it is said that Confucius once visited Lao Tsu, who wrote the Tao, and came back "awed" by the man.

I have to say, I found that confusing, since Confucius and Tsu preach very different doctrines.

First of all, Confucius is a passionate believer in the good of instructing your mind, while Tsu often repeats that learning is bad, and that it is the root of confusion. Secondly, Confucius insists that learning the rites is extremely important, while Tsu states that, "now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion," (Twenty-Eight). Tsu disagrees with Confucius on two of his most important point. Another, smaller, thing is that Tsu, unlike Confucius, does not look down upon women, and often praises them.

However, I think that Confucius agrees, in a way, with wu-wei. I remember a passage where one of his disciples asks him how to sow rice (or something like that; I know nothing about farming), and he replies that if he is a just Lord, all the servants in the world will come to him and sow the rice for him. This is a form of wu-wei because the disciple would, "[do] nothing, yet [leave] nothing undone," as Tsu defines wu-wei in Thirty-Eight.

Another point on which they agree is that character makes up a person's goodness, which means that he is only good if he is born good. People who try to achieve goodness are fakers ("A foolish man tries to be good,/And is therefore not good," Thirty-Eight), and Confucius stated in The Analects that people who try to follow the Way are not as good as the ones who do it naturally. I don't think is fair. People should be given even more credit if they have to try hard to do right, than if doing the same thing is natural is natural. For example, if you love beef, and manage to abstain from it for the rest of your life, you should be given more credit than someone who doesn't like beef and so has no problem with not eating it. You have to put more effort in it even though you achieve the same results, and your strength of character should be observed.

In conclusion, though Confucius and Tsu have some similar opinions, I think that they're mostly different, and I'm surprised that Confucius admired him. When I read The Analects I got the feeling he was very intolerant of people who didn't see things the exact same way as he did. I guess I was wrong.

Tao Te Chang, 1-28

At first I thought Tao was a person, but it was made abundantly clear very quickly that it's some sort of religion, or way. Since it's a pretty random and complex piece of work I'll just talk about quotes I found interesting.

"Therefore having and not having arise together." (Two)

I liked the way this was said. It explained about contrasts, and how there would be no good without evil, no beauty without ugliness.

It's true that if everything was one way, we wouldn't notice it. For instance, the stars are white, so we never think to ourselves, "Hmm... These stars are particularly white." However, if we see an ugly person, we think, "That is one ugly guy." We notice his ugliness. We wouldn't notice it if everyone was ugly.

"If nothing is done, then all will be well." (Three)

Tao's point here is that if no one had anything, nothing would be stolen, if we didn't "exalt the gifted," no one would fight. I understand what he means by this, and it's a rather communist idea. Share everything, and everyone will be happy. I get how that could work, but I just find the idea of it horribly boring. People would still quarrel if we didn't do anything, they would become so bored of sitting around twiddling their thumbs that they would want to do something, and they would start fighting. And if there were no treasure, people would make some up. Humans like being better than their peers, they like saying, "Ha! I have a Mercedes and you have a Renault! I'm better than you." It highers their self-esteem, and makes them feel better about themselves. If there was nothing to do and no treasures to be had, the world would be full of bored, irritable, suicidal people.

Tao, however, seems to believe in the idea of nothingness being good. He mentions it several times throughout the book. He's also rather contradictory, stating, "The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead. He is detached, thus he is at one with all. Through selfless action, he attains fulfillment." (Seven)

I don't understand what he means by this. Does it mean that being objective makes it so that you are "one with all"? Stay unbiased, look at the whole picture, and you will understand everything. Actually, I sorta see how that could make sense.

"Retire when the work is done." (Nine)

I just wanted to point out that both Confucius and Tao say that it is better to do what is required, and no more. I believe this should be integrated in our grading system. Two great Chinese philosophers (or at least one, I'm not sure what Tao is), have stated that going above and beyond is not good, so teachers shouldn't want us to do that.

"Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao." (Fourteen)

Another similarity between Confucius and Tao is that they both really look into the past. I wonder if they do that because Chinese culture is so into rites, and honoring your ancestors, etc., or is Chinese culture because of what Confucius and Tao say.

"When wisdom and intelligence are born,/ The great pretense begins." (Eighteen)
"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,/ And it will be a hundred time better for everyone." (Nineteen)
"Give up learning, and put an end to your trouble." (Twenty)

What does Tao have against learning? This is a very Mao point of view, and a very un-Confucian one. What's wrong with learning? Could it be that intelligence make it so that some people are "better" than others, and therefore people get jealous, and Tao disapproves of that?

There were several of these poems that I found interesting, but just didn't have the space to comment on. One of them was Twenty. Even though it's pretty depressing, it's interesting.


I'm sorry, I just realized I was only supposed to read up to chapter 12. I got mixed up; I thought it was until 28. Whoops.

Go

Something I found interesting in the game Go was how it could be compared to chess. Chess is a Western game (at least I think so...it's got Kings and Queens and Bishops...), and I think that if you take it as a reflection of the Western mind compared to the Oriental mind, it's quite interesting.

In Japan, there are the huge thriving businesses, where everyone needs to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the company. You don't count as an individual, you count as a part of a total. In the U.S. of A., however, people care much more about individuals, and the power and talents of a specific person (or at least that's what I think).

This is reflected in the games Go and chess. In chess, you center around the individual, the King. He is the most important person in the game, you need to kill him, then you win. In Go, no one cares about the individuals, it's the groups that matter. You need to eliminate them to win.

I really liked the game Go. It's very strategic, and the fact that the pieces have more freedom makes the game more complicated than chess (I keep comparing the two because they're the only kind of really old games I know how to play). I don't think I'm good enough at it yet to be able to tell just how intricate it is, but I'd like to become better at it if I can find people to play with, since I prefer playing with people than computers.

I don't know what else to say about it. It's a great game, and I'm curious to see how it relates to Taoism.

Night, by Elie Wiesel: Part II

"'I've got more faith in Hitler than anyone else. He's the only one who's kept his promises, all his promises, to the Jewish people.'" - The faceless man in the hospital, pg. 77

I like this quote a lot. It's really sad, of course, but it's well put and mostly true (I won't say completely because I don't know the history of the Jews very well).

It's true because people tend not to keep good promises to others. Politicians, for example, when they want to get elected, like to give impressive and nice-sounding speeches to everyone about how they're going to help them, what they're going to do for them, blah blah blah, but in the end they don't care, and they don't do anything. Confucius talked a lot about that, and how one's words should never exceed one's actions. This reminds me of the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, and how Napoleon gave big speeches about everyone being equal, and how he would treat everyone right, but in the end he just becomes a drunk and a tyrant and orders people killed. Or the movie Buscando a Miguel, in the beginning, and all Miguel's ploys to get elected, as well as his hypocrisy and contempt for the people he said he wanted to help (people are stupid because they're poor. Just for that, I think he deserved everything he got). It's much more usual for people who promise horrible things to keep those promises than for people who promise good things to keep them. Like Hitler, as the man said.

"An SS man would examine us. Whenever he found a weak one, a musulman as we called them, he would write his number down: good for the crematory." (pg. 66)

I found this curious because there had to be some French people in the concentration camps, and in French musulman means a Muslim. Is calling weak people Muslims some sort of racist slur? I know that Muslims and Jews tend to dislike/mistrust each other. And if they hate each other, it would probably be pretty offensive to a weakling to be called that. Is it actually supposed to be an insult to the infirm? Or does no one have any idea what a musulman is and just call people that for some reason that only they know? I find it kind of sad that in a place where people are being brutally tortured and murdered every day because of their religion, they still have the inclination to hate other people because of their beliefs.

