Untrustworthy

Cute. Well, first I would need to compose myself so I didnt give them the "holy...crap....are you seriously THAT ignorant?!" face. Secondly, it is for this reason that I plan to keep my UTT workbook around a little longer than most - I do not expect any of them to take me at my word. I'd just go grab the hard facts and walk them through it. I really do not care what they think after that, because if they cannot believe archaeological fact then there's something else wrong with them and me shovin evidence in their faces is not going to fix that. They are completely misguided, and I will most kindly bring that to their attention. 

History by the Winners

In what world, Miss Paige, does that make the winners liars? By what logic does success necessitate an inherent duplicity and lies in it's retelling of it's own successes? If I am to play a game of scrabble against my sister and win, would my winning dictate that I have no valid memory as to what words were played and when? What a load of cr--...er, of junk!


And what say you then to events such as the Holocaust, where the most biting and chillingly accurate tales are told by the ultimate losers of the event? History is not just written by those who got off well - it is a compendium of accounts from the winning and losing sides. I can tell you first hand, the Germans are still quite sore and ashamed of the Holocaust events, but it is not they who are trying to wipe the idea from history. No, it is ignorant fools like yourself who claim we cannot understand the truths of matters past that are also claiming that events such as the Holocaust did not exist. Ever hear the story of Corrie TenBoom? If she is to be considered a winner for losing her father and sister to internment camps just because she reconciled herself with the prison guard who beat her long after her release, I'd ask that you re-define your concept of a "winner" - for her win was a religious one, and judging by your comment, you are not one to side with Faith as a positive. 


Every man is flawed, for sure, and if you're still bought into the black-and-white depictions of America vs. Hitler, or Lincoln vs. the Confederates, then it is you, not I, who is deceived. Every winner has black on his record, and every loser has white. The facts are contained in the event, on the man. 

The People and Their Earth

Earth Day is cute an all, and while it is wrong for us to use a pointless surplus of earth's materials, we cannot live in "harmony with" something that is not the being we claim it to be. Yeah, using our stuff efficiently is good and all, but to say that we're doing it to avoid global warming is a joke. For as long as the earth has existed it has moved in and out of periods that were warmer than usual and periods colder than usual, no matter how much carbon was in the air. Humans are to be stewards of the earth, tending to it and appreciating it and respecting the life held within it, but we are made to USE the earth. And we're not to be selfish with it either, but as long as we're not just out burning every tree we see, we're not going to run out. 


Humans are apart from earth; Earth is not some greater force or divine Mother, but it is God's creation and should thus be taken care of and appreciated. If you want to turn your lights off for a day, go ahead, but dont go about it thinking you're saving the planet. You're not. Earth will never be like it once was when there were fewer people. Our responsibility is not to "Mother Earth", but to God.

Jesus a Socialist?

eeehhhh, not quite. Half of Mr. Moore's statement was true - Jesus wants us to share our wealth. That part of "socialism" is there. However, the means by which the socialist agenda pushes people to do so is not. It is not true of the jews, nor the muslims either. Sorry guy. Apparently we of the 21st century really AREN'T that advanced. 


Unfortunately for Mr. Moore, each of the religions he stated allow for the retention of personal property, and the use of it as we see fit, not how the government sees fit. And you know what's cute? Even those who founded America understood - Paul said it, and John Smith (the founder of Jamestown) said it too - if you don't work, you don't eat. That's the funny little thing about socialism...you want a proper socialist system to work? That means every able body must be WORKING. For the government to take out of a working hand to give to an idle one is not socialism, but a corrupt promoter of laziness, awful work ethics, destructive behaviour, selfishness, and greed. Guess what cupcakes, in this world you are entitled to NOTHING. Nothing save the God-given rights the authors of the Constitution expressed so well, and that which they imply. Generosity is just that - generous. Not a mandate on people who happen to be more fortunate than you in an inherently "unfair" world, nor something anybody should be so arrogant or stupid to think is rightfully theirs to receive. Christ promoted "communal-ism", not "communism". I think that is apparent enough when you look at how long Christianity has survived against, say, the Soviet Union? One idea holds the truth, the other is a pipe-dream, and a bad one at that. It's one thing if somebody can't work. We do have a duty to help the unable. But seriously...not the unwilling. You want to help the underprivileged? How about instead of giving them free cash and spending more of our tax dollars on government jobs like road-buidling, EMPLOY those people do DO THOSE JOBS. The END. Now you've solved 2 problems, instead of creating 2 more. Didn't need a 6month session of Congress to figure that out, just some old-timey logic. Guess the 21st century doesn't have much of that either. 


And yeah, the capitalist system seems a little harsh sometimes. However that don't say a thing about the methods, only about the people who participate in it. People are self-centered creatures, prone to greed and unlikely to be looking out for others while they cast their lots in a system that appears to reward the people who learn to step on other people. But that isn't always the case guys. Just get a bloody job, work hard, and work honest. But then see how "fair" you think it is when you're just scratching by and the government's taking from you now to give to people like my uncle who's old LIFE PLAN was literally to work half the year at a seasonal job and go on welfare the other half. These are the people your "socialism" breeds. I hope this satisfies you Mr. Moore.   

