Tuesday, September 27, 2011

"Coda" from Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed reading my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles.
But, she added, wouldn't it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women's characters and roles?

A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book wer Uncle Toms and why didn't I "do them over"?

Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped.

Two weeks ago my mountain of mail delivered fourth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story "The Fog Horn" in a high school reader.
In my story, I had described a lighthouse as having, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a "God-Light." Looking up at it from the view point of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in "the Presence."

The editors had deleted "God-Light" and "in the Prescence."

Some five years back, the editors of yet another anthology for school readers put together a volume with some 400 (count 'em) short stories in it. How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupassant and Bierce into one book?

Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every metaphor that weighed more than a mosquito--out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron's mouth twitch--gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer--lost!

Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Dostoevsky reak like--in the finale--Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been razored. Every image that demanded so much as one instants's attention--shot dead.

Do you begin to get the damned and incredible picture?

How did I react to all of the above?

By "firing" the whole lot.

By sending rejection slips to each and every one.

By ticketing the assembly of idiots to the far reaches of hell.

The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burnn a book. And the world is full of people runnng about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist/Unitarian, Irish/Italian/Octogenerarian/Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospelfeelsithas the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-manage plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a merry rhyme.

Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.

"Shut the door, they're coming through the window, shut the window, they're coming through the door," are the words to an old song. They fit my lifestyle with newly arriving butcher/censors every month. ONly six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminatin the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn Del Rey (by the way, Del Ray published the copy I'm using), one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place.

A final test for old Job II here: I sent a play, Leviathan 99, off to a universit theater a month ago. My play is based on the "Moby Dick" mythology, dedicated to Melville, and concerns a rocket crew and a blind spacce captain who venture forth to encounter a Great White Comet and destroy the destroyer. My drama premieres as an opera in Paris this autumn. But, for now, the university wrote back that they hardly dared to do my play--it had no women in it! And the ERA ladies on campus would descend with ball-bats if the drama department even tried!

Grinding my bicuspids into powder, I suggested that would mean, from now on, no more productions of Boys in the Band (no women), or The Women (no men). Or, counting heads, male and female, a good lot of Shakespeare that would never be seen again especially if you count lines and find that all the good stuff went to the males!

I wrote back maybe they should do my play one week, and The Women the next. They probably thought that I was joking, and I'm not sure that I wasn't.

For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the timp of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentencces shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intellectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall.

For, let's face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Hamlet's fathter's ghost and what stayys is dry bones. Laurence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer--he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail.

In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, anger-choppings or the lung-deflations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whisper with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book.

All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise I'm out again, giving it the old try.

And no one can help me. Not even you.

--So says the man who spent $9.80 in dimes (on a typewriter charging 10 cents per half hour of use in the basement of a UCLA library) to write this novel; the novel that is the ultimate expert on the censorship of books.

Edit: I'm transcribing this from the copy I've been reading and I've just written the section about the "word[s] of more than three syllables [have] been razored". It makes me think of Twitter and how the most basic thought must be butchered and maimed in order to fit into a 140 character world.

Edit 2: As I conclude this transcription, I think I should point out that upon analysis of this open letter/essay, I conclude that on the issue of Huckleberry Finn and whether it should be printed without the word Nigger so that it can be taught in schools which blush at the use of such words, he would say that the the work should be left alone or not taught at all. I think, then, that I have to applaud my formal education because we never studied it. Either on purpose or by accident they left the book untarnished in my mind.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Haven "blooper"

So, I was watching the latest episode of Haven and if you pay attention to the very last scene, you can see that the lantern which provides a critical clue to the story (I'll leave out the spoilers) doesn't just fall onto the floor. Someone behind the scenes picked it up and was putting it back on the table before the shot ended...whoops.

I'm in need of a job, so if anyone reading this wants to hire me to watch videos and find errors, or to do research into historical accuracy (it annoys me when the dates in movies and tv don't match reality) let me know. I work for relatively cheap :-).

Also, I'm going to go ahead and plug this show--it's awesome! Seriously; BBC worthy, hahaha.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Left Turn by Tim Groseclose

I haven't read this book, but I heard about it on The 700 Club. The topic intregued me, so when my computer finally started working again, I looked up the quiz that is supposed to tell you whether or not you're conservative or liberal.

I found the 10 question quiz published in the book here . I'll warn you now that the questions are essentially whether or not you would support or not bills passed in this session of Congress. Apparently, if you would support a bill also supported by Democrats, you're liberal; if it was opposed by Republicans, you're conservative--who knew?!? I'm also upset by the fact that each question includes the voting record for the bill. Does the author realize that any person predisposed to think that they're conservative will probably make at least some of their decision based on that voting record? I mean, a reasonable person wouldn't make a decision for or against ANY of these issues purely based on what the blurb in the question says--unless you're a complete right or left winger who economically thinks one side or the other should be punished. That's why there are extensive debates in Congress--everyone reasonable person wants to know EXACTLY how far the terms go, what loopholes could possibly exist, etc.

So, I'm going to say that of all the "rank your political feelings" quizes, this is one of the worst. The one I took in high school was very good. It wasn't based on the complexity of congressional laws, but on the actual issues. "Would you support a law that increases pro-choice rights?" "Would you support a reduction in the powers of the EPA?" Questions like that, but I'm doubtful that they're so straight forward in the asking--Any good questionaire writer/researcher knows that you need to ask the same question 3 ways because you're going to get a different answer depending on the wording. It's also a good idea to have a ranking system, because you probably do feel more for or against one way of wording than another. In this quiz, they're way of asking the same question more than once is showing the House's version and the Senate's version. There is also no way of quantifying the circumstances that these bills were made under. In other words, an Independent is screwed if the past 2 years they've been thinking Democrat. That would be the definition of an Independent--someone who votes Democrat or Republican depending on the current situation and what they believe is necessary.

I'm also disappointed that the quiz doesn't address the issue that the book is supposed to cover--whether the media has influenced your belief. If I remember correctly, the author was talking about how our natural inclinations are skewed after viewing so called liberal media, so maybe the quiz is supposed to show you what your natural inclinations are? But as shown above--I don't think it does that at all.

One last point I want to make. Notice that the major claims are:

- All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.
- The Drudge Report is the most fair, balanced and centrist news outlet in the United States.
- Fox News' "Special Report," which is usually characterized as conservative, is not biased as far right as typical mainstream outlets are biased to the left.

