|
dampmatches
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Kurt
Country: United States
State: Missouri
Birthday: 4/7/1986
Gender: Male
Interests: Curing cancer, guiater, fencing, bbyo, music listening metal, rock, emo, punk, alteritive, making my girl friend happy ( my favorite hobby) scupltor and writing. Also getting into silly shanagins and what not.
Expertise: Im kind of a jack of all trades. te he I have lots of weird/cool useless skill. Huarry oh and Im full to the max with spoot.
Occupation: Student
Message: message me
Member Since:
12/9/2003
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Questions for dental school
1.What kind of DAT scores would make me most desirable for UMKC Dental.
2. Do I need Cal 1 and Cal 2 for dental school ?
3. I’m currently I psychology major will this hinder me at all towards acceptance and if so should becoming a bio major increase my chances of acceptance.
4. Were would I go about finding dental research to participate in for experience.
5.I need to take sat for my psychology major, will his hinder me at all or make me more desirable.
6.I have read on the web site that my college algebra credit be used as a physics credit is this really true.
7.A student at Mizzoui told me that you offer early acceptance can you tell me how I can get early acceptance
8.How many science course a semester should I take for early acceptance.
9.I heard that I need to do a certain number of observation hours in dental offices if so how many and would it be beneficial to spend them in different areas of dental hygiene.
10. I was thinking of switching into University of Indian my junior year will this hinder me at all due to state resident getting first picks.
11.My gpa is 3.66 does the 3.4 gpa requirement refer to my total gpa or just science gpa
.
12. Will taking medical ethics enhance my chances of acceptance.
13. What are the dat like. And what reviews would u recommed | | |
| Kurt Bennett
Hour 1
4-10-04
A Rainbow of Imagery
Authors use many descriptive writing styles in order to capture their readers. Nowhere can this more readily be seen than in the short story “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner. This story portrays a changing South and a woman who refuses to change with it. The author uses imagery to make the reader truly see the setting and understand the characters as real people.
Many times throughout the story, imagery is used to describe the age of Miss Grierson’s desolate house. The author describes the front hall of her house in exquisite detail.“ They were admitted by the old Negro into a dim hall from which a stairway mounted into still more shadow.”(p.1) The author’s description of Emily’s hall makes it quite scary, instead of welcoming. The author again uses imagery to describe the age of a room. “It smelled of dust and disuse, a close, dank smell.”(p.1) From this, the reader can almost smell the age and disrepair of the house. However, nowhere is imagery more evident than on the deathbed of Mrs. Emily. “ She died in one of the downstairs rooms, in a heavy walnut bed with a curtain, her gray head propped on a pillow yellow and moldy with age and lack of sunlight.” (p.6) This is perhaps one of the greatest uses of imagery by the author, because, not only does the reader see the death of Mrs. Emily, he also sees the death of her house and her empire of a plantation. In brief, the use of imagery by the author to describe scenery in this story is pervasive.
The author’s most prevalent use of imagery in the story is used to describe Mrs. Emily herself. The author uses imagery to showcase the presence of Mrs. Emily. “(S)he entered—a small, fat women in black, with a thin gold chain descending to her waist and vanishing into her belt, leaning on an ebony cane with a tarnished gold head. Her skeleton was small and spare: perhaps that was why what would have been merely plumpness in another was obesity in her.” (p.1) The reader can almost smell the age coming off Mrs. Emily and tremble at the eeriness her presence could bring to a room. The author continues to describe Mrs. Emily’s eyes. “Her eyes, lost in fatty ridges of her face, looked like two small pieces of coal pressed into a lump of dough as they moved from one face to another while the visitors stated their errand.” (p.1) This description of her eyes implies some sort of unnerving hardship to the reader and shows that Mrs. Emily has seen her own share of hard times. Moreover, the author uses imagery to describe the ageing of Mrs. Emily. “ (H)er hair was turning gray. During the next few years it grew grayer and grayer until it attained an even pepper-and –salt iron-gray, when it ceased turning” This description of Mrs. Emily’s hair readily allows the reader to see her age and picture the pure number of years this women has lived.
