Saturday, July 10, 2004
How do we REALLY feel about virtue?
Do you know a single genuinely sweet person who hasn't been kicked in the teeth by supposed friends more times than they can count? Do you know anyone who's a known player, backstabber, etc that's been treated that way? If you're gonna screw someone over, you could feel self-righteous about it if you did it to a rotten person, so why the overwhelming preference for NICE victims?
Do you know a single genuinely sweet person who hasn't had an endless stream of potential romantic partners tell them that they just want to be friends, or brush them off with lines like "you're so nice, BUT..."? Do you know any "bad" boys/girls who get those sorts of responses, or who in general are ever alone when they didn't choose to be? Why does everyone trample over people who'd treat them like kings/queens to get with people they should run a mile from?
Why is it that someone can demonstrate their goodness for YEARS, but a total stranger can come along and make nasty comments about them, tell the most outrageous stories, and everyone will laugh mean-spiritedly, believe what's said, and even turn against the innocent one, especially if they dare to fight back against the jerk? And why is it that those same folks can watch someone behave atrociously for ages, and then defend them passionately if anyone makes a perfectly true comment about them? Wouldn't it make more sense to defend virtue and condemn bad behavior?
The only consistent explanation I can come up with is that most people have a hidden, or often NOT hidden, distrust, dislike, resentment, and even contempt for truly virtuous folks, and this leads to them singling out the virtuous to dump on, spurning the virtuous as romantic partners, and being eager to hop on any available bandwagon to diss the virtuous.
Why the irrational disdain for the good people? Think for a minute about how you feel around the most virtuous person you know: Do you feel inadequate? Do you think they make you look bad by comparison? Are you certain that they must be looking down on you? Do you suspect them to be faking, because true goodness seems almost unnatural? Or, do you just feel uncomfortable around them because you don't feel like you can be yourself, "bad" traits and all, in front of someone who doesn't seem to HAVE any "bad" traits?
Whatever the reason, we American see the virtuous as not being worthy of the respect, loyalty and decent treatment that they've clearly earned... but we LOVE sociopaths and other nasty types, glamorize them, idolize them, seek them out, endure mistreatment to be with them, and jump through hoops of fire to get into bed with them. We worship success, which is often gained via unethical behavior, and see the very concept of virtue as an attempt to keep us from doing the things we enjoy (but know deep down are wrong).
For all that we give lip service to virtue being good and bad behavior being, well, BAD, actions speak louder than words; we've come to see "badness" as interesting, exciting, fun, sexy, and the key to wealth and fame, and virtue as, somehow, the exact opposite.
Don't believe me? Try this test: name as many people as you can in the entertainment world who have been in jail, drug rehab, and other sorts of trouble... well, maybe you should just stop at 10 or 20, or you'll be at it all day. Now, see how many philanthropists, Nobel peace prize winners, and other do-gooders you can name, if any. Then, ask yourself honestly; how do you and the people you know feel about the folks in the first group? Have you ever even cared enough to spare a moment's thought or feeling on the 2nd group?
Famous people become famous because we spend our $ on them. Elected officials become elected officials because we vote for them. Both of these groups provide a perfect reflection of the traits we see as valuable, and, indirectly, how we've come to view virtue. Grim, isn't it?
Do you know a single genuinely sweet person who hasn't had an endless stream of potential romantic partners tell them that they just want to be friends, or brush them off with lines like "you're so nice, BUT..."? Do you know any "bad" boys/girls who get those sorts of responses, or who in general are ever alone when they didn't choose to be? Why does everyone trample over people who'd treat them like kings/queens to get with people they should run a mile from?
Why is it that someone can demonstrate their goodness for YEARS, but a total stranger can come along and make nasty comments about them, tell the most outrageous stories, and everyone will laugh mean-spiritedly, believe what's said, and even turn against the innocent one, especially if they dare to fight back against the jerk? And why is it that those same folks can watch someone behave atrociously for ages, and then defend them passionately if anyone makes a perfectly true comment about them? Wouldn't it make more sense to defend virtue and condemn bad behavior?
The only consistent explanation I can come up with is that most people have a hidden, or often NOT hidden, distrust, dislike, resentment, and even contempt for truly virtuous folks, and this leads to them singling out the virtuous to dump on, spurning the virtuous as romantic partners, and being eager to hop on any available bandwagon to diss the virtuous.