Apparently Fox News isn't mainstream, which is a rediculous claim to make. I mean, according to Bill O'Reilly (he mentions it at least once a week), they have the highest viewership across the boards. They're on cable, they're part of News Corp (and we now know exactly what kind of power THAT company has), and you are hard pressed to find a person who hasn't heard about Fox News. I'm sorry, but apparently I have the wrong definition of mainstream. Perhaps Fox should stop demanding extreme payment to view their...views...and should join the world of basic cable or online. I can't watch MSNBC either....does that make THEM non-mainstream? Because they are to me.

2nd point. USNews gives the lowdown on the scores that a few of the "mainstream" news sources got, here. Apparently ABC News (Good Morning America) got a score of 56. The Drudge Report got a 60. If 50 is "fair and balanced", then wouldn't that make GMA more fair? Or are they quantifying that the Drudge is more balanced overall? Because then, wouldn't it be nice to show how the rest of ABC does? I mean--there's a lot of shows that are conviently missing from this list. See for yourself:

  • New York Times-73.7.

  • CBS Evening News-73.7.

  • NPR Morning Edition-66.3.

  • U.S. News & World Report-65.8.

  • Drudge Report-60.4.

  • ABC Good Morning America-56.1.

  • Washington Times-35.4


  • It's interesting that when I wrote this, none of the comments on top even address the fact that this is a pretty skimpy list. I mean, Mr. Redhawk of KY, who holds the first comment spot is quick to make a judgment on MSNBC, CNN, and DC (?!?! I actually have no idea what he's trying to say--go and read it--I don't believe the "slime of NY" is an accepted alterego of a known news source--or at least one I know...would that be the NY Times?)--which aren't even on the list. I mean, if Fox News is not as far right biased as people say, then how did they rank? Isn't that a basic question that they should have answered in this article?

    Or are they making it so that you have to buy the book and make this guy a buck? If for no other reason, support your local library, because this is the type of book that you should read, but I do not want to give this guy my money without knowing for sure that I support his ideas.

    By the way, The Wall Steet Journal came out more liberal than most people would originally think. This was mentioned by Pat Robinson who read this book and is an avid reader of the WSJ. Apparently their opinions are often more liberal than their news. Robinson admitted that he often reads only these opinions and finds a lot to agree with within them. Please, keep this in mind when you start trying to say "I'm Conservative" or "I'm Liberal". Quit labeling yourself and start paying attention to what it is that you actually agree and disagree with and why you do so. You might be surprised at what things you actually support when it's no longer labeled.

    Wednesday, June 22, 2011

    Stossel: "Politically Incorrect?"

    I'm confused. Okay, so he wants to discuss free speech. Fine. I agree with his argument, but his headline about a university conservative club that chose to have an "Affirmative Action Bake Sale"....well, that, in my opinion, is a rediculous comparison. I don't see how a bake sale that charges different prices based on race can be used to initiate a discussion on the use of affirmative action for university admissions. It's not like minorities are being charged a cheaper tuition and room and board. It just helps them get in--I'm a poor white kid who gladly used all the financial aid I could get. Was I let in to increase the university's poor population? Maybe. Do I care? Not one bit because I got into the best university in the state of Virginia. I think that there were too many prep school graduates who were admitted because money bought them the perfect application and who are the stereotypical "Animal House" college students. You know the type--binge drinking, excessive hangovers, will be alcoholics by age 30. Yes, they are incredibly smart...I guess...depends on how you measure smartness, but I'm not a fan of alcoholics and people who think you can't party without a "brewskie".

    Anyway, end rant. Do I agree with affirmative action? Actually, generally no. Except in the case of wealth. Because I couldn't afford to buy a good education--I (and many friends) excelled in the education we had freely available. I walked into college behind my counterparts in the ability to write the A+ college essay. In my high school (I'll let you judge overall quality) the AP Psychology class was taught by a teacher who gave us open notebook tests and the previous years' AP test scores were all 1s with the occasional 2 (scores range from 1 to 5; you get a 0 if you write nothing but your name).

    Wednesday, May 18, 2011

    Smallville

    Wow. I finally finished the series. I'm seriously laughing my butt off at the fact that they never show Tom Welling in his full Superman get-up. I mean, they show him in the distance wearing it, and they show his face, but there's no top-to-bottom tight-sy goodness...whcih I'm glad about. It's not the best suit, in my opinion. I liked the ending, except that I can't believe they waited 7 years to get married. Though maybe this is to help the story fit in with the rest of the Superman canon where Clark Kent and Lois Lane meet at the Daily Planet. I'd just like to know what happened in those 7 years which made them decide that that would be the right amount of time. I would have also liked to see Ollie with his son, but maybe that's asking too much.

    Sunday, May 15, 2011

    Lucky # Slevin

    Very good movie...you should watch it.

    When we were deciding what movie to watch tonight the only thing we were told was "It's better than The Departed". Well, I've never seen the departed, but those who have were doubtful...until the movie finished and there were cheers all around. I won't go into the plot and you shouldn't either. One friend was NOT allowed to read out the teaser on the back of the box because "figuring out the plot is half of the plot". I can agree with that statement.

    Beware: blood, murder, violence, a bit of gore. Some sex. But I dislike these things and they did not turn me away from this film--it fit the story they were trying to tell, not thrown in because that's what sells movies. :-)

    Saturday, April 30, 2011

    I Pledge...

    to reduce my environmental impact by:
    1. Refusing to buy processed foods. I will do my best to only eat foods that I make completly for myself...except when going out to eat of course. This includes ice cream, cookies, cakes, and all other "junk" foods. I also will not buy spice mixes, but will instead buy all spices and make them myself. I will grow my own herbs and also the majority of my vegetables. I will buy locally whenever possible and shop at farmer's markets as often as I can. I will not give up taste for the environment, however, and yet I believe I will actually be happier.
    2. Refusing to buy plastic whenever possible. I will use aluminum foil instead of plastic wrap. I will use glass containers or jars with metal lids. I will use a fountain pen with homemade ink instead of buying disposible pens. I will use homemade glue instead of tape. I will not buy bottled water, or any bottled juice; and never soda. I will try not to use plastic baggies and will use them as many times as possible before recycling.
    3. I will recycle any plastic that enters my life. I will recycle as much as I can, including making my own paper for letter writing so that I know where my paper was made and with what chemicals and how those chemicals go back into the environment.
    4. I will reduce my water use. I will take shorter showers, or shower less often. I will buy water saving appliances. I will have a low flow shower head and toilet. I will practice "if it's yellow" so long as it is not obvious. I will not water my lawn/garden except with rain water I have collected. I will not leave the water running while I brush my teeth and I will shave in the shower.
    5. I will reduce my electricity usage. I will not turn the lights on when I don't need them. I will go to bed, and wake up, early to get the most out of the light that the sun provides. I will buy a tank-less water heater so that I only heat the water that I use. I will use natural gas if and where possible. I will have energy efficient appliances. I will look into solar panels and wind turbines to supliment my energy usage. I will use a computer to watch television instead of a television set, since most likely I will be on the computer anyway. A laptop can be charged while in use and then run off the battery, getting twice as much usage with half as much power...though my physics is probably wrong with this.
    6. I will strive to pay the least amount of money to any power or water company.
    7. I will reduce the amount of chemicals I use in my home and in my body. I will seek natural remedies and use less harsh cleaners. But I will not sacrifice my health. I will not, however, just flush old medications down the toilet so that they can contaminate our water supply.

