History's Drama Unfolds

The Momentous Life of Arthur Ashe

2008-03-04T20:28:00.000-08:00

I cannot remember the last time I started reading a book and enjoying it as much as I did, and then half way through the book I could barely continue on. Arthur Ashe did this to me in his autobiography. What happened really, I couldn't say, but I was all praise and looked forward to reading more and more, and then I couldn't wait to be done. Strange indeed.

The book started off great. Ashe gave us some insight into his world and into various aspects of his life that is not well known. He talked about his days as the captain of the American Davis Cup team, which was enlightening and revealing. He tells the intimate details of how, why and what happened when he discovered, as well as was discovered, to have aids. The opening chapter had me gripped to the seat as I was drawn in from the first few words. Amidst all this was Ashe's eloquence and ability to calmly and eloquently tell his story and impart who he was at the same time.

But then it became droll and boring. Ashe started talking about day to day stuff and imparting common conversations, thoughts and actions with too much importance. He would talk about going for a walk, or a talk he had with his daughter. He devoted several chapters to talking about various issues that didn't have anything to do with him but was more of a long winded explanation to help clarify a one sentence thought that he had. For example, he talked for almost a whole chapter about the likelihood of gay and lesbian athletes in various sports. Finally, as much as this seems touching, the letter at the end to his daughter sealed the deal and made this a mostly boring biography to read.

What we didn't see was his struggle with racism and segregation as he grew up in those troubled times of America. He talks a lot about segregation and racism as a retired tennis player, but he hardly goes into any detail about what ordeals he had to go through. This was the stuff that he could have gone into detail about and not only made his writing more interesting but helped raise awareness to what was and to hopefully will no longer be. Additionally, he didn't go into any detail about his own tennis career as a professional.

I wanted to see Ashe as a tennis player as well as his ordeals with the many surgeries he had that resulted in him contracting AIDS. But we don't get that. Instead we oftentimes get paragraph after paragraph of his day to day routine with AIDS. What pills he took, what he considered taking and so on.

What made his biography interesting in the first place was his stance on the black race and how they perceived themselves after slavery, segregation and slavery. He was truly a man beyond his time not only for black relations but for mankind's relationship with one another. For the first half of the book I would most certainly recommend to anyone as this is a very enlightening read. But the second half killed it and made it nothing more than average. Where was the biography part of autoBIOGRAPHY? I didn't find it, but I was still impressed with who Ashe was nonetheless.

3 stars.

Delta Force meets Navy SEALs

2008-02-22T15:16:00.000-08:00

I had the distinct pleasure to read two memoirs from two different soldiers among our country’s most elite soldiers: Eric Haney, an operator in Delta Force, wrote Inside Delta Force (of which The Unit is based off of) and Chuck Pfarrer, an operator in the Navy SEALs, wrote Warrior Soul. What amazed me even more was that both accounts were extremely readable and engaging, hooking you in and not letting you go until there were no more pages to read. We were treated to an in depth description of the selection and training processes for both units, along with a smattering of the more publicized operations they went on. This is acceptable as well because, and you can bet on this, there were many, many missions that they probably went on that are still classified and can most certainly not be talked about in any way.

But in the ones that are talked about there is an amazing similarity between the two men's careers, not to mention between their respective parent organizations. The training for both are very similar and extremely arduous. Haney tells us of the forced marches over extremely rough terrain, using a map and some coordinates as the only guidance they had. The final test was a 40 mile forced hike, of which turned into 55 when Haney took a wrong turn - and still managed to beat everyone else - and didn't even guarantee that the would make the cut. 18 started that hike and all 18 finished it, but not all 18 passed the final interview with Charlie Beckwith. This of course granted them the distinct privilege to partake upon some even more arduous training and conditioning. One of the more unique facets of their training was the shooting house that they designed, in which to practice identifying friend and foe and clearing the room in a matter of 3 seconds. Such marksmanship is absolutely amazing, especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that oftentimes the terrorists were hiding behind a hostage and there were just mere inches to hit your target. And in order to solidify team confidence in one another and insure that this could be done in real life, their fellow operators were made to sit as the hostage in order to simulate a real life training.

This is all very similar to the Navy SEAL selection and training process as well. SEALs had to go through days and days of an extremely rigorous selection process that was designed to filter out the strong from the week, or I should say the more strong of will and heart, determination enough to push through the pain and suffering in order to accomplish their mission of passing selection. They were made to run the 5 miles to get their food, not to mention running the 5 miles back to training. They would be put into teams and made to carry boats and logs and if you dropped, at any time, the log than you had just dropped from the selection course. What made this even more difficult was that if one of your team dropped, then that meant the weight had to be held up by the rest of the team, which often resulted as the whole team dropping. This did much in solidifying that the team must succeed as one. Another example was sitting on the beach and letting the waves continue to bash on you as you each are holding the arms of the man next to you, forming one long line of men directly in the path of the wave. This was meant to remain this way until someone was forced to quit and volunteer to leave the selection course, sometimes the men were there for hours and when nobody quit they were excused. Selection is every bit is strenuous as Delta Force, with the accrual rate just as low. You were most certainly an elite if you were selected to either.

One interesting facet was that the SEALs had the same shooting house as Delta, which they called the Kill House, and ran along the same principals as Delta, right down to having your team members standing in as a live hostage. What I found as funny was that both believed that they were the best at clearing rooms based off of their respective training, and yet they trained the exact same way without knowing it (or perhaps upper management knew and thus the reason the training was so similar)!

Eventually they each went on missions. Pfarrer had traveled to the Latin American countries several times on various missions to either assist the rebels or the legitimate government. Haney of Delta Force was also used in this capacity. One particular mission that stuck out was the mission to use the legitimate government’s forces and aid them in ousting and destroying the rebel army. They hunted them down and Haney eventually sniped their leader, who turned out to be an American with the United States Army, one that was still in good standing with the army. Haney's take on what happened was that he and his fellow Delta Operator were used to kill their fellow soldier, who was in fact assisting the rebels on official US business. The CIA, according to Haney, was working both sides and eventually wanted the rebels snuffed out in order to not have the US's assistance of the rebels revealed.

Another interesting cross in their paths was that both had spent a good amount of time in war torn Beirut, Pfarrer spending a good deal more time there. Their paths crossed when Pfarrer was in Beirut at the time of the bombing of the US Marine Headquarters, and Haney was aiding the invasion of Grenada, both events of which were happening at the same time.

This was perhaps the most interesting thing involved around both of these elite units. That they were in and out of the same countries, doing the same operations as one another at different times. The two separate units of their respective organization are remarkably similar. Which is tougher or more elite? Hard to say, but I pity the country that these men are sent against. They are most certainly the best at what they do and hard pressed to find their equal.

Breaking Back by James Blake

2008-01-20T21:33:00.000-08:00

This is a refreshing and inspirational story, one that leaves your mouth open as you witness and experience the challenges that Blake went through, as well as leave you with a smile and a pump of the fist as he slowly and steadily built himself back up. Most people would not overcome such devastating life experiences in such quick succession, at least not as well as he did. But this was what Blake did when, after he broke his neck, lost his father to cancer and came down with zoster, he was able to climb back in the rankings and do better than he had ever done before, winning two titles (he had only won one previous tournament in his career) and getting to the quarterfinals of the US Open, catapulting himself to a ranking of 23 from a low of 210 in 2005, then to 4th by the end of 2006 (with an additional 5 tournaments).

This is an up front and honest account of Blake's personal life, bringing the reader into a world that is hard to understand. We get to see some of the inner workings of the tour, as well as some of what tennis pros go through in their day to day life, but not too much.

This is, of course, not meant to be a day to day memoir of his experiences on the tennis court. Some may pick this up thinking they will get to read about tennis a lot more than is present, but this was never Blake's intention. After all, the subtitle of his book is "How I Lost Everything and Won Back My Life". So instead of a book crammed full with tennis thoughts on matches and other players, we get to witness through Blake's words what he went through, starting with where he came from and going through where he eventually got to at the end of 2006. It is clear that it was his father who played such a huge role in his life and this biography is an homage to him. Additionally, Blake reiterates how much of an impact his coach had on him through his philosophic style of coaching.

I think this is definitely the way to go, besides not straying from what he intended to write upon, and has helped paint a picture of himself that is sure to gain him many fans and inspire many more. His writing is easy and enjoyable and flows from beginning to end. I've always been a fan of Blake, even before I knew what had happened to him in 2004, and after reading Breaking Back I am an even bigger fan. I definitely recommend this book to any interested.

4 stars.

Run Your First Marathon by Grete Waitz

2008-01-08T22:24:00.000-08:00

If you do a quick google search of Grete Waitz you will find a ton of information on such an accomplished runner. For this alone her book is worth considering. Her very first marathon she ever ran was a world record and she went on to win 9 NY City Marathons, as well as breaking the marathon world record another 4 times. Her wealth of knowledge is put to good use as she walks the runner through the experience from the ground up, moving from beginning training to after finishing, giving anecdotes and examples along the way.

I've ran in 6 marathon or longer races thus far and am still learning some of what she writes in this book. Reader beware, though, this book is for exactly what the title states, for runners looking to run their first marathon. A lot of the information given is very basic to runners who have ran this distance already, but to someone who never has ran 26.2 she touches on every aspect and allows the runner to become well informed in what they are getting into.

