We have laws specifically enacted in order to protect society. However, if and when people engage in behaviors that primarily only harm themselves, is it right for the criminal justice system to intervene? To what extent should one be able to enjoy personal freedoms including the freedom of consensual participation? Euphemistically speaking, are there such things as crimes without victims? Consider this transcript from the latest pool of television advertising spots from the White House Office of Drug Control Policy:''This is Dan. This is the joint that Dan bought. This is the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the cartel that uses the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. And this is the family that was tied up by Dan’s cartel and shot for getting in the way. Drug money supports terrible things. If you buy drugs, you might too"
This advertisement clearly exploded the notion of private, consensual, adult drug use as a victimles. For example, as the debate concerning the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana continues to gain momentum, proponents of legalization and decriminalization are quick to observe and suggest, ''marijuana is overall becoming a more acceptable substance in our society.'' This is just one example that highlights the notion that morality and criminality are relatively volatile and not invincible to the forces of change, and acts that were defined as illegal ten or twenty years ago are not necessarily illegal today nor will acts that are considered illegal today necessarily be considered illegal ten or twenty years from now and vice versa. History has clearly demonstrated that the utilization of criminal law as a means to enforce morality is certainly not unprecedented, to say the least, and often takes a cyclical form. Nonetheless, as new aspects of the various behaviors categorized as crimes without victims continue to arouse considerable public controversy, it is likely that society’s views concerning morality and criminality as it relates to these particular offenses will also continue to deviate relative to today’s normative standards.
however, this line of reasoning is only one-side of a relatively recent, highly contentious and divisive, sociopolitical debate. The articles selected for review for the purposes at present serve to illustrate: the controversy surrounding the debate of victimless crime in general and illicit drug use specifically: the most basic, practically inescapable ideological biases from which the basis of the debate is centered; and, the relativity of law as it relates to social order crimes.
Definitional issues and the relative moral dissonance among the debaters, then, surround the primary controversy of this debate. Advocates who believe that victimless crimes ought to be reduced or eliminated argue, firstly, that victimless crime is not only an adequate social construct but also a reality, and, secondly, that the cornerstone of a free democratic society is that it extends freedom to all citizens as long as that freedom does not impinge on the equivalent freedom of others. Criminologists often make reference to the works of renowned labeling theorist, Howard Becker, who combined criminological conflict and symbolic interactionist theories and maintained that moral entrepreneurship, rooted in the Protestant ethic, was the most significant force behind the law. This is to say, Becker believed that it was the people that held the decision-making power that made rules in their interest and redefined what is and what is not deviant or criminal.The opposition of this debate asserts that victimless crime is a fallacious concept. That is, in actuality, there exists no criminal action that does not produce some sort of a victim.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Today the perception of family life consists of a picturesque scene with a white picket fence surrounding a house with a Golden Retriever playing with the children in the backyard. This setting has quite a bit changed, and according to Sullivan, the judicial systems needs to recognize atypical lifestyles of family living. Andrew Sullivan, editor of the New Republic presents to the reader a case in which the New York City Judicial System faced earlier this year. This case dealt with the rights of ownership after a partner of a gay relationship deceased. The Judge ruled that the gay partner is considered a family member only on the basis that there was an "interwoven social life" and ''emotional commitment'' to each other. This quandary enters the ideas of "domestic partnership laws." Sullivan explains how he is against domestic partnership laws and how he believes marriage is a conservative step towards for gays. Sullivan attempts to convince the reader to agree with his argument as to why a move towards gay marriages is a positive stride for society as a whole. He begins his argument with the ruling of the New York rent-control case.
Sullivan presents us with another argument as to why he feels domestic partnerships need to be abolished and why the government doesn’t allow traditional marriage for gays. ''The concept of domestic partnership chips away at the prestige of traditional relationships and undermines the priority we give them.'' I agree on how Sullivan feels the government won’t allow for gays to be on the level of traditional marriages as heterosexuals. Sullivan seems to have used this argument as one based on character. He appeals to the reader by showing how just as heterosexuals; gays feel the need to have the status of being married as well. Sullivan goes on and presents the reader with a values argument which shows the reader how gays are portrayed as. He goes on to present us with the stereotype gay, "Gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, antibourgeois, and radical." The idea of gay marriage is defended by those who choose to percieve the very idea is as similar as the idea of marriage between a man and a woman- nothing else.