I don't think Confucius would approve of this book. because of all the very un-filial moments in it. One of them was the pipel who beat his father in page sixty, because he hadn't done the kid's bed properly. There were also two kind of parallel events, one where a priest's boy tries to let his father die so that he only has to take care of himself (pg. 87), and the other when Eliezer himself admits to being glad that his father died because now, he also could take care of himself only (pg. 106), although he's redeemed by the many other very filial things he did, such as risk his life helping his father escape from the crematories (pg. 91). And the worst of all is on the train, when the boy Meir murders his father to get his morsel of bread (pg. 96). Unfortunately, everyone else then discovers the bread and chaos ensues. So in the end, father and son are both dead (and for one tiny piece of bread!).

I liked this book, although, strange as it may sound, the book made the Holocaust sound better than I thought. Maybe it's because I've read too many exaggerated books/articles on concentration camps (I once had a morbid obsession with them), but the Nazis seemed kinder in here, there didn't seem to be hundreds of dead bodies lying everywhere, and the people seemed to be treated better than I'd heard. Although someone in the book did mention that the concentration camp they were in wasn't that bad, so Eliezer could just have been lucky (actually, I just realized how stupid that sounds. Let's say luckier than other Jews in Europe). Still, this was a great book, and I have to admit I found it more interesting than some of the other texts we've read so far.

Night, by Elie Wiesel: Part I

One thing I noticed (although it was fairly obvious), was a connection with The Book of Job. There's a part in page forty-two, once everyone has arrived in their concentration camp,where everyone is realizing the full horror of their situation, and people try to figure out what on earth is going on, and why on earth it's going on.

"Some talked of God, of his mysterious ways, of the sins of the Jewish people, and of their future deliverance." (pg. 42)

This is almost exactly what Zophar the Naamatithe said to Job when they were talking about his sufferings. Unfortunately, since I don't have the Bible with me I can't quote him directly, but I remember because that's what we talked about in class. At first Zophar tells Job that he must have done something wrong in order to be punished this way (the sins of the Jewish people), and if he accepted his punishment and learned to worship God properly he would find happiness (their future deliverance).

I've also made a connection with the book, "Mathilda," by Roald Dahl. There's a part where Mathilda and her friends are talking about why kids don't complain to their parents about the evil headmistress, and the friend replies that they do, but the headmistress' greatest strength is that she does things so horrible parents don't believe their kids when they talk about them. It reminds me, on a bigger scale, of when Moshe the Beadle escapes from a camp and tries to tell everyone about what he witnessed there, but everyone just rolls their eyes and say that either he's gone crazy, or he just wants people to pity him. I wonder if Roald Dahl was, in any way, inspired by that part of the book.

Responses to Other People's Blogs

Sofia Linares-Stalin and Confucius: I hadn't thought about the whole deal of turning your parents in to be punished, and how wrong that is. I agree with her completely, kids should be loyal to their parents and cover up for them at all times. I've always found the idea of hitting your parents (physically) appalling, and turning your parents in can sometimes be like condemning them to death. It's outrageous, and people who do that need a serious lesson in respect.

Lorenza Rodriguez-Analects books 12-14: I disagree with what Lorenza says about the fact that you're happier if you give than if you receive. While that may be true for some people who are very noble, I don't think it applies to most of the world. A good example is World War II. In concentration camps, food was so scarce that everyone fought each other, and even killed each other, for it. That's also why stealing happens, and why people get envious. Humans are naturally selfish, and they like to have things, not just watch other people enjoy the things they want. Imagine you hadn't eaten for three weeks, and were staring to death. You see someone eating a fat, greasy turkey, and you don't get any. Would you be happy for that person, or would you think to yourself, "I WANT that turkey!!!"? Probably the latter, unless, of course, you are a strong, generous, and extremely selfless person.

Confucius: The Essential Analects Summary

There were many recurring themes throughout the Analects, and those are the ones I'm going to talk about, since Confucius must have believed them to be very important since he emphasized them so much. They all have to do with being Good, which is the central theme of this book.

One thing about Confucius is that he is very specific when he decides what is Goodness and what is not, and he doesn't believe that being pure, or wise, or courageous, is the same thing as being Good. There are many times when a disciple comes to him with an example of someone, and asks the Master if he is Good, only to have him answer that he is this, this, or this, but maybe not good. The best example is 5.19, when Zilu brings up and example of a minister. Confucius states that he is dutiful and pure, but that he has done nothing to deserve being called Good.

Another thing that Confucius preaches is the importance to have a love for learning, complaining about who can't study for more than three years without thinking about money. He states that, "In any village of ten households there are surely those who are as dutiful or trustworthy as I am, but there is no one who matches my love for learning," (5.28), and laughing at someone who believes that he should become more learned in one subject than the others (9.2). He also believes that all good qualities, unless balanced by a love for learning, will turn into vices (17.18). For example, "Loving Goodness without balancing it with a love for learning will result in the vice of foolishness."

Confucius also talks a lot about the importance of observing the rites, yet with a right mixture of "native substance and cultural refinement." Native substance is genuine belief of your religion and cultural, and cultural refinement is the elaborate way of doing your rituals. If you have too much native substance, you become a crude rustic, but if you have too much cultural refinement you become foppish. You need both to become a gentleman (6.18). His love for the rites is related to his love for antiquity; "I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there for knowledge." (7.20) He does not believe in innovation, but believes that if something has worked for a long time, then it proves it good and should be continued, which is funny because that was actually one of rhetoric fallacies. He also believes in following the Odes, insisting that they don't lead you astray (2.2), which is another instance of using the old ways of thinking as guidance.

The last thing that Confucius really emphasizes is the importance of being filial (1.6). He also talks about the fact that being filial is more than just giving his parents food and taking care of them (2.7). Even animals can do that. Humans need to respect their parents, and follow their wishes (1.11). You need to protect them, as well as cover up for them if they get into trouble, and even if they do something illegal. He really stresses the importance of behaving his way towards your elders, parents, and older brothers.

These are the most recurring themes throughout the Analects. He talks about them over and over again, all the while showing different aspects of them and giving us examples of how they should be done. I think he did this to show us that these are the most important characteristics of being Good, so that we can see who is Good and try to follow their example (16.4, 12.24, 4.17).

Confucius: The Essential Analects; Books 9,10, and 16

I think that what is different between books 9 and 10 (although especially 10) is that they talk more about the Master and his habits, for people to use as guidance and a model of how they should behave.

Unfortunately, some of them don't apply much anymore, because our habits and culture have changed, such as, "He would not sit unless his mat was straight." (10.12). Actually, I revise my opinion. These principles can still be applied to us, if not interpreted so literally. The quote I just said cold be interpreted to mean that you have to be neat, or 10.23 could mean that you should only be truly grateful for a gift if it benefits someone else, not just you. All of the sayings in Book 10 can actually in some way be modified to give us advice on how to behave today.

Book 9 also tells stories about the Master's life, although near the end he reverts back to general wisdom.

"Zigong said, 'If you possessed a piece of a beautiful jade, would you hide it away in a locked box, or would you try to sell it at a good price?'
The Master responded, 'Oh, I would sell it! I would sell it! I am just waiting for the right offer!'" (9.13)

I wonder about this anecdote. Does it mean that if you have something beautiful, you shouldn't hide it away but share it with everyone, or that something is only worth what you can get for it. That is to say, the piece of jade isn't worth anything in itself, but the money you can get for it is. If that's what it means, I disagree. Things or people or events can be great just to have around, because they're fun/interesting, not because of what you can get from them.

