Science is a religion? FALLACY!

"…Scientology textbooks sometimes refer to psychiatry as a "Nazi science. Well, look at the history. Jung was an editor for the Nazi papers during World War II. … Look at the experimentation the Nazis did with electric shock and drugging. Look at the drug methadone. That was originally called Adolophine. It was named after Adolf Hitler."

Oh, famous celebrities! You make us laugh! But commentators, what happened to you?

Well for starters, the first thing mentioned in this argument is scientology. Now, I’m pretty sure scientology doesn’t reflect the actions of the Nazi’s. In this argument it starts off with a subject of interest, but after reading more into it, the subject of interest changes to something completely tangent: the holocaust and the World War II. This type of fallacy is called the Red Herring: when you start off with subject A, mentions subject B afterwards, and completely forget subject A. The person that is speaking about Tom Cruise’s “religion” is stating that his religion is like a Nazi power. Afterwards he goes in a rant about the history and events of the holocaust and the war that was part of it. Completely, scientology isn’t’ mentioned ever again for the new interest is what occurred in the World War II.

Truly the person’s reasons are to make a clear point that scientology is evil, leave it there and then distract the reader to hear the history of the war in order to emphasize how horrible scientology is.The speaker doesn’t mention the history of the “religion” or what it is about, he just rants on and on about historical events that have nothing to do with what he started. Truly his distraction works for many of the people that viewed it seemed content with what he proclaimed, but in reality they were fooled for the full explanation or details of his subjects weren’t complete, thus making this argument unreliable to believe; it is illegitimate.

Are vegetarians evil? FALLACY!

"How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes ?"

In this argument, the commentator is arguing that the man stating the argument wears leather shoes. He isn’t focusing on his argument alone; instead he’s criticizing his appearance. Yes, there is an ironic situation for the one speaking is wearing leather which comes from cows, but that still isn’t a right way to approach a decision whether what is being stated is legitimate by noticing appearance. With this type of fallacy, everything is done to attack the speaker, thus ignoring what they are explaining. This type of fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy. Truly, with this fallacy it is taken very personal for what is commentated by the listener can be quite distracting. For example, in the example given, the criticizer is making the speaker’s argument weak by attacking the fact that the man is “false”. That possibly isn’t the case for we don’t know the full story of his appearance. But for this type of fallacy it doesn’t matter for the purpose of this attempt is to distract the reader away from the speaker’s reasons, thus making their own attempts successful on catching your attention which leads to not believing what the speaker says for their credit is lowered.
This fallacy can be seen as a personal attack for emotions, physical appearance, beliefs, ect, and it can be seen as an attack, purposely made for the speaker, thus making him vulnerable. This vulnerability can be ghastly for it can distract the readers away from the reasons, thus cause an illegitimate conclusion on whether to accept or discredit what is trying to be portrayed.

Will we all pass this class? Will the professor take pity on us? Find out next time! Same bat channel! Same bat time!

In the beginning of the class, I was almost terrified of what horrible works I would do in class. My writing skills are not the best and as for my skills on understanding literature work? Let just leave it there. I felt the need to somehow escape the class for my pessimistic attitude wasn’t helping my nerves, but as the professor started to speak more and more I realized that maybe this summer experience wasn’t going to be so bad! As the professor went on with her nerdiness about English literature, I noticed her passion for the subject. People that are passionate about what they teach, gives the subject being taught an interesting tone which makes the learning experience quite exciting. I was never bored in class and taking notes didn’t seem extremely tedious. When we started poetry, unfortunately, my wonderful emotions for the class seemed to dwindle a bit. Poetry is by far the most difficult subject for me due to the fact that it seems like a foreign language in my deprived noggin. Fortunately, the professor and many internet sources helped my deprivation seem not so horrible. I really struggled, though with the whole writing assignments. As my friend noted to me a couple of years ago, I can speak eloquently, but once my thoughts are put on paper, I seem to mess it up somehow. Basically, I make the impossible, possible. I know, right? Such a wonderful, honest friend? Even though her comments seemed to strike my heart in a negative way, she was right. Fortunately I had outside sources to help me with writing my papers, especially my boyfriend that would work endless hours with me fixing my horrible sentence structures. I have to admit that the professor’s grading style is hard, though! I feel so fortunate to know that I get passing grades in my essays. I am a perfectionist when it comes to science and math grades, but when I get B’s or even C’s in my essays, it feels like A’s. Yes, I am that horrible at writing.

