Gun Restrictions Increased

Thirty-four people around the country whose own lives or the lives of their relatives have been affected by gun violence joined the mayor in his call for tighter regulations.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and dozens of shooting survivors and victims' relatives are calling on Congress and President Barack Obama to tighten gun laws and enforcement.

The mayor was appearing at City Hall Monday with 34 people whose own lives or the lives of their relatives have been rent by gun violence around the country. They're sending videos to lawmakers telling their stories.

Bloomberg has long been an advocate for tougher national gun regulations. He has found himself at the forefront of a re-energized push for gun control since Friday's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.

He says the carnage "demands immediate national action."

This is a recent post from MSN News, and it makes me cry, but not for the reasons you would think. I cried when I heard of the initial shooting in Connecticut. It was a horrible event, which has not been matched in maliciousness in America in years. However, the reaction to this horrible incident is nearly as wrong.

People don't seem to understand that by putting more gun restrictions in place, the innocent people are only hurt more. There was a Facebook post on Friday which summed the situation up perfectly: "You cab ban guns, box cutters, knives, swords, sticks or stones. You Won't Disarm Evil." By making it more difficult for the good innocent people to have guns, it gives the evil an advantage. The restrictions won't inhibit the bad people. Haven't people heard about how drugs are illegal? And yet are rampant among lawbreakers?

It is shear stupidity to believe that lawbreakers will abide by a law that will make lawbreaking for difficult for them. Criminals aren't that stupid. So why would a government and president agree to more gun restrictions if they really have the good of the people in mind? That's easy, they don't.

The Affordable Housing Crisis

    The precious few federal programs that provide rental assistance to the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable families are already under-financed. These programs provide decent housing for about only a quarter of the low-income families who qualify for them. And with nearly nine million households teetering on the verge of homelessness, the country clearly needs more support for affordable housing, not less...

    Congress has not treated these housing programs kindly in recent years. Between 2010 and 2012, financing fell by about $2.5 billion, or nearly 6 percent, although some of this was mitigated by one-time measures, like spending from reserves. President Obama’s budget for the 2013 fiscal year is not much of an improvement; given inflation, Congress would have to increase appropriations just to keep treading water, when, in fact, what the poor in this country need is a significant jump.

    The administration obviously needs to do better. The number of families eligible for this program has grown significantly since the start of the recession. Last year, for example, 8.5 million very-low-income families without housing assistance paid more than half their incomes for housing — an increase of 43 percent from 2007...

    [The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] estimates that eligible families would end up paying about only 30 percent of incomes on housing, and that even a modest renters’ credit capped at $5 billion would lift 250,000 renters out of poverty, help 1.2 million of the lowest income renters and cut the number of poor households that spend more than half their incomes on rent by 700,000. That proposal deserves a serious reading.

   This is part of an opinion article which was published December 4th through the New York Times. The author claims that the government needs to give more money to poor families. He seems to care about the poverty-stricken people of America who are struggling to support their families. I can understand that, but I have a serious problem with what he is asking.

   Why should the government GIVE away money to people? Last time I checked, the government didn't owe the people of America anything, though they were in trillions of dollars of debt to other countries. I can understand wanting to give the "poor" a boost, but wouldn't it be more helpful to give them jobs to stimulate the economy and a steady income than simply handing them money, which they will spend and then need more of? Besides, if government simply gives them money, they become dependent on the government, which completely ruins the idea of freedom and independence. If the government pays for your food and housing, they practically own you. If the government owns you, how are you free?

   Who is he defining as poor? He says these "very-low-income families... paid more than half their incomes for housing", but at least they have housing. What about the victims of hurricane Sandy? The states who have been hit by the storm are asking for tens of billions of dollars for repairs and clean up. Many of those people lost loved ones and property, not to mention businesses, etc.

