Alien Rhyming Poem Essay Example for Free

Alien Rhyming Poem Essay I’ll even do the rhyming thing, I guess. Firstly, I should tell you of our species But keep in mind, we’re very different beings Our social status is decided by blood. Some were brightly colored, others were like mud. Not of whom we are from descended from, We had no family, no dad, or mum. We are assigned a caretaker from birth, Not of Troll descent, for what it’s worth. They’re assigned an animal, called a lusus, I, was a special case. One that caused a fuss. I had candy red blood. I was a mutant. And most trolls, considered me a pollutant. I was left for dead as a baby grub, It was quite an intentional snub. I would have died that first night, cold and lonesome, If it weren’t for one troll, who was wholesome. No troll had ever cared for a young one, Let alone raise it, was their son. She was an adult, in green attire, And the look on her face, made her seem quite dire. Despite her outwardly appearance She taught me the meaning of adherence. Our species is naturally hostile, And knowing this, made me feel quite vile. I despised all of my species needless strife, The type that nearly ended my life. The hierarchical system is cruel, Leaving it to chance if you serve or rule. The lowest color on the hemospectrum, Were the bronze-bloods, all of which were thought as scum They were lucky to live through their childhood, And they were blessed if they were understood. The second of blood colors was yellow, These poor souls were forced to live in the ghetto. And if they could not afford to live there, They were sold to slavery, and none would care. Up next was olive, jade, and then teal, And none of these were really a big deal. After that, cerulean and dark blue, These were the hardest to attend to. These classes were always struggling for power, It made their general tone, quite sour. The highest of the normal bloods was purple, And out of all of them, they were most verbal. Always making demands, but never amends, However, the aggrievance extends. They considered themselves royalty, Flaunting around all flamboyantly. Near the top, were the violet blooded, And they lived in places that were flooded. They had a mutation which gave them gills, And plenty of impractical frills. And at the top were those with blood like gold, And every single one of them was cold. They like the purple-bloods had gills and frills, But they would kill others just for thrills They ruled over our race with an iron fist, But only one at any time could exist. This made a cruel sort of monarchy One which plunged plunged the lowbloods into poverty. And if you spoke out against the crimes Well it was like stepping into a field of landmines. And if one was seen with my blood hue, They’d be allowed to kill me. Through, and through. Despite all this, she raised me as a child, And when I learned of this I think I smiled But that was the only blessing I was brought, For the rest of my life, I wish I forgot. I traveled the lands, preaching my ideal, I had set out on my quest with a great zeal. I sought to change the views of society, And change all of their impropriety. I taught the values of peace and love, Something that most were afraid to talk of. Not all were too fond of my teachings, They thought of it as annoying screeching. But eventually, I gathered a cult. One much to her majesty’s insult. She sent her best men to find and catch me, I on the other hand, did my best to flee. Eventually they caught me, my disciple too, But in some stroke of luck, the let her through. She went on, spreading word of my Lessons, I hope she went on, to teach her own sessions I, however was not treated so well, They locked me up in their deepest cell. They tortured me for what seemed like forever, They had no mercy for me whatsoever. I screamed with anger that pierced the skies All of my love, had said their goodbyes. The only thing left, was anger and hatred, And in time, all my teachings faded. I could not make a stand for peace and love, For those, my species are unworthy of. And now you know all of my suffering, And why my irons, are still burning. †

A Comparison of Sei Shonagon and Marie de France Essay -- comparison c

A Comparison of Sei Shonagon and Marie de France         Though more than two hundred years have separated Sei Shonagon and Marie de France, the scene is much the same. A courtly lady sits in a candle-lit room, with her writing hand poised above a book of parchment. Her face brightens in an instant of inspiration and she scribbles furiously onto the paper. This woman is closely associated with the royal court and is something of an anachronism, a woman author in a male-dominated world. The scene pictured here could have taken place in either Shonagon's late tenth century Japan or the twelfth century France of Marie de France. The differences that exist between these two authors are a result of their differing cultures and personalities. Marie de France writes as a product of her time, expressing herself through her characters, while keeping in mind the mandates of the church. Sei Shonagon is ruled by no such mandates and as a result wrote with merciless honesty. Accordingly, the structure, diction and imagery used by each author r eflects her own distinct personality and values.    Sei Shonagon is most well known for her Pillow Book, a collection of her personal thoughts and observations during her time at court. The structure, or lack thereof, in this work gives the reader a peek at Shonagon's personality. She writes in short bursts, giving the mini-chapters such titles as "The Sliding Screen in the Back of the Hall," "Hateful Things," and "Oxen Should Have Very Small Foreheads." The titles are representative of her tendency to write at length on subjects that may seem inconsequential, or as the author admits in the last segment of the Pillow Book, "most trivial." In fact, these so-called trivial observations provide a s... ...es and cultures. One author is governed by her strict faith and adherence to the church, the other by her own strongly-held opinions. Each woman's writing clearly reflects her own distinct personality and temperament: Marie de France, more eager and spiritual, Sei Shonagon, more satirical and opinionated. Both courtly ladies seem faithful to their own beliefs and reflective of their time and culture.       Works Cited    Sei Shonagon. The Pillow Book. Trans. Richard Bowring. The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Expanded Edition. Ed. Maynard Mack. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995. 2191-2218. All quotations are from this text.    De France, Marie. "Eliduc". Trans. John Fowles. The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Expanded Edition. Ed. Maynard Mack. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995. 1680-1692. All quotations are from this text.   