She briefly touches on two training schedules within the book. The first is for those readers who have ran very little at all. It sets them up and begins conditioning them to running, which in turn prepares them for the actual marathon training. So if you do run some then the training schedule number two is where you would begin. But it is very basic, kind of a run these miles on these days on this week. And she makes it clear that this book is not meant as a day by day guide to your training.

Instead she focuses on the stuff that is overlooked when researching and preparing for a marathon. She goes over running basics, such as form and speed and so on, as well as signs to prevent injury, motivation, and running gear among other information. But the most important chapter is Chapter 12: Marathon Nutrition and Hydration. Even if you have ran a marathon before this is a good chapter to read and refresh and/or educate yourself again. There is a good amount of base information that will probably go the farthest for any marathon hopeful in aiding them to the finish line. Additionally, the final chapter, The Race, is also very useful for the beginning runner because it goes over some of what you will feel, see and expect when you toe the line.

I wish I would have found Mrs. Waitz's book before I ran my fateful, yet ill prepared first marathon at San Francisco.

If you are a first time marathoner I would give this book a good read and set your goals on that marathon.

5 stars.

A False Christmas

2007-12-24T09:03:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of nonsense that goes into creating a religion and making it a viable alternative to other religions already present. A myth and folklore needs to be created, a good and a bad side must be established, a ruler(s) needs to step to the forefront. And, of course, behind every good religion is a the organization that intends to benefit from establishing said religion. After all, religion, and thus God or gods, are man made, so who made them and why? It is along this line of thought that I have always viewed holidays. In the old world times when Catholicism was the only Christian religion there were a ton of holidays, all celebrating a saint's birthday. How you might ask does the church benefit? Why, they receive the thankful praise of the peasant class who is then given the right to not work, or perhaps it was one of the few days that it is acceptable to have sex with your wife. Small allowances went a long way in those days.

But today there are holidays that were not present as they are today, or they are much different. The main one is Christmas, or Christ Mass if you will. The nativity of Christ, a celebration of his birth into this world. A day of worship for our heavenly father in human form. But is it? And why would such a holiday be created in the first place?

To start you need to move back to the beginning of Christianity when it was a fledgling religion just getting on its feet after Constantine sanctioned it as the official religion of the Roman Empire. How, the church would ask itself, could we make more people worship God Almighty and Jesus Christ, and how could we gain more support? The answer was to take the power away from other pagan Gods, and in so doing convert their worshipers to Christianity.

This was done to Mithra, an ancient god of Zoroastrianism, and thus a Persian god. He was very popular and one of the more significant gods being worshiped within the Empire. To steal Mithra's worshipers and to make it easier for them to convert, the Pope decided to sanction the 25th of December as Jesus Christ's birthday. The significance? This just so happens to be the birthday of Mithra. Jesus was in fact, if he was ever born at all, born in April or May, but it was more convenient for the Church to mandate an official day for his birth, and why not on the day Mithra was born?

I would almost say that in doing so that Christians have been forever taught to break at least 3 of the 10 Commandments. Oh how un-Christian they are, and yet they don't even know it. If, in fact, the God is at all like he is in the Old Testament, then all of the worshipers who celebrate Christ Mass should go to Hell.

Commandment 1 states "You shall have no other gods before me". And some Christians may simply state that they don't have any other gods before their God, that in fact they worship the one and only (although if you interpret the 1st commandment it indicates that you can worship other gods, they just cannot be worshiped before him). In celebrating and making Christmas the most important holiday of the year they have, in effect, placed this as the height of their religious worship. Yet they are worshiping not God oir Jesus Christ, but rather Mithra, since it was Mithra who was born on this day and not Jesus Christ. Commandment 2 also loosely falls under this same train of thought, as Christians set up their trees, sing their songs in his glory, and go to mass to celebrate... Mithra, of course, and thus can be construed as "setting up an idol".

Then there is Commandment 3. "You shall not make wrongful use of of the name of your God." Which, of course, was the whole foundation and base for establishing Christ's birthday on the 25th, to use his name wrongly in order to usurp the power of a pagan god and convert his worshipers. How much more of a wrongful use could there be?

And finally there is Commandment 8. "Thou shalt not steal." This was the biggest and most obvious of the commandments that the church has broken. They outright stole the birthday of a rival god. How much more immoral can you be? How much more hypocritical could Christians be?

Over time these lines have been blurred and today most Christians don't have a clue that they are worshiping Mithra, and not Jesus Christ. The fact that time has blurred this does not absolve them of their ignorance. It does not give them the right to claim their religion is right and everyone else's religion is wrong. Christians cannot, in good faith, honestly celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ, because in so doing they break faith in 3 of the 10 commandments that their religion is based off of.

This is not to say that one cannot celebrate Christmas. I celebrate it with my family. We do not celebrate the birth of Christ. We celebrate having a joyous and full life in the company of our loved ones. We celebrate being able to spend another year together. Is this hypocritical? No, because we are celebrating something that is real and tangible, that is based off of what is right there before us. What we can see and feel.

We do not celebrate the false birthday of Christ and claim a holy right to that day. If we did we would be hypocritical.

Know your history.

Delta Force by Charlie Beckwith

2007-12-24T01:02:00.000-08:00

The promise was always present, always ready to poke its head out and play peek-a-boo with the reader. Unfortunately it was never able to gain enough ground and become interesting to the readed. Beckwith's book can be broken down into three sections: Vietnam, Delta Initiation and Delta Organization.

The first section is a rather dull account of Beckwith's life in Vietnam. We get to see some of the details and descriptions of his exploits in Vietnam, but for the most part he doesn't really tell the reader much. The height of his Vietnam days are his rescue of a surrounded camp. Then it ends with Beckwith back in the States.

Section two drones on and on about how he was beating his head against a wall trying to get people within the army to recognize that there is a need for a Special Operations force such as Delta. We all know where this one ends, so no need for elaboration.

Section three is perhaps the most boring section. We finally get to see Delta Force come together. Will we get to hear about some of the details of their missions? No, in fact most of the latter half of the book is devoted to telling the day to day detail of what each officer and soldier was doing in order to maintain their training. So and so would wake up, blow up a wall, then do some running and push ups and then go and have a few beers. So and so would crunch the intel data and assess any threats, then he would brief the unit, and return to do some more data crunching before heading home early to get four hours of sleep, only to return the next day and start all over again. This could be interesting except for the fact that Beckwith does nothing but write about this for hundreds of pages. Finally, action, something to break up the monotony. We finally get to see a glimpse of Delta as it prepares to infiltrate Iran and free the hostages in the American Embassy. Some interesting detail here, but then it ends. Nothing really happened.

The book ends with nothing interesting being shared at all. If you discount the landing and subsequent take off in Iran then you are left with a Delta that did absolutely nothing except waste tax payer's dollars. Granted, Beckwith is still in the army, and perhaps they did do some missions that are still top secret and thus Beckwith couldn't talk about. Who really knows the circumstances? But not enough was talked about. Too much was talked about the set up and organization of Delta without showing what they could actually do.

Beckwith's writing is also quite horrible. Nothing about his writing made me want to read more. If you were to read it out loud I would imagine it would come out in a very monotone voice, with virtually no characterization. With Marcinko's Rogue Warrior you at least got to see and feel some of the action, to understand Marcinko's character and see it vividly within the words of his book. Not so here.

Because of the uniqueness of what Beckwith was writing on, as well as the fact that he might very well not have been able to write about other missions that could have been classified, I would give this an okay rating. I would certainly not recommend this book to others.

2.5 stars.

God Is Certainly Not Great

2007-12-14T23:10:00.000-08:00

I picked this one up a while ago and have only just now been able to get around to reading it. Hitchens does a great job in portraying his position, does a great job in illustrating his position by using both his own personal experiences with his extensive travels as well as backing it up with irrefutable history that any "believer" cannot avoid acknowledging.

With God Is Not Great we see Hitchens move from the evils that religion brings along with it as well refuting the points that "believers" use to try and convince others of why their religion, above all others, is the true and correct religion. This last point was very interesting because Hitchens was able to point out various aspects of religions that are undeniably copied from other religions that were its predecessor. For example, Jesus was not born on Christmas, but it was convenient to use this holiday for several reasons. The first was in the Scandinavian countries the pagans celebrated this holiday of Saint Nick and gift giving and decided to usurp it to add credence to the belief in Jesus. Additionally, the 25th was specifically chosen because as the Christians were taking over the power struggle in the Middle East they wanted to ease some cultures into their transition and acceptance of Christianity, so they usurped a popular Mesopotamian God's birthday as Christ's own. Both do nothing more than make it easier for non-Christians to accept Christianity.

Another example Hitchens gives is his recounting of the Muslims plagiarism of the Old and New Testament in order to create their Koran. Or Joseph Smith plagiarising the New Testament when he dictated the Book of Mormon. These are obvious answers that any "believer" can find themselves. So how is it that their religion is the true and correct one when all it is is a plagiarism of other "revealed" religions?

But those are points on the false nature of religion, on the aspects of religion that are exploited upon, are used to pray on people's fears. Or the old casuistry of what do you have to lose? If he exists and you believe then you are safe, if he doesn't exist than you haven't lost anything in believing in him. Or praying on the fears of sinning will send you to rot in an eternal hell. Oh, and my favorite is when people claim that it is religion that holds our society together and not letting it fall into criminality and violence. Which begs the question, are they saying that if they didn't believe in God then they would rape, pillage and steal? Nonsense. Morals are not religion driven, they are innate.

