Vocabulary

“The Ancient Spartans, who practiced infanticide, may have objected to “No Child Left Behind.”

Infanticide: The act of killing an infant.



“Conservatives knew instinctively that “life” has more pathetic value than the murkier choice.”

Murkier: dark, dim or gloomy.






“You can almost set your epochal clock by this particular values pendulum.”

Epochal: highly significant or important especially bringing about or marking the beginning of a new development or era.





“If lazy means frantically shooting aliens on a computer, then he’s lazy.”

Frantically: Highly excited with strong emotion or frustration.





“More recently, President Bush promoted tort reform by referring over and over to frivolous lawsuits.”

Frivolous: not serious in content or attitude or behavior

You Have The Power... You Arrange The Words...The Art Of Arraging Words In A Sentence.

In Chapters Nine and Ten, Heinrich talks mainly about controlling the mood and optimism. How in the world can you gain control of the mood? “A good persuader doesn’t merely express her own emotions; she manipulates the feelings of her audience.” By gaining control of your audience feelings or emotions, you have all the power to manipulate them.

How do you gain control of emotions? There is just one simple key word. A word has the power you want to give it. You determine the strength of a sentence. “Words can indeed act like a drug.” Meaning, depending on how you put words together and make something sound, is equivalent to the effect. Depending on the drug you take, you get different outcomes. The same thing happens with the combinations of words you put together. You can make a sentence as powerful as you want it.

“The more vividly you give the audience the sensations of an experience, the greater the emotion you can arouse.” The more you use words that identify the audience, the more susceptible they become feeling sympathy, therefore weakening their strength of standing up for what they believe. The stronger the drug, the greater the outcome. You decide which word, or drug you are going to feed the audience, to obtain your goal.

So, which way is the best to stir up emotions? As Aristotle says “One of the most effective mood changers is a detailed narrative.” Therefore, when you recreate a dramatic exaggerated scene, making the others see it through your shoes, they are being exposed to another point of view, which most likely they hadn’t thought about. This makes them doubt their opinion, making them more gullible to believe your point. I can agree totally with this technique, for I have used anecdotes or real life stories to impact others. The result is always positive.

An anecdote is so powerful, it drills the audience’s attention, and makes them empathize or sympathize with the situation. This being the key, to changing their point of view. I have used this tool, and I can say it has always worked, because you make your audience hear what you want them to hear, playing with their mind. Therefore, arranging certain words in the right order can give you amazing results. Know how to lay your words right and you are set to win.

Admired

When I grow up, I aspire to be a successful person, in whatever it is that I do. I believe this is everyone’s desire, becoming a leader. Yet, it is very simple to say, but not easy to accomplish. A leader, is made up of many different components acquired through life. One of the most important one, is as they say turning heads, being looked up to.

Many believe leaders are all book smart nerds. Yet, actually most of the leaders in the world, are a more balanced formula. They also have what Heinrich talks about in Chapter Seven and Eight, as practical wisdom. “Practical Wisdom entails the sort of common sense that can get things done.” Meaning it’s not all about the books, common sense can be more important than book knowledge. It is a quality not many people have, for it is harder to acquire, than just same old book knowledge. You basically have it or you don’t , you cant work on getting better at it, therefore it is very unique and valuable trait.

“It’s an instinct for making the right decision on every occasion.” Have you heard when they say that moms have a sixth sense? It basically can be compared to that, it is a vibe you get which helps you make the right decision and almost never fails. This instinct usually doesn’t come with process people. It is more of a flexible people character trait.

“When he led by the following rules, he failed; when he applies his navigational skills to solve a practical problem, he became a hero.” Here is a proof that most leaders or heroes usually are known for practical wisdom, not just book smart. This is a great quality to have, and if you were given it, you should use it, for it is almost never wrong. It is like having a lucky star guiding you.

Yet, don’t get me wrong to be a successful person, you must have a balance of the practical wisdom and the book smart. The advantage of having the practical wisdom, is that the book smarts can be acquired, while practical wisdom is a lot harder to attain. “The practically wise rhetorician seems to have the right combination of book learning and practical experience, both knowledge and know-how.”

