Have you ever heard someone use the saying “Well, listen…” I am sure you have.  Even the president has used this statement in interviews on the television. There are variations like “listen…” or “No, listen…” Each of these are followed with an explanation.

I hate these statements. Yes, I said hate. The reason being that the user typically is putting the listener in their place. And if not, they are speaking down to you. In whatever situation you have heard these statements; the speaker is taking the upper hand to the conversation while diminishing your authority.  The speaker is belittling you and letting you know what he/she thinks about you; which isn’t very much.

If you find yourself using this technique in conversation, consider why you are doing so. How are you feeling? Do you feel the need to show power? Or do you feel threatened?  Think about what you are doing. And for goodness sakes, please don’t begin using these statements; it is rude. 

You decide how you feel and your feelings are based on your values.

You can’t be lifted up by anyone or anything any higher than you’re willing to lift yourself up.

You can’t be put down by anyone or anything any lower than you’re willing to put yourself down.

No one will lift you up any higher than yourself.

No one will put you down any lower than yourself.

When people praise and reprimand you , they’re only providing you with their opinion and perceptions of your actions. Only if they reflect your own opinions can other people’s opinions have the power to make  you feel good or bad. You decide how you feel and your feelings are based on your values.

Many people go through life trying to receive praise and avoid reprimand .To them , other people’s opinions define their own self-worth.But those who live their lives listening to the guidance of their hearts and souls realize that they must be true to themselves regardless of others opinions of them.

True self-worth stems from within , and when you’re focused on an inspired purpose , neither praise nor reprimand can bump you off your course.

The discussion in Jakarta was to present Canadian writer Irshad Manji, who was here to launch her new book. Inevitably, the drama in Jakarta was beamed around the world as events were unfolding. One question that many people asked through various statements and comments in social media was, “Why do the Indonesian police take orders from thugs in religious robes?” 

That the police do take orders from religious thug groups — be they from the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) or any other name — is beyond any doubt. Anyone with an Internet connection can within seconds find video and text documentation of how the police just stand aside and allow leaders of violent organizations to whip up hatred, destroy property, wound and even kill people. 

The Cikeusik lynching of Ahmadi Muslims last year was but one highlight of police complicity in religious violence, but the reality is that even before those horrific murders, thug groups all over the country enjoyed police blessing and protection in their violent rampages against what they judge to be religious deviances or vice. The new development is that the police don’t merely stand by and let the thugs get on with their violent business, but they actually do the dirty work for them. 

A day before the attack on Manji in Jakarta, the residents of Solo were terrified by the clashes between a group of religious and local thugs, which then developed into a mass action by those claiming to be fighting for Islam. Last Friday after prayers, reporters in Solo said, around 1,000 men, armed with clubs and swords and catapults, marched to attack the Gandekan kampung in search of a rival thug who they claimed was responsible for the clash the day before. Failing to find their man, they attacked a local elderly garage worker, chopping several of his fingers off. The police once again did nothing to stop the armed men’s march, even though it is a crime to carry sharp weapons in public. When the police did make arrests, according to press reports, the suspects were not from the religious thugs’ group but from the group that the zealots were targeting. 

Last February, when I was attacked by the Indonesian Mujahidin Council (MMI) in Yogyakarta, the police also stood by and gave the thugs an opportunity to rob me of my property and beat me. Then they whisked me away in a truck “for my own safety.” 

In the police office, they tried to mediate a discussion between myself and my attackers, and not once did they act on the blatant facts that they had witnessed themselves: that I was attacked on a public road for no other reason than the fact that I was questioning their right to organize a jihad in a country where there was an Islamic king (the Sultan of Yogyakarta) and a national head of state (the president). Instead of admitting that they were — according to Islamic tradition — usurpers who should be put to the sword for robbing the Sultan (or the president) of the sole right to organize a jihad — the MMI thugs chose to attack me. 

Probably they imagined themselves heroic and Islamic in attacking a lone poet who had visited them to share poetry and a performance intended to be an expression of the Koranic appeal for Muslims to remind each other of the virtue of patience and truth, but unwittingly they proved my point — that they are violent thugs who use Islam as a mask to intimidate others and legitimize their political ambitions. This intimate experience with the way police handle thugs that hide under religious robes obliged me to watch them more closely. 

