Utopia

  "No, if a king is so hated or despised by his subjects that he can't keep them in order unless he reduces them to beggary by violence, extortion, and confiscation, he'd far better abdicate. Such methods of staying in power may preserve the title, but they destroy the majesty of a king... Certainly a man who enjoys a life of luxury while everyone else is moaning and groaning round him can harly be called a king -- he's more of a jailer.
  "Int short, it's a pretty poor doctor who can't cure one disease without giving you another, and a king who can't suppress crime without lowering standards of living should admit that he just doesn't know how to govern free men. He should start by suppressing one of his own vices -- either his pride of his laziness... He should adapt his expenditure to his income. He should prevent crime by sound administration..."

  This passage is from page 40 of Penguin Classics' Utopia by Thomas More. And here, I believe he is right. Kings (presidents too) are elected and put in power in order to take care of the people. Putting the country in billions of dollars of additional debt/"expenditures", and forcing a provision upon the people (such as health care) which will cause them to fall into a lower class due to the cost, is irresponsible, and as More said, he'd far better abdicate. At least the people would know then that he has a conscious of some sort, and possibly some wisdom in knowing when to quit.
  President Nixon did. Though there are not many kings before him that have, nor after. Perhaps their pride has gotten the best of them as More suggests? A pity that they must continue to try to prove themselves, and yet continue to ruin the country who put them in power... Perhaps those in power should read more books like this one. ;)

Disney 'Princessifies' "Brave"'s Merida

  What happens when a spirited girl becomes an official Disney princess? In the case of Merida from Pixar's "Brave," she transforms from a round-faced, round-eyed heroine with copious amounts of frizzy red hair to an almond-eyed, teeny-waisted hottie with smooth, wavy tresses, a twinkly dress and plenty of décolletage. She also trades her bow and arrow for a belt from Elvis' Vegas years.

  This is the beginning of an article from MSN.com (http://social.entertainment.msn.com/blogs/pop-spy-blog.aspx?feat=c399562a-5d3d-4462-a07e-eeeb4b1ff945&ocid=fbmsn). I laughed when I saw what Disney had done to Merida, their newest princess. Apparently, a number of other people did too, but these others went even farther and demanded that Disney retract their version of the princess, because it "ruined" the role model Pixar had created. I would agree with those who pleaded against Disney, and believe it is sad that our culture is so consumed with the picture-perfect characters. They are so quick to displace the slightly-blemished, headstrong but simple, heroes and heroines with ridiculous unrealistic models of "beauty".
  The parents complained that this was sending the wrong message to their children and I would agree. However, the article finishes by saying that Disney did indeed accept the complaints and reinstated Pixar's Merida. I'm glad to hear that Disney isn't so caught up in itself that it discounts the pleas of the parents who want a reasonable role model. It's good to know that someone still cares.

Machiavelli's The Prince

  I found it pleasantly surprising that Niccolo Machiavelli addressed the point of gun control, even though he published his book in the early 1500s. ;) The following passage (with a few of my own additions in brackets) is taken from Chapter XX:

  Now, no new prince [or other kind of ruler, such as a president] has ever at any time disarmed his subjects; rather, when he has found them unarmed he has always given them arms. This is because by arming your subjects you arm yourself; those who were suspect become loyal, and those who were loyal not only remain so but are changed from being merely your subjects to being your partisans [or supporters] ... But as soon as you disarm your subjects you start to offend them [if they have any intelligence whatsoever], showing whether through cowardice or suspicion that you mistrust them; and on either score hatred is aroused against you.
  Then, since you [the prince] cannot stay unarmed, you are forced to have recourse to mercenary troops... And even if these mercenaries were reliable, they could not be sufficiently so to protect you against powerful enemies and against subjects you distrust.
  ... So, all things considered... I censure anyone who, putting his trust in fortresses [or military], does not mind if he is hated by the people.