   It's admirable that the author wants to help the poor, but I don't believe that is important enough to spend billions on at the moment. I am sure there are "very-low-income families" who have had hard lives and could use some help from the government, but regardless of the "43 percent increase" since "2007", there are no-where near as many "poor" as there was during the Great Depression, and the government did not get out of that by handing money to people, so they shouldn't be doing that now.

Supreme Court Gene Issue

   WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether human genes may be patented. The case the court added to its docket concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

   The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said that their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated...

   The legal question for the justices is whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection. A divided three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington ruled for the company. The three judges each issued an opinion, and a central dispute was whether isolated genes are sufficiently different from ones in the body to allow them to be patented.

   “The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature,” wrote Judge Alan D. Lourie, who was in the majority. “They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity.”

   This is part of an article, which was written November 30th by Adam Liptak on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/us/supreme-court-takes-up-question-of-patents-in-gene-research.html?ref=us).

   I found the whole idea very interesting, especially after watching Gattaca, a 1997 sci-fi film about genetically enhanced humans. Technology is becoming advanced enough to be able to tell us which gene does what, causes which disease, and can be changed to make things better. It is a really cool idea, but at what cost?

   So, if it becomes 'legal', patented, and a 'human-made invention' to alter one gene, what will humans be considered when more of their genes are altered than are not? Will that make the person a 'human-made invention'?
   There could potentially be future problems with gene alterations as well. If it becomes widely popular, and everyone begins getting the same genes altered, then people will become similar in more areas than is healthy. The Markab race from Babylon 5 discovered this when the Drafa Plague -- an airborne virus -- attacked them. They had cloned themselves to reproduce (because sexual reproduction was no longer an option), so all their genes and immune systems were identical. Thus, when the Drafa Plague attacked, they all succumbed and the whole race died.
   Though these are somewhat futuristic and exaggerated examples, they are possibly warnings against altering human genes. Every invention has its pros and cons, and most can be used for good or evil. We need to weigh the cost, and not simply allow it because it's "scientific".

Body Ritual Among the Nacirema

  The focal point of the shrine is a box or chest which is built into the wall. In this chest are kept the many charms and magical potions without which no native believes he could live. These preparations are secured from a variety of specialized practitioners. The most powerful of these are the medicine men, whose assistance must be rewarded with substantial gifts. However, the medicine men do not provide the curative potions for their clients, but decide what the ingredients should be and then write them down in an ancient and secret language. This writing is understood only by the medicine men and by the herbalists who, for another gift, provide the required charm.
  The charm is not disposed of after it has served its purpose, but is placed in the charm-box of the household shrine. As these magical materials are specific for certain ills, and the real or imagined maladies of the people are many, the charm-box is usually full to overflowing. The magical packets are so numerous that people forget what their purposes were and fear to use them again.

  This satire passage by Horace Miner is poking fun at the 1950s American. He takes the position of a foreign, modern, advanced specialist who is trying to understand the old and barbaric ways of the Nacirema (American spelled backwards). This specific passage brings the strangeness of our medicines to light. Americans go to doctors, who diagnose the symptoms and send the "cure" information to a third party. If we were to find another "tribe" doing this, we would most likely be appalled, because why should they trust a medicine man who writes in a secret language (Greek and/or Latin) and gives the information to a third party who has nothing to do with us? This seems overly complicated and obsolete.
  In addition, modern psychology has proven that if a placebo (a "medicine" that really does nothing) is given to the patients instead of the real curative potions, the patients will recover a surprisingly large amount of the time anyway. This brings into the questions of whether or not the medicines are really that helpful, or are simply modernized renditions of the old-fashioned native witch-doctor remedies. Doctors and medicine still have a major role and power in the modern age, though the average American doesn't seem to notice this. That is what Horace Miner was trying to point out, when he wrote this brilliant piece of irony.

