"Cookies" by Steven Myket

Cookies
Cookies are as good as pizza
Cookies are as sweet as sugar
Cookies are as warm as my blanket
I like cookies

"Cookies" by Steven Myket has a brilliantly constructed form, with which it manages to convey deep meaning inside an innocent metaphor, all with only four lines of verse.

We learn that the narrator feels cookies are "good," "sweet," and "warm." He also "like[s] cookies." The narrator comes across as deeply innocent, light-hearted, and pure. The cookie is such a comfort to the narrator, creating a warm environment as his blanket, drawing him back to the time in his mother's womb.

The question then arises, "What are cookies?" At first, you are inclined to take the easy route and define it as a baked good. But you cannot overlook the two other definitions of cookie. It's a slang term for a type of person, for example a "tough cookie." It is also a computer file that is stored on your computer by a website to keep a tab on you.

The slang term does not fit into the poem. However, the computer file does. It is "good" because it creates convenience for the narrator, not making him log into the same website over and over. It's "sweet" because it will remember his information for him. The "warm" describes the complacency of the narrator, who enjoys the cookies. He likes them.

But this has more meaning to it. The cookies are the way that the world is keeping an eye on his computer. He could easily be tracked through them by the government, an agency, or a powerful individual. The innocent narrator disregards these privacy issues and freely disposes of his singularity and allows himself to have a warm feeling of safety, as in the womb, despite his openness to being watched.

Likewise, society today has little problem with shedding privacy and individual rights to larger groups, taking convenience and warm feelings over all else.

Good in Every President

You know, I was really thinking about the way I treated some presidents. And by that I mean I feel slight remorse for my constant bashing of James Buchanan. I also ignore many other men, like James Monroe or James Carter... or pretty much any non-Garfield James.

And so, I present to you, a list of something good about every man who has been president.

George Washington: Interpreted the position and set numerous precedents that stand to this day, including the cabinet, making treaties without bothering with Congress, and basically staying fairly separated from the legislature

John Adams: Put John Marshall on the Supreme Court, who would go on to be part of numerous landmark cases

Thomas Jefferson: Won the First Barbary War, the first major war for the United States overseas

James Madison: Won the Second Barbary War, stopping American tribute to the pirates of the region.

James Monroe: The Monroe Doctrine is pretty much the most important foreign policy matter in our history

John Quincy Adams: And JQA wrote it

Andrew Jackson: Kicked the Nullification Crisis in the ass

Martin Van Buren: Preferred diplomacy and peace, talking to Mexico rather than warring with them, and denying Texas a chance at statehood for greater peace

William Henry Harrison: Well, that was one hell of an inaugural speech

John Tyler: Set the precedent for the vice president ascending to the presidency when the man in charge keels over

James K. Polk: Created the Department of the Interior

Zachary Taylor: Took a major step in British and American relations with the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty

Millard Fillmore: Acknowledged how much the Fugitive Slave Law pissed off the North, and attempted to balance it by not allowing the South to get into Cuba and try to make it a slave state.

Franklin Pierce: Chose people with many opinions for his cabinet and has the only cabinet to never change

James Buchanan: Promised not to run again in his inaugural address, saving America the trouble of not electing him in 1860

Abraham Lincoln: Created the Secret Service... to fight counterfeiting

Andrew Johnson: Gave amnesty to all Confederates, a move that might seem stupid, but probably helped ease the tension a bit

Ulysses Grant: Signed the bill making the first national park, Yellowstone

Rutherford B. Hayes: Acted as the middleman and peacemaker in the War of the Triple Alliance between a bunch of South American countries that I can't be bothered to name

James Garfield: Appeased factions to an extent, but still worked to be his own president

Chester Arthur: See pretty much any post with the tag "Chester Arthur" or "Chet"

Grover Cleveland: Wasn't afraid to take unpopular decisions, such as not signing pension bills for the veterans of the Civil War

Benjamin Harrison: Signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the bill setting up for the trustbusting era

