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.

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.