A Most Wanted Man

Life isn't fair. The ending of A Most Wanted Man certainly shows this. Bachmann had everything planned out. Issa would go free and get a German passport, the government would get a Islamist contact who would alert them to any suspicious behavior, and Annabel would be able to return to life as normal. Bachmann tells his assistant "We've got it... the green light. With conditions. We can go ahead" (Carre 255-256). The plans were so elaborate and thought out that it seemed impossible for things to go wrong. But they did. Joint Steering, the group behind the action, pulled out at last minute, saying that they were "postponing" the operation. Then a white van crashed into Bachmann's car, and some men kidnapped Issa and the contact. They were gone, after all the work that had been put into keep them free. The book concludes with Bachmann talking to an American behind the kidnappings. He tells Bachmann "Justice has been rendered...No-crap justice, that kind of justice! Justice with no @?#!#% lawyers around to prevent the course...eye for an eye" (Carre 321). Bachmann thought he was trying to bring about justice by proving Issa's innocence, but this man saw what they were doing as just annoying, that he was delivering justice.

No matter how much planning goes into something, things can always go wrong. Like 20 minutes ago when my blog post disappeared right before I posted it and I was forced to retype it! Anyways, it also happened in In the Time of the Butterflies. Minerva and Mate didn't deserve to be put in prison, but things happened and they ended up there. Life sometimes just throws stuff at you. Does that mean we should stop trying because of the risk of failure? I don't think so, but that is a decision everyone must make for themselves.

A Most Wanted Man

Throughout the novel, Carre experiments with different voices for different characters. Though almost the entire story is told through third person, each chapter focuses on a different character. Sometimes scenes are even repeated to show another side of the incident. When focusing on a character, we can hear their thoughts, which creates many voices. Bachmann (a worker for the German Domestic Intelligence) has an air of athority that is desplayed both through what he says and what he thinks. He tells Annabel "We like to think we can make the weather here" (Carre 188). As the book progresses, we often find Bachmann thinking these same words to himself. He feels that he is capible of doing anything, changing things to make them work for him. Annabel has a much more changing, self doubting voice. She thinks to herself " How come she had sided with them so quickly? What had happened to the rebel in her" (Carre 189). Annabel is not nearly as confident as Bachmann and finds herself always doubting her choices and changing her mind. These differences in voice help to keep the reader focused in a very confusing plot.

The shift in voice throughout both A Most Wanted Man and In the Time of the Butterflies are used for many reasons, beyond focus. In both novels the voice shows us important character traits. We can learn so much about a character's personality by stepping into their shoes and seeing the world through their eyes. It helps explain motivation too. Changes in perspective can also show important details that were hidden to us and the character. Like in ITTB, whenever the sisters are separated, they don't know waht the others are doing. By seeing each girl, we get a fuller perspective of what is happening. For these reasons I believe that in both AMWM and ITTB the change in voice enriches the story in many ways.

A Most Wanted Man

Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. You can think that somebody is cruel, then later see that they have a soft side. Or that someone is a hard core nationalist, when in truth they are just in it for themselves. One such man is Karpov, Issa's father. Born and raised in the former USSR, Karpov rose quickly through the ranks to become a colonel of the red army. He was seen by almost everyone as a die hard communist and nationalist. But in fact, he was the opposite. He started out by taking a Chechnyan mistress. The Chechen and the Russian hated each other. The author comments "the Russian pounding the place [Chechnya] to ashes, and the Chechen returning the compliment whenever they got the chance" (Carre 151). The two groups had be fighting ever since anyone could remember, and there was a mutual hate so strong, that when Karpov's mistress's family found out that she had been with a Russian, she was killed. Karpov was able to rescue her boy, later known as Issa. Along with this disloyalty to the USSR, Karpov did something even worse. As the USSR was crumbling, Karpov started selling secrets to the British. The author tells, "A walk-in red army colonel who'd seen which way the wind was blowing decided to sell off his assets before the Big Crash" (Carre 149). The assets were government secrets. Karpov had never cared about the idealism of communism. Instead he was only concerned about bettering his own situation. Very different than the show he was putting on for the USSR.

It is amazing how different people can be after you get to know them. It can be easy to judge a person at first sight. We do it all of the time. But everybody has a side of them that is hidden until you take the time to get to know them. Of course, there is always the chance that that side is less than desirable. But you will never know unless you get to know a person. Yes I know you aren't going to go up to everyone in the street and say "Hi, my name is...", but don't make any major judgments until you know someone. Who knows? You might have more in common with a person than you thought.