Why the irrational disdain for the good people? Think for a minute about how you feel around the most virtuous person you know: Do you feel inadequate? Do you think they make you look bad by comparison? Are you certain that they must be looking down on you? Do you suspect them to be faking, because true goodness seems almost unnatural? Or, do you just feel uncomfortable around them because you don't feel like you can be yourself, "bad" traits and all, in front of someone who doesn't seem to HAVE any "bad" traits?
Whatever the reason, we American see the virtuous as not being worthy of the respect, loyalty and decent treatment that they've clearly earned... but we LOVE sociopaths and other nasty types, glamorize them, idolize them, seek them out, endure mistreatment to be with them, and jump through hoops of fire to get into bed with them. We worship success, which is often gained via unethical behavior, and see the very concept of virtue as an attempt to keep us from doing the things we enjoy (but know deep down are wrong).
For all that we give lip service to virtue being good and bad behavior being, well, BAD, actions speak louder than words; we've come to see "badness" as interesting, exciting, fun, sexy, and the key to wealth and fame, and virtue as, somehow, the exact opposite.
Don't believe me? Try this test: name as many people as you can in the entertainment world who have been in jail, drug rehab, and other sorts of trouble... well, maybe you should just stop at 10 or 20, or you'll be at it all day. Now, see how many philanthropists, Nobel peace prize winners, and other do-gooders you can name, if any. Then, ask yourself honestly; how do you and the people you know feel about the folks in the first group? Have you ever even cared enough to spare a moment's thought or feeling on the 2nd group?
Famous people become famous because we spend our $ on them. Elected officials become elected officials because we vote for them. Both of these groups provide a perfect reflection of the traits we see as valuable, and, indirectly, how we've come to view virtue. Grim, isn't it?
Friday, July 09, 2004
Mail synchronicities
It started with the water bill; the day of the month when I'd usually send it out had arrived, but the bill had NOT... a call to the appropriate office revealed that they had come out to re-read the meter, for no reason that the customer service person could determine, and so the bill ended up being sent out VERY late, so much so that the payment was barely mailed when the NEXT bill (for which no read was required) came. The bill after that, which was a meter-read month again, the exact same thing happened. AND the next meter-read month, same deal. Finally, after I'd endured half a year of aggravation, they seem to have given up on the extra meter reads, because the bill with the newest read DID come on time.
Shortly after the water bill issues began, problems started with my credit union statements; I didn't get one in February, and they had to send me a copy. I did get the March one, but I got nothing in April followed by TWO copies of the May statement that came far enough apart that I didn't notice that I'd gotten 2 until today, when I got my June statement and gathered up all the recent statements to put them in their storage box (it's an old account with no activity on it, so I don't check the statements except to see if any charges are on them, which there never are)... the post office might be to blame for the missing ones, but they are NOT to blame for 2 copies of the same month's statement going out at different times.
There's MORE; I haven't received the last 3 month's power bills. For the first 2 months, we've called them, given them the story and asked them to look into it, and asked them to send copies of the bills we never got for our records... and the copies haven't made it either, AND I now have to call them this afternoon to get payment info, as the current bill needs to get in the mail on Monday.
The first thing that might come into your mind is that someone is stealing my mail, but it's delivered into a locked box that only we have the key for, and there's no sign of a break-in. There are no children in my home (unless you count my husband) who could be playing games with the mail, and no pets that could be eating it or burying it in the yard. We haven't moved, our address hasn't changed, our mail carrier hasn't changed, and none of our periodicals or our many eBay packages have gone astray.
It's easy to point the finger at the post office, but some of it I KNOW they're not the cause of, such as the super-late water bills and the duplicate/delayed credit union statement, and it just doesn't seem possible that they could have selectively lost FIVE items from the power company in 3 months... my vote is on the power company being to blame for that one.
What's un-frigging-believable is that all of this has been happening at the same time, from 3 different companies, and there CAN'T be one cause for all of it; if I told you how many times I've had things like this happen, where multiple similar but unrelated problems were all going on at the same time, you simply wouldn't believe it. People who've known me for years still shake their heads in amazement, and say something along the lines of "This sort of thing only happens to you."
