Historical Accuracy or Happily Ever After

While visiting a lover the other day, she told me that she had a book that she wanted me to read, because the main male character reminded her of me. I said, sure, after which she handed me a historical romance novel, Libertine's Kiss, by Judith James.

Being a guy, my normal preferred reading material does not usually include romance novels, but I have read some, particularly to research the occurrences of libertine characters in this genre, which is a fairly common character subtype.

As I took the book from her and read the blurb on the back cover, I immediately had to laugh -- the main character shared my first name. The book's setting is the 17th century Restoration court of Charles II, who could have accurately been called a libertine king. The author's note stated that the main male character, William De Veres, was based on John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a noted libertine and poet in the court of Charles II. He was also the subject of the Johnny Depp movie, The Libertine.

As this book was classified as a romance novel, however, I already knew how the book was going to end -- in a monogamous marriage, at which time the libertine would cease being one. This is what the romance novel industry calls the "HEA"; the "happily ever after" formula, which is ubiquitous to every romance novel.

Because of this, I knew the book was going to be a disappointment from the beginning, as it could not remain true to history, nor to the real person that inspired the novel's male lead if it were to adhere to the HEA formula. Indeed, I could imagine Wilmot's sardonic laughter if he'd been able to read the book and see the character he'd inspired go completely out of character during the course of the novel.

And not only did the characterization of the male lead deviate from actual history, so did the female lead's view of what marriage should be deviate from 17th century norms in general, which I'll further elaborate on later below.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and read it, anyway. The book proved to be an engaging read, with the author throwing in snippets of Wilmot's actual poetry throughout the book. Many times during the book, the male lead expressed thoughts that could have come out of my own mouth; enough so that I wondered if the author had read my blog.

To cite a few examples, when asked why he'd ended up as a libertine, he explained to the female lead that it was simply his nature, which is something I've done many times myself.

In another scene, he proposes marriage to her, knowing that he needed to get married sooner or later if he was to have heirs. He reasoned that he might as well do so with a woman he cared for. When she asks if he would remain sexually faithful to her, he honestly tells her no, respecting her enough to be honest with her. When she protested, he explained that there was a difference between sex and love, implying that one should not be inextricably bound to the other.

And this brings me to the book's flaws. The female lead, who was a widow, rejected his initial proposal because she vowed she would not remarry for anything but love. But such a sentiment would have been far less common in the 17th century than now. People then married much more often for practical reasons and love, if present, was considered icing on the cake, rather than the reason to marry in the first place. A woman of that time would not have demanded sexual exclusivity of a prospective husband, however much she might like it, as random dalliances would have simply been considered the nature of the male beast.

Then there were the trite, cliched plot devices that could have been done away with and still allowed the story to adhere to the HEA ending.

The first cliche was that the male lead was a libertine simply because he was a damaged, psychologically tortured man, having been molested as a teen by his tutor and for having had dysfunctional parents. Rarely in romance novels is a libertine a libertine merely because he like frequency and variety with his sex life. The assumption is that every normal person desires a lifelong, monogamous marriage.

The second cliche that left me rolling my eyes in disbelief was that the male lead immediately lost the desire to have sex with other women the moment he took up with the female lead. He became de facto monogamous at this time, despite his claims to the contrary. This is completely unbelievable, as no person who'd been a libertine his entire would suddenly lose that proclivity at the drop of a hat. Indeed, I would imagine that a libertine who'd made the decision to start living a monogamous life would not lose the desire for sexual variety and would have to work very hard to maintain a monogamous life.

Taken as a whole, however, this book was an interesting read, but I strongly believe the author would have done much better had she written it as straight historical fiction. If she'd done so, she would have been free to write the main characters in a more historically accurate manner, rather than as a romance, where she was hamstrung by the romance novel formulaic HEA requirement.

Indeed, Paula Reed's historical novel, Hester, which takes place along the same time period as Libertine's Kiss, did just that, which served to produce a superior novel. Her libertine character, John Manning, is much more genuine and believable than James' William De Veres.

Just my .02 cents.

Different Kinds of Ignorance

Today, while monitoring the Neal Boortz radio show, he had a segment featuring a survey taken at an amusement park where random people passing by were asked very basic questions about the history of Independence Day.

