101 Ways to Annoy a Telemarketer
It’s Saturday night. Your mom has made a beautiful dinner of lasagna with your favorite bread. You pour yourself a glass of ice tea and go and sit at the well laid out table and just as you are about to take your first bite... the phone rings. You sigh and get up to answer the phone. You pick it up and answer the phone without looking at the number. Only later do you realize your terrible mistake. You just answered the pone to find the greatest, most horrible fear on the other end of the phone. It is a TELEMARKETER.
Now, there are three typical reactions that can happen. You could either: 1. Hang up. 2. Listen patiently and fall into their trap and buy whatever they are trying to sell you or 3. (my personal favorite) Annoy them.
Now, since the telemarketers disturbed your dinner, you don’t have to feel guilty about making them freaked out, weirded out or completely terrified.
Annoying telemarketers, contrary to popular belief, is an art that takes much practice to completely perfect. Lucky for you, you have a master for a teacher.
There are many different ways to annoy a telemarketer, but there are several that surpass all others on the “Annoy-O-Meter.”
Now, if you want to get rid of them quickly, one way to successfully confuse them is to tell them that you’re “not home right now, but can take a message.” Not only will it confuse them, it will get rid of them quickly. Another way to get rid of them quickly is to pretend to be the answering machine. This particular one takes more practice to get that robotic voice down, but once you do, it works like a charm.
If your patience happens to be short, you can simple tell them to hang on a minute, I’ll be right back and simply leave them there.
But I know that you don’t want to get rid of them quickly, no, no, no. They have already interrupted your perfect dinner, you might as well enjoy yourself.
For the more theatrical of you out there, you can really have fun with this next one. A very popular way to freak out the person that ruined your dinner is to ask them to marry you. The conversation would go something like this:
“Hello, I’m with the United Duck Control Peoples Company and I would just like to ask you a few questions.”
“You like ducks! So do I!!!”
“Yes, anyway...”
“We must be made for each other! Will you marry me?”
After that, there will either be a long awkward silence that you could fill with wedding plans and meeting the parents or they will stutter awkwardly and you can tell them that you are nervous too and that you will “see you later honey pookie face!” But, you have to remember not to laugh, otherwise you will completely blow it, so practice it a few times.
If you are anything like me, no matter how many times you practice it, you will never be able to stop giggling, so there are many other options to torture your victim.
If they start off with “How are you today?” you can reply by telling them the most depressing life story you can muster. For practice you can listen to some country songs. Telling them that your dog died can usually make them sympathetic and then just go from there. Your wife/husband has left you and has taken your convertible along with all the kids and ramble on and on. This will usually get them off track and make them feel sorry for you. Plus they probably won’t call again.
Or, if you happen to have a crossword puzzle nearby, you can ask them to help with your crossword puzzle and see how many calls it takes to finish the puzzle. It is productive and a fun game. Or, if you happen to be in the middle of your homework, you can ask them to help you with the problem you are stuck on. OR, if you are one of those geniuses out there, you can just ask them to answer the next question on the sheet of paper. Either way, its a win.
I am sure that many of you have seen Elf, starring Will Ferrell as Buddy. It’s a great movie that you can quote all day long. One popular quote that is perfect for a telemarketer call is “Buddy the Elf, what’s your favorite color?” If they have seen this movie, they will probably laugh or answer and if they haven’t they will be confused and think you are insane and if there is a knock on the door and there are people with white coats on the other side, you know who to blame.
Now, another one for the theatrically minded ones out there. They call and you pick up and once they start talking, start squealing and freaking out, actually, on second thought, don’t do that if you are a guy, that’s kind of weird. Anyway, act extremely happy and then pretend that you have know them your whole life until you have moved or whatever and you haven’t heard from them in years and are “so happy to see you again!” Then start making plans for this Friday and then, after you have made plans, hang up and leave them hanging. Once you have hung up, feel free to laugh until that Friday.
One of my personal favorites is once they start talking, interrupt them and ask them to “say that again?” and “wait one more time. Uh huh. A little louder please. Uh huh. Slower. Can you spell that? Wait WHAT?” and continue until they get so annoyed that they can’t take it anymore and hang up with a frustrated sigh.
And finally, if you have used all of the others and have some time, you can always pry in their personal life.
“Hello, how are you today?”
“Oh, I’m fine. How are you?”
“Umm... good, anyway I’m with the...”
“Oh how nice! What have you been up to today? How is your mother? Good? Great. Do you have a girlfriend? What’s her name?...”
And so continue with the verbal assault until they hang up or you run out of questions.
So, once you have mastered the art of telemarketer annoyance, you will soon start to notice the telemarketing calls diminishing until every telemarketer within a fifty mile radius will be to afraid to call and you will be able to enjoy dinner in peace.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Theme 2 FINAL DRAFT! ( I managed to add two WHOLE paragraphs and make it the correct length. :D)
There are many different ways for a certain person to define a hero. Some people, when they hear the word hero, they think of someone like Superman or someone with extraordinary powers, like super strength or flying. Some people may think of their parents. In Homer’s epic poem of The Iliad, Homer portrays his view of a hero in his character of Achilles.