What sort of karmic weirdness could cause all these mail-related things to happen all at the same time? The synchronicities here are really freaking me out... especially since my CABLE bill hasn't gotten here yet.
Shortly after the water bill issues began, problems started with my credit union statements; I didn't get one in February, and they had to send me a copy. I did get the March one, but I got nothing in April followed by TWO copies of the May statement that came far enough apart that I didn't notice that I'd gotten 2 until today, when I got my June statement and gathered up all the recent statements to put them in their storage box (it's an old account with no activity on it, so I don't check the statements except to see if any charges are on them, which there never are)... the post office might be to blame for the missing ones, but they are NOT to blame for 2 copies of the same month's statement going out at different times.
There's MORE; I haven't received the last 3 month's power bills. For the first 2 months, we've called them, given them the story and asked them to look into it, and asked them to send copies of the bills we never got for our records... and the copies haven't made it either, AND I now have to call them this afternoon to get payment info, as the current bill needs to get in the mail on Monday.
The first thing that might come into your mind is that someone is stealing my mail, but it's delivered into a locked box that only we have the key for, and there's no sign of a break-in. There are no children in my home (unless you count my husband) who could be playing games with the mail, and no pets that could be eating it or burying it in the yard. We haven't moved, our address hasn't changed, our mail carrier hasn't changed, and none of our periodicals or our many eBay packages have gone astray.
It's easy to point the finger at the post office, but some of it I KNOW they're not the cause of, such as the super-late water bills and the duplicate/delayed credit union statement, and it just doesn't seem possible that they could have selectively lost FIVE items from the power company in 3 months... my vote is on the power company being to blame for that one.
What's un-frigging-believable is that all of this has been happening at the same time, from 3 different companies, and there CAN'T be one cause for all of it; if I told you how many times I've had things like this happen, where multiple similar but unrelated problems were all going on at the same time, you simply wouldn't believe it. People who've known me for years still shake their heads in amazement, and say something along the lines of "This sort of thing only happens to you."
What sort of karmic weirdness could cause all these mail-related things to happen all at the same time? The synchronicities here are really freaking me out... especially since my CABLE bill hasn't gotten here yet.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Why are we trying to persuade EVERYONE to vote?
Have we REALLY become so stupid as a nation that we believe that adding a bunch of clueless twits to the active voter list is going to somehow magically give us a BETTER election result? If so, we're in big, BIG trouble... if not, why are we being flooded with ads that try to coax the indifferent masses into voting even if they don't CARE?
What possible benefit will we as a nation get from the votes of those who can't be bothered to study the candidates and the issues? Or from the votes of people who lack the intelligence and/or background in history, economics and politics to analyze the information effectively even if they DID?
Heinlein often pointed out that you can't be expected to get a wise decision by counting the people's runny noses... in other words, that the uninformed are no wiser in large numbers than individually. He also said that there should be some sort of intelligence test that each person would have to pass before they'd be allowed to vote; if that were done, and ONLY if that were done, we'd benefit from more people voting-otherwise, all we're doing is bringing in more twits to counter the votes of more of the worthwhile voters.
In the olden days, those of education and property were the only ones who could vote, and people were PROUD to be represented by the great men of their regions; yes, I understand all the reasons for allowing EVERY citizen to vote, but I'm betting that the old system would produce consistently better decisions. And let's not forget that, as Heinlein also said, the poor will always vote themselves "bread and circuses" if given the chance to do so; the reality of wealth is that it will always exist in a pyramid structure in a free economy, with the few being rich (and middle class) and the many being poor or near poor, and this leads to laws being passed to rob, and I do mean ROB, from the hard-working rich to give to the non-working poor, and give and give and GIVE... sound familiar? I don't mean the reference to Robin Hood's credo, I mean the brutal taxation of society's most productive members to support those who produce mainly children; this is a ridiculous redistribution of $, and is made possible by those who stand to gain from handouts being able to vote more handouts into existence.
Another tactic to persuade the apathetic to vote is to suggest that if you aren't happy with the way things are, you should "vote for change"; the problem with that is that "change" does NOT mean "improvement," and you can get change for the WORSE just as easily as change for the better. If you think it's smart to vote the incumbent out if you hate him/her no matter who that means voting in, keep in mind that when Castro toppled Batista's regime, he was seen by the Cuban people as a liberator because they hated Batista... and they've been learning ever since how the devil you know can be FAR better than the devil you don't know. You can't just vote against someone, you have to vote FOR someone, or you could be making a mistake that you'll have to live with for YEARS.