The most obvious and most disturbing facts relating to the connection between the religious thugs and the powers that be in this country were played out in the open for everyone to see during the big demonstration against the fuel price hike at the end of March. Not long before the biggest day of demonstration, the FPI and similar groups also held a demonstration in which they urged people to hunt down liberals, bang on the doors of their homes and evict them. 

Rizieq Shihab, the rotund leader of the FPI, can be seen on YouTube urging his audience to kill liberals but not to let police know about it. Another firebrand speaker ranted on how democracy is the enemy of Islam. Speakers mocked the president directly and indirectly and even had the bravado to insinuate that his true sexuality was in question. On the surface it appeared that these thugs hated the president’s guts, and one would assume that the feeling was mutual. However, the unfolding of events several days later proved that exactly the opposite was true. 

When demonstrating students were locked out of the parliament building and beaten by the police, representatives from the Islamist hard-liners were invited in to the presidential palace to talk to the government. The press caught the coordinating minister for politics, law and security affairs, Djoko Suyanto, hurrying into the palace to meet them. In this small and apparently unimportant gesture, this regime admitted to more than what analysts and observers had been saying all along — the Islamists are on the police payroll. 

Obviously recent happenings oblige a review of this analysis because the palace factor cannot be ignored. Until we change the top man in the presidential palace, our police will consistently work for the destruction of our country, under the orders of the religious thugs. 

Bramantyo Prijosusilo is a writer, organic farmer and former broadcast journalist.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (United States Constitution)

So basically, to each his own. We are free to speak as we wish, so long as it does not entice violence or promote treason, you are free to say what is on your mind. And we are free to so in a public manner.

“The amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, association, and belief), and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Nolos Plain English Law Dictionary)

The freedom to practice and preach religion iw protected in this Amenment, With good reason too. Without this, the governemnt could choose one religion for alll of the constituents… that is scary.

I am grateful for the freedom to express my feelings and opinions. Religion is not my forte, but I have no problems with the words being spoken and shared.

I am also grateful for the freedom to speak with free will, I can argue politics, family, love, money, all of the thiings that happen in life without fear of persecution for going against the grain.

The 1st Amendment also gives us the right to tell our governement when they are doing wrong, this gives the right to petition with bills and laws for the good of the people. Pretty nifty…

Isn’t America…. awesome!?

References:

United States Constitution. Amendment 1.

First Amendment (Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute)

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

            Tessie Hutchinson is the “lucky” winner of the lottery and her family, along with the towns people stone her to death. The husband and his children seem to show no emotional, they continue on with the tradition as if she were a stranger. Tessie, knowing her fate, tries to suggest that her daughters should have drawn and the lottery was not fair. This is where the reader begins to think about morals. What kind of mother would suggest that her own children should be stoned to death?, and what kind of family willing stones another family member to death without batting an eye? All for the sake of tradtion. What really got me was that most of the tradition had been lost, the towns people did not really understand themselves why they continued to have the lottery, how it started and they did not remember all of the aspects to the tradition.

            The moral questions soon give way to questions of the readers own traditions. We all have traditions with rituals, like Christmas and Easter. Traditions hold families together as well as societies and cultures. But the thing about these traditions is, we have all changed them, adapted them over time and most of us have forgotten the original reasons and rituals. WE celebrate Christmas supposedly to celebrate the birth of Christ, right? So, why do we sing ‘Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer’, what does a mythical creature have to do with Christ?
I can not answer that but still, I celebrate Christmas every year. I celebrate every year because it has been a family tradition, it is what I know.

            I think this story was about so much more than just a story of death. It was a story about tradition and how people continue traditions regardless of the rituals simply because they are a tradition. This story really and truly pulls a reader in and makes the reader think about the whole story, not just the fantastic ending.

The projects, known as Horner Place, were a low cost housing project; this was a complex of sixteen high rises. Inadequately built, they housed a majority of the minority poor in Chicago. This housing project, that was supposed to provide an adequate home to help the tenants meet their basic needs is, in my opinion, one the first ways that this family was failed by the welfare system.