In Homer’s Iliad, he portrays his view of a hero to be a fighter who is independent, had a strong lust for war and has individual honor and glory. This definition of war is very similar to that of the view of who a hero was during that time, but Homer believes in the independence of the hero. The word “independence” in this use is meant, specifically in Achilles case, choosing your own path like fighting, or not fighting, for what you believe in. Bloodlust during that time meant that a fighter would want to kill as many opposing enemies as possible. It did not necessarily mean that you were a good fighter, just crazy enough to stab as many people as you could and being lucky enough to not get killed. Skill had no part in being a hero, though it did give you an added advantage. Finally, individual honor and glory was perhaps the most important thing in obtaining the status of “Homer’s hero.” If you had no individual honor or glory, you would not be recognized as a good fighter and not known about at all. In reality, it is not so much the honor and glory itself that gets you viewed as a hero, but the recognition that comes with the honor and glory that get’s a fighter recognized as a hero. The bloodlust and honor and glory go closely together because the fighters have such a strong lust for blood and battle to get the honor and glory in battle. If you are just fighting to get the honor and glory and not because you believe in what you are fighting for, then you are not viewed as a hero according to Homer. You have to believe in what you are fighting for as well, which goes along with the independence and choosing your own path. So, in order to be viewed as a hero according to Homer, you need to be independent and choose your own path, obtain honor and glory and have a lust for battle and blood.
During Achilles’ time, the definition of a hero was individual glory and honor, lust for blood and battle and self independence. Achilles was independent, for example, when he refused to fight for a cause he did not believe in and under a general he did not like. “What a worthless, burnt-out coward I’d be called id I would submit to you and all your orders... Never again, I trust, will Achilles yield to you.” (pg. 87, Book 1 lines 343-344, 347) Even though Achilles was taking a big risk by challenging his commander, he still chose not to follow everyone else and be self independent. Another example of his independence is when, even though Agamemnon offered him “Seven tripods never toughed by fire, ten bars of gold...” (pg. 255, Book 9 line 148) along with other gift if he would come back and fight, but since he did not believe in the cause of the war, he refused to fight. Another example of Achilles’ heroism is his self seeking glory. In the proem of The Iliad it describes Achilles’ honor in previous battles; “ Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus‘ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls...” (pg. 77, Book 1 lines 1-3) Achilles was renowned in his time for being an incredible fighter, making his glory known. Another example of his glory is when he kills Hector. “Hector could still gasp out some words, some last reply... he crashed into the dust - godlike Achilles gloried over him...” (pg. 552 Book 22 lines 387-389) Killing Hector gave him an amount of glory that put him above many other because Hector was also known for his skill in battle. A final characteristic of Achilles’ heroism is his bloodlust and long for battle. After Patroclus died, Achilles was determined to fight again and Homer describes Achilles as “starved for war...”(pg. 503, Book 20 line 2) saying that Achilles longed for the battle. When Achilles came charging into the battle for the first time after not fighting for so long he was “afire like the man destroying Ares.”(pg. 505, Book 20 line 55) Achilles not only longed to go back into the battle but he was eager to.
Another fighter in Homer’s Iliad that could fit this Homer’s description was Hector. He had honor in battle and was known for his strength in fighting. Homer said that “...countless ranks struck down by mighty Hector...” (pg. 471, Book 18 line 121) Hector also fought in more of the battle than Achilles, who actually did not show up in the battle at all until the very end. He also dueled Ajax and “When Hector heard that challenge he rejoiced and right in the no man’s land along his lines he strode, gripping hi spear mid-haft, staving men to a standstill...” (pg. 216 Book 7 lines 62-64) Hector was a good enough fighter to bring seasoned fighters to a standstill and to duel Ajax. Hector also had self independence. His self independence is different from Achilles‘, though, in that Achilles’ is more about making his own choice while Hector’s is more about his choice to fight for what he believes in instead of staying with his family at home. Homer describes him as “...the challenger, he with his lust for battle.” (pg. 221 Book 7 lines 250-251) Homer goes right out and states the Hector has a lust for battle. Homer here, by saying that he was “the challenger”, meant that he was the one who had challenged Ajax. Ajax was also renowned for his skill and strength in battle and it would have taken courage to challenge someone like him, but Hector still did.
What it ended up coming down to was that Hector was killed by Achilles. If Hector had not been killed by Achilles, he could have just as easily been the hero of The Iliad as Achilles was. Hector also fought in more of the overall war than Achilles did. Achilles spent most of the book not in the main action while Hector was risking his life the whole time. Hector overestimated himself and underestimated Achilles and got himself killed for it, which also lost him the spot of the hero.
In conclusion, Achilles possess all of the qualities of independence, bloodlust and personal honor and glory. Even though Hector also possess the same qualities, Achilles killed him in battle, losing him the spot. Achilles is the main hero that is portrayed in The Iliad.