None of the people could answer any of the questions correctly, except for one man at the end,who was identified as a grandfather. One woman who said she was a teacher did not get a single answer right.

As I continued to listen, I was stunned by the level of jaw-dropping ignorance. The questions asked were quite simple, on the level of a third grader. These were questions I knew the answer to when I was ten years old.

Several people had no idea why we celebrate the Fourth of July. One person when asked which year the United States declared its independence said 1922. Another person named Winston Churchill as the general who led American forces during the Revolutionary War. Still yet another had no clue as to which country we were declaring our independence from.

I was just as appalled as Boortz was by the staggering ignorance.

But then, Boortz showed his own ignorance, which was an ignorance of another sort entirely.

He said that the level of ignorance surprised him because they were "all good-looking people; mainstream Americans." He went on to say that there were no people with "pot bellies with cigarettes dangling from their lips" nor were they wearing hoodies or had tattoos.

My jaw dropped then at his staggering ignorance.

Since when is a person's appearance, level of subjective attractiveness, fashion sense, or weight a measure of their intelligence? At his age, Boortz should know what a crock of shit judging a book by its cover is.

Thoughts?

Memories in a CD

Lately, I’ve been turning to the library to fill in the gaps in my music collection. I’ve been borrowing CDs to take home to upload into my Windows Media Player and will, at some point, load selected songs into my MP3 player. Money is tight right now, plus I’ve noticed that the places I usually buy CDs at have drastically reduced their selections for some reason.

I didn’t have anything particular in mind, so I just browsed the stacks. After looking through the jazz selection, I ended up with a Dave Brubeck CD, “Time Out”, which included the track “Take Five“. It brought back a lot of memories, as this was a song that I discovered when I was around 11 0r 12.

I began taking piano lessons when I was ten years old, and started in band the following year. At that time, kids in the “band culture” of my school were exposed to a lot of jazz. So, while most kids my age were listening to rock, pop, and the like, I was listening to jazz. Though I like rock music now, my first choices in music when I started getting my own albums were in jazz.

“Take Five” was one of the first jazz songs I got into, and I was fortunate to hear Brubeck, along with Gerry Mulligan perform this song in the summer of 1972 at the Newport Jazz Festival in New York City. I was also lucky enough to meet them after the set, and I think it pleased them that someone as young as I was at the time was getting into their music (I was 14), In next few years, I also saw Maynard Ferguson in concert twice and participated in a jazz workshop with Stan Kenton at my high school. At that time I wanted to be a jazz musician myself (and I’m sorry I didn’t fulfill my dream now).

The CD I borrowed was the original recording with Brubeck and alto saxophonist Paul Desmond (who wrote the song). I was surprised to see that this song was originally recorded in 1959 — at the time I first got into it, I’d assumed it was a recent recording. But as I listened to it in the car on the way home from the library, it still had all the original electricity that attracted me to the song in the first place and in no way sounded as if it had been recorded 50 years ago. It sounds as fresh now as it did in the summer of 1959 when they recorded it. And it still has sufficient power to make me feel the feelings all over again I had as a teen in the early 70s when I first wanted to become a musician.

A Musical Trip Down Memory Lane

Recently, I acquired a used MP3 player to use while driving, so I don’t have to lug around dozens of CDs any longer, nor worry about changing them in traffic.

In preparation for loading it up with music, I ripped all my CDs to my computer’s Windows Media Player, cherry picking the songs I wanted from each CD, in order to save space.

As I pulled out CDs from my car and from every nook and cranny in the house, I realized there were several missing, no doubt having “found” their way into my son’s collection, which I intend to remedy at the soonest opportunity. I also realized that I had a long way to go to replace all the vinyl records I owned when I switched over to CDs years ago.

Working with what I had, I realized that I had a fairly eclectic mix of genres, though it does lean heavily to classic rock. As I ripped the CDs, I listened to some of the songs as the computer uploaded them, some of which I’d not listened to in years

At my age, I am now free to admit my like for various types “uncool” music that I couldn’t have openly admitted twenty years ago: stuff from my parents’ generation, some country and folk music, and classical music.

Other songs brought back strong memories of where I was and what I was doing the first heard them. I particularly have an affinity for ballads that tell a story, as they’re a nice change from the typical songs about love that are ubiquitous to nearly all genres of music.