William McKinley: Greatly expanded the positions that fell under the merit system of the Pendleton Act

Theodore Roosevelt: Basically invented the presidential press conference, which made information easier to get to the public

William Taft: Cranked up the trustbusting levels past that of Mr. Trustbuster Theordore Roosevelt

Woodrow Wilson: If he had his way, World War II might have been avoided

Warren Harding: Got all the treaties necessary to actually end WWI

Calvin Coolidge: The KKK lost much political clout, Native Americans were granted full citizenship, and Coolidge felt black people were equal

Herbert Hoover: Well... Man was his pre-presidential career amazing, with the way he used his own money to save people in WWI

Franklin Roosevelt: The New Deal programs led to a much happier country

Harry Truman: Made the decision to drop the atomic bomb, saving an estimated million American soldiers

Dwight Eisenhower: That highway system you drove on the other day? Eisenhower says, "You're welcome."

John Kennedy: Handled the Cuban Missile Crisis brilliantly

Lyndon Johnson: Main Civil Rights president, especially with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Richard Nixon: Great on the environmental front, with the Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act

Gerald Ford: Established special education

Jimmy Carter: Had the balls to cancel military pay raises due to inflation and vast deficit

Ronald Reagan: Largely responsible for the end of the Cold War

George H.W. Bush: Kicked some Hussein ass

Bill Clinton: Presided over great economic times

George W. Bush: Has greater than 50% approval ratings in the Phillipines and India as of January 2005

Barack Obama: Hasn't been afraid of minority filibusters, acting almost as a party whip for the Democrats to get legislation pushed through




...Okay maybe I still wasn't nice to James Buchanan.

National Day of Prayer

Today, as proclaimed by Barack Obama under law and tradition since 1952, is a National Day of Prayer. A federal judge recently declared the day unconstitutional due to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress won't make a law supporting any religion. 

Days such as the National Day of Jews and National Day of Pastafestrians would thus be unconstitutional due to this. However, prayer is not a religion. In fact, it's a practice across many different religions. Congress and the president have not violated the establishment clause. 

However, if you look through your Supreme Court cases, you'll find Lemon v. Kurtzman, which established the Lemon test. It states laws must have a secular purpose, as well as two other things I forget. The law establishing the National Day of Prayer does not (oh I just remembered another criteria: laws can't support or supress any religions) have a secular purpose, and thus, following the precedent of Lemon v. Kurtzman, is not an acceptable law. 

Since I suspect most of the people who vehemently dislike the ruling that the National Day of Prayer are also believers in judicial restraint, I may have just put many a person in a predicament. 







If they actually were to read this. 

Chester Arthur and Modern Whigs

As were many early Republican leaders, Chester Arthur was initially a member of the Whig Party. In fact, he got into some sort of big fight over some candidate at college some time. Yeah. But he was a Whig.

Today there is a Modern Whig Party. It's not exactly the same as the original. In fact, I'd say it's fairly different since the new one is meant to be moderate while the old one was very sectional (kept mostly to New England) and class-ist (with support mostly from the richer).

Despite the old and new party's differences, I have decided to pull out the main aspects of the Modern Whig platform and analyze how Chester Arthur (as we know him from his presidency) would fit into the party.

*The party platform information has been copied and pasted directly from the Modern Whig Party's website.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - Any action of the government must respect principles of fiscal responsibility and public accountability. Well, I'll be honest. President Arthur was a Republican of the Gilded Age. Monetarily, they weren't the most responsible. He attempted to lower the tariffs, but failed due to Congress marking them up time and time again until there was barely any lowering. Perhaps Chet would fit into this, but I can't be sure.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Develop practical domestic energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. This issue wasn't around in the 1880s, so while I'd love to tell you how great Chester Arthur is at energy independence, there is absolutely no criteria on which to analyze this.

STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY - Each state can generally determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs. This is kind of a vague position by the Modern Whig Party. How much is "generally?" I suppose in the eyes of some Chester would fit, in the eyes of others he wouldn't.