Finally, Hitchens points more directly towards the hypocrisy of religion and how religion poisons everything. He says at one point: "The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre..." This was an aptly put observation, one that is glossed over when people praise their religion. If they actually read the holy book that their religion is based off of then they would be appalled at what their book promotes. Oh, but we follow the ways of the New Testament, not the Old Testament, some would say. Nonsense, you can't have one without the other because the New Testament was based off of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. Additionally, Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, so he did follow the Old Testament, and who are we to try and not follow the Old Testament when that was what he followed?

I could go on and on with the hypocrisy and ludicrous idea behind accepting any religion as a reality. I would like to point out that Hitchens does talk a good deal about other religions besides Christianity, which is a huge plus in order to understand where he is coming from. He may not write as well as Dawkins, but he went into more detail which adds a ton to his credibility.

5 stars.

Richard Marcinko's Band of Misfits

2007-12-04T22:25:00.000-08:00

We've all known that there are clandestine units out there that do the United States' bidding. Not the political type, but the nasty military type that result in death and destruction. We've seen it on television, in the movies, and read the books. Richard Marcinko lived that life. In fact, he created Seal Team Six designed specifically to cause the most damage to the enemy. To us it is the stuff of fiction, to him it was his life.

Marcinko's Navy career truly started when he engineered his move to become a Frogman, the precursor to the Seals, and until then the hardest unit to get into and the most dangerous. It was them who paved the way for the invading army via water, but that was where they ended. Not only did Marcinko become a Frogman, but he owned it, becoming the best there was. But there was a new kid on the block, one more secretive and tougher to get in to: Navy Seals. The difference? Where the Frogmen stopped when water met land, the Seals evolved and used water as the starting point, moving deep into enemy territory over land. They were mean, they were tough, and they were extremely skilled in killing, demolition, parachuting - you name it, they did it.

We see Marcinko in action as a Navy Seal in Vietnam as part of Seal Team Two. There were only two teams, a West Coast and an East Coast, and Team Two was the East Coast. Marcinko took charge and led forays into enemy land, inflicting casualties and interrupting the couriers f Vietnam. This did not come without a price, though, as his rough attitude to his superiors and the chain of command put him on the hot seat almost always. But he didn't care. As far as he was concerned he was doing his job. It was worth the risk.

And the risk was more than upset COs. Invading enemy territory without an army behind you is dangerous to say the least. It takes a certain type of individual to do this, and it is that reason that the crazy sons of bitches made it through hell week and through Seal training when everyone else dropped out. They are machines. They are fierce. And they like to hunt and kill humans. You almost get a sense that they get a kick out of it, that they get a joy and satisfaction out of invading without being see and whacking men before they even knew what hit them. By societies standards they are murderers. But by Navy and Army standards they are soldiers doing a job, a job that takes a very specific type of individual to accomplish.

Marcinko and the team behind him at Team Two were these men.

Eventually Marcinko was brought back from Vietnam and was mentored by some men who appreciated his rough and crude personality and were able to see his potential. Ultimately, he went to school and began getting promoted, eventually leading to his creation of a third Seal team called Seal Team Six, one that was ultra top secret and received a massive budget compared to other whole squadrons. The team he chose were even more brutal and deadly than the other Seals because they trained to be that way, no holds barred. Unfortunately they never got to see any action. A ton of training - of which they had several fatalities - and no missions.

After three years Demo Dick retired his command of Seal Team Six and as left to a desk job. Eventually he was commissioned to create another group of misfits called Red Cell, one that had a huge budget as well, one that was virtually independent of the chain of command of other units. There job? Infiltrate the most secure US bases and facilities and expose their weaknesses for what they were, which would hopefully be able to help make them more secure. Some targets were nuclear submarines, naval bases and Air Force One.

This of course added to the already sensitive COs who Marcinko had pissed off in the past and was now rubbing their wounds with salt. He was protected for a while by Admiral Ace Lyons who commissioned Marcinko to create Red Cell, but Lyons political rivals were able to successfully banish him by promoting him to the naval base at Pearl Harbor.

Marcinko was now a wanted man without protection, but his abrasive attitude and ego got the better of him. He eventually went to prison for two years on claims of fraudulent behavior. That was the thanks he received for serving and protecting his our country. The pissants that had their feathers ruffled couldn't see this, though, because they were too busy worrying about their ruffled feathers and how they could exact revenge. As is life.

Marcinko's autobiography is a gripping tale that draws you into the life of a clandestine Seal and eventually a top secret CO of two units. His personality comes through loud and clear - doom on you charlies - which makes the read, coupled with good writing, and that more interesting.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

2007-11-02T21:51:00.000-07:00

Oh the disappointment is so ripe it reeks... How could the producer of the first Elizabeth put out a movie that holds none of the same qualities? Historically there was next to nothing significant, so you can't even hang your hat on that. I mean, you go to watch a historical movie and you expect a good amount of history, right? Not the case here. It touches upon it, because it had to, but the focus on the whole movie was certainly not centered on history.

The filming wasn't that great either. Over and over again they kept filming these shots where the person is out of focus and then they come into focus, trying to be unique when all it did was break up the picture into annoying and more annoying. The set looked fake as well, which doesn't work too well with a historical movie, where it must look authentic in order to add the weight of reality to it. In particular the scenes on the ships were the worst of them all, and not just with the set. The acting/action scenes are quick and disjointed, leaving you shaking your head.

And they made the Virgin Queen seem so petty that it seemed, at least for me, to so contradict the image I have of her that there was no way I could believe her character. I love Cate Blanchett and she did her best to make the character more believable, but it still fell short by quite a bit.

Finally, they tried to make virtually every scene seem so momentous and important. The music, not altogether bad but not altogether good either, was trying to accentuate each scene but all it did was make it too dramatic for what was happening. A close up shot of Bess with this heart rending music and... nothing happens.

I so looked forward to this movie because I loved the first Elizabeth so much. Oh well, you win some you lose some.

The Assassins by Bernard Lewis

2007-10-28T16:49:00.000-07:00

There are a few books that stand the test of time as seminal pieces of that time period and subject matter. Garrett Mattingly, for example, does this with The Armada, and Bernard Lewis certainly does this for The Assassins. This time period of the tumultuous Muslim world had many large and small players that had a huge role in how the politics were played out. The Assassins were by no means a huge force to reckon with. In fact they were a rather small religious sect that never really held much land and didn't play too much of a role in the overall picture. So why then were they so feared, and why has their name become synonymous with an act of murder that certainly preceded them and would have certainly lasted after their extinction?

The answer actually blends in with a lot of what we know of today's Muslim world. Today we hear of suicide bombers or, more recently, the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon that was a result of kamikaze Muslim men who sacrificed their lives for what they thought was the greater good of their religion. And, of course, that in sacrificing themselves they would be entitled to a life of privilege in the afterlife. Lewis opens his account with this very image as men from the local villages that supported the religious sect of the Ismailis, or the Assassins, would be secreted into a private area of the nearby castle that the Old Man Of The Castle may very well have lived in. Once in this paradise he would be treated like a king with all the food and drink he wanted amidst a lush environment of vegetation and water. And, of course, he would be served hand and foot by beautiful women. Then, once they were settling in, they would be drugged and taken back to the real world and told that if he wanted paradise he would have to sacrifice himself and kill whoever the Old Man wanted.

This, of course, could be historical myth, but the Old Man Of The Castle was certainly not a myth and was a real and powerful ruler of the Ismailis. There was a point where men of the Western world as well as of the Persian landscape feared his very name. They wore chain mail to bed in order to protect against the vicious murder that would befall upon those that the Assassins could get to. And this was their primary method of political gain. Assassins infiltrated camps and castles and gained the trust of the rulers. Then at a predisposed time he would attack and kill. This wasn't always the case. Sometimes there was already so much fear that all they had to do was insinuate that they could snuff so and so's life at any given time, and this usually worked. Such cases as having Saladin's trusted assistants showing their true allegiance to the Assassins, or finding a dagger, point first in the ground next to your bed that was supposedly secure.

The threat was always there and many people began to pay tribute to the Old Man In The Castle in order to ensure their safety. Westerners particularly had to pay this tribute to cross over into their land. Or perhaps the local leaders feared for their life and paid a tribute, although they still wore their chain mail in fear of being double crossed. The Mongol leaders even feared and respected the power of the Assassins when they invaded the Middle East. The Assassins were one of the two main issues that needed to be dealt with right away.

The Assassins, of course, didn't always strike fear into everyone or every institution. The warrior knights, Hospitalers and Templars, actually exacted a tribute from the Assassins. Why, you might ask? Well the fear that the Assassins struck was derived from the fact that if a ruler or leader was gone than things will go into disarray because that person is of royalty, or that person was "indispensable". Not so with the knights. If their leader was struck down then a new and just as capable leader would step up into his position and take over the reigns. Additionally there were two Persian rulers that could not be pushed around. The first was Saladin. Although there were at least two attempts on his life they were never successful and, in fact, Saladin's power was enough for the Assassins to call a truce and work with Saladin. Baybars was perhaps the downfall of the Assassins as he was able to enforce his power and will upon the small religious sect and, ultimately, bring it under his and all future rulers.