A small sampling of some of the “uncool” music I listened to and my thoughts about each songs:

Fanfare for the Common Man — Aaron Copland

I’ve been a fan of Copland’s music since I was privileged to play the lead trumpet part for this piece in high school. Fanfare For the Common Man, along with 18 other fanfares written by other composers, was written upon request in 1942 to be “stirring and significant contributions to the war effort….”. Copland’s Fanfare is the only one to have stood the test of time, and when I hear this, I can easily visualize the Normandy landings on D-Day as, in Winston Churchill’s words, “the new world, with all its power and might, stepped forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? — Tom Jones

I know that some people consider Jones little more than a faintly sleazy lounge lizard singer, but Jones in his earlier career, sticking to the ballads which best show off his not inconsiderable talent, is well worth listening to. Brother, Can You Spare a Dime, a Depression-era ballad, is an excellent example of Jones’ sheer vocal power and emotional range.

Originally written in 1931 at the height of the Depression, about a man, who was apparently a WWI veteran, telling about his fall from economic security. The words are uncomfortably relevant again now in the current severe economic downturn.

Once I built a railroad, made it run
Made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it’s done
Brother, can you spare a dime

Once I built a tower, to the sun
Bricks, rivet, and lime
Once I built a tower, now it’s done
Brother, can you spare a dime

Once in cocky suits
Gee, we looked swell
Full of that Yankee Doodle-dom

Half a million boots, they went
Slogging through Hell
And I, I was a kid with a drum

Say, don’t you remember
They called me Al
It was Al all the time

Say, don’t you remember
I’m your pal
Buddy, can you spare a dime

It Was a Very Good Year — Frank Sinatra

Though another singer with a reputation as a lounge singer, I have to admit I’ve liked this song, recorded some time during my elementary school years, since I was a kid.

I’d not listened to this song in many, many years until I uploaded the CD to my computer the other night. As I listened to this song, the words hit me like a punch to the gut. Though I’d not noticed it before, this is a song about an aging libertine wistfully remembering his libertine life as he remembered the women he’d been with over the years.

Though I’m not quite at the point of being “in the autumn of the year” yet, now that I’ve hit fifty, the words have suddenly become uncomfortably relevant to me. And I have to admit hearing this song again with new ears gave me a lump in my throat — this is my life and is my future.

When I was seventeen
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for small town girls
And soft summer nights
Wed hide from the lights
On the village green
When I was seventeen

When I was twenty-one
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for city girls
Who lived up the stair
With all that perfumed hair
And it came undone
When I was twenty-one

When I was thirty-five
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for blue-blooded girls
Of independent means
We’d ride in limousines
Their chauffeurs would drive
When I was thirty-five

But now the days grow short
I’m in the autumn of the year
And now I think of my life as vintage wine
from fine old kegs
from the brim to the dregs
It poured sweet and clear
It was a very good year

And That's the Way It Was

Last night, I came home to find out that veteran newsman Walter Cronkite had died at the age of 92. Chosen several times over as “the most trusted man in America” in viewer opinion polls, Cronkite’s long and distinguished career extending from before World War II into the 21st century.

Morley Safer, a longtime “60 Minutes” correspondent, called Cronkite “the father of television news.”

“The trust that viewers placed in him was based on the recognition of his fairness, honesty and strict objectivity … and of course his long experience as a shoe-leather reporter covering everything from local politics to World War II and its aftermath in the Soviet Union,” Safer said. “He was a giant of journalism and privately one of the funniest, happiest men I’ve ever known.”

As the anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981, he brought the news of countless world-changing events to millions of Americans, from the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King to the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Iranian hostage crisis. He ended each evening’s broadcast with his signature statement: “And that’s the way it is.”

From the perspective of a five year old in 1963, I well remember Cronkite choking up as he delivered the report of President John F. Kennedy’s death.

Walter Cronkite reports the death of JFK
November 22, 1963

His 1968 editorial declaring the United States was “mired in stalemate” in Vietnam was seen by some as a turning point in U.S. opinion of the war. He also helped broker the 1977 invitation that took Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, the breakthrough to Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.

Cronkite was also an fervent supporter of America’s space program and was on hand to report every milestone in the high-coverage sixties from the first suborbital flight to the first moon landing to covering John Glenn’s return to space in 1998. His enthusiasm was evident when he exclaimed “Look at those pictures, wow!” as Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon’s surface.

