Follow the money....
It's been said that those words were uttered by the infamous "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame. Maybe yes, maybe no, perhaps it just sounded good in the book All The Presidents Men. I don't really know, I never read the book or watched the movie. But either way, its one of the truest statements I've ever heard. It applies to most any situation or issue.
Another good quote comes from one of the best "guy" movies of all time, Scarface with Al Paciano. "First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the woman."
The second quote is to remind us that the true goal isn't money, but the power that comes from money. And so, money is also a trail of the quest for said power.
What the heck is he talking about? Good question. Everyone needs money. It's a pretty cool invention, if you ask me. I'd hate to have to carry around 40 bushels of wheat in my back pocket to buy groceries. Greenbacks, on the other hand, are one size fits all, convenient, and everyone's favorite color, money!
We all want money. We all need money. We all need a roof over our head, need food in the fridge, need heat and electricity. And how do we get those things? Money. How do we get money? Mostly, through working. I'm dealing with society here, not crime [Editor's interjection: or government!], or anything like that. But just how most of us, basically honest people, get along in society. We do it by working, earning a living, paying our bills.
Which brings us to today's topic. Earning a living. We all do it. Most likely you, definitely me and my family. My brother and sisters, most of my friends. I know a few who've managed to skate along without working, and they seem happy. But by and large, we all work for a living, to earn our keep. Policemen, firemen, garbagemen, idiots like me who help keep the internet up and running - more or less.
(In order to save bits, please realize when I say 'policemen', I mean policemen AND policewomen. I fully acknowledge those of the fairer sex who work as hard or harder than us males do. I just don't feel like typing out, for example, 'policemen and policewomen' over and over. Your understanding is appreciated on this.)
So do reporters. And TV newsmen. So does Rush Limbaugh and so does Howard Dean. For that matter, so does Howard Stern. We all work. In some form, we all contribute back into society (save the jokes on Rush, Dean and Stern), and receive payment for that effort. How Howard Stern does is beyond me. But again, I digress.
Since we all contribute efforts to what we call society, it is hardly surprising that many of us take shortcuts, where prudent, to get the most money back for the least effort possible. I know I've goofed off when I should be working. Heck, I'm supposed to be working now, but instead I am writing to you. So lets get back to the media. Reporters, anchor people, journalists, whatever you want to call them, in whatever form they take. How about Matt Drudge? He's just earning a living. And he managed to break the story on the blue dress. Not bad for some yahoo with an internet connection. Way to go!
So when a reporter tells you they are in business because they want help the poor, tell the story of those who've been wronged, want to shine the light of compassion on the ills of society, they may be telling you the truth - to a point. What they're really doing is making a living, paying the bills, getting by.
This brings us to media bias. Is the media biased one way or the other? Of course. I doubt anyone can look at Dan Rather's 'Memogate' and not see where he made a wrong turn. The story was more important than the truth. Did he do it because he believed so passionately in the story, or did he desperately wanted to scoop his rivals, gain ratings, and secure for himself a place in the pantheon of modern media history? My guess is a combination of the two. you decide the proportions.
But one thing that should not be forgotten, is the people in media are in it for the money. From the receptionist at the front desk, to the guy running the camera, to the people in the advertising department, to the people in the sales department, to the people selling - or delivering - the newspapers and the magazines, they are in it for the money. They are earning a living.
So what exactly is 'media bias'? Is it an effort to inject one's own perspective onto an issue, story or event? Or is it just a reporter trying to garner the most eyeballs, thereby increasing their audience, and in turn, making more money when 'raise' time comes around? My guess is its a mixture of both. You decide the proportions.
That media bias exists, especially by those with job security, is obvious. But how about the common, everyday, garden variety reporter? Are they pushing an agenda, or are they just trying to make a living? My money is a lot more on the latter, though there may be hues of the former. One need only look at the recent hurricane disasters on the Gulf Coast. "10,000 dead" is what the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, told us to expect. Was it verified by the reporters on the scene, or was it bloody enough to run with? I think we all know the answer to that. How about the reports of cannibalism at the Super Dome and Convention Center? Does that grab enough eyeballs for the marketing department, or should they dig deeper to find the real story? We also know the answer to that. How about the fact that the federal government is not a first responder to local catastrophes, should that be pointed out, or do they run with stories about how out of touch the President is? Once again, history tells us how the media played it out.