"The Master said, 'Surely there are some sprouts that fail to flower, just as surely as there are some flowers that fail to bear fruit!'" (9.22)

I agree with this saying. There are many people who never manage to become smart, kind, responsible, and those that do don't always become Good, even though they had the potential. Something I find very interesting is that you always hear about people, "S/he didn't use his/her potential," but you rarely hear about anyone, "S/he used up his full potential." I wonder why it is that so few people ever become all that they could have become.

Book 16 was different because Confucius talked about things in3's a lot (three things a Good man stands in awe of, three kind of good joys and friendships, and three kinds of bad joys and friendships.

I found 16.13 funny. It was almost like a joke, a fool talks, a wise man listens to himself, restates what he learned, then makes fun of the fool, which is the punch line.

I didn't like 16.9. I think that people who've had to work hardest to understand are the best, because they've put more effort into it and have had to work harder, whereas those who understand things naturally have no problem with everything and don't have to work as hard as the others. That's why I think that people should respect not-so-smart people who get grades nearly as good as geniuses more than those geniuses. They've worked harder, and have proven more about their character.

In conclusion, I think the main difference between these particular chapters and all the others is that in all the other chapters it was general wisdom, kind of observations about life in general, whereas these chapters actually gave you advice on how you should live your daily life, what kind of friends and pleasures you should have, and how you should treat the people around you. That's why we read these chapters separately.

Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 15,17, and 18

I find the way that Confucius talked to the Music Master strange. He would point out everything to him clearly, and then when his disciple asked him if that was how you were supposed to talk to a Music Master, Confucius answered that yes (15.42). I would think that this is somehow a slur on musicians, and that they mustn't be very smart if that's the job they end up with, but Confucius repeatedly stresses the importance of music, and how great and wonderful it is, so I don't understand his behavior towards the Music Master.

15.24 also says that the word that should guide you throughout your whole life is understanding, and that you should do to others what you would like others to do to you. I find this interesting because it is also something that we read about in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," which is listed as one of the rules in Exodus. I found the connection curious.

"The Master said, 'Human beings can broaden the Way-it is not the Way that broadens human beings.'" (15.29)

I think that this means that it is human beings that add new thing unto he way, and that the Way is just something that teaches us how to achieve our goal of becoming Good. It's the humans that can add things and wisdom unto the Way, but the Way just helps people and shows them what they should do if they ant to become Good, the mere fact that they're interested in doing that proving they're already pretty impressive (The Master said, 'Is Goodness really so far away?If simply desire Goodness, I will find that it is already here.'" 7.30)

"The Master said, 'By nature people are similar, they diverge as the result of practice.'" (17.2)

I agree with this saying. Deep down, I think that all humans are pretty similar, some of them may be smarter, or kinder, or more willful, but everyone has ambitions and desires and hopes. The difference lies in what those beliefs support those desires and ambitions. If someone wants to join the Peace Corps and then become President so that they can help humanity, then that person has really the same ambitions than, say, Hitler,who, in hos won way, really believed that what he was doing would help his country and the world in general (please note that I am not a neo-nazi. I'm just using Hitler. In fact, I absolutely loathe/hate/despise/detest him, but I'm using him as an example because he's a good contrast for what I'm trying to say). Those two people have the same ambition, it's just their beliefs, and the way they go about supporting those beliefs (one becomes a President through fair means and helps people peacefully, the other becomes a cruel and ruthless dictator that slaughters millions of people for no good deed), that make them different people, and that makes one revered and the other hated.

I also found 17.25 to be true, although not just for women and servants, but for all people as well. If you get too close to people, they begin to pry a lot, and pay too much attention to you, and care to much about you (although that's not necessarily a bad things with friends and family, but it is with people you don't care for), and if you stay away, they think you're a snob and think you're better than them, or are way too self-absorbed, and so they grow resentful and start to dislike you, even though you never gave them any particular reason to do so, and probably always treated them right and were nice to them. They want more than that. They want you to be interested in them and like them and pay attention to them. It's a very strange human characteristic.

I did not really understand the two stories in Book 18. They basically talk about the fact that some people prefer to stay away from bad things rather than deal with them. I think that that's a mixture of laziness and cowardice. Laziness because you just look at them and think to yourself, "Why bother? They're all loser anyway, and nothing I can do will change that. I migh as well sit back and do my thing while feeling superior to the rest of humanity." It's a way to excuse the fact that they think it's too hard to work for bettering society, so they might as well do nothing. It's also cowardice because they're scared to mix with the crowd, get their hands dirty, and maybe even get hurt trying to make the world a better place. I hate people who look at problems, think that it's impossible to take care of so why bother, then go watch TV. It really shows a lot about your character, and not good things either.

Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 12-14

I would like to know what those famous rituals are. Confucius seems to believe that following them is the key to being good:

"Do not look unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not listen unless it is in accordance with ritual, do not speak unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not move unless it is in accordance with ritual."

This seems a bit extreme. There can't be rituals that guide you as to when it is appropriate to move, or to say something, and especially not listen. You should just listen to whoever is speaking, unless that person isn't saying anything worth hearing.

Confucius also talks a lot about how if you just set the right example, everyone around you will be good.

"To govern means to be correct. If you set an example by being correct yourself, who will dare to be incorrect?" (12.17)

In the next book, he also talks a lot about how you should rule your people. You need to be upright and respectable in all ways, so that people are drawn closer to you ("The mere existence of such a ruler would cause the common people throughout the world to bundle their children on their backs and seek him out." 13.4)

I disagree with his statement that people should govern by being Good, then everyone would copy his example and become good as well. People aren't like that. Maybe some would follow his example and try to behave correctly, but most of the people would like him yet not change their ways, or else just walk all over him. This way of ruling would never work in a society full of different kinds of people. Granted, the rulers should be good, and want the best for their people, but that also means they need to have laws and punishments if they want order.

It's also interesting that he thinks that people should cover up for each other's crimes:

"Among my people, those who we consider upright are different from this: father cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. "Uprightness" is found in this." (13.18)

While I understand that this has to do with being filial, I don't see why friends should cover up each other's crimes. It's not good; it encourages people to do bad things, then tell each other, "Well, Confucius said that you have to cover up for me." It's not right. Loyalty is fine, but not that kind of negative fidelity. It just cause trouble, and in the end two people are hurt/affected instead of only one.

Confucius also talks about Virtue, and what makes a good man Good, by doing such things as only speaking when the times was right, only laughing when you were truly happy, and only taking that which is yours.

I think he has an interesting way of judging gentlemen. He does not seem to care about what sins they refrain from doing, but rather if they always behave above and beyond the goodness of other people, following the rules of Goodness religiously, and never, not for one second, stop trying to be Good.

Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 7,8, and 11

Confucius really wasn't an innovator. Here are some of his quotes:

"I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways. I might thus humbly compare myself to Old Peng." (7.1)

"I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there for knowledge." (7.20)

I wonder why that is. Does he just think that if something has worked for a long time, it will continue to work for a long time? But that was actually one of the fallacies we looked at a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to hear his complete आर्गument for why that is, if he ever wrote one.

The Master also seems to use himself as an example a lot.

