SIMPLY SUPERIOR

Today In human sex I finished my collage first, because I’m am faster than the rest. My collage was the best, it was colorful and called the attention. The teacher used it as an example as I am an example of perfection. Second hour I had a French test, I wasn’t worried at all because I am smart and know it all. Obviously, I did great on it and I think I was one of the few, because that class is full of retards and slow pokes. Math, came next I am in Ap calculus because I am simply very intelligent. I had a test today, which I finished very quickly because as usual I knew all the stuff on it. Everybody whined because it was so hard, but nothing is hard for me, I can master anything, you set me up. Many of my classmates also did the questions the teacher said not to do, so they where whining because they didn’t have enough time, tough luck if they don’t know how to follow instructions. Is listening to the teacher that complex? Afterschool I had volleyball, and we played winner, a game you play by two on the court and the one who loses go to the end of the line. Obviously my team always won because they had me in it. I do it all, since the rest can’t do it, I handle any situation. I spike, I receive, I serve. I’m the best multitasker ever to exist. I am superior to the rest, I have traits enviable and desired by many, too bad there mine and I don’t share. I’m simply naturally talented: unique. I don’t care if you say im annoying, I am happy to be the way I am!

Tipical, Boring, Bold Day

Today was a weird day, we had a weird schedule, and a weird career thing. We had to do this stupid test to see what career was good for us. I found it really retarded. They basically asked you what you wanted to be in order to tell you what you would most likely like to be. Then we had like one hour classes, same old same old special schedule thingy, no one seems to understand. In lunch I played volleyball, it was fun but we lost so whatever. Afterschool I had MUN, the topic was so cliché I wasn’t interested. Then everybody started arguing and fighting over I don’t even know what, I wasn’t really paying attention. After that I had volleyball, we didn’t have the gym today, so we had to play outside with the sun in our eyes, and chasing the balls everywhere. I wasn’t in a good mood.

Later I had a power nap, I was really tired. Then a friend came to help me study for my ap calculus chapter test, I finally understood limits: it was about time. Now as always I get distracted by Facebook and can’t seem to start my homework, it sucks I have to have some more self control. I feel like I am wasting my time, yet I can’t do anything about it, oh well the day will come when I learn to handle my time.

Now I am sitting here writing my blog, really tired and with a lot of homework to do. So, I guess this was my day, nothing really out of the norm or interesting as usual. Nothing new: monotonous as always. I’m off to finish my homework now…

Not An Ordinary Volleyball Game

Today after school I got on the bus to go to a volleyball game. Since the moment I got on the bus I was anxious to play. I never had this feeling, before. I was thinking about how good I was going to play. When we arrived we started warming up, I was on fire. I would throw myself to floor no matter what, to save the ball. I was spiking really hard and with direction. I hit a ball so hard and so steep nailing it right down to the ground, as the boys did. I felt really proud of myself, after spiking it, I covered my mouth in disbelief, I couldn’t believe it was me doing that. Next we continued the warm up serving, I hit the balls straight and hard: I felt so powerful.

Finally the game began, we gathered around the coach and I knew she was going to put me in to start the game. I mean after all that amazing warm up, I wouldn’t understand if she didn’t. Usually I got really nervous in the games and sometimes even shy if I made a mistake. Due to this, I would always do half the swing when I spiked, hitting the ball softly to make sure it went in, but today I said no more. I want to make a difference: I want to make a point. So, I decided I was going to hit the ball hard and give it my best no matter what. No more this mediocrity, when I was so much better than that, it was time for me to show others and myself I was capable. That is when I asked the setter to set me the ball, she set it and bang I smashed that ball right into the ground. It was so fast and such at the perfect angle, no one in the other team had a chance to even touch it. It fell right in the cort at the blink of an eye.

Next came time for me to serve, usually in games I would get so nervous, my hand would shake and the ball would fall right in front of me, but not this time. I served five times straight, my serves were going perfectly knocking the other players one by one. Then I hit couple more balls with all my strength, making me realize I could handle my strength and put it to good use. I was hitting as good and hard as the boys, I had taken out the masculine part of me.

At the end of the game, the coach was shocked, she congratulated me and told me she knew I was that good all along, all I needed to do is risk and shake off that insercureness I once had. I felt really proud of myself, like never before. All my teammates came up to me and said wow! Great job, your hitting incredible. It felt so good, after all my confidence was worth it. I had proven myself I was capable: I was the best.

Slow Effective Poggress... Oh What A Surprise!

In these pages Brent meets all the other kids, who really have problems. He realizes he is very lucky. He says “So, between the cripples on the one side and the idiots on the other, I feel like I’m the only normal person in this place”. All the others actually have had accidents and situations they didn’t not wish for, instead Brent wanted to die. All this people struggling to survive and Brent once wanted to take his life away. How ironic?

While surrounded by all the others with problems, he realizes and values how lucky he is to be recovering so quickly. As the quote above says he feels like he is the only normal person. This Helps him realize he has to be grateful and not take things for granted.

I also believe all the support his family is giving him has helped him move on so quickly. Hi family is always there for him including his grandparents as we see here, “Hello, sweetheart. Just wanted to say a quick hello and that we miss you down here. Were just so pleased you are doing so well and can’t wait till we see you again”. By his grandma telling him this it gives him hope and strength to continue fighting his recovery. It is an inspiration for him to keep on striving to get better. Brent needs all the support he can get, so he can think better about himself and get out of this chaotic situation. His recovery is half medical and the other half his own mentality.

This quote really impacted me: it has shown that all the process he has gone through has worked. “You only get to live for such a short time anyway. It doesn’t make sense to kill yourself”. He has finally found the meaning and value of life. He a total different person he has matured so much!

Horny Fourteen Year Old

As I continue to read, it always keep popping up the fact that Brent can’t control his hormones. I understand his fourteen and he is in the process of puberty, but he’s just so horny I would say. Every girl he meets he has a sexual comment about he can’t keep to himself. Through the book we can see how much he is in love with his nurses especially Tina.

Why does the author show this side of Brent over and over again? I really don’t know, but it funny how he is worried about how he looks, because maybe Tina might think he is ugly. He isn’t worried about his health, but his looks and getting girls to like him.

I think there is much more to looks. Many of us when picking a boyfriend or a girlfriend focus mainly on looks, yet that is totally acceptable because if you don’t know the person the only impression you have is their looks, but you have to go further in and look at their heart and heir personality.

It tends to happen to me that when I meet a hot guy, he is usually an ass. It nice to be good looking, but it’s not that easy to handle. Many guys who think they are hot simply can’t handle it and think they have to be complete ass wholes in order for girls to like them. Yet not me, I can’t stand a guy who is an ass to the girls, he may be the best looking guy, but if he doesn’t know how to treat a girl, I’m not interested. There are many girls who like to be treated like shit, but not me. Therefore I believe that looks do count but it’s a mix of looks heart and personality that make a person. You have to go beyond the superficial world we live in and really value all the traits.

In the book we can see how Brent is very superficial and has the thinking of an immature horny boy. When he goes with Tina to buy ice cream he says, “Tina’s talking to the guy behind the counter. He’s older than me. I bet his thinking about her breasts. He’s probably going to ask her out, and she’ll probably say yes”. He not only shoes what dirty mind he has, but also his low self esteem.

