American Spy Post #6

Throughout the trial, both Hunt and Liddy were faced with the decision of whether or not to turn in their superiors in the government. They chose different paths, each with their own consequences. Hunt, for months, chose to remain silent about their involvement. Eventually, he changed his mind and believed that it was better to plead guilty and tell the court everything he knew. He also encouraged the other members of the Watergate Seven to do the same. Hunt told them that the prosecutors knew about the majority of what had happened, so it was useless to still claim information to the contrary. This did not sit well with some of the men: especially a man named Gordon who promptly asked to be transferred to the deadlock section of prison so he wouldn't be near Hunt. Hunt writes, "We would never speak again. I didn't know it at the time, but my friend would later write that he [Gordon] had formed an elaborate plot to have me poisoned in jail if the White House ordered, and going to deadlock was part of the plan" (298). At the time, Hunt believed that he was doing the right thing and that by being fully open in court, justice could be served. What he didn't know, was that the people that he was supposed to be protecting had noticed his actions and were making plans to eliminate him if needed.

Taking the opposite position, Liddy never told the entire truth in court, instead choosing to protect his superiors even though it led to extended time in prison. Even after Nixon's resignation, he never changed his story, saying "the soldier owned his allegiance to the prince, no matter whom the prince may be" (311). He chose to remain loyal to those who had been in power for no apparent reason or gain for himself. In court, Liddy even refused to tell the truth, gaining himself added years in prison. Hunt describes one such instance, "When asked if he would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Liddy replied, 'No!' He was subsequently cited for contempt of Congress and returned for sentencing to Judge Sirica, who angrily added an additional eighteen months to his sentence" (312). Because of his continued refusal to help in the investigation, Liddy added years to his time in prison, but he continued to do the same thing because he thought that it was the right thing to do. The choices that we make in life all will have consequences. Sometimes, no matter what we decide to do, we will still be forced to deal with what happens as a result. Also, as a result of our actions, we must be prepared to accept responsibility for what we have done during our lives. These are the lessons that E. Howard Hunt and the other members of the Watergate Seven learned, and they are the lessons that we must learn and apply to our lives.

American Spy Post #5

Throughout the Watergate trial and proceedings, E. Howard Hunt and his wife, Dorothy, risked their own lives in order to help the others who were involved in Watergate- whether they deserved it or not. Dorothy risked her safety and became involved in the proceedings by ferrying money from a "Mr. Rivers" in the government to the families of the men who were involved in Watergate. Hunt describes his wife's actions, "Withing a couple of days, Mr. Rivers instructed Dorothy to drive to National Airport and go to a particular wall pay phone, where she would find a locker key taped to the bottom. This she did, opening a nearby locker that contained a blue plastic airline bag, which she brought home" (255). This bag contained three months of expenses for the men involved. By following these directions and delivering the funds, Dorthy became involved with the criminal case. If she had been found out, she would have been subpoenaed and could have been imprisoned along with her husband for her participation in illegal activities. Instead of worrying about herself, she put the families of the Watergate Seven ahead of herself and brought them the money they needed to survive.

E. Howard Hunt also risked further imprisonment in order to protect his superiors in the government. He outright lied in court about the involvement of many people in the Watergate trial so that they too would not be indicted and imprisoned. Hunt could have been found guilty of lying on the stand, but he still followed through. He writes, ". . . I now believed that my only recourse was to lie and obfuscate, protecting the people in power for two reasons: First, as a good soldier, I was falling on my sword to protect them, as promised. . ." (295). Hunt was willing to risk himself in order to protect others, although his motives may not have been as pure as Dorothy's. He believed that if he protected these other men, he could receive a reduced sentence and, ultimately, a pardon from President Nixon. Eventually, Hunt changed his testimony and told of the involvement of everyone in the Watergate Scandal, all the way up to President Nixon. This change led to the impeachment trial of Nixon, and ultimately, his resignation as president of the United States.

