Et in Arcadia Ego

Aye, I will make naught but snow and cold wind of the pacific parts and mighty hosts.

Verily, I say, here in Utopia, I am suzerain

Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta.

Not even the peace of Arcadia, can stand against me.

The prosperity of the fields are grayed 

The graze of the cattle is ceased

The shepherds surrender to me, and the fields, cold and white and hard, are left untended.

Aye, an icey wasteland is this pastoral fantasy

Verily I say, here in Arcadia, I am suzerain

Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta.

Not even the armies of Empires, can stand against me.

The oil of the engines is frozen

The troops devour the flesh of their horses

The very fiery passion that propelled them to make bloody steel in an odd land, is an extinguished flame

Aye, a martial joke is this esteemed company of conquerors.

Verily I say, here in Campus Martius, I am suzerain.

Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta.

Not even the drive for freedom, can stand against me.

The fields bear nothing to reap

The colony perishes

The new world that was to allow men to eat the prosperous fruits of their labors, has eaten men alive.

Aye, a mere retrograde is this land of freedom

Verily I say, here in Columbia, I am suzerain

Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta

Aye, but a small town shall bear forth a Divine Child, and He will welcome home the cold, lost, enslaved sheep with the panpipes of truth to the warm shade of the tree of life

Verily I say, there in the Heavens, He is King

Personally, He will die that my cold death will lose it's power over His People

He is Christ God, and to His reign there shall be no end.

Et in Arcadia Ego.

Aye, I will make naught but snow and cold wind of the pacific parts and mighty hosts.

Verily, I say, here in Utopia, I am suzerain

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta.

Not even the peace of Arcadia, can stand against me.

The prosperity of the fields are grayed 

The graze of the cattle is ceased

The shepherds surrender to me, and the fields, cold and white and hard, are left untended.

Aye, an icey wasteland is this pastoral fantasy

Verily I say, here in Arcadia, I am suzerain

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta.

Not even the armies of Empires, can stand against me.

The oil of the engines is frozen

The troops devour the flesh of their horses

The very fiery passion that propelled them to make bloody steel in an odd land, is an extinguished flame

Aye, a martial joke is this esteemed company of conquerors.

Verily I say, here in Campus Martius, I am suzerain.

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta.

Not even the drive for freedom, can stand against me.

The fields bear nothing to reap

The colony perishes

The new world that was to allow men to eat the prosperous fruits of their labors, has eaten men alive.

Aye, a mere retrograde is this land of freedom

Verily I say, here in Liberia, I am suzerain

I am winter, and while I'm here, all is Anareta

Aye, but a small town shall bear forth a Divine Child, and He will welcome home the cold, lost sheep.

Verily I say, there in the Heavens, He is King

He is Christ God, and He will destroy the power of cold death over his people.

The Initial Public Reception of J.D. Salinger's Novel "Catcher in the Rye"

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000005548 StartFragment:0000002460 EndFragment:0000005512

Initial Reaction:

Postive: 

It would be hard for anyone to deny the fact that the public's reaction to J.D. Salinger's novel was one of joy. Nash K. of The New York Times declared that it was "an unusually brilliant novel." One of the elements that make the novel so appealing is it's amazing description of the American teenager, as well as it's detailed description of New York in the 1950s. Paul Engle of the Chicago Tribune noted that the novel is “emotional without being sentimental, dramatic without being melodramatic, and honest without being simply obscene. According to Engle, it described an adolescent, in an emotional sense, and unlike most novels about adolescents did not use childish thoughts or common thoughts on youth and growing up. It is “engaging and believable, full of right observations and sharp insight, and a wonderful sort of grasp of how a boy can create his own world of fantasy and live forms.”

            Negative:

Despite widespread positive reception, the novel did indeed receive harsh criticism from certain sources on the basis that it was very obscene in it’s description of adolescent sexuality. It was banned from schools, libraries and bookstores, and such is true even today in certain communities. Due to it’s rejection, the novel has been thrown into the center of the debate of  the definition of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights.

Current Reaction:

Today, the sentiment regarding the novel is generally positive. Because of it’s accurate description of even the American teenage experience, it is still used in schools as an educational tool. The fact that the novel’s main character, Holden Caulfield, is compared to such 19^th century characters as Huck Finn, and even Hamlet, should demonstrate it it’s amazing ability to describe themes central to the human emotional complex. President George H. W. Bush described the novel as a “marvelous book,” and it is among those books that inspire him. This should serve as clear evidence of the fact that the novel with it’s themes of individualism and creativity and the denunciation of rigid demands for conformity and quick rejection of one’s fellow man, will always serve as a inspirational and interesting piece of literature.