You might ask yourself what does a rhetorician and a leader have to with one another, and basically they are made, one for the other. A rhetorician is usually a leader and a leader can’t be a leader without the use of rhetoric. In order to become a leader, people must look up to you, or in other words agree with your point of view. As you gain followers or fans you do it by the art of persuasion.

Yet, when persuading someone it is like acting. You put up a scene in order to obtain your goal. For example, when Heinrich says “While your audience must think you have these noble attributes, that does not mean you must have them in reality.” …“Make it seem you have no tricks.” These two quotes clearly demonstrate that anything counts when you are in the field of persuasion.“Does this seem unethical? Not in the original sense of ethos.” This doesn’t sound to convincing, but it’s the truth. You got to do what you got to do. Life is a daily competition, we must fight in order to survive. So, in order for me to reach my goals, and become a successful leader, I must do everything necessary, yet under logical reasoning. Disinterest is a keyword in this “the appearance of having only the best interest of your audience of heart- even to the point of sacrificing, for the good of others.” Rhetoric’s is the art of playing your cards right. Using techniques, like the ones stated above, in order to reach your optimal goal. There’s more to persuasion than, just stating your point.

Hello Chaos...Goodbye Sanity!

Mexico's New Drug Law May Set an Example
By Ioan Grillo / Mexico City

No dreadlocked revelers smoked celebratory reefers in the streets, no armies of conservatives protested, the Mexican media raised no hullabaloo. Quietly and with little ado, Mexico last week enacted a law to decriminalize possession of small amounts of all major narcotics, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and crystal meth. Anyone caught in Mexico with two or three joints or about four lines of cocaine can no longer be arrested, fined or imprisoned. However, police will give them the address of the nearest rehab clinic and advise them to get clean.

Most surprising was how easily and painlessly the reform slipped into Mexican law. The bill was originally filed in October by President Felipe Calderón, a social conservative who is waging a bloody military crackdown on drug cartels. Congress then approved the bill in April — as Mexico's swine-flu outbreak dominated media attention. And finally the law went into the books without any major protests either in Mexico or north of the border. (See pictures of cannabis culture.)

Washington's silence on the issue is telling. In 2006, Mexico's Congress approved a bill with almost exactly the same provisions. However, the Administration of George W. Bush immediately complained about the measure and then President Vicente Fox refused to sign it into law. In contrast, officials of the Obama Administration have been decidedly guarded in commenting on the new legislation. When asked about it in his visit to Mexico last month, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said he would "wait and see." Many view such a change as evidence that Washington is finally reconsidering its confrontational war on drugs, four decades after Richard Nixon declared it. "There is a growing opinion that the use of force has simply failed to destroy the drug trade and other measures are needed," says Mexican political analyst José Antonio Crespo. "It appears that the White House may be starting to adjust its approach." (See pictures of the great American pot smoke-out.)

Another reason for the ambivalence is that the new law is predicted to have little effect on the Mexican street. Police officers would rarely arrest people caught with small amounts of drugs anyway, although they would often use it as an opportunity to extract handsome bribes.

Mexican officials argue the legislation is designed less to change the situation than to clarify the law and go after the traffickers harder. Indeed, while using small amounts of drugs may now be fine, selling drugs is still illegal. The law clearly states any person dealing narcotics will be sent to prison. Any place that sells drugs will be liable for punishment, a provision that is likely to prevent the opening of any Amsterdam-style "coffee shops" in the country. The new law also empowers city and state police to investigate dealers, which was formerly the reserve of the federales. Street-corner pushers have exploded across Mexico in recent years while the number of hard-drug addicts has shot up to 460,000, according to a survey last year.

Still, groups pushing to legalize marijuana north of the Rio Grande see Mexico's change as an encouraging sign for their own struggle. Allen St. Pierre, head of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says the Mexican law is part of changing global attitudes to the issue. "Cultural social norms are shifting around the world and in the United States. There will likely come a point when the majority see that prohibition is expensive and simply doesn't work," he says. St. Pierre points out that 13 U.S. states have already decriminalized marijuana and California has legalized it for limited medical use.