A Most Wated Man

Ever since the beginning of the "war on terror," one major question keeps being raised. Which is more important, defending civil rights or ensuring national security? This question has split Joint Steering ever since its creation only a few years ago. Joint Steering evolved from the idea that the Domestic Intelligence (like our FBI) and Foreign Intelligence (like our CIA) should be joined under one roof, in order to share information. Though the idea was good, putting it into practice didn't work so well. The committee in charge of setting everything up was lead by two men with very different ideas. Michael Axelrod, from Foreign Intelligence, felt that everything in their power should be done to protect civil right. On the other hand Dieter Burgdorf from Domestic Intelligence felt that national security was of utmost importance. This rivalry split the entire organization into two camps. Carre says "Since Burgdorf was from the interior ministry, and Mohr and Keller were employed by the domestic intelligence services, then logically it was to...Burgdorf that they would look for favor... and Bachman was Axelrod's protégé and college, then logically Bachman was Axelrod's vassal heart and soul" (Carre 100). These opinions lead to incooperation. Bachman states about Mohr and Keller "it's two against one, the shinning - white protectors versus one excommunicated black sheep" (Carre 99).

Mohr and Keller saw Bachman's case as a potential threat and wanted to arrest the suspect, and maybe get some brownie points in the eyes of Burgdorf. The two would not listen to Bachman, who said that his case was not as cut and dry as they think, and that he needs more time. Neither side was willing to compromise, which only lead to more trouble and eventually Bachman had to call Axelrod to back up his side, and even then only getting 10 extra days. This inability to compromise without help ultimately hinders both sides, since neither is capable of workin something out so nothing gets done. People need to learn to compromise, even if they have different views, in order to get things done.

A Most Wanted Man

The entire basis for the book A Most Wanted Man revolves around conflict. There is always the external conflict of Muslims and the "war on terror," but there is also conflict within the Muslim religion itself. Melik, a Turkish Muslim living in Hamburg has very different views than the Chechen Muslim, Issa. Melik says "When I came back into the room an hour later, where was it [the Koran]? Lying on the floor. My dad's copy of the Koran and it is lying on the floor. For any decent Muslim, never mind my dad, that's unthinkable" (71). These differences tear apart what should have been a good friendship, and lead them to forget about their similarities. Meliks mother Leyla stops her son, asking "who are you to bad-mouth your brother?" (72). Leyla feels that although the two are not actually brothers, they are united in their faith and they should consider each other as brothers, despite the differences between them. Later in the conversation, Melik does refer to Issa as a brother, and starts to take on the mind set of his mother.

Melik and Issa are a good example of how small differences can mask the similarities between people. Cultural differences have split the world ever since the first humans inhabited the earth. They cause so many conflicts throughout time and all over the globe. The different ideas and goals of these cultures keep people apart, keeping them from seeing that everyone has something much in common with each other. I am not saying that seeing the similarities will necessarily bring world peace, but it is a place to start.

A Most Wated Man

So far, A Most Wanted Man by John le Carre focuses on the lives of two very different characters. One is a Chechen Muslim boy named Issa. Extremely thin, he shows up at boxing champion Melik's house with a note saying that he is a medical student in need of a place to stay. After much hesitation, Melik lets him stay for a little while. He slowly learns that Issa was in prison and escaped with the help of some "friends." He had "a beaten body" and "bruised legs"(Carre 14). Melik's mother suggests that he might have been accused of something because of his race, saying: "Everybody persecutes Chechens except us...Putin persecutes them and Mr. Bush encourages him. As long as Putin calls it his war on terror, he can do with the Chechens whatever he wishes" (Carre 8). Then he becomes very sick, leaving Melik completely clueless as to what to do. The other is an English Banker Tommy Brue, a very successful man with a dirty secret within the vaults of his bank. When his father had run the bank, he had run a clean practice, except for his involvement with the Lipizzaners, part of the Russian mafia. After the death of his father, Brue moved the bank from Vienna to Hamburg to prevent problems with the police. Now, years later he gets a phone call from a lawyer saying "My client instructs me to pass his best wishes to a Mr... Mr. Lipizzaner... I think your bank knows the Lipizzaners very well" (Carre 24). She wants to speak to Brue as soon as possible. Not knowing what else to do, Brue schedules an appointment the lawyer.