American Spy Post #4

Throughout the entire Nixon Administration, there were many decisions that were made that put the good of the Republican Party or the government as a whole, above what was the ethical choice. For instance, the Nixon Administration was discovered to have been taking excessive amounts of money from corporations, essentially, as bribes. In exchange for a generous "donation" to the Republican Party, a company would expect that a piece of legislation that they did not want to pass would be stopped. Hunt describes an article by Jack Anderson that revealed one of these instances. He writes:

Columnist Jack Anderson had published an article on February 29, 1972, revealing a memo from International Telegraph and Telephone lobbyist Dita Beard that promised the Nixon administration $400,000 from the company to finance the Republican convention if some annoying antitrust litigation for the multinational company was conveniently dropped. (198)

This company was trying to bribe the government. The Nixon administration could easily have denied this unethical proposal, but instead, they selfishly accepted the money and met the demands of the company in exchange for money. There were many other deals like this that went through during this time, but columnists such as Jack Anderson brought them to the attention of the people, causing great annoyance and pain in the government.
As a result of his columns, Anderson was singled out and E. Howard Hunt and his colleagues were told to stop him at “all costs”. They took this order to mean an assassination so they began making plans to dispose of Anderson. Hunt and his colleague, Liddy, justified their plans by saying that Anderson had caused harm to his country and had betrayed many undercover agents. He writes, "Liddy and I, feeling that Anderson had done such harm to the country by exposing foreign-based CIA agents who might be imprisoned and/or killed, spent a lot of time concocting ways to get rid of the pesky journalist" (199). Hunt believed that it was his duty to stop this man in order to save the lives of others. They faced the question of when it is ethical to kill one man in order to save the lives of many. This question is posed in much of our culture including many movies and books. It is also the question that was posed in class through the question "would you rather have your sibling or the cure for cancer?" This asks whether you would have your sibling die in order to find the cure for cancer and save millions of people, or would you rather have millions die of cancer in order to save the life of your brother or sister. It is a question that has no easy answer and everyone hopes they will never have to face. Unfortunately, some people will have to face it in their lives.

American Spy Post #3

Through out his life, E. Howard Hunt was forced to make many decisions about what was the right thing to do. In his work, he chose his job and president over his own code of ethics. This choice would eventually land him in jail for his major part in the Watergate scandal. Even though Watergate was the culminating event of his career, while he worked in the White House, he was involved in many other similar ventures. For example, when the white house and CIA were having problems with a man, John Ehrlichman, leaking classified information to the press, he is called in to find dirt on him to damage his image. Hunt and his partner, Libby took this to an extreme when they donned disguises and broke into the office of Ehrlichman's phychiatrist. They even go through the cabinets and make it look like the work of a drug addict. When the police discover the break in, another man is blamed. Hunt writes, "The office break-in was discovered on Monday. Police arrested a local drug addict, who conveniently confessed to our crime in return for a suspended sentence. Otherwise, the operation remained secret until disclosed by John Dean in April 1973" (189). Hunt shows very little remorse for the fact that another man received the sentence for their actions. In fact, Hunt does not appear to have any remorse at all for what he has done.

The idea of breakins to obtain classified information, over time, eventually rose to a culmination: Watergate. The staff of the White House eventually began to see these breakins as an easy way to solve a problem. The emotional effect that their actions cause becomes less and less. Hunt even describes this journey in relation to a drug addiction or alchoholism. He writes, "The road to Watergate was traveled in such small, incremental steps that by the time the situation arose, the break-in would seem a natural thing to do. Aren't all vices the same? The alcoholic, (...) has to have his first sip at some thime; the drug user, (...) has her first taste of bliss; (...) every criminal commits his first, usually small, crime" (191). At the time, E. Howard Hunt did not see the eventual cause of his actions; in prison, when he wrote the book, he is able to look back and see the obvious path that it took him on.