With all that in mind, against the endless advertising aimed at getting every warm body into a voting booth, I put forth the following plea; either become VERY informed on all the candidates and issues, and all the background info you need to make an informed decision about them, or DON'T VOTE.
What possible benefit will we as a nation get from the votes of those who can't be bothered to study the candidates and the issues? Or from the votes of people who lack the intelligence and/or background in history, economics and politics to analyze the information effectively even if they DID?
Heinlein often pointed out that you can't be expected to get a wise decision by counting the people's runny noses... in other words, that the uninformed are no wiser in large numbers than individually. He also said that there should be some sort of intelligence test that each person would have to pass before they'd be allowed to vote; if that were done, and ONLY if that were done, we'd benefit from more people voting-otherwise, all we're doing is bringing in more twits to counter the votes of more of the worthwhile voters.
In the olden days, those of education and property were the only ones who could vote, and people were PROUD to be represented by the great men of their regions; yes, I understand all the reasons for allowing EVERY citizen to vote, but I'm betting that the old system would produce consistently better decisions. And let's not forget that, as Heinlein also said, the poor will always vote themselves "bread and circuses" if given the chance to do so; the reality of wealth is that it will always exist in a pyramid structure in a free economy, with the few being rich (and middle class) and the many being poor or near poor, and this leads to laws being passed to rob, and I do mean ROB, from the hard-working rich to give to the non-working poor, and give and give and GIVE... sound familiar? I don't mean the reference to Robin Hood's credo, I mean the brutal taxation of society's most productive members to support those who produce mainly children; this is a ridiculous redistribution of $, and is made possible by those who stand to gain from handouts being able to vote more handouts into existence.
Another tactic to persuade the apathetic to vote is to suggest that if you aren't happy with the way things are, you should "vote for change"; the problem with that is that "change" does NOT mean "improvement," and you can get change for the WORSE just as easily as change for the better. If you think it's smart to vote the incumbent out if you hate him/her no matter who that means voting in, keep in mind that when Castro toppled Batista's regime, he was seen by the Cuban people as a liberator because they hated Batista... and they've been learning ever since how the devil you know can be FAR better than the devil you don't know. You can't just vote against someone, you have to vote FOR someone, or you could be making a mistake that you'll have to live with for YEARS.
With all that in mind, against the endless advertising aimed at getting every warm body into a voting booth, I put forth the following plea; either become VERY informed on all the candidates and issues, and all the background info you need to make an informed decision about them, or DON'T VOTE.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
What would it be like to be invisible?
Yes, I watched that old Chevy Chase movie today, lol.
First of all, what do we mean by invisible? The standard idea is that every cell of your body has been made transparent, colorless and without any sheen to it, such that light just passes through you without reacting to anything.
The first problem with this is that you'd be BLIND; for your eyes to work, they have to be able to "project" the light that comes in through your pupils into a dark space where specialized cells "read" it, and if you were invisible there would of course be no dark space, and so no vision.
The next problem is with STAYING invisible; the first time you ate, or even took a drink of water, you'd start a process by which your entire digestive system would become visible because of its visible contents. As the food and water you consumed became incorporated into your cells, you'd quickly become vaguely visible all over, inside as well as on the surface, and, as soon as your upper layers of skin were replaced by new cells that had been formed from visible food elements, your exterior would be totally visible. The exceptions would be your hair (of body as well as head) and nails, which would take time for the invisible part to grow out and visible stuff to come in, and, eerily, your tooth enamel, which would gradually be remineralized by your saliva, creating some degree of visibility, but, since enamel isn't actually regrown, would presumably give you only patchy, partial opacity of your teeth, leaving your mouth looking freaky forever, especially when the live inner parts of the teeth became visible... you'd have to have veneers put on them to be able to talk to people without grossing them out.
During the time where you were only partially visible, your excretory functions would produce visible products as soon as the backlog of invisible stuff was used up; your sweat, body and hair oils, saliva, the layer of tears on your eyeballs, etc, would coat and give a patina of visibility to every surface of your body. As to your less, er, benign excretory functions... let's just say that you'd have to be pretty fanatical about your personal hygiene if you weren't wearing pants.