TLS

In the book review from TLS “Mother Shudder”, Roz Kaveney talks about a very important point. As I read the first lines this quote caught my attention, “Chesterton reminds that the point of fairy tales is to show us that fears can be overcome; those critics who have attacked the book, or Henrys Selick’s new film based on it, as too terrifying for the young seem to forget that fears are phenomena from which children cannot be protected”. This is so true, and not only do children have fears but also adults. Fear is a feeling you cannot control or evade as stated in the article you can only be given tools to overcome them. He uses a common place while explaining what fear is and so on. This creates sympathy with the reader making the reader relive situations of fear, therefore connecting with the reader and gaining its interest to read the book.

In this TLS the author has a great use of style. He gives examples of stories that happen in the book, while using a lot of vividness. He narrates parts of the book, using proper language, easy to comprehend. He explains well his ideas and point of view, therefore using excellent clarity. The author really has a great sense of rhetoric making me want to read this book, maybe it’s not really good, or maybe it is, no matter the case, he does a magnificent job presenting it.

Perserverance Throughout

I was really amazed by the conversation Brent had with his mother about killing himself. Dr. Rubenstein had always told him he had to tell her. I never thought he would do it he was very assertive: No. As he speaks with his mom, he transmits to us the sadness and depressing mood.

This conversation really touched me, and made me sympathize with the scenario. I felt my heart crumble when I read, “Yes, honey, I’m sorry I didn’t know you were so sad”. She uses tautology to emphasize it isn’t his fault and she didn’t know he was so sad.

Depressing yet shocking scene shows the progress Brent has gone though. He is much more mature and can analyze things better. It has shown how he has grown, I never thought he was going to have the guts to confess to his mom it wasn’t the first time he tried to kill himself.

What he did takes real courage. To accept you did a mistake and talk about it is not easy. Being hospitalized really did help him think thoroughly the situation. I admire Brent for this. He really did change and used the tools life threw at him, to pave the way in the right direction.

He also has all the support he needs especially from his mother. She never gets tired of telling him how much she loves him. I believe this is very important in his recovery. She has been there for him throughout the whole procedure. This is really meaningful, and is what is getting Brent out of the whole he got himself into. She is his right hand helping him dig his way out. She is always telling him the importance of him in everyone life, “And know that we love you so much, and we never want to lose you”.

One More Lesson Learned

As this journal develops we can see how Brent learns the meaning to life. At the beginning he tries to kill himself in many different ways. Now at the hospital he realizes the stupidity he did. All the pain and suffering he has gone through I believe has taught him a lesson.

We can see here all he has to go through, “they’re going to cover the holes on my back and butt with skin from my hips and stomach.” Then he continues on saying, “The bad things is that they’re going to have to keep me on my stomach for ten days afterward so that I don’t screw up the new skin by lying on it”.

In the hospital I think he has discovered the meaning and the value of life. Also he has seen how much hurt he would have done to his parents, family, and friends, by taking away his life. Many depended on him to be happy, even if he doesn’t think so. He wasn’t only going to hurt himself, but many others. Life was too precious to just dispose.

It is sad that he had to learn in such a harsh way, but some of us just learn in different ways. Unfortunately Brent had to learn the hard way, but at least he learned. He should take this experience of just a lesson learned and move on with his life.

I also believe, this experience was very important for him, because it made him who he is. Without this experience he would be someone totally different, it changed his way of thinking and of looking at things in an optimistic way.

The Importance Of Connecting

While continuing to read “Burn Journals”, I came across a situation where Brent is simply tired of his psychologist. I can relate to this because personally I have felt this way. I think he feels this way because Dr. Rubenstein, his psychologist doesn’t do any effort to connect with him. This is when we go back to rhetoric and audience. She doesn’t know how to adapt to the situation, so she can't gain Brent’s trust, therefore she is unable, to obtain important information to help him.

Throughout the book he keeps on stating how much he hates her, and how she has nothing to do with him or his life. How he has no problems and she should simply back off. In this quote we can se how much he really dislikes her, “Dr.Rubenstein is here again with her annoying voice. I really don’t like her. I really don’t.” He really emphasizes how much he hates her. Therefore, she cant do her work and is being ineffective, for anything she tells Brent is going to go in from one ear and out through the other.

In order to connect with him she should have acted like his friend. As soon as she met him, all she did was question him. Sometimes even making him feel bad. She needed to create a bond, like if they were friends so he would tell her the truth and let her help him out.

Even if she is determined to help him, she can’t anymore. Brent is simply not going to cooperate with her, and for him to move on he has to help himself as well. Here we can see how Brent is simply not going to work with her, “I see how it works. If I don’t answer, shell be stuck on the first question and she won’t be able to work up on the more complicated ones”. Now using the ignoring technique, which isn’t going to take him anywhere, but he thinks it’s actually very effective. He is harming his own self!

Tax To Emphasize Obesity

September 21, 2009, 11:59 pm

An Anti-Tax Argument That’s Hard to Swallow
By Randy Cohen
The Issue
Akira Sakamoto/Gallery StockProposals to tax sugary drinks as a way to fight obesity and finance health care reform have found support from medical experts and some interest from President Obama while meeting resistance from the beverage industry in general and the Coca-Cola C.E.O. Muhtar Kent in particular. “I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink,” he told the Rotary Club of Atlanta last month. “If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.” Is this sort of argument so dubious, and does it come from the maker of products so damaging, that Muhtar Kent should be dragged off in handcuffs — or worse?

The Argument
I am an expert on neither tax policy nor nutrition, but it is worth examining a few of the arguments against taxing sugary drinks as examples of the reasoning all of us can encounter when making moral choices or weighing the issues of the day or confronting a bumptious uncle at Thanksgiving.

Muhtar Kent’s assertion is fishy because it confuses a positive and a negative. The various plans under consideration do not tell us what we should drink; they are concerned with what we should not drink — sugary beverages, what critics call “liquid candy.” Urging people not to drive short distances is different from saying they should reach the corner store by hopping. Urging people not to drink cola is different from pressuring them to drink cat pee.

And of course our government does tell people what to eat and has for years. Perhaps “tell” is too coercive a term — no federal food police pound on your door at dinnertime demanding to see your broccoli. But “strongly recommend” is apt. Kent should check out the Department of Agriculture’s food pyramid at the delightfully titled MyPyramid.gov or visit nutrition.gov where jackbooted thugs engage in tyrannical meal planning — O.K., there are no jackboots and no thuggery, but there are some tasty menus. (The recipe for cranberry-nut muffins looks delish.)

Our government, as many a nation does, also tells people what to eat in other ways, both directly, by creating menus for public-school cafeterias and military mess halls, and indirectly, influencing our diets through farm policies, tariffs, trade agreements and food regulation.

(Kent’s further assertion, his evocation of the Soviets, is entirely meretricious, deploying the familiar debater’s tactic of deprecating something by linking it to what is widely reviled. The Beatles are bad because Pol Pot liked “Hey, Jude.” Bowling is evil because Satan plays — he’s on a team with John and George.)

It is commonplace for a democracy to concern itself with the nutrition of its citizens. What is rightly and vigorously debated — by, for example, the writer Michael Pollan, the documentary film “Food, Inc.,” the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association or the American Academy Of Pediatrics — is not if government should involve itself in such things, but how. That’s politics in the best sense.

Kevin W. Keane, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Beverage Association, says it is wrongheaded to single out soda: “When it comes to losing weight, all calories count, regardless of the food source.” This is specious, akin to saying that when I have only partial responsibility, I have no responsibility. If I was the triggerman on that bank job, I couldn’t beg for a break because I wasn’t also the lookout and the getaway driver and the caterer. (Are bank robberies catered? Must you pack a lunch? A very healthful lunch?)

