Book 29 was of the books that caught my attention most. "Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it". In this passage, I found there to be a very regrettful truth. As we attempt to change the world to satisfy our whims, we destroy it. And as we try even harder to hold it and control it, it escapes from our grasp.
Book 33 is also a very intriguing one. "he who knows he has enough is rich...To die but not to perish is to be eternally present." These are such extraordinary thoughts, I think they mean to say that when we stop seeking and being greedy, we will be rich. When we are completely satisfied with who we are, what we have and what we do, we will be whole. As to the second passage, I think it means that if you have done good in your life, then you will live in those who remember and in that way, dead yet not perished, you will always be there.
In book 36, there was a passage that I took in mind. "Before recieving, there must be giving." What is being said here is that some things must be done before others, some things come first. And in order to be happy, we must put others first.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Tao Te Ching 13-28
3 of these 16 books caught my attention. "Accept disgrace willingly. Accept misfortune as the human condition."(13). This passage I found most intriguing, for it is most ironic. We as humans are proud and greedy, and are not often humble. But as it is mentioned in this passage, we are meant to be imperfect and unfortunate, which is precisely all that we deny, defeat.
"When there is no peace within the family, Filial piety and devotion will arise."(18). In this passage, it is shown how one bad thing leads to a good one. I believe this to be a very true part of life. When something bad happens to us, there is something good to come from it, only we most times forget to look for it.
"Not boasting, they recieve recognition. Not braggin, they never falter. They do not quarrel, So no one quarrels with them."(22). I believe that this passage brings together both previous books. Its ironical because its saying that through wu and wu-wei you achieve what you want. This I find is something that at first may seem ironic, but in the end, it is just logical. Only we humans have turned logic to irony because it doesn't seem to benefit us, for who would have ever thought that by not doing or not being, one would recieve something in return? We have always live under the idea that we may only achieve what we want by acting upon it. But the truth is that there is more than one way of getting what we want, as it is manifested throughout the theories of the Tao.
"When there is no peace within the family, Filial piety and devotion will arise."(18). In this passage, it is shown how one bad thing leads to a good one. I believe this to be a very true part of life. When something bad happens to us, there is something good to come from it, only we most times forget to look for it.
"Not boasting, they recieve recognition. Not braggin, they never falter. They do not quarrel, So no one quarrels with them."(22). I believe that this passage brings together both previous books. Its ironical because its saying that through wu and wu-wei you achieve what you want. This I find is something that at first may seem ironic, but in the end, it is just logical. Only we humans have turned logic to irony because it doesn't seem to benefit us, for who would have ever thought that by not doing or not being, one would recieve something in return? We have always live under the idea that we may only achieve what we want by acting upon it. But the truth is that there is more than one way of getting what we want, as it is manifested throughout the theories of the Tao.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Analects Final Entry
Books 18 through 20 were those that finalized this amazing work of writing. In 18.6 when the Master says: "If the way were realized in the world, then I would not need to change anything." This passage said that those of us who feel that what s being done in the world is worng, instead of resigning ourelves from it and ignoring it completely, what we should try tp do is change the way things are viewd in modern life. In book 19, the passage where Zigong says: "A gentleman's errors are like an eclipse of the sun and the moon: when he errs, everyone notices it, but when he makes amends, everyone looks up to him." I find this metaphor quite intriguing. I believe it is saying that when a good person has done something wrong, although it is notable to everyone, so is his progress when he tries to make it better. The very last passage, 20.3 I believe is the perfect way to wrap up these Analects. It says: "One who does not understand fate, lacks the means to become a gentleman. One who does not understand ritual, lacks the means to take his place. One who does not understand words lacks the means to evaluate others." What is said here is too profound to clearly explain, everyone has a different way of interpreting such thoughts, but here's what I think. One must have a thorough knowledge and understanding of not one but all virtues in order to fulfill what is required form a Good person.
These Analects I believe were a window to a small part of Chinese culture. It showed us how similar and different we are to these amazingly insightful, brigth and talented people. Such ideas about life are, I believe, worth having in mind. And they are definately a tool of guidance for those of us who struggle to know right from wrong, in both ourselves and others.
These Analects I believe were a window to a small part of Chinese culture. It showed us how similar and different we are to these amazingly insightful, brigth and talented people. Such ideas about life are, I believe, worth having in mind. And they are definately a tool of guidance for those of us who struggle to know right from wrong, in both ourselves and others.
Analects 15-17
In these books I saw swvweral passages that caught my attention. The first one was 15.2 where it says: "Of course the gentle man encounters hardship. The difference is that the pretty man, encountering hardship, is overwhelmed by it." This I believe to be a ver insightful idea. For most superficial people, are surprised by having to go through suffering, as I did at one point. But opposite to pretty people, those who are profound, when facing suffering know how to deal with it. 16.9 is another passage that caught my attention. It says: "People who find it difficult to understand but do not even try to learn are the worst of all." I agree intirely with this. I believe then when not comprehending, one must do what's best to understand, if all one does is either ignore it or try to run away from it, are cowards. Finally 17.3 was a passage that really amazed me. I believe there are several ways to interpret this. "Only the very wise and the very stupid do not change." I think what is trying to be said here is that only those who too much cannot change, because they find themselves too absorbed in what they are to ever find a way to make a difference.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Analects 1-3
In these chapters I honestly found a lot less compared to other chapters. "A clever tounge and fine appearance are rarely signs of Goodness." (1.3) I think this line is partly true. I personally a gree that a clever tounge is more commonly used for bad than for good, sharp remarks are those that come from such a tounge. But on the other hand, I believe having pride in one's appearance is no sin, as long as it doesn't go to the point of becoming vain and conceded.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tao Te Ching 1-12
In these chapters, I noticed that wu-wei is the most evident. In some passages such as in chapter 3, lines 1-3 and line 6 are perfect examples of how wu-wei manifests itself throughout these chapters. Here, it is saying that not doing, not seeing, and not having are the key to being all right; "If nothing is done, then all will be well." Sometimes we believe this statement to be true, we wait for things to come to us instead of taking the initiative and going to them. These chapters, I can see, are completely against ambition. It shows us that being humble is the key to true happiness. But sadly, I don't think it is. People often confuse ambition with greed. These are two very different things. When you are ambitous, you go for what you want and fight for it. Yet, ambition in an ecxessive matter turns into greed. When you begin to go by the theory "the needs justify the means", then you cease to be ambitous and become greedy and self centered. You think that your path to greatness is worth making others' miserable, bu that is not the point either. You must learn how to balance. Seeking happiness is in my opinion a very complicated matter. You will not be happy when everyone but you gets what they want, as it is suggested in wu-wie; but you won't be happy either if you make everyone suffer because you want to succeed.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Night
In the book Night by Elie Wiesel, I noticed thoughts I considered to be very interesting. "He (Moshe) explained to me with great insistence that every question possessed a power that did not lie in the answer." (p2) This I believe to be a powrful statement. But there are many ways to interpret it. I think it means that there is more to a question than its answer, when we ask a question, even if we don't realize it, we are looking for more than just an answe. We want to know the reason for that answer, but most of all, the reason for the question. Sometimes the truth of matters does not lie with these answers but with the questions themselves, as I believe it is mentioned here. What is even harder still to understand is the fact that these questions are the answers. Within every question we ask, lies an answer we dare not turn to, for fear of it being the worng one. But the truth is there is no right or wrong answer in life; all we have to do is dig deeper and look closer, and then, only then, will we find the one that will take us down the better path.
