Introduction to Candide (Ch.1 and 2)

Candide

By: Voltaire

.

What were Voltaire's political beliefs?

.

"Voltaire perceived the French bourgeoisie to be too small and ineffective, the aristocracy to be parasitic and corrupt, the commoners as ignorant and superstitious, and the church as a static force useful only as a counterbalance since its "religious tax" or the tithe helped to create a strong backing for revolutionaries.

Voltaire at Frederick the Great's Sanssouci. Engraving by Baquoy.
Voltaire distrusted democracy, which he saw as propagating the idiocy of the masses.[citation needed]To Voltaire, only an enlightened monarch or an enlightened absolutist, advised by philosophers like himself, could bring about change as it was in the king's rational interest to improve the power and wealth of his subjects and kingdom. Voltaire essentially believed enlightened despotism to be the key to progress and change.
He was, however, deeply opposed to the use of war and violence as means for the resolution of controversies, as he repeatedly and forcefully stated in many of his works, including the "Philosophical Dictionary," where he described war as an "infernal enterprise" and those who resort to it "ridiculous murderers." He also believed that Africans were a separate species, inferior to the Europeans, and that ancient Jews were "an ignorant and barbarous people" drawing examples of this from the Old Testament.

Voltaire's château at Ferney, France.
He is best known today for his novel, Candide, ou l'Optimisme (Candide, or Optimism, 1759), which satirized the philosophy of Leibniz. "

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

.

CHAPTERS 1 AND 2

December 10th, 2007

6:44 P.M.

.

.

.....As I read these first two chapters, I quickly realized that there are a bunch of absurdities and sarcasm mixed together to compose this satire.

.

.....The first chapter mocks Candide's family feelings of "superiority". His mother would not marry his father because he had a petty family inheritance, yet the mother's family inheritance isn't that much different. Another example of the storyline's absurdity is the wonderful teacher Candide and his cousin had, Mr. Pangloss. He taught "metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology". By naming his curriculum such a long name that has a little bit of everything and a little bit of nothing, Voltaire completely mocks whatever credibility the curriculum could have. He just wants to show Pangloss as an arrogant known all that in reality knows nothing. Voltaire wants to show it's a meaningless and ineffective program, that doesn't really teach anything valuable. And education is the foundation for everything. If these people have such education then they aren't the "noble" family they want to appear to be.

.

......The second chapter was weirder than the first. The first was full of absurdity and everything but at least it was somewhat realistic. However, the second just seems absurd all the way around (at least that's what I thought at first, as I write I'm realizing it does make sense). At first I was going to say Voltaire was completely out of his mind, but that isn't the case. I think he was to critisize the army's brutality and cruelty. Once Candide is kicked out of the Baron's house, he becomes "enlisted" (because we soon learn it was more like enslaved) in the army with the promise of money, ego feeding, and survival. However, once Candide has regained strength and confidence he decides to leave without notice, not realizing that he doesn't have that freedom. "One fine spring morning he took it into his head to decamp and walked straight off, thinking it a priviledge common to man and beast to use his legs when he wanted. But he had not gone six miles before he was caught, bound, and thrown into a dungeon by four other six-foot heroes (24)." The whole absurdity in this is that as punishment he has to choose "between being floggerd thirty-six times by the whole regiment or having twelve bullets in his brain." How cruel is that? Human instinct is to survive, so obviously he would choose the flogging even if it implies over four thousand floggings. Voltaire ironically called this decision "Liberty." In conclusion, this chapter critisizes the way the army use cruelty and lack of mercy in order to threaten real liberty.

Hamlet Personifications

Funny Hamlet Production: Character list

Hamlet: Chris Tucker
Ophelia: Natalie Portman
Queen: Queen Latifah
Polonius: Will Ferrel
Claudius: Dr. Phil
Hamlet's father/ghost: Morgan Freeman
Laertes: Ben Stiller
Rosencratz: Owen Wilson
Guildenstern: Luke Wilson

Final Selfish Gene Blog Entry

The Selfish Gene

P. 250-266

.

...... I didn't understand what "built in unfairness" or "asymmetry in the cost of living." Just as well, why does Dawkins dedicate so much of this chapter on the significance of parasitic coexistence?

.

Bottlenecking the life cycle: Restarting the building of a body each time. In other words, each time a new person is born the drawing board of humanity is reset.

.

....In my opinion the "bottleneck life cycle" can be both, good and bad. For example, by starting over the genes have a chance to perfect previous models and make the body more efficient and effective in its functions. However, if by some chance they make a terrible mistake, this could lead to the self destruction of the body they formed; the probability of these same genes being passed on is considerably lower as the body could die before it has reached the reproductive state of its life. Therefore, the "bottleneck life cycle" is somewhat flaw proof, and it allows more perfection than mistakes. This theory, or system allows genes to perfect themselves as they pass on from one generation to the next, rooting out flaws very early on.

.

.

Excerpt from RICHARD DAWKINS'S EVOLUTION By: By Ian Parker: (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/dawkny.shtml)

......Like so much of Dawkins's enterprise, the inspiration for "The Selfish Gene" was rebuttal: the book was designed to vanish an infuriatingly widespread popular misconception about evolution. The misconception was that Darwinian selection worked at the level of the group or the species, that it had something to do with the balance of nature. How else could one understand, for example, the evolution of apparent "altruism" in animal behavior? How could self-sacrifice, or niceness, ever have been favored by natural selection? There were answers to these questions, and they had been recently developed, in particular, by the evolutionary biologists W. D. Hamilton, now at Oxford, and George Williams, of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. But their answers were muted. Dawkins has written, "For me, their insight had a visionary quality. But I found their expressions of it too laconic, not full-throated enough. I was convinced that an amplified and developed version could make everything about life fall into place, in the heart as well as in the brain."

.

......Essentially, their insight was that altruism in nature was a trick of the light. Once one understands that evolution works at the level of the gene--a process of gene survival, taking place (as Dawkins developed it) in bodies that the gene occupies and then discards--the problem of altruism begins to disappear. Evolution favors strategies that cause as many of an animal's genes as possible to survive--strategies that may not immediately appear to be evolutionarily sound. In the idea's simplest form, if an animal puts its life at risk for its offspring, it is preserving a creature - gene "vehicle," in Dawkins's language--half of whose genes are its own. This is a sensible, selfish strategy, despite the possible inconvenience of death. No one is being nice.

.

.......Starting from this point, "The Selfish Gene" took its reader into more complex areas of animal behavior, where more persuasion was needed--more mathematics, sometimes, and more daring logical journeys. Dawkins assumed no prior knowledge of the subject in his reader, yet was true to his science. He made occasional ventures into ambitious prose (genes "swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots"), but mostly relied on sustained clarity, the taming of large numbers, and the judicious use of metaphor. The result was exhilarating. Upon the book's publication, the Times called it "the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius." Douglas Adams, a friend of Dawkins's and the author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," found the experience of reading it "one of those absolutely shocking moments of revelation when you understand that the world is fundamentally different from what you thought it was." He adds, "I'm hesitating to use the word, but it's almost like a religious experience."