Is that the end of the story, the end, shut the book, we are closed for business? Is Achilles a true hero? Homer does not look at the character of the person when deciding who he will portray as a hero, but at his actions. Homer looks at if the person is independent, has a lust for battle and blood and whether or not the person has obtained honor and glory in battle, not at whether they have a good character. Since Homer does not look at the character of the person, can we really trust his choice of hero? Can a hero be defined by just his actions and not his character? No, he cannot. The character of a person is what really decides who a hero should be. If people only looked at other peoples’ actions, and not their character, it would be a sad world to live in. It is true that actions help define the character of a person, but that is not all that defines a person’s character. A character of a person is also defined by what they say and by what they do not say. Also, Homer does not look at all of the person’s actions, just to see if they have a lust for battle, independence and honor and glory in battle. If Homer looked at all of a person’s actions, instead of checking off the requirements and not caring about anything else, and looked at a person’s character, Achilles would not be the main hero of The Iliad. His character consists of himself and only himself. Yes, he did cry when his friend died, but there were other people around and it would have looked bad if he did not cry. That was the only selfless thing he did, and it looked like it was all for show. His “character” spent most of the book pouting in his tent or in a cave because he lost a girl he had originally stolen from someone else. He then disappears from the action until the last chapter where he kills Hector out of revenge, showing that he is a hothead and thinks rashly. If Homer had taken all of a person’s actions into account and the person’s character, then the hero he portrays would have been drastically different.
In Homer’s Iliad, he portrays his view of a hero to be a fighter who is independent, had a strong lust for war and has individual honor and glory. This definition of war is very similar to that of the view of who a hero was during that time, but Homer believes in the independence of the hero. The word “independence” in this use is meant, specifically in Achilles case, choosing your own path like fighting, or not fighting, for what you believe in. Bloodlust during that time meant that a fighter would want to kill as many opposing enemies as possible. It did not necessarily mean that you were a good fighter, just crazy enough to stab as many people as you could and being lucky enough to not get killed. Skill had no part in being a hero, though it did give you an added advantage. Finally, individual honor and glory was perhaps the most important thing in obtaining the status of “Homer’s hero.” If you had no individual honor or glory, you would not be recognized as a good fighter and not known about at all. In reality, it is not so much the honor and glory itself that gets you viewed as a hero, but the recognition that comes with the honor and glory that get’s a fighter recognized as a hero. The bloodlust and honor and glory go closely together because the fighters have such a strong lust for blood and battle to get the honor and glory in battle. If you are just fighting to get the honor and glory and not because you believe in what you are fighting for, then you are not viewed as a hero according to Homer. You have to believe in what you are fighting for as well, which goes along with the independence and choosing your own path. So, in order to be viewed as a hero according to Homer, you need to be independent and choose your own path, obtain honor and glory and have a lust for battle and blood.
During Achilles’ time, the definition of a hero was individual glory and honor, lust for blood and battle and self independence. Achilles was independent, for example, when he refused to fight for a cause he did not believe in and under a general he did not like. “What a worthless, burnt-out coward I’d be called id I would submit to you and all your orders... Never again, I trust, will Achilles yield to you.” (pg. 87, Book 1 lines 343-344, 347) Even though Achilles was taking a big risk by challenging his commander, he still chose not to follow everyone else and be self independent. Another example of his independence is when, even though Agamemnon offered him “Seven tripods never toughed by fire, ten bars of gold...” (pg. 255, Book 9 line 148) along with other gift if he would come back and fight, but since he did not believe in the cause of the war, he refused to fight. Another example of Achilles’ heroism is his self seeking glory. In the proem of The Iliad it describes Achilles’ honor in previous battles; “ Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus‘ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls...” (pg. 77, Book 1 lines 1-3) Achilles was renowned in his time for being an incredible fighter, making his glory known. Another example of his glory is when he kills Hector. “Hector could still gasp out some words, some last reply... he crashed into the dust - godlike Achilles gloried over him...” (pg. 552 Book 22 lines 387-389) Killing Hector gave him an amount of glory that put him above many other because Hector was also known for his skill in battle. A final characteristic of Achilles’ heroism is his bloodlust and long for battle. After Patroclus died, Achilles was determined to fight again and Homer describes Achilles as “starved for war...”(pg. 503, Book 20 line 2) saying that Achilles longed for the battle. When Achilles came charging into the battle for the first time after not fighting for so long he was “afire like the man destroying Ares.”(pg. 505, Book 20 line 55) Achilles not only longed to go back into the battle but he was eager to.
Another fighter in Homer’s Iliad that could fit this Homer’s description was Hector. He had honor in battle and was known for his strength in fighting. Homer said that “...countless ranks struck down by mighty Hector...” (pg. 471, Book 18 line 121) Hector also fought in more of the battle than Achilles, who actually did not show up in the battle at all until the very end. He also dueled Ajax and “When Hector heard that challenge he rejoiced and right in the no man’s land along his lines he strode, gripping hi spear mid-haft, staving men to a standstill...” (pg. 216 Book 7 lines 62-64) Hector was a good enough fighter to bring seasoned fighters to a standstill and to duel Ajax. Hector also had self independence. His self independence is different from Achilles‘, though, in that Achilles’ is more about making his own choice while Hector’s is more about his choice to fight for what he believes in instead of staying with his family at home. Homer describes him as “...the challenger, he with his lust for battle.” (pg. 221 Book 7 lines 250-251) Homer goes right out and states the Hector has a lust for battle. Homer here, by saying that he was “the challenger”, meant that he was the one who had challenged Ajax. Ajax was also renowned for his skill and strength in battle and it would have taken courage to challenge someone like him, but Hector still did.