"I pray to the God within me that He will give me the strength to ask Him the right questions." (p3) I find this to be a real life situation. I pray to God to answer my questions, but I never wonder wether what I'm asking Him is right. This is why we most times dont know wether its worth believing or not in God, because we ask God for favors and answers, but what if these are not it? What if these questions He cannot answer, but its us who must? God's job is to guide us down the right path, but not do the path for us. The right way through life will obviously never be the easy one. God will lead us through a deep, dense forest full of temptations and decisions, but it is us who have to solve our problems and answer our questions. God has given us the otion of taking this path, wether we take it or not, is entirely up to us.
"I pray to the God within me that He will give me the strength to ask Him the right questions." (p3) I find this to be a real life situation. I pray to God to answer my questions, but I never wonder wether what I'm asking Him is right. This is why we most times dont know wether its worth believing or not in God, because we ask God for favors and answers, but what if these are not it? What if these questions He cannot answer, but its us who must? God's job is to guide us down the right path, but not do the path for us. The right way through life will obviously never be the easy one. God will lead us through a deep, dense forest full of temptations and decisions, but it is us who have to solve our problems and answer our questions. God has given us the otion of taking this path, wether we take it or not, is entirely up to us.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Analects books 12-14
In these books, it is widely spoken of government and one line that caught my attention was 12.9 when the Master says: “If the common people’s needs are satisfied, how their lord could be lacking? If the common people’s needs, are not satisfied, how can their lord be content?” This line I find very interesting because it is stating that If you put yourself after others, then you will be happy when they are, but if you put yourself before, then you will only find misery in their lacking. This, in my opinion, is fairly true. I do believe that you experience greater joy when you give than when you are given to. Sometimes witnessing joy is far better than actually living it.
Another line was 13.16, when the Master says: “(Act so that) those near to you are pleased, and those who are far from you are drawn closer.” This line I believe makes a lot of sense, for when you are good to those who are near you, your goodness will expand and those who are not so close will want to know of it and come to you.
Line 14.4 says: “Those who are good will necessarily display courage, but those who display courage are not necessarily Good.” This line speaks of how being something may require you to possess a certain quality, but possessing this, does not necessarily make you that that possesses this quality. For example, to be honorable you must be brave, but being brave doesn’t make you honorable. Some of us think that possessing one quality or characteristic automatically makes us worthy or, in this case, Good, but that is something we cannot take for granted.
Another line was 13.16, when the Master says: “(Act so that) those near to you are pleased, and those who are far from you are drawn closer.” This line I believe makes a lot of sense, for when you are good to those who are near you, your goodness will expand and those who are not so close will want to know of it and come to you.
Line 14.4 says: “Those who are good will necessarily display courage, but those who display courage are not necessarily Good.” This line speaks of how being something may require you to possess a certain quality, but possessing this, does not necessarily make you that that possesses this quality. For example, to be honorable you must be brave, but being brave doesn’t make you honorable. Some of us think that possessing one quality or characteristic automatically makes us worthy or, in this case, Good, but that is something we cannot take for granted.
Analects books 7, 8 and 11
In these books, I find that there is a spiritual pursue in which ritual plays an important part. For example in 7.12, when the Master says: “If wealth were something worth pursuing, I would pursue it…Since it is not worth pursuing, however, I prefer to follow that which I love.” I agree entirely with this line, although I contradict it continuously throughout my life, but I do wish I didn’t. Of course I am willing to recognize that if in exchange of wealth, I was offered love, then without a doubt I would take the offer. But unfortunately, not such a chance has crossed my path.
In line 8.8, the Master says: “…take your place through ritual, and achieve perfection through music.” This is indeed a very important line to me, for being a musician, I believe that music is perfection. It is an expression through which we make our feelings and emotions be known by the world; not only in a clear manner, but also hidden and discreetly. We can right songs that state and honest reflection of where our head’s at, but not many people will wonder how or why, and even of they do, they will never know the whole truth of it. That’s what makes music beautiful, the fact that its mysterious, puzzling; that one melody can be both hatred and love, it all depends on your point of view.
In line 11.4, the Master says: “Yan Hui is of no help to me-he is pleased with everything that I say.” From what I grasp of this line is that an apprentice who does not argue about anything proofs to be weak and easy to corrupt. He could believe anything that was said to him without question, and this is not what mentor wants to see in his pupil. He wants to see courage, conviction, and most of all character. I believe that without any of these, a student is not worthy of his professor.
In line 8.8, the Master says: “…take your place through ritual, and achieve perfection through music.” This is indeed a very important line to me, for being a musician, I believe that music is perfection. It is an expression through which we make our feelings and emotions be known by the world; not only in a clear manner, but also hidden and discreetly. We can right songs that state and honest reflection of where our head’s at, but not many people will wonder how or why, and even of they do, they will never know the whole truth of it. That’s what makes music beautiful, the fact that its mysterious, puzzling; that one melody can be both hatred and love, it all depends on your point of view.
In line 11.4, the Master says: “Yan Hui is of no help to me-he is pleased with everything that I say.” From what I grasp of this line is that an apprentice who does not argue about anything proofs to be weak and easy to corrupt. He could believe anything that was said to him without question, and this is not what mentor wants to see in his pupil. He wants to see courage, conviction, and most of all character. I believe that without any of these, a student is not worthy of his professor.
Analects books 4, 5 and 6
In these two books, I was surprised to find 3 passages that go exactly with my personal views of life. For example 4.17 when the master says “When you see someone who is worthy, concentrate upon becoming their equal; when you see someone who is unworthy, use this as an opportunity to look within yourself.” I am constantly worried by the fact of being seen the way I see some. I an always aware of what is going on around me, more than many, I daresay, and I am awfully tormented by this fear of rejection. I am so afraid of people not wanting to be like me, just like I don’t want to be like some people.
In 4.24, when the Master says: “the gentleman wishes to be slow to speak, but quick to act” says a lot to me. I see that he is saying that for someone who is worthy, speaking of worthiness is no good, whereas performing worthiness is. Unfortunately, I see very little of that in me, but I wish to see more as I grow as a human being, and move away from this world I hate.
In book 5, I noticed that the Master and I aspire as to very similar things. In 5.26: “Zilu then said, ‘I would like to hear of the Master’s aspirations.’
The Mater said, ‘To bring comfort to the aged, to inspire trust in my friends, and be cherished by the youth.’” Yes indeed I wish very much to accomplish these things, but I feel like I am lacking very much in the second one. I can hardly trust myself anymore, I have no reason to hope for my friends to trust me, but I do hope I can demonstrate both them and myself that I can pull it off.
In 4.24, when the Master says: “the gentleman wishes to be slow to speak, but quick to act” says a lot to me. I see that he is saying that for someone who is worthy, speaking of worthiness is no good, whereas performing worthiness is. Unfortunately, I see very little of that in me, but I wish to see more as I grow as a human being, and move away from this world I hate.
In book 5, I noticed that the Master and I aspire as to very similar things. In 5.26: “Zilu then said, ‘I would like to hear of the Master’s aspirations.’
The Mater said, ‘To bring comfort to the aged, to inspire trust in my friends, and be cherished by the youth.’” Yes indeed I wish very much to accomplish these things, but I feel like I am lacking very much in the second one. I can hardly trust myself anymore, I have no reason to hope for my friends to trust me, but I do hope I can demonstrate both them and myself that I can pull it off.