Assuredly, many factors affect our weight. But it doesn’t follow that because a policy fails to address all of them, it should not address any. That the feds devote few resources to going after counterfeiters who mint fake quarters doesn’t mean they should decline to pursue those who run off $20 bills.

What’s more, the multiple causes of a problem need not share equal significance. Studies suggest that sugary beverages are a key contributor to obesity. In its analysis, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that “Americans consume about 250-300 more daily calories today than they did several decades ago, and nearly half of this increase reflects greater consumption of high-sugar soft drinks.” So there’s a case to be made for giving serious consideration to a soda tax even if other steps are not taken.

Such errors of reasoning might be seen as intellectual, not moral, failings, but it is difficult to extend that benefit of the doubt to Americans Against Food Taxes, which describes itself as “a coalition of concerned citizens — responsible individuals, financially strapped families, small and large businesses in communities across the country.” As was reported in The Times, A.A.F.T. looks like a veiled industry organization; calls to a media contact listed on the group’s Web site go to the American Beverage Association. This smells like Astroturf, or corporate lobbyists posing as a grass-roots organization. It is entirely suitable for interested parties to participate in public debate; it is not suitable to conceal who’s doing the debating.

Now, I, too, engaged in some forensic high jinks, I’ll admit. There are no actual proposals out there that call for a guillotine to be erected on the Washington Mall and for Muhtar Kent’s head to be separated from his. But to pose the question as I did is not deceit but a rhetorical device: I assume that readers recognize hyperbole. Of course Kent should not be executed. Most moralists agree that a punishment must be proportional to the transgression (although it’s often hard to agree on the terms). Nor should Kent even be imprisoned. I’d reserve that penalty for those who produce inarguably toxic products — the senior executives of tobacco companies, for instance. But it would be a fine thing if Kent and his cohort were ordered into a class on critical thinking, much as a traffic-court judge can send recalcitrant speeders to driver-improvement school.

This article talks about whether or not the government should place taxes on sugary drinks, to reduce obesity. Some believe it might actually work yet others believe the government shouldn’t tell them what to drink or not.
I believe this is a very effective method. We have to face it more than half the people in the U.S.A suffer from overweight. It is not only their problem, but it also becomes the government’s issue, when they have to cover all the problems due to obesity.

Nowhere are they forcing you or telling you what you should drink, it is just a method to make you take into account how sodas are simply really bad for your health. You still have the option to buy it or not, therefore it doesn’t go against any right or moral.

People are arguing mainly because the government is telling them what to do, yet the truth is it has done so for years. They do it in a way where it doesn’t violate any rights, yet influence you and your thinking. This quote explains it very well, “Our government, as many a nation does, also tells people what to eat in other ways, both directly, by creating menus for public-school cafeterias and military mess halls, and indirectly, influencing our diets through farm policies, tariffs, trade agreements and food regulation.”

I don’t see anything bad with taxing sugary drinks, the government is helping Americans, who simply don’t have the self will and can’t take care of themselves alone. They shouldn’t take this against the government because the only thing the government is trying to do is help them. Soda is actually really bad, and by placing a tax on it many might think twice before buying it, and if they buy it they will be aware it is not good for them. This causing them a guilty sensation.

In this quote we can see how bad soda really is, “Americans consume about 250-300 more daily calories today than they did several decades ago, and nearly half of this increase reflects greater consumption of high-sugar soft drinks.” Many aren’t aware if this, and it is time to be concerned about your health: it is what we all depend on to live.

Failed Failure

In “The Burn Journals” first fifty pages we are driven into the life of an eighth grader. H e is not a common eight grader, yet a rebel with many problems. He steals, begins to fail all his classes, does arson attacks, and tries to kill himself in various ways.

The style Brent Runyon uses makes the book very interesting to read. It is written in familiar diction, therefore using language similar to the one teens use in their daily lives. By using this language with words such as what sup? Fuck, dude and so on the writer reaches a common place. While reading this book I got very intrigued and wanted to continue reading, for it uses proper language making it very easy to understand, while using a lot of vividness to describe the situations. For example, when he is in the hospital he describes every single detail, creating a mental picture for the reader and making you feel like you are part of what is happening. This book really stirred up my emotions.

The main topic is basically suicide. We can see Brent has a lot of problems, he doesn’t know how to deal with so he turns out and tries to run away from them by committing suicide. He tries several different ways and doesn’t achieve it. It isn’t until the day he is all burnt in the hospital with his family and letters and cards from his friends that he realizes life is very valuable and there is a meaning to life. There is no point in committing suicide. Life is precious and we shouldn’t take it for granted.

His reasons for killing himself are very stupid from my point of view. Here we can see when Brent is talking to his psychologist and she asks him, what were the reasons for his attempt to commit suicide, he replies, “Once was before they caught me for stealing school supplies in algebra. And another time when my parents were about to find out about me failing science.” This we can infer is a kid who lives his life scared. Is it really worth it dying to no get punished are the consequences of this actions worst than it can be taking you life away? I believe taking your life away is not the answer to any problem no matter how big or small!

"All the Nice Girls"

This TLS book review Current affairs by Sarah Curtis is very well written. She has a lot of sense of style. It is a short but concise summary about the book "All the Nice Girls". It is written for a broad range of audiences, one for students like me. She uses proper language, for she uses formal words but not to eloquent. The word choice is challenging, but readable with context clues. It’s not easy or hard: it’s just right. She does use clarity as she narrates the story, she clears up any doubts the uses good sentence structure with a combination of straightforward rhetoric. Vividness or visibility is also used by the author as she narrates parts of the book. She does this with many details creating an image of the situation. For example “She evokes the bleak landscapes scarred by bombing and the great orange glow of Manchester burning in the distance.” Another example where the author uses vividness is “She sympathetically portrays the situation of women of the era, especially the dedicated spinster teachers, dressed in hand-knitted jumpers and sensible skirts, except for the elegant headmistress, Cynthia Maitland. Both of these situations are well described making it easy for me to picture the scene. This examples show a good use of vividness. Decorum which is the act of fitting in with your audience is also applied in this article. As she is formal enough but, not too sophisticated for me to say: Boring…Next! In other words, it gives you information about a book, yet keeping in mind the use of decorum to sympathize with the reader. The only element of style the author doesn’t use is ornament. She doesn’t use any cleverness, she is more in the norm.

This looks like an interesting book to read. The author makes it seem very attractive and it gives me the feeling of I want to read it. Great use of rhetoric there Sarah!

Our Right

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 17, 2009
Editorial
Freedom of the Press
Congress and President Obama face a test Thursday of their commitment to freedom of the press and to holding government accountable. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider a proposed federal shield law that would protect the public’s right to learn vital information about the workings of its government. But some senators are trying to weaken the bill, and the White House has sent mixed signals.

It is critical that the committee approves a strong version of the law to ensure that the news media are free to report news obtained from confidential sources.

Without the ability of reporters and news organizations to protect confidential sources, many important reports about illegal, incompetent or embarrassing behavior that the government is determined to conceal would never see the light of day. In recent years, the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the secret C.I.A. prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorists and warrantless wiretapping all came to light through the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

If reporters can be hauled into court and forced to reveal their sources, it makes it hard for them to gain the trust of people who have information that the public needs to know, and it makes it hard for their news organizations to publish or broadcast those reports.