"The Master was affable, yet firm, awe-inspiring without being severe, simultaneously respectful and relaxed." (7.38)

"In his leisure moments, the Master was composed and yet fully at ease." (7.4)

I think that this is a good idea, as long as it's true. Confucius talks a lot about the fact that you shouldn't say things and then not follow through with them ("The Master said, 'The gentleman is ashamed to have his words exceed his actions'" 14.27) and this allows us to see that he follows through with what he says and acts the way he tells everyone they should act, as well as setting up an example.

In Book 8 Confucius just lists different rules that people should follow to achieve Goodness. One rule that seemed the simplest and therefore applicable to everyone was the following:

"The Master said, "Find inspiration in the Odes, take your place through ritual, and achieve perfection with music.'" (8.8)

These rules are pretty basic, but I guess they say it all. People need inspiration to do right and help others, the Odes, they need some kind of way of managing themselves, rituals, and they need entertainment, music. I don't think that's what he meant for music, but since I personally don't understand what music has to do with anything I put my own interpretation of what he said.

"The Master said, 'The common people can be made to follow it, but they cannot be made to understand it.'"

I agree with that. People often do things for reasons they don't really understand, but they just think to themselves, "Whatever, I might as well do it." This has happened to me many times, in school especially, when teachers tell me to do things , without me having any clue why, but I just do it anyway. Especially in PDR.

Book 11 is a collection of stories that happened to Confucius and his disciples.

Yan Hui just died, which is sad considering that he was obviously the guy everyone looked up to, full of intelligence and wisdom and goodness.

There is also a story about the fact that Confucius disapproves of people who, even if they have a lot of money, want more. He also seems to disapprove of any ambition, because he talks about the fact that a complete man should be free of desires.

Yet I believe that it is good to have ambition. Of you have ambition, you have an incentive to work harder and educate yourself. And if no one had ambition, where would we get our rulers? Who would write books or become actors or generals, if all everyone wants to do is lie around all day doing nothing? Ambition is a really important and necessary part of any functioning society, and it should be encouraged, not repressed.

Paraphrasing Excercises

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.

Paraphrase: The Antartic is the Earth's largest source of coolness. Its cold water migrates north and merges with the hot tropical water, which helps to cool both our water and the atmosphere. Unfortunately, humans are now starting to damage this delicate system.

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.

Paraphrase: The early nineteenth century was the time where unruliness ruled America, police men didn't know how to enforce the law, people drank even though it was illegal, jazz became hugely populars and great musicians, such as Bix Beiderbecke and Count Basie, became the idols of the kids in America. More than anything, women began wearing short hair and revealing skirts, the biggest sign that America was changing its traditional way of life.

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.

Paraphrase: Most of the many hundreds bicycling accidents every year, half of which kill school-age children, are caused by injuries to the head which could be avoided if people wore helmets. There has even been a study that proved that helmets reduce the risk of your head being hurt by more than three fourths . In an accident, the helmets absorbs most of the impact, and softens the blow to your head.

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.

Paraphrase: The painter Henri Matisse is excellent at making people feel as they´re close to what they see being painted due to his incredible realism. His famous ¨The Casbah Gate¨is a great example of this. His use of color and texture makes you feel like you're at the scene of the painting.

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.

Paraphrase: Though the Sears Tower is known as one of the best-designed skyscraper that has yet to be built, architects are still trying to make bigger buildings. Yet people wonder how tall it is possible to build a building. Architect Robert Sobel insists that it could be possible to build a skyscraper a couple of hundred of stories tall, and engineer William LeMessurier has already designed a building two times as tall as the Sears Tower.

Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 4-6

These Books are basically divided into two parts: where Confucius discusses his ideals and the Way of Good, and examples of good and bad people.

Here are some quotations I liked:

"The Master said, 'People are true to type with regard to what sort of mistakes they make. Observe closely the sort of mistakes a person makes-then you will know his character.'"

The literal meaning of this would be that if someone breaks his back because he tripped over the stairs when he was trying to throw his friend a birthday party, you should like him. If someone breaks his back trying to get into his least favorite teacher's house so that he can murder her, you should probably stay away from that kid.

However, I think that it means you should look at why people make mistakes. If someone gets a bad grade because he was lazy, then that person is not Good. However, if someone burns to death in his house because his father told him not to go out, and he was being filial, that's good.

"The Master said, 'People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up their words.'"

Which means, "Practice what you preach."

I agree with this statement. I hate it when people go on and on about how doing this is bad, then they proceed to do it themselves. It's hypocrisy. A good example of that would be the old Jacobean priests, such as Andrewes. When the Black Plague hit England, he went on and on about how you wouldn't get sick of you were good, because God wouldn't punish you, and so Andrewes wasn't afraid. However, as soon as the disease hit his parish he left town, the imprisoned someone who'd dared to comment upon that fact. He had said something, but behaved in a contradictory way. All those other priests, too, preached the word of God and said that corruption and sin is bad, and you should live a spare life, yet they took bribes and engaged in adultery and had tons of luxuries. They, quite literally, did not practice what they preached.

There are a couple of stories that basically go this way:

Zhoug: Is [insert name] Good?
Master: I dunno.
Zhoug: He did [insert good deed] and [insert good deed]?
Master: He is pure, but I have no clue of he's Good. Why does he deserve to be good?

So how does he judge who's Good and who's not? Does he base what he thinks upon his everyday life, not just a couple of Good deeds?

He also stresses the importance of being a gentleman ("The Master said to Zixia, 'Be a gentlemanly ru. Do not be a petty ru.'" 6.13). A gentleman is someone who follows the Way of being Good, which is to do certain things, the biggest example being Be a Good Son. He actually writes down a set of rules for sons (4.18-4.21).

He also says there's a difference between being wise and being Good.

"Fan Chi asked about wisdom.
The Master said, 'Working to ensure social harmony among the common people, respecting the ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a difference-this might be called wisdom.'
He then asked about Goodness.
The Master said, 'One who is Good sees as his first priorities the hardship of self-cultivation, and only after thinks about results or rewards. Yes, this is what we might call Goodness.'" (6:22)

But if you think about it, it's the same thing. Being wise is trying to improve a place, and therefor the people in that place, so that everyone is more respectful and lives better lives. Being Good is improving yourself (and what does he mean, "Only after thinks about results and rewards"? If you're working to improve yourself, then you're doing so with the plan of the result being that you'll be a better person. And while this is a very noble cause, you're still, in a way, thinking of the results when you're doing it), so that you'll be a better person by the end, and thus will improve society. Being wise is just doing that on a larger scale, so I would argue the wisdom is better than Goodness, because it is less self-centered. You don't just improve yourself then say, "Oh, I'm done. There is nothing else I can do." Whereas being wise is saying, "Well, I'm done with myself. But that's not enough; I need to work on other people as well." Or maybe being wise is just being nosy, and that's not Good.

Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 1-3

These Books are basically just little codes of conduct, written and devised by Confucius.

In the first Book, he really emphasizes filial conduct, which is basically respect for your elders,and being a good younger brother (I assume that it can also be meant as being a good younger sister). It also means being courteous, refined, respectful, restrained, and deferential (1.10) to everyone around you.

I think this is really good advice. Nowadays people (or at least teenagers, which is worse since that's not "respect for your elders") tend to be loud, insolent, exuberant, and very selfish/self-centered. I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. I've noticed these things in myself too; everyone behaves like that. Yet the world would probably an much more pleasant and respectful place if everyone behaved like that (although hearing, "after you," "no, after you," "I insist, after you," "no, please, after you," might get old pretty quickly).Especially considering that this example was used when an official visited another state, which could prevent a lot of silly fights by not offending anyone (if you would like an example I suggest you read about President Evo Morales of Bolivia's relationships with the American ambassador of Bolivia).