Mexico's example could also influence other developing countries in their drug policies, St. Pierre says. "Governments seeing that Washington did not condemn Mexico for its law may be bolder in their own legislation. Countries are becoming aware that the United States with its millions of drug users should not be judging them on their policies," he says. In February, the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico signed a statement calling for decriminalization of several narcotics. "Current drug-repression policies are firmly rooted in prejudices, fears and ideological visions," it said. (On Aug. 25, the Argentine supreme court essentially legalized the private use of small amounts of marijuana.)

But some see the Mexican laws as a step back rather than forward. Critics in Mexico say that decriminalizing users but not sellers will only strengthen the trafficking mafias that are waging a bloody turf war in Mexico. More than 12,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in the past three years. The cartels make an estimated $30 billion smuggling narcotics north to American users and some $5 billion more selling to the Mexican market. "It is illogical to have a law that allows drug consumption but does not control where it is coming from," says Representative Enrique Cardenas, who voted against the bill. "It will only fuel corruption and dealing."

After reading the article “Mexico's New Drug Law May Set an Example”, I was very confused. Making a decision, whether or not to legalize narcotics is a tough one. It can not only cost millions of dollars, but it can cause irreversible damage.

A Mexican law, was passed last week decriminalizing small amounts of narcotics. This was due to the fact that “the use of force has simply failed to destroy the drug trade and other measures are needed.” Said Mexican political analyst José Antonio Crespo. Another reason is that prohibition is more expensive. However, can it really be more expensive than the damages caused, by the legalization of narcotics? I guess Mexico will find out for us and other followers.

This may have happened in Mexico, yet it will have many impacts throughout the world. As I read, many other countries are following México, making some drugs legal in small amounts. Taking that into account, making it legal the economy throughout the world, will vary because either more or less narcotics will be sold, therefore varying the drug circulating money.

Even though, I am not very sure about this topic, I believe narcotics should not be legalized. Why give permission to destroy their body and society. Not only that, but I believe since it will be more accessible, people will buy more, for it will drop in price and the production will have to increase. Let’s face it, it has been illegal for many years and there are millions of people, who are hooked on this narcotic and can’t live without them. If they buy them when they are illegal, you think they will stop now that they are legal. The fact of the matter is that they are not doing it to be rebels, just because it is illegal, they do it because their body asks for it.

Eventually, it will be so common that it will be displayed in the streets, just like alcohol and tobacco. They were once illegal, and did people stop consuming them? In fact the rate of consumption increased rapidly, and now it is so common that we have lost the perception of what it really is and what it does to you.

So, why loose all the work we have done, just by giving up. Are we really going to let drug dealers and consumers manipulate us? By legalizing the drug we are giving them the right, to do what is wrong. We are basically contradicting ourselves and taking a step backwards. Are we really that coward, to think we are incapable of handling that waste of society?

I think this quote says it all “Critics in Mexico say that decriminalizing users but not sellers will only strengthen the trafficking mafias that are waging a bloody turf war in Mexico. More than 12,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in the past three years. The cartels make an estimated $30 billion smuggling narcotics north to American users and some $5 billion more selling to the Mexican market. "It is illogical to have a law that allows drug consumption but does not control where it is coming from," says Representative Enrique Cardenas, who voted against the bill. "It will only fuel corruption and dealing."” I couldn’t agree more. After reading this quote theres no maybe's, but's, or if's. Narcotics should not be legalized.

Finally, I believe passing this law is a decision many are going to regret, and it’s going to hit them so hard it will never be forgotten. Some just have to learn the hard way. If right now, we have millions of drug dealers, imagine legalizing it, taking away the fear that many do evade. Now what are they going to fear of? Not selling enough? Why give them permission for such insanity? I really can’t get the logic out of it. Drugs, are synonyms for chaos, so why invite chaos to our society? What makes you think chaos is going to say no thanks, I’d rather not.