The bipartisan bill is backed by Senators Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania; Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York; Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina; and others. It would establish a calibrated right of reporters not to reveal the name of confidential sources. It already contains many conditions and qualifications to protect national security. For example, it expressly does not cover information gained from terrorists and agents of foreign powers.

A question for the senators in committee is whether to retain a balancing test on national security. A draft version of the bill provides that in leaks of information related to national security, a judge must weigh the security interest against the public’s interest in learning the information. The news media would not always prevail, but it would give them a chance to make the case before a judge that their sources should be protected.

As a senator, Mr. Obama was an outspoken supporter of a federal shield law, and he co-sponsored a strong bill. On the campaign trail, he said a shield law was important to ensure that there is appropriate oversight over the government. Judges, he said, are generally pretty good at weighing the competing interests.

As president, Mr. Obama’s position has been harder to discern. He has been disappointingly protective of executive branch prerogatives on issues like detainee policies and the state secrets doctrine. The administration has been sending mixed signals on the shield law, but there have been recent indications that it may yet weigh in with senators in favor of a good bill.

We hope it does. Many believe that the First Amendment and the right to free speech are all that are necessary to ensure a robust press and the free exchange of ideas. But the right to collect important information, and to protect the sources who provide it, is also vital.


This op-ed is mainly about passing a bill dealing with the first amendment: freedom of speech. It is a Bill protecting the press, for information they expose to the public, which is confidential. As stated in the article, “It is critical that the committee approves a strong version of the law to ensure that the news media are free to report news obtained from confidential sources.” I agree with this law 100 percent, for we should not be kept from knowing the truth. Many times the government lies to us, and twists information to make us believe something else. The press usually reveals this information, for it is shocking and gains an enormous amount of attention. As it is clearly explained in this quote, “many important reports about illegal, incompetent or embarrassing behavior that the government is determined to conceal would never see the light of day.” If they aren’t going to tell us the truth, we somebody else needs to do this job, in this case the press.

As stated in the article a great example is the one about the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the secret C.I.A. prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorists and warrantless wiretapping. All this cases were revealed through unauthorized sources. The question is why do they want to hide anything from us? We need to know the truth for we trust these sources and we expect them to be loyal to us. Why we are not allowed to know about, what deals with our daily lives? Why should we be kept living in a bubble? Is our government that corrupt and terrible that we can’t know what is going on?

This bill would also “It would establish a calibrated right of reporters not to reveal the name of confidential sources”. This is done in order for reporters to obtain the trust needed to gain the information and also so they can’t be taken to court and forced to reveal their sources, which is very important to keep that trust with the sources.

I do agree we should know the truth as explained here, “Many believe that the First Amendment and the right to free speech are all that are necessary to ensure a robust press and the free exchange of ideas”.

A Bussinesman Beaten Up By His Collegues: Numbers.

Tuesday, 28 April 2009
On giving 100 percent

This week my phone has been overworked because apparently Alan Sugar fires people who say they are giving a job '110 percent'. He's evidently got the impression that the English language only allows people to get up to 100, in terms of percentages.

I was surprised to hear that, coming from a businessman, who is presumably used to seeing shares going up by 200 percent, and such like. There's nothing mathematically wrong with going over 100. But of course what he's getting at (and failing to recognize) is a recent change in usage. It's a kind of semantic inflation, which (it occurs to me) is a bit like the discussion on this blog a while back about '1000 apologies'.

In its figurative usage, 100 percent always meant a notional maximum: one gave up to 100 percent of one's effort, and could give no more. Now the meaning has altered: 100 percent has come to mean 'the norm, the usual level'. 110 percent thus means, '10 percent more than what ordinary people do, or what has been someone's norm hitherto'. 200 percent means 'twice as much'. And so on. I'd expect Alan Sugar to be pleased that someone has expressed the desire to make that extra effort, not to dismiss it.

I've heard 500 percent, 1000 percent, and other values in recent times. Clearly the numbers are not important: it's the rhetoric that counts. And people seem to need the rhetoric. If a football team makes a greater effort than normal, managers routinely compliment them by raising the percentages. Of course, if such phrases become frequent, they turn into cliches, and lose their meaning. But that is precisely what Alan Sugar should have probed. Was his candidate thinking of what he was saying? If I'd been Sugar, I wouldn't have automatically dismissed the 10 percent as a 'waste', I'd have asked the candidate how exactly he would have improved on his previous performance by that amount, and judged him on the quality of his response.


David Crystals article above talks mainly about how this businessman fires his workers who say they give 110 percent. When I read this it really caught my attention for how more ironic can this get? Firing someone for exceeding the standards with no criteria what so ever. This is insane. Apparently, Alan Sugar being a businessman wasn’t to logical. Numbers chased him down.

David explains Alan’s point of view, Alan believes 100 percent is the maximum level, therefore he believed: one who said they did 110 percent was full of bs. Apparently he hasn’t analyzed the logic out of it, 110 percent means exceeding the normal. It is doing extra, yes I do agree with David Crystal he should have asked the worker to justify his answer and accordingly he would make the decision, whether or not to fire him. Yet, he immediately fired him. With no hesitation at all. I would have done exactly as David says “I wouldn't have automatically dismissed the 10 percent as a 'waste', I'd have asked the candidate how exactly he would have improved on his previous performance by that amount, and judged him on the quality of his response.”

As David says “ Now the meaning has altered: 100 percent has come to mean 'the norm, the usual level'. 110 percent thus means, '10 percent more than what ordinary people do, or what has been someone's norm hitherto'. 200 percent means 'twice as much'. And so on.” This explains clearly the logic of one saying, I did 110 percent, for to Alan it is not so clear.

Believe it or not numbers many times are meaningless, for if you don’t have a standard of comparison they are pointless. As David states in his blog “Clearly the numbers are not important: it's the rhetoric that counts. And people seem to need the rhetoric.” The question is what does ten percent extra mean to this worker? What are the benchmarks of that extra work? Do you consider 100 percent the same as I do? You have to look at the bigger picture, why ten percent more? That is what Alan should have asked instead of committing such psycho act.

Mutating And Adapting

Out of all the various different techniques the one I consider the most important is style. Style is everything, it is what kind of words you use, what tone, and so on. Therefore, depending on the audience you have to be able to adapt for each circumstance. Doing so is not easy at all, but once you have master it, rhetoric becomes so much easier.

As Heinrich states “In the modern sense of style, we want to stand out from the crowd; in rhetorical sense, we want to fit in”. As we can infer, in order to gain credibility we must make the audience notice us, and also fit in with them, for if they empathize with you it becomes easier to persuade.

The first element in style is the use of proper language. According to your audience you must pick adequate words that suit the occasion. As Aristotle says this very true remark “which makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences.” What do you get by using sophisticated words, your audience doesn’t understand? Yes, you might show off your intelligence, but what is your goal to show off or persuade?

Next comes clarity. It is referred to as using concise and to the point information to get your point across. Say what you need to say and not bore the audience. The clearer you are the more credibility you gain, for no one can misunderstand your point.

Vividness or visibility is by the use of words paint the audience a picture of what you want them to see. By using anecdotes and details empathize with your audience and make them feel in their comfort zone.