“He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed,” Neil Armstrong said.

I, like millions of others, grew up with Walter Cronkite bringing us the news, He was a nightly constant from my earliest memories to the time my son was born. His death is but another part of my childhood gone forever.

And that’s the way it was.

Hypocrisy and Human Nature

With all the recent outings of politicians engaged in extramarital sex, my favorite liberal news site, Alternet, has been doing a flurry of articles relating to this subject. In a recent article, Relax: Adultery Is Not That Big Of a Deal by Samara O'Shea, she explores the idea:

I'm not justifying infidelity. But it certainly isn't going to shake the nation's moral foundation or destroy the institution of marriage.

My response follows below:

Monogamy is not natural for human beings, male or female. Yet, considering the strict sanctions against adultery that have existed for centuries, people still do it.

We must ask ourselves, what was the original point in mandating monogamous marriage in the first place?

Religion?

No, guess again. In ancient times, when hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies, the ideas of private property and inheritance were established. To reliably name heirs, a man had to know which children were actually his. To do this, the sexuality of women had to be tightly controlled. Thus, formal monogamous marriage was established, with polygyny for the rich(and where the women were still monogamous, even the men weren't). This is also why women have been traditionally punished more harshly than men for adultery and why virginity was required for brides.

It had nothing to do with love, as marriage was mainly a practical arrangement until around the beginning of the 18th century.

Religion put its stamp of approval on this, which gave it the force of law in societies where religion was the law. The pronouncement of "God said it" was to ensure compliance to what went against basic human nature.

Yet people have committed adultery all through the centuries, as it's almost impossible to completely thwart human nature.

We see adultery more in the news now, as the original valid reasons for monogamy no longer exist:

Marriage is no longer primarily about reproduction, DNA tests prove paternity, non-marital children enjoy the same rights as marital children, women are no longer legally dependent on men for their survival, etc.

However, cultural sensibilities have not caught up to current practical realities, especially considering that few people know the real reasons why monogamy was mandated in the first place.

It's time our society stopped insisting that every marriage be a monogamous one in "one size fits all" style. Only then will the hypocrisy end, as human nature will surely not change.

The Elephant in the Living Room

A recent article on Alternet, For Many, Marriage is Sexless, Boring, and Oppressive:Time to Rethink the Institution? by Amanda Marcotte, asks the question:

Marriage is failing many, many people. Why do we still idealize it?

My response to this article follows below:

Formalized marriage and monogamy began for practical reasons, unrelated to any religious notions of "sanctity". Once ancient hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies and ideas of private property and inheritance came about, socially sanctioned monogamous marriage began as a way to control women's sexuality so men would know which children were actually theirs. Polygynous marriage existed for the very rich, but the women in such marriages were still monogamous, though men were not. It is because of this original reason that women are punished more severely for infidelity than are men, as men couldn't be sure of who their children were unless women's sexuality was tightly controlled.

Religious insistence on monogamy was soon added, as it gave the force of law to a practical idea in societies where religious leaders were the law. "God said it" leaves no room for debate.

People did not marry primarily for love until around the 18th century. It was strictly a practical arrangement, a vehicle for joining powerful families for the rich, along with inheritance reasons, and to have a socially sanctioned partner to have children with and work together for survival for the poor. Love, if it happened, was icing on the cake, not the reason to get married in the first place.

People lived shorter lives then, so "until death do us part", did not include decades of the "empty-nest syndrome". Most people were lucky to live long enough to see the youngest child to adulthood. Life itself was harder and more survival oriented, thus people did not worry overmuch about love or personal fulfillment then.

Still, infidelity occurred all throughout history for both sexes, despite sanctions against it, as it's very difficult to overcome basic human nature. It's always been a big scandal for women, but not so much for men until the 19th century or so. The feminist movement no doubt influenced the increasing disapproval of male infidelity, rather than freeing women to male norms.

Today, we marry for love, life isn't strictly about survival, DNA tests prove paternity, overpopulation discourages large families, we live longer lives, women can support themselves, and the abolishment of legal distictions between marital and nonmarital children have removed much of the valid reasons for legal marriage and monogamy. Thus, marriage as it's currently understood has become maladaptive for modern needs. It's no wonder we're seeing what we're seeing.

