Hero or Villain?

Hero or Villain? Maybe the difference between you and he is not so huge. And isn't that your thesis, the Robin Hood world view? That one man is much like another. That the poor are no different from the wealthy, but just as deserving. Why can't you apply your principles to those who have been deprived in another way, deprived of love? (Marian, “A Clue: No”)

Everyone knows the story of Robin Hood, the infamous outlaw who stole Maid Marian’s heart along with the riches of the wealthy. His story is repeated in numerous tales, including a short segment of the movie Shrek in which Monsieur Hood grabs Princess Fiona in the middle of a forest. Confident in his righteousness, he declares that he is her “saviour” in a French accent and attempts to woo her only to end up unconscious on the floor for being “annoying”.

To put a modern perspective on the story, lets say you left your wallet in a public bathroom with a hundred dollar bill in it. You do not realize you left it until hours later and when you return to the spot, it is gone. At first, you panic and search around the whole bathroom meticulously before running to the nearest authorities in the hopes that some kind soul had found it and turned it in. Unfortunately, you either get it back with nothing in it, or do not find it at all. You return home dejected and drown your sorrows in a strong bottle of alcohol. You probably start wondering what sort of evil bastard would do such a thing to YOU of all people.

However, the person you just labeled as “evil” is now giddy with relief as he can now buy some food for his family. Of course, he could not pass up a hundred dollar bill! With all the credit cards, he saw in that wallet of yours he figures you would hardly miss it. He does not care that you worked your ass off to earn that money or that you were going to use it to buy a special gift for someone special. All he cares about is the survival of his family. Interestingly, the “thief” could have avoided this situation altogether with the help of the Robin Hood Foundation, which has created a website called Robin Hood: Targeting the Poverty of New York. Of course, he would have to be a resident of New York to profit from this, but it’s an interesting thought nonetheless.

Anyways, Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisbourne did not sit by passively and let Robin Hood get away with all of his plunder. Indeed they proclaimed him an outlaw and stole his home as well as his beloved, Marian, away from him as shown in the following scene where Sir Guy, accompanied by Marian and his noble friends are celebrating the King’s birthday:

GUY: Hood! I don’t remember inviting you.
ROBIN: Since when has a man needed an invitation to his own house?
GUY: I don’t know, perhaps since he lost all rights to the house by becoming an outlaw.
ROBIN: Ha, ha, ha. I would’ve declined anyway. My men and I are here on business. Please! Everyone! If you could assist us by removing all of your jewelry and valuables and handing them to that man over there, Much! And then proceed to that room where you will all wait quietly until we’ve gone.
GUY: Do as he says.
ROBIN: Wise decision, Gisboune. (“Tattoo? What Tattoo?”)

In many modern versions of Robin Hood, he tries his best not to kill, even when his enemies give him perfect reason and opportunity to. Not long after the scene above, he has Guy at his mercy and is quite willing to kill him, but his loyal gang of outlaws rush to his side and still his hand because, as Much explains, “We do not take part in bloodshed unless absolutely necessary.” (“Tattoo? What Tattoo?”). Five episodes later, however, Robin Hood manages to kill a guard, surprising his arch nemesis the Sheriff of Nottingham: “What is this? Hood does not kill! (“A Clue: No”).

As for Sir Guy, he admits that he “committed a crime, grave crimes. Meaningless crimes. But by taking Marian in holy wedlock, I will wash away those crimes. Her pure heart, will cleanse mine.” (“A Clue: No”) Unfortunately, he seems rather misinformed as two episodes earlier he stabbed Marian with a dagger coated in hemlock while she was stealing the riches that were soon to be hers anyway under the guise of the Night Watcher, one of Robin’s outlaws. (“Return of the King”) Even his “friend”, the Sheriff of Nottingham, fails to tell him important information, as seen in the following scene:

SHERIFF: The King is not coming.
GUY: What do you mean the King is not coming?
SHERIFF: He is in the Holy Land! [Guy does not look best pleased] I've arranged an impostor. Think about it, is the real King, who has spent God know how long fighting in the Holy Land going to stop of for a visit in Nottingham, a clue: no.
.............................
GUY: Why didn't you tell me?
SHERIFF: Awh, oh sorry, nothing personal, hmm. Anyway, you should thank me, you get to marry the girl.
GUY: Yeah, but based on lie the King is not really coming.
SHERIFF: Oh isn't that despicable, hmm, I don't know how you could live with yourself. (“A Clue: No”)

What they are referring to in the second half of this excerpt is a promise Marian made to marry Sir Guy when the King returns to England. Guy is noticeably disturbed by this new information while the Sheriff seems quite pleased with himself. Indeed, the Sheriff is a hard character to get behind in this series, as is common with Robin Hood stories. However, his intentions seem to be to liven Nottingham. Surely such a setting can get boring after a while and who’s to say the commoners don’t enjoy the excitement? Sure, plotting to kill the King may be going a bit too far, but how else is he supposed to keep his protagonist interested? When natural disasters happen, doesn’t some part of you wish it was worse? Don’t you wish that meeting the right person will somehow cleanse you of all your mistakes? Who are we to judge fellow humans, when we are also one of them? Thank you for reading, I hope you enjoyed it.

Works Cited

“A Clue: No”. Robin Hood. Writ. Dominic Minghella, Fox Allan. Dir. Matthew Evans. Perf. Jonas Armstrong, Lucy Griffiths, Richard Armitage, Keith Allen. BBC. 30 December 2006. TV.

“Return of the King”. Robin Hood. Writ. Dominic Minghella, Fox Allan. Dir. Matthew Evans. Perf. Jonas Armstrong, Lucy Griffiths, Richard Armitage. BBC. 23 December 2006. TV.

Robin Hood: Targeting Poverty in New York City. Robin Hood Foundation, 2002. Web. 9 Dec. 2009. http://www.robinhood.org

Shrek. Dir. Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson. Perf. Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Vincent Cassel. Dreamworks, 2001. DVD.

“Tattoo? What Tattoo?”. Robin Hood. Writ. Dominic Minghella, Foz Allan. Dir. DeclaO’Dwyer. Perf. Jonas Armstrong, Lucy Griffiths, Richard Armitage, Keith Allen. BBC. 25 November 2006. TV.