Like all social welfare programs and projects, low cost and subsidized housing, like Horner Place, come with limited funding. The limited funding meant that the building, even during construction was not built well enough to sustain all of the tenants. During the winter, elevator cables froze, trash chutes were too built too narrow, the cinder block walls were never painted (Koltowitz, 1991). After construction, funding ran out and regular maintenance was not kept throughout the apartments.  The plumbing was not even repaired. The River’s had one tub, no shower and no laundering facilities. The bathtub constantly ran hot water and doubled as a clothes washer (Koltowitz, 1991). Proper running water, trash removal and functioning toilets are, at least in my opinion, basic needs.

The River’s received cash assistance and food stamps. This low amount of “$931… a combination of both welfare and food stamps” (Koltowitz, 1991), was the only income that the River’s family of 8 had. This amount had to pay for groceries (400), burial insurance (80), rent (122), commodities like toilet paper, shampoo, soaps and cosmetics, as well as clothing and food (the last 300), ah let’s not forget, the $8 charge to cash the welfare check (Koltowitz, 1991). Without actually sending a caseworker or investigator to the river’s home, The Department of Public Aid, discontinued their assistance because, on paper, it appeared that Lajoe’s husband still lived in the home and he had income. The low amount that Lajoe received was stopped without any referrals or help of any kind offered to her.

I think that in some way, the social welfare system also failed the river’s family by not helping the family become self-sufficient. There was no effort to educate LaJoe and get her into the workforce, there was no program to help the children with school, there was nothing there for any of them to find ways to cope with the constant violence in the community. There were no referrals to anything? Why? Were there no food pantries, no counseling centers, no job skill classes, no used clothing stores?

One change in the social welfare system that may have helped this family would have been a visiting caseworker. Again, limited funding would be an issue, but I strongly feel that if someone from the agency could have gone to the home once a month or at least once every other month, the agency would have known how the River’s lived. They could have seen where the assistance was spent, and they could have seen where support was needed. If a case worker had been visiting, they would have known that Paul did not live there.

Under the AFDC, families with children received benefits simply because they had children and met the monetary requirements. TANF provides aid, benefits in kind, offers referrals, has a five year lifetime restriction and most importantly, is geared to getting clients back into the workforce. The support to work program is very good at getting people training that can enhance their job skills. With education and through mandated volunteer experience, clients are closer to being self-sufficient. I do think the family would have become self sufficient. LaJoe would have received job skills that could have enabled her to get a job. The family would have received referrals that could help them.

Seeing Reading How I See Reading & How I Think Non-Readers See It 
How I See Reading To me, reading is the most wonderful thing in the world. I can’t explain how it makes me feel. Let’s start from the beginning. The sight of books make my heart beat faster. I LOVE the smell of libraries and the feel on pages. Covers that feel soft and raised letters for the title are the best. When I crack open the first page and read the first word, I always imagine a vortex, swirling and me yelling in delight as I am sucked into another world. The anticipation of what’s happening next, the feel of fear I have when something bad happens to a character. Truthfully and wholeheartedly, books are my lifeline. They’re how I go all around the world without leaving my seat, how I live the most exciting life until I am of age to actually live out loud. 
How I Think Other (non-readers) See Reading I think the reason others see reading the way they do is psychological. In the same way they label someone a nerd or outcast without giving them a chance is the same way they treat books. They go by the popular vote, it may not be right, but it is the majority. I, among anyone, knows how hard it is to avoid the status quo. This is the reason I don’t feel offended at the crazed looks I get because I spend my birthdays at bookstores.

Polarization is the process used when the public opinion is divided and taken to the greatest extremes. It’s also the extreme factions for any political party to gain dominance in a party. Even by just stating the definition of political polarization, it sounds like a competition. What confuses me is how we can elect leaders like we fought so hard to do, yet get bamboozled by competitive men who are only wanting to make themselves look good. Even if they are wanting to benefit the country deep down, it isn’t looking that way. I find something very wrong with this.