Sullivan presents us with another argument as to why he feels domestic partnerships need to be abolished and why the government doesn’t allow traditional marriage for gays. ''The concept of domestic partnership chips away at the prestige of traditional relationships and undermines the priority we give them.'' I agree on how Sullivan feels the government won’t allow for gays to be on the level of traditional marriages as heterosexuals. Sullivan seems to have used this argument as one based on character. He appeals to the reader by showing how just as heterosexuals; gays feel the need to have the status of being married as well. Sullivan goes on and presents the reader with a values argument which shows the reader how gays are portrayed as. He goes on to present us with the stereotype gay, "Gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, antibourgeois, and radical." The idea of gay marriage is defended by those who choose to percieve the very idea is as similar as the idea of marriage between a man and a woman- nothing else.
blog#2: deductive reason
Since the beginning of history, man has tried to devise a perfect political system. Plato designed a utopian Republic, while Karl Marx radically changed the face of the earth by offering up a secular state that is supposed to be sufficient for all. The highest hopes for political systems were held by some 18th century French Enlightenment philosophers, specifically Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet. However, the concomitant attempt to bring about an ideal humanistic system (based on Enlightenment thought), most nearly attempted in Scandinavia, has fallen short of fruition. The great things these systems propose to offer, such as financial and legal equality, peace and moral freedom, are not sufficient for all these individuals, leaving people disillusioned and perfect utopian political systems fatally flawed. It is foolish to try to please all the people all the time with simple comforts. Hence, utopias are doomed to failure, as my critique will show and pessimists believe things can improve. Utopian perfection, though, is unrealistic because even the best of nations suffer. Nonetheless, there have clearly been great thinkers who have apealed to this idea.
For somethere are two governments: the spiritual and the political. Thus, there are two regulators, the conscience and external jurisdictions. The "former" has its seat in the interior of the mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct: one may be termed a spiritual kingdom, and the other a political one. However, anyone who knows how to distinguish between the body and the soul, between this present transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very different and remote from each other.
Condorcet and other Enlightenment thinkers comprised the most optimistic genre of thinkers in history. All of these humanists esteemed Hellenic optimism and the Roman State’s governmental form. They borrowed greatly from their British predecessors’ contract government and hope in people. Condorcet was the most optimistic of all the thinkers and has been a spokesman for optimists who seek perfection for the future. Together, these Frenchmen epitomized the ideals of utopia. While some later political theorists also helped model modern day socialist utopias, they owe much to Condorcet and his perfectionist dreams, as this paper will show. The predecessors to the French (Greece, Rome and England), the French themselves, and their philosophical followers created the philosophical constructs that led to the construction of social democratic states like present day Sweden. Just as there were three national influences on enlightenment thought, three consequent schools of thought which borrow from the French are correspondingly influential in modern utopian societies. These are communism as outlined by Marx, utilitarianism (from Mill), and nihilism.
For somethere are two governments: the spiritual and the political. Thus, there are two regulators, the conscience and external jurisdictions. The "former" has its seat in the interior of the mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct: one may be termed a spiritual kingdom, and the other a political one. However, anyone who knows how to distinguish between the body and the soul, between this present transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very different and remote from each other.
Condorcet and other Enlightenment thinkers comprised the most optimistic genre of thinkers in history. All of these humanists esteemed Hellenic optimism and the Roman State’s governmental form. They borrowed greatly from their British predecessors’ contract government and hope in people. Condorcet was the most optimistic of all the thinkers and has been a spokesman for optimists who seek perfection for the future. Together, these Frenchmen epitomized the ideals of utopia. While some later political theorists also helped model modern day socialist utopias, they owe much to Condorcet and his perfectionist dreams, as this paper will show. The predecessors to the French (Greece, Rome and England), the French themselves, and their philosophical followers created the philosophical constructs that led to the construction of social democratic states like present day Sweden. Just as there were three national influences on enlightenment thought, three consequent schools of thought which borrow from the French are correspondingly influential in modern utopian societies. These are communism as outlined by Marx, utilitarianism (from Mill), and nihilism.