Decorum is simply fitting in. Act according to your audience to gain points and make them feel like they are similar to you, therefore so can your view points.
Lastly, the use of ornament is mainly cleverness of your words. Saying information that will get the audience thinking, even if it means doubting. This is a step forward and little by little with a good combination of style , you can reach your final destination.

Style is essential for, it is like a prescription it might work for you but not for her. Some strategies work for certain groups, so according to your audience you have to mutate and adapt to your surrounding in order to survive!

The Right Time: At The Right Place: The Right Combination!

“It must have been egregious; Mom was not the joking type.”
Egregious: Conspicuously bad or offensive

Chapter twenty one is all about patience and timing. It mentions Kairos all over the place. So, really what is kairos? This quote explains it very clearly,” A person with kairos knows how to spot when an audience is most vulnerable to her point of view, and then exploit the opportunity.” This is exactly the main point of this chapter, it is finding the audiences weak point and then using rhetoric to accomplish the goal. When is the time right? It is when there is a time of uncertainty, change or need. You can figure this out by the mood and when you challenge the audience beliefs making them doubt. This is when your time to shine comes in to brainwash them and make them believe your point of view.

“When the evidence challenges the commonplace, beliefs begin to migrate, and you have a persuadable moment.”

When, you can get your audience to doubt or to open themselves to other points of view you have done a huge step forward, now they are more vulnerable to what you are telling them. This is the time to persuade for, everything they gather is processed and analyzed not just ignored. It is the moment to take action.

The key of this technique is timing. For example it can get as obvious as when you want to ask you parents for money, you aren’t going to ask them while they are view your horrible report card. You might ask them after showing them an accomplishment you are really proud of, or even when they have a lot of money in their wallet. By doing this you increase the chances of them giving you or not giving you money.
To every occasion there is a time and place accordingly. By learning to identify the perfect timing we can reach immense desires.

In Chapter twenty two it talks mainly about medium. When Heinrich talks about medium he means mainly the appropriate for the situation. “The medium can make or break a persuasive moment.” This shows the importance of choosing the right medium.
In other words, you have to watch out for saying the right thing in the right time. This is the recipe to succeed while persuading someone.

Who Would Have Thought Being Locked Up Could Be The Only Way To Stay Alive...

September 13, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Body Count at Home
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
In the debate over health care, here’s an inequity to ponder: Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber.

Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.

In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T. R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, “The Healing of America.” Some 80 percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor’s care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care.

As Mr. Reid recounts, Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition. She spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought might be able to help. She fought tenaciously for her life.

Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent six months in critical care.

“When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her,” her step-father, Tony Deal, told me. “But that’s not when she needed the care.”

By then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. “Nikki didn’t die from lupus,” her doctor, Amylyn Crawford, told Mr. Reid. “Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system.”

“She fell through the cracks,” Nikki’s mother, Gail Deal, told me grimly. “When you bury a child, it’s the worst thing in the world. You never recover.”

We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour.

That’s how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths.

After Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every two months, that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance — and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing?

Mr. Reid’s book is a rich tour of health care around the world. Because he has a bum shoulder, he asked doctors in many countries to examine it and make recommendations. His American orthopedist recommended a titanium shoulder replacement that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might or might not help. Specialists in other countries warned that a sore shoulder didn’t justify the risks of such major surgery, although some said it would be available free if Mr. Reid insisted. Instead, they offered physical therapy, acupuncture and other cheap and noninvasive alternatives, some of which worked pretty well.

That’s a window into the flaws in our health care system: we offer titanium shoulder replacements for those who don’t really need them, but we let 32-year-old women die if they lose their health insurance. No wonder we spend so much on medical care, and yet have some health care statistics that are worse than Slovenia’s.

My suggestion for anyone in Nikki’s situation: commit a crime and get locked up. In Washington State, a 20-year-old inmate named Melissa Matthews chose to turn down parole and stay in prison because that was the only way she could get treatment for her cervical cancer. “If I’m out, I’m going to die from this cancer,” she told a television station.

Mr. and Mrs. Deal say they are speaking out because Nikki wouldn’t want anyone to endure what she did. “Nikki was a college-educated, middle-class woman, and if it could happen to her, it can happen to anyone,” Mr. Deal said. “This should not be happening in our country.”

Struggling to get out the words, Mrs. Deal added: “The loss of a child is the greatest hurt anyone will ever suffer. Because of the circumstances she endured with the health care system, I lost my daughter.”

Complex arguments are being batted around in this health care debate, but the central issue isn’t technical but moral. The first question is simply this: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can’t get health insurance? Is that really us?

“Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber.”

This being the first sentence truly impacted me. How could you rather be convicted and be better off? I tried thinking about it, and there was really no answer logically I could think about.

This article talks about Nikky young women, with a chronic disease. For, this disease impared her to work. Therefore, she lost her job and her health insurance.
This is when it hit me, if she was a prisoner she would have been provided with the care needed, but since she wasn’t and lost her job she was screwed. She did everything she could to get help, yet no insurance would accept her with this condition. This sentence really shocked me

“She fought tenaciously for her life.”

Why did she have to suffer and go through all this, when a criminal who did have to pay the consequences for their action, didn’t? Was this really fair? Why would a criminal be treated better than an innocent hardworking person?

This just adds up to my theory of the illogical world we live in. It wasn’t until one day she collapsed in her house, and then she was immediately taken care of, without any hesitation.

My question is why do we have to wait for something serious to happen to take action? Why couldn’t they have done the same long before?
“and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her,” her step-father, Tony Deal, said, “But that’s not when she needed the care.”

Why did she have to suffer all along, why couldn’t they take action before it was too late? She died at the age of 32, therefore thousands of dollars just wasted away. If she was going to need them anyway, why didn’t they spend them when it was actually going to be worth it?

Amylyn Crawford, told Mr. Reid. “Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system.”

How can we have such a horrifying health care system? We worry about all the deaths or at least we act like we are and then don’t do anything about it when we can save a life?

This quote speaks for itself,
“After Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every two months, that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance — and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing?”

It is an ironic world we live in, there is just no justification for this happen. Doesn’t this tell us enough info to infer there is something wrong with the health care system? How can something so absurd happen in such a rich and powerful country?
This reflects the ineffective healthcare system we have, “That’s a window into the flaws in our health care system: we offer titanium shoulder replacements for those who don’t really need them, but we let 32-year-old women die if they lose their health insurance.”

Can we really be that ignorant to continue to let this happen? It is time to do something about it. For, from this we can infer that it is better to be a criminal get locked up and at least you will be taken care of. Committing a crime may not be so bad after all, it could actually save your life, so why not?

You might say to yourself,yeah right like if anybody would do that. Yet, it’s the reality of this absurd unpractical health care system. A clear example of this is Melissa Mathews, who was on parole, yet she insisted in going to jail for she would be treated her cervical cancer, outside of jail she would simply die.

Therefore, there is only one question to ask ourselves, “Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can’t get health insurance? Is that really us?”

Life really isnt fair , but are we just gonna sit there and watch Nikkys die? Do we enjoy watching millions of people die right infront of us, knowing we could have save them? Do we love our people so much that watching them die doesnt bother us? What kind of heart do we obtain, if we have one at all?

It’s really up to us to continue to watch people die or keep them alive.

Equality According To Whom?

September 13, 2009
Editorial
The Rights of Gay Employees
It is remarkable how little progress gay people have made in securing the basic protection against discrimination on the job. In 29 states, it is still legal to fire workers for being gay. But momentum is building in Congress for the first federal law banning such discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Federal law has lagged behind the reality of American life. There are now openly gay members of Congress from between-the-coasts states like Colorado and Wisconsin. And according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies have policies protecting gay employees from discrimination.