/..

..

.......The last thing that would have crossed my mind was to think that this book was a rebuttal to the usual misconceptions of evolution. I guess that thinking about that way makes sense; however, it's not the first thing that comes to mind. I actually thought this book was a tool for Dawkins to show and teach any average joe about the intricacies behind the whole process of evolution. (Funny to say average joe, though, it's not one of the easiest books I've ever read.) For someone interested in the field of science or sociology or evolution this is probably a very interesting book, but, personally, for me it wasn't. It was a bore having to go through all the technical terms a million times until I kind of understood what was going on. It was very tedious reading that required 200% of my attention in order to understand a very disproportional amount of what was actually being said.

Hamlet Vocabulary for Scene

Hamlet

Act V.ii 239-449

.
Definitions taken from www.m-w.com:

Stoup: a beverage container
Dally: to waste time; to act playfully
Wanton: hard to control; inhumane, cruel
Springe: a noose fastened to an elastic body to catch small game

The Long Reach of the Gene

The Selfish Gene

P. 233-250

.

.

......I really didn't understand much about the begginning and I thought as the chapter progressed Dawkins was scattered all over the place; the chapter had no winding thread that gave it fluency. For example I did not understand what point Dawkins was trying to make with the "t Gene" example, or the snail shell one. [How is it possible that having a harder shell is a detriment (to the genes of the snail) and not a quality of a snail? Doesn't a harder shell mean more survival for the genes and more future generations to carry those same genes?]

.

.....This is what I understood: There have been cases when one gene that is good for the being is also a detriment to other genes. However, if a gene is good to the being then why does it matter if it's bad to other genes? I mean, it's doing the being good isn't it? Why should it be prevented? Maybe, it's better to sacrifice some other genes for the well-being of the whole community of genes. Survival of the fittest I guess; whichever gene has the upperhand, then that gene is the one that will survive. But isn't this kind of ironic? A being was made by genes that were struggling to survive, and found that the easiest way is by joining together in a community to form a gene machine. I guess that is the selfishness in the whole process. In reality, each gene is selfish in their own way: each gene is willing to do whatever it takes in order to insure their own survival.

.

.......Was the Caddis example just meant to point out how we look at evolution as physical and genetical changes, but don't give importance to other developments such as customs and behavior? From a scientific point of view you probably perceive evolution as a very to the point thing, however, it has so many branches that are usually ignored. Evolution is looked upon as the man that used to crawl but learned to walk with time. The cultural and social aspect of it is usually left out. Evolution includes learning, education, mathematical improvements, arts, government and interpersonal relationship. Even if evolution includes all these other aspects, they are usually left out in the teaching of the term. But, after all, Dawkins is a scientist which means these are probably just assumptions.

.

VOCABULARY (definitions taken from http://www.m-w.com/):

Phenotype: the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment

Genotype: all or part of the genetic constitution of an individual or group

Protozoan: any of a phylum or subkingdom (Protozoa) of chiefly motile and heterotrophic unicellular protists (as amoebas, trypanosomes, sporozoans, and paramecia) that are represented in almost every kind of habitat and include some pathogenic parasites of humans and domestic animals

Viroids: any of two families (Pospiviroidae and Avsunviroidae) of subviral particles that consist of a small single-stranded RNA arranged in a closed loop without a protein shell and that replicate in their host plants where they may or may not be pathogenic

Plasmids: an extrachromosomal ring of DNA especially of bacteria that replicates autonomously

RNA: any of various nucleic acids that contain ribose and uracil as structural components and are associated with the control of cellular chemical activities

Passive/Active Voice

Passive and Active Voice Exercises

Answers to http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/reading/exercises/dogqz.htm exercise:

1. Joanne was delayed when leaving the office by a client.



2. A meeting was being held at 6:30 by the tennis club.



3. Sheba, the dog, was blocking the door.



4. Sheba was taken by Joanne to the doctor.



5. The vet was worried by her condition.



6. Joanne went home while the vet treated the dog.



7. Joanne was told by the vet to get out of the house.



8. Joanne was confused by the telephone call.



9. The burglar was captured by police.



10. His fingers were bitten off by the dog.





When finished correct these sentences, without the check option:Level 1: Directions: Change the sentences below to the passive voice.

1. Children cannot open these bottles easily.


2. The government built a road right outside her front door.


3. Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store.


4. When she arrived, the changes amazed her.


5. The construction workers are making street repairs all month long.


6. The party will celebrate his retirement.


7. His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him.


8. My son ate all the homemade cookies.


9. Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship.


10. Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there.

Answers:

1. The bottles cannot be opened easily by the children.
2. A road was built right outside her front door by the government.
3. The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.
4. She was amazed by the changes she saw when she arrived.
5. The streets are being repaired all month long by the construction workers.
6. His retirement will be celebrated by the party.
7. His oral exam was discussed right in front of him by the professors.
8. The homemade cookies were eaten by my son.
9. The hull of the ship was damaged by corrosion.
10. While I was there, the old homestead was visited by some children.

Non-zero sum game

The Selfish Gene

P. 222-233

.

What is a non-zero sum game?

"In zero-sum games, the fortunes of the players are inversely related. In tennis, in chess, in boxing, one contestant's gain is the other's loss. In non-zero-sum games, one player's gain needn't be bad news for the other(s). Indeed, in highly non-zero-sum games the players' interests overlap entirely. In 1970, when the three Apollo 13 astronauts were trying to figure out how to get their stranded spaceship back to earth, they were playing an utterly non-zero-sum game, because the outcome would be either equally good for all of them or equally bad. (It was equally good.)

.
Back in the real world, things are usually not so clear-cut. A merchant and a customer, two members of a legislature, two childhood friends sometimes—but not always—find their interests overlapping. To the extent that their interests do overlap, their relationship is non-zero-sum; the outcome can be win-win or lose-lose, depending on how they play the game." Taken from http://nonzero.org/gametheory.htm

.

What is a zero-sum game?

In game theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). It is so named because when the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Chess and Go are examples of a zero-sum game: it is impossible for both players to win. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value. Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

Nice Guys Finish First

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 202-222

.

.....I began reading Chapter 12, Nice Guys Finish Last, and quite honestly I didn't understand much of how Prisoner's Dilemna is really played. I didn't even understand the game relating to Tit for Tat. However, all I know is that most probable thing any human would do is chose whatever saves him from the consequences or punishment he/she will receive. Humans are a selfish species after all; we might appear to have altruistic moments and characteristics but when it comes to life or death, we are definitely selfish. What would you do if you had to choose whether to tell on someone or spend the next 10 years (a whole lifetime!) of your life in a 3X3 cell? I would definitely tell on the person and so would you and everyone you know! Even if there's only a chance that by risking someone else you can save yourself, you will still betray the person. The little piece of hope that "what if" brings, will always push you to tell on the person. I think this has something to do with Darwin's survival of the fittest.