In brief, the author uses imagery to describe both Mrs. Emily and her home in vivid detail. The author’s use of imagery truly brings the story to life and the imagery allows the story to jump off the page and capture the reader. Rod McKuen best describes the importance of imagery in any writing when he said, “Poetry is fact given over to imagery”.
| | |
| Work Cited Page
“ Rethinking Preemptive War,” Business Week Feb 16, 2004, Proquest Platinum Proquest Information and Learning Co Parkway Central High School, Chesterfield, MO, 16 April 2004 http://proquest.umi/.com.pqweb
Leo, John “ “Kay’s say and the CIA” U.S. News & World Report Feb 9, 2004, Proquest Platinum Proquest Information and Learning Co Parkway Central High School, Chesterfield, MO, 16 April 2004 http://proquest.umi/.com.pqweb
Hosenball Mark, Barry Jon, “ The Tale of the Lying Defector” Newsweek Feb. 16, 2004, Proquest Platinum Proquest Information and Learning Co Parkway Central High School, Chesterfield, MO, 14 April 2004 http://proquest.umi/.com.pqweb
Stuart Taylor Jr. “Did Bush, Cheney, and Powell Deliberately Mislead us ?” National Journal Feb. 7, 2004, Proquest Platinum Proquest Information and Learning Co Parkway Central High School, Chesterfield, MO, 14 April 2004 http://proquest.umi/.com.pqweb
Williams Ian, “Blix not Bombs” The Nation April 5, 2004, Proquest Platinum Proquest Information and Learning Co Parkway Central High School, Chesterfield, MO, 12 April 2004 http://proquest.umi/.com.pqweb
| | |
|
Throughout history, leaders have always been questioned on the subject of foreign affairs. This can be seen most clearly in a democratic society. In the United States, however, the Bush administration is still being question on whether it had the right to preemptively strike Iraq. The Bush administration is facing major criticism, even from fellow Republicans. Moreover, with the legitimacy of Bush’s presidency always being in question since the election, it doesn’t help to have people such as David Kay speaking out against his own administration. None of this should be surprising, however, considering that Bush intentionally deceived the American people in order to coordinate his own agenda consisting primarily of the preemptive strike on Iraq.
Bush has blamed faulty reports and bad evidence for his actions against Iraq. After all, a president is a head of state and he only knows what he is told by the people under him. However, the evidence suggests that Bush chose to ignore many CIA and other agencies’ reports that Iraq was anything but a threat. Bush repeatedly stressed that Iraq “could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year" if it is able to "produce, buy, or steal" highly enriched uranium, as he told the UN on October 7, 2002. He ignored the intelligence community’s view that Iraq was highly unlikely to obtain enriched uranium in less than five years. (Taylor 1) The only reason Bush would have for telling the people of the United States that it was one year instead of five would be to stop the inspections which were occurring at the time, and start using his preferred method, force. Moreover, Bush misinformed his own people by giving them facts that, at the time, were considered highly skeptical. “In his now famous January 28, 2003, assertion that ‘the British government has learned Saddam Hussein recently sought quantities of uranium from Africa,’ Bush ignored the CIA's strong doubts that Saddam had done any such thing.” (Taylor 1) Bush only heard what he wanted to hear, that Iraq was a threat and that the US should take Saddam out ASAP. It would be one thing if this was a singular incident in which Bush ignored his own cabinet and proceeded on his instincts. But evidence such as the “September 2002 Defense Agency statement that there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,” (Taylor 1) indicates a pattern of behavior on the part of the President. On October 7th, Bush decided to ignore this statement when he said “We know that the regime has products of chemical agents including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas.” (Taylor 1) Bush’s statements would be justified if the intelligence community had unearthed some new evidence. However, at this date in time, the Defense Agency stuck by its previous statement of September. Moreover, there were times where Bush flat out lied. “Take Bush’s assertion that he invaded to remove Saddam because ‘he gave him a chance to allow inspectors in and he wouldn’t let them in.’ That was egregiously false when he said it on July 14th of last year.”(Taylor 1) This is patently false considering that Saddam Hussein did allow weapon inspectors into Iraq. In brief, Bush disregarded the advice of countless government agencies and employed whatever suited him best in order to bolster his position concerning Iraq.