Let's pretend that your invisibility came instead from some sort of field or magic that surrounded you and prevented light from reacting to your molecules; scifi and fantasy stories are full of ideas like this. What would you DO? Even assuming that you'd actually want to do the sorts of things we joke about concerning invisibility, like sneak into the locker room of those of your gender of interest and ogle unnoticed, or into your boss's office or wherever else there might be things you'd want to look at unseen, after you've done those things, what then? Unless you want to commit crimes, or maybe fight crimes, what's the benefit of being invisible, or even in being able to become invisible by, say, putting on a cloak like in that Harry Potter movie? How well can you communicate when you're invisible, and people can't see your expressions, gestures and body language? How much trust would people put in you, knowing that you had the ability to see unseen at will, knowing that you're human and won't be able to resist misusing the invisibility forever?
Nothing on Earth could induce ME to become invisible permanently. If I could have the ability to become invisible at will, I'd take it, keep it secret to prevent people who know me from being scared off, and hold it in reserve until I was endangered, so that I could use it to escape.
And yes, I'd probably take the occasional side trip into the men's locker room. ;-)
First of all, what do we mean by invisible? The standard idea is that every cell of your body has been made transparent, colorless and without any sheen to it, such that light just passes through you without reacting to anything.
The first problem with this is that you'd be BLIND; for your eyes to work, they have to be able to "project" the light that comes in through your pupils into a dark space where specialized cells "read" it, and if you were invisible there would of course be no dark space, and so no vision.
The next problem is with STAYING invisible; the first time you ate, or even took a drink of water, you'd start a process by which your entire digestive system would become visible because of its visible contents. As the food and water you consumed became incorporated into your cells, you'd quickly become vaguely visible all over, inside as well as on the surface, and, as soon as your upper layers of skin were replaced by new cells that had been formed from visible food elements, your exterior would be totally visible. The exceptions would be your hair (of body as well as head) and nails, which would take time for the invisible part to grow out and visible stuff to come in, and, eerily, your tooth enamel, which would gradually be remineralized by your saliva, creating some degree of visibility, but, since enamel isn't actually regrown, would presumably give you only patchy, partial opacity of your teeth, leaving your mouth looking freaky forever, especially when the live inner parts of the teeth became visible... you'd have to have veneers put on them to be able to talk to people without grossing them out.
During the time where you were only partially visible, your excretory functions would produce visible products as soon as the backlog of invisible stuff was used up; your sweat, body and hair oils, saliva, the layer of tears on your eyeballs, etc, would coat and give a patina of visibility to every surface of your body. As to your less, er, benign excretory functions... let's just say that you'd have to be pretty fanatical about your personal hygiene if you weren't wearing pants.
Let's pretend that your invisibility came instead from some sort of field or magic that surrounded you and prevented light from reacting to your molecules; scifi and fantasy stories are full of ideas like this. What would you DO? Even assuming that you'd actually want to do the sorts of things we joke about concerning invisibility, like sneak into the locker room of those of your gender of interest and ogle unnoticed, or into your boss's office or wherever else there might be things you'd want to look at unseen, after you've done those things, what then? Unless you want to commit crimes, or maybe fight crimes, what's the benefit of being invisible, or even in being able to become invisible by, say, putting on a cloak like in that Harry Potter movie? How well can you communicate when you're invisible, and people can't see your expressions, gestures and body language? How much trust would people put in you, knowing that you had the ability to see unseen at will, knowing that you're human and won't be able to resist misusing the invisibility forever?
Nothing on Earth could induce ME to become invisible permanently. If I could have the ability to become invisible at will, I'd take it, keep it secret to prevent people who know me from being scared off, and hold it in reserve until I was endangered, so that I could use it to escape.
And yes, I'd probably take the occasional side trip into the men's locker room. ;-)
Monday, July 05, 2004
Does beauty really come from within?
Of course not.
I wish it DID, that real life was like the movie "Shallow Hal," where the hero, who all of his life has lived up to the title of the movie, starts seeing people as looking on the outside the way they are on the inside, such that he sees a hot babe who's a bitch as an ugly hag, and an obese girl who's an extraordinarily good person as a beauty (Gwyneth Paltrow, to be exact). Imagine how different meeting new people would be if we all had "Hal vision": job interviews, first dates, picking people to hang out with... we would always KNOW what sort of person we were dealing with (as opposed to being fooled as most of us are most of the time), and those who "deserved" to be beautiful would be seen that way.