On the Waterfront

In the movie, On the Waterfront, the characters have many different views of what is a traitor vs. a whistle blower. These opinions are based on their position in society and their personal experience with the mob that runs the loading docks. Edy, the policeman, and the priest all consider an informant on the mob a whistle blower and someone who is doing the right thing. Edy believes this because her own brother was killed by the mob and the priest believes this because of the injustices he has observed on the docks. The policeman believes that the public has a right to know what is truly happening and justice should be served. On the other hand, there are several people who believe that turning in the mob would be a treacherous betrayal. Most obvious are the people who run the mob. They believe that a person who informs the police of their behavior is a traitor and must be dealt with. Because it would be their own necks on the line if they were found out, it is obvious that they should think this way. Terry starts out believing that he would be a traitor if he turned in the mob because he has ties to it. The leaders of the mob give him favors and make his life easier at the docks. Also, his brother is high up in the hierarchy of bosses. Terry believes that he is not doing anything wrong as long as he can convince himself that his participation in the mob's activities have not directly affected anyone else. Once his words and actions lead to the murder of his brother, he sees the injustice that is being done and vows to gain revenge. It is possible to see the views of the characters in the move On the Waterfront, by observing their personal experiences and connections to the events and actions of the mob that runs the loading docks.

I think that there are several factors that determine the difference between a traitor and a whistle blower. A traitor is usually a person who selfishly seeks personal gain for themselves and is willing to turn in the people that trust them for this gain. They do not care what happens to the people that they betray, and they don't care if they destroy the lives of the people they betray. In contrast, a whistle blower is someone who sees something that is not right and risks their life, wealth, relationships, and affluence to make something right. And although the position that a person is in relation to the informant determines their view of traitor vs. whistle blower, the effects of their informing, in my opinion, is what makes a person a traitor or whistle blower.

All My Sons- Family v. Society

In the play All My Sons by Arthur Miller, many of the characters are forced to face a choice between society and their family. By far the most obvious example of this is of Joe Keller. During WWII when he was manufacturing parts for the military, he chose to weld over the cracks in the parts. Later, when Chris finds out that he in fact did this, Joe offers the explanation of family to Chris. Joe tells Chris, "For you, a business for you!" (70). Joe believes that he can rectify the fact that his choice led to the deaths of 21 men with the fact that he did it to provide a comfortable living for his family. Another example of how a character must choose between society and family, is Chris' decision to take his father to jail. He is doing what society would condone as the "right thing" to do, but it drives his father to commit suicide. Chris is willing to break up his family in order to have a clear conscience, but his mother, Kate, knows what it will do. She says, "How long will he live in prison?- are you trying to kill him?" (84). Kate knows that Joe will not be able to live with himself alone in prison, and she ends up being correct, as shortly after she says this, Joe shoots himself. Throughout the play All my Sons, the characters must decide between the values of society and the lively hood of their families, and they must find a way to live with the consequences of the choices they make.

In our everyday lives, we too must make decisions like this. In my opinion, there are varying circumstances that determine whether or not a person should do the things that society condones, or the things that will benefit their families. Through experiences, our ethical code is revised and changed, gradually getting better and better. From this ethical code, a person must decide when to side with their family vs. society. An person must also take into account the consequences of their actions. When an action hurts others, like Joe Keller's decision to cover up the cracks in the parts, this action cannot be condoned by saying that it was done for family. One should not place themselves ahead of others, although, in our world today, that is the norm. In this way, we can decide when it is right to place family ahead of society or vice versa.