Do You Know Who I Am … Cause I Don’t Even Know Who Am I!

In Chapter Five, everything revolves around decorum. What is really that strange word, decorum? Where does it come from? “The ancient Romans coined a word to describe this kind of character-based agreeability: decorum.” It is having the proper manners and conduct to fit in. According to Kenneth Burke, it is the simplest tool for persuasion. This is because, when you get your audience to identify with you, you gain credibility and the audience enters a comfort- trustworthy state.

Decorum is basically what we have to live by to survive. Even though, many people say they don’t care what people think about them, the truth is everyone does. Some show it more than others, but let’s face it we live in a disapproving society. A society was you can’t reveal your true self, for you are expected to behave a certain way, in order to succed and not be criticized. In the end, we do have feelings, which are what makes us be concerned about our reputation.

Many people think they are weak, because they care what people think, yet this is not a matter of weak and brave, it is a matter of doing whatever it is needed to succeed. Countless people, want to themselves as being brave, by saying they don’t care what others think about them, but at the end what are they gaining? Yes, there different, but being different isn’t always good. I mean yes, you have to have personality, but stay within the standards of society. Nevertheless, one out of many actually impose a change by being different. I’m not saying don’t risk it, for you could be that one, but balance your consequences, is it really worth it?

Therefore, what is the definition of right and wrong? There is none. Society and the environment you live in put up rules and traditions, which make you believe something is wrong or right. What wrong to you may seem right to me. Making right and wrong undefined. It is what others make you believe.

Living in this world, is not that easy, for people always criticize us for either not being ourselves or because the way we really are. It is crazy, if we act as ourselves people may dislike us, but if we don’t, then they tells us why do we always have to wear a mask to hide, who we really are. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do; but when you are not in Rome doing as the Romans do might get you into trouble.” This quote explains the confusing chaotic society we belong to. Here a right thing doesn’t even exist!

We are never going to please everybody, which is why most of us do what the majority has accepted. When they show the example of bumper sticker on the car “You own the car, but it owns your job.” Perfectly explains how we are free to de indecorous, but it will bring consequences. We can do whatever we want, but indirectly certain things restrain us from doing it, meaning the word “free” is just an illusion.

We live in such a superficial material world, that even what we wear affects how a person will treat you. This is best explained by, when Joe says “Look for the guy with the best shoes, but don’t buy the shoes. Buy the colors.” This basically means if you wear or follow what is the trend and stay in the range, you will be accepted in society. To me one word can describe it ridiculous. Yet, it’s cruel reality.

So, really who are we? That is a tough question most of us can’t answer because we have been so many different persons, we really don’t know which one is the real us. We have had to act accordingly and change depending to the public or situation for years. We have adapted to a fake us. We have lost our essence, just because we have to fit in.

“A good politician changes his language, behavior, and even his dress to suit the expectations of particular audiences.” Today we may vote for him, but maybe tomorrow he’s not the one we voted for. Think about it… our role model today may not be the same tomorrow.

In Chapter six, it also talks about more tools on becoming a credible leader. The author can not stress any more how appearance is so important. This is why I believe you should trust no one but yourself. There are some great actors out there.

In order to persuade someone, the most important points are to get your audience to like you and trust you. In order to get there, the author teaches us three techniques from Aristotle: virtue, practical wisdom, and selfness.

These three techniques basically boil to the same main point, of portraying yourself. How the audience wants you to be. “You don’t even have to do what your heart knows is right; you simply must be seen to have the “right” values- your audience values that is.” Since, values vary from person to person, nothing is ever right, it’s just a point of view. Therefore, to persuade someone you need to agree with them to make them feel comfortable. “You want to look like a good person- “good” that is in their eyes.” Persuading someone has a lot of appearance and fakeness to it, sadly but truly it is the most effective method.

So, next time someone tries to persuade you, really try to find out what is it that you want and who are you. Don’t let others play with your mind and make you believe, you want something you really don’t. Always remember “It can spring from a truly noble person or be faked by the skillful rhetorician. Rhetoric is an agnostic art; it requires more adaptation than righteous.” Arguing is the art of denigrating the facts and truly finding yourself. So, don’t let that temporary trustworthiness fool you. Yet, use it as a tool while persuading.