What it ended up coming down to was that Hector was killed by Achilles. If Hector had not been killed by Achilles, he could have just as easily been the hero of The Iliad as Achilles was. Hector also fought in more of the overall war than Achilles did. Achilles spent most of the book not in the main action while Hector was risking his life the whole time. Hector overestimated himself and underestimated Achilles and got himself killed for it, which also lost him the spot of the hero.
In conclusion, Achilles possess all of the qualities of independence, bloodlust and personal honor and glory. Even though Hector also possess the same qualities, Achilles killed him in battle, losing him the spot. Achilles is the main hero that is portrayed in The Iliad.
Is that the end of the story, the end, shut the book, we are closed for business? Is Achilles a true hero? Homer does not look at the character of the person when deciding who he will portray as a hero, but at his actions. Homer looks at if the person is independent, has a lust for battle and blood and whether or not the person has obtained honor and glory in battle, not at whether they have a good character. Since Homer does not look at the character of the person, can we really trust his choice of hero? Can a hero be defined by just his actions and not his character? No, he cannot. The character of a person is what really decides who a hero should be. If people only looked at other peoples’ actions, and not their character, it would be a sad world to live in. It is true that actions help define the character of a person, but that is not all that defines a person’s character. A character of a person is also defined by what they say and by what they do not say. Also, Homer does not look at all of the person’s actions, just to see if they have a lust for battle, independence and honor and glory in battle. If Homer looked at all of a person’s actions, instead of checking off the requirements and not caring about anything else, and looked at a person’s character, Achilles would not be the main hero of The Iliad. His character consists of himself and only himself. Yes, he did cry when his friend died, but there were other people around and it would have looked bad if he did not cry. That was the only selfless thing he did, and it looked like it was all for show. His “character” spent most of the book pouting in his tent or in a cave because he lost a girl he had originally stolen from someone else. He then disappears from the action until the last chapter where he kills Hector out of revenge, showing that he is a hothead and thinks rashly. If Homer had taken all of a person’s actions into account and the person’s character, then the hero he portrays would have been drastically different.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Current Events speech: Electronic Cigarettes
Electronic Cigarettes
The electronic cigarette. It’s the cigarette for the new age! It gets rid of that harmful, second-hand smoke, you won’t smell like smoke, it has no more tar, carbon monoxide or ash but you can still get the same amount of nicotine! Plus, they electronic cigarette comes in different flavors and it can save you up to $1000 a year!
On ecigaretteschoice.com it says “Being hailed as he smokers smart choice, the decision is easy to become an instant modern smoker.” They advertise them to be harmless and so much better than the old fashion cigarettes and that anyone can do it now, because they are perfectly safe! Also, another benefit of the cigarette of the modern age is that you can smoke anywhere, even in places that don’t allow regular cigarettes because it does not give off smoke, it gives off water vapor. But before I get ahead of myself, I should probably tell you what an e-cigarette is. It is, to put it simply, a battery powered cigarette. It still looks and tastes like a cigarette, even with more flavors. It seems to be perfect. They even got four licensed doctors to smoke them on T.V., to prove that they are safe. But when the first doctor took a drag, she started coughing and gagging and making faces. Then, afterward, they said that they would recommend it to current smokers but not to current, non - smokers. In the city of reality, though, that is exactly who it is going to attract the most. There are people out there who have wanted to smoke, but have been smart enough to stay away due to the bad, health side effects. But now that those are “gone”, more people are going to start smoking. Picture this, a group of friends, some smoking, some not. The smoker offer them a cigarette and the non-smokers say no. Then the smoker says “Well, maybe you could get one of those e-cigarettes. They are safe. I ordered one. You should too!” Next thing you know, everyone in that group is a smoker. But they are “fine” because there are no more toxic chemicals or second hand smoke or anything!
But is it really as great as it sounds...? Is it too perfect? It is advertised to have “all the pleasures of smoking, without the deadly health threat.”The FDA did an analysis and found that it contained “carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol...” Diethylene glycol is used as an anti freeze and a fabric softener and a carcinogen is “any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer.” I would say that cancer is a deadly health threat. Also, the cigarettes did not have the proper warnings on the box so nobody knew what they were really getting into. New York Law makers actually advanced a bill banning the e-cigarette but it slowed down in the Senate. Many people think that the e cigarette will save their lives and many others, but any kind of smoking, whether it is with a regular cigarette or an e cigarette, is bad. It is not natural. Nicotine, what you would be inhaling in ANY type of cigarette is a poisonous alkaloid that is used as an insecticide. So, on top of inhaling the insecticide, you are also inhaling something that tends to produce cancer and fabric softener and anti-freeze. And, these are now allowed in more places and come in different flavors, making them more attractive to the American public. Maybe being “modern” this one time, is not the way to go. Say no.
The electronic cigarette. It’s the cigarette for the new age! It gets rid of that harmful, second-hand smoke, you won’t smell like smoke, it has no more tar, carbon monoxide or ash but you can still get the same amount of nicotine! Plus, they electronic cigarette comes in different flavors and it can save you up to $1000 a year!