    Thursday, April 28, 2011

    9 American's killed in Afghanistan...

    I'm confused. My source is ABC Evening News. How do 9 American soldiers (okay, 8 soldiers and a contractor) get killed "exectution style"? I've always been under the impression that exectution style involves having the victim kneel and then shoot them at close range in the back/bottom of the head. I can hardly imagine 14 armed soldiers consenting to this. Maybe I have my definition of execution style incorrect, or else someone's facts are wrong. If the man had them line up, how was there no time for someone to get a shot of their own off? And how weird is it that though all the American's died, the Afghani's there were only wounded (and to what degree)? It's just odd.

    Wednesday, April 27, 2011

    Smallville Mistakes

    So, apparently there's big money in finding errors in movies. I actually love finding them myself. I've been hooked on Smallville recently and I've seen two really obvious ones in the past two days.

    In the episode "Suspect" the cop says that Jonathan's blood alcohol level was "2.0"-- yeah, that's beyond dead seeing as 0.4 will generally put someone into a coma. Whoops.

    In the episode "Fortune", the Oliver is dressed like a show-girl including bedazzled brassiere.  Well, while he was fighting with some guy, the brassiere is ripped off...except that when the camera shifts to a different angle a second later, the bra is back. hahaha. By the way, that actor is super hot!! Even dressed as a woman.

    EDIT:
    Just started watching the 10th season (for real, not skipping around to clips that I like). When Chloe is reviewing Oliver's last message in episode 1 (from last season finale) they totally screwed up the order of the wording. Originally he said "I love you" then "they're not Kandorian", they swapped the two for the premier. FAIL.

    Friday, April 22, 2011

    The Murder of King Tut by James Patterson

    ***Includes Spoilers***

    Well, first off, I read WAY too many scholarly historical books because my brain would say "made that up", "took this from a newspaper", "took this from a diary", "made THAT up", "wait, is there evidence for that?!? because if so, that's awesome!", etc. So, there's my complaint on this being a little too much on the fiction side of non-fiction.

    For the rest, I'm highly disappointed by the ending. I think his conclusion chapter was a total cop-out. Patterson gives no hard evidence to support that the wife was in on the conspiracy. The other two were obviously in on it, and fine, I'll take the cop-out there, but this is where his lack of scholarship (not that he didn't do the research, but through the flawed way he that he presented his research) comes into play. I wish that he'd gone into more detail about how he came about his conclusions. The chapter on finding the wife's ring is great because it answers the question of how he concluded that she'd been fed to the crocodiles. But how about a chapter like this on how he decided what conversations were held between the conspirators. How does he know that the queen's hand maiden was a spy? How does he know that it was a hired hit man that killed Tut? Does Patterson just assume that anyone reading this book has read other books that go into these details?!? If so, that's being stupid on his part.

    I would rate this a 5/5 if it had been more scholarly, but as he was more interested in telling a certain story than to explain why he believed himself correct, a star is lost

    Thursday, April 21, 2011

    Fox news

    Have you ever been to cnn.com to read the news? You wouldn't believe how many links to fox affiliated news sites they have! Just one more example of Fox lying when it says that no body listens to them. In truth, a lot of people listen to them, just not their polarizing opinion pundits.

    By the way, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but the Fox channel in Norfolk uses NBC's weather guy and I'm pretty sure they swap broadcasters periodically. So yeah, no body's perfect.

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011

    Why Global Warming is so Confusing.

    One of the most common defenses against global warming is to use discrepencies in the conclusions of published papers and say that "well, if they can't agree, then it must not be true". What the skeptics don't realize is that there's a big difference in the conclusions of a paper written on Southern Alaska and one written on Northern Greenland. There's also the problem of scientists talking about additional research that can be done next within their conclusions without accurately saying why they didn't do what they think should be done next--because they ran out of funding or need more assistants. But anyway, I'm not here to complain about public misunderstandings of scientific papers. I'm going to propose a simple example that might help you understand why global warming is complicated and why you should be leery whenever someone proposes "scientific proof" that global warming is fake.

    The world is a complicated place. Depending on the specific characteristics of a location, the way that location responds to changes will be different. Picture, for instance, a study of 20 different people. These people include men, women, children, the elderly, Asians, Africans, South Americans, Europeans, the disabled, the average, the health nuts, tall people, short people, "smart" people, "dumb" people, and any other number of other differences associated with the human genome. Now, lets take our experimental group and let's increase the temperature. The old and the young might be the first to drop out--unable to withstand extremely elevated temperatures (you know you've heard about the warnings during heat waves). The South Americans and Australians of the healthy variety will probably be able to survive the longest. Or, let's fill the room with excess CO2 and see who can best survive the pollution. Not enough water? Too much radiation? Etc. Why the discrepancies?

     No one would question a study that concluded that different people respond differently to different stimuli (well, actually, I think they do, but that's a different story), so why are there so many complaints when envirionmental scientists say that depending on where you are in the world the affects will be different?

    Actually, my next area of study on this topic will be to figure out why so much of the public is convinced that we're actually in a state of global cooling. No scientists agrees with this.

    Friday, April 15, 2011

    What Proof do You Need?

    It always amazes me that with so much scientific proof of common issues there is so much disbelief. So, I pose this question to those of you who don't believe...what proof do you need?

    What evidence, once obtained, will convince you of the existence of evolution, that the climate is changing, that humans can affect the climate, that we've been to the moon, that Obama was born in Hawaii, whatever.

    My history thesis focuses on how the Union was unable to express to otherwise Union loving Norfolkians that they really weren't a bunch of heinous abolitionist's intent on the destruction of the Southern way of life...at least in what resolutions they were passing. We as scientists (I'm an envi sci major, too), understand that there's a disconnect between our findings and public understanding and Al Gore doesn't really help this. Hence the existence of TED Talks. But here's one more way. It's possible that scientists just haven't been looking at the same questions/problems that bother you, since they seem obvious to us. So, what bothers you. What questions should they be askin? What proof do you need?