In light of this, marriage needs to be redefined if it is to survive in a workable form(s) and adjusted to reflect the realities of modern life and human nature. One of the first steps would be to cease mandating monogamy.

A Smoking Rant

I work with a lot of people in their early 20s. And it seems nearly all of them smoke, almost without exception. It seems as if a larger percentage of them smoke than did those of my generation when I was in my 20s.

I don't get it. Growing up with information about the dangers of smoking, from lung cancer to emphysema, bombarding them at every turn, I don't see how anyone with half a brain takes up smoking nowadays. I pass them huddling outside on their smoke breaks, sometimes making a smart remark, "Getting a head start on that case of lung cancer, hmm?" and they laugh and keep on puffing.

The truth about the dangers of smoking have been around since the early sixties, at least, yet people continue to doggedly take up smoking. It's almost as if they have a death wish. Surely everyone has had a relative, friend, or who has known someone personally who died from the effects of smoking. Yet, they smoke on.

My mother smoked. Smoking was a direct cause of her early death in her forties from a massive stroke. I remember my father doing everything he could to get her to stop, but she kept on until it killed her. However, her death served as a negative example for her children, none of whom smoke today, myself included.

But at least my mother's generation has an excuse for when they took up smoking. My mother began smoking as a teen during World War II when the negative effects of smoking were not yet clearly known. Indeed, smoking was promoted at that time as an aid to weight loss, and several advertisements of the time featured doctors endorsing their favorite brand of cigarettes.

But people today who start smoking -- there is no excuse. It's just plain stupidity.

Following below are a couple of ads that convinced my mother's generation that smoking was harmless

Favorite President

In honor of Presidents' Day, tell us: Who was your favorite U.S. President and why?

My favorite president is Harry Truman, who made the top five in a recent ranking of US Presidents.

He was a blunt, plain spoken, common sense man, who always made clear to those he dealt with how he stood on issues.

Because he came from a working class rural background, Truman did not have a university degree, the last American president whose formal education did not go past high school. Nevertheless, he was far from uneducated, as he was a lifelong bibliophile who educated himself through extensive reading and research, as he considered education to be a lifelong activity.

He worked a variety of jobs during his young adult years, including a stint as an Army Captain during World War I. But in the 1920s, he had to declare bankruptcy because of a business he owned that failed. After the bankruptcy, many people thought he was a failure and would not have thought him a candidate for a future Presidency. However, he never gave up, but started over, even eventually paying back all the money he owed that had led to the bankruptcy

Truman was a man who did not come from a privileged background. He experienced first hand many of the trials that average Americans did. He didn't have to imagine what it would be like to be one of us -- he was one of us.
One fo the first things Truman did in the aftermath of World War II was the de-segregate the armed forces, knowing there was no room for such hypocrisy in the army of a free nation who had most recently fought to end the oppression of others in Europe and the Far East.

Decades ahead of Walter Mondale and John McCain, he seriously considered having Eleanor Roosevelt as his running mate in the 1948 election, a request that Mrs Roosevelt declined.

Similarly, he envisioned the US with a national health care system, but, unfortunately, it was a dream that was way ahead of its time. However Lyndon Johnson, when he signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in the mid-60s, acknowledged and honored President Truman for the groundwork he laid that made these partial steps toward a national health care system possible.

Truman also holds the distinction of being the last President not to leave the White House as a millionaire.

Coming Full Circle

The other day, a lover and I were having an odd conversation about the history of women's underwear, when I learned that women didn't wear any sort of bottoms at all until the 19th century. The conversation came about when she groused about a historical novel she'd recently read. The plot took place during the American Revolution and in one chapter the author referred to a female character's bloomers, which my friend said was an anachronism.

I laughed, thinking how much easier it was for men back then to get down to business with a woman -- all he had to do was lift her skirt. And then I had to wonder what women did at certain times of the month if they were freebreezing it all the time.

My third thought was about how now, 200+ years later, we've nearly come full circle. I got the idea that this would make a funny blog entry, so I did a bit of research.

To Illustrate:

1. 1776



2. 1876



3. 1920



4. 1940



5. 1960



6. 1970



7. 1990



8. 2000



9 Some time in the near future



From the commando of the 1770s to the commando of the 21st century, we will have come full circle.

Thoughts?