.

......The fittest person is the one that is willing to do whatever it takes in order to insure their survival. They are the selfish ones because they are willing to risk and endanger anyone else as long as they are safe. If you just stand around trying to protect everyone, then you aren't watching after yourself and this could put your survival at risk. Therefore, in my opinion, the fittest are the selfish beings that want to ensure their survival above anyone else's.

Gene Machines

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 50-65

......As I read this chapter, I had no idea where Dawkins was heading, not to mention it was one of the hardest chapters I've read so far. It was a jumble of ideas. It was as if he was trying to tie loose ends in one chapter with very little explanations. I mean, he began by talking about muscles, then he compared genes and brains to a computers and programmers, then he talked about electronic chess games. But his jumble didn't stop there he began a brief talk about simulation and learning, and just when it couldn't become more confusing he jumped back to his thesis, selfish vs. altruistic species. I must admit I was confused through most of the chapter and had to read many passage more than once, but now that I look back at it, it's all connected.

.

......The chapter is called "The Gene Machine," and as I read I soon found out the brain is a gene machine. The brain was created by genes, in order for them to survive and flourish in the world. However, the brain soon got powerful enough to avoid the gene's commands by learning and simulating what it wanted. The genes in a way conformed to the brain's newly acquired power as long as they could live in peace, and the brain provided them with a hearty survival. (But wouldn't this conformity also lead to their end? The brain obviously has the upper hand; it can do whatever it wants. What if the brain makes a bad choice and the body dies? What happens if a choice affects a gene and makes it unrepairable? What would the genes do then to ensure their survival? They wouldn't be able to do anything, I mean, they would be dead!) But, this example is present in every day action; it isn't as unique as one would think.

.

......Everywhere we look, people conform to their government, to their society, to their culture, to their economic status, to their friends, to anything really, as long as their confomity provides some sort of stability and security. People are willing to accept just about anything as long as their choice doesn't endanger their existence in any way or form. However, their choices are never 100% insured; no one can tell what's going to happen for sure in future. However, as the famous saying goes, Like father, like son. As humans beings we are just like the genes that make us up.

The Selfish Gene

Response to Richard Dawkin's Video

.

....Up to what I've read in this book, I don't understand why Dawkins could have called the book "The Altruistic Animal." I mean, Altruistic Gene would make sense, but just because you have a selfish gene doesn't mean you will automatically be altruistic. You need both genes in order to be one or the other. If you only have the selfish gene and not the altruistic one, then you can only be selfish. Or does it mean that the selfish gene contains both selfish and altruistic characteristics? I really don't understand these whole area. However, I completely agree when he states that his book is just another approach to the Darwinian theory. In my opinion, it's the same theory just looked at it from a gene's point of view, as well as from evolution. In the book, Dawkins is looking at humans, humans aren't the ones looking at evolution.

RESEARCH PAPER RULES AND SOURCES

RESEARCH RULES

Paraphrased from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/

1. Read the preface, as it will allow you to see what the author wants to portray in his writing. This will also allow to see if it´s detailed enough or not.
2. Look at the sources used in order to find other useful sources for your own paper.
3. You should make sure the material you are looking for is friendly for the audience you choose. Is it age appropiate?
4. Decide whether your source is biased or factual. Will this help your own research or not?
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the source for what you need it.
6. Is the paper opinion or objective?
7. Is the theme overstated or oversimplified this might affect your own paper.
8. Is the source reliable, does it use reliable sources to back up his information?
9. How accurate is the source?
10. Does the author back up his points of view?
11. Is the source up to date? If not is this pertinent to your paper?
12. Try to look for the same information in another source to check it's accuracy.
13. What is the integrity and credibility of the source? Do they have any? Are they well-known and reliable?
14. Are both sides looked at in order to make the arguments? In other words, good arguments are given looking at both sides of the issue.

5 Secondary Sources for Table Manners

• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=9FY516586155&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W62573137519&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=200706226010835811&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W64162464285&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W64209653248&site=ehost-live

Immortal Genes not Immortal DNA

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 35-50

.

November 18, 2007

1:59 P.M.

.

.......In my last blog about the Selfish Gene, I completely misinterpreted Dawkins' message. As I continued reading the "Immortal Coil" chapter, I realized that DNA isn't immortal. DNA does die eventually, however, genes are constantly passed down from generation to generation. Even if you die, another relative or another human being will probably have the genes that died along with you. They might not have your genetic combination, but they will have some genes and another person others. All your dead genes will still exist in other people. I had never looked at it this way, and I found it very interesting. It's true, as crazy as it sounds, genes never die. Some one else always have the genes that died (not all, and not in the same configuration), but they are very much present.

.

........Even if I do agree with Dawkins' point of view regarding gene longetivity, I don't agree with the theorical value he gives to sex. Dawkins calls sex a "bizarre perversion of straightforward replication (p. 43)." He thinks sex is an inefficient way to spread one's genes. Why go through all the trouble of finding a suitable partner and then go through all the trouble of sex? But sex isn't just for reproduction. Sex represents passions and emotions. Humans are a very passionate species; we just don't do things in order to "survive" as a species. I mean, we are driven by emotions: love, greed, ambition, and as corny as it sounds, we do follow our hearts. Sex isn't as superficial as Dawkins makes it sound, it has a much deeper, psychological meaning to humans. If it was only for the species' survival, then it would actually become more of a pressured burden than anything else.

.

.....I also don't agree with Dawkins' point to alter genes in order to prolong human lifespan. I mean, alter the genetic sequences in order to trick the genes to believe your are younger? There world's already overpopulated, the water supply is growing less and less with each day that passes by, why do you want more people to compete in order to survive? That's ridiculous. We need to let things run their course, because our need to intervene in everything in order to prolong our survival is just going to lead to our end.

So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To: Paraphrasing, Summarizing, Quoting

So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To

CLASS EXERCISE

November 15, 2007

PARAPHRASING: People have a misconception about schools, they aren't somewhere to play, fool around, or socialize; just as well, they aren't in place as babysitters. Schools are in place so people can go there and learn. If obligatory education is taken away, then people that don't want to enjoy this priviledge can have the choice to stay away.

ORIGINAL: First, it would alert everyone that school is a serious place where one goes to learn. Schools are neither day-care centers nor indoor street corners. Young people who resist learning should stay away; indeed, an end to compulsory schooling would require them to stay away.

SUMMARY: Studies have shown that obligatory education is very inefficient and a complete waste of time. Obligatory education just holds back students that actually want to learn something, and allows troublemakers to ruin the learning experience for others. Parents are usually deceived into believing that their children are attending a well rounded education that will help in the future; however, this isn't the case. By cleaning the learning environment of malefactors, the credibility and the reputation of educational institutions will improve. Costs will go down and the financial benefits for the different communities that apply will sky rocket. By taking away obligatory education, public education will not be ruined, it will just be a new incentive for legislators to fund even better education. In other words, by taking away obligatory education a lot of new benefits will be gained.