If it bleeds, it leads.
I remember an episode of Saturday Night Live I saw awhile back in syndication. Jerry Seinfeld guest-hosted. They did a skit on a local nightly news program. Every few seconds, Jerry - playing the anchor - would remind his audience there was a chemical in everyone's household, that was guaranteed to kill the entire family before the end of the day, and as long as you stay tuned till the end he'd let you know what it was. The punch line was, he would tell those who tuned in for the last news broadcast of the night, at 11:00. For comedy to really work, its needs at least a hint of reality.
I believe there is definitely a media bias in whatever we read, watch, or experience. It's impossible for there not to be a bias. We are all individuals, and we all experience life in different ways. What I may like, you may hate. What I find engrossing, you may find, just plain gross. And there's no way that will not come through in any type of reporting. What we, as media consumers, must realize, is to learn to differentiate between what is news, and what sells. Because, they aren't going to tell us the difference. They want it all wrapped up into one, nice, neat, saleable package.
Will Karl Rove and 'Scooter' Libby be indicted? I have no idea, no one does. But does that stop all the talking heads from hanging them out to dry? Of course not. If they went on the tube or to print, admitting they have no idea, who'd watch, who'd read? How would money be made? How would paychecks be funded? Will Harriet Meirs vote to overturn Roe v Wade? No one knows, but stating that fact doesn't sell advertisements.
We all need to take a step back from media and realize, they are just selling a product. No different from Capt'n Crunch. Just trying to earn a living, make a buck. Heck, who isn't? I know I am.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Judging the news
Last night I was watching the evening news (I know, I know, I must be a masochist) when I heard a story about President Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Meirs. The reporters were babbling about whether or not Ms. Meirs would overturn Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that federalized abortion. It occurred to me what an absolutely ignorant thing to ask of a nominee. It shows one of two things. Either the reporter is completely ignorant of how the courts of this country work, or they assumed the viewer (me) was so ignorant that I would be unable to realize just how stupid the question is. Either way, its not very flattering for the reporter or the network.
The US Constitution is very brief on the Supreme Court.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Basically all it says is there will be a Supreme Court.
Now, while I've never actually attended a trial - I've been called for jury duty twice, but not seated either time - I do know a little something about the law. I also know an awful lot about processes and procedures, and how audits and such work. And after watching many fictional trials on TV, I know an awful lot about what is not the law, and what does not go on in trials. I remember one show I watched where the prosecution gave its final arguments, then the defense did, then the prosecution had a rebuttal. I know enough to know that it doesn't work that way.
At its simplest, a trial is nothing more than one party spelling out their complaint against another party either before or jury or a judge. The judge's job is to keep things fair, impartial, and moving along.
What Roe v Wade spelled out is, throughout the US Constitution, there are a series of guaranteed rights, that when taken together form a new right, that is not specifically spelled out, to privacy. On its face, that seems logical. Until you read the tenth amendment which says:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That one is one of my favorite parts of the US Constitution. It spells out very clearly, that unless the US Constitution specifically spells out a power for the federal government, they ain't got it, the states and the people do. Which is why Roe v Wade is terrible law. But I'm not going over Roe v Wade today, instead I'm zeroing in on the ridiculous question the reporter uttered, would Meirs vote to overturn it.
When a lower court has made a ruling, and one of the parties involved in a case thinks it's wrong or the trial was unfair, they usually have the right to appeal the finding to a higher court. These appeals sometimes wind their way all the way up to the Supreme Court, from which there is no appeal. The key thing to remember is it's an appeal on how a lower court ruled, or on the fairness of the trial conducted by a lower court. The Supreme Court does not look at laws and decide whether they like them or not. They do not have the authority to just toss out laws because they don't like them, or uphold them because they do. At least not in theory. As Roe v Wade shows, sometimes they do.