Today this melds perfectly with what we know as fundamentalists and the suicide bombers. Additionally the Assassins were Shi'ite and almost all of their Middle Eastern attacks were on Shi'a so the conflicts so prevalent in the Middle East today were still a huge and guiding factor in the medieval Muslim world. Finally, just the mere fact that today to assassinate someone, or the act of assassination, draws its name from the small religious fundamentalist Muslim group called the Ismailis, or Assassins, says a lot more than anything else.

Bernard Lewis wrote this book in the sixties and it is still a premiere book for anyone looking to read anything about this powerful group.

Adoption and Race Issues

2007-09-28T18:49:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of injustice going on in this world, much that we wouldn't think possible and would, almost, not believe. Patton tackles two sensitive issues: race and adoption. Both issues are important in and of themselves; one is obvious, the other not so much.

Race, of course, is the obvious issue that still affects America. Perhaps not directly, but certainly indirectly. Patton shows us her life as a black child growing up in a society that is still affected heavily by slavery and the racism that ensued after emancipation. Where parents beat their children and abuse them both physically and mentally as a residual side effect handed down from generation to generation since slavery. The parents were beat, who were in turn beat by their parents and so on as a vicious cycle that was used to "protect" their children from the white man by preparing them for what their life would be like. This involved continually beating with anything at hand as well as verbally and mentally assaulting them to harden them for the cold, hard world of "white" America.

The not so obvious one is adoption and how this affected black children who were adopted. They were often forgotten by the system and left to their own defenses against parents who were stuck in the old world society that resulted from slavery. They would beat the adopted child and raise them as above mentioned, going further with the mental abuse that comes with growing up without your biological parents. Additionally, the system that is in place for those who must live in a group home of some sort it expects, almost, that they won't succeed and doesn't try to nurture the children and encourage them to grow and become the best that they could.

This, of course, was the life that Patton grew up in and was familiar with amongst her friends she went to school with as well as lived with in the group home. We certainly can't assume that this is the normal and standard life of not only an adopted child but a black child as well, but Patton's experiences are real and eye opening.

She grew up physically, mentally and sexually abused by her adoptive mother who had the notion that since she was beat then she must in turn beat her child in order to protect and prepare her for the real world. Patton describes the matriarchal society and the shortcomings of the aftermath of coping with slavery and treated as nothing more than property. The fact that she was adopted didn't help either, as this was only more fuel for the mother to use to whip and cajole the child the way she wanted. Eventually Patton got up the courage to stand up to her adopted mother when she was being beat with an electrical cord and ran away, eventually going to the police, which in turn resulted in her being placed in a group home.

Overcoming the odds Patton was accepted to a boarding school with a full ride, thereby bypassing the system in place to only set up the child/young adult for minimal success, eventually resulting in her being accepted to and completing her Bachelor's degree, as well as working towards her PhD. Patton's story is an amazing one of courage and perseverance, one that only her drive and determination were able to push her through and to break out of the mold that being an adopted black child in today's time had set.

Hopefully her biography will help shed some light on this horrific situation and system and help move towards a change for the better.

New Netherland

2007-09-22T16:55:00.000-07:00

When we think of our nation's colonial beginnings we will invariably assume that they were all English Puritan colonies that were established. We think of New England, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and so on. Until recently there wasn't many records that would contradict this belief, beyond the fact that for some reason it is our Puritan past that people seem to take pride in. In the 70s this all changed.

A vast quantity of records that went through a tremendous amount of conflict and strife and overcame disasters were finally beginning to be translated accurately. What it showed was that New Netherland was a very prominent colony that covered parts of 5 of the 13 original states, and predated the original 13 colonies. Its importance in our history is much more than anyone thought.

It all started when Henry Hudson navigated the river that flowed around what would be called Manhattan for the Dutch West India Company in 1624. They quickly recognized its importance and established New Netherland with Manhattan as its center. Soon enough forts were built and trade was formalized with the Native Americans. Beaver furs were the currency.

New Netherland was not without its conflict. Beyond the fact that other colonies were established above and below by the English and the Swedish, there was the typical bureaucratic power struggle among the leaders of the colony and the West India Company. The third director-general of the colony was Peter Minuit, who orchestrated the purchase of Manhattan from the Native Americans, as well as, once removed from his appointed position, helped Sweden form New Sweden on the southern border of New Netherlands. He was replaced by Willem Kieft who had a harsh rule and alienated the colony from its Indian allies, culminating in Kieft's War against the Native American tribes, which ultimately caused his forced replacement by Petrus Stuyvesant, a one legged general of the West India Company.

Stuyvesant was the most contentious rule as he ruled with a firm hand, but he also furthered the interests of the colony the most and solidified the administration and running of Manhattan. He also forcefully wrested control of and took over New Sweden and expanded the Dutch colony. Ultimately the people tried to wrest control of the colony from Stuyvesant and the West India Company and make New Netherlands a sanctioned province of the Dutch Republic. This faction was led by Adriaen van der Donck who was the first learned man in law to reside in, quite possibly, all of North America. This conflict eventually led van der Donck to travel to the Hague and press for Stuyvesant's removal and he was successful. Just as he was about to set sail for America with the news of the new status of New Netherland word came of Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War and everything returned to Stuyvesant's favor as any inclination of insurrection was promptly handled, and van der Donck certainly fell into this category.

Ultimately James, Duke of York, set his sites on the Cromwellian empire that was envisioned and set about wresting control of New Netherland from the Dutch Republic. Stuyvesant, without the support of the colony's residents or of the West India Company, could do nothing to stop the navy of England and so had to turn over the colony without a shot fired, much as he took over New Sweden 9 years previous. There were a few more minor skirmishes between England and the Dutch Republic, one resulting in the recapture of New Netherlands (and renamed from New York to New Orange), but ultimately the Dutch colony would be known as New York and seemingly forever associated with the English.

The ultimate thesis of the book is how much the Dutch colony has affected America as it is today. That the United States is referred to as a melting pot is accredited to the the Dutch Colony because of the great variety of nationalities that flocked to New Netherland because of the freedom of religion and non-conformist way of government. Once the English took over they noted this in the 18th century how very many nationalities there were compared to how many English there were. Additionally, much of the New York area was established by the Dutch the remnants of which can still be seen today. Jonas Bronck (Bronx), Breuckele (Brooklyn), van der Donck was known as "the Jonker" and his land was known as "Jonker's Land" (Yonkers), colors of the Dutch flag of the 17th century were adopted by New York City in 1915, Roode Eylandt (Rhode Island), Nieuw Haarlem (Harlem), Greenwyck (Greenwich Village) among others.

The first district attorney can trace its origins back to New Netherlands and the Dutch Republic, as van der Donck was the first as he held the position of schout, which was the colonies law officer.

Wall Street gets its name because the street was bordered on one side by a wall built by the Dutch in order to keep the English out (and not the Native Americans as generally mis-attributed). Broadway Street was named because of the Dutch street that was, obviously, broad.

Other trivial origins are the Dutch koeckjes, which we have come to know and love as cookies. Or in New Amsterdam the Dutch women started making Koolsla, which is the very American BBQ food we have come to call cole slaw.

What it all boils down to is that much of how the United States came to be what we are today and much of the history of New York, and thus the center of much of the culture of America (since this was the hub and major port that immigrants came in to), should be attributed its fair share to the Dutch colony of New Netherlands. Without them our country would most assuredly be a much different country.

Russell Shorto has done a great job in capturing the essence of this important North American colony through the translations made by Charles Gehring, as well illustrating the overall history of the time period in how it relates to North America as well as the greater politics of the corresponding European countries.

The Canon of the Netherlands

2007-09-20T18:12:00.000-07:00

As I am reading about New Amsterdam, a North American colony of the Dutch Republic in the 17th century, I started trying to find more that I could read about this fascinating country. The current Dutch government authorized a committee to create a Dutch canon to represent the importantant periods throughout their history. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit less history on the Netherlands than other European countries, at least those written in english, so this is a great site to start and/or look for more history.

The site can be found here.

The National Syndicate's Assassins

2007-09-13T23:31:00.000-07:00

Murder Inc. is just as nefarious as the title represents, and yet the book talks about so much more. We are shown from the very beginning how the "Mafia" was no more, that the Syndicate was born which ushered in an even more dangerous and violent group up mob players, simply because of their organization.

Burtun Turkus was the assistant District Attorney and thus was in a very good position to give us a great account of what went on. It all started with the syndication of the mob as each region has a head boss who, in turn, is in a way on the board of directors. They realized the strain they were putting on their money making capabilities by going off on one another and leaving "packages" everywhere. So they created the Syndicate which managed the affairs of the mob as a whole. Men could not be killed with out the boss's okay, and a further protection was instated that made any hit of a man of another crew to be authorized by the committee of mafia dons. This, of course, led to a group that stepped up and handled all of the contract killing the syndication needed, which fell to the hands of the efficient Brownsville mob.

This is where our canary came in as he was pinched for murder, and he walked himself into the police office thinking he would beat this rap just as the countless others he had! This was Abe "The Kid" Reles, a head killer and leader of the Brownsville mob the media would name Murder Inc. Seeing no way out he started singing, helping the DAs office in establishing the corroboration needed in order to use the testimony of the accomplices in custody, most of the murders of which Reles had a hand in.