Book Two also speaks about how behaving in a good manner can improve relationships between countries. At one point it talks about how people were asking why Confucius wasn't a government official, and he replied that being filial exerted an influence over others who worked for the government, so what need was there for him to join?

The Book Three talks about how it's useless to have rituals if you do them just for show, and it doesn't matter how elaborate they are, in fact, the simpler, the better (I'm assuming he's talking about religious rituals).

I also agree with this. There are many people who do things not because they mean them, but because they want people to think well of them for doing them, such as donating a large sum of money to a charity you couldn't care less about just to have it say on the news the next day "Senator X gave three billion dollars to the charity Vote For Me! yesterday. Isn't he kind? By the way, he's running for President." Or also movie stars' publicity stunts, such as adopting orphans from third world countries, so that they can look so kind and generous. These actions don't have any meaning behind them. Senator X isn't a better person because of what he did. His motivations were selfish (which refers to Book One). It is much better for Average Joe to give away a hundred hard-earned dollars to a charity because he genuinely feels that that charity is a worthy cause, than for Ronald Mump to givea million dollars of his five billion dollar inheritance to that very same charity because he wants people to like him. I believe that is what Confucius means.

Also, I wonder what the Odes are. Confucius says that "The Odes number several hundred, and yet can be judged with a single phrase, "Oh, they will not lead you astray." (2.2)

Who wrote them? What are they about?

Sources for Persuasive Speech

Here is are my sources for the persuasive speech:

Primary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2223823.stm

Secondary:
http://www.hfgf.org/statistics.pdf

Tertiary:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=orphans

The Book of Job: Chapters 37-42

Job claims he knows too much about God, such as the reason why men fear him:

"Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." (37:24)

This is also subtly claiming that Job knows more than God about people who are wise or idiotic, and that he understands God.

Then God appears and tells him the numerous reason why He is wiser and more knowledgeable than Job ("Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" 38:2, it then goes on to explain all the things that God did and saw while Job's Great-Great-times a thousand Grandmother still wasn't born), and asks him what right he has to judge God's decisions and motives.

Job is humbled, and agrees he had no right to speak:

"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore I have uttered that I understood not; things to wonderful for me, which I knew not." (42:3)

God forgives him, though He gets mad at his three friends, and makes him twice as rich as before, with lots of kids, thousands of camels, sheep, oxen, and she asses, as well as the renewed respect of his neighbors.

One thing that intrigued me about the appearance of God was how similar it was to the myths. In them, a human would always be presumptuous and claim to be equal to/as good at something than some god or another. That god would always show up and prove him/her wrong. The difference is that the humans were rarely ever forgiven in the myths, much less made very wealthy once they realized that they were wrong, yet that's what God did.

Also. we were talking about the "God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh," part of Exodus a couple days ago. I also wondered about that at first, but then I interpreted it in two ways.

Maybe it was just the idea of God that hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. God didn't do anything personally, the Pharaoh just thought about God and he became annoyed.

Or else God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he could show all the Hebrew people how powerful he was, so that they would obey him.

At least that's how I saw it.

The Book of Job: Chapters 11-36

About Friday's class: I changed my mind. I now believe that the Architect is like the Pharaoh. Actually, I believed it by the end of the class, but I was arguing because I didn't want to be proven wrong.

I didn't like The Matrix that much. I just found Morpheus incredibly annoying, with his arrogant little smile, and I thought the writers should have been more creative with the names they gave their characters/places/boats. I just found the movie a bit pretentious. Of course, maybe it has the right to be pretentious. Many of our great geniuses have been extremely arrogant (ex: Picasso), and that was okay because they proved they had the right to indulge in a bit of self-worship. So maybe, if I watched the whole Matrix Trilogy, I would say it's genius and it has the right to be affected. I'll only find out if I watch all the movies.

This is a continuation of the conversation between Job and his four friends. Job has gotten over his suicidal phase and now he's merely very depressed.

They discuss many things, and though again I found their phraseology a bit confusing, I managed to gather this much:

Job's friends tell him that he must have sinned to be punished this way, because God would not punish him this way without any reason:

"The heaven shall reveal his iniquity; and the earth shall rise up against him." (20:27)

This is one Job is denying that he did anything wrong, and his (very unsympathetic) friends say that though they do not know what he did, God does, and He is punishing him.

Job maintains that he never did anything (although not once does he curse God), and that he would like to defend himself before God:

"I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments," (23:4)

He also talks about the fact that he used to be respected, but now the people who bowed to him cursed him.

"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." (30:1)

Then someone called Elihu speaks up, and he said all of them were wrong. God is just, and he punishes and forgives easily. None of them should claim to understand him.

The Book of Job: Chapters 6-11

This is a continuation of what I read yesterday in the first chapter. I don't really know what to say about this. It records a conversation between Job and someone called Bildad the Shuhite (and who is he???? And where did he come from???? And what is he doing there???).

I don't completely understand what they're telling each other, but it seems important. They seem to be discussing why man can't be as great as God, but they do so in such a complicated fashion, using so many similes and metaphors, that I just don't get what they're trying to say.

Well, that's not true. I get the individual metaphors/similes just fine, but when they put them all together, add their archaic way of speaking, and mix, and I'm left staring at the book with befuddlement.

However, I understand that Job is feeling suicidal and is begging God to kill him. His friends are telling him that he should not speak so, that God has the right to try him.

Well, there's not much more I can say. I'll try reading it again tomorrow and post something more profound...

The Book of Job: Chapters 1-5

You didn't tell us how much to read, and since it's Hallowe'en and I spent the whole evening at someone's house, I just read 5 chapters.

These chapters deal with Job, a man that was "perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." (The Book of Job, 1:1). God liked him, but Satan told him that if God were to curse him Job would turn against Him. God tried, but Job stayed pure. The Satan said that if evil were to befall Job he would hate God. He tries, but again Job stays loyal.

There something that I find curious in these chapters; the fact that God and Satan hang out. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord. and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." (1:7) This happens twice (2:1), and I can't help wondering what their conversations must be like.

Satan: How was your day, Milord?
God: Great! I stopped a young soul from sinning, I saved the life of an old matron, and I resurrected my friend's son's daughter's stepsister' neighbor. Yours?
Satan: Just jolly. I burned five villages, I corrupted a King, and I tortured some poor souls in hell.
God: Oh, goodie! More tea?

Seriously, though. What could they have to discuss? And why was God, in a way, corrupted (or at least influenced) by Satan? He starts to torment Job based on what Satan said, which means that he "trusts" Satan at least a teeny-weeny bit...Or he wants to prove him wrong, which is also strange...Why would God care about what Satan says? If someone I have nothing in common with, that has a completely different way of thinking than me, and who is generally annoying, tries to tell me something, I just say, "Uh-huh. That's very interesting. Buh-bye now." Also, haven't we missed something here? When did Satan appear? And now that I think about, who took care of Hell before he arrived? Questions, questions.

There are two quotes I liked in here. Actually, there were more than two, but I'll just talk about the two I found most interesting.

"Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?" (4:17)

" Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom." (4:21)

I think these are important because it's the first time I remember reading in the book, clearly, that there is no way for a man to become close to God. These are important because they tell us that we should never be so arrogant as to presume to rival God, which has become a very important law in Christianity. It also tells us simply to be humble, that there is one Being so superior to us that to say we're great at anything is a complete and utter lie.