Man Trampled to Death By Mob of Shoppers

Most people by now have heard the story of the Wal Mart worker who was trampled to death by Black Friday customers who literal took the doors off the hinges yesterday, which gave an entirely new meaning to the concept of a "doorbuster sale."

What the fuck is wrong with people? Is the need to acquire a few cheap gimcracks at a slightly lower price than normal worth someone's life? I don't even understand why these sales still generate crowds so big, considering now that people can shop online from the comfort of their own homes.

After reading about this tragedy from several sources, I thought back to the events of September 11, 2001, when an approximate 13,000 to 15,000 people evacuated successfully from the World Trade Center towers. Despite it being an emergency situation where lives where clearly in danger, and where panic would have been understandable, I've never heard any reports of people being trampled to death during the evacuation. Rather, I heard several stories of people stopping to help others whose physical limitations hampered their ability to escape on their own, some even giving their own lives in such sttempts.

The memories of that day only serve to underscore just how despicable the actions of yesterday's mob of Wal Mart shoppers were.

Thoughts?

FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights"

This is an excerpt from FDR's 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union. Too bad he wasn't able to get it passed -- it sounds pretty good to me. I'm hoping Obama can work on some of these during his time in office.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Like Rats Off the Titanic

In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans have jumped ship to endorse Barack Obama for president. I would imagine that these endorsements were partially inspired by frustration after 8 years of an inept Bush presidency that has tarnished the reputation of the United States all over the world.

For others, such as Colin Powell, John McCain's choice of the unqualifed, inexperienced, and erratic Sarah Palin as the VP running mate, which was characteristic of a McCain campaign that has been highly erratic all around. It was the last straw for traditional conservatives and moderate Republicans sick of neocons and the Religious Right controlling their beloved Republican Party.

Younger adults probably do not realize that the Republican Party was not always so far to the right. Until 1980, when Ronald Reagan welcomed the support of the newly-influential Religious Right, traditional conservatives and moderates controlled the direction of the Republican party. Unfortunately, the Religious Right would only gain more influence with each successive election until it had nearly gutted the Republican Party into what we see today, The rise of neoconservatism followed a similar timeline to that of the Religious Right.

Before 1980, the Republican Party was moderate on many issues, being both pro-choice and for the Equal Rights Amendment. We also have to remember that it was Richard Nixon who established the Environmental Protection Agency. Even in the 1980 primary season, many traditional Republicans, such as George Bush, Sr, continued to hold the moderate positions that the Republican party had supported. I remember that once Bush, Sr was chosen as Reagan's VP pick, he quickly flip-flopped on his pro-choice position in order to get in line with the new order.

But, thankfully, it seems as if many Republicans have said enough is enough and want their old party back. I can only wish them luck and I look forward to the return of a sane, moderate Republican Party.

Below is a partial list of Republicans who have endorsed Barack Obama for president

Jim Leach, Former Congressman from Iowa
Lincoln Chafee, Former United States Senator from Rhode Island
William Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts
Arne Carlson, Former Governor of Minnesota
Wayne Gilchrest, Congressman from Maryland
Charles Mathias, Former United States Senator and Congressman from Maryland
Larry Pressler, Former Senator from South Dakota
Richard Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles
Lowell Weicker, Former Governor and Senator from Connecticut
Claudine Schneider, Former Congressman from Rhode Island
Harris Fawell, Former Congressman from Illinois
Jim Whitaker, Fairbanks, Alaska Mayor
William Milliken, Former Governor of Michigan
Phil Arthurhultz, Former Michigan State Senate Majority Leader
Linwood Holton, Former Governor of Virginia
Jeffrey Hart, National Review Senior Editor
Andrew Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University
David Friedman, Economist and son of Milton and Rose Friedman
Christopher Buckley, Son of National Review founder William F. Buckley & former NR columnist
Andrew Sullivan, Columnist for the Atlantic Monthly
Wick Alison, Former publisher of the National Review
Michael Smerconish, Columnist for the Philadelphia Enquirer
CC Goldwater, Granddaughter of Barry Goldwater
Colin Powell, Secretary of State under Bush 43
Ken Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff under Reagan
Douglas Kmiec, Head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan & Bush 41
Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States under Reagan
Jackson M. Andrews, Former Counsel to the U.S. Senate, & 1986 Republican Senatorial Nominee for Kentucky
Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of President Eisenhower & President of the Eisenhower Group
Francis Fukuyama, Advisor to President Reagan
Rita Hauser, Former White House intelligence advisor under George W. Bush
Larry Hunter, Former President Reagan Policy Advisor
Scott McClellan, Former Press Secretary to President George W. Bush
Bill Ruckelshaus, Served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations
Ken Adelman, Served in the Ford administration
Lilibet Hagel, Wife of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel
Bruce Rabb, Served in the Nixon administration
George C. Lodge, Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Eisenhower
William B. Ewald, Jr., Special Assistant under President Eisenhower
Robert R. Bowie, Assistant Secretary for Policy Planning, Department of state 1953-1957
Jarold Kieffer, Assistant Secretary, Health, Education & Welfare, 1959-61
Roswell B. Perkins, Assistant Secretary, Health, Education & Welfare, 1954-56
Timothy Ashby, Served in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations
Richard S. Seline, Finance Director, Republican Party of Texas
David Caprara, Faith-Based Initiatives Director, Federal Volunteer Service Agency under Bush 43
John Perry Barlow, Former Dick Cheney Campaign Manager