Should Ms. Meirs be seated on the Supreme Court, how she rules on Roe v Wade will have much more to do with the facts of the case presented before the court, than her own personal feelings, in theory. Should someone come up with an appeal against Roe v Wade, that makes a better case against it than the current ruling ( Roe v Wade), then the judges should find that way. If not, it should stand. But the facts of the case are what's important.
So why is the reporter from the evening news such an idiot? Because there's no way an honest judge can say how they would rule in a case that doesn't exist, and has not been argued before the court. That's like asking me to tell you what I think of Paris before I've ever traveled to Europe. Its an unfair question that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Tell me, will you like the dog you have ten years from now? Will you be happy with the birthday gift your spouse gives you five years from now, assuming you don't even have a spouse at the moment? Who the hell knows?
But what really gets me about the reporter's questions is this: if this reporter doesn't know anything about how any court, much less the Supreme Court, operates, they have no business reporting on it. And if they do, shame on them for not explaining to the general public on how it actually operates. They've broken the cardinal rule of reporting, they are misrepresenting opinion and philosophy as facts. If there's any consolation to this sorbed affair its that the mainstream media is going the way of the dinosaur. Good riddance!
The US Constitution is very brief on the Supreme Court.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Basically all it says is there will be a Supreme Court.
Now, while I've never actually attended a trial - I've been called for jury duty twice, but not seated either time - I do know a little something about the law. I also know an awful lot about processes and procedures, and how audits and such work. And after watching many fictional trials on TV, I know an awful lot about what is not the law, and what does not go on in trials. I remember one show I watched where the prosecution gave its final arguments, then the defense did, then the prosecution had a rebuttal. I know enough to know that it doesn't work that way.
At its simplest, a trial is nothing more than one party spelling out their complaint against another party either before or jury or a judge. The judge's job is to keep things fair, impartial, and moving along.
What Roe v Wade spelled out is, throughout the US Constitution, there are a series of guaranteed rights, that when taken together form a new right, that is not specifically spelled out, to privacy. On its face, that seems logical. Until you read the tenth amendment which says:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That one is one of my favorite parts of the US Constitution. It spells out very clearly, that unless the US Constitution specifically spells out a power for the federal government, they ain't got it, the states and the people do. Which is why Roe v Wade is terrible law. But I'm not going over Roe v Wade today, instead I'm zeroing in on the ridiculous question the reporter uttered, would Meirs vote to overturn it.
When a lower court has made a ruling, and one of the parties involved in a case thinks it's wrong or the trial was unfair, they usually have the right to appeal the finding to a higher court. These appeals sometimes wind their way all the way up to the Supreme Court, from which there is no appeal. The key thing to remember is it's an appeal on how a lower court ruled, or on the fairness of the trial conducted by a lower court. The Supreme Court does not look at laws and decide whether they like them or not. They do not have the authority to just toss out laws because they don't like them, or uphold them because they do. At least not in theory. As Roe v Wade shows, sometimes they do.
Should Ms. Meirs be seated on the Supreme Court, how she rules on Roe v Wade will have much more to do with the facts of the case presented before the court, than her own personal feelings, in theory. Should someone come up with an appeal against Roe v Wade, that makes a better case against it than the current ruling ( Roe v Wade), then the judges should find that way. If not, it should stand. But the facts of the case are what's important.
So why is the reporter from the evening news such an idiot? Because there's no way an honest judge can say how they would rule in a case that doesn't exist, and has not been argued before the court. That's like asking me to tell you what I think of Paris before I've ever traveled to Europe. Its an unfair question that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Tell me, will you like the dog you have ten years from now? Will you be happy with the birthday gift your spouse gives you five years from now, assuming you don't even have a spouse at the moment? Who the hell knows?
But what really gets me about the reporter's questions is this: if this reporter doesn't know anything about how any court, much less the Supreme Court, operates, they have no business reporting on it. And if they do, shame on them for not explaining to the general public on how it actually operates. They've broken the cardinal rule of reporting, they are misrepresenting opinion and philosophy as facts. If there's any consolation to this sorbed affair its that the mainstream media is going the way of the dinosaur. Good riddance!