Exodus 1-12
I do not understand why in an occasion, God means to harden Pharaoh’s heart as in chapter 7; verse 3: “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.” For why would God wish to harden Pharaoh’s heart, if he wanted most of all to free the children of Israel form Pharaoh? I suspect that he did this to starch out his hand, and smite Egypt with all his wonders and make Pharaoh suffer. But why would the Lord wish evil upon Pharaoh, if he is supposed to be holy and flawless and without ill wish for anyone?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Job
the book of Job is one that has greatly captured my attention. It is a book that speaks of a different kind of God, than the one we have seen in the previous books. He is a God that has no faith upon his peolpe, why would he bet with Satan if he trusted in our loyalty? He questions our devotion to him, and so decides to take the perfect and upright man, as he is mentioned to be in 2:3, and expose him to extreme suffering, to see if he would then curse God and hate him. But despite these escrutiating acts, that God smote Job with, he never spoke evil of God. The worst he ever did, was wish death upon himself, as it happens in 3:3 and chapter 5. But he offends God in no further way. It is God who is being unfair and cruel, for he tells Satan in 2:6, saying that he will smite Job with suffering, but not kill him, and in life, dying is not the worst that can happen, at least not in my opinion.
We also see Satan as manipulative and envious (2:4-5), for he knows no follower of his could ever dedicate his fidelity to him in the way that Job devotes himself to God. I believe Job is a metaphor for all those peolpe who lead a life of honesty, and fidelity towards God, and although there are also followers of Satan, I doubt them to be nearly as good and loyal as the ones that God has at his beck and call.
We also see Satan as manipulative and envious (2:4-5), for he knows no follower of his could ever dedicate his fidelity to him in the way that Job devotes himself to God. I believe Job is a metaphor for all those peolpe who lead a life of honesty, and fidelity towards God, and although there are also followers of Satan, I doubt them to be nearly as good and loyal as the ones that God has at his beck and call.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Exodus 13-40
In these chapters, I found a common expression that is used now days, but here it has a different meaning whatsoever. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."(21:24)
This passage shows merely enough for an interpretation, but as it goes on, it explains that one should only bne vengeful when that who has hurt one is one's equal, and not when its is one's "superior" or one's "inferior". This shows me how the bible is a suporter and follower of inequality, for vengance is not the right thing to do, but to restrict it only among equals is even worse.
This passage shows merely enough for an interpretation, but as it goes on, it explains that one should only bne vengeful when that who has hurt one is one's equal, and not when its is one's "superior" or one's "inferior". This shows me how the bible is a suporter and follower of inequality, for vengance is not the right thing to do, but to restrict it only among equals is even worse.
Extra Samuel chapters 1-5 Piece
This is a piece that we weren't supposed to write, but I found among these chapters a very deep significance and so though I should write it down.
chapter 2, verse 9: "He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall de silent in darkness, for by strength shall no man prevail." I believe this to be a very interesting passage. I think what is meant by it is that God will not make his favor too obvious, but will keep those who are good safe in the end. And by what is said of no man prevailing due to his strength I believe means that whoever pretends to be stronger than God, shall fail in his eyes.
chapter 2, verse 25: "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him?" In this passage, it is said that when a man has done wrong towards another, then God will be there to decide his fate. But when he has done evil towards God, then there is no one to stand on his behalf, he is alone. And so God is the only unconventinal friend man will ever have and the only one he can't afford to betray.
chapter 2, verse 9: "He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall de silent in darkness, for by strength shall no man prevail." I believe this to be a very interesting passage. I think what is meant by it is that God will not make his favor too obvious, but will keep those who are good safe in the end. And by what is said of no man prevailing due to his strength I believe means that whoever pretends to be stronger than God, shall fail in his eyes.
chapter 2, verse 25: "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him?" In this passage, it is said that when a man has done wrong towards another, then God will be there to decide his fate. But when he has done evil towards God, then there is no one to stand on his behalf, he is alone. And so God is the only unconventinal friend man will ever have and the only one he can't afford to betray.
Second book of Samuel verses 1-12
In these verses, David is informed of the death of Saul and Jhonathan, and as it is shown on verse 12, he mourns for both Johnathan and Saul, who was so many times evil to him. Through this, i can derive that there is a contradiction. For, back in Exodus, it is said that there is to be an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, meaning that if something is done to you, you should do exactly the same to he who has done that to you. But here, David is mourning, and fasting for Saul, after he so poorly treated David.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
"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.
The region of Antarctica is an enormous foundation of icy water on planet earth, and our climate relies greatly on it. The currents that flow from Antarctica north towards the tropics, carry cold water, and when reaching their destination, blend with the warmer waters and the gushing contributes to the cooling of both our enviornment and the shallow waters. But thanks to human commotion, this vulnerable, modifiable system is now found threatened.
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.
During the 1920´s drinking was considered ilegal, but at that time, the law was just a gag, for it was quite evident to everyone that there was a local pub, where alcahol was cosumed. These were the years in which the cities were under the domain of delinquency, and the authorities were helpless and ineffective. new genres of music such as jazz expanded all over the land, whilke classical music was slowly erased, and people such as Louis Armstrong, Count Basie and Bix Beiderbecke became the idols of our youths. A feminine movement emerged during this time, and with her mini skirt and bobbed haircut, she came to represent more than anything, maybe, America´s parting with history.
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.
From over the 1000 lives that were caused by bycicling accidents every year, 75% were due to injuries to the head. 50% of those who have been killed, are school-aged kids. Through studies, professionals came to the conclusion that the use of a helmet, even a bike one, can decrease the threat of grave head damage by up to 85%; for in a bike misfortune, the helmet takes in the shock and protects the head by padding it.
The region of Antarctica is an enormous foundation of icy water on planet earth, and our climate relies greatly on it. The currents that flow from Antarctica north towards the tropics, carry cold water, and when reaching their destination, blend with the warmer waters and the gushing contributes to the cooling of both our enviornment and the shallow waters. But thanks to human commotion, this vulnerable, modifiable system is now found threatened.
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.
During the 1920´s drinking was considered ilegal, but at that time, the law was just a gag, for it was quite evident to everyone that there was a local pub, where alcahol was cosumed. These were the years in which the cities were under the domain of delinquency, and the authorities were helpless and ineffective. new genres of music such as jazz expanded all over the land, whilke classical music was slowly erased, and people such as Louis Armstrong, Count Basie and Bix Beiderbecke became the idols of our youths. A feminine movement emerged during this time, and with her mini skirt and bobbed haircut, she came to represent more than anything, maybe, America´s parting with history.
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.
From over the 1000 lives that were caused by bycicling accidents every year, 75% were due to injuries to the head. 50% of those who have been killed, are school-aged kids. Through studies, professionals came to the conclusion that the use of a helmet, even a bike one, can decrease the threat of grave head damage by up to 85%; for in a bike misfortune, the helmet takes in the shock and protects the head by padding it.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
genesis 11-28
In these chapters f Genesis, it is spoken of Abram and his wife Sarai, and how they resproduce and become the kings of nations. Their names change, and they become Abraham and Sarah, and when Sarah can no longer bare children, Abraham lies with her made Hagar, and so Ishmael is born. Yet this is something I don't quite understand, how is it that Sarah tells Abraham that now that she cannot bare children, he should lay with her made, and when she finds out Hagar is pregnant, she send her away?
In chapter 19, two angels come and visit Lot, and the townspeople wnat to know them, but Lot refuses to let them be known. And so the men broke into his house. I believe this to mean that when one receives good, and does not want anyone else to know of this good, it somes to pass that the others come and take good away and then its as if you would have never known it, that is why good is supposed to be shared and the Lord's blessing must be known to all.
