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.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)