Both Brue and Issa have to suffer for something that they had no control over. Issa suffers because government officials have made his race a scape-goat for the war on terror. Brue suffers from decisions his father made for reasons unknown to Brue. These difficulties hardy seem fair. In the first part of A Most Wanted Man, Carre starts to show that life is anything but fair, and that anyone who thinks it is needs a serious reality check. He also shows that people should always think about how the decisions they make will affect others. One can only guess if Brue's father new the kind of trouble he might cause for his sons when he started banking for the Lipizzaners. If is doubtful though, that the end of the Lipizzaners' affair is in sight

My Life in France: Fin

Alas, all good things must come to an end. As Julia Child was close to reaching 80, her dear friend and co-author Simca died, 3 years after Jean, her husband. Paul Child, who was 10 years older than Julia, was having heart problems and could no longer travel and lived in a nursing home. With all of this in mind, Julia had one last decision to make. Should she give up their little French house in Providence, where they lived many months out of the year to escape from the business of the United States? Julia's niece, Phila didn't want her to give up the place. She explains "The house was filled with familiar smells and memories" (330). The thought of giving up the one last safe haven that the family really had was a sad thought, but Julia decided that it was just impractical to keep it any longer. Julia writes, "Without Paul to share the house with, or my grande cherie Simca, or all of our favorite friends and family, it had come time to relinquish La Pitchoune" (329). The place was not what it had once been, not without her friends or family. Julia felt that it was better to let the place go. But she was not letting go of France. She comments "France was my spiritual homeland: it had become part of me, and I part of it" (332). No matter what happened, she would always hold on the France and what she had learned there.

Throughout the book, Julia Child has been faced with many ethical decisions. The decision to let go of the house was probably the least difficult to make, given that almost all of her French friends were dead and her husband was unable to travel. Yet it was still a big decision and one that was hard to give the final ok on, since the place held so many memories. Julia couldn't have passed it on to anyone in her family, because the land was only leased, not owned. So I guess I agree with her decision, and I doubt that there are many, if any that disagree. But no matter if we know that it is right or wrong, decisions like these are always hard, because you are giving up a piece of your live.

"My Life in France" Post 5

As Julia Child and her friend Simca were both enjoy a temporary stay in Washington DC, they decided to visit their new publishing company, Houghton Mifflin. The girls are nowhere near being done, having only two sections completed (sauces and poultry), but they already had over 700 pages devoted to instructions and recipes. A few days after giving their manuscript to Houghton Mifflin, the chefs received back their manuscript back along with a letter. The letter said "...What we could envision as saleable...is perhaps a series of smaller books devoted to particular portions of the meal...certainly less elaborate that your present volumes, which, although we are sure that they are foolproof, are undeniably demanding in time and focus" (229). The American public, it seemed, was more interested in a quick, easy meal, than a nice, elaborate, home made one. At first Child and Simca wanted to abandon the company in search of one that would publish their entire book, but after much thought decided that it would be better to create a shorter book for the time being, then later publish their big book. They replied to the letter by saying: "Everything would be of the simpler sort...and emphasis would always be on how to prepare ahead, and how to reheat" (231). Even though it meant putting their dream cook book on hold, the women realized that there would not be a huge audience for their cookbook, especially since the two authors were unheard of.

I do not know if I agree with their decision or not. I think that people are happiest and do their best work if they are following their dreams, but on the other hand some things are just impractical. By saying no to Houghton Mifflin, they would have been forced to search for a new publisher. The chance of finding a publisher who would be willing to publish such a large book (when completed it would be well over 1,000 pages) was very slim. And there was the question of would the book sell in a country devoted to its TV dinners and McDonalds. But do these risks outweigh the dreams of the two women? I honestly don't know.

"My Life In France" post 4

After successfully starting up their own mini cooking school, Julia Child, and her friends Simca and Louisette began working on a cookbook of their very own. Simca and Louisette had looked in to the cookbook idea in the past, and had even found a potential publisher named Ives Washburn, who had already published a (very unsuccessful) mini book called What's Cooking in France. Washburn "...had gone into publishing as a hobby; he knew little about cooking, did little advertising for his book, and was said to keep slipshod accounts" (149). When the three women had finished a chapter of their book (sauces), they sent it to him, along with a letter of explanation. Child says "He did not reply to my letter. Nor did he respond to our chapter on sauces, which I sent him by diplomatic pouch" (150). With no word from Washburn, the three had to make a decision, whether to look for a new publisher, or remain with Washburn. Through her correspondence with the wife of magazine writer Bernard de Voto, Julia Child found another publisher named Houghton Mifflin, who was very well respected in the United States. But when Child suggested this idea to Simca and Louisette "...Louisette balked: she felt that we had an obligation to keep working with Ives Washburn. I disagreed, saying that, in light of no advance, no contact, and, lately, no communication with him whatsoever, we had no obligation to the publisher" (152). After much debate, the three did finally switch publishers, but Louisette stopped working directly on the book, only giving advice when asked by Simca or Julia Child.