Persuading to me sounds like a terrible crime, but hey we live in this world and we all need to survive some way or another. I am not saying you should kill to get what you want, don’t get me wrong, but use other methods like the ones explained above. They are not morally correct. Yet, once again what really is morally correct? I guess there is only one theory to explain this: Survival of the Fittest. It’s human nature.

A Permanent Strategy

When we look at the Juan Valdez logo, what do you see? All I see is a typical Colombian farmer and a mule in the mountains. Now who would ever think a farmer and a mule put together on mountains, would actually be chosen as the most important publicity icon in the United States. This wasn’t any contest, it was the famous Advertising Week contest in New York in the year 2005. He competed amongst many other well known logos worldwide, like Ronald McDonald, the Energizer bunny, the Nike check and so on. Subsequently, really how did this mule Conchita and this farmer Juan Valdez, get so much recognition?

“Now it is almost like a fashion icon, before going for coffee wasn’t a trend, now many teens grownups love going for a coffee, some even depend on it.”

I believe, it was all a strategic marketing technique. If you research the history of Juan Valdez, it didn’t just pop out of the blue, there were many years of planning and thinking ahead. Being a very successful logo, there must me a lot behind it, therefore what does this logo transmit us? What does each symbol mean? Me being a Colombian, I connect i with honor, for it is the best coffee in the world. It is simply unique.

That farmer you see is just one in a million, out in the Colombian mountains, who works hard producing the coffee, with love and passion, not only that but with premium quality. Everybody asks themselves what is it that Colombian coffee has, that no other coffee in the world has? What is that special ingredient? To me it is all in the hands of these Colombian farmers who handle each bean with love, passion, desire, and dedication. Every single coffee bean picked up manually by one of those humble , yet hard working Colombian Farmers, is then placed one by one into a bag and shipped all over the world. This is what makes Colombian coffee different, and more exclusive than any other. Therefore, we are not only just sending coffee, we are spreading affection and caringness so others can enjoy.

With this trademark, we as Colombians have taken a step forward, showing the world we not only have cocaine, kidnappers, and poverty. We are better than that, and just because some out of many decide to ruin our reputation, we just won’t give up, because we are more than that superficial image. We are surrounded by many positive prideful possessions like, having the best coffee in the world. Not only that, but being picked up by honest hard working families who strive to become better every day. Who prove the rest of the world wrong. As a result Juan Valdez is not only amazing coffee, but for me it also symbolizes dedication, perseverance, and values.

Therefore, our coffee has a lot of ingredients and its recipe isn’t that simple, making it the essence of Colombian coffee. This brand has become so big, that not only has its reputation to Colombian been reward full, but it is now capable of competing with Starbucks. That is a lot to say. So, I am really proud of these people, who stand up for us and show the world there is another side to Colombia and its people. We are more than what people portrays us like.

Hence, this is not only a great reward for Colombians, but also I believe it will help the economy. Not only by all the coffee exports, but many might get intrigued to come and visit Colombia. This will boost our economy, but most important of all show the real Colombia, not the gossip Colombia many people make up. It’s time for the world to see, the actual reality of Colombia. We worked for our reputation, we deserve getting the truth revealed!