One of my favorite short stories is “A Rose for Emily” because that story is just super creepy. How many stories end with a corpse and a grey hair on the pillow next to the corpse found? From what I’ve noticed: not many or any at all. So this story is just mystifying to the point of horror.

My favorite poem would have to be “Cinderella” because it is just so easy to follow. It starts off with the mention of lucky events from people and ends with the happy ending of Cinderella. I also love how funny it was when it mentioned the unfortunate betrayals of the step sisters when it came to their shoe fitting fails. Love that poem!

My favorite play is The Tempest because of William Shakespeare. Put a Shakespeare play in front of me, and I assure you I will love it. William is just a genius with anything he creates. Period. Love William Shakespeare!

I found the point of this class to have the purpose of enlightening us about many literature works that exist out there. I was exposed to many thing that I’ve never witnessed which made me glad because new things are always fun to explore. Also, this class helped me notice how horrible I am at writing and how much guidance I needed to be where I am now. Glad this class equipped me with more techniques which will help me improve my writing skills.

I am glad though that we got the opportunity to read Shakespeare. I adore the man for being so well with his words. So once we hit The Tempest, it wasn’t a tempest for me but quite a pleasing experience once again. So thank you professor for letting us read Shakespeare!

I will miss the daily meetings at CCC. English usually leaves scars for they are painful classes for me, but this class only left sadness for it ended too fast. I enjoyed it very much! So, unfortunately, I bid you adu to everyone. Also, have a wonderful summer! It was a delight to have met you all and spend eight weeks with you!

P.S. I add this video for everyone to hear.

Why so serious?

I would consider “The Tempest” by William Shakespeare a serious drama due to the fact that the protagonist faces many challenges. Prospero has to overcome the challenge of being thrown out of his own kingdom with a three year old daughter he has to take care of, as well. Through his journey, he finds an island that becomes his new home where he raises his daughter and learns “magic” through the readings of science and math. It is very serious because Prospero goes through a process that redeems his enemies in order to restore peace in his life. He causes a tempest on Alonso and his followers in order to bring them into the island, which there they go through the meetings that Ariel puts them through. Ariel is the ghostly figure that obeys Prospero all the way. He is the one that helps the magical works of his master to be more powerful. He is very faithful and protects his master. Ariel answers to Prospero’s commands due to the fact that he owes him his duties. Prospero freed him and now he’s entitled to enslavement until his entire master’s plans works out. Through these plans and meetings, the enemies find Prospero, and with his encounter, they all feel sorry for their actions and reunite to start a new life together again. If Prospero’s plans would not have gone perfectly as he planned, this sympathy wouldn’t have resulted. Even though everyone seems to be forgiven, Prospero gives his warnings to Sebastian and Antonio, for they haven’t changed their evil ways. So this whole journey takes a serious turn because there are many things that the main character does which he must consider meticulously in order for his plans to go the way he intends them to go. Another reason I believe it is serious is that this whole journey ends in the likeness of a comedy. There is a love connection between Miranda (Prospero’s daughter) who ends up being together with the son of Alonso, Ferdinand. Through this martial bond, the hatred and uneasiness between Prospero and his old enemies are stopped and there is a repair in the relationship between these families.

So in my opinion, I believe the drama is serious because everything the main character does is serious and vital for his freedom from the island. He takes every step with preparation (for he is well educated) and makes his daughter part of his plans as well for she is well educated by his own wisdom. By using all of these things already counting for him, he ends up becoming a forgiving man and also a puppeteer in making some of his enemies become redeemed and proper. Even though there was a lot of seriousness in planning, the drama, in my opinion ends up with a more comedic turn when the daughter marries and ends the drama between the families.

You're such a doll! Flatter me!