The three chefs must make an ethical choice, whether or not to remain with Ives Washburn. The differing opinion about whether or not they had an obligation to Washburn was the heart of their disagreement. I do not think that they had an obligation to Washburn. If a publisher is really interested in someone's writing, then they should stay in contact and read and reply to letters and excerpts sent to them. It isn't like Washburn was extremely busy, if he only published as a hobby. If you want clients, you should treat them well.

"My Life in France" Ethical Decisions

During Julia Child's time in France, she was very fortunate not to be confronted by many difficult decisions. She does talk about a friend of hers named Lee Brady, who worked at the US Embassy in France. In 1950, Brady was assigned to work at the Public Affairs Office in Indochina (Vietnam). This meant that he would be taking orders from the emperor Boa Dai, seen by the rest of the world as a puppet for the French. Child tells the reader "... a most difficult and dangerous assignment indeed. He would be forced to work with the Boa Dai regime, which had not been freely chosen by the majority of the citizens (104). Not only was Brady putting himself at risk by working for an unpopular government, but he was also going against the American ideals that he had grown up with, the ideas of voting for a strong leader. Child points out that "What was an emissary of the US government supposed to say when the Communist claimed, correctly, that his government supported a puppet, dictator and horror?" (104). It seemed like the wrong choice from many angles, but for Brady his only other option was to quit. He chose to go to Indochina in the end, though what became of him when the US got involved in the Vietnam War is not mentioned in this book.

I think that Brady made the wrong decision to go to Indochina. Not only was he not following his own morals and ideas, but he was also putting himself in danger by supporting an unpopular government in a country that was on the brink of civil war. It does not seem fair though that the only other option was to resign his position and find a new job. I can Kind of understand why he chose to do what he did, but in hindsight I do not agree with his decision.

On the Waterfront

Throughout the entire movie "On the Waterfront," Terry is constantly plagued by the question of whether or not he should testify in court against the mob, or remain quiet. During the first part of the movie, Terry feels very strongly about not testifying. He feels that if he does, he would be a traitor, betraying his brother Charlie and others in the mob. He outright refuses to say anything to the police on multiple occasions. But as more people are killed by standing up to the mob, including Charlie, Terry's views begins to change. He starts to realize that testifying in court is not an act of treason, but a step that must be taken if he ever hoped to end the reign of terror the mob created on the waterfront. The rest of the workers on the waterfront thought he was a traitor too when he testified, but slowly they too begin to see him as an icon for change.

I think that Terry made the right choice in the end. Keeping silent about the mob was hurting lots of people. I think in the end the safety of the workers and the ability to speak freely was more important than the possibility of you being seen as a traitor. But I can't say for sure what I would have done in Terry's position. It was very dangerous to stand up to the mob, as we can see from Joey and Doogan. I guess in the end it all comes down to which is more important, your safety or the freedom of the waterfront workers.

Ethical Decisions in All My Sons

The play All My Sons by Arthur Miller shows two very different views on the same ethical question based on their experiences and situation. Joe Keller was born with very little, forced to struggle to make a name for himself. He spent 40 years building up the business he has now and it has become almost everything he has. That coupled with the fact that he does not want his son to have to go through what he went through gives him the motivation to do whatever he has to do to save the business. As he tells his son Chris "You lay forty years into a business and they knock you out in five minutes, what could I do, let them take forty years, let them take my life away?" (69). This desperation he feels to keep his business running motivates him to make the decision to ship the cracked cylinders, even though he knew that they could be dangerous. He puts his family before society. Chris on the other hand has had a very easy life, never having to work for anything. His experience in the war also instills in him empathy for those you do not know. He can not see beyond the fact that his father's actions resulted in the death of 21 men. As he explains to his father "I was dying everyday and you were killing my boys and you did it for me? What the hell do think I was thinking of the Goddam business?" (70). He values society over family. He is unable to see the business side of the issue, making what his father did into an awful crime. These differences form a brutal conflict which results in the death of Joe.