Also, I was thinking about what Lorenza said in class today, and I disagree. Hallowe'en is not like Easter. Easter is a time to mourn the death of Jesus, while Hallowe'en is to scare spirits away so as not to become evil. The death part is just a way to scare those spirits away, although I suppose that you could say that Hallowe'en is scaring evil away, and Easter is, in a way, commemorating the evil of men and it's power, and a reminder to us to keep the "badness" at bay...So they are, in a way, similar, just not how Lorenza said.

Another thing is that I think that the scientist that loves scaring little kids 'cause it makes her feel powerful should go see a therapist. I mean, I know what she's talking about. Just last Friday there was a haunted house at my Dad's building in the U.S. Embassy, and he "volunteered" me to help out hiding in the haunted house and scaring the babies. I loved doing it, but that was because I was in an extremely bad mood. My costume was hot (and I tried to to imagine the person full of deadly diseases that had breathed in my mask before me), there was that nerve-wracking strobe light on for hours, my hair was all knotted up, I was thirsty and my vocal chords felt like they were being ripped out every time I screamed, and to top it off the kiddies seem to think it was "cool" to try to slap me, punch me, kick me, bite me, poke me, and try to rip off my mask every time they passed by. It gave me immense satisfaction to see them cowering while I roared at them.

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Revenge is sweet,

And so are you.

That was way off-topic, but that story brought back horrible memories and I felt like ranting. I'm sorry.

Hmmm...That's all I have to say tonight. Happy Hallowe'en!

Tertiary Sources

These are some examples of tertiary sources. Unfortunately, I had no idea what that ting you were talking about today in class was, and since I had to catch my bus because I had a piano class at 3:00, I didn't have the time to find out. These are all from various almanac sites.

1. http://www.answers.com/anorexia?cat=health
2. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Hearing_impairment
3. http://www.almanac.com/garden/vege/ripeness.php
4. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-narcissism.html
5. http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/h/hard_disk_drive.html

As you can see, I tried to be original with my sources. Tomorrow I'll try and find out whatever it was we were talking about in class today.

The Second Book of Samuel: Otherwise Called The Second Book of the Kings, Chapter 1, Verses 1-12: Suicide

I don't understand why we got such a short reading assignment, but I'll go along with it anyway.

These twelve verses explain the death of King Samuel.

It's strange, because these verses exonerate suicide, which is supposed to be an unforgivable sin.
"And he said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me." (Chapter 1, Verse 9)

Of course, you could argue whether asking someone to kill you is the same as killing yourself, but I believe it is. Dictionary.com defines suicide as being, "the intentional taking of one's own life," and asking someone to murder is you is certainly intentionally taking your own life. Or maybe God sees it as an act of mercy towards someone else, like when you shoot your horse because he's in horrible pain and would die eventually. You're just speeding up the process and eliminating the pain. Since God is merciful, He would approve of that. Of course, God also condemns killing yourself or others, so I don't see how that could work out. Maybe there's a difference between killing yourself because you're miserable mentally and killing yourself because you're in physical agony and about to die anyway. But then how do Christians justify, "pulling the plug"?

But I keep forgetting to approach the Bible without using any of my prior knowledge. I know that suicide is condemned later in the Bible, but it hasn't been dealt with yet so I shouldn't be puzzled by this.

Actually, I was confused when I read the rules and regulations Moses got from God. In them it never said that you weren't allowed to murder, but isn't "Thou shalt not kill," one of the Ten Commandments? And wasn't Moses supposed to receive the Ten Commandments?

I probably just read that in a different version of the Bible. You know, it would be interesting to read all the versions of the Bible there are, and also the main religious books from other religions that worship God, just to know the different ways He can be interpreted.

Anyway, I don't know what else to say about those verses. Saul dies, everyone is sad, and there ends Verse 12.

The First Book of Samuel: The First Book of the Kings, Chapters 16-31

It was a bit confusing to start the book in the middle of it, and since I'm a lazy bum I didn't go to the bother of reading the first part of it, but the story didn't base itself upon the first 16 chapters so I understood most of it.

This is basically the story of David, who is picked by God to go live with King Saul, and he becomes his armorbearer (I have no clue what that is). At first they really like each other, but then David slays Goliath, and Saul becomes jealous and starts chasing him around. Eventually they make peace, and then Saul dies.

One of the things I find strange about the Bible is how short some of its most famous stories are. Noah's Ark, for example, or Adam & Eve, were barely a page long, yet everyone knows the stories, talks about them constantly, and find them to be truly inspiring passages of the Bible. I'm saying this because whenever I read old books, people are always taking about David and Goliath, and I find this rather strange since the passage is only half a page long and really not that interesting.

And something else that's related to that:

"And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's, and He will give you into our hands." (The First Book of Samuel, Chapter 17, Verse 47). David says this to Goliath when he jeers at him that there's no way a boy can beat a giant.

I find this quote interesting because what I interpret it to say is that God can just beat anyone without any trouble.

So then why did God let the Crusades happen? Why doesn't He just kill anyone who doesn't believe in him? Is it because he wants people to repent and change their minds about their paganism or atheism so that they don't go to hell? Is He averse to killing? But he does it all the time! Like that genocide in Noah's Ark, or all those Egyptian babies, and the giant Goliath.

Actually, I answered my own question. He kills people that He hates, or that try to get in His way, but He leaves the unbelievers alone in the hope that they will change their mind about Him.

Or at least that's what I think (on a completely irrelevant note, I just learned something funny. Apparently, not capitalizing your Is when referring to yourself is a sigh of low self-esteem. Which means I must hate myself since whenever I IM or write e-mails i write like this. I thought it was just me being lazy. Little did i know that it's my subconscious trying to tell me about the deep and secret scorn of myself I labor under. I should go see a therapist).

I found out something funny. Bob Marley has a song called Exodus. It's a very weird song, and it basically talks about "the movement of Jah people, yeah!" and "leaving our Father's land." Leaving the Garden of Eden? We didn't exactly have a choice, Bob.

The Second Book of Moses: Exodus, Chapter 13-40

This was a really long reading assignment, and at some times I spaced out, but eventually I managed to get through it.

This is basically the continuation of the story of Moses, and how he parted the Red Sea, and how he he lead all the Israelis to freedom.

There are several interesting parts in these chapters, and also several extremely boring ones. Since I like to start with the bad news I'll start with those.

The last 10 pages or so were basically about how to decorate the church, and how to make the priest's garments, and all that kind of stuff. I have to confess that I did not follow that part too closely, although I understand why it was necessary for it to be there.

Now that I think about it, it contradicts the Puritan ideals that the church should be very bare and austere, since it mentions all these rich garments and gold chandeliers. One the other hand, the Catholics wrote this version of the Bible so, who knows?

The interesting part was when God made all the rules that people had to follow. There were tons of them, and I read them all for the sake of it.

They all used asses and oxes as examples, but they must have been metaphors. Things like, "When you say that your enemy's ass is going astray, you bring it back to him," which I suppose to mean that when your enemy gets in trouble, you should help him. It also condemns bestiality, saying something along the lines of , "He who lieth with a beast shall surely burn in hell."

Which brings me to my second comment about practically all we've read so far in the Bible.

The Old Testament really seems to advertise a vengeful God. In it, God talks about how He revenges himself upon the great-great-great grandchildren of those who do not believe in Him. He's the one that came up with the saying, "an eye for an eye." When the Hebrews had started to worship a cow when Moses disappeared (is that related to Hinduism?), He wants to kill all of the Israelis, and Moses has to convince Him not to. "And the Lord repented of the evil he thought to do unto his people." (Chapter 32, Verse 14).