Yet I do not understan what is meant by this: chapter 18, verse 26: And the Lord said, if I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, I will spare all th place for their sakes. and for the rest of the chapter, Abraham tells God that there will be 45 righteus,. and then 40, and then 30, and the 20, and finally 10, and the Lord says he will not destroy the city for those ten peolpe's sake.
In chapter 19, two angels come and visit Lot, and the townspeople wnat to know them, but Lot refuses to let them be known. And so the men broke into his house. I believe this to mean that when one receives good, and does not want anyone else to know of this good, it somes to pass that the others come and take good away and then its as if you would have never known it, that is why good is supposed to be shared and the Lord's blessing must be known to all.
Yet I do not understan what is meant by this: chapter 18, verse 26: And the Lord said, if I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, I will spare all th place for their sakes. and for the rest of the chapter, Abraham tells God that there will be 45 righteus,. and then 40, and then 30, and the 20, and finally 10, and the Lord says he will not destroy the city for those ten peolpe's sake.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
chapters 5-11 Genesis
In these chapters, it is talked about how man began to multiply on the face of the earth, and God was unhappy with man and wanted to clear them from the face of the earth as he had created them, all except for Noah and his family, who had found grace in the eyes of God. God chooses to spare Noah from the punishment he will unleash upon mankind, and I believe this represents that while there may be a million guilty souls, there is an innocent one that will be spared to make it all right again. But I must ask myself, why did God choose to save Noah who was not flawless and could have turned out to be as sinfull as anyone else, instead of creating a new race of human beings that was more perfect, like him?
In the next chapters, God tells Noah to build an ark and take of each clean beast he should take seven and of each beast that was not clean, he should take a couple. And so Noah did as he was bid and when he was finished, God made the earth and its inhabbitants drown, none but the Noah and his arch survived. And by the time the flood had ceased, after forty days and forty nights, Noah sent forth a dove, to see if the waters had decreased, but she found no rest, and returned. So Noah waited for seven more days and then sent the dove again. And this time, when she returned, she had in her mouth an olive leaf, which meant that there was land.
And this is why the dove is a symbol of peace, because it represents the truce between God and human kind. She was the one who brought the news that the punishment God unleashed upon human kind was over, and he would never do such a thing ever again.
And so, God blessed Noah, and told him to multiply and replenish th earth, and so it came to be. And then the children of men decided to build a city and a tower that would reach up to heaven, a tower named Babel, in which everyone spoke a different language, and so chaos was all they wittnessed, for they didn't understand eachother.
In the next chapters, God tells Noah to build an ark and take of each clean beast he should take seven and of each beast that was not clean, he should take a couple. And so Noah did as he was bid and when he was finished, God made the earth and its inhabbitants drown, none but the Noah and his arch survived. And by the time the flood had ceased, after forty days and forty nights, Noah sent forth a dove, to see if the waters had decreased, but she found no rest, and returned. So Noah waited for seven more days and then sent the dove again. And this time, when she returned, she had in her mouth an olive leaf, which meant that there was land.
And this is why the dove is a symbol of peace, because it represents the truce between God and human kind. She was the one who brought the news that the punishment God unleashed upon human kind was over, and he would never do such a thing ever again.
And so, God blessed Noah, and told him to multiply and replenish th earth, and so it came to be. And then the children of men decided to build a city and a tower that would reach up to heaven, a tower named Babel, in which everyone spoke a different language, and so chaos was all they wittnessed, for they didn't understand eachother.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
At firs, he seems a little insecure and doesnt appear to know his speech that well. He's constantly looking down at the paper and when he does he looks for too long, losing eye contact, and thus appeal and interest from the audience. Later on though, he becomes more confident and starts to sound more convinving and convinced about his arguments. He does have a certain degree of dynamism and proyection that do help him though, as the speech unfolds. He is clear in what he speaks, I dont have any trouble understanding.
in chapters 1 through 5 of the KJV, we read of the creation of all that is now the earth, and the rise and fall of mankind. These few chapters I believe are quite crucial when it comes to the story of life. A question that I have found very important is who is really guilty for the fall of mankind. Most would blame Eve, others might blame the serpent, but that whom I think is the one to be held responsible is God. He was the one who created Adam and Eve, and he created them knowing them very well, he knew of the curiosity of man and of his temptation, and thus gave him the temptation for one reason or another. He placed the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden and forbade them to eat from either. Those who blame Eve would say: why did she fall into temptation if she was warned not to? Well in order to answer that question, we must ask ourselves this first: What is the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is the one that helps us makes decisions without this knowledge, we cannot tell right from wrong, and thus, we cannot blame Eve for not making the right decision, because she didn't know what the right thing to do was. This is why I believe God is to be blamed, he was not careful enough to think of the possibility of temptation and curiosity falling upon man.
In chapters 4 and 5, the story of Cain and Abel is told. Cain was envious of Abel and killed him, and so God was enraged and bandished Cain to the east of Eden. An important question to ask ourselves her could be, why is envy such a strong sentiment? Why are we so vulnerable to jealousy? Why are we so constantly hurt by it, and thus leading to hurt others? I find myself asking this because I myself have experienced it. I find jealousy to be a small hurt that leads to the wound that is envy. Because while jealousy is no more than a feeling, envy is an action. Envy is when we take our jealousy and and use it against others, in an attempt to be reid of it, and that is just what Cain did.
In chapters 4 and 5, the story of Cain and Abel is told. Cain was envious of Abel and killed him, and so God was enraged and bandished Cain to the east of Eden. An important question to ask ourselves her could be, why is envy such a strong sentiment? Why are we so vulnerable to jealousy? Why are we so constantly hurt by it, and thus leading to hurt others? I find myself asking this because I myself have experienced it. I find jealousy to be a small hurt that leads to the wound that is envy. Because while jealousy is no more than a feeling, envy is an action. Envy is when we take our jealousy and and use it against others, in an attempt to be reid of it, and that is just what Cain did.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The myth of Latona and the Rustics was one that I found rather confusing. But of what I understood, I could see that this is a myth that expresses how we humans can come to consider ourselves so godly, that we have taken from nature and even from ourselves the right to water, the indispensable need. This is a need that we cannot live without and we have led it to becoming scarce even for our race. In many places around the world, people live fighting for a single drop of water and yet many of us waste it as if it would last forever. Here, I believe water can be used as a metaphor for life. Latona is nature, and nature is the one who truly values life, taknig only what it needs to survive, adn begging from us, the Rustics, who have taken control, convinced of the belief that we own it. We pretend to own everything. We stubburnly insist upon the belief that the world belongs to us. But in fact it should be the other way around, we should belong to the world. And as it is expressed at the end of the myth, we will end up drowned in our own greed, not even enjoying what we have so much of, or what we thought we had so much of.
The story of Baucis and Philemon was one that I feel inspired my thoughts. This is a myth that speaks of the humbleness that we very few possess. Several of us, although we may deny it, find that if we are not offered a reward, we do not act humbly or generously. Our nature relies in finding comfort for ourselves and thus pays no attention to that of others. I long very much to possess true humility, and I am sure that many of who I believe are greedy long for it too, but it is our instinct to look out for no one but our own selves. This myth, I believe, teaches us that with greater innocence and what could be called blind generosity can come an even greater reward. When we do things aware that we will be congratulated, we do it for the delight of the prize, instead of for the purpose of the deed. Yet I have hope that one day I shall become a person who can do favours and deeds with no desire of recognition, but instead for the personal peace of knowing that I have helped both myself and those in need.