QUOTING: As Roger Sipher said in his "compulsory education" article: " Schools should be for education," not for playing around.

The Immortal Coil

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 20-35

November 13, 2007

8:24 P.M.

.'

......What is the "immortal coil"? And is it really "immortal"? Dawkins argues that DNA, the immortal coil, never dies off, it is passed from generation to generation. Dawkins connects it to a coil, because in theory, a coil is never ending, and because the shape of a DNA is a "double helix." (Dawkins makes those two terms sound like the same thing.) However, he also says that each time DNA and genes are passed from generation to generation they are modified somewhat. In other words, you get half of your DNA from your mother and the other half from your father. However, these halves can always be variations as they are mixed with your other parent's half. In other words, it is not physically possible for some one to have your exact same DNA (unless you are an identical twin). And even if you have an identical twin, your children will not have the same DNA, as each sperm and egg have different genetic configurations. During the configuring of the sperm or the egg, some of your own personal genes will be lost of greatly modified, so in theory it DNA is not eternal. Your DNA isn't immortal: it dies when you die. I don't agree with the term he uses in order to describe DNA to the reader; it is very misleading. Our DNA does die eventually, so what does he mean when he calls it immortal?

.

......There must be a reason as to why Dawkins refers to the DNA as the "immortal coil". This is probably due to the fact that the idea of DNA is never going to die. Even if everyone has a different DNA and it dies when you die, the idea of DNA will always be present for humanity. It helps us (and always will) to trace historical events (illegitimate children, criminals, etc.), to solve daily crimes, and to identify us as separate human beings. Our DNA is our identity, and that is something that will never die because it lives in memories. DNA cannot be stolen, so even if they rob your social security, forge your signature, or falsify your fingerprints, you will be able to prove that you are innocent.

The Selfish Gene: Introduction

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 1- 20

Nov. 13, 2007

7:48 P.M.

Biology, Zoology, and Some Misinterpretation:

......As I read Chapter 1 I realized I really didn't know the difference between the two, and I soon learned knowing it was essential as Dawkins usually compares them. While reading I came to the conclusion that they had to be very different things; however, now that I look at the definitions, zoology just seems a branch of biology. According to Wikipedia, zoology is the "biological discipline which involves the study of animals," while Biology is the "scientific study of life." However, my conclusion came from Dawkins own interpretation of what zoology is. "Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance (p. 1)." Dawkins recurs to studies referring to zoology in order to form his own conclusions about human and animal behavior. In my opinion he is completely misinterpreting the whole purpose of zoologists, though. I think zoologists are supposed to study the facts, not meddle with opinions and bias. I am not necessarily saying I disagree with his arguments, but Dawkins completely mixes opinions with facts. By manipulating the definition of zoology in order to get his point accross, Dawkins takes some credibility away from his work. This different interpretation will probably make his point harder to prove, but not impossible.

.

Are Humans Altruistic or Selfish?

......This question can be viewed from many different perspectives. Even if I don't agree with his interpretation of zoology, I have to agree with what Dawkins argues with respect to this question. We are altruistic when our reputation is on the line or when we have to put up a facade infront of others (like when we are taking part in an active role of society), yet, deep inside we are all very selfish. As a society we are very giving and altruistic. We want to fight for a common good and we are willing to sacrifice in order to attain this. But, if it wasn't for everyone else fighting for the same cause, then we wouldn't be willing to give up anything for any common good. One example that Dawkins used was the comparision between abortion and the killing of animals. "A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee (p. 10)." Dawkins argues that we care about an amoeba-like fetus that has no feelings and we provide them with certain rights and protection; however, an animal that is fully capable to understand and to feel doesn't even have the right to live. I had never seen that perspective, and as shocking as it was, it is very true. We care more about what looks good in society's eyes than what is actually good. We would rather bring an unhappy and abused child into this world, than protect the happiness of a lion pup. How ironic is that? What if all we think is right is actually wrong? I really think that humans need to start reevaluating morality, what's right, and even more important what's wrong.

What song would Hamlet choose?

November 7, 2007

8:47 P.M.

....If I were Hamlet I would have chosen the song Leech by Incubus in order to expose my personality. I chose this song, because Hamlet is a very peculiar character that constantly confuses the audience as to what his real feelings and actions are. He isn't a very reliable character. The audience can never be sure if what he says during his solliloquies is actually true, or if it's just his double personality speaking. I think that during Act III, the reader really gets to see Hamlet's duality and madness. When I heard this song, I could imagine Hamlet saying the lyrics to himself. This song has some sort of duality to it; it has this bipolar sense to it. I mean, each couple of phrases complement eachother with complete paradoxes. Just as well, a line that really impacted me was "Your fictional, plastic alibi..." This is so true with Hamlet, because as stated before we don't know if what Hamlet is a reliable narrator.

LEECH- By: Incubus

Does it make you indie?
Does it make you proud...to talk the world
into a paper bag?
Spotty stain of "I'm ok", you're not ok!
Yes, men too, can be on the rag.
"I'm in over my head, I need a pick me up!"
Whoa Ho Oh Ho
It's easy to get high when your'e standing on our backs man.
Will anything ever be good enough for you?
Whoa Ho Oh Ho
Stand on your own, hold your water if you can.
Chorus:
The ride's over. Did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over. Fairing well?!
The ride's over. Did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over. Fairing well?!
Not on my time
It isn't fair to mention, but it awes the crowd
Your fictional, plastic alibi
So take another hit, steal another line
Did you ever meet a leech who was good at goodbyes?
When you were down i always picked you up
Why didn't I recognize that everything was never fine?
I'm kicking myself that i shared spit with you
So fuck yourself
And fuck this bleeding heart of mine
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
Not on my time
When you were down i always picked you up
Why didn't I recognize that everything was never fine?
I'm kicking myself that i shared spit with you
So fuck yourself
And fuck this bleeding heart of mine
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over

Paraphrasing Exercises in Class

Paraphrasing Exercises

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/02/

1. ORIGINAL: "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.

PARAPHRASING: In the documentary, Cousteau explained to his audience in greater depth about the planet's climatical situation. The sun is an essential part of our existence and warmth, while the Antarctic is a very important source of cold also necessary for our existence. These two aspects vastly control the climate on planet Earth. The cold water currents that mix with the warmer, Northern ones help maintain stable temperatures and livable conditions for ourselves. However, this natural cycle that assures our own survival is currently endangered by our own activities.

2. ORIGINAL: The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.

PARAPHRASING: The 1920s were marked by a foolish Prohibition, organized crime, and corrupt and helpless police. Everyone knew how to get liquor, crime was everywhere, and the police couldn't do very much without risking their lives. Jazz took over the scene, leaving Classical music in the past and stars like "Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie" rose to fame giving the youth hope to fight. Just as well, the flappers came about with their "bobbed hair and short skirts" to represent the future.