blog#1:inductive reason
The idea of rhetoric in the english language seems to frighten anyone who is introduced to it by their teachers and professors and although it may be difficult to the untrained skill, there is a specific aspect of rhetoric that seems to go unobseved that we as a sciety have learned over a wide range of discipline in the way we communicate; "analysis." Analysis is not a skill that is always clear and monolithic let alone single or whole, in fact every discipline in the language of every person in the world contains its own ways of analyzing and with those ways come the different generalizations of an analysis. to analyze something is to understand a complex phenomina by breaking down the components and obseving the patterns and the relationships of the patterns themselves, wether or not they be fallable in any way. if this process is done so properly, then the idea of rhetoric is easy to understand and do. As the great master of rhetoric Aristotle once described, the way to master the art of persuading is to mimic the professionals; those professionals in the aspect of analyzing in rhetoric lives in everyone. Every person analyzes everything they see or hear or smell or taste or feel or touch everyday and although they do not realize it, analyzing in rhetoric is the same process.
For example, a person that describes a car of the latest model, in the mind they will describe the way it looks, the content of the car on the outside as well as inside the car. They will observe the as aspects of the car in their mind just as much as the bad aspects in a car that came out three or four years ago. This is the same in rhetoric. In the passage ''Okeefenokee Swamp" by Joshua Laerm, two columns are written, one using objective writing and subjective writing in the other. In the subjective column the swamp is described more detailed and more lively and desciptively than the subjective column. The subjective column describes the swamp in more dull detail and boring descriptions.
The idea of analyzing in rhetoric is just as simple as observing a car. However, some may say the first rhetors of thier time such as Aristotle had to practice their analysis thoroughly and redundantly to truly grasp the knowledge of it. In all credebility, the people who say this prove a good point; however they are missing one section of the idea. To understand something one must practice it more than twuce, yes, but rhetoric is more prudent than that. In analysis one practices the process everyday. A todler knows that if candy tastes better than broccoli, obviously the candy will be the winning choice because it has more flavor that apeals to the todler. The case is similar in argument. If one person says that candy is better than broccoli and another todler says that broccoli is better than candy, the two will give their reasons after multiple questions and statements regarding "why?" "no, because..." or " yes,because..." The point is that rhetoric has been used since young ages and since times even before Aristotle, the only thing that makes rhetoric difficult is the lack of practice and training of the skill itself; evryone uses rhetoric every day of their lives, therefore it is not hard if we do it blindly.
For example, a person that describes a car of the latest model, in the mind they will describe the way it looks, the content of the car on the outside as well as inside the car. They will observe the as aspects of the car in their mind just as much as the bad aspects in a car that came out three or four years ago. This is the same in rhetoric. In the passage ''Okeefenokee Swamp" by Joshua Laerm, two columns are written, one using objective writing and subjective writing in the other. In the subjective column the swamp is described more detailed and more lively and desciptively than the subjective column. The subjective column describes the swamp in more dull detail and boring descriptions.
The idea of analyzing in rhetoric is just as simple as observing a car. However, some may say the first rhetors of thier time such as Aristotle had to practice their analysis thoroughly and redundantly to truly grasp the knowledge of it. In all credebility, the people who say this prove a good point; however they are missing one section of the idea. To understand something one must practice it more than twuce, yes, but rhetoric is more prudent than that. In analysis one practices the process everyday. A todler knows that if candy tastes better than broccoli, obviously the candy will be the winning choice because it has more flavor that apeals to the todler. The case is similar in argument. If one person says that candy is better than broccoli and another todler says that broccoli is better than candy, the two will give their reasons after multiple questions and statements regarding "why?" "no, because..." or " yes,because..." The point is that rhetoric has been used since young ages and since times even before Aristotle, the only thing that makes rhetoric difficult is the lack of practice and training of the skill itself; evryone uses rhetoric every day of their lives, therefore it is not hard if we do it blindly.