Black

  Something woke him. A noise or a breeze -- something had pulled him from his dreams.
  Tom blinked in the darkness. Breathed hard, tried to clear his mind. The bats weren't simply a figment of his imagination. Nothing was. His name was Tom Hunter. He'd fallen on a rock and lost his memory, and he'd just escaped the black forest. Barely. Now he had passed out and was dreaming.
  Dreaming that he was Tom Hunter, being chased by loan sharks he'd stiffed for a hundred thousand dollars four years ago in New York.
  Problem was, this dream of Denver felt as real as the black forest had. There had to be a way to tell if he really was, at this very moment, physically lying on a bed of green grass or staring at the ceiling of an apartment in Denver, Colorado.

 This passage is the beginning of the fifth chapter in Ted Dekker's "Black". First, I love Ted Dekker's stories, some more than others. I've often considered -- as I'm sure many others have -- writing about a character who switches between worlds. You know, in reality, if someone had to deal with dreams like this, they'd go crazy. Not being able to tell what is real is unnerving.
  Of course, Dekker's confused protagonist decides to live each "dream" as if it were real, staying completely sane in the process. I haven't actually finished this book, but so far its been quite entertaining. I really enjoy Dekker's characters, plot twists, and writing style in general. I like how he does a series of short sentences, and then a long compound-complex sentence or two. I think its a pretty cool technique, and have even attempted multiple times to put it into my own writing.

PS: The green are the prepositional phrase and the participial phrase, in that order.

House

...The Tin Man chambered another round slowly, as if needing time to contemplate what he'd just done.
  Jack heard a faint crackling sound. His eyes went to Susan's blood on the floor. But it wasn't the kind of red blood he expected to see. Red, yes, but laced with a crackling white light, as if it carried a charge.
  'Look to the light.'
  ...White stared at the girl.
  ...Stephanie rushed past Jack and dropped to her knees beside Susan's prone body. She reached out and began to whisper urgently past streaming tears.
  ..."Son of Man, have mercy on me, a sinner!" She drew a long, loud, gasping breath and wailed again.
  ...The truth struck Jack full in the face. Susan had taken their death as the guiltless one. She was the light in the darkness, but the wages of sin really was death. The guilty really had to die, just as White insisted. That was the game.
  But Susan was the Christ, who had died instead. And Tin Man seemed to know his mistake.
...The light came into the darkness, and the darkness did not understand it, but that no longer mattered because the light was now obliterating the darkness.

  This passage was taken from Frank Peretti's and Ted Dekker's "House". This was an incredible book, a suspenseful supernatural thriller, like the other books which these authors are known for. I thought after reading the first half, that it might just be another horror story about a haunted house and a demon possessed serial killer, but I should have known better. After reading many of Peretti's and Dekker's other books, I should have known from the beginning that it would end with a powerful point; not just a nightmare.
  Like many of their other stories, there is a deeper idea. An analogy: the house. Everyone is trapped in a "house", and this house (or life) reflects each individual person's lives, their sin, their fears, and the consequences of their actions. Just like in the book, there is also a murderer trying to kill us all, Satan, who takes on various disguises, and whose only goal is to kill, steal, and destroy. That said, the only way out is to call on the name of Jesus, confess your sins, and pray to Him to save you. The wages of sin is death, but the innocent lamb (the light) came down to earth (into the darkness), and sacrificed himself for us, thus defeating death (the dark).
  Horray! Christ wins! I like it when that happens.

Bridge to Terabithia

"Watcha doing Jess?" May Belle had followed him down again as he had guessed she might.
"It's a secret, May Belle."
... "I swear on the Bible I won't tell nobody. Not Billy Jean, not Joyce Ann, not Momma--" She was jerking her head back and forth in solemn emphasis.
"Oh, I don't know about Joyce Ann. You might want to tell Joyce Ann sometime."
"Tell Joyce Ann something that's a secret between you and me?" The idea seemed to horrify her.
"Yeah, I was just thinking about it... She wouldn't likely be a queen first off. You'd have to train her and stuff."
"Queen? Who gets to be queen?"
"I'll explain it when I finish, OK?"
And when he finished, he put flowers in her hair and led her across the bridge -- the great bridge into Terabithia -- which might look to someone with no magic in him like a few planks across a nearly dry gully.
"Shh," he said. "Look... Can't you see 'um?" he whispered. "All the Terabithians standing on tiptoe to see you."
"Me?"
"Shh, yes. There's a rumor going around that the beautiful girl arriving today might be the queen they've been waiting for."