McCain = Dewey?

As several bloggers have already pointed out, John McCain's campaign jumped the gun by placing an ad on the Wall Street Journal's webpage that declared him the winner of Friday's presidential debate, before it even took place.

This reminded me of when the Chicago Daily Tribune similarly jumped the gun in the 1948 with its "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline.

We can only hope that the election turns out the same way for McCain as it did for Dewey in 1948.

Some Thoughts on Sex Education

Over at Alternet today, there's an article entitled "Sex Ed in the Bible Belt", which is about the author's experience with abstinence-based sex education.

My reply contrasted my own experience with sex education with that of the author and follows below:

My junior high and high school sex-ed classes were in the early to mid 70s in New Jersey. The junior high classes were sex-segregated and dealt mainly with the biological facts of reproduction.

In high school, however, it was in mixed-sex classes conducted by the football coach and the emphasis was pregnancy prevention, not abstinence. It was assumed that we would be having sex before we were married, though some attention was given to encouraging us to wait until we were mature enough to handle it.

I remember one class in particular where the coach couldn't stress strongly enough how useless the "withdrawal" method was, telling us that people who used withdrawal were usually more commonly known as "parents".

Abortion had recently become legal when I was in high school, and this, too, was addressed in the classes, with the emphasis being that consistent use of birth control would make this option unnecessary.

Questions were encouraged, no matter how frank, and were answered in an equally frank manner.

The issue of love and relationships as how it related to sex were covered in a separate family living class.

I'm glad I grew up when and where I did and was fortunate enough to receive a comprehensive sex education.

The only topics not covered in what would be considered in an adequate manner today would have been the topic of STDs, which were still commonly referred to as "VD" back then. But, to be fair, AIDs did not yet exist at the time and what STDs that did exist could be cured with a trip to the doctor, so what education we did receive on STDs was adequate for the time.

What was your experience of school sex education?

Quotes From Winston Churchill

I've always considered Winston Churchill to be one of the most eloquent speakers of the 20th century. Following are a selection his quotes:


Great and good are seldom the same man.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.

Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.

History is written by the victors.

I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught.

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

If you are going through hell, keep going.

If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.

Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Just As True Now As It Was Then

Following are some quotes from my favorite president, Harry Truman, that are just as true now as they were at the time he said them.

"In most of my campaigns, I find it is best not to mention my opponent by name because, by doing so, it just gives him a chance to get into the headlines." 1948

Hear that, Hillary?

"It isn't important who is ahead at one time or another in either an election or horse race. It's the horse that comes in first at the finish line that counts".
1948

Both Clinton and Obama should remember the truth of this.

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix."

Obviously Bush never heard this one.

"We should resolve now that the health of this nation is a national concern; that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed; that the health of all it's citizens deserves the help of all the nation."

"Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection."

Too bad that no one listened to him back then or we wouldn't have the mess in the health care system that we have today.

"We must remember that the test of our religious principles lies not just in what we say, not only in our prayers, not even in living blameless lives - but in what we do for others" 9-28-1951

A lesson that the Religious Right has yet to learn.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

Nothing has changed here since Truman's time.