My hunting hat.

The thing that I think distinguishes me very well is my behavior in the presence of my friend Elijah Price. Elijah and I met last year on the day of the carnival, the first time that I remember seeing him. We spoke for a while at a the table in Billy Goats with some other friends of mine, and he kept mentioning a girl he wanted to take to homecoming, and I thought that when he said that he didn't have the courage to ask her it was kind of cute. After the carnival, I drove Elijah home, and we became acquainted. I said hi to him often when I saw him, but he was not a truly good friend of mine until the middle of winter of my freshman year, when I drove him home often. He was indeed a good friend of mine by this time, but certainly not a bestfriend. We continued to talk, but this year, our relationship became very strong. I have PE with him, and we talk a lot during that time. As well, I'm often with him and another friend during 9th period. One thing must be said for Elijah and I's friendship that characterizes it, and that is Elijah's humor and the presence of inside jokes. Like me, Elijah has a habit of saying things so amazingly unwonted that one may ignore his saying it. Those things I will not mention, but the insides can receive some mention. This Friday, we sat in the piano room with three other friends, including Sarai, and after Elijah played a theme on the piano, my friend Will called it a "raw beat". "Raw beat" rhymes with "raw meat", something important in one of our inside jokes. This caused Elijah and I to burst with laughter. The room might've wondered what we were laughing at, and we did explain it to them. Saturday, Bryce, Anthony, Elijah and I went iceskating alongside a horde of freshmen. Elijah was very angry at the amount of freshmen, and while we were in The Bean taking photos, he began to jump whenever he saw a camera flash in his refusal to appear in any of the photos of the event. Anthony and I staggered about with laughter, to the point that I had tears streaming down my face. Elijah's very behavior that night caused me to laugh hysterically; he hated being around these ninth graders, and there were issues even getting him into the food eateries that they were in. I had a great night with Elijah. He is someone that I am happy to have met.

My good friend.

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000003542 StartFragment:0000002294 EndFragment:0000003506

The class mate that I must say I’m most thankful for is Kionis Watts. I will start by saying that she sits next to me, and so I have a favorable predisposition towards her because she’s closest me, and therefore has the greatest opportunity to impress me. Me and Kionis met last year during my lunch period. She was friends with a girl that I didn’t really talk to often, Isley, and a boy that I hadn’t ever spoken to, Julian. We began to speak more often, and we became good friends by last spring. Our relationship has stayed the same, and she is like an older sister to me. She makes class more fun because she’s very sociable, and she’s always there to work with during a group assignment. Without Kionis, my American Literature class would be much different. Group work would be less fun, and I wouldn’t have someone to have deep conversations with besides Shaponi. I do hope that she stays in my class, and more importantly, in my life, because she’s there to talk to me during 9^th period, as well as American Literature. Friends are something that ought to be cared for like a precious and fruitful garden, and Kionis is indeed one of my best friends.

Open Letter to the author of Dinosauria We.

Dear Mr. Bukowski:

I must say that this poem is part of that type of literature that irks me. To me, it is several things. It is fear of progress, which ultimately runs contrary to human nature. It is hypocrisy; the poem speaks of the excess of the Cold War, but forgets how excessive the generation before yours perceived yours. Finally, you select the bad part of out society and plays them out to be more influential than they are. The poem makes the bold statement “As the supermarket bagboy holds a college degree.” What kind of Marxism is that! Inasmuch as you, Mr. Bukowski, are denouncing such a phenomenon, if you had your way, the standards for vocation would never rise. And it is that fear of progress that annoys me so. Also, you speaks of the dangers of nuclear war. I must say that nuclear war is indeed very dangerous, but is the fact that it is so dangerous that will likely never occur. No human being would start a war that would surely kill him. Also, your generation saw the Second World War, perhaps the First. Finally, you fail to mention entities such as Elvis Presley and all those people that made American society full of entertainment. You fail to mention Ronald Reagan, and the space race and so and so forth. You simply focuses on the bad parts of American society. And for those three reasons, your poem irks me.

John Proctor: Hero or Stooge?