But gay rights advocates have for years faced opposition to a federal civil rights law from the religious right, and from parts of the business community, who argue that it would lead to a flood of litigation.

Bipartisan bills have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, modeled on existing civil rights laws that cover race, religion and sex. Unlike some past bills, these include gender identity, protecting transgender people from discrimination.

The bills were written to meet some of the concerns of opponents. The law would not apply to religious organizations, or to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. It would not allow for quotas or “disparate impact” lawsuits, which generally use statistical disparities to prove discrimination.

There is reason for cautious optimism. In 2007, the House passed a nondiscrimination law that did not cover transgender people. The current Congress is more Democratic, and even in the past two years, gay rights have made significant strides. As states and localities have passed antidiscrimination laws, it has been clear that they do not disrupt the workplace, and they have not resulted in an enormous number of lawsuits.

Supporters in the House think they have the votes. The biggest hurdle is likely to be winning the support of 60 senators, the de facto number now required for most legislation because of filibuster rules.

People who believe in workplace fairness should lobby senators to get on board. It is unacceptable that in a nation committed to equality people can still be fired in more than half the states for being gay. Congressional leaders should make passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a top priority.


After reading this article I was very puzzled. It talks mainly about how gay employees are being discriminated. I personally don’t like gay people, but I believe they shouldn’t be discriminated till a certain degree. When they start talking about a workplace and getting fired, there is a side of me that says its right but then another part of me makes me believe its wrong.

I do understand being gay is against nature, yet many people are, and some just can’t help it. I personally feel uncomfortable around them, yet if you were to put yourself in their shoes and understand their point of view, I believe there is no justification for being gay. Yet, by firing gay people it only creates chaos.

We have to face it, we live in a world full of hate and discrimation, where if you are not societies standard you are screwed. So, if we fire all the gay people what are they going to work in? We have to go further and analyze this scenario. If they don’t have a job, how are they going to react? We are all human and need certain resources to survive, so how will they obtain their necessities? Yes, I do agree they can be a distraction in the work place, but as long as their gay characteristics don’t affect their workplace they should not be fired.

If we fire all the gay people, in order to obtain their necessities they will start stealing or just relying on our government, when others who can’t work really need the money. Firing gay people doesn’t resolve the problem, it may momentarily but the consequences will be of greater effect.

When I read this “It is unacceptable that in a nation committed to equality people can still be fired in more than half the states for being gay.”I don’t understand how the United States Of America the country of the free there is discrimant act being tolerated and as stated not in some but more than half the country.

Therefore, I believe gay people like any other human being should be allowed to work, for at least they are working and not on the streets committing crimes. They should be fired if their gayness interferes with their job. For, the U.S is known for its freedom and equality, so much for that reputation, but really where did all those principles dissolve into? Do we want gays just wandering in the streets? Are we going to assume the consequences?

Sympathy

As I read Chapters nineteen and twenty, many techniques were bombarded, yet the one that most called for my attention was the verbing method.

I believe this is the one that most caught my attention, for I can relate to it in my everyday life. This is a perfect example of what is talked in Chapter nineteen. As Heinrich states, “If they’re for it, there in. If they’re against it they’re out.” This is the identity strategy, which is the biggest tool of manipulation. We see it in our everyday lives. This is the strategy used by most advertisiers, politicians, and salespeople and so on. Society’s beliefs are what we live by, most of us are affected by the trends, the fashion, and the culture of our surroundings. Off course, everybody wants to be in and fit in, yet have you ever asked yourself who decides what is in or not? That is why this is such a great tool of manipulation, we are restrained to a certain standard of life, which is what it is believed by many to be normal.

Yet, what is normal? Normal to you may be different to him or her. It depends on the definition you give it and adapt to it. In many places around the world it is normal to eat insects and bugs, here it is normal to eat meat, which is sacred to many others. So, this proves Heinrichs theory when he says, “Ideas become beliefs when people identify with them.” This is when you can see the different cultures or groups and stick with the one you fit in, due to that emotional and physical stability. So, in order to help turn an idea into a belief you must connect with your audience, therefore creating an unbreakable bond.

Towards the end of Chapter twenty, when the author starts talking about verbing, the inventing of words by turning verbs into nouns or nouns into verbs, really caught my attention. I then asked myself, out of all the many techniques exposed, why did the last one really get me hooked? After analyzing the situation, it is a technique I see and use in my daily life. Therefore, it is easy to sympathize with and made me remember of funny situations with my friends. By using a commonplace the author persuades me to continue reading and agree with him.

Especially in my generation, verbing became a daily thing. Many may say it’s for lazy mediocre, but for me it just makes life easier, for it is just practical. For example with my friends we say “chilear” which comes from chilling out or “chilea” which come from chill out. They are very similar words yet, with different meanings according to the situation.

Verbing is strongly disliked by language conservatives, but as stated in this book “Verbing weirds language.” Shakespeare loved this technique: he exceeded more than 21,000 words by weirding language. For, I don’t see why not be creative if others can understand you and create a strong bond.

Also, Heinrich talks about the word “Like” I think it is the word most used by teens now days. I personally thought it was not eloquent to use, it sounds very informal, yet like everything you have to know how and when to use it. This quote explains very well how to use like, “It impacts language wellness. But we shouldn’t banish the place-filling like altogether.” So, depending on the purpose of the like it can benefit you. A simple word like “like” is a meaningless word you can give a meaning to. So, learn how to use, and when to use because it is this generations place filler.

Absurd

September 8, 2009
Editorial
Vague Cyberbullying Law
Lori Drew acted grotesquely if, as prosecutors charged, she went online and bullied her daughter’s classmate, a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide. A federal court was right, however, to throw out her misdemeanor convictions recently. The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules, are too vague to be constitutional.

Many people were understandably horrified at the story of Megan Meier’s death. The Drews and Meiers were neighbors in O’Fallon, Mo. Prosecutors charged that Ms. Drew was part of a conspiracy that set up a MySpace profile for a fictional 16-year-old named Josh Evans and posted a photograph of a boy without his knowledge. That violated MySpace’s terms of service.

“Josh” flirted with Megan, according to prosecutors, then said he was moving away. Finally, he told her he no longer liked her and that “the world would be a better place without [her] in it.” After Megan committed suicide, Ms. Drew allegedly had the account deleted.

The jury acquitted Ms. Drew of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but convicted her of accessing a computer without proper authorization in violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Her crime was, in essence, violating MySpace’s terms of service.

As Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California rightly held, a federal law that makes violating a Web site’s terms of service a crime is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires laws to contain “relatively clear guidelines as to prohibited conduct.” Ms. Drew’s conviction fails this test. The average users of any Web site has no reason to believe they are breaking federal law by violating terms of service.

It is also unclear which violations will be prosecuted. MySpace prohibits many things, including knowingly providing false or misleading information. It is hard to believe that people who lie about their age, weight or physical appearance are guilty of a federal crime.

Lawmakers should enact laws that can withstand challenge to give prosecutors tools to go after bullying of all kinds. What prosecutors cannot do is stretch federal law to label run-of-the-mill Internet activity as criminal.