Test 3

The Post Colonial Short Story
Kathrine Mansfield’s “The Garden Party” starts with a description of the Sheridan family’s garden and the preparations for a garden party. The mother usually makes the decisions, but this time she wanted her chil-dren, Laura, Meg, Jose, and Laurie to decide instead. Laura, being the most imaginative of them, took up the challenge, although it seems most of it took care of itself. In fact, the mother planned much of it beforehand anyway. Laura and her sister Jose had just finished tasting the cream puffs and were about to head for the garden when Sadie (the maid), Hans (one of the servants), and one of the cooks came in and told the two that a man had died in the little village nearby. Laura was appalled and pleaded with both her sister Jose and her mother to stop the party in order to spare the family’s feelings. Neither would al-low it and called her childish and too sentimental. Eventually they suc-ceeded in quelling her fears and had a delightful party. However, at the end there were still some sandwiches and cream puffs left, so the mother decided she would send Laura to the cottage to give them to the dead man’s family. When Laura arrived, she started to have sec-ond thoughts about going, but it was too late to turn back. The family pulled her into the house when all she wanted to do was leave the basket and go home. When she saw the body, she thought he looked peaceful and content. In the end, she concluded that life was a mar-velous thing.

I believe that the main theme of this story is growing up or maturing. When Laura was talking to the workmen she was shy at first and “stammered like a little girl” (2646) after trying to sound like her mother. This suggests that she was still growing up and was not used to doing adult business. After her talk with the workmen and Kitty, on of her friends, she started to daydream a bit. The following excerpt is an example of this:

“But the air! If you stopped to notice, was the air always like this? Little faint winds were playing chase in at the tops of the windows, out at the doors. And there were two tiny spots of sun, one on the inkpot, one on a silver photo-graph frame, playing too. Darling little spots. Especially the one on the inkpot lid. It was quite warm. A warm little sil-ver star. She could have kissed it.” (2648)

Three pages later, her mother calls her childish because of her insis-tence to stop the party. Laura couldn’t understand why her mother and Jose were acting like that because it felt wrong to be happy when neighbors were sad. When she looked in the mirror, however, “There, quite by chance, the first thing she saw was this charming girl in the mirror, in her black hat trimmed with gold daisies and a long black velvet ribbon.” This is when she starts to see that she’s not quite the child she thought she was.

I liked this story because Laura’s childishness reminds me of my own in comparison to others. I am still a bit afraid of walking into the wide world alone and barely feel like I have the skills or courage to leave home. I could see both side of the dilemma about stopping the party because I would have had the same worries as Laura. However, I would also be annoyed if I had gotten all ready to have some fun only to have it ruined by an unrelated event. In the story, I am guessing that the man’s death would be much like if someone died in a village close to my house, like Hemlock. I would not know them personally, but it would be close enough to be shocking.

20th Century Poetry
In “Snake” by D. H. Laurence, the speaker tells about a hot summer morning in Sicily. Apparently, his house has no indoor plumbing, so he comes brings his pitcher with him to gather some water from a trough in his backyard. However, he finds that a snake has beaten him to it and stands, waiting on the steps in the shade of a tree. As the snake is drinking, the speaker is musing about its color, which would indicate that it is poisonous. Even knowing this, he stays his hand because of fear of the snake, a want to talk to it, and a feeling of honor that it chose his trough in which to drink. After the snake finished drinking, he turned and entered the hole from whence it came. Now unfrozen from his reverie, the speaker puts down his pitcher and throws a log at the trough, which startled the snake. The speaker soon regrets dis-turbing the peace of the moment and wishes the snake would come back so he could atone for his pettiness.

The speaker personifies the snake as it was “drinking, as cattle do” (16), “came like a guest in quiet” (27), “looked around like a god” (45), and “seemed to me like a king, / Like a king in exile, uncrowned in the underworld” (68-9). He comments on the “earth-brown” (20) color of the snake and the stone texture of the trough, which makes it easier to visualize the scene. He also uses a bit of juxtaposition of how the snake was supposed to be venomous, but instead seemed innocent and peaceful. Furthermore, he remarks on how his education de-manded he kill the snake, while his inner nature wished only for peace, respect, and understanding. This is a bit odd as when one usually things of human nature, it is usually the education that brings peace and tempers human urges to destroy things. However, one could say that it is our higher thinking that makes us so destructive and that the speaker was tapping into the animal side of his being.

I chose this poem because I found Laurence’s description of a snake interesting. This poem also seems to be the one that touches the clos-est to human nature that I have read from the 20th century poems. My mother has always been afraid of snakes, but I respect them rather than fear them. I know what they are capable of doing and so avoid them, while mom starts screaming and breaks what could have previ-ously been a peaceful moment. Animal personification intrigues me, as when you look at domesticated animals, individuals tend to have dis-tinct personalities. My dogs, for example, are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Abby is hyperactive and eager to play while Hanna is le-thargic and I have never seen her play at all. Thus, I believe I could say the same for any other animal in the world. This, of course, leads me to wonder why I was born as a human and not some other animal. This idea leads me to the reason for my existence and the old question of “am I alone?”

Required Question
One obvious image that piqued my interest was in A Modest Proposal. The thought of a whole society turning to cannibalism to solve their problems is quite a profound image. I admit that I tend to hope that absurd things like this would happen just to see what would come of it. Of course, if I was one of the children to be eaten, this would be no laughing matter. It is just the idea of it that makes me wonder what it would be like. For example, children are told not to talk to strangers, but what if a stranger only wanted to help? Wouldn’t that put the child in danger?

Another concept that stuck in my mind was that of Iago. It got me to thinking about how heroes and villains really are not very different. This is obvious as this will by my fourth paper in this class mentioning it, so I forgive you if it has gotten a bit repetitive. I have been talking to a few friends about it too and they agree: heroes and villains are opposite sides of the same coin. Heroes are villains that get away with murder because its “justified” and villains are heroes that can do any-thing because they are not obliged to society. It reminds me that the government usually calls heroes “vigilantes” for a reason. Yeah, they may get the deed done, but they usually cause a lot of damage doing it. That is not to say that being brave or opportunistic is a bad thing, just not when it is at the cost of life.

The third image that made me think was in “The Poison Tree”. The ini-tial image is that when friends do you wrong, it is easier to forgive them than when it is a stranger with whom the grudge intensifies through lack of communication. This grudge grows until it is a want for them to die, as visualized in the final lines of the poem. Going beyond this, however, is the thought that when a friend does an unimaginable wrong and you stop talking to them the grudge grows all that much quicker because you are more likely to dwell on it. After it festers too long, no amount of communication will make it heal. Thus, this is the usual situation for the best protagonist/antagonist relationships in sto-ries. And this brings me full circle to Iago and the hero/villain theory, so I’ll leave it at that.