In my opinion, John Proctor is both a hero and a stooge. John Proctor is indeed an adulterous man. This is revealed in the beginning of the book. Here, in a conversation with Abigail, he tells her that he has no interest in her whatsoever. This is in response to her complaints that he is unfaithful to her, even though he certainly loves her. Despite the fact that Proctor is an adulterer, he does seem to have seem to have some sort of moral recognition. During the play, he speaks to Elizabeth Proctor, his wife, over his transgressions. Proctor is full of guilt over his adultery, but Elizabeth has no knowledge of his transgression, and she informs him of such, to his amazement. By the time that Act IV arrives, Proctor has confessed his sin of adultery. In the Puritan point of view, he is vindicated. His willingness to confess his violation of the Ten Commandments and the moral laws of the society are important, but they do little for his lot. The fact that he committed adultery soon serves to doom him, as Abigail who uses every advantage possible to manipulate Puritan society to her favor. Proctor’s confession severs his bonds with her, and this will likely incur her anger. And so that sense, Proctor is a stooge; he made a foolish error at a terrible time to do so, that time being the time of moral purges in the Puritan community.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

Well, in this blog, as in all others written by hand, I will try my best to state my thoughts on feelings on this issue, and not to give in to differing opinions based upon their popularity. I may not be the most verbally cohesive, but typing is done in private, and no pressure rests upon my shoulders. Reverend Edward's speech made a lot of sense to me. The context of it, which was the fact that we was a Puritan, and that Puritans were known for fiery intolerance, is something that I'm going to view as irrelevant in my judgement of his sermon. My first part of this blog will be composed of the reasons for my acceptance of the legitimacy of his speech, and my second will be the consequences of the ignorance of his speech.

Reverend Edward's speech reminded the members of his society of the importance of revering God. Irrelevant of any government recognition of a religion or control of a church, Edwards is encouraging a Christian Society. Personally, I see the United States as an ideal Christian Nation. Many Secular Humanist negate the statement that I and many, especially right-wing, politicians make on the issue of religion in this Republic. The first statement they make is, assuming they're naive on the issue, is that this country allows Freedom of Religion. This statement, considering the issue, should be taken as no more than a statement. Freedom of Religion is a philosophy that, if anything, is heavily backed by the New Testament. Many others make the statement that the First Amendment of U.S. Bill of Rights declares that Congress shall make no laws recognizing the establishment of a religion, nor will it establish a state Church. Secular humanists simply do not know the Christian, not enlightenment, roots of this Amendment. It is from the Holy Bible that we have the statement made by Christ "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21). Although it does state that the state has ownership over certain things, others belong to God. If there was such things the "Church of the United States," headed by the government, Caesar, the state, would be in possession of what is God's, the Church. The purpose of this amendment is to protect religion from the government, not vice-versa. The Church is to be led by clergymen, and they are to focus solely on leading the Christian People, not on statecraft. As far as the recognition of a religion, this can, in technical terms, only extend to the declaration of a state religion. And in this sense, the Church, which is the Bride of Christ, would be relying on a source other than itself for support. This seems very inconsistent with Christian doctrine; to support a religion, a government must tax those that perhaps do not adhere to it. It was Benjamin Franklin who made the claim that the Church should not need state support, and it was George Washington who made the claim that faith needn't be pointed in a political direction. Also, a state religion demands a claim to act in the way of that religion. A nation with a state religion of Christianity therefore seems to claim that they are God's favored country. However, the Bible makes the statement that Christ's Kingdom is not of this earth. Ultimately, if the Church is not controlled by government, it cannot become corrupt, because it will only be able to focus on it's task of leading Christians to salvation, and running a country will not be a part of it's agenda. This is not to say, however, that a government should not be religious. I simply mean to say that they should not rule a country and a Church at the same time. In accordance with Christian Principle, a politician may not control the Church, however, he may look up to the Church, as an adherent (as opposed to looking at the Church, as though he were equal). He should encourage his people to support the Church, and he may do so himself by his own means.  The only non-counterable statement that Secular Humanists used in defense of their position is the statement is the Treaty of Tripoli, in which America's identity as a Christian Nation is denied. However, this treaty was for the Ottoman Turks, a Mahometan nation that often, do to it's religious zeal, faced crusades by Christian Nations. It's possible that Washington did not want the Turks to feel crusaded upon. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers of the Republic not to create a government-enforced religion, but to indeed preserve a religious society. This is summarized by the statement made by John Adams that