American Spy Post #2

Later in his career, E. Howard Hunt found himself facing two extremely important events in American and World History- The Bay of Pigs operation, and the Kennedy Assassination. Both of these situations posed ethical dilemmas to Hunt and the people he came in contact with. In the Bay of Pigs operation, there came to be a conflict between what Kennedy was telling the public and what was actually occurring. In fact, Hunt tells us, "Worse, on April 12, he [Kennedy] actually promised reporters at a news conference that the US would not invade Cuba. Somehow he expected the invasion to happen in a vacuum where the world wouldn't notice that fifteen hundred men had landed on a Cuban beach" (120). Because Kennedy promised this, the Bay of Pigs operation instantly went from undercover to extremely secret. This lead to Kennedy's decisions to attempt to quiet down the operation and to make it less noticeable. These changes ultimately lead to the failure of the operation. In this instance, we can see that it would have been a better choice to continue with the lie than to try and cover things up. This attempt at cover up lead to the captures and deaths of over a thousand men. Would it have been better to lie to the people of America and the world and same the lives of these men? or would it have been more "right" to save their lives and honor one's word. This is a huge dilemma that one must face in their lives; one's character and the person one becomes is based on what one decides in response to this question.
Later, Hunt describes several theories for the Kennedy assassination. One of these theories is that a CIA operative, Cord Meyer, had arranged the killings. The reasoning behind this is the fact that Meyer's wife, Mary Pinchot was having an affair with Kennedy. It has been suggested that, seeking revenge, he arranged Kennedy's murder. Hunt writes, " The theorists suggest Cord would have had a motive to kill Kennedy because his wife was having an affair with the president" (133). This situation also brings up several questions. First of all, is the question of revenge. Is revenge ever worth it? Also, would Meyer have been so hurt by his wife's affair that he would arrange for the murder of her lover, President Kennedy? In this instance, we may never know the real cause of the Kennedy assassination so we will never know if this is truly what happened. In our lives, we must be able to make decisions that we can reconcile with our conscience and that will cause the least harm to others.

American Spy Post #1

The biography that I have chosen to read this quarter is American Spy by E. Howard Hunt with Greg Aunapu. E. Howard Hunt was an employee of the OSS and CIA beginning in WWII, through the cold war era through the Watergate Scandal with Richard Nixon. Hunt spent much of his career abroad, fighting communism in countries such as Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, China, and Japan. Throughout his many years at the CIA he often carried out activities such as phone taps, recruiting agents and obtaining pertinent information from defectors. He also was a major player in the Watergate Scandal (which I will address later). Many of his activities were blatantly illegal, yet by their completion, Hunt was able to help contain the influence of the Soviet Union and in many instances, prevent all out nuclear war.

A career in the OSS and CIA was saturated with suspicion and distrust. No one could ever be sure who was on their side, or who was an enemy. A best friend, or even a spouse could be an agent, placed to obtain classified information for their country. One always had to be on the lookout for a foreign agent. During his training for the OSS, Hunt tells of how his group of 12 people had been told that there was an OSS agent amongst them. Everyone was immediately suspicious and learned that they could not trust anyone. At the end of the session, everyone was told to write down who they thought the agent was. The vote was for Hunt, who obviously was not the agent. The trainees were never told who the real agent was. Hunt writes, "We were never told who the real agent was, if there even was one- that piece of information might have been just another layer of disinformation set to work against our psyche" (15). The test that the trainees went through were designed to test their psychology, rather than their strength or brawn.

Throughout his career, Hunt would find that much of his duties would have to do with manipulating people. In order to recruit informants, one first had to befriend them or bribe them. In one instance in Uruguay, Hunt worked to recruit the chief of police of the city of Montevideo. In order to gain his trust and bribe him, Hunt takes the man out to lunch at an expensive club. After dining with the man, on such things as lobster and steaks, Hunt flat out asks the man to tap embassy phones. Hunt describes the encounter, saying, "I shrugged and took a casual sip from my brandy glass. 'Chief,' I said, 'I can make the taps with or without your help, the difference being that if we do it together, we can share the take'"(101). Hunt is obviously manipulating the man. By telling him that with or without his cooperation, the phones will be tapped, he lays out an offer that the Chief almost cannot refuse. He offers a reward for something that can be done without his help (or so the Chief is told). This brings up several ethical dilemmas. The first is that of how Hunt is obviously manipulating the chief. He has bribed him with money and expensive food in exchange for the betrayal of classified information. Hunt condones his actions with the idea that it is for national security and the good of the United States. Another ethical quandary is that of the Chief of Police. He can take a handsome bribe, which will pad his wallet nicely, but in exchange he must betray the secrets of his homeland. In this case, the Chief chooses to take the bribes.