I loved this ending passage from the last chapter of Katherine Paterson's "Bridge to Terabithia". This book almost made me cry, and I probably would have if I hadn't known beforehand how it ended. But it's a beautifully upsetting story of transformation. I mean, you have this girl, Leslie, who comes from out of the blew and totally changes Jess' life. Before her, Jess' family was completely detached from each other and he didn't want anything to do with any of them, especially his sisters. However, his sweet relationship with Leslie changes all that, and reveals to him the importance of having such close friends. This closing is the first time he has ever considered allowing Joyce Ann (his youngest sister) to have anything to do with him. His final statement is so sweet (opposite of what he's said in the past about his sister) that it makes the rest of the somewhat-depressing book worth it. Even though it is a sad story, Paterson tells it in such a way, and ends it so well, that I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who has some "magic" in them.

Aeneid

This passage is the original Latin from Vergil's Aeneid:
Stetit acer in armis
Aeneas volvens oculos dextramque repressit;
et iam iamque magis cunctantem flectere sermo
coeperat, infelix umero cum apparuit alto
balteus et notis fulserunt cingula bullis
Pallantis pueri, victum quem vulnere Turnus
straverat, atque umeris inimicum insigne gerebat.

This is Robert Fagles translation of the same passage:
Aeneas, ferocious in armor, stood there, still,
shifting his gaze, and held his sword-arm back,
holding himself back too as Turnus' words began
to sway him more and more... when all at once
he caught sight of the fateful sword belt of Pallas,
swept over Turnus' shoulder, gleaming with shining studs
Aeneas knew by heart. Young Pallas, whom Turnus had overpowered,
taken down with a wound, and now his shoulder flaunted
his enemy's battle-emblem like a trophy.

I find this a very interesting passage. It is nearly the last lines in the book. Everything has lead up to this moment. In this passage, pity gives way to anger, mercy to revenge. And then the book ends, as Turnus' unfortunate spirit flies to the shades. It is a sudden end, in which there is no resolution. Aeneas wins and that's that. Either Virgil did not care that his readers are left hanging and wanted to emphasize the brutality and warfare ideas which founded Rome, or else he simply did not have time to finish before he died. I find it almost funny how it ends. If on purpose, then it sheds a disagreeing eye on the warlike and aggressive attitude of the Romans. If Virgil had meant to add an end, which included marriage and resolution with the Latins, then I would say he was instead accepting that vengeance was necessary for life and for the good of Rome. As it is, I am uncertain, as many people are. But this lack (or not) of an ending does not keep this epic from being any less renowned.

The Aeneid

And now Dido leads her guest through the heart of Carthage, displaying Phoenician power, the city readied for him... Now at dusk she call for the feast to start again, madly begging to hear again the agony of Troy, to hang on his lips again, savoring his story. Then... alone in the echoing hall, distraught, she flings herself on the couch that he left empty. Lost as he is, she's lost as well, she hears him, sees him or holds Ascanius back and dandles him on her lap, bewitched by the boy's resemblance to his father, trying to cheat the love she dare not tell. The towers of Carthage, half built, rise no more, and the young men quit their combat drills in arms. The harbors, the battlements planned to block attack, all work's suspended now...