On ecigaretteschoice.com it says “Being hailed as he smokers smart choice, the decision is easy to become an instant modern smoker.” They advertise them to be harmless and so much better than the old fashion cigarettes and that anyone can do it now, because they are perfectly safe! Also, another benefit of the cigarette of the modern age is that you can smoke anywhere, even in places that don’t allow regular cigarettes because it does not give off smoke, it gives off water vapor. But before I get ahead of myself, I should probably tell you what an e-cigarette is. It is, to put it simply, a battery powered cigarette. It still looks and tastes like a cigarette, even with more flavors. It seems to be perfect. They even got four licensed doctors to smoke them on T.V., to prove that they are safe. But when the first doctor took a drag, she started coughing and gagging and making faces. Then, afterward, they said that they would recommend it to current smokers but not to current, non - smokers. In the city of reality, though, that is exactly who it is going to attract the most. There are people out there who have wanted to smoke, but have been smart enough to stay away due to the bad, health side effects. But now that those are “gone”, more people are going to start smoking. Picture this, a group of friends, some smoking, some not. The smoker offer them a cigarette and the non-smokers say no. Then the smoker says “Well, maybe you could get one of those e-cigarettes. They are safe. I ordered one. You should too!” Next thing you know, everyone in that group is a smoker. But they are “fine” because there are no more toxic chemicals or second hand smoke or anything!
But is it really as great as it sounds...? Is it too perfect? It is advertised to have “all the pleasures of smoking, without the deadly health threat.”The FDA did an analysis and found that it contained “carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol...” Diethylene glycol is used as an anti freeze and a fabric softener and a carcinogen is “any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer.” I would say that cancer is a deadly health threat. Also, the cigarettes did not have the proper warnings on the box so nobody knew what they were really getting into. New York Law makers actually advanced a bill banning the e-cigarette but it slowed down in the Senate. Many people think that the e cigarette will save their lives and many others, but any kind of smoking, whether it is with a regular cigarette or an e cigarette, is bad. It is not natural. Nicotine, what you would be inhaling in ANY type of cigarette is a poisonous alkaloid that is used as an insecticide. So, on top of inhaling the insecticide, you are also inhaling something that tends to produce cancer and fabric softener and anti-freeze. And, these are now allowed in more places and come in different flavors, making them more attractive to the American public. Maybe being “modern” this one time, is not the way to go. Say no.
Amos Historical Context paper
The Historical Context of Amos
The biblical book of Amos is written by the prophet, Amos. Though it is speculated that there may have been more than one author, it is most likely that there was only one author, judging from how well the book of Amos is structured. The prophet Amos is not actually a professional prophet but a shepherd boy that also tended sycamore-fig-trees. (Archaeological Study Bible. NIV Amos 7:14) Even though he was just a shepherd boy, he was still intelligent judging from his speaking abilities. He was originally from the town of Tekoa in Judah but his target audience for his prophecies was Israel. The main time frame of his prophesying was around 760 B.C. to 750 B.C., around 230 years after the kingdom split. Around that time, Israel was having a time of prosperity: “...the houses adorned with ivory...” (Amos 3:15) and he also talked about the mansions and the summer and winter houses. Israel during this time was also haughty and arrogant because of the wealth and because they exploited their wealth, making them the main subject of the prophesies in Amos.
Amos, in his prophesies, focused on the northern kingdom of Israel. During this time, Israel was having a time of wealth and because of this, they had become arrogant and turned from God. His prophesies directly threatened Israel and commanded them to turn back to the Lord. The prophesies told of Israel’s coming doom and of the complete and utter destruction of their kingdom. There were threats of fire and drought and the killing of the Israelites’ sons and daughters. The Lord does not threaten them without telling them what they did wrong, though, He told them many times what they did wrong. He tells them that “They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.” (Amos 2:6b-7) He goes on to describe their sexual immorality and the drunkenness in the temples. The Israelites had degraded themselves to the level of their neighboring nations that had also been destroyed. They were even warned not to do the things that the other nations did or they would be destroyed like them and they still keep on sinning and rejecting God. Through all that though, the Lord still promises them that He will someday re-build their nation and let it remain forever.
An ongoing theme in the book of Amos is the social injustice that the lower class of Israel had been given. Israel was in a time of wealth and the money had corrupted their image of the poor and made them, in their eyes, look like nothing and so they treated them like nothing.In their world during this time, money was everything. Even though the Lord, many times, had said that the least will be the greatest, they degraded them and, without knowing it, degraded themselves in the eyes of the Lord. The Lord repeatedly said; “You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain.” (Amos 5: 11a) The Lord has illustrated many times that he loves the poor and hates the haughty and Israel knows this but they still insist on degrading the poor and being arrogant. Their actions is like a slap in the face to the Lord and on top of that they refuse to repent and turn to him. The Lord also made examples of the other nations that had done the same thing and yet they still exhibited social injustice to the poor. In the end, it was Israel’s arrogance over the poor that brought on the destruction of Israel.