Friday, October 14, 2005
Tomorrow, millions of Iraqis will go to the polls to vote on whether or not to accept the proposed Iraq constitution. And that's no small feat. I'm eagerly awaiting the results. I feel an affinity with the Iraq people. I've been following the news and other sources closely, ever since the latest war became in inevitable. I won't say I empathize with them, because that would be an injustice to them. I've had to weather media bias, uncompromising friends, associates and strangers. They've suffered through bullets, bombs, civil war, and the disdain of the entire Middle East. It would be insulting to suggest I have any idea what they're going through.
Its been a hellish nightmare for these people. They've been under the boot of oppression for some 50 odd years. Thanks to Saddam, they've been a pariah state for over a decade. They've been beaten, murdered, crushed, and betrayed. They've been on the business end of the US Military twice. They've been gassed by Saddam and his minions. Last year, they braved every threat imaginable, and voted in the millions for their first free election in who knows how many years. I remember seeing the photo of an Iraqi woman, face showing, purple finger in the air, smiling a smile that said it all. Victory. The future was no longer just a distant, vague, dream. The future was that day. The future is today. The future is tomorrow. I wish them nothing but the best. However it turns out, it will be by their choice. Democracy is an amazing thing.
One thing that really burns me up, is what I've been hearing from various sources over the last three years. America just can't export democracy. Americans don't understand the deep tribal ties in the region. Arabs and Iraqis will never accept democracy. It can't be done. Bull. Pure 100% unadulterated bull! Who are these people to say that men, women and children are doomed to live under oppression? They haven't the ability, or the desire, or the will to live in freedom? They can't be trusted? Who are these speakers to say that humans must live under oppression, because it's somehow above them, beyond their ability, they can't do it? As for me, I really believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Some may say these are just fine words, perhaps a pipe dream, just a statement. Not to me. These words mean something to me. And I believe in them. I don't believe humans need to, or deserve to be, crushed, put down, controlled for their own good. I believe every man, women and child, in this world is entitled, by right of birth, to self determination. Granted, it can hardly be said that Americans have unlimited freedoms. We have more regulations, restrictions and laws on the books than probably any other country. But you know what? I have the freedom to choose the job I have. I have the freedom to live anywhere I can afford. I have the freedom to send my child to a private school, provided I can afford it. I have the right to walk down to my local public square, and as long as I am civil, and spout off on what ever I want. I have the freedom to do this on the internet, as I'm doing now.
It has been said many times, mostly in country music songs, that freedom isn't free. And its not. The Iraqi people have been paying for it in blood, sweat and tears for decades. And now the opportunity is before them. I wish them well. I hope with all my heart they succeed. I want so bad for them to take their rightful place among the free nations of the world. I want them to have the right to tell the US to piss off, and get the hell out of their affairs. I want them to have the right to tell the same thing to the Saudi's and the Syrians. I want them to be able to tell Iran to get the hell out.
Even more than that, I want them to serve as a beacon to the rest of the Middle East, the rest of the Muslim world, and to the entire world, that people can choose freedom over tyranny. I want them to show all the naysayers, all the yes men, all the academic elites who've said they can't do it, that yes they can. Yes we can. Us simple, stupid, hairless monkeys, us common everyday ogres, us simpletons who have trouble filling out forms, have trouble navigating voice mail menus, the ones who can't parallel park, we not only deserve freedom, but its our right. They can't take it away from us. We will not be denied. Freedom is not reserved for those with sufficient education, sufficient connections, or sufficient bank statements. It's meant for all of us.
I will offer a prayer tonight, while the Iraqis vote on their future, for all the suffering and dead Iraqis, Americans, British, Ukrainians, and others who've given the ultimate sacrifice, in order that this monumental event take place. I have faith that they have not died in vain. I have faith that this endeavor will work, and our world will be a better place for it. Most of all, I have faith in my fellow humankind, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I have faith. I believe.