This passage is from Virgil's Aeneid, chapter 4, verses 92-110. This is a very interesting and well known passage, as it expresses the chaos caused by Aeneas' presence. In the Latin original, the pronouns used to refer to Dido are actually masculine, which is abnormal. Virgil did this to show that she was working and leading like a man, yet prone to the mistakes and emotional pit-falls of women. "Beware of manly women." As her attention shifts from the care of her city to Aeneas, Dido is described as "mad" and she "savors" Aeneas' story as if it were feeding her. In a sense, it is feeding her, or at least the fire which Venus -- goddess of love -- sparked into being. The passage becomes almost ironic, as she is obsessed with Ascanius (who is Cupid in disguise), yet tries to "cheat the love", which is impossible. The end of the passage is completely contradictory to the beginning. The first showing a beautiful bustling beehive, and the second describing a dejected dream. Thus Aeneas' entrance and beginning is the end and destruction of Dido.

Another Poem

Who says that I am dead
Knows nought at all.
I -- am that is,
Two mice within Redwall.
The warrior sleeps
'Twixt Hall and Cavern Hole.
I -- am that is,
Take on my mighty role.
Look for the sword
In moonlight streaming forth,
At night, when day's first hour
Reflects the North.
From o'er the threshold
Seek and you will see;
I -- am that is,
My sword will wield for me.

This poem is taken from Brian Jacques' "Redwall". The poem is actually a puzzle, which makes it a significant part of the book. Because its a puzzle, the whole poem is basically a poetic device.
The end of every second line rhymes, giving it a nice pattern. Besides that, the third, seventh, and fifteenth lines are identical, making a kind of extended anaphora. They also seem a sort of interruption of the poem (aposiopesis?) until you reorder the letters so that they spell: Matthias. Then the puzzle of the poem comes through and it begins to make more sense. The point of view is also a type of poetic device, as it was supposedly written by someone who has been long dead. In which case, it becomes a prophecy. Thus this poen has many poetic devices in it.

Ides of March

[LVIII: Caesar to Brutus]
I now wish you to hold a similar position in the capital and to discover for yourself a similar truth concerning our citizens in Italy.
I wish you to serve as Praetor. I am appointing your brother-in-law (Cassius) to serve with you. I wish you to be Praetor of the City; of the two offices it is the most difficult, the one more exposed to the public view, and the one closer to my self...
...I believe that you possess that love and are so endowed; the training I have been in a position to secure for you. The decision as to whether you wish to assume the supreme command [as successor] is open to you.

This passage is taken from Thornton Wilder's "The Ides of March". I thought it very interesting how Thornton portrays Caesar as very trusting of Brutus, or at least confident in his abilities as a leader. He makes it seem as though Caesar never expected Brutus to help in the assassination and even gives him the opportunity to become the next dictator. Whether or not this actually was the case, it gives a side to their relationship I had never even suspected. Maybe Caesar is suspicious of Brutus and thought that if he gave him power he could sway him to his own side. Apparently he underestimated Brutus' beliefs in "freedom". Brutus took the position as Praetor where he could get on the public's good side, and then take over. Brilliant. Did Caesar even guess that his own "son" would plot to kill him? Maybe that's why he adopted Augustus. But did he trust Augustus any more than Brutus? It's hard to know. What if Brutus had accepted the position as successor? How much of history would be different?

Perelandra

He smiled bitterly at the folly which had made him so glad, that morning, to exchange those floating paradises, where every grove dropped sweetness, for this barren rock... Uselessly he quickened his pace. Before he had got down into the valley, the grove where he had left Weston was a mere cloud of darkness. Before he had reached it he was in seamless, dimensioned night... When he lay down he discovered that the solid earth and moss of the Fixed Land was very much less comfortable than the surfaces to which he had lately been accustomed. That, and the thought of the other human being lying, no doubt, close at hand with open eyes and teeth clenched on splintered glass, and the sullen recurring pound of breakers on the beach, all made the night comfortless. "If I lived on Perelandra," he muttered, "Maleldil wouldn't need to forbid this island. I wish I'd never set eyes on it."