Works Cited
1. NIV Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Zondervan, 2005.
The biblical book of Amos is written by the prophet, Amos. Though it is speculated that there may have been more than one author, it is most likely that there was only one author, judging from how well the book of Amos is structured. The prophet Amos is not actually a professional prophet but a shepherd boy that also tended sycamore-fig-trees. (Archaeological Study Bible. NIV Amos 7:14) Even though he was just a shepherd boy, he was still intelligent judging from his speaking abilities. He was originally from the town of Tekoa in Judah but his target audience for his prophecies was Israel. The main time frame of his prophesying was around 760 B.C. to 750 B.C., around 230 years after the kingdom split. Around that time, Israel was having a time of prosperity: “...the houses adorned with ivory...” (Amos 3:15) and he also talked about the mansions and the summer and winter houses. Israel during this time was also haughty and arrogant because of the wealth and because they exploited their wealth, making them the main subject of the prophesies in Amos.
Amos, in his prophesies, focused on the northern kingdom of Israel. During this time, Israel was having a time of wealth and because of this, they had become arrogant and turned from God. His prophesies directly threatened Israel and commanded them to turn back to the Lord. The prophesies told of Israel’s coming doom and of the complete and utter destruction of their kingdom. There were threats of fire and drought and the killing of the Israelites’ sons and daughters. The Lord does not threaten them without telling them what they did wrong, though, He told them many times what they did wrong. He tells them that “They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.” (Amos 2:6b-7) He goes on to describe their sexual immorality and the drunkenness in the temples. The Israelites had degraded themselves to the level of their neighboring nations that had also been destroyed. They were even warned not to do the things that the other nations did or they would be destroyed like them and they still keep on sinning and rejecting God. Through all that though, the Lord still promises them that He will someday re-build their nation and let it remain forever.
An ongoing theme in the book of Amos is the social injustice that the lower class of Israel had been given. Israel was in a time of wealth and the money had corrupted their image of the poor and made them, in their eyes, look like nothing and so they treated them like nothing.In their world during this time, money was everything. Even though the Lord, many times, had said that the least will be the greatest, they degraded them and, without knowing it, degraded themselves in the eyes of the Lord. The Lord repeatedly said; “You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain.” (Amos 5: 11a) The Lord has illustrated many times that he loves the poor and hates the haughty and Israel knows this but they still insist on degrading the poor and being arrogant. Their actions is like a slap in the face to the Lord and on top of that they refuse to repent and turn to him. The Lord also made examples of the other nations that had done the same thing and yet they still exhibited social injustice to the poor. In the end, it was Israel’s arrogance over the poor that brought on the destruction of Israel.
Works Cited
1. NIV Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Zondervan, 2005.
DC Circuit lab report
Accelerated Studies in Physics and Chemistry Laboratory
DC Circuit Lab
Author: Shannon K. Smith
Team Members: Caroline Kerley, Maegan Skinner
Date of Experiment: February 2, 2011
Date Report Submitted: February 25, 2011
Class: Accelerated Studies in Physics and Chemistry, D Block
Mr. Mays, Instructor
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this experiment was to accurately predict the voltages and currents of a DC multi-resistor circuit.
Background
The theories that this experiment was based on, both discovered by Kirchhoff in 1845, were the Junction Law and the Voltage Drop Law. The Junction Law states that the sum of the currents entering a node equals the sum exiting a node and the Voltage Drop Law states that around any loop the sum of the voltage rises equals the sum of the voltage drops. These laws were used to calculate the voltages and currents in the circuit. Ohm’s law was discovered by George Ohm in 1827. Ohms law states that V=IR. This law was used to calculate to predicted currents and voltages.
The team was given a breadboard and four resistors of different resistance and constructed a multi resistor circuit. The team experimented with the materials and discovered how to use the materials properly and then measured the currents and specific voltages. With that, the team calculated the Req for the predicted and experimental Ohms.
Experimental Procedure
The following equipment and materials were used in this experiment:
precision resistors (4)
Digital Multi Meter (1)
DC power supply: Flinn Battery Eliminator AP5375 (1)
aligator clamps (2)
bread board (1)
banana plugs (2)
The team was given the equipment and materials and experimented with how to use them properly. A schematic of the placement of the resistors was made and then transferred onto the breadboard. The team then calculated the experimental resistors, currents and voltages. The team then calculated the predicted values.
Results
The results for the current, voltage and resistance are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1
1 2 3 4
Experimental Current 1.4600 mA 1.0200 mA 0.4200 mA 1.4600 mA
Experimental Voltage 1.6130 V 2.0500 V 2.0500 V 2.1900 V
Predicted Resistance 1.1 k 4.7 k 2.0 k 1.5 k
Experimental Resistance 1.0900 k 4.6700 k 1.9800 k 1.4900 k
Predicted Voltage 1.6488 V 2.1028 V 2.1028 V 2.2484
Predicted Current 1.4989 mA .4474 mA 1.0514 mA 1.4989 mA
The team calculated the equivalent resistance with the predicted values and then with the experimental resistances. The predicted Req was 4.0030 k and the experimental Req was 3.9700.
Discussion
The team calculated the experimental error, using the Req’s, and reached the percentage if .82%. The equation for experimental error is; experimental error = (|predicted value - experimental value| / predicted value) 100%. The possible sources of error were machine malfunctions and human error. The machine could not have been hooked up correctly or the equipment could not have been up to date. Human error could include writing the values down wrong or misusing the materials.