In the myth of Glaucus and Scylla I find a common reference to unrequited love. The love that has so many experts and that presents itself in so many of our daily lives. To love alone is to love in vain, and in this myth, that same love comes forth. What I think is just completely irrelevant is that he who does not love back is punished by the one who wishes their love. And as sad as it sounds, it does happen. Some of us seek vendetta because of the simple fact that they do not and will not feel the same way, and this is truly unfair, for we should not torture them because they don’t love us, love is a sentiment that is uncertain, for we may also be thinking that we are very much in love with someone, when in fact all we feel for them is pure and utter lust.
The story of Baucis and Philemon was one that I feel inspired my thoughts. This is a myth that speaks of the humbleness that we very few possess. Several of us, although we may deny it, find that if we are not offered a reward, we do not act humbly or generously. Our nature relies in finding comfort for ourselves and thus pays no attention to that of others. I long very much to possess true humility, and I am sure that many of who I believe are greedy long for it too, but it is our instinct to look out for no one but our own selves. This myth, I believe, teaches us that with greater innocence and what could be called blind generosity can come an even greater reward. When we do things aware that we will be congratulated, we do it for the delight of the prize, instead of for the purpose of the deed. Yet I have hope that one day I shall become a person who can do favours and deeds with no desire of recognition, but instead for the personal peace of knowing that I have helped both myself and those in need.
In the myth of Glaucus and Scylla I find a common reference to unrequited love. The love that has so many experts and that presents itself in so many of our daily lives. To love alone is to love in vain, and in this myth, that same love comes forth. What I think is just completely irrelevant is that he who does not love back is punished by the one who wishes their love. And as sad as it sounds, it does happen. Some of us seek vendetta because of the simple fact that they do not and will not feel the same way, and this is truly unfair, for we should not torture them because they don’t love us, love is a sentiment that is uncertain, for we may also be thinking that we are very much in love with someone, when in fact all we feel for them is pure and utter lust.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
DESPITE the rosy claims of the Bush administration, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is fundamentally flawed. The latest national tests, released last week, show that academic gains since 2003 have been modest, less even than those posted in the years before the law was put in place. In eighth-grade reading, there have been no gains at all since 1998.
Thomas Fuchs
(The main goal of the law — that all children in the United States will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 — is simply unattainable. The primary strategy — to test all children in those subjects in grades three through eight every year — has unleashed an unhealthy obsession with standardized testing that has reduced the time available for teaching other important subjects.) Argument to the people, Bandwagon Approach. Furthermore, the law completely fractures the traditional limits on federal interference in the operation of local schools.
Unfortunately, the Congressional leaders in both parties seem determined to renew the law, probably after next year’s presidential election, with only minor changes. But No Child Left Behind should be radically overhauled, not just tweaked.
Under the law, the states devise their own standards and their own tests. Based on the test results, every school is expected to make “adequate yearly progress” in grades three to eight so as to be on track to meet that goal of universal proficiency by 2014. (Schools that do not meet their annual target for every group of students — as defined by race, poverty, language and disability status — are subject to increasingly onerous sanctions written into the federal law.) Genetic, Abusive.
Schools that fail to meet their target for two consecutive years must offer their students the choice to go to a more successful public school; if they fail the following year, they must provide tutoring to their students. If the students continue to miss their target, the entire teaching and administration staff may be replaced, or the school may be turned over to state control, or it may be converted into a charter school.
Yet these tough sanctions thus far have been ineffective. (Federal agencies report that only about 1 percent of eligible students take advantage of switching schools and fewer than 20 percent of eligibles receive extra tutoring.) Argument to the peolpe, Bndwagon Approach.
In inner cities, where academic performance is weakest, only a handful of students move to successful schools because there are very few seats available to them. In rural America, choice is limited by the small number of other schools in the geographic area. Furthermore, neither research nor experience validates any of the “remedies” written into law. There is little evidence that failing schools improve if they are turned over to state control or converted to charter status.
No Child Left Behind can, however, be salvaged if policymakers recognize that they need to reverse the roles of the federal government and the states. In our federal system, each level of government should do what it does best. The federal government is good at collecting and disseminating information. The states and school districts, being closer to the schools, teachers and parents than the federal government, are more likely to be flexible and pragmatic about designing reforms to meet the needs of particular schools.
However, under current law, state education departments have an incentive to show that schools and students are making steady progress, even if they are not. So the results of state tests, which are administered every year, are almost everywhere better than the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the benchmark federal test that is administered every other year.
Many states claim that 80 percent or more of their students are proficient in reading or math at the same time that the federal assessment shows only a minority of students in those states reaching its standard of proficiency. We will never know how well or poorly our students are doing until we have a consistent national testing program in which officials have no vested interest in claiming victory.
Under current law, Congress now decides precisely which sanctions and penalties are needed to reform schools, which is way beyond its competence. (The leaders of the House and Senate Education Committees are fine men, but they do not know how to fix the nation’s schools.) Appeal to improper authority.
The obvious solution is to reverse roles. Washington should supply unbiased information about student academic performance to states and local districts. It should then be the responsibility of states and local districts to improve performance.
Congress should also drop the absurd goal of achieving universal proficiency by 2014. Given that no nation, no state and no school district has ever reached 100 percent math and reading proficiency for all grades, it is certain that the goal cannot be met. Perpetuating this unrealistic ideal, however, guarantees that increasing numbers of schools will “fail” as the magic year 2014 gets closer.
Unless we set realistic goals for our schools and adopt realistic means of achieving them, we run the risk of seriously damaging public education and leaving almost all children behind.
Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at New York University, was the assistant secretary of education for research from 1991 to 1993.
Thomas Fuchs
(The main goal of the law — that all children in the United States will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 — is simply unattainable. The primary strategy — to test all children in those subjects in grades three through eight every year — has unleashed an unhealthy obsession with standardized testing that has reduced the time available for teaching other important subjects.) Argument to the people, Bandwagon Approach. Furthermore, the law completely fractures the traditional limits on federal interference in the operation of local schools.
Unfortunately, the Congressional leaders in both parties seem determined to renew the law, probably after next year’s presidential election, with only minor changes. But No Child Left Behind should be radically overhauled, not just tweaked.
Under the law, the states devise their own standards and their own tests. Based on the test results, every school is expected to make “adequate yearly progress” in grades three to eight so as to be on track to meet that goal of universal proficiency by 2014. (Schools that do not meet their annual target for every group of students — as defined by race, poverty, language and disability status — are subject to increasingly onerous sanctions written into the federal law.) Genetic, Abusive.
Schools that fail to meet their target for two consecutive years must offer their students the choice to go to a more successful public school; if they fail the following year, they must provide tutoring to their students. If the students continue to miss their target, the entire teaching and administration staff may be replaced, or the school may be turned over to state control, or it may be converted into a charter school.
Yet these tough sanctions thus far have been ineffective. (Federal agencies report that only about 1 percent of eligible students take advantage of switching schools and fewer than 20 percent of eligibles receive extra tutoring.) Argument to the peolpe, Bndwagon Approach.
In inner cities, where academic performance is weakest, only a handful of students move to successful schools because there are very few seats available to them. In rural America, choice is limited by the small number of other schools in the geographic area. Furthermore, neither research nor experience validates any of the “remedies” written into law. There is little evidence that failing schools improve if they are turned over to state control or converted to charter status.
No Child Left Behind can, however, be salvaged if policymakers recognize that they need to reverse the roles of the federal government and the states. In our federal system, each level of government should do what it does best. The federal government is good at collecting and disseminating information. The states and school districts, being closer to the schools, teachers and parents than the federal government, are more likely to be flexible and pragmatic about designing reforms to meet the needs of particular schools.