    Monday, April 11, 2011

    Tonight/tomorrow morning isn't going to be fun

    No, nothing really great to say in this post. In fact, I probably shouldn't even write it. But since I'm stuck writing my thesis (25 pages, history, on the civil war) and can't write a letter to express my thoughts and since no body reads this anyway, I feel safe expressing myself here. And you might even learn a medical trick or two...

    I have drunk way too much water over the past few days and today. Why? You might ask. Well, start out with my period and add a cold.

    I'd never realized it until I was talking with a girl friend about being incredibly thirsty even though there was no reason for it, that there was a coorelation between my thirst and my period. Actually, I can tell you from now 5 months experience that if you haven't noticed this before, you really should go with it. I've found that drinking a TON of water during the first day(s) of my period really help with the cramps. I don't know if it's a full bladder adding the right amount of pressure to the right areas or just the extra water helps flush out all the crud faster--though given the nature of human anatomy, I'm not sure how well the latter explanation works. Anyway, if you're a guy (and I haven't already scared you off) and your girlfriend is in a similar situation, don't just bring her some Midol, but also a liter of water for her to nurse while you watch a favorite movie. It might help her feel better.

    The cold adds to the situation because I've been told by numerous health-nut friends that when you're sick you should drink a(nother, in my case) TON of water. This seems to work, so here I am a few days past the need for menstral water (that actually sounds gross) and I'm still chugging the stuff. I told myself to drink 4 bottles of water today (totalling about 2 liters), though I've only made it through about half that amount (not including 3 tall glasses of orange juice).

    For the most part the conversion from water to urine has been slow--caused, I suspect, by that whole water weight gain from my period. Well, I just went twice in 2 hours, and I don't expect it to stop any time soon as my body releases what it's been storing and making me look extra fat. At least it's been hot in here/I probably have a low grade fever, so I've been sweating a lot yesterday and today so that's some water that won't be sending me running for the bathroom. All I want is to not wake up at 3am with an insatible need to pee.

    Friday, April 8, 2011

    Unwise Passions by Alan Pell Crawford

    First off, I recommend this book; as a good historic novel, not for it's scholarly contribution.

    It's about the "first" great scandal of 18th century America. Well, the scandal happened in 1793, so how exactly can it be the first? But then the country was only born in 1787, so maybe I'll let it slide.

    Alan Crawford isn't a scholar, in fact he's a former speech writer and press secretary. I can't find who in particular he wrote for, but I did find out that his latest book on Jefferson dying in debt is well liked by UVA's Jefferson Professor. Fine--I haven't read that one. I read Unwise Passions. And this post is about that book.


    I think Crawford took some liberties with the story to give it a moral theme. I mean, the story literally ended with me feeling that "if I'm good and persevere I will come out on top and anyone who makes my life miserable will die miserable and alone". That's not how real life works--that's a Jane Austen novel. One of my friends gave me a good label for this: "non-fiction novel".

    So, to end this: take it with a grain of salt. I believe that any non-fiction book should be taken with a grain of salt but I think this book should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than normal. Use it to become interested in the people and look for more scholarly works on them.

    The Postal System

    I love mail! Period. I don't get much junk mail personally, but I love to read my mom's catalogs. What I do get a lot of is real snail mail letters--I know that you're jealous. Anyway. As a person who gets something better than bills, I think I'm entitled to give my two cents on the postal system and how to make it better. I actually think that reducing service to three days a week would be wisest. They could cut their employees by half because they would still be working 6 days a week, but with 2 routes. Half the citizens would have mail deliveries Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; half would have deliveries on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The biggest worry I've heard is that citizens would be hurt because they would get an even shorter amount of time to pay bills (it would take longer to receive them if mailed on the same day). Well, companies have been short-changing billing due dates for as long as I can remember. I think that the government just needs to pass a law that says that bills are due a minimum of 30 days after the date that they are post marked. Period.

    I just don't like it when postage prices increase. I think I've already posted her how I believe international first class mail should be exactly twice that of domestic first class mail for a 1 ounce letter.

    Sunday, April 3, 2011

    On School Uniforms

    I had an interesting conversation with a friend last week about whether school uniforms should be mandatory. Her main argument is that clothes are a form of expression and using her sister's dissertation on the subject, said that if kids can't self express with clothing, then they will express in other, more dangerous, ways (drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc). I believe that the safety issue trumps any kind of self expression, especially when there are other forms of expression available to students.

    I argue that the most important aspect of school uniforms is that they are totally uniform: from the same brand and style of shirt and pants right down to the socks and shoes. For safety's sake, I believe that clothing must fit. But I couldn't care less about style. So I offer this compromise: students are issued their uniforms and then are free to express themselves as they wish with them. They may not add bandannas or other gang related paraphernalia, but if they want to cut off sleeves or pant legs, feel free. If someone really cares enough about their gang to bedazzle the sign on the back of their blazer, they can go for it.

    But not all kids care to express themselves with clothes, which is why I'm such a proponent for the arts in schools--music, physical education/sports teams, drama, you name it. Heck, even a sewing club. Then there are the students who express themselves with academics.

    I believe in well rounded students, but there are some things that an individual will just love and excel at and I think we need to start focusing our education system on finding these things and feeding them in a productive manner.

    Wednesday, March 30, 2011

    Romantic Weekend

    This weekend has been full of Romantic Movies. I've really enjoyed all of them. Here's the list:










    P.S. I do not even try to understand why the videos in this post look so wonkey. But I give up trying to fix it.

    Shoot Out (1971)

    Clay Lomax (Gregory Peck), a bank robber, gets out of jail after an 8 year sentence. He is looking after Sam Foley, the man who betrayed him. Knowing that, Foley hires three men to pay attention of Clay's steps. The things get complicated when Lomax, waiting to receive some money from his ex-lover, gets only the notice of her death and an 8 year old girl, sometimes very annoying, presumed to be his daughter. --From IMDb

    The kid is cute; the power of a little girl to turn a bad guy good.

    Find at IMDb here.

    Another Film Dump

    Here's another mass posting of the movies I've been watching. More romance and I really enjoyed them all.




























    The Time Traveler's Wife

    Yeah, I didn't cry. I guess it is a sad story, but not very tragic. I mean, they had plenty of time to deal with what happens, so no shock factor. Still, good story: different.

    A Walk to Remember

    Still makes me cry. Sweet Story.

    Leap Year

    I really liked this story. Silly and there were parts that I would cut (as a clutz, I dislike watching clutzs). But who can hate a movie with a really cute Irish (okay, he's really English, faking the accent) guy?!? I'm definitely a lover of "Belligerant Sexual Tension". 