Even though I don't support his actions, I think it is unfair to judge Joe by his decisions until you understand his background and motivation. What he thinks is right could be very different from what his son or the rest of society thinks is right. Different experiences change people in different ways and can affect who they place first, society or family. I personally believe that in the majority of cases it is better to place society above family. Every person has their own family, their own story and their own right to live. Yet occasions arise when family does come first. It depends on the situation you are placed in and what your options are. Therefore I believe that it is impossible to say for sure that either family or society should come first.

My Life in France Post 2

Throughout the book, My Life in France, Julia Child continually talks about her original incompetence in the kitchen. Coming from a typical California family, Child's parents rarely cooked, and as a result she never learned. As she tells the reader, "but I was never encouraged to cook and just didn't see the point in it" (4). It is hard to believe that the woman known for her cooking ability never touched a stove before she was married. After her marriage, it was still a long time before she was inspired to learn how to cook, and cook well. She was inspired to take up cooking when she and her husband moved to France. There, she was amazed by the wide assortment of extremely delicious food and encouraged to try her own skill. As Child recalls "Surrounded by gorgeous food, wonderful restaurants, and a kitchen at home -- and an appreciative audience in my husband -- I began to cook more and more" (42). Her astonishment by how good well prepared food could taste gave her new motivation to learn to cook, and create masterpieces of her own. Her desire and willingness to try new things helped show her a whole new world, and shaped the rest of her life.

I chose to write about this aspect of her life as a contrast to All The Pretty Horse. Throughout the entire book, John Grady is trying to find the old life that he had had to give up because of his mother. Though he matures a great deal, it seems that he can never accept a new way of life than the one he has given up. Child seems to be the opposite of that. After her marriage and her life in France, she is eager to embrace a new life style that had before seemed stupid and pointless. After reading both books it seems tome that Child had a much more fulfilling life than John Grady in part because of her willingness to try new things and change. From these books, it seems that flexibility will bring more happiness than stubbornness.

My Life in France Post 1

I decided to read the book My Life in France by Julia Child. This book is an autobiography about the amazing chef Julia Child, the woman who revolutionized home cooking by creating the first cooking show. Even though this book is mostly centered on her time in France, when her husband was working at the US embassy, there is also quite a bit on her childhood and the road to her love of cooking. She and her husband were night and day. She was raised in California and hardy ever traveled, while her husband was well traveled and well cultured. It was a huge decision whether they should get married or not. Their final decision to get married was not widely accepted throughout her family. Her husband was an artist and a democrat, and her conservative father did not agree with him on anything. Though the decision seemed to be a bad one, in the end it worked out for the better.

Another major decision she had to make was whether she should go to France or not with her husband. She had never been to Europe before and had heard countless bad comments about it and France in particular. She also did not speech a word of French. The only person she would know and would be able to talk to would be her husband. She decided that she would go to France, even if it did seem crazy. It was a good thing that she did, because it was there that she acquired her love of cooking and her desire to share her knowledge with women in the United States. Those are two major decisions that Julia Child had to make that would determine the course of her life.

Halloween Origin

Have you ever wondered where the idea for Halloween came from? I mean come on, who would ever say "Ok kids, go and knock on stranger's doors and ask them for food"? This holiday was started by the Celts more than 2,000 years ago. They celebrated the beginning of the New Year on November 1, called Samhain (SAH-win). They believed that the night before, spirits, demons, and fairies walked the earth. People would sacrifices animals over bonfires and dress in animal skins and other costumes to confuse these spirits. Sometimes they impersonated their dead family members. These traditions evolved into an excuse to break down social order for a day. Men dressed as women, women as men, children as their parents, etc. It is also believed that people who dressed up as spirits would go and perform silly acts for people for food. This is probably how trick-or-treating began. When Samhain met Christianity, Halloween was born. November 1 is All Saints Day, or Hallows Day. The night before, Hallow Eve, soon became known as Halloween. For more information about how Halloween began, and how MN had a major role in modern day Halloween, visit http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081027-halloween-facts-costumes-history_2.html

EE10 Picture

"How to Catch Birds in their Element"