Monday, December 13, 2010
blog 7....the motives
a. good and evil are two characteristics in human life that inevitably make up a person, however it is the path we choose to take that creates us.
b.although there are people in this world that are cruel and evil, it does nopt necessarily mean that they do not have both lights and darks in their moralities.
c.good deeds, maturity, responsability
d. point-by-point
blog 6... working definitions
freedom: freedom is what we hope for. freedom is what some do not have. freedom is what some strive for. in all their life they try to fly. fly the heavens if their present and hope to change the future. this is what freedom means. like the wings on a bird
blog, narrative.....Heartbeats
all i could rememver was the emotional toll it had on me. the bkank state of mind that she had. the sweet essence of her gentle perfume. the long, flowing waves of her hair in the wind. the kind taste of her lips as they kindled mine. there was only one special spot in this entire ecosystemic city that we prefered to be. not necessarily because of the privacy, but because of the way this place acted as a window. a window that allowed us to experience the life of the city; the heartbeat of the lights, the peoplem, the music. thats what we loved the most. this place was a window because it protected us from that heartbeat. it gave us a chance to hear our own heartbeats as one. it used to seem that way for me at least.
passion avenue was the street i lived in before it happened. it was a lonely street. it existed under the majesty of the subway train, and next to it- on the sidewalk- was old man Johnson's dinner. he was as old as anyone recognized him to be. my old two bedroom apartment on the top floor of the outcome building, was all i had now. it awlways rained here in the city. nobody knew why. i loved it though. the sound of the million and one water dropplets as they exploded on the cold concrete was my sound. hers was the life of the city. the loud metalic cry of the iron monster as it passed by my window, faster than the eye could notice. the musky aroma of the steam as it reguvinated the pores of anyone who passed by the sewage openings on the sidewalk. that was her sound. the city, in all its glory and majesty was our open field. the lights of the many buildings and stores, malls, hospitals, rooms, closets, offices, work rooms, living rooms, resturaunts, clubs, dinners, and classrooms, and electric rooms, museums, and hotels. it was all our guides, our own faces of warmth. our signs to find ourselves if we got lost. i remember the looks on other people's faces as they watched us run side by side, or towards each other. they thought we were immature delinquents, im sure. but they did not understand what our heartbeats learned from each other/ that night especialy, in my room when our hearts mingled with each beat as they began match and become one. that is what they did not understand. but i don't blame them though. who am i to judge other hearts that haven't gone through all the sufferage i went through. i kind of respected them for it, but their stories arte no business of mine. this is true.
passion avenue was the street i lived in before it happened. it was a lonely street. it existed under the majesty of the subway train, and next to it- on the sidewalk- was old man Johnson's dinner. he was as old as anyone recognized him to be. my old two bedroom apartment on the top floor of the outcome building, was all i had now. it awlways rained here in the city. nobody knew why. i loved it though. the sound of the million and one water dropplets as they exploded on the cold concrete was my sound. hers was the life of the city. the loud metalic cry of the iron monster as it passed by my window, faster than the eye could notice. the musky aroma of the steam as it reguvinated the pores of anyone who passed by the sewage openings on the sidewalk. that was her sound. the city, in all its glory and majesty was our open field. the lights of the many buildings and stores, malls, hospitals, rooms, closets, offices, work rooms, living rooms, resturaunts, clubs, dinners, and classrooms, and electric rooms, museums, and hotels. it was all our guides, our own faces of warmth. our signs to find ourselves if we got lost. i remember the looks on other people's faces as they watched us run side by side, or towards each other. they thought we were immature delinquents, im sure. but they did not understand what our heartbeats learned from each other/ that night especialy, in my room when our hearts mingled with each beat as they began match and become one. that is what they did not understand. but i don't blame them though. who am i to judge other hearts that haven't gone through all the sufferage i went through. i kind of respected them for it, but their stories arte no business of mine. this is true.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Era of Poison (this is a chapter of a new story im working on called 'Star Degree') here is a promo of it:
Ally's skyrifter landed its wings gently on the mysterious land. her protective clothing covered fer entire being. she didnt want to risk being bitten by a Gallor Mornacot or any poison creature, for all she knew, this underworld could have been wildly more dangerous than the Temptatche Jungle above her at the place where she left from only hours ago by escaping her home. she was a criminal now in the eyes of the Alemii Rulers, and amongst her departure, she had one last "crime" to commit.