Its been a hellish nightmare for these people. They've been under the boot of oppression for some 50 odd years. Thanks to Saddam, they've been a pariah state for over a decade. They've been beaten, murdered, crushed, and betrayed. They've been on the business end of the US Military twice. They've been gassed by Saddam and his minions. Last year, they braved every threat imaginable, and voted in the millions for their first free election in who knows how many years. I remember seeing the photo of an Iraqi woman, face showing, purple finger in the air, smiling a smile that said it all. Victory. The future was no longer just a distant, vague, dream. The future was that day. The future is today. The future is tomorrow. I wish them nothing but the best. However it turns out, it will be by their choice. Democracy is an amazing thing.
One thing that really burns me up, is what I've been hearing from various sources over the last three years. America just can't export democracy. Americans don't understand the deep tribal ties in the region. Arabs and Iraqis will never accept democracy. It can't be done. Bull. Pure 100% unadulterated bull! Who are these people to say that men, women and children are doomed to live under oppression? They haven't the ability, or the desire, or the will to live in freedom? They can't be trusted? Who are these speakers to say that humans must live under oppression, because it's somehow above them, beyond their ability, they can't do it? As for me, I really believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Some may say these are just fine words, perhaps a pipe dream, just a statement. Not to me. These words mean something to me. And I believe in them. I don't believe humans need to, or deserve to be, crushed, put down, controlled for their own good. I believe every man, women and child, in this world is entitled, by right of birth, to self determination. Granted, it can hardly be said that Americans have unlimited freedoms. We have more regulations, restrictions and laws on the books than probably any other country. But you know what? I have the freedom to choose the job I have. I have the freedom to live anywhere I can afford. I have the freedom to send my child to a private school, provided I can afford it. I have the right to walk down to my local public square, and as long as I am civil, and spout off on what ever I want. I have the freedom to do this on the internet, as I'm doing now.
It has been said many times, mostly in country music songs, that freedom isn't free. And its not. The Iraqi people have been paying for it in blood, sweat and tears for decades. And now the opportunity is before them. I wish them well. I hope with all my heart they succeed. I want so bad for them to take their rightful place among the free nations of the world. I want them to have the right to tell the US to piss off, and get the hell out of their affairs. I want them to have the right to tell the same thing to the Saudi's and the Syrians. I want them to be able to tell Iran to get the hell out.
Even more than that, I want them to serve as a beacon to the rest of the Middle East, the rest of the Muslim world, and to the entire world, that people can choose freedom over tyranny. I want them to show all the naysayers, all the yes men, all the academic elites who've said they can't do it, that yes they can. Yes we can. Us simple, stupid, hairless monkeys, us common everyday ogres, us simpletons who have trouble filling out forms, have trouble navigating voice mail menus, the ones who can't parallel park, we not only deserve freedom, but its our right. They can't take it away from us. We will not be denied. Freedom is not reserved for those with sufficient education, sufficient connections, or sufficient bank statements. It's meant for all of us.
I will offer a prayer tonight, while the Iraqis vote on their future, for all the suffering and dead Iraqis, Americans, British, Ukrainians, and others who've given the ultimate sacrifice, in order that this monumental event take place. I have faith that they have not died in vain. I have faith that this endeavor will work, and our world will be a better place for it. Most of all, I have faith in my fellow humankind, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I have faith. I believe.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Spirit of 1776
Readers, I must apologize for not posting for a while. I know how much my sage words must move the very soul of this great Nation, but I've been busy. And in a most selfish manner.
A few weeks ago I took my small family over to Barnes & Noble to pick up some reading material. If I know what I'm looking for, I'll start with smaller book stores. But if I'm just in a browsing mood, B&N has the stacks to surf through. My first choice was a paperback on the very earliest beginnings of Christianity and the Catholic Church. But after a 20 page introduction that forced me to re-evaluate my entire moral foundation - twice - I decided to set that aside for now. I picked up my second choice.
"1776" By David McCullough.