    The Notebook

    Made me cry--like tears not stopping cry. I know the reason for it--my great-grandmother had alzheimers and my grandma told me what it was like to go visit her and not be recognized. It must be 1000X worse when it's your spouse. I also include my whole track record with guys where, well, I haven't been noticed like that. So maybe I'm also afraid that I'll never have someone to grow old with--and I'm only 22. Please feel free to make jokes about a Jane Austen book where 20 is "nearly an old maid". Anywho...yeah. Great film if you're okay with crying and stuff like that.

    P.S. If you didn't know, both James Gardner and Gena Rowlands (they play the older versions of the main characters)are/were married only once and for life. Gardner married his sweetheart after only knowing her 2 weeks. Wow.


    The Mao Case by Qiu Xiaolong

    I'm currently reading this book by Qiu Xiaolong. It's most likely banned in China because of the bad light it puts on Mao.

    It's one of a few books (I'm not sure how many exactly) in the "Inspector Chen Novel" series. I heard from someone in my class that this author is popular in China, just that this book is most likely banned--I feel sorry for those waiting for the next book in this series since they obviously won't be getting it.

    The dedication tells a lot about this book: "For the people that suffered under Mao".

    Other fiction books written by this author (which I plan to read eventually) are:
    Death of the Red Heroine
    A Loyal Character Dancer
    When Red is Black
    A Case of Two Cities
    Red Mandarin Dress

    Poetry Translations are:
    Evoking Tang: An Anthology of Classical Chinese Poetry
    100 Poems from Tang and Song Dynasties
    Treasury of Chinese Love Poems

    Original Poetry is:
    Lines Around China

    Twilight (and Friends) by Stephenie Meyer

    By "friends" I mean the rest of the series. I read them last year and it took me about 2 weeks to read all 4.

    Ehh...they weren't really my type of book, but I found them to be a good enough read. It fits well in the teen romance genre (which I have enough of a bone to pick with)--girl meets boy, girl falls in love with boy, girl can't be with boy. It was pretty predictable over all.

    However, the cult that came from it scares me. The part where Edward leaves Bella to save her life, I fear leaves girls with a misguided sense of male/female relations. Girls these days already have enough issues about being single that giving them hope that when a guy dumps them it is for an altruistic reason is detremental to society. Maybe if Bella and Edward were 30 and sensible the message would be better, but as an impressionable 15 year old (the age group this book is aimed towards) these books don't send a positive message. I've decided that they deserve a PG-25 rating (mental age of course) and I RARELY rate books and movies.

    As for the movie (Twilight), I must be crazy because when it came to the way Edward was portrayed, I thought they did it fine. When I read the book, I felt that Edward was very unsure of himself and timid--just as he was in the movie. He leaving in book 2 and his actions in the final 2 books BOTH show that he wasn't comfortable with his situation and would rather crawl into a hole and die. I'm not sure why so many folks I talked to thought that Edward had been ruined--I thought Robert Pattinson's portrayal was dead on. Maybe this is a indicator that girls were viewing Edward as the "Knight in Shining Armor" willing to face down anything for the woman he loves and is afraid of nothing. The first might be true, but the latter, definitely NOT.

    Anyway, this is my opinion on this book. I'll probably be putting my copies up for sale in the coming months (they're at home right now while I'm at school). It's not something that I'll be reading again any time soon. But go ahead and read it for yourself--like I said, it wasn't my type of book to begin with--it would already have been a one time read before I started.

    Catch 22 by Joseph Heller

    OMG!! I LOVED this book!! I read it back in 10th grade for English class and had to do a pretty big project on it--it was 3 short essays written from various perspectives from the book--the author, a judge or jury, and someone else. I've never been that great at English, so I was ecstatic when I got my grade back--3 100%s. I had to present in front of the class, so of course, this very shy, tiny girl chose to speak from the perspective of the author--who in my mind was a VERY crabby 60, or so, year old grandfather type (looking much like the old man in "UP" with a personality to match Mr. Wilson from the Dennis the Menace comics) who was doing a book tour in all the schools--giving the real horrors of war to a bunch of snot nosed brats who spend all their time being coddled. It was SOOO much fun! But I guess that really has nothing to do with the actual content of the book, just how I was affected by it.

    Umm...gosh. It'll definitely make anyone who reads it anti-war, probably, and really question the sanity of the whole military system as a whole. But in a good way. It really makes you think. But I've heard a lot of bad reviews from classmates that hated it. We were given the choice between 4 or 5 books for that project and I think that I was the only person to choose Catch 22. But these are 16 year olds that I might have used as inspiration for why Heller had to write his book and why I envisioned his character was furious at the world--boys scarcely 2 years older than those I addressed, dying in war, and a classroom full of teens today who couldn't care less, let alone take the time to understand what he was trying to say. This is probably the one book (I know I shall say this many times) that I think EVERYONE should read. No seriously--it's on my 1 book, 1 movie, 1 object that everyone should read/own list. Also on this list are "All Quiet on the Western Front" (the movie) and a small row/paddle boat (canoe, kayak, rowboat, etc) since sea levels are rising and I live on the coast--some places flood pretty badly once ever 10 years.


    Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

    I honestly thought I was going to hate this book. My 12th grade English Lit teacher introduced it as the book most likely do be disliked by the guys in the class. Now, as you've probably read my "review" of the Twilight "saga" you know that chick books aren't really my thing. Yes, I like a bit of romance, but I want it to be secondary--to complement the plot and to explain some of the inter-character relations, but NOT to drive the story as Twilight does. So, when I heard that this would be a chick book I was a little leery.

    But I was pleasantly surprised. This book definitely deserves "classic" status. It's again one of those books that everyone should read, especially if they themselves wonder why they can't relate to the people around them. There is definitely a character for everyone in this book and I'm curious as to who readers best relate with.

    I personally thought this book to be a pretty easy read, but I have a friend who found it difficult (i.e. boring--I've found the two go hand in hand). To this I will say that there is no way on Earth for me to know whether someone will like or dislike a particular book. I mean, I hated Heart of Darkness the first time I had to read it and quite enjoyed it the second time. My general rule of thumb for any book is to pick it up every 5 years or so--the change in perspective you get from age will change the way the book will read, possibly even making a book that you hated in high school interesting.



    I just watched Becoming Jane (2007). I thought it was extremely good and, at least in the context of Pride and Prejudice, it makes sense, whether or not it's historically accurate. It's so sweet and sad...I highly recommend it, especially if your complaint about the ending of Pride and Prejudice was that it was too good to be true.

    Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery

    Another book that I love. Such a sweet story. The whole series is terrific, though there are some very sad parts, just enough to make for a very realistic story. Definitely a coming of age story, and suitable for any 10 year old girl (or 10 year old girl at heart).