her boot-covered feet set step on the unknown land as she jumped off her skyrifter. The world she was in was so mysterious, so lost in life for a fact that was so ancient to her or anyone she knew. through her protective gogles, the sight she basked upon was infeact as beautifull as she imagined it would be, only more mythical in all it's glory. poisonous plants roamed this place, like back in the Temptatche Jungle. bright and dull shades of blues, purples, grays, greens, and even whites were painted here by nature. Ally smiled. "it's as beautiful as i imagined it would be" she whispred. It was hard to believe, she thought, that such a beautifull and deadly poisonous place would be so misleading, so feared, by her kind.
young Ally walked around the jungle, grasping it's deadly beauty. Back in the sky; her home, she would always bring five viles with her to place her magificent findings inside and study their mysteries. Now it seemed that to commit such an act to this world down here was too selfish, to cruel to even consider. she did not want to take away even a fragment of dust away from this deadly place. it was alive in Ally's eyes; this place. like the Temptatche Jungle above her, it had life, a steady, beating heart beat. You could even hear it. In the wind, the chirping noises of the winged creatures, the rustling of the exotic and poisonous plants, it buzzing of the microcreatures. it was a steady and dead heartbeat. Ally listened to it. she walked around this place, getting lost in her steps as she focused on the poisoned jungle. She held a connection to it somehow. somewhere deep inside her being, she felt the warmth of this place, the welcome it gave her. The heartbeat of this place seemed to intertwine, to fuse with her heartbeat. Ally heard what the jungle heared, saw what it saw, felt what it felt. it raged throught her with every step she took. She had no direction, no destination. She was just running to feel the jungle. She wanted to understand it, understand the reason for it existing, the story of how this world came to be so deadly, so beautiful. Her heartbeat reced with the beat of the jungle, they were running at the same step. faster, they ran, faster they felt the adrenaline rush through them, until she had no breath did she stop running-NO, SHE KEPT RUNNING. SHE DIDNT WANT TO STOP HEARING THE JUNGLE- she was winning, she was losing, she was right beside it, she was losing again, winning again, beside it again. all adrenaline seemed to built inside both of them until they found no reason to stop. they were alive, sustaining each other, supporting each other knowing that this very action was the very reason she was imprisoned and banished from her home. The Alemii Rulers forbade this, but she didnt listen. Ally was feeling the jungle, they were running, they were one. faster and faster they accelerated, they listened to each other. "IM GOING TO WIN!" they screamed at each other, then she felt it, she had to stop here. "ok, I'll stop, I heard you" Ally whispered. the feeling in her gut cramped her stomach with pain. she had lost her breath from all that running. Ally fell to the ground like rock, her body felt heavy, tired. for ten minutes she layed there on the soft poison grass. it was quiet now, she heared the life of the jungle once again. the heartbeat pounded inside her with all it's force in the world. it felt good; to be alive, to be the only one to take it all in. "Im here, i want to show you something, Ally, Ally, Ally, i need to show you why i took you here" Ally felt the jungle, she felt it's need, it's want. the girl slowly got up and dusted herself. then she looked up and what she saw was, the most elegant, beautiful, mythical thing she had ever seen. the girl seemed to be in the center of ancient ruins. "oh...im, i heared you....i found you" she whispered. the ruins stood as high as her eyes could allow her to see. no ceiling, no people, just arcs that stood high in the sky. white towers and destroyed walls that was all covered by the poisonous vines and plants that reached to the peak of the ruins. the light of the blue and gray sky reflected off the white tiles on the towers and high arcs and plants, it was beautiful. then Ally looked forward and found that many feet away were a flight of steps that lead to the seconed floor. small steps, she took as her eyes basked upon what seemed to her, the very heart of this poisonous place. as she steped closer; right in the middle, Ally looked straight up at the sky, and saw the shattered cieling of this ruin. long vines hung from atop this and fell all the way to the ground, like long arms of what used to be life. she looked srtraight again, and saw the flight of stairs getting closer. she stopped at the front of the first step. she took a deep breath, and took the first step without looking towards her. one step, then the second, the third and the fourth, then the fifth and the sixth. it was until she reached the fifteenth step did she the girl look up. then she took the sixteenth step; the second floor of the ruins. the white tile was covered with poisonous dust and sprouting weeds and plants. then she looked at the wall in front