Finding The Importance Of Arguing

As I read Chapters Three and Four I could very well relate it with my life. In Chapter Three it basically revolves around the three main points when arguing. They are blame, values, and choice. I have personally experienced the three and after all my experiences I agree completely with the author. When I have used blame it really hasn’t gotten me anywhere, for blame is using guilt and conviction against someone, which isn’t going to make them agree with you. Obviously no one is going to accept a punishment. For example when he says “Who moved my cheese?” The person who moved it isn’t going to admit it without giving an excuse, which you may not care about, yet defends their position. When you use the value tactic, I believe its better, but not quite the best. This is because as he says “Morals are inarguable in deliberative rhetoric.” This is so true, changing a belief you were almost born with isn’t going to happen so easily. Since we were born, our parents started teaching us our values and morals. Consequently all those years learning them actually pay off, you are not going to in a short period of time change what you have been taught for, many many years. Yes, using morals may work, but why not just go with the easy uncomplicated choice tactic. When there is a choice that means there is an option or a door to solving the problem. When you talk about the past, it is gone there is nothing we can do about it, finito. As a result that is why blame isn’t very effective. Yet, when you leave it up to someone and you give them options, you still have a chance to win. By giving an option, you have a much higher chance of the other person agreeing with you, for you are taking them into account and showing them you care. You are not being self centered or stubborn, you actually want the best for both and transmit openness.

I loved the example of when the author tells us to give an extreme choice first so your opponent weakens and is more vulnerable. This takes place when the author and his wife are choosing their sons name. He first says this strange hideous name, yet he actually wants to name him George, but knows his wife doesn’t like it. So, after saying that horrendous name, when he says fine lets name him George his wife says “You know, George doesn’t really sound that bad.” I he would have said George from the start she probably would have said no, but since he is giving her choices and making her feel like she matters, makes her give in easily. Accordingly, in Chapter Three the lesson was focusing on the future, will get you farther than focusing in the past or the present. Since, the future hasn’t been decided, you still have control over it, meaning you’re a step ahead of the game and could win your battle.

In Chapter Four it elaborated those three topics a little bit more and linked with three different categories. These categories are argument by character, argument by logic, and argument by emotion. Depending on the situation you choose the tool you need. Unlike the ones in chapter three these are all as effective, if you know when and how to use them. I believe argument by character is very selfish and stubborn method, it is basically “it is because I said so.” Argument by logic is when you use facts or evidence, which makes your opponent think. Lastly argument by emotion, which I believe is the easiest to use, in short words it means when you play with others feelings. I personally like this tactic the best because once you encounter emotions, the heart takes over the mind and your opponent becomes weaker. This is because I believe most of us humans follow our heart before consulting with our brain. The heart simply takes over the brain. This is not a voluntarily action it just happens. When this happens your brain may say don’t do it, but your heart will make you do it. You lose total control. I can say this from personal experience, especially in the love department. I mean why do we keep going back to those who hurt us? The only explanation I can think about is, because our emotions won’t let us think logically. This is why even though everybody tells us over and over again, you deserve a lot better, and sometimes we even know it, yet we are incapable of deviating from what our heart really wants. So, by playing with words and sympathizing as the author states “Registering concern for your audiences emotions and then changing the mood to suite your argument. “ Which basically means gain control of the situation by making the other feel like you really took them into account, and their point is as important as yours. While listening to their point of view they are giving you tools “ one of the best resources comes straight from your opponents mouth.” So, after listening to them and making them feel important ,you have been given all the tools necessary , including their point, which you need to use against them.

Fundamentally, these two chapters did a very well job explaining the main points. I can say this because not only have I understood perfectly what the author is trying to say, but I have experienced each and every one in my daily life. For, next time I am in a situation like this one, I will stop think and then act putting to use these helpful hints.

To finalize, we have to face it our lives are filled with arguments, but can you imagine life without arguments it would be plane boring. Arguments are what keep us going and striving to reach that end point, our inspiration. “If life were free of contingencies, then we could live by a few rules written in stone that would apply to all our decisions. Every baby would come with an operating manual, the same guide that worked for her older brother. Every rule of thumb would apply to every situation. The early bird would always catch the worm, everything would be cheaper by the dozen, and the world would come in two colors: black and white.”

So, we don’t have to hate arguing, we have to learn how to argue and it may sound ironic, but actually enjoy it. Feel the satisfaction of getting your point across, being wise and knowing how to handle the situation. It’s all a matter of technique. So let’s become masters.

The Power Of Words...Fight Or Argue?...Lose Or Win?