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal. STOP SCREAMING CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 1882 AT ME! Look, Arthur vetoed it once. He didn't want the Chinese to be excluded from citizenship. I have yet to figure out why he signed the bill the second time, but I'm sure it has to do with keeping him somewhat on the good side of Congress so he can do things like get the Pendleton Act passed later. I'm willing to vouch for Arthur on this one, I'm willing to bet many others are not.

EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT - Increase public and private emphasis on math and science to promote American innovation to compete in the global economy. The Gilded Age was a time of great scientific advancement by Bell and Edison, but the government did little to support this. In fact, it was mostly supported by the rich people with trusts and monopolies and a lot of money. (Score one for laissez faire economics?) I doubt Elegant Arthur would oppose this, but he probably wouldn't support it either.

VETERANS AFFAIRS - Vigilant advocacy relating to the medical, financial, and overall well-being of our military families and veterans. Yeah, Grover Cleveland's pretty much the only Gilded Age president who doesn't fit into this category in the eyes of the people of that time, so Chester fits well enough.

DEVELOP REAL LEADERS - This central tenet of the Party is to help leaders both grow and to exhibit good citizenship through leadership. If Arthur didn't grow and exhibit good citizenship that he was lacking in his years under Conkling, then I couldn't say that anyone ever grows and exhibits good citizenship.

SELF DISCOVERY - As a Whig it is important to always be learning and growing. This means it is the Party's responsibility to pull information together and to help members discover for themselves their stance on any social topic. Chet suddenly found his own stances on topics when he became president and broke from strictly the stalwart faction views.

FOCUS ON LONG TERM PROBLEM SOLVING - We have developed into a reactive nation. The only issues being seriously considered are those who make the top of each media hour, however it is important to be talking about and solving issues that are foreseeable before they are major issues. Buildup of the navy which was sorely undersized and underpowered that led to a much better chance in the Spanish-American War count? I thought so.



So it seems Chester Arthur doesn't fit all that well into the Modern Whig Party looking strictly at these standards. However, you must consider that this party is a moderate party, searching mostly to garner to people with more middle views than either the Republicans or Democrats. Do I think they'd accept Chester Arthur into their party? Of course. Could he run for local office? Probably, especially since it's still a small party. Would they run him for president? Unlikely, since he doesn't encompass the official positions too strictly, but maybe as time passed if the party grew larger.

Chess as a Team and Life

Not all too long ago, I was walking down the hallway to the lobby of my school. I came upon two of my classmates, about to begin a game of chess. I went to the one I consider a friend and asked if he'd like to play chess in alternating turns, no talking about moves of choice, against the fiendish opponent.

He consented, and we played as a team.

Kind of.

You see, before long we found out that he was a bishop person and I was a knight person. That made things difficult for us. Moves I made didn't work well with moves he wanted to make and vice versa. Strategizing was extremely difficult because we didn't think anything like each other. I had to leave before the game was over, so I don't quite know who won, but that's beside the point.

In life, all of our relationships are like this chess play in teams. There are people who are knight people and others who are bishop people. If you're a knight person, you'll have trouble getting along with bishop people. When you two are together, things just don't mesh too well. Your thoughts are too unlike.

However, when a knight person meets another knight person, things may work a little bit better. However, two knight people don't necessarily think exactly the same. In fact, if you do, you'll enjoy the novelty of seeing someone think the same as you, make the same move you would each time. You'll really enjoy that. Then you'll get bored.

The best people in life are the ones who are the same kind of person as you, as with two knight people, but who are still slightly different. I don't have very good pawn structure, so someone who could develop pawns would be a good complement to me. As they do that, I can use my queen maneuvering skills, which perhaps they lack.

The greatest people in life aren't the ones who think the opposite of you, nor the ones who think the same. They're the ones who can fill out your game in life and make you better.

Twitter

The internet is a funny place.