However, Bush is not the only member of government to blame. Bush’s cabinet` helped him in his quest to invade Iraq. Colin Powell helped to raise concerns for the USA to invade Iraq. Colin Powell addressed the UN concerning the huge scare that Saddam might have BW or biological weapons. “Powell told the UN ‘The description our sources gave us of the technical features required by such facilities {to produce BW} is highly detailed and extremely accurate.’ When three suspicious tractor-trailers {mobile BW facilities} were found in Iraq after the war, the CIA crowed that its intelligence had been solid... In 2002, two more informants on mobile labs turned up, one of them a “major” who defected.”(Hosenball) The evidence seemed solid; however, it turned out to be very much the other way. When government intelligence tried to authenticate the sources Colin Powell had relied upon in addressing the UN. “According to an official who has read the still secret warning known as the ‘fabricator notice’, the document reported that he had been ‘coached by the Iraqi National Congress,’ an exile group eagerly pushing Pentagon hawks toward the urgent depose of Saddam” (Hosenball 1) However, the CIA had the solid evidence of the trailers. Unfortunately, the “solid” evidence turned out to be false. “There is no consensus within our community over whether the trailers were for [weapons] use of if they were used for the production of hydrogen,” CIA George Tenet admitted in a speech last week.” (Hosenball 1) Moreover, Bush’s Vice President Dick Cheney, also helped to deceive the American people. “Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted to authorize the war, said, more cautiously, that Americans were ‘misled’, especially by Vice President Cheney.”(Taylor 1) In brief, the Bush administration misled the public, most notably, Vice President Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
Bush’s misleading of the American public has lead to two prominent people giving the truth back to the people. David Kay, a former chief weapons inspector for the CIA under Bush, and Hans Blix, who led the inspections that Bush so hoped would turn up Weapons of Mass Destruction. David Kay has gone out to talk openly of his disapproval of the administration he once served. David Kay was once questioned on the existence of WMD in Iraq. He replied by saying “I don’t think they ever existed,” (Leo 1) Moreover, Kay has spoken out on Saddam’s supposed chemical and biological weapons program. Kay said, “It’s now clear that intelligence showing Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was almost certainly false. It turns out we were almost all wrong.” (“Rethinking Preemptive War” 1) David Kay has shed new light on the war in Iraq by being the first to admit that WMD, chemical weapons, and biological weapons never existed in Iraq after the Gulf War. Moreover, he is the first to try and set the story straight but, most importantly, his criticism of the Bush administration is noteworthy because, at one point, he worked for it. Then, there is Dutch Scientist Hans Blix who begged President Bush to allow the inspections more time in order to avoid an unnecessary conflict. “Blix depicts the road to war in Iraq as a chronicle of willful self- delusion practiced by major antagonists in which Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush effectively conspired to pretend that Iraq was a military threat.” (Williams 1) Blix’s remarks comprise a neat summary of the entire War in Iraq. In brief, people like Hans Blix and David Kay, although being discredited by the Bush administration, have enlightened the American public of the true nature of the war in Iraq.
To conclude, the Bush administration misled the American public into thinking that Iraq was a ticking bomb which had to be defused before it exploded. Even though the administration's true agenda for going into Iraq and rushing into war is not known, one can only hope that in future years people may know the answer. As Hans Blix said “It is an interesting notion that when a small minority has been rebuffed by a strong majority, it is the majority that has failed the test” (Williams 1) | | |
| Kurt Bennett
Halley 2
War of Errors
Throughout history, leaders have always been questioned on the subject of foreign affairs. This can be seen most clearly in a democratic society. In the United States, however, the Bush administration is still being question on whether it had the right to preemptively strike Iraq. The Bush administration is facing major criticism, even from fellow Republicans. Moreover, with the legitimacy of Bush’s presidency always being in question since the election, it doesn’t help to have people such as David Kay speaking out against his own administration. None of this should be surprising, however, considering that Bush intentionally deceived the American people in order to coordinate his own agenda consisting primarily of the preemptive strike on Iraq.
Bush has blamed faulty reports and bad evidence for his actions against Iraq. After all, a president is a head of state and he only knows what he is told by the people under him. However, the evidence suggests that Bush chose to ignore many CIA and other agencies’ reports that Iraq was anything but a threat. Bush repeatedly stressed that Iraq “could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year" if it is able to "produce, buy, or steal" highly enriched uranium, as he told the UN on October 7, 2002. He ignored the intelligence community’s view that Iraq was highly unlikely to obtain enriched uranium in less than five years. (Taylor Jr. pg.1) The only reason Bush would have for telling the people of the United States that it was one year instead of five would be to stop the inspections which were occurring at the time, and start using his preferred method, force. Moreover, Bush misinformed his own people by giving them facts that, at the time, were considered highly skeptical. “In his now famous January 28, 2003, assertion that ‘the British government has learned Saddam Hussein recently sought quantities of uranium from Africa,’ Bush ignored the CIA's strong doubts that Saddam had done any such thing.” (Taylor Jr. pg.1) Bush only heard what he wanted to hear, that Iraq was a threat and that the US should take Saddam out ASAP. It would be one thing if this was a singular incident in which Bush ignored his own cabinet and proceeded on his instincts. But evidence such as the “September 2002 Defense Agency statement that there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,” (Taylor Jr. pg.1) indicates a pattern of behavior on the part of the President. On October 7th, Bush decided to ignore this statement when he said “We know that the regime has products of chemical agents including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas.” (Taylor Jr. pg.1) Bush’s statements would be justified if the intelligence community had unearthed some new evidence. However, at this date in time, the Defense Agency stuck by its previous statement of September. Moreover, there were times where Bush flat out lied. “Take Bush’s assertion that he invaded to remove Saddam because ‘he gave him a chance to allow inspectors in and he wouldn’t let them in.’ That was egregiously false when he said it on July 14th of last year.”(Taylor Jr. pg.1) This is patently false considering that Saddam Hussein did allow weapon inspectors into Iraq. In brief, Bush disregarded the advice of countless government agencies and employed whatever suited him best in order to bolster his position concerning Iraq.