The sad reality is that, although we subconsciously assume that beautiful people are smarter, nicer, funnier, better in bed, etc, there's no genetic link between looks and inner qualities, and, worse, beautiful people often don't fully develop humor, compassion and other virtues because they don't HAVE to-when we find someone attractive, we invent whatever personality pleases us for them, and forgive them pretty much anything.
While it's true that we can PERCEIVE someone to be more or less attractive than they objectively are based on how we feel about their "inner beauty" or "inner ugliness," nothing that they think, feel or have on the inside alters the contours of their face, the color of their eyes, the clearness of their complexion, or any of the other aspects of facial appearance that add up to beauty to us.
Beauty is a matter of genetics, and, increasingly, surgery, and can be enhanced by hair dye, makeup, the right clothes, etc, but nothing you do to become a better person will make you one bit better looking.
Sucks, doesn't it?
I wish it DID, that real life was like the movie "Shallow Hal," where the hero, who all of his life has lived up to the title of the movie, starts seeing people as looking on the outside the way they are on the inside, such that he sees a hot babe who's a bitch as an ugly hag, and an obese girl who's an extraordinarily good person as a beauty (Gwyneth Paltrow, to be exact). Imagine how different meeting new people would be if we all had "Hal vision": job interviews, first dates, picking people to hang out with... we would always KNOW what sort of person we were dealing with (as opposed to being fooled as most of us are most of the time), and those who "deserved" to be beautiful would be seen that way.
The sad reality is that, although we subconsciously assume that beautiful people are smarter, nicer, funnier, better in bed, etc, there's no genetic link between looks and inner qualities, and, worse, beautiful people often don't fully develop humor, compassion and other virtues because they don't HAVE to-when we find someone attractive, we invent whatever personality pleases us for them, and forgive them pretty much anything.
While it's true that we can PERCEIVE someone to be more or less attractive than they objectively are based on how we feel about their "inner beauty" or "inner ugliness," nothing that they think, feel or have on the inside alters the contours of their face, the color of their eyes, the clearness of their complexion, or any of the other aspects of facial appearance that add up to beauty to us.
Beauty is a matter of genetics, and, increasingly, surgery, and can be enhanced by hair dye, makeup, the right clothes, etc, but nothing you do to become a better person will make you one bit better looking.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Assorted comments from "1776"
No matter how many times I watch this stunning movie, it never ceases to move me, and to get me thinking about the people and events of those days.
The religious wrong, I mean "right," tries to make an issue of the founding fathers being religious, and they for the most part were, as was everyone in those days... but did you know that the Declaration of Independence as originally written contained NO mentions of God other than the phrase "the laws of nature & of nature's God entitle them," and thus that the much pointed to phrase "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence" in the final line was added on later? Why do you suppose Jefferson made that choice? He DID believe in God; specifically, he was a Deist, and thus believed in the "clockwork universe" idea, that God created everything, set it in motion, and then went away, never involving Himself in earthly matters... is there cause and effect there?
Speaking of Jefferson; people who make an issue of him being a slaveowner dismay and disgust me-no person is to blame for being born into whatever circumstances their family is in, or whatever culture they live in. When we think about Jefferson and slavery we need to remember, not only that he tried to end slavery in the Declaration, as I've already mentioned, but that he FREED his slaves, even though he knew it would ruin him financially... and it DID ruin him, he lost everything. Luckily, a grateful nation bought back Monticello and gave it back to him; how's THAT for karma?
George Washington arranged to have HIS slaves freed once he and his wife passed away; he also refused the offer to make him KING, saying that we needed to get away from monarchy forever, AND he insisted on a limit to the presidential term of office-we owe him for far more than his services as general.
Back to slavery; we think of it as something to blame the southern states for, but what is often overlooked is that the slaves were brought to this country by, guess what, ships from the northern states. Shipping slaves makes you as much to blame for slavery as owning them, to my mind, especially since you have to own them while you're shipping them; if you then fingerpoint at those who end up with the slaves, you're a hypocrite too.