  In other words, any and all rulers and countries are more powerful and have longer terms of success, if they build trust with their subjects, and give them arms. If a country full of armed loyal subjects, is attacked, the subjects will defend it to the end. However, when a country is full of citizens who rely on the government to protect them and are helpless to defend themselves, they will do everything to protect and save themselves, including siding with the enemy.
  Psychology will agree that when someone is attacked, their body enters a state of "Fight or Flight". Those are the two main options, and if the government deprives the country (full of people) of their ability to defend themselves, then flight becomes the only option. And what enemy would turn down an opportunity to attack a kingdom full of peasants, whom he knows will do nothing but run if he invades?
  Thus, a ruler who disarms his subjects, or makes it unconstitutionally difficult to attain/use them, neither trusts his people, nor has the best in mind for the country. What kind of people would elect a man who they know would willingly disarm them? History is full of examples of people that once disarmed and placed under the "protection" of their government and its hired mercenaries failed. Machiavelli even names a number of these incidents. The founders of the US Constitution knew this. Any historian will also tell you that history repeats itself. Even if Machiavelli wasn't actually talking about gun-control, I see no difference in the rules. Anyone who attempts to disarm his own subjects does not have his country's best interests in mind, and is destined to be overcome by another enemy.

Chinua Achebe on 'Heart of Darkness'

   At first sight these instances might be mistaken for unexpected acts of generosity from Conrad. In reality they constitute some of his best assaults. In the case of the cannibals the incomprehensible grunts that had thus far served them for speech suddenly proved inadequate for Conrad's purpose of letting the European glimpse the unspeakable craving in their hearts. Weighing the necessity for consistency in the portrayal of the dumb brutes against the sensational advantages of securing their conviction by clear, unambiguous evidence issuing out of their own mouth Conrad chose the latter. As for the announcement of Mr Kurtz's death by the "insolent black head in the doorway" what better or more appropriate finis could be written to the horror story of that wayward child of civilization who willingly had given his soul to the powers of darkness... than the proclamation of his physical death by the forces he had joined?

   This passage was taken from Chinua Achebe's essay "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'". I found this paragraph especially intriguing. If it had not been obvious before this point, it was made apparent in this passage that Achebe is quite offended with Conrad's description of the African natives, and thus uses some very strong language here especially. He purposely exaggerates Conrad's descriptions to get his point across that Conrad was as racist as he was brilliant. Achebe imitates some of Conrad's style throughout his essay, putting a large emphasis on the 'dark' and 'gloomy' wordage and ideas.
   At times it seems Achebe is looking a little too deeply into Conrad's writing, as here, and yet by revealing Conrad's incredible bias, he almost does Conrad a service, but inadvertently highlighting Conrad's exquisite skill and genius in writing. It's almost ironic, since Achebe's goal is to expose Conrad's work as racist enough to be censored, but at the same time showing that it is worthy of ranking "among the half dozen greatest short novels in the English language". The whole essay is masterfully crafted, an elegant evisceration of the ridiculous racism and literary brilliance and success of Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'.

The USA Patriot Act

The fundamental question facing Americans today is not the false tradeoff between security and liberty, but rather how we can use security to protect liberty. Any debate over security and liberty must start with the recognition that the primary threat to American freedom comes from al-Qaeda and other groups that seek to kill Americans, not from the men and women of law enforcement agencies who protect them from that danger. That the American homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, is a testament to the remarkable efforts of law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security personnel... Their hard work, dedication, and increased coordination have been greatly aided by the tools, resources, and guidance that Congress provided in the Patriot Act.

  This passage is taken from Viet D. Dinh's How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy. I believe Dinh makes several faulty claims in his essay. He seems to think that the US government is unable to make a mistake and seeks ONLY for the destruction of all terrorists and in no way wants to control their own citizens with laws such as the USA Patriot Act. He claims that "the primary threat... comes from al-Qaeda". Though this may possibly have been true in 2004 when this essay was originally published, the US government has always had other goals in mind. Most governments want more power than they already have and to think that they will always want what is best for its citizens is illogical.
  In addition, he seems to think that this Act has stopped all terrorist attacks on the American homeland. This seems improbable, since we took the war to them and have taken down a number of their leaders, including Osama bin Laden in 2011. The belief that the only reasons that no more attacks have landed in domestic America is because of homeland security seems oversimplified.
  Dinh also claims later that parts of the Patriot Act were announced in 2003 to not even be in use, but the possibility that the FBI would not use such tools later on is foolish. I don't believe we need to be terrified that the government is reading over our shoulders 24/7, but I also believe that its unwise to believe that the government only has its citizens' own good in mind, regardless of what they claim.