Reflection 9

Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest is a satire of the Victorian obsession with morality and earnestness. Jack pretends he has a brother called Earnest in order to protect his family in the country from any form of embarrassment on his behavior in the city, in which he calls himself by his “brother’s” name. Thus, he morally does the right thing, despite his lack of earnestness. His friend, later revealed as Jacks older brother, pretends to be Earnest in order to spend time with Cicely, which I see as morally wrong. The name of Earnest plays a big part of this satiric theme as both Gwendolyn and Cicely admire the qualities it suggests, which, ironically, neither man seems to possess. In conclusion, I believe the author is commenting on how being earnest does not mean one is morally right.

In Elizabeth Browning’s Sonnet 21, the speaker comments on how he or she must hear that they are loved every day in order to still their doubts that they are false. The speaker recognizes that the lover sees each utterance as the skipping of a broken record. The speaker also demands that his or her object of affection loves him or her truly. What the author may have been saying that much true love has been lost as people focus more on properness and moral standards.

Reflection 10

In the third page of The Dead by James Joyce, Gabriel remarks on how the poem he is prepared to recite may reflect poorly on himself in the eyes of his listeners as seen here: “He would only make himself ridiculous by quoting poetry to them which they could not understand. They would think that he was airing his superior education. He would fail with them just as he failed with the girl in the pantry. He had taken up a wrong tone. His whole speech was a mistake from first to last, an utter failure.” (2509) This is an example of prestige. Of how important it is to him how other people view him.

There is much evidence of this in my life as I strive to live up to my parent’s expectations and to look good in the eyes of my friends. I listen more than speak in conversations in order to make sure I make the right impression when I do speak. I help others so that I feel good in knowing they think me kind. When I am sad I try to hide it as I tend to also get angry and say things I later regret.

Test 2

I did not have a strong emotional reaction to William Blake’s poem, “The Human Ab-stract”, but I did find it intriguing. It reminds me of my own musings about the difference between a hero and a villain. The first stanza, “Pity would be no more, / If we did not make somebody Poor; / And Mercy no more could be, / If all were as happy as we;” (1-4) reminds me that we make our own villains. In echo, there would be no villains if every-one thought the same. Furthermore, most of the people we label as villains are the ones trying to correct this imbalance forcibly. Communism, while flawed, reflects this thought politically. The reason they are mostly labeled as “evil” or “bad” in America is because people naturally want to feel different and individual. In Japan this is not as much of an issue because they focus on the community more than the individual. That is not to say, however, that they do not experience pity or mercy because true equality is, currently at least, impossible and unfathomable.

Continuing this thought is the next stanza: “And mutual fear brings peace, / Till the self-ish loves increase; / Then Cruelty knits a snare, / And spreads his baits with care.” (5-8), the first line reflects the theories of Hobbes and Locke, in which governments exists to bring peace between individuals. Consequently, when the love of something superintends the fear created by the government, there is the possibility of war. This war could be something as small as a fan-war between movie fans or as large as World War II. The last two lines refers to how said wars blind the participants of the trap they have ensnared themselves in. People who have known each other for decades turn on each other and in-dulge in acts of cruelty. It doesn’t matter than neither side is good or evil, they are just “wrong” in the others eyes.

In the third stanza: “He sits down with holy fears, / And waters the ground with tears; / Then Humility takes its root / Underneath his foot” (9-12) the speaker is referring to Cru-elty and how the tears he causes to fall causes people to belittle themselves and hate the other side for their cruelty. However, this blinds them to the cruelty they cause to their “enemy” so it is a hypocritical humility (as mentioned in footnote 1 on page 1423 of Vol-ume B). This brings to mind that wars spread seeds of unfounded hate between individu-als that sour their view of others. For example, there is much strife between blacks and whites for the actions of their ancestors to this day.

Next, Blake writes: “Soon spreads the dismal shade / Of Mystery over his head; / And the Catterpiller and Fly / Feed on Mystery” (13-16). In my mind, this refers to how, once the war is started, the participants forget who started it or even why it started. I believe the fly represents corruption or disease, which grows as it feeds on the forgetfulness of peo-ple. As for the catterpiller, it represents human greed for disasters and distress of others. This is followed by: “And it bears the fruit of Deceit, / Ruddy and sweet to eat; / And the Raven his nest has made / In its thickest shade.” (17-20). This refers to the tendency of people to believe whatever they hear. They continue believing that the “other” people are bad because everyone else thinks so.

Finally, the poem ends with: “The Gods of earth and sea, / Sought thro’ Nature to find this Tree, / But their search was all in vain: / There grows one in the Human Brain.” (21-24). These last four lines refer to how only humanity has the capacity to so delude them-selves into fighting each other for nothing. Now I come back to the thought of how hero and villain is perceptive and not “real.” In my opinion, heros are criminals that get away with murder. We call them heros because the majority supports his or her ideals.

Gothic

I found a couple of the things that Shelly said about lighting intriguing. For instance, “Lightning is the fundamental force of the universe: The ether; the spirit.” brought to mind how lightning brings fire, light, and is usually a part of water-bearing storms. Later, the conversation between Shelly and the Lord Baron was also quite illuminating:

SHELLY. Lightning has power beyond our imaginations.
LORD BARON. But aren’t imaginations greater?

I believe that both are right as lightning has an enormous destructive force and the power to generate enough power to overload our “docile” electricity. However, our imagination is “greater” because we create many ideas that better the world as well as destroy it. Lightning may be powerful, but it is part of nature and is renewing in its destruction. Human ideas, however, can be very damaging to both the environment and its own creator.

Reflection 8

The ideal that imagination, emotion and freedom are the focal points of romanticism is, in my opinion, quite true. Take Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, for example. The monster sprouted from the emotion and imagination of the author during a single night, as told in the movie Gothic. There is not much reason to such tales of supernatural creatures and impossible creations. Sure, you could accept the concept that lightning can jumpstart the life of a human being, but logically it is quite impossible to create life from nothing. Thus zombies, another common theme of romantic stories, have a much more emotional than logical basis. Also in this period are women writers who express the need to be free from their male oppressors. They question the misconceptions and stereotypes they are forced to conform to. Thus the focus of the romantic era is also the focus of romanticism in general.

Reflection 7

In stanza one of “The Pains of Sleep” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the speaker lies down to sleep, praying humbly and silently as he does so. He also expresses that he embodies a juxtaposition of weakness and strength from within and without. In the second stanza, he looks back upon the night before when he had prayed loudly because of physical pain. The reason for his pain is a crowd of powerful shapes and thoughts that he had previously scorned. Powerless, he wished for revenge while still quite confused. He focuses this loathing on certain objects, which remain unknown to the reader. These feelings he has inspires fear and shame in both himself and perceived from “others”, although I’m not sure who these others are. Perhaps they are imaginations.