The movie shows a certain degree of friction between Jefferson and Adams, and they DID have their battles over the years, but they were both such brilliant and important men that they ended up as friends in spite of themselves, and wrote countless letters to each other over their long lives; they were so in synch that they died on the same day... July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration. How's THAT for a synchronicity?
One of the most impactful moments of "1776" was the song that referred to what the women related to the men and boys who were fighting the British had to endure. In those days, it would often be a local militia that was fighting, and at the end of the day they went back home to their families; as the sun dropped in the sky each day, the women and girls would start watching the road, looking for their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers to come home from the battle. As it got dark, they'd become afraid, thinking of the worst; when too much time had passed, they knew it was time for them to head for the battlefield and look for their loved ones, who might be too injured to go home without help... or, who might be dead. Imagine their terror as they went down the road, not knowing what they would find. Imagine them searching through the bodies on the battlefield, seeing the gory remains of men they knew, and the agony of those who were still breathing. Imagine them seeing their husband, son or brother laying there, covered in blood, and that last bit of hope flickering as they reached out to see if there was still breath in their loved one's body.
Part of the song is a mortally-wounded boy calling out for his mother to find him before he dies; what makes this even more heart-rending is a dispatch from General Washington pointing out that many of his troops are boys under the age of 15... that's right, CHILDREN, who were willing to have their lives end before they'd even begun because even at their young ages they believed that freedom was THAT important. Even though they were wildly outnumbered, even though they were often dressed in rags and didn't eat for days at a time, even though they were up against well-funded, well-trained British troops and German mercenaries, even though it seemed impossible for them to win, they risked, and often sacrificed, their lives to create the first free country to ever exist on this Earth.
Don't ever take America for granted.
The religious wrong, I mean "right," tries to make an issue of the founding fathers being religious, and they for the most part were, as was everyone in those days... but did you know that the Declaration of Independence as originally written contained NO mentions of God other than the phrase "the laws of nature & of nature's God entitle them," and thus that the much pointed to phrase "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence" in the final line was added on later? Why do you suppose Jefferson made that choice? He DID believe in God; specifically, he was a Deist, and thus believed in the "clockwork universe" idea, that God created everything, set it in motion, and then went away, never involving Himself in earthly matters... is there cause and effect there?
Speaking of Jefferson; people who make an issue of him being a slaveowner dismay and disgust me-no person is to blame for being born into whatever circumstances their family is in, or whatever culture they live in. When we think about Jefferson and slavery we need to remember, not only that he tried to end slavery in the Declaration, as I've already mentioned, but that he FREED his slaves, even though he knew it would ruin him financially... and it DID ruin him, he lost everything. Luckily, a grateful nation bought back Monticello and gave it back to him; how's THAT for karma?
George Washington arranged to have HIS slaves freed once he and his wife passed away; he also refused the offer to make him KING, saying that we needed to get away from monarchy forever, AND he insisted on a limit to the presidential term of office-we owe him for far more than his services as general.
Back to slavery; we think of it as something to blame the southern states for, but what is often overlooked is that the slaves were brought to this country by, guess what, ships from the northern states. Shipping slaves makes you as much to blame for slavery as owning them, to my mind, especially since you have to own them while you're shipping them; if you then fingerpoint at those who end up with the slaves, you're a hypocrite too.
The movie shows a certain degree of friction between Jefferson and Adams, and they DID have their battles over the years, but they were both such brilliant and important men that they ended up as friends in spite of themselves, and wrote countless letters to each other over their long lives; they were so in synch that they died on the same day... July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration. How's THAT for a synchronicity?
One of the most impactful moments of "1776" was the song that referred to what the women related to the men and boys who were fighting the British had to endure. In those days, it would often be a local militia that was fighting, and at the end of the day they went back home to their families; as the sun dropped in the sky each day, the women and girls would start watching the road, looking for their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers to come home from the battle. As it got dark, they'd become afraid, thinking of the worst; when too much time had passed, they knew it was time for them to head for the battlefield and look for their loved ones, who might be too injured to go home without help... or, who might be dead. Imagine their terror as they went down the road, not knowing what they would find. Imagine them searching through the bodies on the battlefield, seeing the gory remains of men they knew, and the agony of those who were still breathing. Imagine them seeing their husband, son or brother laying there, covered in blood, and that last bit of hope flickering as they reached out to see if there was still breath in their loved one's body.