Conclusion
The error was a reasonable amount. Since this experiment was discovery driven, there was no need for a hypothesis.
References
1. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/OhmBio.htm
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_circuit_laws
DC Circuit Lab
Author: Shannon K. Smith
Team Members: Caroline Kerley, Maegan Skinner
Date of Experiment: February 2, 2011
Date Report Submitted: February 25, 2011
Class: Accelerated Studies in Physics and Chemistry, D Block
Mr. Mays, Instructor
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this experiment was to accurately predict the voltages and currents of a DC multi-resistor circuit.
Background
The theories that this experiment was based on, both discovered by Kirchhoff in 1845, were the Junction Law and the Voltage Drop Law. The Junction Law states that the sum of the currents entering a node equals the sum exiting a node and the Voltage Drop Law states that around any loop the sum of the voltage rises equals the sum of the voltage drops. These laws were used to calculate the voltages and currents in the circuit. Ohm’s law was discovered by George Ohm in 1827. Ohms law states that V=IR. This law was used to calculate to predicted currents and voltages.
The team was given a breadboard and four resistors of different resistance and constructed a multi resistor circuit. The team experimented with the materials and discovered how to use the materials properly and then measured the currents and specific voltages. With that, the team calculated the Req for the predicted and experimental Ohms.
Experimental Procedure
The following equipment and materials were used in this experiment:
precision resistors (4)
Digital Multi Meter (1)
DC power supply: Flinn Battery Eliminator AP5375 (1)
aligator clamps (2)
bread board (1)
banana plugs (2)
The team was given the equipment and materials and experimented with how to use them properly. A schematic of the placement of the resistors was made and then transferred onto the breadboard. The team then calculated the experimental resistors, currents and voltages. The team then calculated the predicted values.
Results
The results for the current, voltage and resistance are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1
1 2 3 4
Experimental Current 1.4600 mA 1.0200 mA 0.4200 mA 1.4600 mA
Experimental Voltage 1.6130 V 2.0500 V 2.0500 V 2.1900 V
Predicted Resistance 1.1 k 4.7 k 2.0 k 1.5 k
Experimental Resistance 1.0900 k 4.6700 k 1.9800 k 1.4900 k
Predicted Voltage 1.6488 V 2.1028 V 2.1028 V 2.2484
Predicted Current 1.4989 mA .4474 mA 1.0514 mA 1.4989 mA
The team calculated the equivalent resistance with the predicted values and then with the experimental resistances. The predicted Req was 4.0030 k and the experimental Req was 3.9700.
Discussion
The team calculated the experimental error, using the Req’s, and reached the percentage if .82%. The equation for experimental error is; experimental error = (|predicted value - experimental value| / predicted value) 100%. The possible sources of error were machine malfunctions and human error. The machine could not have been hooked up correctly or the equipment could not have been up to date. Human error could include writing the values down wrong or misusing the materials.
Conclusion
The error was a reasonable amount. Since this experiment was discovery driven, there was no need for a hypothesis.
References
1. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/OhmBio.htm
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_circuit_laws
THEME 2! Rough (rough) Draft
There are many different ways for a certain person to define a hero. Dictionary.com defines a hero as “a man of distinguished courage ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.” Some people, when they hear the word hero, they think of someone like Superman or someone with extraordinary powers, like super strength or flying. Some people may think of their parents. In Homer’s epic poem of The Iliad, Homer portrays his view of a hero in his character of Achilles.
During Achilles’ time, the definition of a hero was individual glory and honor, lust for blood and battle and self independence. Achilles was independent, for example, when he refused to fight for a cause he did not believe in and under a general he did not like. “What a worthless, burnt-out coward I’d be called id I would submit to you and all your orders... Never again, I trust, will Achilles yield to you.” (pg. 87, Book 1 lines 343-344, 347) Even though Achilles was taking a big risk by challenging his commander, he still chose not to follow everyone else and be self independent. Another example of his independence is when, even though Agamemnon offered him “Seven tripods never toughed by fire, ten bars of gold...” (pg. 255, Book 9 line 148) along with other gift if he would come back and fight, but since he did not believe in the cause of the war, he refused to fight. Another example of Achilles’ heroism is his self seeking glory. In the proem of The Iliad it describes Achilles’ honor in previous battles; “ Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus‘ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls...” (pg. 77, Book 1 lines 1-3) Achilles was renowned in his time for being an incredible fighter, making his glory known. Another example of his glory is when he kills Hector. “Hector could still gasp out some words, some last reply... he crashed into the dust - godlike Achilles gloried over him...” (pg. 552 Book 22 lines 387-389) Killing Hector gave him an amount of glory that put him above many other because Hector was also known for his skill in battle. A final characteristic of Achilles’ heroism is his bloodlust and long for battle. After Patroclus died, Achilles was determined to fight again and Homer describes Achilles as “starved for war...”(pg. 503, Book 20 line 2) saying that Achilles longed for the battle. When Achilles came charging into the battle for the first time after not fighting for so long he was “afire like the man destroying Ares.”(pg. 505, Book 20 line 55) Achilles not only longed to go back into the battle but he was eager to.