However, under current law, state education departments have an incentive to show that schools and students are making steady progress, even if they are not. So the results of state tests, which are administered every year, are almost everywhere better than the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the benchmark federal test that is administered every other year.
Many states claim that 80 percent or more of their students are proficient in reading or math at the same time that the federal assessment shows only a minority of students in those states reaching its standard of proficiency. We will never know how well or poorly our students are doing until we have a consistent national testing program in which officials have no vested interest in claiming victory.
Under current law, Congress now decides precisely which sanctions and penalties are needed to reform schools, which is way beyond its competence. (The leaders of the House and Senate Education Committees are fine men, but they do not know how to fix the nation’s schools.) Appeal to improper authority.
The obvious solution is to reverse roles. Washington should supply unbiased information about student academic performance to states and local districts. It should then be the responsibility of states and local districts to improve performance.
Congress should also drop the absurd goal of achieving universal proficiency by 2014. Given that no nation, no state and no school district has ever reached 100 percent math and reading proficiency for all grades, it is certain that the goal cannot be met. Perpetuating this unrealistic ideal, however, guarantees that increasing numbers of schools will “fail” as the magic year 2014 gets closer.
Unless we set realistic goals for our schools and adopt realistic means of achieving them, we run the risk of seriously damaging public education and leaving almost all children behind.
Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at New York University, was the assistant secretary of education for research from 1991 to 1993.
The myth about Juno and her rival Io, is one that speaks of how Jupiter, to protect his mistress from the anger of his wife, turned her into a heifer. Juno, suspicously, ordered Argus, the god with 100 eyes to keep a close watch on her and once Io was immrisoned, Jupiter decided to intervene. He told Mercury to make Argus close all his eyes, and then kill him in his sleep. Cleverly, Mercury began to play his Syrinx, but seeing that Argus wouldn't sleep, he began to tell the tale of the nymph Syrinx and the god Pan who fell in love with her and tried to catch her but instead embraced the beauty and melody of the reeds in which she transformed into. In this way, Argus finally shut his eyes and Mercury cut his throat, releasing Io, who ran until she was returned to her human form and to her father and sisters.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
myths
Cephalus and Procris is a myth about two lovers. Cephalus, was a hunter who enjoyed running in the mornings, and Procris, his beloved wife. One day a wanderer heard Cephalus say something loving to the breeze, and believed him to have a lover. He went and told Procris but she refused to believe unless she witnessed it . She hid behind a bush, and when seh hear the compliment, began sobbing. Surprised, Cephalus tossed his spear, a gift from her which he always carried with him, and killed her. Callisto is a myth that speaks of a nymph who made Juno very jealous and lied whith Jupiter. Because of this, she and her sun were turned to bears and placed among the stars. But Juno was upset about this and talked to the gods of the Oceans, forbidding them to ever let these 2 constellations sink into the sea as all others do. Diana and Actaeonis a myth that narrates how a man once saw the goddesss Diana naked, and she truned him into a stag, causing his own hunting dogs and companions to tear his life out.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
RUDY'S GUN SELLOUT
A SORRY PANDER TO THE NRA
By JONAH GOLDBERG
September 27, 2007 -- WHEN Rudy Giuliani spoke to the National Rifle As sociation last week, there was no way he could say anything remotely pleasing to the audience and remain consistent to his record.
The former mayor was one of the NRA's biggest targets in the 1990s, and for good reason: His positions were largely indistinguishable from the Clinton administration's, from which he received lavish praise for helping the feds impose an assault-weapons ban, among other NRA no-nos.
(So Giuliani went the way of many of his rivals by ditching his principles to appease the NRA crowd.) Argument to the people, Bandwagon Approach. It was a full-fledged pander: Giuliani explained that his views have "evolved" since he was mayor. (In presidential politics, "evolution" is usually code for throwing inconvenient baggage off the boat.) Personal, Circumstancial. And, in short order, stevedore Giuliani chucked years of anti-gun rhetoric over the side.
The impetus for his newfound respect for the Second Amendment, Giuliani explained, was the "intervening event" of 9/11, giving new salience to the phrase "9/11 changed everything."
(While one can hardly fault special-interest lobbies for cheering when presidential candidates kowtow to them, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.) Personal, Circumstancial. Personally, my views are closer to the NRA's than they are to Giuliani's. But still, I was hoping that Rudy would have stuck to his federalist guns a bit more.
Giuliani has run the best campaign of any candidate in either party so far, despite an unfavorable political climate and the fact he lacks the kind of institutional pull Hillary Clinton has within her party. He has managed to take and hold onto an early lead, even with a record so littered with red flags (in conservative eyes) that it looks like one of those choreographed North Korean rallies.
On immigration, he's dodged nearly every bullet that hit Sen. John McCain. In a party allegedly hijacked by Religious Right and family-values fetishists, the thrice-married, pro-civil-unions former Gay Pride Parade marcher has managed to win the hearts of large numbers of social conservatives.
A SORRY PANDER TO THE NRA
By JONAH GOLDBERG
September 27, 2007 -- WHEN Rudy Giuliani spoke to the National Rifle As sociation last week, there was no way he could say anything remotely pleasing to the audience and remain consistent to his record.
The former mayor was one of the NRA's biggest targets in the 1990s, and for good reason: His positions were largely indistinguishable from the Clinton administration's, from which he received lavish praise for helping the feds impose an assault-weapons ban, among other NRA no-nos.
(So Giuliani went the way of many of his rivals by ditching his principles to appease the NRA crowd.) Argument to the people, Bandwagon Approach. It was a full-fledged pander: Giuliani explained that his views have "evolved" since he was mayor. (In presidential politics, "evolution" is usually code for throwing inconvenient baggage off the boat.) Personal, Circumstancial. And, in short order, stevedore Giuliani chucked years of anti-gun rhetoric over the side.
The impetus for his newfound respect for the Second Amendment, Giuliani explained, was the "intervening event" of 9/11, giving new salience to the phrase "9/11 changed everything."
(While one can hardly fault special-interest lobbies for cheering when presidential candidates kowtow to them, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.) Personal, Circumstancial. Personally, my views are closer to the NRA's than they are to Giuliani's. But still, I was hoping that Rudy would have stuck to his federalist guns a bit more.
Giuliani has run the best campaign of any candidate in either party so far, despite an unfavorable political climate and the fact he lacks the kind of institutional pull Hillary Clinton has within her party. He has managed to take and hold onto an early lead, even with a record so littered with red flags (in conservative eyes) that it looks like one of those choreographed North Korean rallies.
On immigration, he's dodged nearly every bullet that hit Sen. John McCain. In a party allegedly hijacked by Religious Right and family-values fetishists, the thrice-married, pro-civil-unions former Gay Pride Parade marcher has managed to win the hearts of large numbers of social conservatives.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tonight, I read Thamyris, Marsyas, and Melampus. The first was Thamyris, who in search of competition, lost his eyesight. Then, was Marsyas who again, finding himself wuite talented for the flute, challenged Apollo, and was defeated. Melampuse, on the other hand, spoke of a man who could foretell the future thanks to the help of some serpents that granted him the gift of understanding animals. I find that the first two are rather relevant myths. It is true that we shan't ever uderestimate ourselves or others, but one thing we can't do, absolutely, is overestimate ourselves, for our pride and ambition may lead us to great and rather dreadful consequences.