3. ORIGINAL: 3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.

PARAPHRASING: Wearing a helmet can reduce the risk of hurting your head when you fall of a bike by almost 85%. This is due to the fac that the helmet ¨absorbs the shock¨which in turn protects the head by smoothing out the fall. Three-fourths of 1000 the deaths caused by bicycle accidents are caused by head trauma. Half of these deaths are children.

4. ORIGINAL: Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.

PARAPHRASING: Matisse is one of the very few painters that can make the viewer get the sensations lived in the painting, although he is a modern artist he is also very realistic. "The Casbah Gate" is a painting that shows "the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace." Matisse captures the essence of a Tangier afternoon perfectly: all the colors lived in the view that capture the "art history", as well as "the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate."

5. ORIGINAL: While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.

PARAPHRASING: Architects and engineers have yet to finished their search "for the world's tallest building," even if the Sears Tower is without a doubt the best triumph in modern day engineering. Many engineers have still bigger plans for the world's buildings, but how big can these plans be? William LeMessurier designed a building "half as tall as the Sears Tower" and would be one mile high. Just as well, Robert Sobel, it's enthusiastic in saying that with the modern technology humans would be capable of building a "500 story building."

Paraphrasing Excercise

Is this paraphrasing?

Activity from: http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/conduct/exercises.html

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

The Art of Denial

The Power and the Glory (Final Entry)

Page 202-221

October 26, 2007

10:01 A.M.

...

......Towards the end of the novel, the author once again recurrs to parallelism in order to tell the story. The connection I made to the priest was the usual state of denial and the need to separate oneself from reality; however, I must admit the ending left me very confused.

.

.......After the priest was supposedly shot, the reader gets a look back at the Fellows household. Although it is never directly stated, the reader is lead to believe something happened to Coral Fellows and her parents are on their way back home. It is obvious Trixy Fellows wants to act as if Coral didn't exist, as if she didn't relate to them at all. "But we agreed, dear, didn't we, that it was better to say nothing at all, ever. We mustn't be morbid...We've got our own life to lead (211)." She wants to be separated from Coral's memory, she wants nothing to do with it. She hides her sorrow in her perkiness, in the enthusiasm the future holds. The future is a new beginning that will help her part from Coral and from her memory. Starting fresh at her sister's house will help Trixy forget about Coral that way she won't need to be in denial anymore, Coral's memory will just vanish on its own.

.

......Just as well, the reader sees Mr. Tench's denial. He has finally heard back from his wife in England, but to his dissappointment she wants "to make things legal. Divorce...(215)." It is quite obvious that Mr. Tench is completely destroyed. "He belched and put his other hand against his stomach, pressing, pressing, seeking an obscure pain which was nearly always there (215)." This pain is a cause of the heartbreak, the solitude, and the disappointment brought along by his wife's request. It is obvious that he still loves her, and she has clearly moved on. However, he wants to deny that his wife still has such effect on him and that he is so vulnerable, so he dismisses his pain as "just indigestion (215)." He denies that his wife's request has any effect on him by claiming it's indigestion.

.

......The whiskey priest, which we later find out is named Juan, drowns his sorrows in his alcohol bottle. He washes away his worries and problems for some time, while the effects of the acohol are still very much alive. He hates the fact that he is a bad priest, a bad role model, and a weak person; in order to deny it all, he drinks. By drinking he can run away from his conscience, he can deny everything even his mere existence. Drinking is the only thing that allows this state of denial to exist. I think this ending clearly reflects a very important message in the book. We humans always find insincere ways to deny our cruel realities. We are cowards who constantly look for ways to escape and run away from the things that haunt us. This is a very strong message the book is trying to convey: we need to open our eyes, live life with its realities, and learn to love ourselves because no one is perfect.

.

.

Some questions that were left unanswered:
1) What actually happened to Coral Fellows?

2) Did they really shoot Juan or was he the one that arrived at the little boy's house?

3) What brought a sudden change in the little boy's attitude towards priests?

Hypocrit Religion: A Reality

The Power and The Glory

Pg. 182-203

October 23, 2007

6:14 P.M.

Hypocrisy in Religion

Would it Be Fair to Assume that There is a Lot More "hypocrisy" from the "religious" Than We Care to Acknowledge?

By Lynne Paille

.....Imagine for a second, that the "religious" are illustrated as a mustard tree, and the "non-religious" illustrated as one seed on the mustard tree. Now, the sun is between the horizon and the center of the sky, painting an awesome shadow across the plain. The only problem occurring, though, is that the shadow of the one seed is overwhelming the shadow that should be cast by the whole tree. How, I ask, could this be possible? Enough of the parables. The question is quite simple. How can the number of people that live "godless", and/or "like heathen" create such a disturbance, that their actions totally out-weigh the actions of the "godly"? Would it be fair to assume that there is a lot more "hypocrisy" from the "religious" than we care to acknowledge? In other words, those that call themselves "religious" are only "religious" in name, and not in deed? True, "wickedness" might be hyped up by the media to make it appear that "religion" has no face in the worlds' societies, but what about the atrocities done by the "religious" in the name of "religion"? Are these to be over-looked and ignored now, because of the negativity so eagerly focused on by our media juggernauts?

/
.....Religion. A word introduced sometime during the 13th century into the English language. The origin of the word derives from Greek. Threneo means "to lament, or mourn". Threskeia means "a ceremonial observance". Threskos means "pious". Sebomai means "devotion through adoration". All the words before you mean "religion", or "religious". It is estimated that Christianity has a following of about 2.1 billion people world-wide. Islam, 1.3 billion. Hinduism, 900 million. Chinese traditional religions, 394 million. Buddhism, 376 million. African Traditional and Diasporic, 100 million. Sikhism, 23 million. Juche, 19 million. Spiritism, 15 million. Judaism, 14 million. The list goes on. Let us take into consideration that even the Atheist, though having no "faith" in any "god" or "religion", still lives somewhat by a conscientiousness, giving them a pretty good idea as to what is right, and what is wrong. Let us also not ignore the 25 million or more of those not listed, earlier categorized as the "list" the "goes on". '