We also should examine our own motives. If we were given the chance, would we betray our country, possibly causing the deaths of hundreds, in exchange for money, or would we stay true to our home land and refuse a bribe that could significantly improve our way of life? Also, if we were given the choice, would we deliberately manipulate another person to obtain information that could save the lives of hundreds of citizens of our country? Throughout our lives, we will all face a time when we are forced to examine our ideas and decide what we truly will strive for, and how much we are willing to sacrifice to obtain it.

.

.

.

Hunt, E. Howard, with Greg Aunapu. American Spy. Boboken,

New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007.

Birdbath with leaves

Photography in the News

Starting in 1979, Jamie Livingston began to take one picture everyday for 18 years. Through these pictures, he chronicled his life, the lives of his friends and the changing city around him. He continued these photos until the day he died in 1997. For the tenth anniversary of his death, two of his friends chronicled the photographs, put them online, and made an exhibition out of them in New York City.
This article relates to what we are learning in Language Arts because this collection of photographs has documented the life of this man and will preserve it even after his death. These images share a theme of life, hardship, and change and, although each photograph is different, they come together to back up this theme. This article also relates to LA because life is a journey. Jamie Livingston has documented the path of his life from the time he was a senior in college to the day he died. From these images we can see the joy and sorrow that everyone goes through, and together they provide insight into the lives of everyone else on earth.

Shaftel, David. "The Days of His Life." The New York Times. 12 Oct 2008: CY4.

The Economic Crisis and Dubai

Dubai, located in the United Arab Emirates, has become a symbol of modern architecture and is full of amazing feats of engineering from the palm tree islands completely made by man in the ocean, and an amazing ski resort in a mall in the middle of a desert. There are plans for several buildings, each claiming the title of the world's tallest from its predecessor. The sheiks that rule Dubai have billions of dollars of oil revenues that they are using to diversify their income from oil to real estate and tourism. Amongst all of this wealth and ingenuity, no one thought that Dubai would be affected from the broadening global economic crisis. Unfortunately, no one has been able to avoid this crisis, including Dubai.

Dubai's banks base their interest rates off of US currency. Because these rates have stayed the same while prices in Dubai have increased, investors are not making wise loans ("Not-so-hot Property"). Another factor is that the majority of people who are moving to Dubai are workers for the building projects, not people who are going to be paying for the luxury condos and apartments that have been built ("Not-so-hot Property). Investors in Dubai had been banking on the US dollar's continuing decline, expecting to make money from Dubai's strong currency. Recently, the dollar has begun to strengthen again, so these investors have been losing money. One of Dubai's most prominent banks was also recently accused of corruption, contributing to a drop in confidence. The article tells us, "So far this year, shares in the Dubai Financial Market have lost 48% of their value. Emaar, a high-profile developer, fell from a high of 15.7 dirhams to 5.5 on October 9th. In another sign that not all is well, the Dubai authorities merged two Islamic mortgage lenders, Amlak Finance and Tamweel" ("Not-so-hot Property). Because of the crisis, the government in Dubai has been forced to take measures that are similar to those that United States has taken. The outlook for Dubai is not totally negative though. The government controls the property so they can control the supply end of supply and demand, keeping the prices high ("Not-so-hot Property).

How does this relate to what we are learning in Language arts? First of all, it relates to our theme of overcoming obstacles. All of the major economies in all of the countries on earth are going to have to face this crisis. We don't know yet how they are going to overcome it or how long it will take, but we know that it will be overcome eventually. In Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse, the character of Siddhartha must also overcome obstacles in his life and must find his own path to enlightenment. All of the major countries are going to have to test different plans until they find one that works and stabalizes the economy. For now though, the global economic crisis does not seem to be lessening.



"Not-so-hot Property" The Economist. 9 October 2008.
<http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-%20africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12381473>.