Part of the song is a mortally-wounded boy calling out for his mother to find him before he dies; what makes this even more heart-rending is a dispatch from General Washington pointing out that many of his troops are boys under the age of 15... that's right, CHILDREN, who were willing to have their lives end before they'd even begun because even at their young ages they believed that freedom was THAT important. Even though they were wildly outnumbered, even though they were often dressed in rags and didn't eat for days at a time, even though they were up against well-funded, well-trained British troops and German mercenaries, even though it seemed impossible for them to win, they risked, and often sacrificed, their lives to create the first free country to ever exist on this Earth.
Don't ever take America for granted.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Some thoughts for the 4th of July
People tend to treat the subject of our founding fathers with indifference, as if they got America handed to them by the British, who then simply walked away; the truth is that they were men of extraordinary vision and courage, who risked their lives by forming a congress and an army to rebel against what was then the greatest military force in the world... and remember, no other colony had EVER broken away from a parent country before, so they were flying blind, making it up as they went along.
To get the story of what is arguably the most important event of that era, the writing and signing of the Declaration of Independence, rent the brilliant movie "1776," which is based on the actual records we have of that time, including the many writings of those involved. You'll discover that there were almost as many obstacles to be overcome in declaring independence as in fighting for it, that a man came off of his deathbed to cast a necessary vote, and that the Declaration as originally written would have ended slavery.
More important info is contained in the following essay (author unknown):
"Remembering The 56 Patriots Who Signed The Declaration of Independence
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. Have you ever wondered what happened AFTER they signed the Declaration?
Five signers were captured by the British: George Walton, after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge at the Siege of Charleston in May in 1780, and Richard Stockton of New Jersey because of his status as a signatory to the Declaration.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons who were serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He had to sell his home and properties to pay the debts incurred by the loss.
Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Ellery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed, and the enemy jailed his wife for several months.
John Hart and his children fled for their lives when his New Jersey farm was looted. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste, and for more than a year he lived in forests and caves.
Lewis Morris and Philip Livingston lost homes and properties to the British; Morris eventually got his house back, but Livingston died in 1778, before the end of the war, and never recovered what he'd lost.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians, they were the leading men of their colonies, who had earned much and thus had a great deal to lose by challenging British rule. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:
"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
They gave you and me a free and independent America. Some of us take these liberties totally for granted, but we shouldn't; take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: freedom is never free!"
Do you suppose that for just one day, we could stop whining about the alleged imperfections of this great country, and just be grateful that the founding fathers were willing to risk, suffer and sacrifice so that we could HAVE a country?
To get the story of what is arguably the most important event of that era, the writing and signing of the Declaration of Independence, rent the brilliant movie "1776," which is based on the actual records we have of that time, including the many writings of those involved. You'll discover that there were almost as many obstacles to be overcome in declaring independence as in fighting for it, that a man came off of his deathbed to cast a necessary vote, and that the Declaration as originally written would have ended slavery.
More important info is contained in the following essay (author unknown):
"Remembering The 56 Patriots Who Signed The Declaration of Independence
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. Have you ever wondered what happened AFTER they signed the Declaration?
Five signers were captured by the British: George Walton, after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge at the Siege of Charleston in May in 1780, and Richard Stockton of New Jersey because of his status as a signatory to the Declaration.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons who were serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He had to sell his home and properties to pay the debts incurred by the loss.
Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Ellery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed, and the enemy jailed his wife for several months.
John Hart and his children fled for their lives when his New Jersey farm was looted. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste, and for more than a year he lived in forests and caves.
Lewis Morris and Philip Livingston lost homes and properties to the British; Morris eventually got his house back, but Livingston died in 1778, before the end of the war, and never recovered what he'd lost.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians, they were the leading men of their colonies, who had earned much and thus had a great deal to lose by challenging British rule. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:
"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
They gave you and me a free and independent America. Some of us take these liberties totally for granted, but we shouldn't; take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: freedom is never free!"
Do you suppose that for just one day, we could stop whining about the alleged imperfections of this great country, and just be grateful that the founding fathers were willing to risk, suffer and sacrifice so that we could HAVE a country?