In the final stanza he jumps to the day after the second night in which the same nightmares plagued him. He believes that his hellish nightmares are the worst thing he has ever or will ever experience. He then recalls the third night in which he actually screamed aloud and wept after he had woken. He then believes that his woes were due to a sin he had committed. A sin that he loathed for doing, yet still desired. The last two lines describe his want to be loved and proclaiming those that chose to love him would be loved vigorously in return.

Reflection 6

The poem “To My Book” from Epigrams by Ben Jonson struck me as intriguing as it is rare to find the hopes of the author for the book in its first paragraph. The first two lines is the speaker (or in this case, the author himself) telling the book what its readers will be looking for. In some books you may find the author’s wish that you enjoy it, but very rarely do you ever hear an author admit that their book “…should’st be bold, licentious, full of gall, / Wormwood and sulpher, sharp and toothed withal” (3-4) let alone “become a petulant thing, hurl ink and wit / As madmen stones, not caring whom they hit.” (5-6) The book becomes a living thing in your mind, something that has a choice between being what it’s creator wants it to be and something else.

What really struck me though was line ten: “Made from the hazard of another’s shame—“ as it conveyed the author’s embarrassment in making his thoughts known to others. To my knowledge, many authors struggle with this concept as their work is a part of themselves. Sometimes it is a very private part hidden in metaphor and false images. Some fiction writers may strive to write their life story through more fanciful words in order to soften the blow of how common or repetitive it is. Finally, he ends with “He that departs with his own honesty / For vulgar praise, doth it too dearly buy.” (13-14) This is a bit confusing to me, but I assume that it means that many will finish reading his book will probably comment on the audacity of the author.

In this week’s set of readings, I found Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” the most interesting. When I first read the title, I thought it would be something like that of the Passionate Shepherd. A proposal to a lady in which he humbly admits that he has not much to offer or something of the sort. Therefore, it took me by surprise that it was instead a proposed solution to a common problem in impoverished Ireland. I couldn’t help but laugh by the time I got to the end of the fourth paragraph. The very idea of eating babies came as a surprise as I was expecting a more political answer to the poverty problem. The intriguing thought pulled me in and grabbed my attention for the rest of the “proposal”. I began to wonder what the world would be like if this had been put into action around the world. What if there was a world in which it was acceptable to eat burdensome infants? If modern-day humans came to this world, I am sure we would try to rectify it. It would not matter that doing so may just bring misery to the inhabitants as it is a horrifying concept to us.

Test 1

Category I – Option B
The monster is something that is present in every work of literature we make. Over the years, it has evolved and become more abstract: more of a concept than a physical thing. I believe the reason for this is that, in our gradual dominance over earth, we have all but eliminated the natural enemies that once plagued us. Without a common enemy to focus on, we turn inward, battling inner demons. The monster becomes more cunning, something intangible and often imperceptible. Thus, there is a perceptible change between Beowulf, Faerie Queene, Shakespeare’s Othello, and Holy Sonnet 9.

In Beowulf, the monster is obviously Grendal, his mother, and the dragon. They are physical creatures with an insatiable hunger that mere humans cannot reason with. They are also completely separate monsters with different reasons for fighting Beowulf. As described in the text, Grendal, “nursed a hard grievance. It harrowed him / to hear the din of the loud banquet / every day in the hall.” (87-9). The text further described the kinds of sounds being made, which give the impression that Grendal found not just the loudness of the noise offensive, but also the mention of god. He holds no personal grudge against Beowulf, as he was not there, but more against humanity as a whole. Grendal’s mother, however, had a personal grudge against Beowulf’s band of heros as shown in the following: “his mother / had sallied forth on a savage journey, / grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge.” (1276-8). Finally, the dragon was “moved into a wrath” (2222) by “a slave / fleeing the heavy hand of some master,” (2223 – 2224) so it was not a personal attack against Beowulf, but it was Beowulf’s duty as king to protect his people. However, they are all definitely monsters and leave no conceptual gray areas to dwell on. Grendal “dwelt for a time in misery among the banished monsters, / Cain’s clan, whom the Creator had outlawed / and condemned as outcast.” (104-6) Since Grendal is part of “Cain’s clan”, Grendal’s mother was a “monsterous hell-bride” in more than just character. Finally, the dragon is, of course a fire-breathing, hoarding, greedy, giant lizard with barely any human-like characteristics.

In Faerie Queene, the monsters do not pose much of a threat against humanity as a whole and are, instead, a series of obstacles Redcrosse has to overcome. They are cunning and intend to corrupt the honorable knight and his pure lady as much as they wish to destroy them. The first monster was “Halfe like a serpent horribly displaide, / but th’ other halfe did womans shape retain” (Canto 1, 124-5) and did not have a name. Instead she was linked to the Catholic Church as described in verse 177: “Her vomit full of bookes and papers was,” as are the other monsters within the book. She was the least deceiving of the monsters in the whole book (from what I’ve seen) as the Catholic Church is also manifested as a monk who persuades Morpheus, god of sleep, to corrupt Redcrosse with indecent dreams of his lady.

In Othello the monster is not a single person, although you could say that Iago is most likely to fit the monster concept. Othello, the “hero”, could also be considered the monster as he kills his own love. However, the true monster is the seed of jealousy that resides in every human being. This “green-eyed monster, which doth mock / The meat it feeds on.” cannot be killed physically and is a constant source of misfortune, sin, and wrongdoing. Thus, the true monster is never killed in this story.

In 17th century holy sonnet number 9, the speaker refers to the monster is that which is inside us: “Why should intent or reason, born in me, / Make sins, else equal, in me more heinous?” (5-6) Previously he mentioned the apple and snake seen in Genisis as things more worth the term monster than what humanity has become.

Category II – Option D
Sonnet 130 seems the most interesting of the sonnets you assigned. As I read the poem, I got the impression of a man looking through a mound of poetry in the hope of finding one that accurately describes the woman he loves. This coincides with verses 1-8 as he compares the appearance of his mistress to that commonly found in poetry describing women. As the poem continues, his tone becomes one of incredulity at the high bar poetry has forced women to conform to. Indeed, in verse 9 he adds, “I love to hear her speak”, which starts to infuse the thought that his mistress does not need perfect beauty for him to love her. Further, in verse 11 and, especially, verse 12 he mocks the thought that a woman must be otherworldly in order for him to love her. After searching through flowery words, he concludes, “And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare / As any she belied with false compare,” since he has not found what he was looking for. Additionally, the last two verses finish the transformation from comparison of his mistress to poetry to comparison of the love he has for his mistress to the fake love written of in flowery poetry.