I used to roll my eyes at people who were scared of God. God, in my mind, was connected to Jesus, and Jesus was nice. Therefore, God is nice. However, reading the Old Testament made me sort of scared of God myself (although, sadly, no enough to stop me from sinning when it is convenient for me to do so). Now I think I understand Christianity better, and all those old ladies in books like, "Oliver Twist," who are always throwing God in your face.

Barack Obama, Public Speaker

Barack Obama did a pretty good speech in Selba, Alabama.

I didn't pay that much attention to the content, just focused on how he said it, but what I did hear used both ethos, pathos, and logos.

At first Obama was pretty stiff, but then he started gesturing a lot, and his voice became really dynamic. His voice was very clear from the beginning, but near the end he started to get more passionate.

All in all, I'd say he was a really good public speaker.

The Second Book of Moses: Exodus, Chapters 1-12

These chapters deal with the life of Moses and how he freed the Israelis from the Egyptians.

The Pharaoh once decreed that all the sons of Hebrew women were to be killed, for he feared that the Hebrews would revolt against him if their population increased. The mother of Moses, however, hid him then sent him on a reed basket, where he was collected by the Pharaoh's daughter, who took pity on him and let him live.

He grew up, but one day he got angry at an Egyptian and murdered him. He then ran away and married a woman, then became a cattle herder. One day God spoke to him and asked him to free the Israelis. When Moses asked Him what to say when someone asked him who God was, he replied:

"I am that I am." (Chapter 3, Verse 4)

I don't understand what this means. I guess the literal meaning would be "I am that which I am," which I don't really think He means. Maybe he means that he is the fact that he is, which makes more sense in my mind then written down, so I won't go on about this.

Anyway, Moses goes on and meets his brother Aaron. God says that Moses will become, in a way, God, and Aaron his prophet.

They meet the Pharaoh, and he refuses to accede to their requests, and instead makes the Hebrews' life more miserable.

Another strange thing here is that God gives himself a name, in Chapter 6, Verse 4:

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

I didn't know that God had a name. Actually, never mind. I just looked it up and it just means God in Hebrew.

So the Pharaoh refuses to believe Moses, and he sends many plagues to Egypt to prove to him that God really is supporting him.

The first on is turning all the rivers to blood. The Pharaoh doesn't listen. Then comes the invasion of the frogs. The Pharaoh pretends to listen, then changes his mind. After that come the lice. Pharaoh does the same thing as last time. Repeat with the flies. The God kills all the cattle of all the Egyptians, but none of the Hebrews. Pharaoh doesn't listen. The come the boils. Pharaoh doesn't listen. Then Egypt is bathed in thunder and rain. The Pharaoh pleads Moses to stop, but he refuses to let the Israelis to leave. Pharaoh tells Moses that he will believe him if he plunges Egypt in darkness for three days, and Moses does so for everyone except the houses of Israelis. Yet the Pharaoh still doesn't believe him.

I would just like to say that this reminds me a bit of the modern world. Politicians refuse to believe that certain things, such as Global Warming, are happening, even though they have ample proof from all over the world.

Finally God gets sick of it and decided that he will kill all first-born sons of Egyptians, including the Pharaoh's. He tells Moses to pass on the message to all Hebrews that they need to eat nothing but unleavened bread for seven days, then on the last night eat a lamb and smear it's blood on their door so that the night God passes over Egypt to kill all the people he spares them. That week became known as Passover, and if people eat anything but unleavened bread that week they will be cut off from Israel and their people.

When the Pharaoh discovers of the death of his son, he is stricken and finally allows all the Hebrews to leave Egypt, guided by Moses.

The First Book of Moses: Genesis, Chapters 11-28

These chapters deal with the life of the prophet Abram (later Abraham) and Sarai (later Sarah), their children Isaac, and Ishmael, and later the children of Isaac, Esau and Jacob.

The different chapters deal with different anecdotes of what happens to Abram (his dealings with his brother, his children, and his wife), but I found a few that caught my interest more than others and I shall write about those parts.

One thing that I found particularly interesting was all the incest going on here. First of all, in the very beginning everyone was copulating with their brothers and sisters, but since they didn't exactly have a choice that doesn't really count. However, Abram married his half-sister, and then Abrams daughters had sex with him and bore his children. Yet even though the Bible used to be the basis for a good portion of the world's notions of "right" and "wrong," incest is not approved of and can even be punished by the law. Is it because as science evolved people realized that this was not healthy? I can't remember if incest was common in the Middle Ages, but the royal family did some. I find it strange because I can imagine that many hard-core Catholics would find it appropriate to do incest because it's in the Bible, but it doesn't seem to happen.

Also, a part of of this book made me think of the book, "The Handmaid's Tale." Although I found that book extremely stupid and unrealistic, there's a part where the narrator says that because in the tale of Sarai and Abram Sarai can't have children, she agrees to let her handmaid have the children for her, and that's what happens in the book. Maybe that's where people got the idea of adoption?

Another part I liked was when God asked Abram to sacrifice his son Isaac to him. In the end he stops him, saying he'd just wanted to see whether Abram was capable of doing it. Does that mean that men are supposed to love God more than their children? I suppose they should, because God created everything and children are rather useless, and that would explain why so many people thought the Crusades were for a cause worth dying for. In a way, though, isn't that human sacrifice? Humans are willingly offering their lives to God, in the hope that they would have a better afterlife, and that is sort of what happened with the Aztecs.

I thought Sarai was an interesting character. She did not seem to completely believe in God's power, as was demonstrated by the fact that she laughed when she heard God was going to get rid of her barrenness, yet no ill comes of her lack of faith. Apparently as long as you believe in God somewhat he takes care of you.

Then we go on to the tale of the twins, Jacob and Esau. Esau is older but surrenders his birthright to his brother in exchange for food, and Jacob eventually ends up stealing Esau's blessing from his brother because his mother asked him to. Esau is very bitter, and wants to kill his twin, so Jacob runs away. We are then left in suspense.

I think Jacob is supposed to represent greed. He is always trying to usurp his brother and claim hit titles without any regard for anyone else, and when Esau decided he wants revenge Jacob hides away.

Television News Coverage

This speech was made by Spiro Agnew, November 13th, 1969.

I think it's obvious from the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. I have a subject which I think if of great importance to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media. The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?" "And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves?"

Monday night a week ago, President Nixon delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade. His subject was Vietnam. My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting and just peace in the Pacific. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history.

When the President completed his address -- an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of -- his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say.

This is an abusive personal attack. It isn't really clear how, but something about the way Mr. Agnew says "as small band of self-appointed analysts," makes me think that he is implying that the people had no right to analyze the speech, and no one had asked them to so they shouldn't have.

It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. Those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed President Johnson’s dramatic disclosure of his intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of nonpreparedness. This was not it.

One commentator twice contradicted the President’s statement about the exchange of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh. Another challenged the President’s abilities as a politician. A third asserted that the President was following a Pentagon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval.

To guarantee in advance that the President’s plea for national unity would be challenged, one network trotted out Averell Harriman for the occasion. Throughout the President's address, he waited in the wings. When the President concluded, Mr. Harriman recited perfectly. He attacked the Thieu Government as unrepresentative; he criticized the President’s speech for various deficiencies; he twice issued a call to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again; he stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want military take-over of South Vietnam; and he told a little anecdote about a “very, very responsible” fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation.