Civil Yeah-Rights

Response to #1 -The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? 


That's all right and good if you're bought into the idea that fetuses are not human. Unfortunately for all you babybump-aphobes, that isnt that case. Honestly, unless the pregnancy endangers the woman's life, it has nothing to do with the woman's body. This is just a label for selfishness, even if you cant "afford" the child financially. There is aid for that. Anyway, to keep it short, developing fetuses are human and to claim that your "right over your own body" is cause enough to murder your child is not only a load of bull, but infringes upon the child's civil rights as well. How does that go, LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Aren't liberals SUPPOSED to be about the minority agenda here? I'd think unborn children are the most underrepresented minority out there. They quite literally have no voice of their own. And what on earth does forcing contraception or sterilization have to do with all this anyway? Once you're pregnant, you've got a whole other LIFE inside of you. Preventing life and taking life are two totally different things. For the government to disallow murder is their job, doing this will not mean they can force women to use contraception or become sterile. At least not the American government. China is a different case, lol. ..."Reproductive choice", that makes me sick. Teen suicide is an issue, but this isn't? Teens aren't fully-functioning humans yet either...hormones all over the place, brains going haywire... but that doesn't make their untimely deaths any less painful, or right. May as well say teens aren't human yet and invite their parents to stab them after a particularly difficult fight. What difference does the "first breath" make? Someone, please tell me how oxygen makes you human. Seriously. 

The New World Order or The New World Disorder ?

To keep it simple, a real secular global government (not just something like the UN, but an honest-to-goodness global government) is asking WAAAAY too much of mankind. Especially because of that "secular" part...
Because there would be no higher power or higher standard this type of government would answer to, this government would have to lean extremely heavily upon what they believe is the "goodness in all mankind". 


However, since we all know how well THAT works...imagine then, leaning upon such a fallible principle, and applying it across hundreds of cultures, worldviews, economies, climates (and subsequent industries, some based upon particular natural resources), and levels of production (third world, first world...etc). Wow, aint NOBODY gonna be happy! I'm sorry, but there's no way a global government could make everything equal and fair across such a range of people. I admit, to even have a global government in the first place, many of those differences would have to be eliminated, but that would mean much more than just telling people what to think - Entire countries would have to be turned on their heads. Not only would that be alooooot of hard work, that would sacrifice so much beautiful diversity! Not only of people, but of entire landscapes. Doable, I'm sure, but even more lamentable. 
Were this achieved, most everyone would also have to buy into this movement's grand scheme. Depending on this government's ideals, buying into their message would more than likely mean that religion would have to be put aside. Some would do this, but the reality is that many would not. Especially for Muslims, this would be a huge issue, and probably result in war. But even if religion could be set aside, the only plausible "grand scheme" that would provide "ideal" equality for everybody that would be supported by the masses is a system of socialism. However, since different regions of the world provide different opportunities and resources, some areas of the planet would need to give more of certain things than others. The many ways that could go wrong...keeping the balance between socialism and communism is gonna be quite the feat. 


If somehow the global government was successful, the world as we know it would be wholly and completely different. Quite literally, nothing would be the same. Choosing a leader would be interesting too...hm..
Smaller, area-based governments would more than likely become necessary, corruption rampant, greed and inequality glossed over with empty promises. Government would probably go beyond broke, their validity questioned when they cannot cure all hunger and sickness (haha, surprise!). People will become disillusioned and dissatisfied. New ideas would be quashed if they did not coincide with the larger agenda. There'd be no such thing as national pride, and racial pride would probably be discouraged. The attempt to make life "more equal" on a world-scale would only leave people more frustrated, especially since religion would probably have to be accounted for instead of set aside. 


This could basically be another Alexander-the-Great situation. With no geographical location or culture to control the psyches of their peoples, the individual will have to look somewhere else for an identity. Actually, this could be a great opportunity for Christianity, as it was during AtG's time. His empire not only covered distance, but it turned that entire area into a collective culture where communication allowed the individual to understand that he could move about anywhere in that kingdom and still be part of the same machine. Being no longer tied to a unique language, geographical location, or set of ideals, the individual began to question life on a more grand scale. Budding Christianity offered hope, meaning, and answers. That is a pretty neat thought. Of course, the government would retaliate. But whenever Christianity is persecuted, it tends to grow. I suppose active Christians are in for a dark future if a global secular government were to come into real power. 


Depending upon the strictness of the global government's policies, there could be a lot of different directions the world could take. Strict, hands-on controlling government would irritate people. Laissez-faire government would mean that the ideal "equality" would suffer. And people would get mad. 


Is it obvious yet that I really don't have much of a clue? We'll probably all just get blown up via secret nukes held by an underground sect of Communists that still hate the west. yay violence. 

John Donne - Poetry Madness 1

John Donne!

Bio

·        Born in 1572 London England during a time of political/religious unrest (Protestant Massacre in France on Saint Bartholomew’s day; persecution of Catholics)

·        Studied at Oxford and Cambridge in his early teen years but never took a degree from either because it meant subscribing to the 39Articles of Anglicanism.