While reading chapter two of Heinrich's book Thank You For Arguing I found it very helpful and very interesting. This chapter mainly talked about achieving your goals. It starts off by discussing and emphasizing the difference between a fight and an argument. I personally believe differentiating the two is the key in understanding the authors point. He gives many different examples and situations, yet they all revolve around that main idea. So, what really is the difference between a fight and an argument?

Isn’t a fight an argument or an argument a fight? The answer is NO! They are two totally different things not even closely related to each other, yet many people tend to confuse them. “In a fight, each disputant tries to win. In an argument, they try to win over an audience-which can comprise the onlookers, television viewers, an electorate or each other.” Simply by reading this quote from our common sense we can infer that by arguing you can reach your goal better than by fighting. This is a logical topic for many of us, yet for many it isn’t. Being a logical topic for many of us it sounds simple yet, many don’t know how to apply it in their daily lives. That is why this chapter goes step by step with you, to help you reach your desired goal in a wise manner.

In this short but concise powerful quote “You succeed in an argument when you persuade your audience. You win a fight when you dominate the enemy.” Shows that if you are smart enough to use strong arguments and stir up people’s thoughts and emotions you can gain a whole lot, but just by putting up a fight you only gain the satisfaction of “winning”. Why do I put those quotations around winning? This is because when you win a fight it’s not really winning, you think you won but really has the other opponent changed his point of view? Maybe not, but because of the tools used in fighting such as fear and torture you say you won. A person who fights is a coward or an ignorant that has to rely on other sources because he can’t win on his own. This situation is explained in the book when George’s dad says “argument by the stick; when words failed him, he used his fists.” Meaning he has to rely un fighting because his words have no meaning what so ever.

We can make a connection comparing this lesson to sports. When you argue its fair play, and when you cheat and use fighting as your alternative you don’t go by the rules. You usually cheat when you are losing and have no other option. A great example of an argument in this chapter is Mariah Carey. Through the means of a song she tries to change her ex-boyfriends mind by giving him reason of why they belong together. She is giving him a valid argument which makes him think, yet she is not pressuring him by threatening him or begging him. The decision is his to make after all. This is one of the big differences between a fight and an argument. The difference is very well contrasted when it says “You can give the horse salt to stimulate its desire for water (arousing its emotions, if you will); you can persuade it to follow you to a stream (the choice part); but getting it to commit to drinking poses the toughest rhetorical problem.”

When you argue you can play with people’s emotions, yet you don’t force them to do anything, instead when you fight you are eliminating their free will making them give up, not necessarily changing their position voluntarily. So, the key is playing with others minds, yet keeping it low profile with strong points that will make the other person consciously want to change opinion. A great example of this as motioned in chapter two is the South Beach diet popularity. How did it become a best seller? The secret was given to us; it was all a game with the mind. It said and portrayed everything people wanted to hear and infer “no-big-deal tactic: The Delicious, Doctor Designed, Foolproof Plan for Fast and Healthy Weight Loss.” This immediately captivates the readers emotions and takes over the mind, making them want to buy this “to good to be true product. “

I want to share a story I can relate to this whole argument fight tactic. A couple years ago I believed that by fighting I was going to win all my battles. I was rude, disrespectful, loud, and wanted everything my way. At first I never lost or at least I thought I did. Looking back I realized I may have won those battles, but I didn’t gain anything from them but stress, rivals, enemies, and hatred. So, yeah I may have won the battle but what I lost was worth more than that insignificant battle. The hurt I caused others and I was more valuable than those meaningless battles. What I was doing was totally pointless.

One day someone told me you can’t win every single battle, you have to select the ones that are really worth it. So I sat down and started looking back and realized many battles I had fought were totally pointless, even some I even knew I had already lost before starting. That was when I realized why am I wasting my time? What am I gaining from this? The answer was absolutely nothing! I am in fact losing more than I originally had. That was the day I actually began analyzing the situations and using strong arguments to support my point.

Suddenly I started getting my point across easier and people would actually take me into account. I then began really winning the battles I had once thought I won. It felt great. There was no need for me to be rude or disrespectful. I solved all my problems with evidence and choosing words carefully.