The canary ended up singing to the tune of 7 sentences: death by electrocution. Some notorious murderers finally met their maker as countless unsolved murders were now solved. Among them were Pittsburgh Phil, who took a pleasure in killing, Happy Maione, and the infamous Lepke. Lepke was the biggest fish the government had ever been able to not only catch but to also try and convict, leading to his death in the electric chair. Lepke was a kingpin and a head mob leader throughout the nation and was much respected and feared. He of course thought he would get off, just as Reles did. In fact he had been in hiding for almost 2 years when he made an agreement and turned himself in to the Feds.

Ultimately there was one other catch that got a way that Reles would have sang gladly for. Albert Anastasia was the king of the docks and ruler of Murder Inc. He was a head mob don nationwide and controlled much of the power in Brooklyn. Catching him would be even bigger than catching Lepke. Strangely, though, Reles supposedly tried to escape from his six story room by climbing out the window. All fingers point to foul play and to this day it is unknown how he ultimately came to have dropped from that window. What was certain though was that Anastasia was now no longer under threat, as it was Reles and Reles alone that was the corroborating evidence that would have sent Anastasis to the electric chair.

Turkus did an amazing job in delving into this secret world. But what he wrote off as a changing of the guard, that of the old Mafia dying away and the new mob stepping in, one that worked together and was not clannish, was very wrong. He claimed that the mob no longer restricted their thugs to Sicilian born, which is partly true.

It is amazing to see how much Turkus uncovered and how little he ultimately knew about the Mafia. It turned out, revealed by Valachi over ten years later, that there is an even more secret society that Turkus had completely discarded, La Cosa Nostra with their Omerta. We of course see the gangsters who were not Italian, usually Jewish, and thus not privy to the inner workings of the real maffia. This, I am sure, would have surprised him to learn of the even more secretive and powerful mafia that lay underneath the foundation of the Unione Sicilione and the National Syndicate.

A great book and definitely one that should be read either in conjunction with or before The Valachi Papers, as the groundwork was set for Valachi to shatter the silence that the plug uglies so held tight.

The Counts of Flanders

2007-08-27T16:42:00.000-07:00

The Counts of Flanders were an important noble family starting in the 9th century, which can easily be seen by the marriage alliances that were made in their family. Sadly enough, the women were thought of as pawns, as pieces of property that could be used to further the family's standings and enhance their wealth. This is why when looking into the history of the European countries it is wise to also look into the alliances that each family made via the marriage contract, whether intended or forced. Oftentimes women were abducted and forced into marriage, or they eloped in defiance of their father, who intended them for a more powerful marriage. Flanders is an excellent example because the family ultimately gained its power forcefully.

The family's true power came when Baldwin I made a daring move and eloped with Charles II's (Holy Roman Emperor and grandson of Charlemagne) daughter, Judith. When hunting him down and excommunicating him failed, Baldwin I gained the Pope's recognition of the marriage and Charles II was forced to recognize his new son-in-law. This was a daring move because he risked his life and ultimately came out ahead. Charles II then bestowed upon Baldwin the counties of Ghent, Ternois and Flanders in order to give him the proper standing for one married to the daughter of an Emperor.
From here we see the significance of the marriage alliances. Baldwin I and Judith's son, Baldwin II, married Aelfthryth, the daughter of Alfred the Great, King of England. Such alliances are not made easily because the daughters of kings are huge bargaining chips and could mean the future of the kingdom. Such is the way kingdoms can be made or broken.

Baldwin II's son Arnulf I subsequently married Adela, the son of Herbert II and Count of Vermandois. Why is this an important marriage alliance? Because the House of Vermandois was one of the most powerful in France, gaining its preeminence for being a fortunate descendant, 5th generation, of Charlemagne through his son Pepin, King of Italy. If you were descended from Charlemagne then your position in life was secure.

After a string of marriages used to consolidate their land and wealth their status of the nobility was confirmed when Baldwin V married Adela, daughter of Robert II, King of France. With this we come full circle. A bastard son named William, Duke of Normandy, decided that he wanted to marry Matilda, but she declined him because she was too high born, being a descendant of both Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. William, upset at this rebuff, found her while traveling and dragged her off her horse and threw her to the ground before riding off. However the story goes, William eventually married Matilda. Duke William eventually came to be known as William the Conqueror, King of England, thus making Matilda the Queen of England. This was yet again another alliance that brought the fortunes of the House of Normandy together with the House of Flanders, strengthening both in their position in life.

Uncovering and discovering how these noble families intermarried and formed their alliance is essential to understanding the history of the time, because if you don't know why or how this or that Count has their power then you won't be able to understand the intricacies involved in the allegiance of one family to another.

Global Warming: Real or Hoax?

2007-08-22T00:59:00.000-07:00

This is the hottest topic these days. The media has grabbed every chance they can get to report on some new global warming topic, or to report on something that disproves global warming. So is it real or is it propaganda?

As the main sources used I will refer directly to "An Inconvenient Truth" and its rebuttal "The Great Global Warming Swindle", along with other supporting references sprinkled throughout. I use these two forms of media because one is the face of the movement, at least how mankind has come to see it, and the other is a direct rebuttal. Watching both of them created different emotions, both of which were their intended outcomes, but one certainly spoke more to my heart than the other. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is much closer to the truth than "An Inconvenient Truth". This doesn't discount the fact that humans need to take care of the world we live in. But it does dispute the fact that global warming is man made.

Al Gore is presented as a philosophic politician, striving to accomplish a heart rending task of educating the world over about man made global warming, "one person at a time, one family at a time". This speaks directly to his audience, of course, presenting him as having the best interest of the world at heart.

Getting beyond this image and he begins to report his scientific data. His claim, and the basis for his whole lecture and the basis to man made global warming is that CO2 correlates directly with the temperature. As CO2 increases, so does the temperature; since humankind has drastically increased CO2 then this is proof that mankind is causing the earth's temperature to increase. Certainly, mankind has caused CO2 levels to increase, but I question whether it is enough to affect anything. I also questioned whether this caused the temperature to increase as well. My suspicions were confirmed when Gore went on to show the graph of CO2 and temperature historically. Then with a magic click of the button he then showed CO2 levels as of today. It was very dramatic. Supposedly CO2 drastically shot up. Gasp! But you would then assume that he would show the corresponding temperature increase as well for that time period, which should have shot up with the CO2 spike. Did Gore favor us with this proof? No, he didn't. Instead he shocks the audience even more by projecting an even larger CO2 spike for the future. And, of course, he didn't show the corresponding temperature spike. Why, you might ask? Because the temperature data doesn't match the CO2 data would be my guess.

So it was no surprise to me when I watched "Swindle" and the very thing they refuted was the evidence that Gore presented. Instead, by transposing the CO2 and temperature graphs over one another (Gore did the tricky thing of having them one above the other, thus not showing the exact correlation) you can clearly see that the CO2 increases came after the temperature increase, in fact by hundreds of years! With this evidence "Swindle" showed that it is in fact the temperature fluctuation that ultimately dictates the fluctuation of the levels of CO2. This explained quite well, more than I can say for Gore. As the temperature heats up it gradually increases the temperature of the ocean, which is the largest producer of CO2. It takes hundreds of years to change the temperature of such a large and deep body of water, which explains why there is a lag to the increase in the level of CO2. Conversely, when the ocean cools it pulls in more CO2, thus gradually decreasing the level of CO2.

"Swindle" goes on further to combat "Truth"s man made CO2 to temperature theory (which is the crutch holding global warming up). As evidence they pulled the level of CO2 over the last 100 years, the period of time that through industrialization the developing world began producing massive amounts of CO2, and compared it to the temperature. What the data showed was that there was a huge spike in the worldwide temperature that climaxed in 1940, thus accounting for most of the .5% increase in world wide temperature in the 20th century. Up until then there was relatively little man made CO2 production because cars and other manufactured goods weren't prevalent. After 1940 the temperature then began dropping for almost 4 decades. CO2? This was the post war boom so CO2 levels increased drastically do to cars, factories and other man made producers of CO2. Gore's theory should show that during this post war period the temperature should have increased along with the massive amounts of CO2, but it didn't. It decreased, so much so that in the 70s the world over began claiming "global cooling" (sound familiar?). In fact, when there was a world wide recession in the mid seventies, when man made CO2 slowed, the temperature began to increase again. Go figure.

Just as Gore tried to explain why CO2 is causing global warming (with the use of a cheesy cartoon of gangster CO2 beating up a traveling sun ray), "Swindle" explains how the earth cools and warms: the sun! The sun is a "violent beast" and has solar flares that affect our weather here on earth. Let me back up. Earth's atmosphere harbors clouds, which affect our weather immensely. These clouds are made by the combination of cosmic rays (due to supernovae) colliding with water particles. These form clouds and thus shield the earth from the heat and intensity of the sun. When there is a solar flare it disrupts and pushes aside the cosmic rays, thereby diminishing the clouds, which of course warms earth. A study was done that made two comparisons. The first was of the standard global warming argument, that of CO2 and temperature in the Arctic. When compared together there is no apparent correlation between the two. The second comparison is with solar flares and the temperature, which showed almost an exact correlation, which tells us that it is the sun that dictates the fluctuation of the earth's temperature, not CO2.

