Today I wanted to start a new feature for my blog. As my loyal readers will know – all three of you – I have tried to do things like this in the past. I used to have a person of the week feature, and I had to revive it from the dead a multiple times. I was trying to do a “PotW” each week, hence the name. I constantly found myself either not doing them, or scrambling to find something worthy to post. Instead of that I found the Historical Person of the Month may work better. For one, it is right down my alley; I study the subject constantly. Secondly, I only have to remember to update the topic twelve times per year. I can study individuals and find time to give them such a post. It won’t be too demanding on my behalf, and it could be interesting for you. One final disclaimer must be stated. I can not always post based on what I am researching in school. If I have to write a paper on any particular person or subject I must refrain from writing about them until all work had been submitted and returned. It is possible to plagiarize yourself, and I do not want to run into any academic trouble at my university.
ShaneHaven’s Historical Person of the Month for March 2010 goes to Suetonius who was a classical writer and pseudo-historian. We must call him a pseudo-historian because he was not a real historian. While many of the ancient writers did use classic documents, most have been lost or destroyed and they are no longer available to us. First, we can not account for their accuracy, and secondly there was no such thing has a historian back in the classic times. People were trained differently to write based off of the standards of rhetoric trying to evoke particular emotions based on the standards of the time. While Suetonius’ work, The Tweleve Caesars, may be horribly biased, it is a fascinating read. He often talks of the scandalous nature of the Roman Emperors and their thirst for bloodshed. In fact, he actually made Nero sound like Stewie Griffin because both tried to kill their mother so many times. By and by his work is the easiest primary source I have ever read, and it flows wonderfully. Of course I am reading a translated version because I do not know Latin, but my statement still stands. I have enjoyed thoroughly reading his book and that is why he is the Historical Person of the Month (HPM).
Have you heard about the latest controversial article by CNN? No, I am not suggesting all of their articles are controversial but this one really got my blood boiling. CNN has reported a study that says if you are liberal, atheist, or a sexual exclusive man, you smarter than the rest of society. This is absurd! While I am somewhere between an agnostic and Richard Dawkin’s definition of a Deist, I consider myself to be quite conservative. While I do not consider myself to be smart, I do think I am smarter than the average bear – I mean human. I devote WAY too much time to my studies and have to consistently turn down my friends’ offers for lunch, dinner, drinks, etc. I even turned down tickets to a Lakers/Celtics game! I would not put this time in if I did not think it was going to get me somewhere in life, and make me more intelligent. But does it not matter how much I learn, or how hard I study, I can never be smarter than a liberal, right? Although I may not be a religious individual, that does not mean that I am smarter than those who are Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, etc. etc. In fact, one of the smartest individuals I know is a devout Christian.
These claims, however scientifically proven, seems fishy to me. How were people tested? What are these correlations based on? Would this have been published on CNN if the results were different? Most research is conducted at universities which tend to be liberal, does that have any effect on this study?
Personally I think it is hogwash. I have met some pretty hard-nosed, close minded, liberals in my day. They think they are smart but they really are not. I too, have met many stupid conservatives. The same thing can be said for both sides of the religious spectrum with regards to this article as well. I really believe that this study is just generalizing. There are smart and stupid people in every categorical division anyone can make. Smarts really comes down to the individual, not the majority. There are things that can be generalized but intelligence is, in itself, a very personal thing. For anyone to generalize to this extent probably has an axe to grind, and that is exactly what I expect.
I hope none of my readers will actually read into this study and come away thinking they have undeniable truth. I also wonder how many days until I am in a debate with a liberal, or an atheist, and they will try to throw this “study” in my face as proof that their argument is correct.
A few day ago I finally reading Jon Krakauer’s book: Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. If you don’t know who Tillman was, allow me to quickly explain. Tillman was a safety for the Arizona Cardinals until the 2001-2002 season. After the events on September 11, 2001 he decided that playing football wasn’t enough. His nation was going to war, and he felt it was wrong to sit on his butt and play football. Pat Tillman enlisted in the army and became an Army Ranger. On April 22, 2004, Pat Tillman was killed.
Krakauer’s book is decent. Tillman has always been a hero of mine since the day he turned down a 3.6 million dollar contract to join the military. Not too many people (post World War II) would turn down a multi-million dollar contract to become a soldier and serve his country. Since he became a hero of mine, I knew a lot about him. For me, many of the things that Krakauer talks about (and many find surprising) I already knew because I had previously read a lot about Pat Tillman. For example, I knew that Tillman was a thinker, a bit of a thrill seeker, as well as a complex, smart, and generous individual. He was not the grunt, or football jock that many have labeled him as. That isn’t to say that I was still not surprised by what was included in Krakauer’s book at times.
The death and cover up of Tillman’s by the military is well described by Krakauer. I consider myself one who has become somewhat desensitized to the horrors of war and combat. I have read a lot of gruesome actions, seen it on TV, videogames, and on the news. Krakauer does a great job at detailing the events with brutal detail; so much so that I actually got a knot in my stomach. The level of detail is where Krakuer excels with his work, as he finds a way to put you into the mind of Pat Tillman.