Stolen Valor Act

Why can't we try to deter willful misrepresentations of fact by a modest fine, at least, if they create direct harm to others? Lies to those evaluating your credentials may do direct harm to others. If one lies to gain a job, something which seems to happen with increasing frequency, isn’t it a direct harm to others? Or, how about false representing as having received any credentials for something? The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006,[1] was a U. S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U. S. aw addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals. The law made it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U. S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might have been imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could have been up to one year (Wikipedia). I personally don’t have any family members in the military, but I know friends who are in the military and I know they would be highly offended if someone falsely represented themselves to be a member of the military.Those men and women who serve our country risk their lives and have put work into whatever credentials they have earned and it is a great disrespect for anyone to falsely give oneself credit for something they have not earned. The purpose of the Act was to strengthen the provisions of federal law by broadening its scope and strengthening penalties. Specific new provisions in the Act included: †¢granting more authority to federal law enforcement officers; †¢broadening the law to cover false claims whereas previously an overt act had to be committed; †¢covering the mailing and shipping of medals; and protecting the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals. The Act made it illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade, or manufacture â€Å"any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces. † In the 18 months after the act was enacted, the Chicago Tribune estimated there were twenty prosecutions. The number increased as awareness of the law spread (Wikipedia).The number of prosecutions continued to increase. Therefore, it was very clear that this was a tremendous issue and that the Stolen Valor Act was serving its purpose. Unfortunately, the majority disagreed saying that there is no proof that lying about medals degrades the value and honor of those who have actually earned those medals. Who could possibly agree to this? Well, government lawyers argued that lies about military medals are false statements that have no value and hence no first Amendment protection.On Thursday September 13, 2012, the U. S. House of Representatives passed a new version of the Stolen Valor Act. The f irst version of the Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. The bill focuses not on people who lie about having medals they didn't earn, but on any profits they make from lying about the medals, which is essentially criminal fraud. Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) sponsored the new bill. His office issued a release saying the bill passed by a vote of 410-3.Heck said in a floor speech that the bill would survive judicial review because it resolves the â€Å"constitutional issues by clearly defining that the objective of the law is to target and punish those who misrepresent the alleged service with the intent of profiting personally or financially. † The bill targets those who falsely claim to have earned certain major military decorations, including the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart or a medal signifying you served in combat (CNNPolitics).In 2007, there was a cas e against a man named Xavier Alvarez who was an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board in Pomona, California. Alvarez said at a public water district board meeting that he was a retired Marine, had been â€Å"wounded many times,† and had been â€Å"awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor† in 1987(NBCNews). However, he never served in the United States armed forces. Alvarez argued that his false statements were protected by the first Amendment right of free speech.Regardless, of his freedom of speech or anyone’s, no one should be giving the right to lie about something so serious especially, if it dishonors the men and women who serve for us and our country. I believe that there should be a law protecting military members against people like Alvarez. Unfortunately, the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said, â€Å"The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. He a lso quoted from the famous dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Abrams decision: â€Å"The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee† (NBCNews). Kennedy might have a point, but I strongly disagree and believe it is unethical period.Moreover, the government shouldn’t allow anyone to make false statements of any kind if it disrespects their country and their people. This act has definitely been a long debate for some of us with reasoned arguments on both sides. In my view it’s unethical and it should have not been struck down by the Supreme Court. Yes, we live in a country with freedom of speech, but this has abused such privilege. So why not punish someone when they’ve abused such privilege?

A Brief Account on Andre Lefevere’s Manipulation Theory

A Brief Account on Andre Lefevere’s Manipulation Theory Abstract: In 1990s,there was a wave breakthrough in translation theory made by Andre Lefevere and Susan Bassnett. They went beyond the word-to-word or text level in translation studies and developed it to culture studies, later termed by Mary Snell-Hornby as ‘cultural turn’. This article mainly deals with one kind of culture turn put forward by Andre Lefevere, that is, translation as rewriting. ä ¸ ­Ã¥â€º ½Ã¨ ® ºÃ¦â€"‡ç ½â€˜ http://www.xzbu.com/5/view-2131279.htm Key Words: cultural turn; rewriting; ideology; patronage; poetics ä ¸ ­Ã¥â€º ¾Ã¥Ë†â€ Ã§ ± »Ã¥  ·: I06æâ€"‡çÅ' ®Ã¦  â€¡Ã¨ ¯â€ Ã§   :D æâ€"‡ç «  Ã§ ¼â€"Ã¥  ·:1006-026X(2009)-14-0168-02 1. Introduction In the year 1990,after the publishing of the book named Translation, History and Culture†¦show more content†¦There are two main factors that manipulate the literature, one is within the literary system and the other is outside it. As for the former one, it refers to the professionals within the literary system which include critics and reviewers (whose comments affect the reception of a work), teachers (who often decide whether a book is studied or not) and translators themselves. With regard to translators themselves, Fitzgerald is a good example. He has successfully translated the Persian poem Rubaiyat written by Omar Khayyam. Rubaiyat is a love poem composed of quatrains which makes it ve ry difficult to translate. Fitzgerald has translated it so beautifully that his translation was accepted by a large number of English speakers. Thus, Rubaiyat come into English literature. And Fitzgerald’s translated version is widely considered to be superior to the source text. As for the latter one, it refers to patronage outside the literary system. Patrons may be an influential, powerful individual in a given historical era and groups of people, which include publishers, the media, a political class or party, and institutions which regulate the distribution of literature and literary ideas. These are â€Å"the powers that can further and hinder the reading, writing, and