First of, why in the world would a mom cyber bully a thirteen year old? I really cant explain why , but the truth is it happened. Yet, this is not the worst part of the issue: the thirteen year old ended up committing suicide. You would think this mom would actually go to jail or pay the consequences, yet ironically with all the laws, there isn’t one to accuse her. How in the world is there no law of such shocking act?

“The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules are too vague to be constitutional.”
How can crimes of such intensity, not have consequences?
From this, we can conclude there is something going on with the penal system of the United States. This mother indirectly killed a child and nothing is going to be done about it. In other words it’s okay to cyber bully even to the extent of driving someone to commit suicide?How can there be a consequence for shoplifting, but not for conducing someone to commit suicide?

As Judge George H. Wu says“a federal law that makes violating a Web site’s terms of service a crime is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires laws to contain “relatively clear guidelines as to prohibited conduct.”

If this is the case then why aren’t there any clear guidelines? What is this mediocre world we live in? We expect everything to work as desired, but don’t do anything about such great importance circumstances.
Now that it happened, I believe it’s time we take action. That child deserves protection and the right to life!

Drug Legalization

http://web.ebscohost.com/src/detail?vid=5&hid=8&sid=0d6d2fa8-cb2a-49c9-acc9-e68854b4b866%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9c3JjLWxpdmU%3d#db=mih&AN=33378528

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918725,00.html?cnn=yes

From Winning A Meanigless Argument With Your Parents: To Becoming The President Of The United States.

What really is the job of a seller? Have you ever asked yourself? Have you sorted out the situation when you are being offered a product? Many of us when offered a product believe everything we are told. We never actually stop and think what the person’s goal is. Many sellers if not all, will drown your brain with the art of putting words together, that sound too good to be true. Therefore, when encountered with these situations the sellers target is to find out “what the audience really needs, and what the issue really is.”

After having found that out, the seller will use the identity strategy discussed in Chapter 18. “It starts with getting the audience to bond with one another, and to see you as its ideal leader.” In this case, the audience is the client and the seller has to portray themselves as a leader to gain credibility. This special bond is what makes your client feel comfortable, and believe the product you are selling is not a spam. A great way of connecting with your audience is by code grooming. This is when you use a certain symbol or code to connect with you audience: identify with them.

When selling a product, it is very important to choose carefully which words to use where. This is due to the fact that certain words give the audience a certain impression. These words are the ones that stick in peoples mind, and they decide whether or not the product is sold. After all the babbling of a sales person these are the words that remain in the client’s brain. If these words are strong enough, you have accomplished your goal and most likely the person will buy the product.
Also, another strong key in rhetoric’s is repetition. Yes, it is plane boring, but the effectivity of it is enormous. Even though, we each are capable of believing what we want to believe, repetition drains information into our heads and slowly makes us believe what we are hearing. It is for example with subliminal messages they attack our unconscious brain, therefore making it inevitable to restrain from believing what we are told.

Lastly, we learned about reverse words. “Repeating the words that mean the opposite of what hurts your case.” This is when you play around with words to make your argument sound more pleasant. It is choosing words, which create a desired mood for your audience.

Heinrich gives a great example comparing Bush’s and John Kerry’s strategy to win the presidential elections. “John Kerry lost the election in part because he tried to win his arguments while Bush focused on identity.” Therefore, it’s not about proving yourself right: it’s about influencing others to believe you are right.

Hence, if the president of the United States got elected through the use of rhetoric and its techniques, it surely is an effective method! This book has proven, knowing how to argue and using the techniques to persuade your audience can help you on a daily basis, from convincing your parents, to convincing a whole nation and becoming the president of the United States Of America.

Vocabulary

"A far more sage person is my friend Dick."

Sage: Having or exhibiting wisdom and calm judgment.

Vocab

“This is where the term sophistry comes from, and how rethoric got its less than stellar reputation.

Sophistry: the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading.








Stellar: outstanding








In rethoric, its actually kosher to use many of them in your own arguments.


Kosher: allowed







“While it is important to know how to spot and answer a logical fallacy, if you limit yourself to simply pointing them out, your opponents will clobber you.”



Clobber: To defeat decisively







“ We had franks and beans, and you don’t see me clamoring for weenies during the holidays.”



Clamoring: a vehement expression of discontent or protest.







“ A more insidious kind of humiliation comes in the smiling guise of innuendo.”



Innuendo: an insulting hint

Fiding Our Identity

When I look at this logo, which now identifies Colombia worldwide I get this positive vibe. As you can see the technique as using red which contrast great with white. Red is the color which most appeals and catches the attention of the human eye.

When sorting out this logo, I not only see a heart, for it’s no ordinary heart, it is a unique dancing heart. It transmits to me the happiness and the passion there is in Colombia. Also by using the word passion, which is a very strong word and is very similar in English and Spanish, people feel the strength of it, and stirs up emotions of happiness, passion, and excitement. It is slowly becoming a commonplace worldwide, therefore changing the reputation Colombia had for many years. As you can read in my Juan Valdez blog entry, it is fully explained.

This powerful symbol represents all the beauties and honors of Colombia. If you want to know more about Colombia and all its attributes, watch this short yet concise video about Colombia. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXtvGsYS0UM&feature=related)

This symbol, mainly uses the ethos technique, it is all about the reputation of Colombia and its Colombians. It is used to transfer the message of how Colombians are full of passion, for they are happy hardworking, honest people. Just by using the word passion in italics with the exclamation, it makes me feel the excitement and the optimistic view they want the world to see.

Also, pathos is used by displaying the heart. The heart is a worldwide symbol recognized everywhere as love. It portrays many different points, for example how Colombia is a country full of love and caring people, also how Colombia has many valuable resources and people that make others feel the love Colombia deserves amongst many others. It is a symbol you can deduce however you want, yet it holds only for positive interpretations. This symbol exposes the uniqueness of this country for, there are many amazing things you can’t imagine, you can’t find anywhere but in Colombia.

This campaign is a trademark, which is selling Colombia and its beauty worldwide. It has done an excellent job and slowly, but surely we will finally get the positive attention we deserved a while ago With the use of pathos and ethos Colombia is beginning to flourish, and swimming out of all the negative gossip Colombia was once talked about.

This logo is very optimistic, therefore transmitting only the positive vibe we want the world to see.

Combat and Defend...Husband And Wife!

Moving on with more tips on arguing, we are introduced a new topic: different types of logic. When arguing we should use enthymemes, which transmits a subliminal message. The audience then can use inductive or deductive techniques to infer the message. “You believe this, so you should do that.” This is an explanation of what the enthymemes do to the audience. Using logos it makes them believe what you want them to believe.

“You can combine deduction and induction to make an especially strong argument.” So, what is deduction and induction? Deductive logic is when you start with something general like a commonplace and then switches it to specifics, to reach a conclusion. For example if I say all women are brave, then by deduction I can assume my mom is brave, for she is a woman. Inductive logic is the opposite when you start out specific and then go more general to prove a premise or conclusion. For example when you go to the doctor and he asks your symptoms, and then tells you have the swine flu. Depending on the situation you decide which one to use.

Yet, when deducting information you must be very careful not to collide with a fallacy. Fallacies are misleading information. They are everywhere, and that is why it is very important to identify them. “You can commit fallacies to your heart’s content, as long as you get away with them.” This quote explains the importance of identifying fallacies, and not falling for them. Yet, using them can get you to succeed in your argument.