of her and widened her eyes as she noticed the ancient markings that covered the whole wall. they etched from atop the ruin wall to the bottom of her eyes. Ally closed her eyes as she placed her palm on the ancient marking in front of her. she tried to picture what kind of life raomed this place when it was alive; before it died. it was a question that had no answer, she could only guess at it. then, with hesitation she retrieved her hand and then she remembered what she had studied all those years ago at her uncle's house. Uncle Yuka studied ancient runes. he was an eremrion ogf knowledge, a term in which everyone considers legend. it was true though, the content of what she studied with her uncle, it came to her, like a spark to a flame. There were 26 markings that the ancient civilization used and 10 seperate markings to find the amount and value of things: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Ally studied these markings until she learned to put them each together in countless combinations to make what are called words. she learned how to read ancient language. then Ally opened her eyes, looked up at the markings, and read; "HERE LIES THE ANCIENT CHAPAL OF WEN KROY. THE ALMIGHTY CHAPAL OF ALL THAT IS GOOD. IN HERE LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE ADOLESCANT EMERY CASTER STOPPED THE POISON BREATHERS IN THEIR MISSION TO RENEW THE WORLD OF THE LIFE THAT IS THE CAUSE OF ITS DEATH. HUMANS AND ANIMALS WILL BE RESTED OF THEIR LIVES IN ORDER FOR RENEWAL TO COMMENCE. IT IS NOT IN UR DEEPEST FEAR THAT WE ARE THE CAUSE OF OUR OWN DESTRUCTION, BUT THE CAUSE OF WHAT DESTROYS US. HERE LIES THE SOULS OF THE DEATHLY DEPARTED, THEY ARE THE MEMORY OF WHAT EXISTED IN ITS OWN FAULT. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT IT IS THE SAKE OF FUTURE LIVES THAT WILL EIXST OF THEIR OWN FAULT SOME TIME, AND IT IS IN THAT TIME THAT A NEW LIFE OF EXISTANCE WILL EMERGE IN THE NEVER ENDING CYCLE OF LIFE AND DEATH. THAT IS WHAT THE ERA OF POISON HAS LEFT US, TO BASK IN ITS BEAUTIFUL DEATH. AND IT IS IN THAT POISON THAT HOLDS THE TRUE MEANING OF HOW TO LIVE. LONG LIVE OUR ANCIENT SAVIOR; THE EMERY CASTER"
and then the young Ally of fifteen star degrees (fifteen years of age) knew what the jungle had told her to do. she turned around and looked at the floor below her and saw the many, many tablets and stones that stood above the tiles. she never noticed them before. then she knew what her crime was, she knew why the Alemii Rulers banished her from her home, why they imprisoned her. why it was so forbidden to enter the Temptache Jungle above her. it is because of what she believes in that she is the fault of life. the era of poison is beautiful beacuse it is the next life that is meant to exist after her. she is not supposed to exist in this world, that is why she felt the poison of this place. then at that moment, that very same heartbeat faded, like a failing spark that fails to illuminate a fire.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
La Familia!!!!!!!!!
hello mrs. eddie, i am gabriel's mom and i just wanted to say that the honor of having you as my son's teacher is of great inspiration to my son. He is writing a great amount of books as one complete series of a story and he simply adores writing it. Everytime i come home from work i always find him inside his head and regurtitating all of his thoughts and his incredible adventures down on paper, and he doesnt stop. i, for one, love that he loves writing. i believe its the most healthiest thing for him, the most innocent act of my son's personality, his overall person. Gabriel is so innocent, so pure, and good. he sees life from an untainted way of sight. i have not had a chance to read his story, but every time he writes, he always tells me how he can improve his writing the way you have taught him. he tells me that you have taught him many things, the biggest thing is that authors have to write with purpose, with meaning of what each writer's personality and experiences. i realy hope in hearing alot of you through my son mrs. eddy, because i realy believe that he will shine in life with his stories later in life. i keep telling him that his life hasn't even begun yet for him, he is still a baby in my eyes, and he is growing up faster than i can keep up. all i want is for him to leave my home prepared for what life holds in store for him, and with his writings, he will have all the tools to turn that famous phrase around into what he has in store for life.
thank you sinceriously,
gabriela valenzuela a.k.a the future mother of the future most famous author in history
thank you sinceriously,
gabriela valenzuela a.k.a the future mother of the future most famous author in history
Blog Review
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
1. The main purpose for this particular blog that i thought stood out the most was the fact that the author writes as in perspective of both sides to what he is writing about. For me, that, i think is INCREDIBLY important in life because you get a more open and full point of view not only as a reason for arguement but as a person and the conflicts that we as people face in our lives.