Doh, how could we ignore something as huge as the sun and discount its effects on the earth's climate? It seems like an obvious answer, yet climate scientists ignore this very important element to earth. There have, in fact, been four global scares in our recent past. 1895: ice age. 1920s: global warming. 1975: global cooling. 1981: Global warming. A comparison was made in "Swindle" that this is akin to a man having car trouble. So he pops the hood of the car and ignores the engine (sun) and the transmission (atmosphere) and instead gets underneath the car and looks at a small nut and blames that.

How then has this gotten this convoluted? In the 1970s in England it became a serious political issue, one that resulted in serious amounts of money. According to "Swindle" Margaret Thatcher was having rioting and coal miner revolts that were seriously grinding England's everyday life to a halt, since they relied upon coal so much. She resolved to remove this power from them, and thus from coal (a huge CO2 producer), and move towards nuclear power instead. But she needed a propaganda piece to prop herself up on. She went to the scientific community and told them that whoever could prove that CO2 is the cause of global warming would receive money. Keep in mind they were in a period that they were calling global cooling, so she was taking the opposite extreme because temperatures around the world had just started rising and was going to use it against the coal miners. The IPCC eventually came up with a study (that disregarded all known climate science up to then, according to "Swindle") that proved this. From then on this industry became big money as governments began giving their own grants to fund this type of research. This is, to this day, a billion dollar industry, up from around a $170 million (in the United States) in the early 90s. Huge money = huge profit = lots of jobs = huge influence.

Gore himself is in this for propaganda reasons. And he hints at this throughout his "An Inconvenient Truth". He says many times through about various global warming topics that "this is a political issue", as though by stating it himself then this will allay the fears and not have him accused of pushing this subject for his own political goals. And this most certainly was, as he himself has said he has been working on the global warming message his whole career, and was one of the stances that has helped him be successful.

He also states that we should reduce carbon usage to zero, even though he is causing more carbon usage monthly than many humans in a lifetime. His answer? He says he is buying "carbon credits", which are verifiable reductions of CO2 usage elsewhere, to offset the amount that he is using. And, pray tell, where is he purchasing these from? Why, a company that he is the CHAIRMAN of and, essentially, part owner. He stands to make a ton of money from pushing such a method to combat global warming. He has set himself up with a great piece of propaganda and can now sit back and reap the benefits. In fact, he states "If we do the right thing we are going to create a lot of wealth". We know where his mind is.

Other bits of propaganda are his comparison to the tobacco companies and the "memo" that was discovered that revealed the tobacco companies wanted to deceive the public on the dangers of smoking. He says an anti "global warming" entity, which he doesn't name nor reference who or what they are, wants to "switch global warming from fact to theory". Of course he will pull on the heart strings and make a comparison to what most deem as despicable, those big tobacco companies. The documentary is full of other heart strings being pulled as well, such as showing his child and talking about him in the hospital , claiming no one wants to lose a child, then connecting this to global warming. Or shows war and the atomic bomb and connects it to global warming. His sister died of lung cancer from smoking, and tied it back to global warming. He mentions the Declaration of Independence, Emancipation, Suffrage and creating jobs. All meant to pull the heart strings and cause knee jerk reactions.

Finally, Gore says that, and this is the source of the title of this documentary, that scientist were ridiculed, black listed and ostracized for supporting man made global warming. All because they came to An Inconvenient Truth. Funny, really, because this seems to be a preemptive measure. World renowned scientists are afraid to talk against global warming because they will be ostracized and pushed aside, that they will lose their funding. In fact, some of the scientists interviewed said they have been receiving death threats for opposing global warming. This is happening today to scientists because of the overwhelming hype that the media and politicians have created.

What it all comes down to is one big piece of propaganda. Follow the money and you will find who will benefit. You will certainly find that Al Gore will be one of those benefiting, as he already is.

Benjamin Franklin

2007-08-20T14:40:00.000-07:00

Perhaps one of the most important men in America's past is none other than Benjamin Franklin. He was a father, grandfather, husband, inventor, philosopher, printer, ambassador, state president, writer, postmaster and numerous other notable positions and honors, yet too numerous to catalogue here. It is to him that we owe much of what America has today.

Franklin grew up in a typical Puritan household in Boston and apprenticed with his brother in the printing business. At an early age he showed great aptitude, yet his brother held him back due to the jealousies that he harbored. Eventually Franklin ran away from home, a serious breach of contract with his brother, and boarded ship, eventually landing in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia that Franklin sailed into was a small, ramshackle town that hadn't prospered much of late.

Doing what he knew best, he found a job with a printer and his career took off. Not so much because of his job, but because of his wit, intelligence and all around genius that drew the attention of many others. Soon enough he had numerous friends and admirers. As the years went by and he had went and came back from London, he eventually had his own printing shop and was turning a nice profit. Even before he had his own printing company he was writing a lot. His writing career began when he secretly created Silence Dogood and began submitting "her" editorials to his brother's newspaper. Among other created characters was his Poor Richard's Almanac, which sold a tremendous amount of copies. He was a prolific writer and always had the pulse of the society, able to adeptly and intuitively understand the intricacies of politics as well as the furthering of liberty and the rights of the people.

He was also a great inventor. Desiring to improve living conditions he improved the fireplace so that it actually warmed the house rather than only the immediate vicinity. With this patent he could have become immensely rich, but he chose to make it available to everyone. He also invented bifocals because of his troubles when reading and then attempting to look at something far off. He instituted a more efficient policing system to combat crime. He took the fire brigade of London and applied and improved upon it in Philadelphia, eventually leading to our modern day fire departments.

His love of books moved him to create the first public library. There were of course libraries, and have been around for a long time, but they were private and only available to the owner or a friend of an owner. Franklin took membership fees and purchased books, then hired a librarian and any member of the library could then check out a book. This is of course where our modern day libraries originated.

There are misunderstandings that revolve around Franklin. One of the most common is that Franklin invented electricity, or discovered it, which is certainly not the case. Electricity had been around for a long time. In fact, many others before Franklin had been experimenting with it all over Europe. When Franklin saw a man shocked with electricity he became fascinated with the idea and began experimenting himself. He soon enough found a way to harness and store electricity, ultimately furthering research and thus creating more applications for electricity. So Franklin did not invent or discover electricity, but he was certainly one of the main reasons for the advancement of research on electricity.

Another myth revolves around Franklin, electricity and a kite. It often is misunderstood that Franklin discovered electricity using his kite in a lightning storm. This, of course, is also not true. Franklin did indeed perform an experiment in a lightning storm with a kite, but it wasn't to discover electricity, which he was already very familiar with and had done extensive research. What he was attempting to discover was whether lightning itself is electricity, which he thought it was. He floated the kite with a metal spike on it and waited. Eventually the electromagnetic charge of the clouds were channeled through the metal spike enough so to prove to Franklin that lightning was indeed electricity.

Beyond his scientific and inventive side Franklin accomplished much on the political aspect. He was an ambassador to the Indians early in his career, and also was in charge of frontier defense in Philadelphia, eventually resulting in four frontier forts built under his direction. He also took up the important post of postmaster and reformed how mail was delivered to and from the colonies. Eventually he was sent to London as the agent of four colonies, there to speak on behalf of the various assemblies. This was where his political career truly took off, which, when coupled with his already famous electricity research, made him a world renowned figure.

This, of course, also made him an enemy to many. Parliament would be no different. Since he was American they immediately discounted his opinions. Franklin, though, thought of himself first as a Briton, then as an American, so they were doing him a great injustice. He always held firm to the British empire, never wanting to disrespect the mother country. He,, though, would also not let England try to take away the rights of the American people. So enemies were invariably made. This came to a head after the Boston Tea Party. Franklin was vehemently attacked and abused, treated as though he were some altogether different person. This set his resolve. He was from then on firmly an American.

This did not mean he had no more immediate enemies. Americans Arthur Lee and John Adams thought very badly of Franklin and fought very hard to have him removed from power. As history would have it, they would not be successful. So Franklin had both British and American enemies.

Sailing back to America, Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence and helped Thomas Jefferson with it. He also penned the Pennsylvanian Constitution. Eventually he was sent to France to form an alliance, which ultimately yielded in the financial aid that was so necessary to the success of the United States. After gaining the respect and love of England he was relieved of duty after peace with England was made, and sailed home an old and ailed man. But his country was not done with him, the most prestigious American in the world. He was elected Pennsylvania's President and served three terms. He was also pivotal in the compromise between the large and small states during the Constitutional Convention. He eventually proposed that the United States government be composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The rest is history.

H. W. Brand's biography The First American is an absolute joy of a read. He takes a chronological approach to Franklin's life. Additionally, he interweaves so much history that this biography is also a history. His writing is succinct and to the point, making a very focused telling of such an important man's life. I can never do justice to how well this biography was written and the wealth of information that is within.

The DeCavalcante Crime Family

2007-08-15T23:54:00.001-07:00

By now the mafia world is no longer a secret. When Joe Valachi became an informant he started a trend that has snowballed, eventually culminating in 10 informants that destroyed the DeCavalcante crime family of New Jersey by 2001. Greg Smith has compiled the over 1,000 hours of taped evidence into a short, succinct account of the fall of "the farmers" - thus called by the five New York mafia families - of the mafia world: Made Men.

It all started with the daring heist of the World Trade Center that Ralphie Guardino, an associate of the DeCavalcantes, schemed up. It would have worked had he not found idiots to pull off the heist and not bother to hide their faces from the many cameras. Within days the FBI had arrested the three robbers as well as Ralphie and a deal was struck: Ralphie would wear a wire and attempt to record enough incriminating evidence to bring down a crime family in exchange for entering the witness protection program.