    There are about 8 books total in the series. I'm only going to list the 1st here, though.

    Emily of New Moon by L.M. Montgomery

    1st off...they made a tv show out of this?!?!? Seriously, that's news to me. But I can't give judgment about it without seeing it for myself, so let me know if it's any good.

    I thought this book/series was rather good. It's about a young orphan girl who is raised by her strict aunts. Unfortunately, I didn't remember how sad the beginning of the book is when I decided to re-read it over the summer. But once I got past that part, I remembered that for the most part, just as with Anne of Green Gables, the story is primarily a happy one--or at least, not one of total sadness.

    Great for girls who are growing up and changing, or anyone who needs a little more imagination in their life. In comparison to Anne of Green Gables, there is more imagination by the heroine, at least initially. Or at least that's my impression, especially with the 1st books.

    Not sure what to title this as.



    I mean, it's not just one book and the author is just as important as the books. So, please read this article and then put these books on your reading list--they're on mine.

    Socialism in Provence 1871-1914: A Study in the Origins of the Modern French Left

    I could probably go on with books!! I wish I had more time to read after seeing some of these titles.

    Bedknob and Broomstick

    Just knocking another book off my list--I want to read every book/story that classic Disney movies are based on. I'm not sure which ones are left, but I just bought 101 Dalmatians which has been at the top of the list for about 8 years. I didn't even realize that "Bedknob and Broomstick" was on the list until I found it on the shelf at camp this summer. It's only half like the movie that we all know and love, but still was an excellent book. I decided to go ahead and link to the movie too, in case that it isn't one that you know.

    Madame Curie

    A surprisingly entertaining book about the life and work of Marie Curie. I admit that I didn't finish this book at camp because the chapter on the death of her husband (sorry to spoil the plot) left me feeling sad and depressed--I wasn't expecting that, especially since it's written by her daughter Eve. This biography will interest any history buff, science nerd, or anyone who's interested in turn of the century family life from Poland to France.

    "The Thirteenth Tale" By Diane Setterfield

    Well, I honestly started out not really feeling the content of this book. There were a few themes that I am not a big fan of, but that didn't stop me from picking this book up whenever I could to read more. I ended up finishing it at 4am, something I honestly haven't done with a book in a number of years. I highly recommend it; which 4 days ago wouldn't have been the case.

    Assassin's Apprentice by Robin Hobb

    "Tell this to King Shrewd. Our population grows, but there is a limit to our arable soil. Wild game will only feed so many. Comes a time when a country must open itself to trade, especially so rocky and mountainous a country as mine. You have heard, perhaps, that the Jhaampe way is that the ruler is the servant of his people? Well, I serve them in this wise. I marry my beloved younger sister away, in the hopes of winning grain and trade routes and lowland goods for my people, and grazing rights in the cold part of the year when our pastures are under snow. For this, too, I am willing to give you timbers, the great straight timbers that Verity will need to build his warships. Our mountains grow white oak such as you have never seen. This is a thing my father would refuse. He has the old feelings about the cutting of live trees, And like Regal, he sees your coast as a liability, your ocean as a great barrier. But I see it as your father did--a wide road that leads in all directions, and your coast as our access to it. And I see no offense in using trees uprooted by the annual floods and windstorms."

    Very few times do you find a fiction novel like this that makes you really understand what it means to live in the real world...or at least one that I'll actually enjoy reading. A lot of attempts are made, I guess, focusing on the problems invasions by foreigners, but few go further to be viewed through the eyes of a bastard son of the crown prince turned assassin for the king, his grandfather. I mean, you can get a number of ideas about the world we live in just by judging how well the kingdom's ambassadors do their job of actually knowing the people they are visiting...and the importance of information and allies.

    I highly rate this 1st book in the series.

    Movies

    The Princess Diaries 2--I thought it was an excellent movie. I've never read the books and from what I saw on wikipedia, I doubt that I'll ever read them, but maybe I will...not sure yet. Anyway. The movie was extremely cute. I've only watched the 1st one once and I thought it was nice, but a bit...outlandish, I guess. I mean, what else can you think about the story where a girl with no importance turns out to be a real princess? So I treat it as being totally removed from 2, which makes them both the better movie, I think. But the second movie is the tale of a princess fighting the oppressive law that states that she must marry if she wishes to be queen. The storyline is great (many of my favorite fiction novels have had a similar plot) and the choice in cast is amazing--I love Julie Andrews and her chemistry with Anne Hathaway as her granddaughter is awesome--much like my grandmother with myself. I highly recommend this movie whether or not you've seen the 1st one, and I think the letter 2 following the title is a bit misleading.

    The Queen is a very good movie describing the royal family in the days following Princess Diana's death. I love the way Queen Elizabeth II is portrayed, as the private woman who's 1st priority is her grandsons and maintaining the decorum of the royal post. I don't remember 1997 much myself, but I think I do remember the whole privateness of the situation...how the queen was slow to react and reluctant to bend to the public will. Which is her right as a human. The queen is a woman who was given a title with her birth. Her life is a private thing. Just because she was forced into the spotlight doesn't give the public the right to pry. And that's what the movie tries to show, I think. We complain about young hollywood basking and abusing the spotlight and abuses committed by the paparazzi, but when it comes to the queen we expect total openness. The same is true of America's president. We forget that when it comes down to it they are made of the same flesh and blood that we all are made of and deserve the same courtesies that we demand in the private sphere.



    "Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey" by Lillian Schlissel

    Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey is an amazingly interesting book, with a few drawbacks that may or may not take away from its importance. I'll let you decide.

    This book is essentially tracing the women's journey across the midwest to California and Oregon using the diaries that these women kept and left behind. Schlissel uses 96 diaries to defend her conclusions, and as one can expect that the journey wasn't entirely different for these women. There are some differences, as the circumstances of women differed--being married with children, newly wed without children, being older with children back home, etc, but the scenery doesn't change that much. This is where I find the drawback--the book is really repetitive. I understand why, but it can still be tedious. But once you overlook this, there's a lot of important information to be found. And a lot of questions that you can ask about women living on the road and those things that we women have to deal with that men will probably never understand.

    Even with the repetitiveness, it's a very quick read--I think I spent 3 hours reading 150 pages before class, not sure how much time I've spent since to finish it. And it's a very visual book--you should be able to vividly picture the world that these women traveled through.