Required Question
The text I had the strongest emotional reaction to was Sonnet 93 as it describes what I have long thought the three men that have fallen in love with me have felt. “So shall I live supposing thou art true, / Like a deceived husband; so love’s face / May still seem love to me, though altered new— / Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.“ (1-4) The speaker first uses metaphor to compare his woman’s faltering love to that of a cheating wife. At first, I deceived myself in believing that it was love I felt. I was inexperienced, confused, and eager to please and help others. I am still one to help for little gain, but I digress. Months passed by and I was still in love but I started to doubt myself. It was in my nature to seek time alone and even to disappear for days at a time. Unfortunately, the men I fell for were the clinging type and it worried me that I wasn’t feeling the same way they were.

Thus my uneasiness grew, although there wasn’t a tangible difference as portrayed in the next lines: “For there can live no hatred in thine eye; / Therefore in that I cannot know thy change. (5-6). I never hated them, but I did start to hate myself. I wanted to know what was so wrong with me that I could not show the same devotion as they did to me. After a while they started to suspect that I was having doubts: “In many’s looks and false heart’s history / Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles strange;” (7-8) I would suddenly have sour moods and push them away. However, I kept my feelings to myself and when they asked me what was wrong; I lied and told them naught.

“But heaven in thy creation did decree / That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell; / Whate’er thy thoughts or thy heart’s workings be, / Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.” (9 – 12) To this day, I still believe that they love me and that I have done them wrong. Many times I have thought of myself as a bane to man as shown in the last verse’s visuals: “How Eve’s apple doth thy beauty grow / If thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!”(13-14). It is always I that breaks up with them. There is also the visual of grass on the other side. They cannot be with me anymore and it takes them a long while for them to get over it. I am not saying that I am unique in this respect, but I do not know much about relationships nor had many friends growing up. Furthermore, I’m usually not one to talk about my feelings readily and I doubt if I have any true friends. Fortunately, I don’t mind it.

Reflection 5

The first definition for protagonist in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads, “the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story)” and the second: “a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event.” Thus Iago is, in my opinion, the true main character and protagonist in this play. Who says the leading role has to be one of a hero? Alternatively, if it must, who is to say what the true hero is? In many stories, the hero gets away with many things, including murder. His actions are justified by reasons or the hope that his actions will benefit all of humanity. Indeed, many the so-called “hero” would end up in prison if tried in court of law.

Furthermore, the justification of Iago’s actions relates to how much reasoning is needed to absolve him of being a “bad guy”. Yes, he does admit that, “Hell and night / Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.” (1.3.394-5) However, is he admitting that his plan is large or that it is evil? In my opinion, he believed that he was working for the greater good of the war as Othello’s choice in a lieutenant showed that he was corrupted. Indeed he states, “Why, there’s no remedy. ‘Tis the curse of service. / Preferment goes by letter and affection, / And not by old gradation, where each second / Stood heir to th’ first. Now sir, be judge yourself, / To love the Moor.” (1.1.37-41)

In my opinion, the modern film was morally debasing and uncouth in comparison to the actual play. For example, the music was horrible (although I may be slightly biased as I find rap music repulsive) and the acts committed were illegal, unlike those in the play. O and Desi were probably both underage as well as unwedded during the sex scene, unlike in the play where they were both of age and wedded. Near the end of the modern movie, O was sniffing cocaine while Othello had done no such thing. Hugo also got Mike, who was underage, drunk. This was also done in the play, but it was neither illegal nor frowned upon until Michael Cassio started fighting under its influence.

I also found the play to be more comedic than the modern movie as I was smiling more by the time we ended it (also hoping that we will see the rest of it in class today). The text, which was dry upon paper, came to life rather well in the film as the actors were more convincing and experienced. Although they were dressed and spoke for a different era, I believe the play related better to the adult world around us. Yes, the modern version had a more relatable context, but it had a much narrower audience.

Reflection 3 & 4

The monster is something is present in every work of literature we make. Over the years, it has evolved and become more abstract: more of a concept than a physical thing. I believe the reason for this is that, in our gradual dominance over the earth, we have all but eliminated the natural enemies that once plagued us. Without a common enemy to focus on, we turn inward, battling inner demons. The monster becomes more cunning, something intangible and often imperceptible. Thus, there is a perceptible change between Beowulf, the Faerie Queene, and Othello.

In Beowulf, the monster is obviously Grendal, his mother, and the dragon. They are physical creatures with an insatiable hunger that mere humans cannot reason with. They are completely separate monsters with different reasons for fighting Beowulf. However, they are all definitely monsters and leave no conceptual gray areas to dwell on. The destruction of the monsters is only a small part of the whole poem as most of it describes the amount of preparation Beowulf and his people have to undergo before they can even fight the monster.

Like Beowulf, the “monsters” in Faerie Queene are obviously black in contrast to the white of the hero. However, the monsters are cunning and intend to corrupt the pure knight and his pure lady as much as they do destroy. Each physical monster is killed, but the concept behind the monster (the Catholic Church) is not. Thus, the “monster” lives on.

Finally, the monster in Othello is not a single person, although you could say that Iago is most likely to fit the monster concept. Othello, the hero, could also be considered the monster as he kills his own love because of the jealousy fostered by Iago. In fact, this story displays the monster that resides in every one of us. You cannot kill this monster, as it is a constant source of misfortune, sin, and wrongdoing. Thus the monster is never killed in this story. Because of this, I consider this type of monster the most serious and most intimidating of them all. To fight the monster you must admit the wrongness present in yourself and step out of yourself (in mind only, of course) to see the big picture.

Reflection 2

Sonnet 130 seems the most interesting of the sonnets you assigned. As I read the poem, I got the impression of a man looking through a mound of poetry in the hope of finding one that accurately describes the woman he loves. This coincides with verses 1-8 as he compares the appearance of his mistress to that commonly found in poetry describing women. As the poem continues, his tone becomes one of incredulity at the high bar poetry has forced women to conform to. Indeed, in verse 9 he adds, “I love to hear her speak”, which starts to infuse the thought that his mistress does not need perfect beauty for him to love her. Further, in verse 11 and, especially, in verse 12 as he mocks the thought that a woman must be otherworldly in order for him to love her. After searching through flowery words, he concludes that his love must be rare, since he has not found what he was looking for. Additionally, the last two verses finish the transformation from comparison of his mistress to poetry to comparison of the love he has for his mistress to the fake love written of in flowery poetry.