·        Studied law at Lincoln’s Inn, and two years later joined Anglican church after his brother died in prison, having been put there for being a Catholic. Wrote his Satires and Songs and Sonnets volumes during these times

·        He was appointed private secretary to Sir Thomas Egerton in 1598 after a 2year naval expedition against Spain

·        He sat on Queen Elizabeth’s last Parliament in 1601 and secretly married Anne More, for which her father (Egerton) imprisoned him and refused them a dowry

·        They succame to extreme financial instability in their subsequent isolation,  especially cuz they had so many kids. He published a group of works called Divine Poems during this time

·        1615 – James I pressured him to enter the Anglican Ministry by declaring that Donne could not be employed outside of the church, and he was appointed Royal Chaplain later that year

·        His wife died in 1617 after giving birth to their 12 child, a stillborn (only 7 actually lived). It is during this period of his life he published Holy Sonnets

·        In 1621 he became dean of Saint Paul’s Cathedral, and during this time wrote his private prayers, Devotions upon Emergent Occasions

·        He was the founder of the Metaphysical School of poetry (a term created by Samuel Johnson, the actual word “metaphysics” developed by Dryden upon observation of Donne’s odd terminology) who are known for their ability to startle the reader and coax new perspective through paradoxical images, subtle argument, inventive syntax, and imagery from art, philosophy, and religion using an extended metaphor known as a conceit

·        His learned, charismatic, and inventive preaching made him a highly influential presence in London (especially amongst the younger generation of poets), best known for his vivacious, compelling style and thorough examination of moral paradox. Died 1631

Influences

He drew influence from:

·        Ovid (treating love cynically or as reduced to mere sexual attraction) note, there is some debate on whether he was actually involved in the rank sexual lifestyle or if he was just using Ovidian themes satiricly for implicitly moral purposes à his first published works, the Satires, almost seem to suggest the latter

·        Petrarch (impassioned and romantic) – quote “For Rachel I have severed, and not for Leah” became his motto, also was influenced by the Petrarchan idea that it is idolatrious to attach your love to a person, and so to rectify your love you must redirect it to the unchanging image Dei  (God; that is, turn from worldly love to divine love – perhaps Donne’s reaction after Anne’s death, and definitely in part the message of Farewell to Love)

·        The Church (his mother was catholic, but he was taught at Anglican universities, led to his acceptance of  Christian Platonism à a reconciliation of the human need to love with both body and soul, but with each not beyond what they should be so that they don’t  take from the relationship with God ----- there would be three types of unions, the union of human bodies sexually, the union of souls emotionally, and the union of souls with God spiritually) This is why so many of his poems are so shockingly sexual, even when dealing with religion

He influenced:

Renaissance love lyric and conational 16^th century poetry

·        Passages are not as smooth or mellifluous, but instead he speaks with “a vocabulary and syntax reflecting the emotional intensity of a confrontation and whose metrics and verbal music conform to the to the needs of a particular dramatic situation” (using “living speech”)

·        He used conceit more fully

·        Drew his imagery from more diverse fields (alchemy, astronomy, medicine, politics, global exploration, philosophical disputation)

·        Direct confrontation of the “ladies” of his poems, instead of about them but apart from them

·        Through all these he influenced Robert Browning, William Butler Yeats, T.S. Eliot, Alexander Pope, and Ernest Hemingway (for whom the bell tolls)

Work Cited

"John Donne." Poets.org. The Academy of American Poets. Web. 13 Mar. 2012

Naugle, David. "John Donne's Poetic Philosophy of Love." Web.

Farewell to Love

WHILST yet to prove 
I thought there was some deity in love, 
So did I reverence, and gave 
Worship ; as atheists at their dying hour 
Call, what they cannot name, an unknown power, 
As ignorantly did I crave. 
Thus when 
Things not yet known are coveted by men, 
Our desires give them fashion, and so 
As they wax lesser, fall, as they size, grow. 

But, from late fair, 
His highness sitting in a golden chair, 
Is not less cared for after three days 
By children, than the thing which lovers so 
Blindly admire, and with such worship woo ; 
Being had, enjoying it decays ; 
And thence, 
What before pleased them all, takes but one sense, 
And that so lamely, as it leaves behind 
A kind of sorrowing dulness to the mind. 

Ah cannot we, 
As well as cocks and lions, jocund be 
After such pleasures, unless wise 
Nature decreed—since each such act, they say, 
Diminisheth the length of life a day— 
This ; as she would man should despise 
The sport, 
Because that other curse of being short, 
And only for a minute made to be 
Eager, desires to raise posterity. 

Since so, my mind 
Shall not desire what no man else can find ; 
I'll no more dote and run 
To pursue things which had endamaged me ; 
And when I come where moving beauties be, 
As men do when the summer's sun 
Grows great, 
Though I admire their greatness, shun their heat. 
Each place can afford shadows ; if all fail, 
'Tis but applying worm-seed to the tail.