Another fighter in Homer’s Iliad that could fit this Homer’s description was Hector. He had honor in battle and was known for his strength in fighting. Homer said that “...countless ranks struck down by mighty Hector...” (pg. 471, Book 18 line 121) Hector also fought in more of the battle than Achilles, who actually did not show up in the battle at all until the very end. He also dueled Ajax and “When Hector heard that challenge he rejoiced and right in the no man’s land along his lines he strode, gripping hi spear mid-haft, staving men to a standstill...” (pg. 216 Book 7 lines 62-64) Hector was a good enough fighter to bring seasoned fighters to a standstill and to duel Ajax. Hector also had self independence. His self independence is different from Achilles‘, though, in that Achilles’ is more about making his own choice while Hector’s is more about his choice to fight for what he believes in instead of staying with his family at home. Homer describes him as “...the challenger, he with his lust for battle.” (pg. 221 Book 7 lines 250-251) Homer goes right out and states the Hector has a lust for battle. Homer here, by saying that he was “the challenger”, meant that he was the one who had challenged Ajax. Ajax was also renowned for his skill and strength in battle and it would have taken courage to challenge someone like him, but Hector still did.
What it ended up coming down to was that Hector was killed by Achilles. If Hector had not been killed by Achilles, he could have just as easily been the hero of The Iliad as Achilles was. Hector also fought in more of the overall war than Achilles did. Achilles spent most of the book not in the main action while Hector was risking his life the whole time. Hector overestimated himself and underestimated Achilles and got himself killed for it, which also lost him the spot of the hero.
In conclusion, Achilles possess all of the qualities of independence, bloodlust and personal honor and glory. Even though Hector also possess the same qualities, Achilles killed him in battle, losing him the spot. Achilles is the main hero that is portrayed in The Iliad.
During Achilles’ time, the definition of a hero was individual glory and honor, lust for blood and battle and self independence. Achilles was independent, for example, when he refused to fight for a cause he did not believe in and under a general he did not like. “What a worthless, burnt-out coward I’d be called id I would submit to you and all your orders... Never again, I trust, will Achilles yield to you.” (pg. 87, Book 1 lines 343-344, 347) Even though Achilles was taking a big risk by challenging his commander, he still chose not to follow everyone else and be self independent. Another example of his independence is when, even though Agamemnon offered him “Seven tripods never toughed by fire, ten bars of gold...” (pg. 255, Book 9 line 148) along with other gift if he would come back and fight, but since he did not believe in the cause of the war, he refused to fight. Another example of Achilles’ heroism is his self seeking glory. In the proem of The Iliad it describes Achilles’ honor in previous battles; “ Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus‘ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls...” (pg. 77, Book 1 lines 1-3) Achilles was renowned in his time for being an incredible fighter, making his glory known. Another example of his glory is when he kills Hector. “Hector could still gasp out some words, some last reply... he crashed into the dust - godlike Achilles gloried over him...” (pg. 552 Book 22 lines 387-389) Killing Hector gave him an amount of glory that put him above many other because Hector was also known for his skill in battle. A final characteristic of Achilles’ heroism is his bloodlust and long for battle. After Patroclus died, Achilles was determined to fight again and Homer describes Achilles as “starved for war...”(pg. 503, Book 20 line 2) saying that Achilles longed for the battle. When Achilles came charging into the battle for the first time after not fighting for so long he was “afire like the man destroying Ares.”(pg. 505, Book 20 line 55) Achilles not only longed to go back into the battle but he was eager to.
Another fighter in Homer’s Iliad that could fit this Homer’s description was Hector. He had honor in battle and was known for his strength in fighting. Homer said that “...countless ranks struck down by mighty Hector...” (pg. 471, Book 18 line 121) Hector also fought in more of the battle than Achilles, who actually did not show up in the battle at all until the very end. He also dueled Ajax and “When Hector heard that challenge he rejoiced and right in the no man’s land along his lines he strode, gripping hi spear mid-haft, staving men to a standstill...” (pg. 216 Book 7 lines 62-64) Hector was a good enough fighter to bring seasoned fighters to a standstill and to duel Ajax. Hector also had self independence. His self independence is different from Achilles‘, though, in that Achilles’ is more about making his own choice while Hector’s is more about his choice to fight for what he believes in instead of staying with his family at home. Homer describes him as “...the challenger, he with his lust for battle.” (pg. 221 Book 7 lines 250-251) Homer goes right out and states the Hector has a lust for battle. Homer here, by saying that he was “the challenger”, meant that he was the one who had challenged Ajax. Ajax was also renowned for his skill and strength in battle and it would have taken courage to challenge someone like him, but Hector still did.
What it ended up coming down to was that Hector was killed by Achilles. If Hector had not been killed by Achilles, he could have just as easily been the hero of The Iliad as Achilles was. Hector also fought in more of the overall war than Achilles did. Achilles spent most of the book not in the main action while Hector was risking his life the whole time. Hector overestimated himself and underestimated Achilles and got himself killed for it, which also lost him the spot of the hero.
In conclusion, Achilles possess all of the qualities of independence, bloodlust and personal honor and glory. Even though Hector also possess the same qualities, Achilles killed him in battle, losing him the spot. Achilles is the main hero that is portrayed in The Iliad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)