We have encountered many themes in the past. Out of all of these themes, the one that compares to the dramatic play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is the control men have over woman. When I was reading the dramatic play, I noticed that much of Helmer’s treatment to Nora gives a funny, childish manner. Instead of treating her like a mature wife that deserves the treatment of equality and understanding, he gives her nicknames like “little squirrel”. This precise treatment is compared to the short story called “A Yellow Wallpaper”. John would also give his wife childish names which would bring her down instead of treating her like his wife. Through this treatment they develop a type of control over their wives due to the fact that the wives play the part of a little child. They do as they are told without giving the care of questioning whether they are wrong or right. They accustom themselves to ask before doing anything for they know they are not masters of their own lives, and so on. Even though, at first, this control seems harmless and somewhat cute at first, the consequences seem always to lead to something horrible. Nora ends up leaving her husband and children behind in order to find herself, instead of seeking approval of how she should be. The narrator or wife of “A Yellow Wallpaper” ends up insane and kills her husband due to the fact that the reality she was forced to accept ended her touch with what was real and what wasn’t real.

Another example of total control over women is “A Rose for Emily”. In her story, her father would control her every move and would not let her get married in order to keep her to himself. She grew accustomed to this life and as a result, after her father dies, she loses touch of her main guide. By losing her guide we see her break her touch with reality as well. She cannot fathom the thought of being alone and letting go old habits. So she ends up killing the man she loves (for she never knew how it really felt to have a man by her side or know how to deal with a relationship) and afterwards keeps the body as a cuddle toy in her bed. Due to the confliction of not knowing how to deal with life due to her entrapment, she ends up not knowing how to react to life on her own, leading to her insane tactics of not letting go and murder.

The theme is treated more exaggeratedly in dramatic plays due to the fact that people must act it out to show how horrible the event is or how exciting it is. In stories we can only imagine to the limitations of our imagination how it can act out. So I see a difference in exaggeration when comparing the themes to a dramatic play or a short story.

Through the process of seeing how the consequences of complete control of women can lead to disastrous circumstances, I realized, society back then was ghastly!

Such a horrible life you have, Oedipus!

I would characterize Oedipus as a tragic figure due to his horrible fate. The definition of a tragic hero, according to Aristotle, is a list of characteristics that the hero must obtain.

First off, a tragic hero must be of noble stature and greatness. In the beginning of the dramatic play, Oedipus is king of Thebes. He is explained as being an intellectual being with the power to rule over Thebes.

Second, he must have a flaw. Oedipus is too curious. His stubbornness and eagerness to know everything and for everything to go his way hinders him from seeing his surroundings as well as his way of not taking advice from others. His anger is like a bomb waiting to blow up due to his impatience to wait.

Thirdly, the tragic hero brings their own downfall due to their imperfection. Oedipus’ curiosity to know his future led to his fate being certain to become a reality. He searched for an oracle with the curiosity to know what will happen to him, which gave him his fate to be certain. He killed his father, married his mother and ended up being the one at fault for causing Thebe’s misery. By killing his own father, he brought all the other downfalls with him.

Fourthly, the punishment exceeds the crime. He takes his sight and has to live in exile in order to restore the health of Thebes. Yes, he caused the downfall and future embarrassment of his family and the death of his mother, but he compensated by taking his sight and accepted the lonely life until his death, which he explains as a deserved death by going to Hades and facing those he has lost, blinded.

Fifthly, there is an awareness of the tragic hero. He is the son of Laius and the son of his own wife. He had children which came from the same womb he came from. His whole life unravels as not being the children of the people he was adopted from. His whole life is unraveled in front of his eyes.

Finally, every play ends with a catharsis (a relief from the grief we feel for the hero). The catharsis in this play is when he takes his sight, reliving Thebe’s suffering by pouring it upon Oedipus. He doesn’t take his life due to the fact that he wouldn’t suffer; that would just be an escape. That is why he suffers eternally for his actions, thus repaying Thebes.

AHH! DRAMA!

Well, at first the whole concept of making a “good student” face distractions seemed incredibly easy. My group was pumped up and we were ready to write, but as our heads started to think of how to make this whole simple concept into a dramatic play, our brains seemed to turn into mush. We had the to face the difficult task of realizing, “What on earth are we all going to say?” For some reason this part of writing a drama was horribly difficult! After this obstacle, we also realized, “What distractions?” We found it a bit of a joke how we couldn’t agree on anything, but once we put ourselves into the problem, we recognized that the problem wasn’t too hard to figure out. We all talked and just blurted out whatever came to our heads and if we all agreed, that was what made itself onto our script.