There is nothing more amazing than a well taken picture of a eagle snatching a fish from a lake or a heron taking flight. But how do people do it? How can you get those amazing shots? The article I found give tips on how to capture those shots without breaking the bank with travel expenses. Most great bird pictures are taken near the photographer home. That is because the best way to start photographing birds is to know and understand the birds. The article recommends researching spiecies of birds in your area, including migration habits, to know when the best time to catch your bird is. But nothing beats getting out with binoculars and a field guide and watching the birds for yourself. Birds are creatures of habit, and once you start to pick up on these habits, you can predict what they will do in the future and start to plan your shots. This article also talks about having the right lighting. If you want your bird to look turely alive, you must have some light reflected in the bird's eye. That means having the sun behind you at a low angle, and the bird in front of you while taking your picture. These are just a few of the tips in this article. For more tips go to http://www.popphoto.com/howto/5464/how-to-catch-birds-in-their-element.html

Ettlinger, Richard. "How to Catch Birds in their Element" PopPhoto.com. Sept.2008. <http://www.popphoto.com/howto/5464/how-to-catch-birds-in-their-element.html>

Heavy Metal Worms

A major factory just sold a bunch of land to be used for wildlife or farming. Great right? There is only one problem. Nothing will grow in the polluted soil. They heavy metals, a toxic reminder of the factory that one stood here, kill plants, leaving a waste land that could remain unuseable for years. But now there is a solution. Worms! No, I don't mean the little earthworms that live in your garden. This species of worms, just discovered in England, have a special digestive system, so they can eat the metal rich dirt without dying. What is even better is that they leave behind soil that can easily be used by plants. The worms digestive system coats the metal with portein, so it doesn't hurt the worm. The metal is still toxic to humans, so no food crops can be grown, but other crops such as plants for bio fuels grow very well. This kind of worm still needs a name and quite a few studies to back it up, but scientist hope to one day breed these little guys and clean up polluted areas with them. And who knows, maybe the plants that grow their could be used to power the factory it recieved land from.

Owen, James. Heavy Metal-Eating "Superworms" Unearthed in U.K. National Geographic. 7 Oct 2008. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081007-super-worms.html

Homer: Feminist or Sexist

Though Homer’s Goddesses were very strong females, I believe that Homer had a more sexist view of women than his contemporaries. It is easy to look at Homer’s portrayal of Athena and Hera and say that he was an early feminist. But the key is to look at other Greek mythology written by an assortment of writer to truly see how women were viewed. Though many of the myths passed down to us today are centered around men, there are quite a few with strong females. Atalanta was a famous huntress. It was said that her skills surpassed all of her male counterparts. She was always looking for adventure. For that very reason many men wanted to marry her. She could have settled down and had a nice easy life and raise a family like a good wife, but she did not. She did everything in her power to remain single, loving the freedom she had without a man. It took nothing short of the goddess of love to get her to marry, and even then she could not be persuaded to love the man she married. Another strong woman was Daphne. Her father, the river god Peneus, had showed her handsome men who had all tried to woo her. She asked her father to not make her marry. Not even Apollo could change her mind. When he saw her and began to chase after her, she was willing to be transformed into a tree in order to keep her freedom from men. Those are just two of the many strong women in mythology.

Homer’s (human) women were very different. In the Iliad, the women of Troy are barely considered human. They are treated as possessions, something to be taken from a ransacked town. Achilles even gives away a woman for a grand prize during funeral games for Patroclus. There is never any mention of them other than something to be fought over. In The Odyssey there is also the double standard. Both Penelope and Odysseus are considered to be faithful to each other, but after a closer look you see that Odysseus was with many other women for years and years, while Penelope has been sobbing every night for him, having to put up with suitors that she could easily get rid of by saying she would marry one. Homer’s women were very different from other myths of the time. These examples show that even though Homer’s goddesses were very strong females, when it came to the human race he is just another sexist.

Early Birds or Night Owls

Are you an early bird or a night owl? Have you ever wondered why your sleeping patterns are what they are? New studies are showing that these patterns are hereditary, not just based on the environment that you’re in. Scientists have found that although you actions are controlled by your brain, your basic behavior including your mental clock, is genetically encoded, meaning that it is something you are born with in your genes. So you can predict how a person will act, just by looking at some skin cells. With these new discoveries come new possibilities. People are now starting to look into using this knowledge to create new medicine to help people with sleep disorders have more regular sleep schedules. Hopefully people with sleep disorders will sleep easy wit this knowledge.

Owen, James. "Early Birds, Night Owls: Blame Your Genes." National Geographic. 28 Jan. 2008. 30 Sep. 2008. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080126-sleep-genes.html>.