To be able to really expand on this idea of polarization and how it’s become such a corrupt process, I should probably explain the ideals of the two major political parties of the United States. The two main parties are the conservatives and the liberals, and then there are the moderates, which cannot decide on a specific party and decide to be neutral. Conservatives seek to keep things as they currently are and to emphasize stability and continuity while as liberals stress the importance of liberty and equal rights. It’s easy to see how these two ideologies can clash. Liberals are open to change to get to equality while conservatives just want to leave things as they are, and this can create many problems.

Their beliefs tend to vary considerably. First of all, conservative beliefs are, but not limited to: banning abortion, using privatization, and bettering our trade by private enterprise. As far as abortion goes, they believe that life begins when a baby is first conceived, and, in their eyes, a woman having an abortion is just as bad as murder. Privatization is their idea to fix social security. They want to fix it so the individual can manage their own savings, thus making their money their responsibility, and in a sense, safer. Through private enterprise, they believe that it will bring the best opportunities for the country, as will having a free market system and the use of competitive capitalism. Liberals have a different view on most of these things. For starters, liberals don’t find abortion to be something strictly forbidden. They say that the women should have the right to decide what to do with their own body. Liberals also argue that a fetus isn’t a human life, so it doesn’t violate human rights. In the liberals’ point of view, they believe that the economy should be completely ran by the government so that American people and their businesses can be better protected from larger corporations, which in turn, keeps more people safe. Along with the protection of the people, they want a higher protection for social security too because it helps the lower class citizens. They believe that it shouldn’t be changed. Other differences include education, the death penalty, and gay marriage. Conservatives believe that education should be private and use vouchers, the death penalty is fit for the crime of murder, and that gay marriage should be abolished. Liberals, in contrast, believe that public education is the best, the death penalty isn’t appropriate for any form of punishment, and gay marriage should be accepted.

Even though there are multiple differences, they have some similarities too. Both liberals and conservatives both support health care, short-term welfare, and legal immigration. They believe that a safety net is needed to provide needs for the poor and that opportunities should be provided to those who need to be self-reliant. It brings fairness to the economic life in America instead of having them continue to be entirely dependent on what the government gives to them. They also both support legal immigration, though on different terms. The only difference is that the conservatives don’t want to give illegal immigrants the same rights as legal citizens have while as liberals say even illegal immigrants should have the right to all educational and health benefits that legal American citizens receive. Health care should be free or low cost in the eyes of both parties, the only debate is who should pay for it, conservatives say that health care shouldn’t be controlled by the government, the liberals think otherwise.

With differences such as these, there’s very little keeping these two parties from completely dismantling each other. The few similarities they have aren’t enough to keep the liberals and conservatives in cooperation much longer, so I say that we need a reform. I don’t think that presidential candidates should follow a party, but that they should base their beliefs on the ideal American values that support the inner workings of the country (the American citizens), and stop fighting over the opposing views of each party. I would find it a lot easier to vote for a person who was fighting for my rights instead of exploiting the system to benefit themselves. I think we should have the candidates who make their own decisions (based on morality and logic so we don’t end up a dictatorship of course), and not have to follow a specific rule of what they have to believe and how they have to act on it! America is a constantly changing society, so maybe it’s about time the polarization process was reformed too.

Having differences isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but when a country is at risk of being torn apart as it was during the Civil War, something has to be done. Our system works for us for the time being, but if these differences in our values continue growing as society continues to change, our government will be behind and fall apart as a result of the American citizens’ ever-changing ideals. Conservatives and liberals have very different aspects of how a country should be run, and a lot of people are stuck between the two, but if a reform was to be done on political polarization, we’d be much better off in making adjustments to better the lives of our people and be better fit for our constantly changing nation.

Under R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethi­cal Standards for Public Of­ficials and Employees, “Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, lia­bilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.”

In the same law, “The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Finan­cial Connections shall be filed by:

(1) Constitutional and national elec­tive officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman; (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.