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” At the time of this country's inception, the Christian Faith was very important. The colonists claimed that they had no king but Christ the King. The first words of the Treaty of Paris is declared int he name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. All of these religious references do nothing but point to the religious sentiments of the Founding Fathers. George Washington might not've wanted the government to establish a religion, but he certainly believed that "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." Although the Founding Fathers may have been religious, their religious intentions for this nation must be taken into account. Another statement made by him states that it is his desire that "What American students would learn above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." The former statement is a clear statement in support of religious inspiration of government policy. Although many secularists negate this statement, claiming that it has been twisted in favor of religious bias, George Washington seems to be in favor of the Christian Faith, President Washington's private prayer journal displays a profound belief in  Christ. It is possible that secularists have simply and blatantly negated this claim. George Washington's remarks and actions were similar to those of President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was abhorrent of many mainstream Christian principles, but did ultimately see parts of the Bible as true. His statements declaring the existence of "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence are indeed typical Deist practices, and he was influenced by Deist philosophy. However, these statements are often used by Christian philosophers, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Roman Catholic, and Francis Hutcheson, a Presbytarian. Thomas Jefferson supported Congressional Church services, seeing religion as necessary in Republican government. He also supported the evangelization of the aborigines on the western frontier. Thomas Jefferson, as well all of the other Founding Fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, who was a Deist (he did believe in the moral tennets of Christianity), supported Congressional Prayer services, which often lasted up to 3 hours. It was the United States Congress who, in their very first action, printed the first Holy Bibles in the English language for use in the American Public Schools. These being the case, it is clear that the Founding Fathers desired America to be a nation that revered Christ God. It is no surprise that President Abraham Lincoln, in his desire to abolish slavery, states in his personal diaries that America was the last Christian Nation on the planet to still allow slavery. As well, it is no surprise that American Supreme Court Justice David Brewer was able to make the claimt that the U.S. is a Christian Nation in the resolution of the case United States vs. Holy Trinity in 1892. However, what does it mean for a nation to be Christian? According to Supreme Court Justice David Brewer, a Christian Naton is defined not by a legal establishment as such, or by an overwhelming majority of Christians as members of the population. Rather it was such due to the basis of it's laws. According to the President John Adams, "The general principles for which we achieved independence are the general principles of Christianity."  Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield made the statement that 

"In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion." That being said, a Christian Nation does not persecute those who do not adhere to it's faith. To the contrary, it allows it's citizens libertarian freedom in accordance with Biblical principles. It does not at all mean that it's citizens must be Christians, or that the government must adopt a specific religion. Secular Humanists, however, are under this impression in their ignorance of the position of those supported the maintenance of a Christian Nation. It was Thomas Paine who made the claim that "It is important that we remember that this country was not founded by religionists, but by Christians; not by religions, but by the Gospel of Jesus Christ." At least in my opinion, this statement differentiates nations founded by the Christian Faith form those not founded by such. Members of non-Christian religions have often claims that this country is a Christian Republic, and as such it has guaranteed their freedom. Therefore, it ought not change. Aaron Zelmar, a Jew, made the statement that "[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with." My sentiments as to the Christianity of the United States is echoed by many. A Confucian state, as had been seen in 18th and 19th century Vietnam, would demand the power of the authority. An Islamic state, as has been seen in the Middle East especially in Saudi Arabia, would demand capital punishment for blasphemy, as well as harsh punishment for apostasy and evangelization. The Secular societies of France and Turkey have severely harmed religious liberty, prohibiting Muslims from wearing veils in public and Christians from having large crosses atop Churches, as well as, in France's case, slaughtering Christians during the Deist-led Reign of Terror. These atrocities have only inspired Islamo-Fascism. Atheist governments such as those of the Soviet Union have become the most deadly in human history; it was the Soviet Atheist Joseph Stalin who killed 10-60 million of his own population during the Purges. It was Mao Zedong, a Chinese Atheist, who killed 10 to 45+ million of his own people during the Great Leap Forward. The Atheist Communists of Cambodia massacred a quarter of their population during the Khmer Rouge. It is perhaps for this reason that Occidental diplomats in the 1930s hoped that China would become Christian. It was Christianity that would inspire a free Chinese government. President John Quincy Adams states the following quote on the Christian Faith in America: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." It is for this reason that I believe that Jonathan Edward's words must be heeded. This country was by no means made to be a Godless state, even looking at things from a secular standpoint. In conclusion, I quote the House Judiciary Report of 1854: ""Chistianity must be considered as the foundation upon which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have not permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentitment, without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there will be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."
"The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."  That being said, do you really think that a non-religious society was the intention of our Founding Fathers?