However, Bush is not the only member of government to blame. Bush’s cabinet` helped him in his quest to invade Iraq. Colin Powell helped to raise concerns for the USA to invade Iraq. Colin Powell addressed the UN concerning the huge scare that Saddam might have BW or biological weapons. “Powell told the UN ‘The description our sources gave us of the technical features required by such facilities {to produce BW} is highly detailed and extremely accurate.’ When three suspicious tractor-trailers {mobile BW facilities} were found in Iraq after the war, the CIA crowed that its intelligence had been solid... In 2002, two more informants on mobile labs turned up, one of them a “major” who defected.”(Hosenball) The evidence seemed solid; however, it turned out to be very much the other way. When government intelligence tried to authenticate the sources Colin Powell had relied upon in addressing the UN. “According to an official who has read the still secret warning known as the ‘fabricator notice’, the document reported that he had been ‘coached by the Iraqi National Congress,’ an exile group eagerly pushing Pentagon hawks toward the urgent depose of Saddam” (Hosenball pg.1) However, the CIA had the solid evidence of the trailers. Unfortunately, the “solid” evidence turned out to be false. “There is no consensus within our community over whether the trailers were for [weapons] use of if they were used for the production of hydrogen,” CIA George Tenet admitted in a speech last week.” (Hosenball pg.1) Moreover, Bush’s Vice President Dick Cheney, also helped to deceive the American people. “Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted to authorize the war, said, more cautiously, that Americans were ‘misled’, especially by Vice President Cheney.”(Taylor Jr.) In brief, the Bush administration misled the public, most notably, Vice President Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
Bush’s misleading of the American public has lead to two prominent people giving the truth back to the people. David Kay, a former chief weapons inspector for the CIA under Bush, and Hans Blix, who led the inspections that Bush so hoped would turn up Weapons of Mass Destruction. David Kay has gone out to talk openly of his disapproval of the administration he once served. David Kay was once questioned on the existence of WMD in Iraq. He replied by saying “I don’t think they ever existed,” (Leo pg.1) Moreover, Kay has spoken out on Saddam’s supposed chemical and biological weapons program. Kay said, “It’s now clear that intelligence showing Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was almost certainly false. It turns out we were almost all wrong.” (Rethinking Preemptive War pg.1) David Kay has shed new light on the war in Iraq by being the first to admit that WMD, chemical weapons, and biological weapons never existed in Iraq after the Gulf War. Moreover, he is the first to try and set the story straight but, most importantly, his criticism of the Bush administration is noteworthy because, at one point, he worked for it. Then, there is Dutch Scientist Hans Blix who begged President Bush to allow the inspections more time in order to avoid an unnecessary conflict. “Blix depicts the road to war in Iraq as a chronicle of willful self- delusion practiced by major antagonists in which Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush effectively conspired to pretend that Iraq was a military threat.” (Williams pg.1) Blix’s remarks comprise a neat summary of the entire War in Iraq. In brief, people like Hans Blix and David Kay, although being discredited by the Bush administration, have enlightened the American public of the true nature of the war in Iraq.
To conclude, the Bush administration misled the American public into thinking that Iraq was a ticking bomb which had to be defused before it exploded. Even though the administration's true agenda for going into Iraq and rushing into war is not known, one can only hope that in future years people may know the answer. As Hans Blix said “It is an interesting notion that when a small minority has been rebuffed by a strong majority, it is the majority that has failed the test” (Williams pg.1)
| | |
|