    "Christmas After All" by Kathryn Lasky

    Well, I thought this was a very enjoyable, informative tale describing life in 1932 in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Yes, it's written for 5th graders. And yes, it's historical fiction. But I look at books as a way to get kids interested in the past...including awesome pop culture, which this book does a great job of doing. There's a few spots where I'm not sure of the historical accuracy--Hitler is mentioned along with the fact that his party was gaining influence. But it's also mentioned that the US knew that they had a thing against the Jews. I don't know how public that information was in 1932. But I consider this a minor problem in a book who's sole importance for me is not in teaching history, but in getting kids interested in history. I love the inclusion of the main character, later in life, becoming a member of the WASPs and the fact that they didn't get formal recognition until 1991. Take that anti-revision history people--textbooks written 20 years ago wouldn't have even acknowledged the WASPs! So which book does a better job of teaching history? but I digress there. Sorry.

    Hand this book to your 10 year old. Boys may or may not like it. I will warn you that there are 3 mentions of the fact that the friend of the main characters father killed himself by blasting his head off with a shotgun. I thought that when it happened in the story it was a bit shocking, but at least was vague enough for the naive reader--but later the character is quite blunt about the blasting. Just a warning, but as with everything, you should be reading what your kids are reading, know what they're watching, who their friends are. It's your judgment that matters--you know your kid.

    "Wolf Tower" by Tanith Lee

    It was an an okay short read, for me. But then I'm probably a freak of nature when it comes to reading. In this book's case I was reading faster than I could comprehend the words and nothing was there to stop me. I guess it's only to be expected in a book intended for younger audiences, but normally I don't have such problems. Maybe it's because I'm tired. I can't really say. But the story is very good--I quite enjoyed the plot and the fairy tale romance is extremely cute, I think. Simplistic, but again, look at the audience. I'm game for the rest of the series, though who knows when I'll get around to reading them.

    "Murder at Fenway Park" By Troy Soos

    I love this book. There, I said it. And I'll probably say it about a lot of books. And I'm fine with that.

    So, we have very old fashioned baseball (it's 1912) and a murder entrenched in the not quite so idealistic world of old fashioned baseball. And it's written by a guy who's a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, so it's not like he's pulling his information from the center of left field (pun intended). What is there not to love?!??!

    Plus (there's always a plus in my most loved books) there are a few anecdotes scattered throughout the novel that just make a person like me that loves history and especially tracing things through time (and if you've read my other blog "Daily Dose" you've probably heard me complain about a bunch of certain misconceptions used by the media when it comes to history [cough: Fox News/Conservatives]). Anywho. You have to remember that this is historical fiction, but I think I've taken enough history courses to be able to definitively say that your imagination is often better than a history book to explain societal relations. But I digress. Here's a few snap shots of these "pluses" in action:

         "The game remained scoreless into the top of the ninth inning. And that's when I figured out how Hal Chase did it.
         Jake Stahl hit a grounder to third to open our half of the inning, and I kept my eyes on Chase from the moment the bat made contact. While the ball skipped to the third baseman, Chase stayed anchored well off the first base bag. Then just before the ball was fielded, he broke for the base. When the third baseman's throw arrived, Chase was hustling as hard as he could to take the throw at first--but his initial delay ensured that he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball cleanly. The son of a bitch. He was really throwing the game.
         Yesterday, with the sight of a dead man still fresh in my eyes, I would have thought that murder was the most heinous of crimes. But now I'd seen Hal Chase try to throw a baseball game. It was an offense that seemed worse than murder--a crime less gruesome, but a sacrilege more sinister."

          "By our second week back in Boston, with Peggy still on Cape Cod, I started to read the newspapers. Any page without box scores on it was unfamiliar territory to me, but I decided to explore the news sections and find out what was going on in the world--not due to any sudden interest in international affairs, but because I thought it would give me more to talk about with Peggy
         Since the presidential nominating conventions were coming up, it seemed a good time to start following the campaigns. I read about the opening of the Republican convention in Chicago, expecting it would be straightforward and easy to understand. I assumed that President Taft would automatically be nominated to head the Republican ticket again. But then Teddy Roosevelt's followers got mad at Taft's nomination by what they called "conservatives" and went off to form a "Progressive Party." Great--just when I start to follow politics, they complicate it by forming a third party. Well, at least it's supposed to go smoothly with the Democrats; according to the papers, Champ Clark is an easy winner for the nomination. Not that it mattered--I wouldn't be old enough to vote yet."

    Then of course, you can just marvel at the type of man Mickey Rawlings is, to accept his life as a utility player, never destined for stardom. This book is awesome. It's the first in a series of currently, I believe, 5 such mystery books. I've read 2 or 3 others and loved them just as much. It's fun since this is the 1st in the series to see where he started out at, because here he meets his long time friends (when I met them) (and oh what a meeting that was), and when I read his books he was quite a few years older and no longer the "rookie" player. Of course I'll link up to as many as I can find, hopefully in order.

    I hope you enjoy these as much as I've enjoyed them. And maybe you'll be like me and REALLY want to read the biography of a certain Ty Cobb, haha.






    The Twilight Samurai

    Amazing visualization of the 1868 Japan that we're studying class. I highly recommend this movie.

    Shadows on my Heart: Civil War Diary of Lucy Buck

    Definitely not your typically view of the Civil War. This is the diary of a southern plantation mistress of sorts (she's a young southern daughter, not married). If nothing else, she gives a different view of the Yankees than the heroic champions of freedom that we are often taught in school. Is she biased? Of course, but that's what makes it real. You'll need to like the way Anne of Green Gables talks because this girl does have a visual way of writing like that and since it's her diary, there's no Marilla around to tell her to "shut up and get to the point" haha. So keep that in mind if you're thinking about reading this book.

    Winter Break Reading

    I didn't read as much over winter break as I could have, but I worked and had a ton of mail to answer. But I did get to finally finish 2 books that I started over Thanksgiving. They were The Sleeping Beauty by Mercedes Lackey and Royal Assassin by Robin Hobb. Both were, I admit, slow reading at first, but in both cases the story is well worth the time. In the case of Royal Assassin, I don't think it would be possible to write such an epic story without all the detail. I highly recommend both books.

    With graduation looming only 4 months from now, I have a lot of stuff that's going to get in my way of reading, but I suspect that there will be 4 upcoming posts illustrating gender in the civil war, since that's what my history thesis will be dealing with. I'm excited to read these books.


    Norfolk (and a few other Southern cities) exempt from Emancipation Proclimation

    ..."On September 22 [1862], Lincoln issued the preliminary proclamation of emancipation. He declared that on January 1, 1863, "all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." The proclamation stated further that the Executive "will recognize and maintain the freedom of such person, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

    Radical as this step was in relation to the earlier policy of the administration toward slavery, Lincoln did not let it cause him to abandon his fundamental purpose--the restoration of the Union. In fact,he tried to use it to induce the rebel states to return to the Union. He began the preliminary proclamation for example, by declaring, "Hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prossecuted [sic] for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the states, and the people thereof, in which states that relation is, or may be suspended, or disturbed." To this end Lincoln set forth what amounted to minimum conditions for reconstruction. He said that on January 1, 1863, the executive would designate which states were in rebellion; "and the fact that any state, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." In this way Lincoln connected emancipation with reconstruction.