And I must say, selfishly, I could barely put it down. My nose was in that book, every spare minute I could steal. I thought I knew a lot about history, and at least some history about the formation of my own country. Man, was I wrong. This piece of literature is fantastic. In the course of full disclosure, I have never met Mr. McCullogh, I receive no compensation if any one purchases this book, as a matter of fact I had to pay for my own copy. So be sure, I'm not selling anything here. Instead I'm giving away advice. And that advice, along with a quarter would have bought you the most disgusting, horrid, cup of coffee that a vending machine ever dispensed, several years ago. Trust me on that one!
So, feeling guilty about not writing, I'm spilling what's on my mind. And right now it's the year 1776. An amazing and not very pretty tale. Near the beginning of the book, General George Washington, commander of the Continental Army, is poised to lay siege to the colony of Boston. Near the end, his army is in tatters, starving, fleeing for their lives towards Trenton. I'm not being exact, as I don't want to spoil it for anyone who may be interested. In between, there are facts, figures, diaries, statements, letters, first-hand accounts, second-hand accounts, maps, reproductions of paintings. And its all wrapped up prose that feels more like an action adventure novel than an historical accounting.
Many of the big names of the Founding Fathers are there, along with an amazing supporting cast who deserve much better from history than they have received. Captain James Monroe, Lt. Aaron Burr, the 19 year old Captain of the New York Artillery - Alexander Hamilton. Captain Nathan Hale, captured spying for the rebels, hanged in New York. Thomas Jefferson is mentioned briefly, mostly I believe because the focus is on the Continental Army and its victories and failures. Correspondences with John Adams, John Hancock, letters to home from privates. There's the tale of a twenty-five year old Boston book seller, one Henry Knox, who came up with a hair-brained scheme to drag the cannons, captured at Fort Ticonderoga the year before, down to Boston, in the middle of winter. There's the story of one Nathan Greene who learned everything he knew about the art of war from books, but nonetheless was ready to lay down his life for the liberty of his countrymen. And achieves the rank of General in the process. There is a supporting cast of thousands, each with their own tale.
The star of this epic book is, as it should be, General George Washington. By page 48, Washington had become a more real life, flesh and blood person, than he ever was in high-school history class. I learned about the real man, not the stoic figure staring back from portraits and dollar bills. A real, live person, both exemplary and with faults. Let me tell you, the Battle of Trenton is a heck of lot more than Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Delaware river. After what he attempted in that fight, he probably should have had his head examined. I would love to go for another dozen paragraphs on this topic, but again, I don't want to be a spoiler. Just let me say this, he truly was the Father of America. No doubt about it in my mind.
And there is a mountain of information on the British, the Royal Army, the Royal Navy, and even King George himself. It postulates something that should have been obvious to even me; the British, the Loyalists and the Rebels were all fighting for exactly the same thing. They all believed America was rightly theirs, and wanted to secure it. That was a point that had somehow escaped 12 different history teachers I had. The Loyalists wanted the British to just put this "rabble" down and secure the land for the loyal subjects of the Crown. The British just wanted to put this sordid little affair down and get back to Royal Society. And the rebels who envisioned a nation built on the foundations of liberty and justice for all.
Another gem of this book is watching Colonial America unfold before your eyes. Brooklyn Heights, at the time, was several houses, a few farms, an estate or two, and an old Dutch Church. The only road in town was the Jamaica Road running down to the ferry. If I'm not mistaken, Jamaica Boulevard is one of the busiest and most dangerous roads (to pedestrians) in New York City.
All I can say is, after reading this book, I have a much greater appreciation for this nation I have been so blessed to be born into. To read vivid, first-hand accounts of these leaders, in the face of complete and utter destruction, bullets and cannon balls whizzing past, carrying on for the cause of liberty, it's just a treat that I can hardly describe. I highly suggest it to anyone who's interested in the birth of Democracy in this world. I don't think you will be disappointed.
A few weeks ago I took my small family over to Barnes & Noble to pick up some reading material. If I know what I'm looking for, I'll start with smaller book stores. But if I'm just in a browsing mood, B&N has the stacks to surf through. My first choice was a paperback on the very earliest beginnings of Christianity and the Catholic Church. But after a 20 page introduction that forced me to re-evaluate my entire moral foundation - twice - I decided to set that aside for now. I picked up my second choice.