This one is blame. Mr. Agnews is saying that people were readying themselves in advance to put down the President's address, and that they refused to listen to what he had to say.

All in all, Mr. Harrison offered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the President of the United States. Where the President had issued a call for unity, Mr. Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him.

This is an assumption. Mr. Agnews is assuming that that was what Mr. Harriman had wanted to do, without actually been proven right.

A word about Mr. Harriman. For 10 months he was America’s chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks -- a period in which the United States swapped some of the greatest military concessions in the history of warfare for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, Mr. Harriman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen. And the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires.

This is Ethos, using the past to descredit Mr. Harriman. Although technically it's not a fallacy, it's also an abusive personal assault, saying that Mr. Harriman wants people to believe he never makes mistakes when everyone knows that not's true.

Now every American has a right to disagree with the President of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having a President’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested.

This is the Straw Man fallacy. Mr Agnew is making light of our freedom of speech, saying that it can only be used sometimes and that this time it wasn't used properly.

When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war through. When President Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action he’d asked America to follow.

Appeal to tradition: The speaker is saying that all these great men were not criticized be the hoi polloi, yet they got out of it great, therefore this should not change.

The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power.

At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see and hear on their television sets.

Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad.

They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.

For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the ABM or civil rights -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.

It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge -- through news, documentaries, and specials. They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues overnight. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that’s the gift of their medium. They focus the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses -- on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national prominence.

This is personal assault, but a complimentary one, saying that the media coverage is jes' great.

Nor is their power confined to the substantive. A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.

Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.

Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism.

We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley states objectivity is impossible to normal human behavior. Rather, he says, we should strive for fairness.

"We can deduce." That is an assumption. Why should we deduce this? Has it been proven?

Another anchorman on a network news show contends, and I quote: “You can’t expunge all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you. I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are. I’ll plead guilty to that.”

Less than a week before the 1968 election, this same commentator charged that President Nixon’s campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign balloons. He claimed that, were it not for the fear of hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote him exactly, “his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat axe.”

Had this slander been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan attack. But this attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement. The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government?

This is using patriotism as a way of convincing us that we should do something about all these horrible news presentators.

The views of the majority of this fraternity do not -- and I repeat, not -- represent the views of America. That is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the President’s address and how the networks reviewed it. Not only did the country receive the President’s speech more warmly than the networks, but so also did the Congress of the United States.

Yesterday, the President was notified that 300 individual Congressmen and 50 Senators of both parties had endorsed his efforts for peace. As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve.

Now I want to make myself perfectly clear. I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases.

This is getting to be argument be repetition. The speaker is repeating the same point over and over again without stating other facts in favor of his argument.

The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late Justice Learned Hand that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. Advocates for the networks have claimed a First Amendment right to the same unlimited freedoms held by the great newspapers of America.

Again, this is patriotism, saying that our county would be a better place if we did this.

But the situations are not identical. Where The New York Times reaches 800,000 people, N.B.C. reaches 20 times that number on its evening news. [The average weekday circulation of the Times in October was 1,012,367; the average Sunday circulation was 1,523,558.] Nor can the tremendous impact of seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with reading the printed page.

A decade ago, before the network news acquired such dominance over public opinion, Walter Lippman spoke to the issue. He said there’s an essential and radical difference between television and printing. The three or four competing television stations control virtually all that can be received over the air by ordinary television sets. But besides the mass circulation dailies, there are weeklies, monthlies, out-of-town newspapers and books. If a man doesn’t like his newspaper, he can read another from out of town or wait for a weekly news magazine. It’s not ideal, but it’s infinitely better than the situation in television.

There, if a man doesn’t like what the networks are showing, all he can do is turn them off and listen to a phonograph. "Networks," he stated "which are few in number have a virtual monopoly of a whole media of communications." The newspaper of mass circulation have no monopoly on the medium of print.

Now a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication is not something that democratic people should blindly ignore. And we are not going to cut off our television sets and listen to the phonograph just because the airways belong to the networks. They don’t. They belong to the people. As Justice Byron wrote in his landmark opinion six months ago, "It’s the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

Now it’s argued that this power presents no danger in the hands of those who have used it responsibly. But as to whether or not the networks have abused the power they enjoy, let us call as our first witness, former Vice President Humphrey and the city of Chicago. According to Theodore White, television’s intercutting of the film from the streets of Chicago with the "current proceedings on the floor of the convention created the most striking and false political picture of 1968 -- the nomination of a man for the American Presidency by the brutality and violence of merciless police."

If we are to believe a recent report of the House of Representative Commerce Committee, then television’s presentation of the violence in the streets worked an injustice on the reputation of the Chicago police. According to the committee findings, one network in particular presented, and I quote, “a one-sided picture which in large measure exonerates the demonstrators and protestors.” Film of provocations of police that was available never saw the light of day, while the film of a police response which the protestors provoked was shown to millions.

Another network showed virtually the same scene of violence from three separate angles without making clear it was the same scene. And, while the full report is reticent in drawing conclusions, it is not a document to inspire confidence in the fairness of the network news. Our knowledge of the impact of network news on the national mind is far from complete, but some early returns are available. Again, we have enough information to raise serious questions about its effect on a democratic society.

Several years ago Fred Friendly, one of the pioneers of network news, wrote that its missing ingredients were conviction, controversy, and a point of view. The networks have compensated with a vengeance.

And in the networks' endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: What is the end value -- to enlighten or to profit? What is the end result -- to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability?

Gresham’s Law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent. One minute of Eldrige Cleaver is worth 10 minutes of Roy Wilkins. The labor crisis settled at the negotiating table is nothing compared to the confrontation that results in a strike -- or better yet, violence along the picket lines. Normality has become the nemesis of the network news.

Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. The American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals; that the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country; that violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus.

We know that none of these conclusions is true.

This is a slippery slope argument. Because the media makes all these conclusions, everyone will believe them, and stereotypes will be created, while there's no reason why one of those things should lead to the next.

Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York! Television may have destroyed the old stereotypes, but has it not created new ones in their places? What has this "passionate" pursuit of controversy done to the politics of progress through logical compromise essential to the functioning of a democratic society?

The members of Congress or the Senate who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans, while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street. How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show?

We’ve heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and judges make known all their financial connections so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?

In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States -- its institutions and its citizens?

Tonight I’ve raised questions. I’ve made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent, and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate to the great responsibilities they hold.

And the people of America are challenged, too -- challenged to press for responsible news presentation. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer; where the consumer can be the most effective crusader.

By way of conclusion, let me say that every elected leader in the United States depends on these men of the media. Whether what I’ve said to you tonight will be heard and seen at all by the nation is not my decision, it’s not your decision, it’s their decision. In tomorrow’s edition of the Des Moines Register, you’ll be able to read a news story detailing what I’ve said tonight. Editorial comment will be reserved for the editorial page, where it belongs. Should not the same wall of separation exist between news and comment on the nation’s networks?

Now, my friends, we’d never trust such power, as I’ve described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government. It’s time we questioned it in the hands of a small unelected elite. The great networks have dominated America’s airwaves for decades. The people are entitled a full accounting their stewardship.

The beginning of this argument had a lot of fallacies, but it got better towards the end. However, I found the whole thing was basically on big fallacy: Argument be repetition. Mr. Agnew repeated over and over and over again that the media shouldn't be the only source of information, that media presentators were biased, and that they made the public biased too. This was basically just giving different examples of why this was so. It also assumed that all media presentators were trying to biase their audience, while that may not be so. Some channels could just be trying to give facts to the people of this nation.