,
.....Christianity is the only religion I can honestly say I know something about, whereas the other religions I have only read so much as to gain very little knowledge about (enough for minor conversations), and cannot make a fair analysis when discerning their "righteousness", or lack of "righteousness" thereof. Therefore, I ask that we humble ourselves when considering that my thoughts are not to "trash" Christianity, but rather, to bring all to an understanding with the hopes of a better spiritual growth for ourselves individually, and as a whole. My examples are as follows. Although Christianity teaches that the Son of God died for the sins of the world (I'm assuming the whole world), it seems that Christians spend a lot of time concerned with the lives of homosexuals. I'm a truck driver, and I've seen more billboards about the sins of homosexuality than any other sin, only equaled by that of abortion. After careful examination of the Bible, one must agree that homosexuality is considered a sin, under the categories of "fornication" and "lust". More can be said, obviously, but I think these spell it out to the point. As true as this may be, aren't there more "liars" in the world than homosexuals? Where are all the billboards practically condemning "liars"? From what I've read, the wages of sin is death, and doesn't give us a list as to what sins are seen as more or less worthy of death than the other. Do homosexuals make more of a negative impact on the societies of the world than liars? Are we to believe that liars are more trustworthy than homosexuals? What about people who might be angry with their neighbor without a cause, or better known as people with anger-management issues? Is it better to be in an elevator by yourself with a homosexual, or with a person who might go off the deep-end at any given moment? Is it safer to have a thief watch your valuables, or a homosexual? Aren't there more thieves in the world than homosexuals? Doesn't theft around the world make a more noticeable tear in the fabric of our cultures than the crime of homosexuality? Before I forget, let me speak briefly, if I may, on the issue of abortion while it's still lingering in my thoughts. First of all, it is this "Christian" nation that is allowing abortions to take place. It's no wonder our youth have no respect for "consequence" when they're always given a "way out". Abortion, I conclude, is murder according to the Bible, with only conception from rape as an exception, depending on the individual. The doctors practicing these procedures we must, then, consider murderers. Does God have levels of murder that we're to recognize? Some, like that of doctors to be admired, while others, like that of Jeffrey Dahmer to be scorned? Or, are all murderers in need of repentance? When is enough really enough? Now...let me, I pray, continue with my hopefully non-offensive barrage against the possibility of "hypocrisy" in religion, focusing mainly on the Christian religion. I believe I've read in more than a few places in the Bible that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. Paul taught to those that wondered at the decline of the Jewish religion, and increase of the newly-formed Christian religion, that although it might be misconstrued, the Jew was not totally cast away from God, but that rather, the Jew must believe in Jesus as the Messiah in order to be accepted by God. And yet, there are groups, such as the "Ku-Klux Klan" that literally hate people of a "brown skin" persuasion, Jews, and anyone else not Caucasian, and yet consider themselves "Christian", and claim to teach the doctrines of Christ. It's also well known, without even mentioning them, the crimes done by such "religious" groups.

.
......It must be told, that to be "Christian" is to imply one is "Christ-like". With what is being witnessed around the planet by "Christian" groups, we must conclude then that Jesus is a liar, and a thief, and a fornicator, and a murderer, and pretty much every other "sin" we read in the Bible. If not, then we must conclude that Jesus is still perfect, while the rest of us are "hypocrites".

TAKEN FROM:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml? content_type=article&content_type_id=143644

.... I think this article exposes a cruel reality. Religion is a search for perfection, however, nothing and no one is perfect. Throughout history, religion has placed itself on a pedestal and people have fallen for the pedestal it is on. Religion has also imposed moral rules that people have to follow in order to be morally correct in the eyes of God. I believe in God, don't get me wrong; however, I think religion exploits one's emotions and the believe in God. Just today, I went to a mass for my friend's father who passed away. I was in awe as the priest exploited the amazing person her father had been to advertise for Catholicism. It was shocking and not so much consoling. Religion always seems to appear when people are more vulnerable or when they need someone to tell them it's ok. I find it very inmoral for religion to advertise itself at the expense of other people's suffering. That's absurd! Religion exploits people when they are at their lowest point with the promise of God and salvation.

A Whiskey Priest thats Mocks Religion But an Exemplary Human Being

The Power and the Glory

Pg. 161-182

.

October 18, 2007

5:35 P.M.

.

.....In today's class we discussed whether or not the whiskey priest was an exemplary character. I have a very strong opinion about this, and this section of the book just reinforced it. In the begginning I thought that he was a coward and a hypocrite. I mean, how can a priest, a moral man, drown his sorrows in alcohol? How could he have a daughter and a lover? Why would he even consider giving up his beliefs like Padre Jose did? Society has this image of what a perfect priest must be. A perfect priest is a man that spreads morality, faith, and belief; a priest is not your friend, he is someone that needs to guide you to the right path. It is obvious that he is not an exemplary religious figure; he is a clear representation of the hypocrisy in religion. When he gets infuriated by the woman's confession in Page 173, shows how his frustation spills over into his own work. He condemns her for not confessing her "real sins."I mean, who is he to condemn her for being a good person or for confessing her sins? He is the one that is constantly beating himself up for being a bad priest and Christian. He is the one that is fully of mortal sins, isn't he? Has he even tried to absolve his own sins and make peace with them? No! "But because it was so peaceful he was all the more aware of his own sin as he prepared to take the Elements...(176)" Although, I strongly believe that he is not an exemplary religious figure, towards the middle of the book, I realized I was judging him unjustly.

.

.....As I continued reading the novel his hardships became obvious; he was just another one of the tortured souls out there. 'What was the good of confessionn when you loved the result of your crim (176)." Eventhough he is a priest, he is also a human being. I had him up in a podium, expecting him to be amazing and completely pure (Just like society portrays priests. Society also expects them to live up to their reputation). However, no one is perfect, and just because he is priest doesn't mean that he is automatically perfect.

.

......He is an exemplary human being. He has survived fevers, hunger, and fear with extreme courage and strength. Very few people would be able to survive the hardships that he has faced during the last couple of years. The physical pain is just part of it, the psychological torture is a greater one. Imagine constantly living in solitude, escaping from your own beliefs. What if you couldn't voice your beliefs, your thoughts? "It ought to be possible for a man to be happy here, if he were not so tied to fear and suffering - unhappiness too can become a habit like piety...He felt immense envy of all those people who had confessed to him and been absolved(173)." And through all the ups and downs he still has a soul. He is still willing to give to the people around him and to the ones that he encounters. I mean in the end of this section he gave his last 40 pesos so that the school master could buy food and necessities for the people of the town. He is a good man, no one in his position would have considered giving up their last pesos for somebody else's necessities.

The Power and the Glory

The Power and The Glory

Pgs. 140-158

October 16, 2007

7:32 P.M.

.

.....In this section of the novel, the impact that Coral Fellows had on the whiskey priest is quite obvious. Although he didn't even know her name ("Coral - so that was the child's name (146)."), she was a reliable friend; with her he was save. "He realized how much he had counted on this child. She was the only person who could help him without endangering herself (141)." Coral had been his only hope. She had become his savior, someone right in a world gone wrong. He had returned to the plantation because he hadn't eaten for two days and needed a safe, resting place. The priest thought Coral could provide all this for him. Finally, he could stop running away for a day or two and regain some of the energy lost in jail. He would be well fed, even if it was only bananas. Throughout the novel the reader has been misled to believe that Coral was just another of the characters the priest would encounter during his trip; however, in this Chapter it becomes obvious that Coral represented so much more to him than initially thought. Coral was everything that he wanted his own daughter to be; Coral showed him more respect, humanity, and compassion than Brigitta ever did. " 'My daughter, Oh my daughter.' The words seemed to contain all that he felt himself of repentance, longing and unhappy love (147)." Although the priest is guilty of all his mortal sins, Coral showed him that someone could still respect and trust him; he could once again trust someone. He deserves treatment like anybody else; his sins do not make him a complete criminal in our world. Everyone is sinful, why should be priest be singled out amongst the human race?