I am glad it didn’t take me long to realize the wrong path I was taking. That is why when reading this chapter I could connect so much with the author. It was like if he knew me and had written this for me. I can share a bond with the author when he says “She has a biting tongue but knows how to restrain it to win an argument. “ Because I still get that urge to scream and misbehave, yet I know how to hide it in order to actually win.

Even if it takes agreeing with the other person when you don’t, you can’t let minor obstacles stop you from reaching your main goal. You can not deviate from you mission. So now I’m going to leave off with this quote that really impacted me “ While the rest of the world fights, we’ll argue. And argument gets you what you want more than fighting does.” So are you going to fight or argue? Win or Lose? It’s your decision!

Facing reality...Its all up to us!

After reading the article The News About the Internet by Michael Massing I was simply confused because as we all have different opinions and viewpoints some of these ideas shared by others really impact you, and can change your way of thinking like this passage just did to me. Before reading this passage I believed the internet was a very helpful tool for anybody who could access it, but then I realized just like there are pros there are cons as well. This passage basically as the title explains it, talks about the news in the internet. Since the internet has become such a popular tool visited by many exposed to a lot of information out there, we as readers are connected to a wide range of people and information making it really easy to communicate, and share these information with others. If you think like I did before reading this article you might say to yourself the internet is a very useful tool that can teach you millions of new things while opening doors to many opportunities like jobs, meeting new people, among many other advantages. Even though this advance in technology is very useful it can also become very dangerous. I am not talking about the kind of dangerous we all know about meeting people over the internet etc.. Because we all know those risk since we were little and our parents repeated it over and over again until it got drained in our head. I am taking about taking a step further and looking at the bigger picture, many millions of thousands of journalists have lost their job due to the internet…why? This is because now with sites such as the popular search engine Google which links you to sites like YouTube, twitter, facebook, blogs etc makes it easy for anyone to post whatever they feel like. For example Josh Marshall used to be a print journalist and one day he opened up a blog and shared all the information he used to and more. This is because on the web you have no limitations, no protocol to follow, also if not used this freedom correctly could become dangerous. Due to the internet many people have stopped reading the newspapers; well I mean why would they if they have the news and much more just one click away? They now even have access through their phones so why buy a newspaper when all the information you need to stay updated and even more is in the palm of your hand why hassle? This is many people’s way of thinking but they don’t realize the harm they are causing all these journalists who actually went to school got a degree and now there useless. I want to emphasize that we are not only losing journalists, but also the quality of the information we receive we can’t forget that on the web anyone can post anything no matter if there is no research or evidence to back it up. Therefore, now people who like to share information with others as a hobby with no back up or deep knowledge about a topic are taking the job away from the journalists and many not even doing it half as complete. Yet, there are some of us that are just conformed to the mediocrity, sponsoring ignorance, while making others pay the price. This situation is very well explained in the article when he states “Parasite slowly killing the host.” Everyday millions of journalists are fired or laid off because everyday people rely more on the internet giving no profit to the organizations that deserve it and work for it. I can relate this situation with what is now going on with the downloading of music and movies with programs such as lime wire, Ares, etc. Also by using the internet people think why buy a CD if they can get all the songs for free and put them into an mp3 or iPod. Technology for many has become easy, free, and handy, yet for others it is a total nightmare, an insult and disrespect towards society. Where did all our morals, principles and sense of reality drown into suddenly? I am not saying the internet is the worst thing ever invented in fact it’s a practical invention. To make a long story short we should use the internet while not harming others. So remember if you know how to use the internet there are many benefits available to you, giving you the biggest freedom of speech you could ever have just use it wisely and effectively. Lastly a solution I can think about for the newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post is instead of competing they should bond with these bloggers bloggers, for maybe together they can both benefit helping and sponsoring one another. The conclusion below really got me thinking though and I realized its really up to us…

“Needless to say, traditional news organizations continue to play a critical part in keeping the public informed. But can they adapt to the rapidly changing news environment? And who is going to pay for quality news and information in the future? I hope to address both subjects in a subsequent piece.”