What's the Difference?

Above is a photo of a street scene, taken around 1912 or so. There was one element of this photo that struck me as being quite different from a typical city street scene of today.

Can you guess what it is?

Book Review: The Lost Life of Eva Braun

The Lost Life of Eva Braun
by Angela Lambert

Few biographies have been written about the mistress of Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler. Many students of World War II wonder how any woman could have loved Hitler or dismiss her as a shallow bimbo who was just as evil as he was.

This book explores these questions and portrays Braun as an average, unremarkable German woman of her times who was no more evil than the average person.

The author covers Braun's childhood experiences, focusing on the typical cultural attitudes of the time and her father's strict parenting style in particular. These experiences molded her into an impressionable 17 year old who was easily susceptible to the charisma of an older man who had the aura of power about him (his election as Chancellor was four years in the future when they met).

Several chapters deal with how their relationship grew and developed, including their sexual relationship, which was perfectly normal, despite urban legends claiming that Hitler was gay, impotent, or into odd fetishes.

One chapter speculates on what, if anything, Braun knew about the Holocaust, with a follow-up chapter asking what could she have done, even if she'd known. Related to these questions is coverage concerns Hitler's misogyny; how he generally disapproved of women being involved in politics and how political topics were never discussed in mixed gatherings; that most high-ranking Nazi women were deliberately left in the dark about the grisly details about the Holocaust and conduct of the war in general.

The book also explores how she willingly chose to share Hitler's fate, despite those around her, including Hitler, urging her to save herself.

In essence, the book shows her life as representing that of many Germans of the time -- of how millions of average, unremarkable, otherwise moral people could be taken in by someone like Hitler, and continue to do so, living in denial, even after it was obvious he was leading Germany down an evil path.

The author relies heavily on the accounts of those who knew her personally, including one still-living cousin who visited her at Hitler's private home, the Berghof.

Overall, I liked this book, with one quibble: The author includes several short segments comparing Braun's life with that of her mother, a German woman of roughly the same age and background. I understood that the author's purpose was to underline Braun's utter ordinariness of how evil is capable of seducing good people, but these digressions are distracting and the author would have been able to make this point sufficiently without these segments.

I give this book four out of five stars.

An Incomplete List of Obsolete Things

I recently came upon a site which listed skills that are now obselete, some of them only recently so. I plucked a few of the ones I found interesting for this entry. Enjoy!

Adjusting Rabbit Ears On Top Of aTV

Adjusting Horizontal And Vertical Holds on a TV

Be Kind-Rewind

Calling A Phone Sex Line

Calling Collect On A Payphone

Cash Register Used Manually Entering The Prices

Changing The Ribbon On A Typewriter

Converting Your Albums From Vinyl To Cassette Tape

Cuff Links

Dialing A Rotary Phone

Filing Cards In A Library Card Catalog

Finding Channels On UHF

Getting Off The Couch To Change Channels On Your TV Set

Having Your Gas Pumped For You And Your Oil Checked At A Full-service Gas Station

Kick Starting A Motorcycle

Knowing What Part Of Town Someone Lives In By Their Phone Exchange

Loading A Reel To Reel Tape Drive

Making An Operator Assisted Phone Call

Making Hot Chocolate By Heating Milk in a Pan, Then Adding Cocoa Powder and Sugar (remember the "skin" on the milk?)

Marriage (NOTE: This was actually on the list -- it isn't my addition)

Meeting People By Answering Personal Ads In A Newspaper Or Magazine

Opening A Can Of Beer Or Soda With A Church Key

Peeling The Developer Layer Off A Polaroid

Percolating Coffee

Placing A Coin On A Tonearm To Prevent Skipping

Popping Corn In A Pot With Oil

Porn Not From The Internet

Putting A Needle On A Vinyl Record

Rewinding An Audio Cassette Using A Bic Pen

Selling Something In The Classified Ads

Shave With A Straight Razor

Shorthand

Smelling A Freshly Mimeographed Test Paper

Switching To High Beams By Stomping On A Button In The Floor

Taking The Tape Out Of An Answering Machine

Testing TV Tubes At the Drugstore

Using Carbon Paper To Make Copies

Using Correction Fluid

Using A Party-line Telephone

Using A Pay Toilet

Feel free to add some of your own.