I found this intriguing because this concept continues on today with the advent of photoshoped images, weight-loss diets, and fast-working complexion enhancers. Many young girls have made themselves ill and even died because they were chasing after a false beauty they could never attain. The rare love has become even rarer because there are now more believable descriptions of the perfect woman. The most relied upon sense is sight, so the most powerful medium is images: be they still or moving. Since images can now be faked just as easily as text, honest love has been buried by the “Say what she wants to hear.” mentality.

What caught my attention the most last Wednesday was that others dislike driving as much as I do, if not more. I still do not have my driver’s license since I would rather carpool, saving money, than drive myself somewhere. Compounding my dislike of driving is the routine I have fallen into as I consistently avoid driving. It would take me ten or more minutes after I got in the car to realize that I “wanted” to drive today. Further complicating matters, my permit expired a few months ago and it will more than likely be embarrassing to go into the secretary of states office and get a new one. Thus, it has become difficult to get a permit in order to practice driving, let alone find the opportunity to drive. Unfortunately, my lack of a license means that I cannot move out of the house by myself as I live out in the country. This also means that job opportunities are limited and the possibility of traveling outside of the state, let alone America, rather impossible.

Reflection 1

The author of Beowulf mentions many of the values of an epic Anglo-Saxon story. The building of Hrothgar’s great hall, Heorot, is but one example of the generosity displayed by the Danes, Geats, and Swedes throughout the story within and between their peoples. “it would be his throne-room and there he would dispense / his God-given goods to young and old— / but not the common land or peoples’ lives.” (71 – 3) Of course, a promise does not guarantee his generosity, so the poet further explained: “Nor did he renege, but dole out rings / and torques at the table.” (80 – 2) An example of generosity between the Danes and Swedes could perhaps be “…a daughter, I have heard, who was Onela’s queen, / a balm in the bed to the battle-scarred Swede.” (62 – 3) The reasoning behind this is that it has been common throughout history for two great houses to arrange a marriage in order to keep peace and instill kinship.

Bravery is also a heavily used value in Beowulf as the hero describes his mindset as thus: “It is always better / to avenge dear ones than to indulge in mourning, / for every one of us, living in this world / means waiting for our end. Let whoever can / win glory before death. When a warrior is gone, / that will be his best and only bulwark.” (1384 – 9) In other words, he would rather die fighting in vengeance than an old man’s death morning those he lost. This did not mean he did not fear, but that he could overcome his fear to defend his kin. “No easy bargain / would be made in that place by any man. / The veteran king sat down on the cliff-top. / He wished good luck to the Geats who had shared / his hearth and his gold. He was sad at heart, / unsettled yet ready, sensing his death. / His fate hovered near, unknowable but certain.” (2415 – 21)

The death of Beowulf served as an epic sacrifice, as portrayed in Wiglaf’s thoughts. “It was hard then on the young hero, / having to watch the one he held so dear / there on the ground, going through / his death agony. The dragon from underearth, / his nightmarish destroyer, lay destroyed as well, / utterly without life.” (2821 – 6) This sacrifice also provides wealth for the Geats, as mentioned in the following: “The treasure had been won, / bought and paid for by Beowulf’s death.” (2843 – 4) Furthermore, the wealth is much needed, as there is no great hero to take up the mantle of Beowulf. Hence, the sacrifice has value and meaning.

Concepts

Cardinal Directions as Main Elements

Direction	Element	Color	Biome
East	Air	Yellow	Steppe
South	Fire	Red	Desert
West	Water	Blue	Marine
North	Earth	Green	Forest
Center	Spirit	Purple	Civilization

Combinations
Southeast = Savanna
Southwest = Rainforest
Northwest = Swamp
Northeast = Tundra

Places

Atlantis -Situated at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Atlantis is the capital of the Aquarian people. At this current age, however, the Atlantic Sea is much smaller than it was originally and few Aquarians actually live there. Many have found new homes in the Pacific Ocean.

Mauna Loa - a very large, active volcano where Hawaii once was. Draconic people reside here as well as in many of the active volcanoes found in the ring of fire.

Haven - a city orbiting Earth, Haven is home to a group of humans who left to start a new life above Earth a century after the Cleansing. This human relic is now mostly devoid of life as other worlds were colonized.

Everest - The tallest mountain in the world is now much taller. The avian-human population mostly lives here.

The Commons - In the center of the unified landmass lies a group of mini-cities in which all races converge to instill peace and harmony.

The Underground - a large series of tunnels that many different intelligent beings use to get away from the light of day

Wastelands - Now nuked land that is now a vast desert, only races hardy enough to survive live here. The most notable are the lizard people of the desert.

Races/Species

Humans
Most of the unchanged humans live in Japan. Some have developed mental powers (ESP), but they otherwise look the same as pre-cleansing. There are now few racial discrepancies between humans and all that live in Japan and Haven are of Asian descent somewhere down the line and speak Japanese. No mutated humans exist in Japan because they had long ago found a cure to undesired mutations.

Mutants
Those who cannot endure the sunlight retreated to The Underground with the rest of the light-sensitive beings. Most just look odd and disfigured, but some were lucky and the mutations improved their looks instead. All mutant DNA is constantly changing, but at different rates depending on age, metabolism, environment, and health. Scientists all over the world had secret projects starting from the 20th century until the day of cleansing. All of the experiments now are in Japan where there is advanced enough technology to mesh human DNA with that of animals.

Halfling
A stable mutation that had been occurring pre-Cleansing, all Halflings are half the normal height of humans. Most live in tunnels close to the surface and some live in The Commons. Most Halflings are afraid of heights and falling. Some humans mistakenly call them Hobbits.

Ogre
Basically humans that suffered the “hulk” mutation, Ogres are slow not just physically, but mentally as well. Like the Halflings this mutation is very stable, much like their mountain-like resistance to being moved. They also don’t seem to know about good hygiene either since you can smell one from miles away.

Orc
Like Ogres, Orcs suffer the “hulk” mutation. Unlike the Ogres, however, they are intelligent enough to bathe every now and then. They see Ogres as their slower cousins and take great pains to keep them out of trouble.

Hybrids
Prior to the cleansing, scientists had been working on creating animal/human hybrids. The hybrids that survived were, obviously, sexually compatible with humans and other hybrids. Otherwise they would have died out long ago. The successful hybrids include avian, reptilian, lycan, feline, and marine.