The Masque of the Red Death

"The 'Red Death' had long devastated the country. No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatar and its seal- the redness and the horror of blood" (Poe 171). These ominous words begin one of Edgar Allen Poe's most disturbing stories: "The Masque of the Red Death". This story takes place during a cholera epidemic that has killed many. Prince Prospero has invited over a thousand people to stay with him in his castle. After they have been safe inside for over 5 months, the Prince holds a masquerade ball. This masquerade ball is held within a suite of seven rooms, each with a different color scheme and colored glass window. The final room is hung with black velvet and has a scarlet window. Poe describes this chamber, saying:

But in the western or black chamber the effect of the firelight that streamed upon the dark hangings through the blood-tinted panes was ghastly in the extreme, and produced so wild a look upon the countenances of those who entered that there were few of the company bold enough to set foot within its precincts at all. (Poe 175)

Also within this chamber, there is an ebony clock that chimes on the hour with such a distinctive sound that the orchestra stops playing and the dancers stop and listen. As the clock strokes midnight, the crowd is suddenly aware of a distinct presence among them. They see a man with a costume so horrible that they are revolted. Poe describes it:

The figure was tall and gaunt, and shrouded from head to foot in the habiliments of the grave. The mask which concealed the visage was made so nearly to resemble the countenance of a stiffened corpse (...) His vesture was dabbled in blood- and hisbroad brow, with all the features of the face, was besprinkled with the scarlet horror. (Poe 179)

The Prince chases the figure through six of the chambers to the final, black draped room. There, suddenly, the Prince drops dead. The party-goers seize the costumed man and remove his mask, but he turns out to be an inhuman form "untenanted by any tangible form" (Poe 182). Then, one by one, each of the party goers drops dead from the "Red Death". Poe ends the story with words as chilling as the opening, "And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all" (Poe 182).

This story relates to our theme of journeys in many ways. First of all, the ball takes place through 7 rooms. When Prince Prospero chases the unknown figure, his journey through the rooms symbolizes the journey towards his death. Also, the progression of the disease throughout society and the attempts of Prospero to avoid it could also be considered a journey. These are some of the ways that "The Masque of the Red Death" by Edgar Allen Poe relates to our Language Arts theme of journeys.

Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Masque of the Red Death". Eight Tales of Terror. Ed. John P. Roberts. New York: Scholastic Inc, 1978. 171-182.

question about blog formatting...

My blog will not let me indent anything.... It shows it is indented when I type it but it deletes this indenting once I publish my blog. This is really skewing my MLA format. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks

Nemo me impune lacessit: The Cask of Amontillado

Edgar Allen Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" is a dark and twisted story of revenge and hatered. As the story begins, we meet Montresour and Fortunato . In the opening paragraph, told from the point of view of Montresor, we know that something is amiss. Montresor tells us, "The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge" (Poe 2). Fortunato has done something against Montresor that has wounded him and insulted his family. We are never told what. As the story progresses, Montresor leads Fortunato into the catacombs of his family with the promise of a drink of Amontillado wine. As they descend deeper and deeper, Fortunato becomes sick from the cold and the damp, but he still continues. When they have reached their destination, Montresor chains Fortunato inside and indent in the wall. Fortunato, extremely drunk from a party that he has gone to, does not realize anything is amiss until Montresor begins laying bricks to trap him alive, in the catacombs. Montresor continues, seemingly without conscience, even as Fortunato screams and attemps to escape. At one point, he begins to feel guilty, but the feeling quickly passes as he remembers his quest for revenge. Montresor says, "For a brief moment I hesitated, I trembled. Unsheathing my rapier, I began to grope with it about the recess; but the thought of an instant reassured me. I placed my hand upon the solid fabric of the catacombs, and felt satisfied" (Poe 13). After he has finished, Montresor leaves Fortunato alone in the catacombs to die, fulfilling his family crest, "Nemo me impune lacessit": No one provokes me with impunity. We never learn what Fortunato has done to recieve such an end.

This relates to our studies in Language arts because of the journey that Montresor has taken in order to avenge his family. He has been planning his actions out so that he can never be found out. It also relates to The Iliad through the theme of revenge. Achilles refuses to fight for the Achaeans after Agamemnon takes Briseis from him. Also, after Patroclus dies, Achilles fights and kills Hector. Both Montresor and Achilles seek revenge in order to regain their honor. Montresor is trying to avenge his family's good name and Achilles is trying to gain honor for himself and for his decendents. These are a few of the many ways that Edgar Allen Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" relates to The Iliad and the subjects that we are studying in Language Arts.

Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Cask of Amontillado". Eight Tales of Terror. Ed. John P. Roberts. New York: Scholastic Inc, 1978. 1-14.

Blog Question #1

Is Odysseus a hero for modern times?

In our modern times, Odysseus should not be considered considered a hero for us to emulate. During his ten year journey home from the Trojan War, he is constantly betraying his family, putting himself before others, feuling his pride, and lying to gain what he wants. Although in The Odyssey, these actions hold very few consequences and ultimately lead to the accomplishment of his goal, we should know better today than to follow Odysseus' example.
In The Odyssey, Odysseus always thinks of himself before the members of his family and his friends. When several of his crew members are transformed into pigs by Circe, Odysseus goes to attempt to save them. After he tricks Circes with the help of Hermes, Circe invites him to her bed. She says, "Come, sheathe your sword, let's go to bed together, mount my bed and mix in the magic work of love- we'll breed deep trust between us" (240). Without protest or thought of his wife and family that he hasn't seen in over 10 years, Odysseus readily accepts her invitation. He follows this pattern with several other women, all while his wife, Penelope, has remained unerringly faithful to him. Later, as Odysseus attempts to guide his ship and crew past the terrible monster, Scilla, six members of his crew are grabbed and eaten alive. This does not seem to concern Odysseus, as he and the rest of his crew have made it past Scilla. Throughout The Odyssey, Odysseus is constantly shown to be a less than heroic man through the ways that he betrays the trust of the people closest to him.
Other ways that Odysseus shows his cowardess is through the ways that he fuels his pride and lies to gain the things that he wants. Odysseus is a man who always needs to tell others who has defeated them. After he has escaped from the Cyclops, Polyphemus, and has stolen all of his prized sheep, Odysseus shouts back his name so that Polyphemus will know exactly who has vanquished him. He calls to the Cyclops, "Cyclops- if any man on the face of the earth should ask you who blinded you, shamed you so- say Odysseus, raider of cities, he gouged out your eye" (227). Odysseus risks the lives of his crew in order to feul his pride and increase his ego. Odysseus also lies to those he comes in contact with to achieve his own means. In the very first line of The Odyssey, Homer describes Odysseus as "a man of twists and turns". This means that it is impossible to ascertain when he is telling the truth and when he is lying. In the Cyclops' cave, Odysseus lies to the Cyclops and tells him that his name is Nobody. The Cyclops believes him and it ultimately leads to Odysseus' escape. As Odysseus enumerates his adventures to the Phaeacians, we cannot be sure what has actually accomplished and what he is embelishing upon, especially because he is the lone survivor of these events. Through the examples of his deceit, pride, betrayal, and self-centeredness, we should not look up to Odysseus as a role model in our modern times.

Hurricane Ike, the Global Economy, and the Price of Oil

Clifford, Catherine. "Oil tumbles below $96 after Ike passes" http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/markets/oil/index.htm

After hurricane Ike moved out of the Gulf of Mexico, the price of oil fell to under $100 a barrel. The damage caused by Ike was much less than what was expected, causing the price to drop about $5. The oil refineries in the gulf were still able to function unlike after Hurricane Katrina. The damage caused by the hurricane was compared to Katrina. Clifford writes, "Refineries are especially vulnerable to flooding, and after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf in 2005, refineries were out for 6 to 9 months" (Clifford). Hurricane Ike was much less. Also, because the economy has been slowing down and the price of oil has been so high, the demand for oil has also dropped. Clifford also tells us, "As the U.S. and global economies have buckled under credit pressures, demand for energy has fallen off" (Clifford). Not just the US, but the entire world economy has slowed down, so the producers of oil have less demand for their product. That, combined with the uncertainty of the stock market, makes people less likely to spend money in areas that they don't absolutely have to spend it in. The combined forces of hurricane Ike and the failing economy have caused the price of a barrel of oil to drop significantly in the last few days.

Hi! My name is emily and this is my blog for my Enriched English 10 class