Knowing how to identify them, not only helps you win an argument, but to defend yourself. For example, when your parents answer back with something that has nothing to do with the topic, in order to get away with whatever it is that they believe. This is called reduction ad absurdum. As you can see, it is self explanatory, instead of a valid argument they turn to total absurdity. When the little boy argues about how all the other parents drive their kids to school and she doesn’t, mom replies “What if all the other children’s parents told them to jump off a cliff? Would you follow?” As you can see one thing has nothing to do with the other and if the child is smart enough they can use this opportunity to make their parents look like fools.

Fallacies surround us, they are very dangerous, but when we know how to handle them they can work in our favor. So, learning to identify them, sort information out and use it, is the main key. Then we can use our inductive and deductive knowledge, to win an argument.

I believe, Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen were very interesting. They introduced us to a whole new different topic. Now, not only do they teach you how to combat your audience, but also how to defend yourself. Which, I believe is as equally as important, because if you can’t defend yourself, no matter how strong you are, you will get defeated. This is a new topic, which I appreciate because I was getting bored of the same repetition of how to win an argument. This is such a great book that when you are getting tired of it, it hooks you back on. So, far I have found this book very practical and pleasurable to read.

Killing People To Show People Killing Is Wrong?

September 1, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Innocent but Dead
By BOB HERBERT
There is a long and remarkable article in the current New Yorker about a man who was executed in Texas in 2004 for deliberately setting a fire that killed his three small children. Rigorous scientific analysis has since shown that there was no evidence that the fire in a one-story, wood frame house in Corsicana was the result of arson, as the authorities had alleged.

In other words, it was an accident. No crime had occurred.

Cameron Todd Willingham, who refused to accept a guilty plea that would have spared his life, and who insisted until his last painful breath that he was innocent, had in fact been telling the truth all along.

It was inevitable that some case in which a clearly innocent person had been put to death would come to light. It was far from inevitable that this case would be the one. “I was extremely skeptical in the beginning,” said the New Yorker reporter, David Grann, who began investigating the case last December.

The fire broke out on the morning of Dec. 23, 1991. Willingham was awakened by the cries of his 2-year-old daughter, Amber. Also in the house were his year-old twin girls, Karmon and Kameron. The family was poor, and Willingham’s wife, Stacy, had gone out to pick up a Christmas present for the children from the Salvation Army.

Willingham said he tried to rescue the kids but was driven back by smoke and flames. At one point his hair caught fire. As the heat intensified, the windows of the children’s room exploded and flames leapt out. Willingham, who was 23 at the time, had to be restrained and eventually handcuffed as he tried again to get into the room.

There was no reason to believe at first that the fire was anything other than a horrible accident. But fire investigators, moving slowly through the ruined house, began seeing things (not unlike someone viewing a Rorschach pattern) that they interpreted as evidence of arson.

They noticed deep charring at the base of some of the walls and patterns of soot that made them suspicious. They noticed what they felt were ominous fracture patterns in pieces of broken window glass. They had no motive, but they were convinced the fire had been set. And if it had been set, who else but Willingham would have set it?

With no real motive in sight, the local district attorney, Pat Batchelor, was quoted as saying, “The children were interfering with his beer drinking and dart throwing.”

Willingham was arrested and charged with capital murder.

When official suspicion fell on Willingham, eyewitness testimony began to change. Whereas initially he was described by neighbors as screaming and hysterical — “My babies are burning up!” — and desperate to have the children saved, he now was described as behaving oddly, and not having made enough of an effort to get to the girls.

And you could almost have guaranteed that a jailhouse snitch would emerge. They almost always do. This time his name was Johnny Webb, a jumpy individual with a lengthy arrest record who would later admit to being “mentally impaired” and on medication, and who had started taking illegal drugs at the age of 9.

The jury took barely an hour to return a guilty verdict, and Willingham was sentenced to death.

He remained on death row for 12 years, but it was only in the weeks leading up to his execution that convincing scientific evidence of his innocence began to emerge. A renowned scientist and arson investigator, Gerald Hurst, educated at Cambridge and widely recognized as a brilliant chemist, reviewed the evidence in the Willingham case and began systematically knocking down every indication of arson.

The authorities were unmoved. Willingham was executed by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004.

Now comes a report on the case from another noted scientist, Craig Beyler, who was hired by a special commission, established by the state of Texas to investigate errors and misconduct in the handling of forensic evidence.

The report is devastating, the kind of disclosure that should send a tremor through one’s conscience. There was absolutely no scientific basis for determining that the fire was arson, said Beyler. No basis at all. He added that the state fire marshal who investigated the case and testified against Willingham “seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires.” He said the marshal’s approach seemed to lack “rational reasoning” and he likened it to the practices “of mystics or psychics.”

Grann told me on Monday that when he recently informed the jailhouse snitch, Johnny Webb, that new scientific evidence would show that the fire wasn’t arson and that an innocent man had been killed, Webb seemed taken aback. “Nothing can save me now,” he said.

In this article, we see the use of mainly ethos. Just by reading the title we can see the use of it. An innocent man is now dead. Morally this goes against any values or principles. The whole article talks about, how they kill an innocent man. He is accused and charged with capital murder. After, he is killed with the lethal injection, researchers find he was innocent all along.

This is just one, of the many cases, which kill innocent people. It is amazing, how we focus on saving so many unborn lives with antiabortion campaigns, yet we kill abundant people daily. It’s actually really ironic. Are we really teaching them by killing them?

I believe, not killing them is actually a worst punishment. Many of those people actually want to die, they are sick and tired of being incarcerated. So, why do them the favor, if they did something wrong they should pay for it, by suffering, not just taking their life away. It’s not only immoral, but whatever happened to the right of life? To me it’s inhumane, and there is no reason whatsoever that can justify taking someone’s life away. Life is something very valuable, which once gone you can never get back. There is no turning back and saying, o he’s innocent, so he can live again.

In this case, they took an innocent man’s life away. He’s dead now, there is nothing we can do about it. So, is the attorney accused with capital murder, apparently not. It’s ironic how he actually killed an innocent person, yet no one takes his life away, when he results to actually have killed someone. He committed the crime, the other was killed for. How ironic can we get?

Are we teaching killing is wrong by killing others? For, that is the message I get by such horrifying action. Instead of killing a person, why can’t we teach them and guide them through the right path, even if it means all their life in jail. At least they have a chance to learn from their mistakes and correct them. We all make mistakes, some worst than others. By killing we are only insinuating that killing is okay, and there is no justification to take someone’s existence away.

In this article, this innocent man is killed with no reason at all. If he was left in jail and then found innocent, yes he may have suffered unfairly, but trust me he would be thankful he still had life.

“The report is devastating, the kind of disclosure that should send a tremor through one’s conscience. There was absolutely no scientific basis for determining that the fire was arson, said Beyler. No basis at all. He added that the state fire marshal who investigated the case and testified against Willingham “seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires.” He said the marshal’s approach seemed to lack “rational reasoning” and he likened it to the practices “of mystics or psychics.”

This is just one case out of millions of others, that have been killed due to lack of information. Put yourself in his shoes, knowing you are going to get killed for something you didn’t do, and yet there is nothing you can do about it. How would that feel? Yes, there are many who are killed, who are not innocent, but why not take other alternatives which are more effective and human.
Where did the “justice” part disappear, because his life was taken away from him and now what? Who will pay the consequences? Who will respond for this act? Even if there were consequences, like Webb said “Nothing can save him now.” He is dead and there is no turning back. This is a mistake, which has no solution.