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. 

Beauty, in all it's Beauty

            Wow. I do not know if I shall be able to look passed the last three minutes of the video series objectively enough to give credit to all the truth it contained. Even writing the end of that sentence made me a little ill. Shake it off….whew. So first you tell me that when beauty was based upon the principles of beauty as defined by Christian religion (yes, mr. video-man, you did mention other religions, but your screenshots only showed churches and cathedrals – I can only assume that Christianity is the one you meant to highlight) that it was done right. You say that the moral and spiritual needs of man fulfilled in man-made beauty (art) were grasped completely when God was the standard upon which that pursuit was based. Then you tell me that when science got in the way and people became skeptical of those bases, that art turned to ugliness and real beauty was forgotten. Then you tell me that beauty is a SUBSTITUTE for this religion that captured and DEFINED it?!?! What the….?!?!?! I’m sorry, but did you just miss everything else you just said?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Really?! Seriously ?! a SUBSTITUTE?!?! Up to this point, the video described an inherent connection between what real beauty is and an attempt to connect to, reflect, and reveal some sort of “God”. How could beauty as defined in the video even exist apart from that, if all of beauty’s standards were written with that connection! Really, how could “religion” be a “beauty-substitute”? If this incredible heaven-beauty connection that video-man was pushing is true, then beauty serves to prove religion just as much as religion serves to define it. Religion cannot stand alone as something put in place of beauty – the beauty of God is intrinsic to that which truly is Christianity! Not only was that statement so contradictory to the rest of the video(s) that it made me ill, it reveals an awful understanding of religion and horrible, horrible logic!

            Okay, I feel I just repeated the same thing like, four times, but that took me so completely aback that I cannot bother to care. Anyway, up until the end, I believe that the essay and the video were in pretty strong accord, save for the fact that the essay acknowledged the hand (and duty) of Christianity in regards to beauty, rather than the hand of beauty in regards to religion. The essay was pretty spot-on I believe. I myself have heard of the contrasting symphonies of which it speaks, some completely insane and some very orderly and graceful. What I feel was not defined enough (in either the essay or the video) was the delineation between “truly creative” and “ugly”. This is something I have struggled with quite often. Even though the symphony in complete discord does not perhaps reflect “Christian beauty”, but the understanding of music, the vision, the talent….everything that went into just how bizarre it was…can be incredibly imaginative! Those sorts of pieces require a vision that so few in this world could ever even dream of. Real, quality instruments, put to unique tempo and unique sound…there is something to be said for those pieces by those who understand what the composer is doing. It may not be the most seamless song, but there is something there. And no, I’m not describing trash that is just sound. These sounds had a purpose. Like…hm…better example: contemporary art is mostly crap. However, if an artist can take something normal and beautiful and do something completely different with it, something unique, something with a real vision and use of talent through whatever medium, that doesn’t make it ugly. That doesn’t mean it is valueless just because it’s in pieces. I mean, Venus de Milo has no arms, but she’s “beautiful”. Michelangelo’s David’s hands, head, and feet are not true to real human proportion, but it’s still “beautiful”. There is a certain type of artistic license that can be had with nature and its beauty, but this fine line between inventive/unique/creative and ugly I feel was not addressed. I mean, I sculpted an iguana once. It’s a pretty awesome iguana - really accurate and well done - however just because I can replicate nature, to me doesn’t feel like I’m actually an “artist” (although some would think I am). Some people think I’m a musician too, but I am not. So I know a few chords and can appreciate the more intricate things in music that others may not recognize. So what? …We addressed this in class, when Mr. Dyck spoke about his nephew that can play music vs. his niece that can “play” music, but I just felt like the essay and videos didn’t. Those who can actually “do” will do something more.

            The video and the essay did both talk about uplifting the mundane though, and I suppose they had a point there: putting the simpler things into certain lights so that we will appreciate the truth and beauty behind them. So cool, my iguana is a “beautiful” iguana. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it is that I think more in terms of music. That song of Mary’s mourning at the end of the video series really spoke to that for me, as do many string-based symphonies: There is a story behind them that can only be shown by a particular manipulation of the music; one that writing is just so beyond me in grasping. I mean, if you want to make something sound sad, use minor chords. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star in a minor key is incredibly depressing. Thank you Bryan. But to turn a story into sound requires a level of real vision and composing ability that absolutely boggles my mind. To me, THAT is creating real art. That is abstract in the most beautiful form. Soooo beyond me. I wish both the video and essay would have spent more time on music….

            Overall, the way by which art should reflect real beauty and truth as expressed by the essay and (most of) the video I agreed with. Sometimes I struggle with what real creativity is, however….for myself, it is often times the creativity and ingenuity behind the work that is more beautiful and fascinating than the end product. 

Conundrum of a Cloud

Okay, so this poem isn't that great, but it has a real meaning to me. People think I'm a good artist, but the truth is I am not. Whether the medium is words or graphite or paint, I can only ever make decent art when my mind goes to a particular place that I can never get it to by sheer will. It's really annoying. Honestly, no matter how I try, that wolf I painted on that reversible coffin for Walker's class not only could I never ever replicate, but I couldn't paint anything that decent right now. I couldn't sculpt like I made that iguana, I could not envision a Model-T in a box of pencils. This frustration came to a head last night when I watched Hugo. That movie was the most AMAZING piece of art...my mind totally went to that place, like, extreme. But when I tried to draw, I couldn't hold on to anything. See, when I do create a good sketch, or make something people think is "good", it's only ever a crude replication of something that's already there. I can't REALLY create anything, like the stuff in Hugo. While I can only roughly mimic the beauty of the world around me, there are others in the world that can do so much more. I love/hate those people!! I couldn't even hold on to one vision to replicate after watching that movie though. It was really frustrating. Soooooo I turned my symbol of a "cloud" from class into a poem about all this. Yay! Here goes!


Mimicry is the 
Most sincere form of flattery,
They tell me - 
Just look up, see
That celestial ballerina
Extend her cotton arm o'ertop the 
Ethereal silhouette of a mushroom?
Look, how effortlessly she skims and flits 
Across the undulating topside of a crocodile,
Morphing west as impatient winds
Cause 't to give chase to migrating geese!


Is that all?
I reply. Their semblances are crude
at best.
No matter the dreams 
Forged within the endless billows of white
and grey, 
A cloud can amount to nothing
but rain.
And even less, I confess,
Without the true artists' visions
Who alone may aspire to more
than mere mimicry.

Islamic Church and American State?

Mixing? Doubt it. It is one thing to be knowledgeable about Islamic culture, and sensitive to it. Perhaps I would even go so far as to feel it would be alright to have pro-sensitivity laws (ignorant Americans don't do anybody any good, and are much too prevalent for my liking). However, to promote laws that are inherently biased against the minorities that America so uplifts like women and homosexuals? And on top of that, to only show favor to one specific religious group? Goooooood luck with that. 


I guess that means we have to kill...hmmmmm...most of Americans for not being Muslim? This spells alot of trouble for capitalism and democracy too. The entire machine that is America is honestly too far 1st-world to support real, strict Shariah law. 


That journalist did have a point - to mock a religion without knowing a thing about it does make one look like an ignorant doofus. However, ignoring the laws already in place to condemn that man and pardon one who reacted violently towards him in the end only serves to support violence. Yay violence?


Please, by all means, make people more sensitive. But Shariah law would only dethrone America's entire way of being - equality (however corrupted) would be dead, many pro-equality movements would be quashed and probably rise up in anger at being thus silenced in a world where they are used to freedom of speech. ...in the words of Bartok from the cartoon Anastasia movie, "this can only end in tears!"