Elves
To date there are only five mutated elves. Only one of the five lives among the pure elves, as they are ashamed of their distorted appearances. Like human mutants, their DNA is constantly changing. However, the rate of change is much slower and they have a higher rate of gaining abilities.

Animals
It is quite rare to find a pre-cleansing animal so each one that is found is cherished and prized highly.

Critique Paper 2: The Culture War

When one thinks of politics, the words Democrat and Republican are usually the first things to come to mind. They symbolize the unique division of ideals in America that is found no where else. However, is our nation as divided as it seems?

In 2002, Lewis Bolce wrote an essay titled “Our Secular Democratic Party” in which he argues that the Democratic Party has become increasingly non-religious, making the Republican Party traditionalist by default. Thus he pits Orthodox religious ideals against Progressive reason and science. His conservative/liberal spectrum puts conservative Evangelicals against liberal Seculars. He also states that, as far as interest groups go, the American Way is the antagonist of the Christian Coalition. Supporting this, he states that the “religious gap is bigger than any other gap.”

However, journalists focus on the gap between religions instead of the gap between that of the religious and non religious. One reason for this may be that they take secularism for granted because they are more likely to be Democratic and secular themselves. It may also be that journalists and editors focus on the Christian threat to Democracy, stating that the wall of separation is “endangered” and the church is too powerful. In later years, non believers were “shunned” if their beliefs became known. However, the amount of seculars has risen to the point where this fear of being shunned has begun to dissipate.

According to Bolce, The Washington Post and The New York Times affect the rest of the media. Out of the articles written by these two newspapers, six hundred eighty-two articles are written about Evangelical vs. Fundamentalist issues while only forty-three articles are written about seculars. Because of these articles about inter-religious issues, media ignores tolerance and focuses on over exaggerating religious scandals. There is also no TV coverage on secular leanings in the 1990’s, so people who watch the news are more likely to vote based on views against Fundamentalists.

Two years later, in 2004, Morris P. Fiorina wrote an essay titled “What Culture Wars?” opposing the existence of culture wars. He argues that journalists embrace the “culture war” mentality because “Disagreement, division, polarization, battles, and war make good copy. Agreement, consensus, moderation, compromise, and peace do not.” In every election, journalists focus on a map sporting red and blue states. Supposedly this shows that the “culture war” exists. It also shows that conservatives live midland while seculars live on the coast and in the north. However, the United States of America is actually purple with republicans and democrats distributed almost equally among states.

Fiorina also found research in “Publicly available databases” that had evidence to suggest that the culture war to be something “between simple exaggeration and sheer nonsense.” Most of [[the]] people in the three “divisions”, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, agree that compromise is in order. He also argues that culture war clashes are between a few extreme “elites”, leaving out most of the public. As to the division between parties, he states that it is “the choices [that] are polarized, not positions”. In other words, the issues have two definite answers and thus two definite choices, but the two parties are not set on one answer as a position.

Even though Bolce wrote thirteen pages worth of material, much of it was repetitive. However, I did not find any glaring contradictions in his arguments. Instead there was some missing information. As I stated in my first paragraph, Lewis Bolce labeled Democrats secular and Republicans “traditionalist”. The second of the two is not something new since Republicans have always been known for its conservative, and therefore traditionalist, leanings. However, not all Democrats are seculars, just as not all Republicans are Evangelical Christians. Also, most of the statistics Bolce quoted concerned people in congress who are mostly white, extremist, and belong to an older generation. Thus most of the population, in particular the moderates and youth, are excluded from his data. Consequently, the nation is not as “divided” as Bolce implies.

Bolce also argued that journalists are more focused on inter-religion scandals than the "rivalry" between religious and secular. However, there is a statistically greater probability that there will be a conflict between religions than there is of a conflict between religious and secular. There are many different religions, all with different points of views. For example, lets say we have a Catholic (C), an Evangelical (E), a Methodist (M), a Protestant (P), a Lutheran (L), and a secular (S) in the same room. The possible combinations for a inter-religious conflict is: CE, CM, CP, CL, EM, EP, EL, MP, ML, and PL; while the possible combinations for a secular versus religion conflict is CS, ES, MS, PS, and LS. For every 5 possible religious versus secular conflicts, there are 9 possible inter-religious conflicts. In other words, there are almost twice the amount of chances for an inter-religious conflict than there is a secular versus religious conflict.

I found the influence of The Washington Post and The New York Times on other media interesting as I do not have enough knowledge to debunk this argument entirely. However, I believe that average citizens mostly concern themselves with local matters, so the national and global matters they do hear about are usually negative. The reason for this is that as long as it looks like the rest of the world is doing fine, they do not pay attention to it, but as soon as something goes wrong it gets their attention. This negative-dwelling behavior comes from survival tactics deeply embedded into the human psyche. When in a state of nature this was needed in order to survive and, even though we are no longer in this state, it has been passed on in our genetics to think this way.

On this note, Morris Fiorinna is partially right in saying that it is the negative articles that drive the newspaper. Newspapers have become slightly desperate with the emergence of web blogs and television. Networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace also work to provide news as government officials turn to them to spread the word on what they're up to before newspapers get to it. Many people also turn to the humorous rants of [[I’m assuming you mean Jon Stewart, which his Daily Show thingy.]] Don Stewart and Stephan Colbert instead of reading the dry reports provided in print.

I found no fault with Fiorina's red/blue state argument as what he said has statistical proof to back it up. When looking at the "purple" map, one can see large red areas. However, those areas are sparsely populated and have the same weight as a smaller area. Since the coastal and northern areas are supposed to be largely democratic, it is surprising to see that the northern states are as "divided" as any other when it comes to voting. Thus it comes to no surprise that "democratic" states are voting for republican leaders and vice versa. Therefore, the nation is much more moderate and supports compromise rather than conflict.

Something I found interesting was how boldly Fiorina dismissed the thought of culture wars existing. The continuation of a two party democracy has instilled in America's citizens that there is a division between them. Many Americans barely know what each party stand for, let alone what side to take, so many vote for the candidate they feel comfortable with. During election times the division seems black and white, or red and blue as the case may be. However, when there is not an election, most people go through their lives ignoring political ideologies. Some don't even know what "side" they are on in the first place.

As you may have concluded from my analysis, I found Fiorinna's arguments more compelling than Bolce's. This may have been colored slightly by my original dislike for politics in general, but I believe that my arguments are sound. From the two essays and this class I have learned much about politics and hope that this information will help me as I begin to find my own path in this world.