As our plays went on into acting mode, I realized that making it comical or serious, it helped remember whatever was mentioned. The actors would play their parts, and just watching and listening at the same time helped understand and remember the concepts and themes of the play. A lecture is amazing, I’m not going to complain, but acting out the parts is SO MUCH HELPFUL! Understanding and grasping many of the main themes are so much easier when people act it out, seriously. It works out as a drama because you are acting out a play about tragedies that need to be overcome, such as incredible distractions for a “good student”. In the plays there were tragic moments for a protagonist, and antagonists that would try to interfere with the protagonist. The protagonist must find ways of overcoming the challenges and dealing with the antagonists. Thus, a dramatic play is formed/witnessed.

POEMS!

At first, I didn’t understand my poem very clearly. I had to read and reread it in order to grasp the main statements it was portraying. I had to get outside help, as well as internet sources to help me understand the rest of the poem through the process of writing the essay. As I kept learning about the poem I chose, which was "Musee des Beaux Arts", I realized that the previous theories I made about it were wrong. At first I thought that the poem was stating how the painting mention in the second stanza was what made up the whole poem. I thought that the poem was explaining Icarus’ whole stupid mistake. Obviously, it was only half of what the poem stated. I learned that, yes mythological allusions were used, but also biblical ones were mentioned when it stated the “miraculous death” as well as “martyrdoms”. As I wrote my essay about how the theme of separate events could lead to humanities apathy, I realized that many of W.H. Auden’s perceptions could easily be seen in life. When a friend is going through a dramatic even in their life that we ourselves haven’t fully experienced due to the fact that we weren’t there with them to fully witness it, then unfortunately, there is no understanding. This unknowledgeable reaction could lead to apathy. This whole epiphany made me realize that humanity is a bit jerky if we get be more open minded and a bit truthful of how the world really acts, sometimes.

I also realized that I need many outside resources in order to fully grasp what the author wants you to learn from his/her poem. I can’t stand by my own, predicted theories; I must ask questions without any fear of embarrassment as well as always accept help.

The poem I had most difficulty understanding was “My Last Duchess” by Robert Browning. I would read and read again this poem and for some reason it wouldn’t click in my head. The way it is written is way different from what I’m used to reading. The sentences go on and on without proper structure or from what I’m used to seeing in my regular reads of poems.

Also, another part that would throw me off from understanding the poem was that the words used were not of this era. The words were difficult to comprehend due to my lack of knowing many old English words. In addition to my lack of knowledge, many allusions or metaphors were used and I couldn’t recognize them or see them right away. We went through the poem in class, but this poem is just so hard to follow. I took matters into my own hands and looked up a type of summary online. Thankfully there are people out there that actually take time from their lives and explain almost every line in poetry for the people to read and understand them better. The website is called shmoop and wow, I am extremely glad that there are people out there like them that love to explain line after line of poems for the public. Now that’s dedication and an admiration for poetry! Through this website I learned so much about the poems. Even the hidden meanings that I couldn’t catch were clear as crystal after reading their analysis.
Even though I have a good idea of what the poem is stating, I was very curious to know why the Duke would hide the dead wife’s picture behind a curtain. Is it to add more mystery to his intentions or is he just really cruel and rude? Also, does this line refer to necklaces as the website mentioned, “My favour at her breast,/The dropping of the daylight in the West”? And what does “The dropping of the daylight in the West” refer to? That wasn’t cleared up in the website, so I am curious to know what the author of this poem meant.

