miércoles, 31 de octubre de 2007

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!

martes, 30 de octubre de 2007

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.

lunes, 29 de octubre de 2007

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.

domingo, 28 de octubre de 2007

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.

miércoles, 24 de octubre de 2007

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.

lunes, 22 de octubre de 2007

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.

domingo, 21 de octubre de 2007

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.

jueves, 18 de octubre de 2007

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.

miércoles, 17 de octubre de 2007

The First Book of Moses: Genesis, Chapters 5-11

These chapters tell the tales of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel.

Noah's Ark tells the story of how God grew angry at the corruption of mankind, and decided to flood the whole Earth, killing everyone but Noah and his family (whom he found to be good people), and asked them to bring one female and one male animal from every specie, and put them all on an ark so that they could survive the flood.

One thing that I found interesting about this story is the way Noah tried to figure out if the Earth was drying. He sent out a dove several times, and when it came back with an olive branch he knew he could land. It was just like "Gilgamesh," when the gods drowned the earth but decided to spare...Well, I still can't pronounce his name, but that's what happened. The two tales are remarkably similar in that the two men both found favor with a god, and a divine force decided to drown the world except these two and their family. Even the way they figured out if it was safe to land is similar!

I wonder if Noah's Ark was based on "Gilgamesh." Gilgamesh is a lot older, but they both come from the same place and maybe whoever wrote the Bible had read "Gilgamesh."

Another thing I found interesting about this story is that the dove came back with an olive branch. Now, I hate people who make up deeper meanings than actually exist, or pretend that something that means nothing at all and was written merely because the author was bored has some deep philosophical meaning. It just annoys me and I find it pretentious. But I've heard that "extending the olive branch" could mean offering peace, asking for a truce. Maybe the olive branch was God's way of saying, "Enough is enough, I'm going to stop destroying your home and allow you to live in peace." But I'm probably reading too much into this.

Then the Babel story was about how humans had wanted to do too much, and God made it unable for them to communicate by giving them different languages.

I find this a good way of way of explaining the languages, but I wonder if God thought that if there was only harmony, humans could do anything. Of course, it's impossible to be all harmonious, because people have such different perspectives on things, but maybe if we had all stayed one big country, with one central culture, and not all divided, we could have had the same point of view on everything, because we would have the same teachings and values and education, except for a few oddballs.

Now that I think of it, it's ridiculous. Civil wars occur because the same culture disagrees on something. And there are political parties, racism, and prejudice and discord in any country. So much for that.

martes, 16 de octubre de 2007

The First Book of Moses: Genesis, Chapters 1-5

A comment irrelevant to this blog entry, but that has something to do with a previous one. I was thinking about the tale of that one guy in a myth whose name I can't remember completely, but that goes something like Erinischent. Anyone, he is cursed be starvation, and from then one he eats everything and eventually destroys himself and his fortune. Maybe his hunger was a metaphor for greed. Whoever wrote the myth might have been thinking of someone so greedy he always wants more, even if he's already had a lot, and how in the end he ditches his family (or at least daughter), than loses his fortune, and eventually himself, by his cupidity...Just a random thought.

Anywho, moving on...

I wasn't sure how much we were supposed to do, and what 1-5 meant, so I gesstimated it meant Chapters 1-5.

These chapters basically talk about how God created Earth, the story of Adam & Eve, and the first humans.

I feel a bit uncomfortable examining and giving my opinion on the Bible, since it's been around for thousands of years, and the version we're reading was written by some of the most brilliant scholars in Jacobean England, and I'm just a fourteen-year-old girl who's never done anything particularly impressive, so I feel sort of unworthy. But I'll try. Anything for a good grade.

I think I agree with Nicolson when he talked about how rich and resonant the King James Bible is. I've just read five pages of it, of course, but it's off to an auspicious start. He also mentioned that many words were in italics, and no one knows why, which is true too. At first I thought that it was to emphasis the text, but then it crept up in really strange places, such as in "that"s or "art"s or "said"s.

I don't understand why God tried to protect Adam and Eve from knowledge. Is he just like a parent trying to keep his children innocent? I guess that's why they would call him Father. But at the same time, a parent is supposed to let go of their children at some point, not become all offended because they realized that being naked wasn't good. And whatever happened to turning the other cheek?

They tell us the story of Cain, who murdered his own brother out of jealousy, and whom God forgave and protected when Cain repented. This is a good example of God's all-forgiving...ness.

Then the whole genealogy of Adam and Eve is given, and what I thought was really strange was how long they lived, an average of nine hundred years. I guess that was to allow all the men to have many children.