Last night, I read the myths: Hebe and Ganymede, Roman Divinities, and Penelope. The first one was about Hebe, the goddess of youth, who fell in love with hercules and thus resigned to her possition, and being later replaced by Ganymede. The myth about Roman Divinities is one names and describes some of the gods that were taken from Greek mythology and adapted to that of Roman. This , I believe is the most interesting of the myths I read because Through this work of fantasy, I can find a true likeness with what we lead of our own lives. For example: every human being seems to be goo at something, meaning they posses a certain talent; but at the same time, some humans can be good at the same thing, although there will always be one who stands out as the best. Finally, the myth of Penelope was one that rather caught my attention as well. IT told the story of a woman who stayed forever waiting for her husband, and weaving a cloak that would determine when her wait was done. Yet, she kept undoing what was already done, in order to postpone the finishing of the cloak, thus making her wait forever. Again, this is something that I consider myself to be an expert at. I am always trying to give myself more time to do something and am always thinking of what chance might come i might take. I am always thinking of what I will do tomorrow, or then; but never of what I should be doing today, now...
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Op-ed
Taxing the Hand That Feeds Us
By RAMESH PONNURU
Published: September 20, 2007
Washington
REPUBLICAN presidential candidates can’t get elected without owning the tax issue. So far, the current crop is giving it away.
A huge reason for Ronald Reagan’s popularity was his cutting of all income-tax rates and ending of “bracket creep,” in which inflation pushed earners into higher tax groups. Congressional Republicans promised a tax credit for children while sweeping the 1994 elections. In 2000, George W. Bush promised to expand that tax credit and to reduce income taxes.
Yes, the top Republican contenders for 2008 are promising to keep all of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts. But the Democrats are not threatening the child tax credit or Mr. Bush’s reductions in the lower-level income-tax rates. Those issues are off the table.
What Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani — who have made the most detailed remarks on taxes of the top-tier candidates — are really saying is that they will make sure that taxes on capital gains, dividends, estates and high earners will stay low. Not many middle-class taxpayers will benefit directly from any of those policies.
Mr. Romney adds that he will try to cut the corporate tax rate, which his adviser Glenn Hubbard calls “a drain on competitiveness.” Many of our trading partners have cut their corporate taxes, and more and more conservatives want the United States to follow suit. Apparently they haven’t been listening to their own speeches on free trade. Companies compete. Countries, however, are not engaged in a zero-sum contest where one nation’s gain is another’s loss. Cutting corporate tax rates may or may not be a good idea, but we don’t need to make it a priority to preserve our competitiveness.
Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani speak vaguely about making sure the alternative minimum tax doesn’t affect any more middle-class families. That is a step in the right direction. But it isn’t a tax cut.
Mr. Romney has also proposed an initiative to make the return on middle-class savings tax-free. It may also be a step in the right direction, but it’s small change. The primary focus of the Romney and Giuliani tax plans remains high earners.
What would be a serious middle-class tax cut? One answer is to expand the tax credit for children. But none of the candidates is proposing to do so, or any other big tax relief for regular folks. You might think that Mr. Giuliani would want to do everything he can to appeal to social conservatives short of actually becoming one himself. But why should he offer a pro-family tax cut when even the hard-core social conservatives in the race aren’t interested? Mike Huckabee wants a national sales tax and Sam Brownback wants a flat tax. Either proposal would increase taxes on a lot of middle-class families.
The Republicans in Congress are no better. For much of the right, the great passion of the moment is to make sure that the carried interest at hedge funds is taxed at what look an awful lot like preferential rates. For years, liberals have said that Republicans talk about “family values” but won’t do anything to meet the economic needs of families. Right now, on taxes, that charge hits home.
Two ideological misconceptions underlie the party’s lack of imagination. First, Republicans worry that taking people off the income-tax rolls, as an expanded child credit would do, would make voters think big government is free and turn to the Democrats. But there’s no real evidence for this. Besides, parents are likely to be future-oriented voters, and they will realize that they will be paying higher taxes again once their children have grown up.
Second, Republicans believe, in general, that the tax code should generate its revenue in a way that does the least damage possible to the economy. So they seek tax reforms that cut taxes on investment returns and thereby increase economic growth. What they ignore is that we overtax investments in children, too. Parents make financial sacrifices to produce the next generation of taxpayers, who will pay for everyone’s retirements. Yet the tax code does too little to recognize parents’ investments.
True, an expanded tax credit for children wouldn’t increase economic growth. Growth is good, and more growth is better. But present tax rates are perfectly compatible with healthy long-term growth. There is no pressing need to bring them down to improve growth.
A few conservative strategists have designed tax reform plans that modestly cut corporate tax rates and simplify the tax code while also helping families. (One idea is to make up the lost revenue by bumping affluent childless people into higher tax brackets.) So far, the candidates have not been interested.
As the Republican Party has gotten more socially conservative, its voter base has become lower in income. Many of the working-class social conservatives on whom the party relies are parents trying to make ends meet, or young people who want to start families but have financial worries. They have no particular attachment, or hostility, to free-market principles. A Republican Party that found a conservative way to meet their economic needs would both hold and expand its base.
Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.
By RAMESH PONNURU
Published: September 20, 2007
Washington
REPUBLICAN presidential candidates can’t get elected without owning the tax issue. So far, the current crop is giving it away.
A huge reason for Ronald Reagan’s popularity was his cutting of all income-tax rates and ending of “bracket creep,” in which inflation pushed earners into higher tax groups. Congressional Republicans promised a tax credit for children while sweeping the 1994 elections. In 2000, George W. Bush promised to expand that tax credit and to reduce income taxes.
Yes, the top Republican contenders for 2008 are promising to keep all of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts. But the Democrats are not threatening the child tax credit or Mr. Bush’s reductions in the lower-level income-tax rates. Those issues are off the table.
What Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani — who have made the most detailed remarks on taxes of the top-tier candidates — are really saying is that they will make sure that taxes on capital gains, dividends, estates and high earners will stay low. Not many middle-class taxpayers will benefit directly from any of those policies.
Mr. Romney adds that he will try to cut the corporate tax rate, which his adviser Glenn Hubbard calls “a drain on competitiveness.” Many of our trading partners have cut their corporate taxes, and more and more conservatives want the United States to follow suit. Apparently they haven’t been listening to their own speeches on free trade. Companies compete. Countries, however, are not engaged in a zero-sum contest where one nation’s gain is another’s loss. Cutting corporate tax rates may or may not be a good idea, but we don’t need to make it a priority to preserve our competitiveness.
Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani speak vaguely about making sure the alternative minimum tax doesn’t affect any more middle-class families. That is a step in the right direction. But it isn’t a tax cut.
Mr. Romney has also proposed an initiative to make the return on middle-class savings tax-free. It may also be a step in the right direction, but it’s small change. The primary focus of the Romney and Giuliani tax plans remains high earners.
What would be a serious middle-class tax cut? One answer is to expand the tax credit for children. But none of the candidates is proposing to do so, or any other big tax relief for regular folks. You might think that Mr. Giuliani would want to do everything he can to appeal to social conservatives short of actually becoming one himself. But why should he offer a pro-family tax cut when even the hard-core social conservatives in the race aren’t interested? Mike Huckabee wants a national sales tax and Sam Brownback wants a flat tax. Either proposal would increase taxes on a lot of middle-class families.
The Republicans in Congress are no better. For much of the right, the great passion of the moment is to make sure that the carried interest at hedge funds is taxed at what look an awful lot like preferential rates. For years, liberals have said that Republicans talk about “family values” but won’t do anything to meet the economic needs of families. Right now, on taxes, that charge hits home.