(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and

(5) All other public officials and em­ployees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commis­sion.” (emphasis supplied)

Good storytelling begins with a solid idea, along with excellent organization and convincing examples and exposition.  Juicy verbs and nouns paint the picture told by the story help to sustain the reader’s attention. Figurative and evaluative language adds colorful flourishes to the story, turning what may be a good story into a piece of writing that keeps readers hooked, inviting them back for more of the writer’s words.  

Figurative and Evaluative Language Defined

Figurative language a word or phrase with another word or phrase. It uses words in ways that redefines them, changes their meaning, provides a definition that’s unlike their actual explanation. The word blue, for example, changes from a color to meaning sad or depressed and the phrase “like a greased pig on oil” means something slippery, or something slips by quickly, with no friction to slow it and nothing to stop it. evaluative language allows writers to offer up their opinions on a topic, in other words, editorializing. This opining may be intentional or it may be inadvertent. This evaluative language is considered sound reasoning when the writer’s opinions are based on fact and firm arguments rather than on suppositions. The writer has evaluated the words used by other writers and is giving his or her own interpretation of their meaning.

Figurative Devices

Figurative language has at its disposal, a multitude of  strategies to elucidate a writer’s ideas and stir the reader’s imagination. These figures of speech are used in figurative language:  similes, metaphors, personification, hyperbole, onomatopoeia, idioms, and symbolism.

• Similes use the words “like” or “as” to compare one set of words with another, one idea with another. Example: Jennifer’s mom always  moved through her day, busy as a bee.
• Metaphors compares two or more things share nothing in common, without using the words like or as, as with similes. Example, Jack can eat anything he wants because he’s a string bean.
• Personification gives human qualities to animals or inanimate objects. Example: When the summer rains finally began, the drops danced on the roofs and kicked up steam on the street outside her house.
• Hyperbole humorously exaggerates in order to make appoint. Example: He gave the policeman the slip, escaping faster than a greased pig on oil.
• Onomatopoeia describes an action by replicating the sound they make. Examples: the rain pinged against the window; the bacon sizzled in the pan; the wind rustled through the leaves.
• Idiomsare expressions people use, that  are generally used only in specific regions. Example: People living in Texas say “ya’ll” when referring to 2 or more people.
• Symbolism uses specific nouns to stand for something else entirely. Example: The American flag represents patriotism, freedom, and love of country.

Evaluative Devices

Evaluative language is used to write book reports as well as book, movie, or theater reviews. Writers use evaluative language to describe what they read or saw without giving away the whole story. Writers let their readers know how they felt about what they experienced while reading the book or watching the movie or play so as to convince their readers that the book, movie or play was or was not worth their time.

Figurative and evaluative language improves writing by making it more colorful. Figurative language invites readers to expand their imagination and see things in wilder, grander, more vibrant ways,  rather than taking things literally. Evaluative language encourages readers to consider the writer’s viewpoint about something and make the assumption that the writer is actually an expert about the topic he or she is writing about. On the other hand, the readers can take the writer’s opinion with a grain of salt and go out and investigate the topic, book, play or movie for themselves and make up their own mind. Either way, they’ve gotten just enough of a taste of what the writer is discussing to decide one way or the other, whether they want to investigate further or not. Both of these writing techniques have their place. Both can make an author’s writing better.

Bibliography

MrDonn.org: What is Figurative Language? Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://languagearts.mrdonn.org/figurative.html

Fallacy Files. Loaded Words.  Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadword.html

Word IQ.  Literal and Figurative Language – Definition.  Downloaded 2/14/2012. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Literal_and_figurative_language  

Kids Konnect. Figurative Language. Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://www.kidskonnect.com/subject-index/20-language-arts/343-figurative-language.html

O’Regan, David. University of Kansas. Useful Phrases for use in Evaluative Writing. Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://home.ku.edu.tr/~doregan/Writing/evallangpanova.htm

Your Dictionary. Figurative Language. Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/Figurative-Language.html

The Australian Curriculum. Evaluative Language. Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Glossary?a=E&t=evaluative+language

Literacy Works. Persuasive Texts for NAPLAN 5 – Evaluative Language.

Downloaded 2/14/2012.

http://literacyworks.com.au/teaching-ideas/persuasive-texts-for-naplan-evaluative-language/