2. the speaker is the author, Mark Shea... He does show ethos. He is of Catholic religion and states it in the arguements of his blogs and as well as the head title; " Catholic and Enjoying It! ". Mark uses ethos in his arguements to point his perspective of things, for example in one of his blogs, he is against the way others are advertising their clothing; convincing overweight people, for example, to wear fashionable clothes to show their "form" more " neater"
3. His audience is anybody, realy. Mark simply posts his blogs to express his arguements from both perspectives of arguements as he tries to be as understanding as possile.
4. one major aspect of Mark's blogs is that he writes from both sides of the arguement. I like this in particular because it relates to a huge aspect of me. I do not like confrentations at all, nor do I side with one side and oppose the other. It is because of that very aspect of arguement that hatred is born. I do not like to hate, and i'm not saying i'm a complete wus or anything, i'm just saying that the world would be so much safer and peaceful if humanity learns to understand the problems an accept the apologies of others. like Mark, I know the consequences of the aspects of arguement an conflicts that roam upon humanity every moment of time, and that is what we as human beings of one world need to realize before our reason to hold peace breaks off of that last strand of thick rope that has decayed ever so much throughout the years.
1. The main purpose for this particular blog that i thought stood out the most was the fact that the author writes as in perspective of both sides to what he is writing about. For me, that, i think is INCREDIBLY important in life because you get a more open and full point of view not only as a reason for arguement but as a person and the conflicts that we as people face in our lives.
2. the speaker is the author, Mark Shea... He does show ethos. He is of Catholic religion and states it in the arguements of his blogs and as well as the head title; " Catholic and Enjoying It! ". Mark uses ethos in his arguements to point his perspective of things, for example in one of his blogs, he is against the way others are advertising their clothing; convincing overweight people, for example, to wear fashionable clothes to show their "form" more " neater"
3. His audience is anybody, realy. Mark simply posts his blogs to express his arguements from both perspectives of arguements as he tries to be as understanding as possile.
4. one major aspect of Mark's blogs is that he writes from both sides of the arguement. I like this in particular because it relates to a huge aspect of me. I do not like confrentations at all, nor do I side with one side and oppose the other. It is because of that very aspect of arguement that hatred is born. I do not like to hate, and i'm not saying i'm a complete wus or anything, i'm just saying that the world would be so much safer and peaceful if humanity learns to understand the problems an accept the apologies of others. like Mark, I know the consequences of the aspects of arguement an conflicts that roam upon humanity every moment of time, and that is what we as human beings of one world need to realize before our reason to hold peace breaks off of that last strand of thick rope that has decayed ever so much throughout the years.
Pathos, Style, and Symbol...democracy style ;)
1. Pathos, in this advertisement is displayed by the apealing of Nick Romney in that he states all of the social, economic, and just problems that America is facing with in general. To advertise something of this matter, it is crucial to show the truth without lies and misleading problems and quotes, and i think Nick Romney is very persuading based on the fact that he uses the obstacles of America as a pure form of pathos.
2. Nick Romney's style is displayed as inspirationaly true. In the advertisement, the way the camera angle shows Romney smiling, and how he acts around other people (his 'fans' im guessing) shows that he is just as normal as anyone else, and to pursue a nation as he is doing only shows saftey and the garantee of a better nation by this normal and simple man.