Soon enough Ralphie began getting Joseph 'Joey O' Masella to talk, thus obtaining the probable cause needed to continue taping Ralphie's conversation. Through these conversations we get to see a unique side to a mafia family, one that is quite comical in how mundane their everyday life is. Interspersed through out the comical conversations are the typical mobster money makers: shylocking, bribery, gambling, intimidation and, of course, violence and murder.

Vincent 'Vinny Ocean' Palermo became the ultimate target of the investigation, who, until recently, was unknown to the FBI. It was soon discovered that he was the acting boss and part of a committee of three (along with Charlie Majuri and Jimmy Palermo) for the Boss, John Riggi, who was in prison. Joey O was the jackpot that the FBI were waiting for as he began to talk more and more as his life began falling apart due to the debts that he owed to all the various New York crime families. This was eventually what got him in trouble as he was murdered, presumably over the debt he owed. Although the FBI were a little down because they could tell that Joey O's life was in danger and didn't do anything to prevent it (standard practice is to give the possible victim a warning of impending doom), this ultimately led to a restructuring that placed Ralphie under Joseph 'Tin Ear' Sclafani, a made man of the DeCavalcantes for at least 40 years.

Tin Ear was a talker once he trusted you, and he certainly trusted Ralphie. Soon enough Tin Ear told Ralphie virtually everything you would want to know about the structure and hierarchy of the DeCavalcante crime family. To show how much he trusted Ralphie, Tin Ear decided he was going to 'straighten out' Ralphie. In other words, he was going to recommend him to become a made man.

As suspicions of an informant began percolating through the ranks Vinny Ocean began getting quiet, ultimately causing him to go into hiding. The FBI made their move. Indictments were issued and a mass arrest occurred at 6:00 AM. They found Vinny Ocean at a hide out, seemingly packed and ready to go into hiding, and arrested him. Soon enough the arrested turned coat and became an informant (10 in all), including Vinny Ocean and Anthony Capo, a vicious hit man for hire, which culminated in the virtual collapse of the New Jersey crime family.

Greg Smith does a decent job organizing the more than 1,000 hours of taped evidence into a succinct history. Although there are times that the writing hampers the telling of the story, the ultimate description of the fall of the DeCavalcantes was achieved.

The Mother of the Tudors

2007-07-26T23:05:00.000-07:00

I have always been fascinated with Margaret Beaufort, Mother of the Tudors. Her diminutive stature and immense wealth make her an interesting figure in history, or it could be her ancestors the Beauforts, who descended from the Kings of England. Add to her impressive resume her son becoming the King of England, Henry VII. Or in a more philanthropic way her donations to academic institutions.

Portrait of Margaret Beaufort at St. John's College in Cambridge

Whatever it may be, she was a key player in the Wars of the Roses and was one of the main factors that helped her son claim the throne of England. As you can see from the genealogical table above her family was the Beauforts, the once illegitimate family of John of Gaunt, formalized by Gaunt's eventual marriage to Katherine Swynford after Blanche of Lancaster passed away. The Beaforts played a huge roll in the end of the Hundred Years' War as well as in the Wars of the Roses.

Her claim to the English throne was from her descent from John of Gaunt, three generations removed, who was a son of Edward III. Beyond the power that came with being a son and uncle of a King of England, Gaunt took over the huge estate and wealth of his wife Blanche of Lancaster, whose father was Henry Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster and third generation descendant of Henry III of England and fourth generation descendant of Louis VIII of France. The joining of two immensely rich estates laid the foundations to a powerful family, one that Margaret was able to assist to power when she was able to persuade her third husband, Lord Stanley to not lend his support to Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, which ultimately lead to Henry VII being crowned king.

Through looking at her descent on a genealogical chart you can see her family, sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of John of Gaunt, arguably one of the most powerful men of the 14th century. In addition to this we can see where much of his wealth came from when he married Blanche of Lancaster, a descendant of Edmund Crouchback, son of Henry III.

For more reading on Margaret Beaufort read The King's Mother by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood, perhaps one of the best biographies of such an important woman in English history.

Video Archives

2007-07-24T15:37:00.000-07:00

Recently I stumbled upon a new pilot program that Google is launching, where they are archiving video feeds from out history. Obviously this can then only cover a short period of time, but it nonetheless allows you to see with your own eyes what was recorded in the past.

The site is called NARA on Google Video and is pulled from the US National Archive and Records Administration, of which you can find even more US history than what is on video. Give both a look and bookmark for later use in your own studies and research.

Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms

2007-07-21T14:57:00.000-07:00

Although this is, technically speaking, literary analysis, it revolves around a subject that has a huge historical impact on virtually everything. Randel Helms is a renowned biblical scholar and and professor of literature at Arizona State University. In this book he takes a careful reading of the gospels and explains quite thoroughly why they are works of fiction. He in no way is starting a quarrel with Christians, as he states, but rather takes a literary approach to understand the New Testament.

He works heavily on the notion that the Christians essentially stole or appropriated the Hebrew Bible for themselves, fabricating the New Testament with verses pulled from the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament as it came to be known. They did this because in taking something everyone is familiar with, something that the Jews of the time knew and understood, then you instantly give credibility to the notion that Jesus is real, that he truly is the Messiah of the Hebrew Bible. And they did this with other beliefs as well that were non Jewish.

An example, in the Hebrew Bible there is a Book of Jonah, where Jonah was in a sea monster's belly for three days and nights. Likewise, Jesus was then encased in his tomb for three days and three nights. It is the same story except transposed onto Jesus in order to give it credibility. Another is the use of common myths of the time to make a connection with Christianity's believers. Christian Jews saw Jesus born unto Mary by man and was adopted as the son of God. But Matthew did not see it this way and mistranslated "young woman" as "virgin woman", thereby coupling that with the standard belief of the time by pagans that deities regularly coupled with women. Combining the two essentially created the myth that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus, son of God.

Either way, this historic book, historic because of the religion it is based upon, is nothing but a work of fiction, something I have always believed and Dr. Helms has so eloquently been able to demonstrate.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

2007-07-20T18:00:00.000-07:00

One of my all time favorite movies is Elizabeth, a historical movie that chronicles Elizabeth I's turbulent years when she became Queen of England in the middle of the 16th century. Granted, it is a movie and thus the historical context is only loosely based, but that doesn't detract from the feeling that you get in watching Elizabeth become Queen and what she goes through, that doesn't detract from the era styled costumes and the castles. Historically, at least, it is one of the better historical movies if you take it with a grain of salt.

Why, you might ask, am I bringing up a movie made in 1998? Ah, because there is a sequel that is coming out October 12th, one that will now cover the period of conflict when Spain sent The Armada in 1588 to attack and conquer England. It is called Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

Where before we had to watch Elizabeth struggle for power with little support monetarily or otherwise, now she is in the midst of her power and persona and has the ability to fight back. With The Spanish Armada thrown into the mix I know this will be a great historical movie. Visit the website above to view the trailer. I eagerly await.

The Necessity of Genealogical Charts

2007-07-19T16:03:00.000-07:00

If you are anything like me than you love/need to see a genealogy chart of whatever period of history you are reading, that is if it revolves around dynasties and so on. Particularly, I love to read about European history pre-1800, which means you must understand the dynamics of familial marriages. I could never find any charts that dealt with this. Only charts that showed snap shots of a few generations. I wanted more. I wanted to see how the families came to power and what their claim to being noble was, because it was who you descended from that dictated whether this or that aristocrat would honor you with his allegiance or defy your claim to being his liege lord.

So I created my own. This was the hard part. I had slaved for hours pouring over the internet and consulting my numerous books in order to make sure that each descendant rightfully belonged in the chart. Then I had to hand write it, going through numerous erasers. Eventually, though, I needed something more clear and precise. Amazingly, there are next to zero genealogy software out there that will do a simple family tree (such as the ones you find in history books). I eventually found one, and only one, by the name of TreeDraw by SpanSoft, a company based out of England. I was a little skeptical because of the cheesy looking website, but eventually decided to buy a copy and see if it worked out. It did, and I absolutely love using this software.

I started with the English and French ruling families because they were who I read most. In fact, the two families work well on a chart together because of how often they intermarried. From these families I traced their ancestry back to Charlemagne. Amazingly, I was able to create an ancestral chart that starts with Charlemagne and goes all the way down to the end of the 18th century and encompasses the French, English, Spanish (starting around 1400) and Scottish. Absolutely amazing looking at the lines of ancestry from one ruling family to another. Additionally, I plotted more than just the kings and queens, but I plotted their brothers and sisters and all those that had any part in the momentous wars.

One interesting ancestral line that was hard to understand was the French Henry IV, the first of the Bourbon Kings. There is some confusion because his generation is so far removed from the royal line that it is hard to visualize why he became king. In fact he was the 10th generation removed from Louis IX. You see, France followed the Salic Law, which forbade inheritance through the female line. This would in fact be one of the hinges to the 100 Years War as Edward III claimed the French throne through his mother Isabella, who was the last of the Capetian lineage. The French, of course, refused not simply because Edward was English, their arch enemy, but because the Salic Law forbade such inheritance.