For the most part, Krakauer uses one main source to convey the thoughts of late athlete and soldier. Tillman had kept a personal journal throughout a large portion of his life. Krakauer uses this journal to fill in the story of Tillman’s life by allowing Krakauer to add Tillman’s thoughts, fears, theories, and philosophies to the narrative. The journal proves to be a fantastic addition to the work as it helps to detail what Pat was trying to accomplish at certain points in his life. Without the journal that information would be forever lost. In addition, the journal adds credibility to the work because it is a primary source that would have been written soon after the events unfolded. Journals, unlike oral history accounts, don’t fade or distort what happened; for Krakauer to include the journal, as well as interviews and recorded statements, as the main driving points is commendable.
Although Krakauer used solid sources in his writing of the book, there are a few criticisms that must be mentioned. My first criticism is based on his end note section. Secondly, I must also be critical of Krakauer in regards to one aspect of his writing because he sometimes has chapters that have nothing to do with the work at hand. While sometimes they are interesting, other times they are distracting enough to make the reader ask “did I grab the wrong book? I am still reading that book on Tillman right?”
After spending some time pondering why these chapters on Jessica Lynch, friendly fire, Afghan history, other military mixups, and higher command snafus, that have nothing to do with the odyssey that is Pat Tillman, one can tell there is a considerable liberal bias. While Krakauer’s claims do not prove to necessarily be false but they are unnecssasry in elaborating on his thesis (that Tillman is more complex than your average football jock or military grunt). To me, it is sad that he uses Tillman as a vehicle for furthering his own political opinion. Tillman may have leaned liberal himself, there is no way to even prove if Tillman’s journal was used out of context. I am left asking why particular parts were actually included, and others were not. Since it is Tillman’s personal journal
One of the biggest criticisms I have of Krakauer’s book is with his endnotes. Krakauer never documents where he gets any of his information. He has a few footnotes in the later chapters however they are only explanatory. If one surveys the endnotes he does give the sources he used but he does not say when he used them. Because he doesn’t have true endnotes he could easily combine parts of chapters to give it more validity when it is not really from that source.
In the end, I give this book a 3 out of 5. Although Where Men Win Glory is an interesting book, the criticisms are actually quite significant. The book is useful in explaining the thoughts, and philosophies of Tillman and Krakauer is successful in proving that Tillman was a more complex individual than what most of the public precieved. If you followed Tillman closely however, there is little to learn. Krakauer should have left his personal feelings on politics out and he should have documented his sources much better. If he would have not used Tillman’s death for a vehicle against Bush and the military then this work could be taken much more respectfully as it would then be a great service to Pat Tillman and his family.
Superbowl XLIV Prediction
Posted Sunday February 7, 2010
at 12:43am in Sports
I quickly want to put my two cents in before Superbowl XLIV commences in about fourteen and a half hours.
Who I Want to Win: I really want the New Orleans Saints to win. With the city of New Orleans, still recovering from the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, and the subsequent mismanagement by the U.S. Government from 2005, the city’s spirit could use something like a Superbowl victory. People and communities have often turned to sports to lift their spirits in times of hardship. A victory for the Saints, is a victory for both those effected by Hurricane Katrina, and for the city of New Orleans.
Who WILL win? The COLTS! Sorry Saints fans, but they will not win the Superbowl. Why? The Saints have too much stacked up against them. First, the Colts have previous Superbowl experience. The Colts won the superbowl just three years ago when they defeated the Chicago Bears 29-17. For the players who are left over from that team, they understand what the environment is like on Superbowl Sunday and they understand the media frenzy that leads to up it. They can offer valuable insight on how to manage the particular conditions that superbowl brings. Secondly, and more importantly, you can not bet against Peyton Manning. I did once on a Monday Night Football game. With five minutes left in the game, my favorite team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, were up by 21 points. I knew I was going to win the bet. What does Peyton Manning do? Lead one of the greatest comebacks in football history! (You can read about it here). Manning hates to lose and is easily one of the best quarterbacks in the history of football. Lastly, the Saints lost to the 2009 Tampa Bay Buccaneers – a team that only won three games all season. This means that the Saints do not always show up, and their offense can get stagnate. If they can run the ball effectively they will have a shot, but I don’t think it will be enough to overcome the Colts.
I do think it will be a close game. I think the Colts will edge out the Saints 38-30.
I don’t have much to say on this issue, but I felt it was still necessary to comment on. The article that has unveiled this information is by Martin Crutsinger, an AP economics writer, that has been sponsored on yahoo.com. According to Crutsinger, this will expand the national budget deficet to a “record 1.56 trillion dollars.”
This is insane! Why does the U.S. Government insist on spending so much money? I understand we are still fighting two wars and some spending will take place for our soldiers’ equipment, and that is fine with me. Again the article cites that the deficit could grow by about 8 trillion more dollars over the next decade. It is my belief that we should not go further into debt to fix our countries monetary problems. Then again, I am a history major, not a econ major, but doesn’t common sense say we should save money by spending less to get out of this deficit?