Two ideological misconceptions underlie the party’s lack of imagination. First, Republicans worry that taking people off the income-tax rolls, as an expanded child credit would do, would make voters think big government is free and turn to the Democrats. But there’s no real evidence for this. Besides, parents are likely to be future-oriented voters, and they will realize that they will be paying higher taxes again once their children have grown up.
Second, Republicans believe, in general, that the tax code should generate its revenue in a way that does the least damage possible to the economy. So they seek tax reforms that cut taxes on investment returns and thereby increase economic growth. What they ignore is that we overtax investments in children, too. Parents make financial sacrifices to produce the next generation of taxpayers, who will pay for everyone’s retirements. Yet the tax code does too little to recognize parents’ investments.
True, an expanded tax credit for children wouldn’t increase economic growth. Growth is good, and more growth is better. But present tax rates are perfectly compatible with healthy long-term growth. There is no pressing need to bring them down to improve growth.
A few conservative strategists have designed tax reform plans that modestly cut corporate tax rates and simplify the tax code while also helping families. (One idea is to make up the lost revenue by bumping affluent childless people into higher tax brackets.) So far, the candidates have not been interested.
As the Republican Party has gotten more socially conservative, its voter base has become lower in income. Many of the working-class social conservatives on whom the party relies are parents trying to make ends meet, or young people who want to start families but have financial worries. They have no particular attachment, or hostility, to free-market principles. A Republican Party that found a conservative way to meet their economic needs would both hold and expand its base.
Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Tonight I read the myths of Hermes, Eco and Narcisus, and Hades. The one I liked most was that of Hermes. I find it rather true that sometimes we feel that we are too young for something, when in fact it turns out to be the other way around. Our youth, in some cases allows us to overcome certain obstacles that we could not do when older. It also tells me that when younger, your mind is fresher and therefore is able to come up with better ideas. This is why we should never rush into groing up and enjoy the power and vitality of our youth.
Myths
This Thursday and Friday I read about: Ares, Phateon, Athena, I found these myths to be all quite different. Ares and Athena, yet I find quite alike. They were both very fond of war, being brave and incandescent in their strength. Yet it is mentioned that Ares was not a wise warrior. He liked to fight for no particular reason, and so, got himself into quite some trouble. He and Athena met quite sometimes during battle, but The Troyan war was the most important of their encounters. Here Ares was defeated and thus forced to return to Mount Olympus. I found the tale of Phateon to be tragic in pathetic way. He wanted to proof himself of something he was not capable of, and that explains why we so many times overestimate ourselves and end caught up within the thick haze, just like he left the rest of the world to be.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
California standards cover more than just fuel economy.
the Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency had authority to regulate such emissions “plainly emboldened” Judge Sessions, who “takes the further step of endorsing an actual exercise of such authority by the states.”
Under the California law, the emissions reductions for cars in the 2016 model year could be 30 percent or more below current levels.
Mr. Sharif, a wealthy industrialist, is certainly no hero.
And there is particular irony in his self-promotion as an opponent of military rule, since the military first helped put him in office.
the Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency had authority to regulate such emissions “plainly emboldened” Judge Sessions, who “takes the further step of endorsing an actual exercise of such authority by the states.”
Under the California law, the emissions reductions for cars in the 2016 model year could be 30 percent or more below current levels.
Mr. Sharif, a wealthy industrialist, is certainly no hero.
And there is particular irony in his self-promotion as an opponent of military rule, since the military first helped put him in office.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Tonight I read the myths of King Midas, Persefome among the dead, and the Birth of Afrodite. These myths are among themselves parallel and it is sifficult to find a relationshio between them. But I can clearly see the significant relationship between the myth of King Midas and Gilgamesh. They were both very powrful kings, and like King Midas, Gilgamesh was looking and wishing for something that was meant only for the gods. They were both ambicious and in a way egocentric, and both ended up losing something of great importance. In the end though, Gilgamesh retrieves what he has lost while Midas drowns in his own anguish and regret.
Monday, September 10, 2007
More Myths
Three more myths I've read are, Cupid and Psyche, Callisto, and Linus. I believe all these myths to be very different among themselves. Linus is merely a paragraph long, and it narrates nothing but the character's death. On the other hand, I found a closer relationship between the other two myths. They both involve the punishment of a nymph, and in both cases, for love, temptaion and lust. The only connection I can see between these and Gilgamesh is the relationships the characters constlantly share, and how they sometimes seem to end in misery and death.
Connections
The three myths I read were Atalanta, Apollo and Daphne, and Diana and Actaeon. I honestly can’t find a direct relationship between any of these three myths and the epic of Gilgamesh. These three myths all showed the terrifying power of the figure of women. They were all based on men falling in love with them and ending in pain and death. And if you put it this way, in Gilgamesh there was a similar situation though it happened the other way around. The goddess Ishtar, daughter of Anu, falls in love is rejected by Gilgamesh and as a punishment, she sends the bull of heaven to kill him. But once again I see that the power of women is fearful and lethal and its worth fighting against.
In search of Living Death
In these last tablets of our assignment, I see how Gilgamesh wanders into the lands where he seeks the forbidden knowledge, the knowledge of eternal life. I see this as a metaphor, for most of us seek that knowledge desperately, and go too far to reach it. I also see this as an oxymoron, for Gilgamesh goes through the deadliest of passages no mortal has ever ventured into, in search of life. I can also see how they describe the Twin Beings with different adjectives like monster, scorpion and dragon. I think this means that evil can always take a different form depending on how you look at it, some not as foul or vile as others. When Gilgamesh is travelling through the darkness, I believe it is a metaphor used to explain how sometimes we feel disserted, with no one there, in the utter darkness, with no one to count on, but you still have to go on. And just when you feel like you’ll fall, the light comes in.
Together
“Two people, companions, they can prevail” (Gilgamesh, p43)
During these two tablets, Enkidu perishes while in the care of Gilgamesh because it is this that the gods have decided to do. I think it has a deeper symbolic meaning but I don’t see it clearly. My interpretation though is that two people, who stay together as friends, can go against anything, even death. I especially like these tablets because they remind me of what life is really about. If you stay together, then nothing can bring you down.
During these two tablets, Enkidu perishes while in the care of Gilgamesh because it is this that the gods have decided to do. I think it has a deeper symbolic meaning but I don’t see it clearly. My interpretation though is that two people, who stay together as friends, can go against anything, even death. I especially like these tablets because they remind me of what life is really about. If you stay together, then nothing can bring you down.
Forgetting and Foreseeing
In these few tablets, the journey of Enkidu and Gilgamesh is told. During this journey, Gilgamesh once again encounters the strange happenings of his dreams. Gilgamesh asks Enkidu if it was he who woke him, but then he remembers it was because of dream he had. I believe this happens to many of us sometimes. Something unexpected happens and we don’t know who caused it or how to interpret it. And it is then when someone comes along and helps us understand.
Change can be strange
"But seeing him (Enkidu), they fled. The creatures were gone and everything was changed." (Gilgamesh, p8)In this quote I find that there is a reality that can be interpreted in different ways. When someone chooses to give in to temptation, there are some things that will be lost in exchange. This is what I understand by it, but it could also mean that as time goes by and we make decisions, we make changes in our lives and those of others and thus begin living a new and different life.
इन्त्रोदुक्तion
This Blog is basically about the books that we will be reading during this 9th grade Pre AP English course. Here, I shall share my opinions abouth such as well as discuss and compare. It is free to all who wishes to read and constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)