This passage was taken from C. S. Lewis's "Perelandra", the second book in his Space Trilogy. In this passage, Ransom (the main character) begins to doubt himself, his mission, and its success. He has just made one of his biggest mistakes, and is now stuck on a forbidden island with a possessed man, who may or may not be dead. Since his arrival, Ransom has been clueless as to why he was sent to Perelandra, though he hasn't really been bothered by that fact until now. He feels lost and understandably uncomfortable, given his predicament: naked, hungry, and stuck on a strange planet with no idea what he is supposed to do. I would be freaking out too. Given that, this passage has a somewhat depressing tone, as Ransom ponders his next step. It is actually the first time something really interesting has happened in this book and so mixed with depression is a sense of adventure, suspense, and curiosity. I like it.

The Sword of Mercy

Charlemagne saw a brilliant light. He thought at first it was firelight reflecting from Ogier's blade, but in the next instant, the light, dancing in the swirling smoke, seemed to form itself into... could it be? An angel.
...Charlemagne smiled back at the angel; if this was death, he welcomed it. Ogier, disconcerted by the man's smile, paused. Then, with a grunt, he swung Curtana down toward the head of his former king. As he did, Charlemagne reached toward the angel, using his right hand in which he still held Joyeuse [Charlemagne's sword].
The two blades met... Joyeuse tumbled to the stone floor... Ogier's next blow would be fatal. Holding Curtana in both hands, the Dane raised it for a stabbing, downward thrust. And then he stopped, staring at its blade. Curtana had lost its tip...

I took this passage from Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson's "Peter and the Sword of Mercy". I thought this was a cool opening for a book, when I first read this. Then, I wondered if there was any truth to this story of a "sword of mercy". When I looked it up (thank you Wikipedia), I found that Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson had actually based their book on a very real historical artifact. The legend of how the sword received its name is fake, probably. However, there is a blade by that name which is kept as a part of the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom and "is carried in the coronation procession", as their story states. This fact gave me even more interest in the book, and even though their legend is fake, it is still awesome.

PS: Highlighted are three unique ways of ending a sentence.

More Poems

Grey as a mouse,
Big as a house,
Nose like a snake,
I make the earth shake,
As I tramp through the grass;
Trees crack as I pass.
With horns in my mouth
I walk in the South,
Flapping big ears.
Beyond count of years
I stump round and round,
Never lie on the ground,
Not even to die.
Oliphaunt am I,
Biggest of all,
Huge, old, and tall.
If ever you'd met me
You wouldn't forget me.
If you never do,
You won't think I'm true;
But old Oliphaunt am I,
And I never lie.


I wrote a poem in inspiration of J. R. Tolkien's, taking his meter and idea of describing an animal.

Like a wild horse,
On a new course,
Guided by sense,
Unguarded by fence,
She leaps over lines,
Disregarding signs
That say to turn back --
Rushing into black,
Hurdling o'er doubt.
An obscure route
That is left to rot,
For others seem caught
In an easy life,
Almost free from strife.
She knows what's true
And sticks like glue
To the One who saved,
Died, and was raised.
She never will stop
'Til she reaches the top.
But not alone does she ride,
For I too am by her side.

Poems

The Destruction of Sennacherib
by Lord Byron

The Assyrians came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.
Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.

I really really like this poem (and this is not even all of it). First of all, it just sounds cool. Secondly, the story is incredible. I mean, a whole army is supernaturally crushed in one night. Also, the techniques and comparisons Byron uses are fascinating. In the first line, Assyrian horde is compared to a pack of savage wolves coming to attack the Israeli people, who we assume are like sheep. That would be an insult to them, except that the Bible consistently matches God to a shepherd -- the protector of the sheep. So, it makes perfect sense when the wolves - even though they number the stars -- are defeated. It continues, saying the "host" numbers the green leaves in a forest; in other words, countless. This massive army suddenly disappears, like leaves in the wind. Just gone. Whoosh! It's like God sneezed or something. Nothing is too big for God. I love it.