As for the poem that was easiest to grasp in understanding, I would have to say “Cinderella” because it felt like I was reading a story, instead of a poem. Also, they were not using the ways or structures that were used in “My last Duchess” or in “To His Coy Mistress”. Their matters were quiet simple to follow for they were not structured strictly like a poem. It flowed and flowed all the way like a story. Also, simple allusions and wordings were used, making the reading enjoyable. I loved how the author used sarcasm in some of the explanations, making the story more enjoyable to read because it gave it more of a personal connection to the reader. I might be wrong, but I rather enjoyed myself reading that poem more than once. It was also silly due to the fact that the sisters were way out of their normalcy. Another reason why I understood this poem really well was that the narrator’s or author’s ideas were very direct. There was no mystery, just simple, direct ideas. He wanted to mention that the sisters were insane, he showed us in simple terms that they were. He wanted us to know that Cinderella’s life was as simple and perfect as monuments in a museum after she got her prince; he would tell us exactly that they were like monuments in a museum without any hesitation. His way of presenting anything was just perfect. I just loved how easy it was to understand his intentions. Possibly one of my favorites now.

Got understanding?

In the beginning I was so perplexed of what was expected for this paper. I figured that many hours were to be involved in order to write it, but I didn’t know if was going to be extremely difficult to start it. During the process of revising with our fellow peers in our class, I noticed that everything I came to write wasn’t very well or accepted. My ideas seemed a bit out of order and I have a bad tendency of repeating myself a lot, for some reason. Writing isn’t one of my strongest subjects. When handling school, science and math seem to flourish in my head, while English seems to be a lagging subject that I cannot comprehend, even though I try and try to understand. It is especially hard to get my thoughts on paper in a logical, analyzing, non-research mode.

Through the process or revising, my understanding for the short stories changed a lot. I thought I had a perfect, logical thesis going on, when in reality, I probably didn’t know what I was talking about due to the fact that many of my readers were confused about what I wrote. My readers suggested that I re-look at certain parts of the story in order to strengthen specific areas of my essay, which I did. I figured many more ideas to mention in my paper due to this rereading. So through the revising of my groups, I figured many things in my essay were not strong. Thus, by reading the stories again, I came to understand them more, which apparently helped me greatly on my midterm =). Through my own drafting and revising, I couldn’t really understand that my paper didn’t really explain well what I meant to portray about the stories. The whole process helped me understand things I couldn’t comprehend alone, but I still had difficulties in presenting my ideas on paper. I can understand something so well, but I always have the difficulty of writing about it for some reason.

I loved the whole process of revising with the students and I also loved how meticulous we had to be with our papers by using the revising process the professor showed us. It made me see themes in the story I didn’t see the first time I read them. I also appreciated the stories more. For some reason I enjoy reading stories from the 1800s now, due to their horrid depiction. It is creepy to see how the minds of these authors were back then, but like the second topic, it made their ideas quite interesting to read.

Too simple, thus too terrible

In the story, "The Death of Ivan Ilych" by Leo Tolstoy, we notice a certain process that Ivan takes: taking the suggestions of society to shape his own world. In the story it mentions that "Ivan Ilych's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible.", which shows that he didn't take his own perspectives in order to decide what to do with his life, instead he went along with what society accepted, and thus took that course instead. Through his life we notice that he makes decisions that society seems to consider "simple and appropriate". We never fully hear him stating any real passions he wants to pursue, we just see his struggle is to be superior above everyone in order to be considered important and valuable in society.
I conclude this from the fact that he marries his wife, not from the mere and enjoyable interest of loving her, instead he does it due to the fact that society is charmed by their presence and how appropriate and perfect it seems to consider a wife in his time.

Also, later in the story he becomes very unhappy due to the change of plans that occur during his marriage. He ends of fighting frequently and never finding a way to pleasure his wife due to her unnecessary dissatisfactions with her life. Due to his actions, we find that his decisions were unnecessary due to the results of unhappiness that come up in his life. We also notice that when he fails to sustain a high ranking job, society considers him a failure. This failure brings a new low in Ivan, which sets him in a whole new depression of not being able to be accepted by society. Through his troubles and "failures", he is ranked and judged.

When Ivan notices that he isn't accepted anymore, he does everything in his power to have that luxury again. He finds connections and thus find his way up again. But this struggle shows him that he rather be at home. This doesn't really go well with his wife, who is only interested in living a wonderful life of importance. Therefore, his struggle isn't only to sustain his happiness, but the happiness of his ungrateful family, as well. Thus, at his end, he didn't live his life to sustain his own happiness; he lived his life in order to be accepted and to be loved. He also lived a life simple and ordinary in order to not cause any controversy with his surroundings. He could have chosen a different path, a satisfying path, but that would have gone against the wishes of his society. So he worked himself to death to provide pleasing results for the sake of living an ordinary life, which resulted in his horrible, true life he ended up having until the end.