3. One major symbol i captured was the flag of the United States. Nick Romney is symbolising what America should be and he is dispaying that symbolism through the American flag behind him as he gives his truly inspiring speech. (to tell the truth Mrs. Eddy, if i was 18 and I saw this, I'd vote for him....then again, i dont like confrentations XD )
2. Nick Romney's style is displayed as inspirationaly true. In the advertisement, the way the camera angle shows Romney smiling, and how he acts around other people (his 'fans' im guessing) shows that he is just as normal as anyone else, and to pursue a nation as he is doing only shows saftey and the garantee of a better nation by this normal and simple man.
3. One major symbol i captured was the flag of the United States. Nick Romney is symbolising what America should be and he is dispaying that symbolism through the American flag behind him as he gives his truly inspiring speech. (to tell the truth Mrs. Eddy, if i was 18 and I saw this, I'd vote for him....then again, i dont like confrentations XD )
Friday, September 17, 2010
Octavio Paz, a Biography
I was born to Octavio Paz Solórzano and Josefina Lozano. My father was an active supporter of the Revolution against the Díaz regime. I was raised in the village of Mixcoac by my mother Josefina, my aunt Amalia Paz, an intellectual, novelist, publisher and former supporter of President. Because of my family's public support, we were forced into exile after Zapata's assassination. we served our exile in the United States.
I was introduced to literature early in my life through the influence of my grandfather's library, filled with classic Mexican and European literature. During the 1920s, I discovered the European poets and Spanish writers who had a great influence on my early writings. As a teenager in 1931, I published my first poems, including "Cabellera". Two years later, at the age of 19, I published "Wild Moon", a collection of poems. In 1932, with some friends, I founded my first literary review, Barandal. By 1939, I considered myself first and foremost a poet.
In 1935, I abandoned my law studies and left for work at school and I began working on the first of my long, ambitious poems, "Between the Stone and the Flower".
In 1937, I was invited to the Second International Writers Congress in Defense of Culture in Spain during the country war, showing my solidarity with the Republican side, Upon my return to Mexico, I co-founded a literary journal, "Workshop" in 1938, and wrote for the magazine until 1941. In 1938 I also met and married, now considered one of Mexico's finest writers. I had one daughter, Helena. I divorced from my wife in 1959. In 1943, I received an award and began studying in the United States, and two years later I entered the Mexican diplomatic service, working in New York for a while. In 1945, I wrote "The Labyrinth of Solitude", a groundbreaking study of Mexican identity and thought. In 1952, I travelled for the first time and, in the same year as chargé d'affairs. I returned to Mexico City in 1954, where I wrote his great poem "Piedra de sol" in 1957 and Libertad bajo palabra (Liberty under Oath), a compilation of my poetry up to that time. I was sent again to Paris in 1959, following the steps of my lover, the Italian painter Bona Tibertelli de Pisis. In 1962 I was named Mexico's ambassador to India
I was introduced to literature early in my life through the influence of my grandfather's library, filled with classic Mexican and European literature. During the 1920s, I discovered the European poets and Spanish writers who had a great influence on my early writings. As a teenager in 1931, I published my first poems, including "Cabellera". Two years later, at the age of 19, I published "Wild Moon", a collection of poems. In 1932, with some friends, I founded my first literary review, Barandal. By 1939, I considered myself first and foremost a poet.
In 1935, I abandoned my law studies and left for work at school and I began working on the first of my long, ambitious poems, "Between the Stone and the Flower".
In 1937, I was invited to the Second International Writers Congress in Defense of Culture in Spain during the country war, showing my solidarity with the Republican side, Upon my return to Mexico, I co-founded a literary journal, "Workshop" in 1938, and wrote for the magazine until 1941. In 1938 I also met and married, now considered one of Mexico's finest writers. I had one daughter, Helena. I divorced from my wife in 1959. In 1943, I received an award and began studying in the United States, and two years later I entered the Mexican diplomatic service, working in New York for a while. In 1945, I wrote "The Labyrinth of Solitude", a groundbreaking study of Mexican identity and thought. In 1952, I travelled for the first time and, in the same year as chargé d'affairs. I returned to Mexico City in 1954, where I wrote his great poem "Piedra de sol" in 1957 and Libertad bajo palabra (Liberty under Oath), a compilation of my poetry up to that time. I was sent again to Paris in 1959, following the steps of my lover, the Italian painter Bona Tibertelli de Pisis. In 1962 I was named Mexico's ambassador to India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)