Critique Paper 1: Affirmative Action

According to Paul Kivel in his essay “Affirmative Action Works”, affirmative action is essential to creating an equal environment for “people of color” (such as African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics). He starts out arguing that people against affirmative action are ignoring some of its qualities (such as economics and children) and only focusing on the affects it has on people of color. After five paragraphs on the above topic, he brings up the subject of racism and how it is still at large in society today. He also comments on segregated areas and a federal law passed to publicize job opportunities. This leads to his discussion on preferential treatment given to colored people by affirmative action and how it is needed to balance out preferential treatment given to white men by society.

In contrast, Ward Connerly says (in his essay “One Nation, Indivisible”) that affirmative action leaves minorities helpless to defend for themselves. According to him, affirmative action “diminish[es] the value of the individual in ways too numerous to mention.” He also says that it caused a “lack of confidence in young blacks.” He attributes this to “individuals identify[ing] with their group” more than as individuals and “preferences based on race and ethnicity diminish[ing] the value of the individual.” Throughout his essay he quotes the Declaration of Independence and, in particular, the famous quote “all men are created equal”.

In Kivel’s second paragraph he starts attacking the opposing stance, stating that they are “not challenging traditional forms of preference and discrimination that favor the rich, the educated, white people and men.” This is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy as he is attacking the motives of the people against affirmative action instead of the position itself. Furthermore, the title and main premise of this article is that “Affirmative Action Works”, yet in the third paragraph he states that it has “led to a huge over-representation of white people, men and people of middle, upper middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities, in well-paid jobs, and in the professions.” This is a special pleading fallacy as he is excusing policies made for colored people from the negative affects seen with “white man” policies. So, in fact, he is doing what he earlier accused the opposition of doing.

In his sixth paragraph Kivel states a report where a white person and a black person were recorded by ABC through one day of his life. After this incident he concluded that, generally, blacks are given fewer opportunities than whites. However, this is an example of a composition fallacy as he is attributing how one man is treated in one day to the treatment of all men of a certain ethnicity all the time. However, the fact that his article (as well as Ward’s) is out of date hinders how well I can perceive his point of view.

Later on he discusses how racism prevents “people of color” from getting good jobs, but then says that it’s merely “unfortunate” that white males now loose jobs because of racial preferences. This in itself is racist as all people should be considered equal, not based on the color of their skin.

In contrast to Kivel, Ward Connerly kept his essay short. He also used the words of important people and documents from the past to support his philosophical approach to affirmative action. In my opinion he had a calmer tone to his essay than Kivel did, leading to a focused and well-organized essay. Each point lead smoothly to the next with only a couple of spots that may offend people. The headings he used also helped to break up the monotony and made the main point of each clear.

That is not to say that he never made a mistake. At one point he called the opposition “…politically correct big corporations, politicians, the media, and race advocates, who hid behind the moral fig leaves of “diversity” and “inclusion,”…”, which, although mild in comparison to Kivel’s assumptions, still is a stereotype to be avoided. It assumes that all big corporations, politicians, so on are as shallow as he says. Granted, some may be, but not all. Ward continues to use “politically correct” through the rest of the section, but doesn’t focus on it for long. Near the end of the essay he says, “Does it ever occur to them…” which leads into a more condescending tone for the rest of the paragraph. He does have a point, however. Many people with a set viewpoint rarely take the time to consider the views of others, especially those that are against them.

Before reading both essays I didn’t have a strong opinion one way or another. I had a slight leaning towards Ward’s point of view, but I did not let it cloud my logical reasoning. After looking through both essays from a logical standpoint, I have begun to see how affirmative action as a whole is an egregious use of the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. Society, for the most part, commits a wrong by giving whites preferential treatment. Affirmative action commits the same wrong by giving everyone else preferential treatment and assuming that this wrong will counteract the other. However, both wrongs combined make an even larger wrong on society as a whole.

I admit that I didn’t get all the way through Kivel’s essay. Half-way through it I was already burnt out on his circular reasoning that defended a position that supposedly didn’t need defending. He was also striking out against his opposition in a more personal manner than necessary and constantly contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Because of this, I was more inclined towards Ward’s standpoint, although still much more neutral on the subject than either writer.

My Political Ideology

I first took the political compass test, which suggested I was left libertarian (although only slightly leftward leaning). I found many of the questions lacking in neutrality and liable to lead others towards certain answers with their inflections upon the morality of the opposing choice. I looked to the other quiz for a second opinion and it found that I had libertarian leanings as well. It also marked me as a centrist, but I attribute that to my uncertainty on a couple of answers. However, I was more satisfied after it since the questions were properly neutral.

Upon considering the results and the descriptions provided for others, I have come to the conclusion that I am definitely libertarian when it comes to most matters, but not extremely so. The centrist aspect shown in the second quiz may be a bit inaccurate, but it actually represents my belief in balance. The trouble is that balance in our government has become muddled and forgotten in our ignorance and the media's influence.

In explanation, I believe that the elderly should not receive government money, as they should have learned to plan for their own future. Since there is a possibility of people with terrible luck, I also believe that those that cannot (not will not) provide for themselves should get just enough to survive and hopefully get back on their feet. People that use the loopholes in our laws for free money are in violation of this balance. What is given must be earned, be the currency money, respect, information, or material objects.

As we are an individualist country, I believe that each person should strive to balance his or her life as completely as possible. Communism makes everyone equal, but it is not necessarily balanced since those with talent do not receive as much as they deserve and those that do nothing receive more than they have earned. On the other hand, a society where only the strong survive is one with many conflicts. Respect for the community and others is lost and group decisions are near impossible.

I acknowledge the need for the two separate parties as they create the flexibility needed to, with a properly informed populace, overcome anything life throws at us as a nation. However, I don't really take sides when it comes to political parties because, at this point, I don't trust either of them. I strongly believe that our political system is corrupted, as is the church. They've forgotten what they stand for and use their power for their own petty wants, not the needs of others.

The powerful are role models for the weak and it is my belief that as you grow stronger you should shift your focus from yourself to others. You are not truly powerful until others recognize you as such. When you abuse that power, you gain mistrust and fear. The weak pull away in a search for a better leader and a kinder power, leaving you powerless over them.

Yes, money makes you powerful, but does that truly bring happiness? It is my belief that the purest form of happiness comes from helping others. Thus I feel worse when someone else is harmed than when I am harmed the same way. This is especially so when I am the one causing the other pain. I feel my own pain, I respect it and I may bemoan it, but it quickly passes. What lingers is guilt for the pain of others.