Arrivals...There goes the neighborhood.

The human characteristics of fear and acceptance are almost tied hand in hand. That being said, it's no surprise to me that there has never been a mere uniform pattern of human acceptance and revile of other. This is true, however, only on a large scale level; the individual human, from my own observations, have much less of a diverse response to social change. Despite the lack of a uniform response, it seems as though  for the most part, humans expel oddities. Ultimately, a degree of knowledge is required for any sort of judgement to be past. When the English colonists landed in northern Columbia, the aborigines had no problem helping them. The Puritans were refugees, fleeing from the persecution of the Church of England, who considered them heterodoxical. Oddly enough, the Church of England was able to begin persecution of it's rivals with mere decades after it's truly bloody inception; the inhabitants of England during that time were, for the most part, members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and they were very hostile to the Anglicans, who they saw as heterodoxical in worship (another case of heterophobia, or discrimination against a foreign group). The aborigines pitied these people, upon whom God's blessings were truly lacking, and they taught them, and helped them, survive. The same as true for those Englishmen living on the central part of the east coast, in Virginia, save for the fact that these Englishmen were not refugees. Eventually, however, the Anglo-Saxon grew powerful, and when the Indians saw how these arrivals were able to exterminate villages of man, woman, child, infant and canine, they began to fear them. Chief Powhatan, in one instance, displayed to Colonial leaders the scalps of enemies he'd slain, as a warning. Nonetheless, the colony of the virgin queen grew in the number of it's settlers, and after ineviable Anglo-Saxon expansion into the lands of the aborigine, the indigenous peoples, in fear of what was surely to come, massacred the arrivals. The Colonists, of course, responded by massacres of the aborigines, and head on conflict began. This being said, we can conclude that such hostile reactions to new comers are borne from the power wielded by the newcomers. How, then, do we explain, for example, persecution of Christians in antiquity, or for a secular example, Adolf Hitler's extermination of the disabled (his persecution of Israelites, however, had no religious background)? Early Roman Christians, such as Coryphaeus Saint Peter and Saint Paul, were few to be found, but they were massacred by the Roman government. However, Christians did refuse to worship Roman polytheistic deities and the Emperor. This lack of belief caused fear on the part of the Romans; if no one worshipped their gods, they would bring down upon the Empire a terrible wrath. If the Christians, however, abandoned their God, He'd surely bring down an awesome wrath, definitely in the afterlife. And so this fear that the Roman pagans had is what gave Christians, only the viewpoint of the Romans, so much power. Another example of such revilement is personal. On my football team in 8th grade, I was a very small defensive tackle, and so my fellow did not like me. I had little skill. This lack of skill risked the loss of games, and that was the threat that I posed.

Introduction

Hello. My name is Kirkland Buchanan. I'm a student at Whitney Young, where my favorite subjects are, in this order, chemistry, world studies, American literature, Spanish, driver's education, and geometry. I'm not quite sure, but I believe that my learning style is either interactive or visual. Living with me are my mother, brother and sister. My parents are divorced, with my father living in southern Hyde  Park in Chicago, I living at the northern end. He has a wife and adorable son, my half brother, who is almost two, as well as another ex-wife with a 19 year old daughter, who is severely handicapped. As far sports go, I am a wide receiver on the Whitney M. Young Dolphins football team. I speak Spanish to an extent, but I'd like to learn French, Chinese and Latin fluently. Religiously, unlike most in my family, I am a deep Roman Catholic, and also, unlike those in my family, politically, I am a conservative. Socially, I wouldn't say I'm popular, nor disliked. I have a lot of friends, as was established last year. I just hate some students who tell me shut up as they talk out of turn. Aren't they the pot calling the kettle black? My desired future profession is in the United States Army, as a commissioned officer. Such a profession seems to me as very fun. I'm the type of guy that really dislikes people who oppose wars not by addressing politicians but by insulting the troops. I have high hopes for this year, and I hope to see results   as fruits of my labors.