The last person born was Noah, and I think I can see where this is going. All the other children are going to start squabbling amongst themselves, and the whole Noah's Ark will happen.

That reminded me of the movie "Evan Almighty." It was pretty funny, but "Bruce Almighty" was funnier.

jueves, 11 de octubre de 2007

The Pygmies

The pygmies were a very short people that lived near the Nile river. They were known to appear just before a bloody war, and once they tried attacking Hercules, but he just laughed and carried them off.

I wonder if the pygmies were just supposed to be a representation of children. Short, cute, and amusing little creatures that liked to play war and could never be taken seriously. Maybe that's how the Greeks represented childhood, and I suppose they wouldn't be too far off since that's basically what children are (I'm allowed to say that now that I'm a teenager).

The Wedding Feast

Perseus and his new wife were at their wedding when some old suitor of hers bursts in and says that she's supposed to be his wife. Perseus refuses, and they begin to fight. Yet Phineus and his friends outnumber Perseus and his friends, so Perseus takes out the Gorgon's head and many, both friend and foe, turned to stone. Phineus pleads for justice, but Perseus turns him to stone as well.

I wish I was able to come up with all the metaphorical meanings for all the myths we've been reading, but I just can't. Apart from the usual staying in your place and not claiming what's not yours moral, and I have no idea what this myth means. Maybe that there's no such thing as "happily ever after" and nothing can be perfect...But that sounds sappy and clicheed.

The Trojan War

There was a beauty contest among the goddesses, and Paris was called to make the judgement. He chose Venus, who promised to get him a beautiful wife.

She gave him Helen, fairest of her sex, and a war was waged between her husband and his allies and Troy. The husband won, Hector was slayed by Achilles, who died by his heel, the Trojan horse was built, and Helen went back to her husband.

This is more history than myth, but they do allude to the contest between the goddesses so I guess that it's pretty even. I've always thought that the Trojan War seemed pretty interesting, but apart from seeing the movies (and reading the book) "Troy," I haven't bothered to look it up so I liked learning what the Greeks thought about it. It's funny how all ill seems to stem from the gods. They're always the ones causing trouble and messing everyone up and acting in a generably disagreeable manner, but I suppose you could say real life is the same. Though we have a wider cast of gods, all of the problems on earth seem to stem from the fact that Bush did something stupid today, or there was a catfight between Jen and Angelina, or some crazy Arab called Osam Bin Laden decided it seemed fun to bomb NYC today.

Thamyrus

Another extremely short myth. Thamyrus challenged the muses in a trial of skill, lost, and was deprived of his site as a punishment.

Hmmm...Not much to say about this myth. Obviously, you need to think before you challenge any god. I wonder if these myths were just meant to teach people to be humble, sort of something Mommy would tell Bobby when she got sick of hearing him bragging. Are all these myths just moral lessons? All th one I can think of right now seem to be telling you to be kind, good, hard-working, basically like Bible stories, except that they seem to stress being humble more than anything. Did the Greeks consider that to be extremely important? If you think about it, everyone considers humbleness to be very important, and knowing one's place even more so. Was this just a way to control people? To make them fear challenging the established order of things because no good could come out of it?

Linus

Well, I've decided to get all the super short myths out of the way, since I'm expected to finish the whole book, and I'll start with Linus.

Linus is a very short myth. In fact, this blog entry is longer than it. Basically, he was Hercules' teacher and one day he beat him mup. Hercules killed him.

I would love to be able to find some deep and philosophical meaning in this myth, but all I can come upe with is: Don't mess with people bigger/stronger than you, or something bad will happen. Also, don't disrespect people better and worthier than you.

Meleager & Atalanta

This myth is the story of Meleager, one of the heroes of the Argonautic expedition. When he was born, the Fates determined that his life should last no longer than a particular brand, and his mother immediatly seized it and carefully preserved it until his son was a man.

So Meleager grew up, and one day there was a fight. His father had omitted to pay his respects to Diana, and as a revenge she sent a huge boar after them. There was a huge battle, and his friend Atalanta finally killed the boar. Meleager rewarded her, but his mother's brothers stole the reward and as a punishment Meleager slayed them.

Her mother finds out, and she is furious. She decided to get rid of the brand, but her feelings conflict; "now she is pale at the thought of the proposed deed, now flushed again at the act of her son." In the end she kills her son.

I think it's interesting that the myth says that sisterly affection is stronger than motherly affection. Usually it's the child that trumps everything else, and a mother doesn't think twice about sacrificing everything for it.