Heart of Darkness

  'I shall see this eloquent phantom as long as I live, and I shall see her, too, a tragic and familiar Shade, resembling in this gesture another one, tragic also and bedecked with powerless charms, stretching bare brown arms over the glitter of the infernal stream, the stream of darkness. She said suddenly, "He died as he lived."
  '"His end," said I, with dull anger stirring in me, "was in every way worthy of his life. ... I heard his very last words..." I stopped in fright.
  '"Repeat them," she murmured in a heartbroken tone. ... "Don't you understand I loved him -- I loved him -- I loved him!"
  'I pulled myself together and spoke slowly.
  '"The last word he pronounced was -- your name."'

  This is part of the last scene in Marlow's narrative from Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I thought this scene was very interesting. Conrad here compares Kurtz' fiance with the witch doctor lady from Africa, specifically their pleading for Kurtz to come back to them. Also, the fact that the fiance's name is never mentioned, but instead is referred to as the "Shade" is odd. This may be because of the way she looks -- dressed in black with a pale mourning face, another similarity to the native -- or because with the word "shade", Conrad links her to the overlying theme of the story, which is darkness. The whole tone of the book is dark, ominous, and depressing, yet the highlight is when Kurtz utters his last words, which are not her name, but "The horror! the horror!" and Marlow believes Kurtz has finally broken through the dark madness that had captured Kurtz's mind, returning to the path of light he had lived before going to Africa, making her words "He died as he lived" very possibly true. I found this scene and book highly complicated and in depth, very beautiful and still dark.
  Conrad seems to believe that when living a life of darkness, the light comes out at the very end, before it goes out forever. Marlow became very ill and nearly died, but seemed to reach a point of "enlightenment" as the Buddha he is compared to. And also, that even if the actions of one's life become selfish and distorted as Kurtz' seemed to have, if they find the light at the end, their life is one of justice and worthy of honor.

On "Being a Chink"

  "In her essay 'The Meaning of a Word', Gloria Naylor examines the various meanings of the word 'nigger', definitions that have consensual meanings throughout society and others that vary according to how and when the word is used. In this piece, Naylor uses personal examples to describe how 'the people in her grandmother's living room took a word that whites used to signify worthlessness or degradation and rendered it impotent'...
  ...I do not remember how it happened exactly. I just know that we [her friends] have been calling each other 'chink' for quite a long while now. The word has never been used to belittle or degrade, but rather as a term of endearment, a loving insult between friends..."

  This passage is taken from Christine Leong's essay "Being a Chink". I found it very interesting that she quoted Naylor, who had written her essay "The Meaning of a Word" ten years prior, and whose essay I had read a few minutes before Leong's. Leong had obviously been introduced to Naylor's works at some point, very possibly in college, where she was when she wrote "Being a Chink". The two of them basically wrote on the same topic, how words only have as much power as you give them, and meanings which are defined in context, not simply on paper.
  Their essay structures are even similar. They start with a paragraph concerning the power and definitions of words, and then give a childhood memory of a word whose definition was quite different depending on its context. They write about how their families and friends have dealt with these words, and conclude their essays again explaining their meaning of the words. More than a generation apart in age, these women were dealing with the same things, and confronting their culture head on, by rendering the common insults harmless, and instead "terms of endearment".

Psalm 15

   LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill?
   He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent; he who does these things will never be shaken.

   This is a beautiful passage in my opinion, three sentences long. The final sentence is the best, nearly six times the sum of the first two.
   Why? because everyone at some point in their life wishes to be unshakeable. I mean, what a trip, really. To know you're unstoppable. Some people think that's like evil, but it's straight from the Bible: there is an elixir to being invincible... okay maybe not invincible, but to be "unable to become dislodged or fall". Ever. And the way is listed just before. All you have to do is: be perfect. So, even though King David (the credited author) tells us how to be invincible, he tells us in the same sentence that it is impossible without God.
   So, for a second reason, this is a beautiful sentence, for it reminds us that nothing we can do will bring us to the point of invincibility. However, with God, everything is possible. This sentence then answers the first to questions: who may live on your holy hill? answer: no-one, for no-one can fill those prerequisites. No-one has ever been blameless, had zero gossip come from their mouths, nor always keep their promises. But Jesus' blood covers our imperfections (every single one), and makes us righteous in his eyes.
   So, guess what that means. That means, that as long as we've accepted His forgiveness, we are unshakable. That sends shivers down my spine. But it's true. If God wants us alive, who can kill us, and if God wants us dead, what is going to keep us alive? NOTHING. Beautiful. So beautiful.