"1776" By David McCullough.
And I must say, selfishly, I could barely put it down. My nose was in that book, every spare minute I could steal. I thought I knew a lot about history, and at least some history about the formation of my own country. Man, was I wrong. This piece of literature is fantastic. In the course of full disclosure, I have never met Mr. McCullogh, I receive no compensation if any one purchases this book, as a matter of fact I had to pay for my own copy. So be sure, I'm not selling anything here. Instead I'm giving away advice. And that advice, along with a quarter would have bought you the most disgusting, horrid, cup of coffee that a vending machine ever dispensed, several years ago. Trust me on that one!
So, feeling guilty about not writing, I'm spilling what's on my mind. And right now it's the year 1776. An amazing and not very pretty tale. Near the beginning of the book, General George Washington, commander of the Continental Army, is poised to lay siege to the colony of Boston. Near the end, his army is in tatters, starving, fleeing for their lives towards Trenton. I'm not being exact, as I don't want to spoil it for anyone who may be interested. In between, there are facts, figures, diaries, statements, letters, first-hand accounts, second-hand accounts, maps, reproductions of paintings. And its all wrapped up prose that feels more like an action adventure novel than an historical accounting.
Many of the big names of the Founding Fathers are there, along with an amazing supporting cast who deserve much better from history than they have received. Captain James Monroe, Lt. Aaron Burr, the 19 year old Captain of the New York Artillery - Alexander Hamilton. Captain Nathan Hale, captured spying for the rebels, hanged in New York. Thomas Jefferson is mentioned briefly, mostly I believe because the focus is on the Continental Army and its victories and failures. Correspondences with John Adams, John Hancock, letters to home from privates. There's the tale of a twenty-five year old Boston book seller, one Henry Knox, who came up with a hair-brained scheme to drag the cannons, captured at Fort Ticonderoga the year before, down to Boston, in the middle of winter. There's the story of one Nathan Greene who learned everything he knew about the art of war from books, but nonetheless was ready to lay down his life for the liberty of his countrymen. And achieves the rank of General in the process. There is a supporting cast of thousands, each with their own tale.
The star of this epic book is, as it should be, General George Washington. By page 48, Washington had become a more real life, flesh and blood person, than he ever was in high-school history class. I learned about the real man, not the stoic figure staring back from portraits and dollar bills. A real, live person, both exemplary and with faults. Let me tell you, the Battle of Trenton is a heck of lot more than Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Delaware river. After what he attempted in that fight, he probably should have had his head examined. I would love to go for another dozen paragraphs on this topic, but again, I don't want to be a spoiler. Just let me say this, he truly was the Father of America. No doubt about it in my mind.
And there is a mountain of information on the British, the Royal Army, the Royal Navy, and even King George himself. It postulates something that should have been obvious to even me; the British, the Loyalists and the Rebels were all fighting for exactly the same thing. They all believed America was rightly theirs, and wanted to secure it. That was a point that had somehow escaped 12 different history teachers I had. The Loyalists wanted the British to just put this "rabble" down and secure the land for the loyal subjects of the Crown. The British just wanted to put this sordid little affair down and get back to Royal Society. And the rebels who envisioned a nation built on the foundations of liberty and justice for all.
Another gem of this book is watching Colonial America unfold before your eyes. Brooklyn Heights, at the time, was several houses, a few farms, an estate or two, and an old Dutch Church. The only road in town was the Jamaica Road running down to the ferry. If I'm not mistaken, Jamaica Boulevard is one of the busiest and most dangerous roads (to pedestrians) in New York City.
All I can say is, after reading this book, I have a much greater appreciation for this nation I have been so blessed to be born into. To read vivid, first-hand accounts of these leaders, in the face of complete and utter destruction, bullets and cannon balls whizzing past, carrying on for the cause of liberty, it's just a treat that I can hardly describe. I highly suggest it to anyone who's interested in the birth of Democracy in this world. I don't think you will be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)