Examining the world of The Yellow Wallpaper

When reading "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Gilman, I seemed to have entered a very perplexing mind. The narration that occurred in this story was first person, which gave us a detailed, yet very burying experience about what the narrator felt through out the whole story.

When I started reading the story, I visualized a woman that wasn't so ill minded, but just a woman that was depressed due to hormonal imbalances in her body. Her husband, who we know to be a physician, is taking her case and finding ways to improve her health. Due to his profession, he doesn't see his wife as a wife, but only a mere patient. Also, as the story carries on, we notice that he puts her in a "crazy-person" room which, as a result, keeps her away from the public eye as well as hidden from the people that know her husband really well. Therefore, by treating her as a patient as well as a type of problem that can hinder his reputation, we see the effects of these decisions affect the narrator greatly.

At first we see her emotional imbalanced and she goes on in great detail explaining how they (husband and family) have put her in a room that isn't well suited for her (of course it is not suited for her; she's not insane at that moment, just depressed!). She goes on complaining how the yellow wallpaper of her room is a very uncomfortable presence to her. She goes on in details how this wallpaper won't let her concentrate on anything else. In her descriptions, she explains that her complaining about the paper to her husband doesn't do her any good. She gets rejected of her wishes and is asked by her husband to rest, instead and deal with the yellow wallpaper.
We see that, due to her lack of control for herself and for her common rejections by her husband, she loses a bit of her own reality.

Through her personal writings and by witnessing not what the outside characters perceive, but what the narrator personally thinks, we get a personal insight to what is truly going on. We see that she is treated unfairly, and we also see how this unfairness affects her mind. We witness her go from slightly ill, to incredibly crazy in the end.

She focuses her time, as we read one, on that bewildering yellow paper. By being trapped and not having the means of communicating with the outside world, we see her world dwindling. This dwindling process makes her create her own little world inside that room to give her a slight view of reality, which is truths is just a mental problem that she is causing for herself. By making her own little world, she starts to see things. She complains about a woman that is creeping about her room and around the house, which gives an insight that it isn't' a woman, but her, possibly desiring to be like the woman. This gives the reader a kind of creepy insight because we see her process of insanity little by little, day by day. It is very frightening, as well as mystifying how her thoughts go from normal, to a bit out of touch with normality.

Through reading this story, I experience a sense of understanding. More than usual due to the process the narrator took. We have sympathy, yet a bit of creepiness due to how she ends up turning up in the end. The way this story was made, we get to have a certain connection; a personal bond with the narrator. We can understand well enough to know why things resulted because we saw many of the steps it took to get the character to her state. We also understand that nothing of what resulted was her fault. She was trapped, and by this resulted her to question reality to the point of loosing touch with it completely.

A Rose for Emily and creepiness on the side

In the short, fictional story, "A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner, we meet in a past time, around the 1800s, with a town that is more than just curious. In the story, we find ourselves being narrated by the Jefferson town about Emily's past life as they make their way to her house to give their respects to her death. When it comes to time significance, the narration of time from the city seems to not be consecutively, but disordered. They go back from the past, to the present, then back to the past but in different times, making time seem not organized but a bit perplexing. As the story goes on, we seem to find that the distortion of time is very vital as we come to the end. With all of the mixing clues that appear by the present and past flashes, we come to a discovery of what led to the disappearance of Homer as well as why Emily lost the touch of reality. Therefore, time might have been a bit confusing at first, but in the end it all made sense. It gave the reader the fundamentals to understand why certain problems and results occurred.