.

.....Not only is he singled out by everybody else, but his conscience does not let him live. He constantly beats himself up as a bad influence. In everything situation and danger that he encounters during his journey, he always ends up thinking about his sins. He considers himself an evil person, that has broken the trust of the people, such a dissappointment to Christianity. He considers himself a hypocrite and that's the reason he drinks. He drinks to run away from his problems, to leave his conscience behind for an hour or two. However, his problems don't vanish, once the effect of alcohol has worn out it all comes back to him. Your conscience and thoughts are the only two things a human being cannot runaway from. They are always there, even when you aren't in a conscious state of mind. In my opinion, they are part of your soul, of your humanity. Just like a humans need oxygens to survive, they also need thoughts and a conscience. The priest is a victim of humanity and of a cruel, unfair society.

Video Relating to The Power and The Glory

October 3, 2007

6:35 P.M.

This video relates to The Power and The Glory, because it shows how religion causes problems even today. Not only religious differences cause conflicts, however, different beliefs can lead to violence and death. The Palestinian Christians are being persecuted by Muslims. They are constantly tortured and harrassed, just like priest are and were harrased by the Red Shirts in The Power and The Glory. This video shows how history is constantly repeating itself, and how there are recurring themes throughout history.

NYT Article: Forensic, Demonstrative, Deliberate Rhetoric

Editorial

Mr. Putin’s Game

Published: October 2, 2007

Russians and a lot of Russia watchers have been wondering not if, but how Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, would hold on to power. We fear we got our answer yesterday.

Mr. Putin, who must step down as president next year, announced that he will head the election list of the dominant party, United Russia, in December’s parliamentary election. That will guarantee him a seat in the lower house, from which he could become prime minister. Mr. Putin said that it was still too early to think about that, and it would depend on whether the next Russian president was “a decent, capable and effective person” with whom he could work. Conveniently, Russia’s Constitution puts the prime minister in direct line to succeed the country’s president, should that job description prove too much for Mr. Putin’s successor to handle.

Mr. Putin has insisted all along that his goal was to create a Russia that is strong, modern and internationally respected. This crass political manipulation will have the opposite effect, weakening Russia in the eyes of the world and eventually its own citizens.

After the chaos of the first post-Communist years, Mr. Putin restored a measure of security and stability. He has also done serious damage to the country’s fragile democratic institutions, creating a powerful and secretive presidential bureaucracy, imposing authoritarian controls over government and the press, and turning the Parliament into a rubber stamp. In effect, he led Russia back to its historical dependence on one powerful leader, and he did this with the support of a large majority of the Russian people.

We cannot begrudge the Russians a measure of stability and prosperity after what they have gone through. But what they need now is to start building a true democracy on the basis of that stability and prosperity.

We hope Mr. Putin will rethink this cynical game. If he does run for Parliament, he could use his seat to share his experience and skills with a new political generation — but we doubt it. If his only intention is to hold on to power, then he will be proclaiming that institutions don’t matter, only the person manipulating them. Russia’s been there, too long. That is not what it needs now.

TYPES OF RHETORIC

Forensic: Past tense. Inspiring guilt and punishment.

1. We fear we got our answer yesterday.

2. After the chaos of the first post-Communist years, Mr. Putin restored a measure of security and stability. He has also done serious damage to the country’s fragile democratic institutions, creating a powerful and secretive presidential bureaucracy, imposing authoritarian controls over government and the press, and turning the Parliament into a rubber stamp. In effect, he led Russia back to its historical dependence on one powerful leader, and he did this with the support of a large majority of the Russian people.

3. We cannot begrudge the Russians a measure of stability and prosperity after what they have gone through.

4. Russia’s been there, too long. That is not what it needs now.

Demonstrative: Present tense. Symbolizes values.

1. Conveniently, Russia’s Constitution puts the prime minister in direct line to succeed the country’s president, should that job description prove too much for Mr. Putin’s successor to handle.

2. Mr. Putin has insisted all along that his goal was to create a Russia that is strong, modern and internationally respected. This crass political manipulation will have the opposite effect, weakening Russia in the eyes of the world and eventually its own citizens.

3. Russians and a lot of Russia watchers have been wondering not if, but how Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, would hold on to power.

4. We hope Mr. Putin will rethink this cynical game.

5. If his only intention is to hold on to power, then he will be proclaiming that institutions don’t matter, only the person manipulating them.

Deliberative: Future tense. Represents choices.

1. Mr. Putin said that it was still too early to think about that, and it would depend on whether the next Russian president was “a decent, capable and effective person” with whom he could work.

2. But what they need now is to start building a true democracy on the basis of that stability and prosperity.

3. Mr. Putin, who must step down as president next year, announced that he will head the election list of the dominant party, United Russia, in December’s parliamentary election. That will guarantee him a seat in the lower house, from which he could become prime minister.

4. If he does run for Parliament, he could use his seat to share his experience and skills with a new political generation — but we doubt it.

Role of Women and Judas is Reborn

The Power and the Glory

Pg. 72-103

September 1st, 2007

5:00 P.M.

.

........In this section we are introduced to the town of Concepcion, and to Maria, once the priest's lover. Just as well, the reader quickly finds out about Brigitta, the priest's daughter. The more the reader indulges in the novel, the more obvious the role of women in this society becomes. Graham Greene is clearly portraying a very feministic point of view in his novel, constantly placing women in the dominating role compared to men. In this society, women are the moving force behind the men; the men might take care of the action, but it's the women that actually plan it. Women are the motor of the society, the control men and can manipulate them to get what they want. Women have the upper hand. In Part I, we were introduced to Coral Fellows, an American girl that gave the priest shelter and protected him from the lieutenant when no one else would. She comforted him when he felt alone in the world; it was probably thanks to her help that he was able to make it to Concepcion in the first place.
.
.......Once again, in this section the reader witnesses Maria's willingness to help him escape alive. Right after the service, when the police came into the village, Maria was aware that the smell of wine in the priest's breath would give away his true identity. In order to prevent this from happening, she gave him "a small raw onion" to bite, "it was a trick all women seemed to know (73)." Just as well, the priest was about to give up; he had no plan, "It was the end (72)." However, as soon as he saw Maria he thought she would have a plan, Maria prevented his capture. She gave him the tools, and the strength confidence he needed in order to continue running away. Just as well, her actions symbolize how astute women are, and how they can get around the obstacles men place. Another clear example that shows how Maria is in control is the wine bottle and the priest’s case. She knows that the bottle will bring trouble not only for the priest if it’s ever found but also for Concepcion, so she breaks it. “I’m not going to bring trouble on you and everyone else. I’ve broken the bottle (78).” She takes the initiative without even hearing what the priest (man) has to say about it. This example shows how women have the instinct to protect people around them, unlike men; they know when to avoid risks that could put everyone they love in danger. However, it isn’t only the actions that Greene describes that allow the reader to connect women as the dominating character. The subtle sentences he uses to praise women are also evident. "...women were appallingly practical; they built new plans at once out of the ruins of the old (72), " and "it was a trick all women seemed to know (73)."