   Now for an imitation (which will be no-where close to the beauty of the first):
   Faith whose beneficiary is LORD and which has been tested successfully, which inspires the crowd through its actions but is not worn like a medal, which gives the angels new strength and strikes relentless fear into the demons, which had an unseen beginning and grew steadily as do the children, which continues its life regardless of the pain, which has no end in sight, neither believing nor accepting that its end will come; faith which imitates this account is better than gold.

The Chinese Sinocentrism

   There were many reasons for the isolation of ancient China. One such reason was because of the overriding concept of Sinocentrism, which identified China as the center of the world:

   The Sinocentric system was a hierarchical system of international relations that prevailed in East Asia before the adoption of the Westphalian system in modern times. Surrounding countries such as Japan, Korea, the Ryūkyū Kingdom, and Vietnam were regarded as vassals of China and relations between the Chinese Empire and these peoples were interpreted as tributary relationships under which these countries offered tribute (朝貢) to the Emperor of China. Areas outside the Sinocentric influence were called Huawaizhidi (化外之地), meaning "uncivilized land".
   At the center of the system stood China, ruled by the dynasty that had gained the Mandate of Heaven. This Celestial Empire (神州 Shénzhōu), distinguished by its Confucian codes of morality and propriety, regarded itself as the only civilization in the world; the Emperor of China (huangdi) was regarded as the only legitimate Emperor of the entire world.

   This passage is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinocentrism), describing the supremacy of China. Since China had advanced more technologically, they were able to create the overriding system for what they believed was the entire world. They prided themselves as being the best, and therefore ignored any Westerners who claimed otherwise. This arrogance was a major reason that they did not allow the West to trade until the mid 19th century.

US Drone Strike in Pakistan

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — An American drone strike killed a top Pakistani militant commander in a northwestern tribal region, security officials said on Thursday. The death of the commander, Maulvi Nazir, was seen as a serious blow to Taliban fighters who attack United States and allied forces in neighboring Afghanistan.
   The drone strike took place on Wednesday night and targeted Mr. Nazir’s vehicle in the Angoor Adda area in South Waziristan. Five other people were also killed, including one of his key aides, officials said.

    “Maulvi Nazir would probably have posed a problem for the Pakistan Army if and when a political settlement is reached in Afghanistan in 2014. But in the interim, the killing of Nazir and his deputies likely hurts the Pakistan Army’s efforts against the T.T.P. [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan] in South Waziristan,” said Arif Rafiq, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, based in Washington.

    “Nazir would probably have wanted to hold on to his local jihadist fiefdom, making him a long-term threat for the Pakistani state,” said Mr. Rafiq.

    The suspicion that the Pakistani military gave a nod to Mr. Nazir’s killing could result in attacks on Pakistani troops in some areas in South Waziristan, analysts said.

    Pakistani officials publicly denounce American drone strikes but have privately acknowledged the effectiveness of the campaign.

   This passage was published on January 3, 2012, by The New York Times by Salman Masood and Ismail Khan (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/asia/us-drone-strike-is-said-to-kill-a-top-pakistani-militant.html?ref=world&_r=0).

   I think the whole situation is very interesting. First, drones are becoming the rage for the American government when it comes to fighting terrorism. These remote-controlled vehicles have come a long way in the last ten years, and are able to go places foot soldiers would never be able to access. These drones have all sorts of uses, and some have even reached the size of insects.

   The ability to spy on enemies has now reached a new height, which should make it easier for the US to carry out such spy missions. This then begs the question: what else could/will these drones be used for?

   With this kind of technology, the government could seemingly find and dispatch any person at anytime they wish. And when other governments get this technology, war will again take a new shape. It's always been a battle over who has the better technology, whether it be men, guns, satellites, missiles, or these new "bugs". It will be interesting watching how this weapon pans out in the next twenty -- even ten -- years.