I joined Twitter ages ago. ...Well ages in terms of IST (Internet Standard Time) at least. I had done absolutely nothing with it until a few weeks ago.

I began following some profiles. Two Chester Arthur profiles to be exact. Neither had updated too often or all too recently, but the matter was of principle really. I had chosen to be @chet21fan after all.

It was about this time I realized just how many profiles there are for presidents. With people who either know a bit about them, or at least attempt to be somewhat in character.

With this newfound knowledge, I followed a James Garfield and a Millard Fillmore. More recently, I found an amazing profile: @Mr_Lincoln where someone obsesses over Abe and posts regular updates about the significance of that day in Lincoln's life, how Justin Bieber sucks and people should obsess over a dead president instead, and occasionally some modern political jabbing. Seriously, if you have an account, you should be following him.

I have a funny story about an encounter with Chester Arthur I had a few days ago. He tweeted about how he overheard a conversation where some youths were discussing the gayest president and how his name came up.

Let me take this moment to point out that Chester Arthur was not at all gay. In fact, I suspect he was straighter than half of you reading this. Ellen was a pretty lady. And Chet got it on with her at least enough to have three kids.

I replied to him with the magic of Twitter to tell him to just shout "JAMES BUCHANAN WAS GAY FOR PIERCE'S VICE PRESIDENT," and how it works every time. Historically, it's not technically proven, but just look into it a little. It's basically fact.

I squealed like a teenage girl who had just caught Elvis' scarf... thingy... when Chester Arthur retweeted that and said that he had tried but it didn't work.

So yeah, it was a pretty disappointing conversation.

"The Listeners" by Walter de la Mare

The Poem's text can be found here

"The Listeners" by Walter de la Mare is a poem telling about a traveller reaching a secluded house and twice knocking on the door, with no answer, before leaving. The event leaves many questions, but still manages to hold a strong theme. De la Mare evokes vivid images of the setting and structures the poem to accentuate the time passing for the traveller as he waits.

At the very beginning, the traveller asks if anyone is there as he knocks on the door. Briefly a description of the surroundings is given before he knocks a second time. Now inside the house is chronicled, with those dwelling in it not answering his calls. Fed up, the traveller loudly proclaims to the house to tell that he was there, but got no answer, and that he kept his word. With that, he left, as the listeners made not a sound and let him go.

The first question this event raises has to do with the traveller's presense. Why was he at this house? What word was he keeping by showing up to this secluded house at night? The poem gives no clue to this, nothing to lead us to possible conclusions. However, we still learn a bit about the traveller as a person. He may be considered an honorable man. Whatever he promised, he has attempted to follow through by showing up to this place.

The next question to consider deals with the titular listeners. Who or what are they? This "host of phantom listeners" is never more deeply described. Are they indeed ghosts, or are they silent men? Are they actually many, or one? Or could a phantom listener be one who doesn't exist at all, and is absent from the building? All we can deduce is that the traveller expects someone or something that he has previously had contact with to be inside.

So this man, the traveller, has come out of his way to this house to keep his word, and is only turned away by the silence of the listeners. He made worthy attempt to keep his end of some bargain, but found it impossible to keep when the door was not opened for him.

Likewise, one must put all reasonable effort into each promise, deal, or relationship he or she has. Then, however honorable, there does eventually come a point at which the effort is no longer worth it. For the traveller, he knocked twice before the effort became unreasonable. After that point, it is only worthwhile to move along in life.

Yes, the traveller could well have stood by that door all night, perhaps through the day, knocking and shouting, waiting for the door to be opened. But with his two attempts, he could be sure that he was not going to get inside. The stillness of the listeners did answer his cries, and he understood that answer told him that he was not to wait around.

The listeners represent the people in life who decent people associate with. When they are faced with an honest attempt to do good, though, they don't allow this to be completed. They prevent it with their silence, by being essentially absent. The theme shows that when one comes across such listeners, one cannot be bothered to wait around forever, and that there are better things to do. It is unwise to waste time reaching to great lengths when there will be no results.