…..Another example of women’s dominating role over men is Brigitta, the priest’s daughter. He’s a priest, and he should be ashamed of having an illegitimate child. Any other priest would probably hate this child; she would be the cause of rumors and shame tainting his name. However, “He felt weak with longing (81)” when he saw her. In the scene where the priest is grabbing the papers from his case, Greene makes it obvious to the reader how Brigitta is the one that’s in control of the situation. “He was appalled again by her maturity (81),” how could she impress him so much, she was only seven years old! Just as well, when he wants to give her a kiss “she screeched at him in her ancient voice and giggled (81).” An innocent seven year old that doesn’t want to be kissed by her father and is actually able to pull away? That scene clearly shows how this little girl obviously controls the priest.

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

.
….. The mestizo, I think, will play a very important role in the remainder of the storyline. Since the mestizo was first introduced into the storyline, Greene has always foreshadowed his suspicious nature. “It was as if he had a secret purpose which nobody but the priest must hear (85).” The priest attempted to ignore him because “uneasiness was lodged in his brain (85).” Another very important quote that clearly foreshadows the mestizo’s intention is: “…it was like a slot machine into which any coin could be fitted, even a cheater’s blank disk (89).” Another very important aspect of this first chapter is the allusion of the mestizo to Judas. “His conscience ceased to accuse him of uncharity. He knew. He was in the presence of Judas (91).” Judas was the biblical character that betrayed Jesus in the Bible for some gold coins. If the mestizo was Judas and “he was the man that wanted to betray him (95),” then that would make the priest Jesus if the metaphor continued. What is significant about this allusion is that it portrays the priest as the Savior. He is like Jesus willing to die for his cause rather than giving in to sin. He represents the faith of religion, and its desire to continue its influence on people. The priest ultimately represents religion as he is the only living symbol of the Church. All priests are dead, except for Father Jose which represents a weak link in the religious institution. This means that only the priest can save religion as a whole, it’s up to him to save religion from complete extinction.

…..With all this said, the last words the mestizo says to the priest are very perturbing. “Of course, he had every reason to be angry; he had lost seven hundred pesos. He shrieked hopelessly, ‘I don’t forget a face.’ (102)” This clearly foreshadows that this isn’t the last time the priest is going cross paths with the mestizo; he obviously wants revenge and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it.

The Whiskey Priest and his Never Ending Torture

The Power and the Glory

Pg. 49-72

September 27, 2007

9:00 P.M.

.....I just finished reading Part I and began reading Part II. This part of the novel relates parallel lives in Mexico that portray very different points of view. All the different points of view come from different socio-economical stratas as well as of from different age groups and nationalities; however, they all stage what's taking place during the same time. Most of the characters come into direct contact with the whiskey priest or are closely linked to the religious situation in the province. This technique is probably meant to give the reader some sort of insight into the situation. If the reader understands the different points of view and people's different response, then they will be able to understand the novel further on.

.

.......I related Part I of the novel to the movie "Crash." This movie approaches the theme of racism in the same form as The Power and the Glory approaches the theme of religion in Mexico. By setting up parallel lives with different perspectives, the author or director is able to convey a much stronger message. The viewer or reader is able to understand the message by making clear similarities in very different environments. Just as well, the perspectives expressed are very similar; the character divisions are at least.

A Selfish Humanity

The Power and the Glory

Pgs. 30-49

September 25, 20o7

6:00 P.M.

.

..... This section of the book really emphasizes the selfishness of society and humanity. Two examples of this are: when the stranger arrives at the hut community and when Padre Jose is summoned to say some prayers at a little girl's funeral.

.

...... After being on the run for a long time and constantly fearing for his life, the stranger priest reaches a hut community which receives him with open arms. Soon a man comes to greet the traveller, and informs him that the community has very little to offer him. They "have no food," they can't offer him a hammock, and they only have coffee to drink. However, in the next paragraph the author describes "a stack of maize" while "rats rustled among the dry leaves (43)." The aren't willing to share their provisions with this hunger-stricken human being; however, they expect him to fulfill their expectations. The priest is absolutely exhausted, he wants to sleep, knowing that for the first time danger isn't a step behind. Although they couldn't give the priest food or offer him a hammock, the least they could give him the peace and quiet that he deserves in order to rest. But he people immediately wanted him to say mass, baptize a boy, and hear their confessions; they wanted him to satisfy their needs first, after all there was a risk that he could be taken away any minute. "It would be a pity if the soldiers came before we had time...such a burden on poor souls...father...(44)." All they want from him is to satisfy their moral and religious needs, and then he can continue his race against time. I mean why care about everything that this poor man had been through, right? He could be dead tomorrow, but instead of helping to protect him they just want to squeeze him out of his las breath of life. This is clear evidence that people don't think they need to give in order to receive; there's a mentality to get and gain for yourself before you give anything back. That's the selfish essence in humanity; we are not a very philantropic society.

.

......Another example of human greed would be the scene with Padre Jose in the cemetery. Padre Jose was just taking a stroll through the cemetery which "waken[ed] a faint sense of homesickness which was better than no feeling at all (47)." He was taking advantage of the "sense of intimacy" that the cemetery provided; after all, "Life here had withdrawn altogether (47)." He was contemplating what his life had become, what had been erased from the past, and how he had made it through the days. Time passed as he analyzed how empty and void his life had become; however, this peace didn't last for long. There was a burial taking place at the far corner of the cemetery, and as soon as the grieving family saw him they wanted him to say some prayers for the dead girl. "They all watched him hungrily; they had been quite resigned until he had appeared, but now they were anxious, eager...He ducked and dodged away from them...They smiled at him waiting. They were quite accustomed to people dying, but an unforeseen hope of happiness had bobbed up among the tombs: they could boast after this that one at least of their family had gone into ground with an official prayer (48)." If Padre Jose practiced such prayers he would greatly endanger his life; it could be like committing suicide. However, the grieving party wasn't concerned about that; they made all kinds of promise to keep quiet in exchange for the prayers. However, "he could trust no one. As soon as they got back home one or other of them would certainly begin to boast (48)." They are willing to risk this man's life in order to get some prayers for their dead relative. How could you ask so much of one person? Risk your life for someone else's peace when they aren't willing to risk their peace for someone else's life? How can people be so selfish? Why do they want to kill this innocent man oppressed by the turns of life? Isn't he tortured enoguh with himself? He already had to give up his beliefs in order to life (he even had to abdicate to his vote of chastity and marry).

.

..... These two examples really open human selfishness as a possible theme in this novel. It opens the reader to begin searching for new answers within the text, and to connect with the characters at another deeper level. Human Selfishness could definitely be a recurring theme in the text.