    ...skip a few paragraphs:
    1: on how it is worth more to the states to have an election than to continue fighting the war
    2: on telling military governors to hold elections ASAP and how he'd "be very glad if any Congressional District" would elect a representative"
    3: on getting annoyed that "nothing had been done about congressional elections" in November in NOLA
    4: on elections finally being held in December and early January in 4 states: Louisiana (7600 votes cast), Eastern VA (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Eastern Shore; 1400 votes cast), 400 votes from Western VA, North Carolina (2nd district: 864 votes cast), and Tennessee (1900 votes cast in the 9th district).

    "Lincoln apparently was satisfied with these results and intent on having them accepted by Congress. This much he made clear when the question of exempting parts of the South from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation came up at a Cabinet meeting in December. Replying to a question about the exemption of New Orleans and the surrounding area, he explained that he had promised the people there that he would exempt them if they would elect members of Congress. Salmon P. Chase interjected that while two representatives had been elected from Louisiana, "they have not yet got their seats, and it is not certain that they will." At this, according to John P. Usher, the Secretary of the Interior, Lincoln "rose from his seat, apparently irritated, and walked rapidly back and forth, across the room. Looking over his shoulder at Mr. Chase, he said: 'That it is, sir. I am to be bullied by Congress, am I? If I do, I'll be durned.' "

    So anxious was Lincoln to promote reconstruction that he exempted the states in which elections had been held, even though only one of them had fulfilled the conditions outlined in the preliminary proclamation of September. The President had therein stated that for representatives to be accepted, they had to be chosen at elections in which a majority of the qualified voters had participated. Only Louisiana had met this requirement; the 7600 voters who had turned out were about half the number who had voted in the elections of 1859. Congress, furthermore, had not admitted any of the members-elect, as Lincoln had specified it should. Nevertheless, he excepted from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, all of Tennessee, though elections had taken place in only pone part of the state; the parishes in and around New Orleans, in Louisiana; Norfolk and the eastern-shore section of Virginia; and all forty-eight counties of West Virginia, just then on the verge of statehood, where no elections had been held"

    From: "Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War"
    By Herman Belz; 1969

    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    The Kennedy Mini-series

    I just heard about this mini-series and I wanted to share my 2 cents. I'm going to focus on "conservative history" and reality. I've spent my college years learning about history and the "new" way our story is being told. Here's what I think "revisionist" history means:

    The reason why the history taught today is different than it was 30 years ago because there was a social revolution. Minorities were no longer standing by and letting the story be told by and about the old white male. As we search out these new people's histories, we're also finding a whole mess of "dirty laundry" that the white man has been hiding. It complicates things, in a good way. History is no longer some perfect ideal that seems too good to be true. Anyone who pays any attention to modern society KNOWS that life is complicated. We know what kinds of decisions go into an event. We can't turn a historical event into a soundbite--it's just not possible. If you want a shining example of this, please visit Harry Truman's Presidential Library and Museum. The main exhibit there literally puts you into his shoes, giving you the information that he had and asking you "what would you do" when it comes to dropping the a-bomb. I have put this museum on the top of my vacation list.

    Back to the Kennedy mini-series issue, there is debate about whether political leanings were involved. The History Channel claims that there are issues with historical accuracy and the main producer claims that it's because of his conservative leanings. I say that the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied conservative responses to Kennedy and he's old enough that people that were liberal back then would have turned conservative now. So I'm left to speculate. Since there are no obviously outrageous secrets spilled (according to some insider who's seen the series), I assume that the exact opposite is true. I think that the series shows too nice of a story of the Kennedys. There is that question about Marilyn Monroe and maybe they show a historically inaccurate account of this. Maybe their take on the Bay of Pigs is inaccurate. Maybe they focus too much on speculating on the personal life--more than can accurately be known. There's too many questions. Since neither Kennedys who are said to have objected to the series elected to speak, it's still only speculation as to if they are actually involved. This analysis would definitely not hold up in court.

    Thursday, March 24, 2011

    On the Civil War

    With what's going on in the Middle East right now I think this is especially fitting.

    "By December [1860] the subject was omnipresent, inescapable. 'Nothing was talked of but secession,' remembered one Southerner, 'in every company, at every street corner, whenever two people met that was the subject discussed.' How could Southerners not have seen secession coming, especially as they were, taken as a group, its architects? They did see it coming, of course. They voted and acted in ways that made it a likely, then an inevitable, then an accomplished fact. But they did not, could not, have foretold how it would feel.

    And how did it feel? In diary after diary, letter after letter, Southerners describe themselves as being in a state of what might be termed political shock. The particulars and timing, of course, vary from state to state, family to family, person to person--but the trajectory goes something like this. Passing references to political affairs begin to lengthen, deepen, and become more personal; the abstract busy-ness of everyday life takes on direction and then energy, surging, swirling, and building, until the writers find themselves at the epicenter of something mammoth and unknown to them. It is a curious feeling, so immediate and strong, so much larger than the little bodies that seek to apprehend it, direct it, join it. Eventually, when political affairs have achieved sufficient gravity, time begins to warp. The months that stretch out between the election and Sumter become a hurtling calm, a furious wait. Finally, the wait--timeless and brief, exhilarating and terrifying--is over. If will be War. The mammoth something has swallowed up all the little writers, leaving of each only a disembodied narrative voice to comment distantly on the life it has surrendered to the rush.

    This was an aspect of the secession crisis white Southerners shared regardless of political stripe. They were, all of them, at the center of the furious calm, safe for the moment but watching nervously as a storm raged about them, beyond their power and their ken. Men who had dedicated their whole lives to Southern independence pinched themselves as events they had set in motion took on a life of their own--and then slipped quietly out of their control. Others more removed from politics were altogether thunderstruck, exhilarated and dazed by turns. In diary after diary, unionist and disunionist alike document a reaction that seems a lot like shock. 'Things seem to progress in a slow but certain way,' Meta Grimball marveled from her South Carolina plantation. "Everything goes on as usual, the planting, the negros, all just the same; and a great Empire tumbling to pieces about us.' ...."

    Excerpt from:
    Berry, Stephen William. All that makes a man: love and ambition in the Civil War South. New York: Oxford UP, 2003.