As the analysis of the story went on, I discovered that time wasn't acceptable by Emily. Emily was raised and sheltered for so long, that time wasn't her responsibility. Due to her father's controlling problem as well as her extreme nurture, she found herself in a life where she was always protected, as well as always under someone else's control. When her farther passes away, we seem to find Emily in a bit of a problem. Even though time has taken her father, she can't comprehend or accept that he is gone. So, she keeps the corpse for three days while denying to the towns people that her farther is not dead, but still living. After her breakdown, we see that she doesn't due well with change that time causes, showing that she isn't capable of surviving dramatic changes in her life. Therefore, a huge theme that is witnessed is change versus tradition. Her "culture" was to do what her farther said was best. When that "culture" was taken away, she didn't know how to react, thus that led to her insanity of not letting go of her dead father.
As we keep reading, we see that her town is becoming more modern as new positions take over the city. Once again, due to Emily's new, uncontrollable freedom, she can't accept her outside improvements. She, in some part of the story, cannot fathom the existence of numbers being bolted to her house to give her an address. Of course, she can't accept it because there isn't a figure to help her understand. Also, her mind is so stuck in the past that she is completely ignorant to concentrate herself in a new, modern world.

When Homer Barron is introduced in the story, we seem to find a bit of hope for Emily to change for the better, but unfortunately, that isn't the case. Homer isn't a man to sit down and call himself a husband. He is more of a ladies man that can only handle manly jobs. But Emily, of course not equipped with the knowledge of how to handle men, finds herself buying arsenic and poisoning the man in order for him to not run away and in order to keep him for herself forever. Before poisoning him, we read on to find that she buys nice clothes for him and matching appliances as well as marital belongings, which don't really fit with the character of Homer. Later we find these belongings and appliances in the room Homer was found, which shows that Emily made her own world in that room. Time stood still while she laid next to the corpse of Homer in the same bed. She had full control this time, as well as control on time. While the town complained about Emily and the smell, she would lay happily merry next to her dead corpse. Also, as she laid with her corpse, time would persist, but she would stay constant to her traditions, ignoring what changes her surroundings adapted to.

Jon Stewart? Let's leave it there...

In the video,"CNN Leaves it There", Jon Stewart uncovers many of the fallacies that CNN tends to make continuously during their airings. Through their fallacies, I learned that many of their errors resulted from poor analysis techniques the announcers used to present their findings on television.

Through Stewarts criticism, he makes very clear and logical points that prove CNN is full of mistakes when it comes down to their "statistical data". Many of their numerical values that they used to prove their points become somewhat questionable. Stewart points out how and where on earth do these announcers claim their data? The announcers use a type of weak critical thinking to present their ideas. They use big numbers and "important words" to provide a very dramatic finding to their audience, but when their analysis is looked at and listened to more carefully, we see the ridiculousness of their findings. Many of the examples Stewart starts off with is how the announcers mention that 100-200 billion dollars can be saved if malpractice is prevented. When a careful calculation is made of the real savings, only 11 billion can be saved, realistically. Truly, CNN was off by more than they could ever bargain for. Unfortunately, another male announcer goes on to mention unrealistic data by saying that only 5 to 10 million are uninsured in America. Truly, numbers can't jump halves like that when presenting data that important.

Many of the announcers, as Stewart puts it, seem to be pulling their data, not from reliable, recognizable sources, but only from their heads. By pulling up tricks, they create a type of slippery slope fallacy, which leads to a series of "horrible" outcomes by stating problem after problem, without mentioning possible interferences that can lighten up the problems. By not proclaiming any possible ways to come out of the problems, they create a type of panic within the audience that leads the listeners to believe what they are stating.
As the video goes on, Stewart makes another claim on how CNN can't take the heat of being discovered. Put simply, when they can't explain something or don't have the means of showing proof for their obvious lies, they just simply run away from it by saying "Let's leave it there" and, well, that's it. They never come back to the topic; they just merely run away from it, avoiding the embarrassment of not being able to win whatever they were accounted for. Unfortunately, their running away and fake data just proves how horrible television can be when it comes to critical thinking.

This is possibly one of the most fake ways of using critical thinking. As Stewart puts it, their findings are just full of unnecessary lies. From this I learned that critical thinking can sometimes be misleading if not enough effort is made in claiming realistic arguments. A real argument is to be analyzed carefully by having logical sources as well as intellectual presentations that support your argument. A process of having the right tools at hand as well as showing your audience that you know you are an expert on your claim gives your critical thinking strength to show that you know what you are talking about. If your data is questionable an a bit hilarious due to its ludicrousness, then, simply put, let's not leave it there, lets just state that it's just horrible analysis.