Back to the Bourbon Kings. As I delved into his past I soon found out why Henry IV was able to claim the crown for himself. Henry III was the last Valois king, not directly descended but rather descended through a minor son’s family, first through the Duke of Orleans and through yet another minor son of the Duke of Angouleme, becoming the 5th king of that line. He passed away and was the last direct male heir, unless you traced it back 10 generations, in which case Louis I, Duke of Bourbon and grandson of Louis IX, had a second son and thus minor house that was able to have an unbroken chain of male heirs. This was their lasting glory as their genetics eventually brought their family into a position of great power.

I am not sure how easy I would have been able to discover this process if I hadn’t mapped the genealogy out and been able to visually watch each descendant move its way to that period in time. I would recommend you all do the same as well as this will not only give you a visual map to follow, but it will also help you understand the dynamics of each family and how they interacted with the other families.

First Among Equals by Brian Hawkinson

2007-07-12T00:42:00.000-07:00

There has always been a glaring contradiction within the Constitution and what it stood for and what was the society norm. The notion of liberty and property grossly mocked one another when you considered how the two relate to one another in regards to slaves. Slaves were considered human, for one, as an allowance for voting rights per state was allowed, and thus should have been able to take advantage of "life, liberty and happiness", but they were also considered as property. After much research in 2003 I came to the conclusion that the property aspect of the Constitution was the much more protected of rights, and thus the reason why the Founding Fathers did not take the necessary steps to abolish slavery. Below is a link to an essay I wrote in November of 2003 that analyzed just this. Please do let me know what you think of it, whether it be good or bad criticism, as I am a firm believer in all criticism is good criticism.

First Among Equals

The Evil Monster That Is Propaganda

2007-07-05T14:55:00.000-07:00

There are two quotes that I find particularly accurate in their analysis of how history is oftentimes perceived:

"Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters." African Proverb.

When has history been written by anyone other than the winners? When prior to the acceptance of history as a scholastic discipline have we been able to see the viewpoint of the oppressed Irish or of the massacred Indians of North America? Which leads me to:

"We used to root for the Indians against the cavalry, because we didn't think it was fair in the history books that when the cavalry won it was a great victory, and when the Indians won it was a massacre." Dick Gregory

Propaganda dictates much of how history is viewed, and it comes down to who is the master behind the propaganda. The Indians were vilified and so when they did to us what we were doing to them they were condemned and scorned. Today we find propaganda everywhere, influencing our decisions and opinions and we don't even know it. Take, for example, the backlash of the caricatures of Muhammed in Muslim countries. These innocent images were used to fuel the dissent between Muslims and the Western world. The Muslim Imam who began condemning them gave his own false story and added his own color, thereby causing hatred to bloom immediately. Was it justified? Certainly not. Is it any different than what Christians have done to Muslims? No. Beyond the typical association of terrorism to all things Muslim, we can use history to show us that propaganda fuels much of how history is perceived.

During the crusades the "infidels" were portrayed as though they eat Christian children and roast them alive, fueling the passion that would be unleashed on their armies and cities. This wasn't lost on the Muslim side, who claimed the same of Christians. Move ahead 800 years to World War II and my sister-in-law, who is from Okinawa, tells a story that her grandmother related to her about the Japanese and Americans. The Japanese saturated Okinawa and began their own propaganda against America, claiming that we would arrive and eat their children. So fear was everywhere of this big bad green monster on the horizon. Then the Americans arrived. What does her grandmother remember? Americans giving children candy and feeding them "chow". Not so evil, and yet if we had lost WWII we would have been the bad people in their eyes, and history would have been changed as Nazi Germany wrote it how they pleased.

So to each his own, but remember propaganda for what it is. There is always two sides to every story. Sometimes you have to dig deep to find that other side.

Ultramarathon Man by Dean Karnazes

2007-06-27T23:20:00.001-07:00

There is something alluring to reading about current events that are making history. We get to almost see and feel and become inspired by such amazing happenings, or we get to be saddened or angered by the kind of history that doesn't lift the spirit. Either way it is history and it will affect how and who you are.

Karnazes is history in the making, achieving feats that no other human has ever done. His tenacity is awe inspiring and, more importantly, his view on life is commendable. Even if you are not a runner you should run out and read this book. For it isn't too often that you can pick up a book to read about the trials and tribulations of one man and become inspired to want to do more with your own life.

Some may look at this and wonder why a runner should be considered as history, or whether we should even read the biography of a runner. I would only point out the history behind one of the most famous marathons ever, in fact he was the original marathoner: Pheidippides. It was he who set out from the plains of Marathon to inform his fellow Greeks in Athens that they had defeated the Persians. It is this piece of history that has lead us to today's Ultrarunners, and it is these Ultrarunners that are achieving feats almost unimaginable (such as running 199 miles in 46 hours) and have such awe inspiring stories that their history/biography/memoirs are amazing to read. This is definitely a worthy memoir, one that will do much more than entertain.

Scourge of God

2007-06-19T00:04:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite English Monarchs is Henry V. There is much to him that the world will never know because he left after ruling for such a short amount of time, and yet he accomplished so much. That is, of course, if you count raiding the countryside of France and laying waste the land, eventually crowning himself king. He has a bad image because of this, but I think if he would have lived out his life he could have accomplished much for he was most definitely a very dominant ruler. A favorite quote of mine is by him in reference to his waging war on France, one that stands out and illustrates both his prowess as a ruler but also the evil tyrant image that is associated with him.

"I am the scourge of God sent to punish the people of God for their sins."

He was certainly a man to be feared, but I think he could have been a man to be admired.

Watch As History's Drama Unfolds

2007-06-18T15:32:00.000-07:00

History is thought of as boring and unnecessary by many people. They would rather spend their time watching joyless television shows that appeal to the mindless drones than pick up a history book and read about the Ancient Greeks or the Mogul hordes, or perhaps something more recent in the shape of how World War II changed the world as we know it. They could even marry the two and watch the History Channel and learn a little about our past (although the History Channel isn't always historically correct). We can't force people to want to expand their horizons and look beyond the trivial.

That being said, History in academia is a fairly new discipline, not gaining recognition until the beginning of the nineteenth century. There were chronicles, of course, that attempted to record the history of the time. There were ancient historians that recounted their past as well as the times that they were living in. So History as a field wasn't ignored entirely, but the respect accorded to it now is due to the fact that the field must now use accredited sources and reference works that it is quoting. This follows along the lines of science in that what the Historian writes down or claims in their work can be duplicated or found. Not necessarily the opinions attached to it, but definitely the evidence that it is using. This is why the Chronicles of the various ages cannot be trusted as History entirely because they oftentimes are more worried about their career or life to want to report accurately about their monarch or their monarch's ancestors. If they remarked negatively they could very well lose their head.

History and Biographies are wonderful in that respect because they do attempt to portray history via their opinions based on the evidence that is available. We as readers or amateur historians don't have to take their opinion and agree with it simply because it is an opinion. But we can certainly take the evidence provided and expand our own awareness of our past and come to some inkling of how the world works.

This blog will be an account of the History and Biographies in the literature available as well as the breaking news and research of our times. Let me know what you think or if there is a topic that you feel needs to be addressed.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

2007-06-14T19:30:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine had recently recommended this book when I brought up God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. The idea intrigued me just as much as Hitchens' book did. Both are an atheist's deconstruction of religion and the existence of God. I have read plenty of religious books trying to prove God but have never read anything from the opposite viewpoint. Most recently the two books I have read were A Case for Christ and Evidence That Demands A Verdict. A Case was very well written and articulated. The problem though is that this supposed journey to uncover the truth was written 10 years after the interviews took place and thus it does not have the unbiased viewpoint that the author may have had when he originally did the interviews. Additionally, even though the author was trying to prove or disprove he didn't bother interviewing any atheists or agnostics. Instead his interviews were all of theologians or Christians who would of course believe in Christ. The other book was Evidence which fell flat on its face. The premise is that other old books are accepted as fact and history and the bible is old, therefore the bible should be accepted as fact and history. Using this premise the "evidence" was the bible and only the bible. Typical answer would be "because the bible says so". How can you use evidence that was written for the sole purpose of the propagation of the coming of Christ and the legitimization of his lineage? You can't, which is why Evidence accomplished nothing.

This brings me to Dawkins. This was perhaps one of the best books I have read in years. His hypothesis is well researched and supported. From beginning to end we understand his viewpoint and we can accept his research. What makes this book better than the aforementioned books is that Dawkins does indeed interview and debate with theologians and clergy; he does make sure that their (Christians in general) points are well represented so that he can promptly deconstruct them! His points on the Bible and its gross inadequacies and inconsistent accounting of Jesus should cast a bit of doubt to anyone who actually reads the Bible than just has it read to them.

My favorite statement of Dawkins is that the Virgin Mary is nothing more than a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek. Dawkins points out that the Hebrew word reads "young woman" and yet it was translated into Greek as "virgin woman", thereby creating a mythology that would be accepted, and still is, for thousands of years! A simple mistranslation and Christians worship this very notion of the Virgin birth of Christ their father! Simply amazing.

I can't do Dawkins' justice for such a wonderful book. I can't say it is one of my favorite of all time because the last two chapters or so became very philosophical, more so than the rest of the book, and are not as concise as the rest of the book. Do yourself a favor and read this; not only read it but read it with an unbiased, open-minded eye.

5 stars