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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

This isn’t to say that women don’t play games. I often play with a particular team on Left 4 Dead 2 where one team member is female. The four of us make a fantastic team, and it has been the best team that I have ever been a part of on any online multiplayer experience. Meanwhile I have a friend, whose wife indulges in gaming from time to time. I do think the amount of female gamers are already rising. I agree with Floyd and Alexander, that it might have to do with the prospect of trying out a console game after enjoying browser based games such as Zuma or Bejewled.

I also have one criticism of the argument presented by Floyd and Alexander. Although I do agree how women may be turned away from games by the exaggerated features on many female characters, but aren’t the male characters the same? Lets take two  male heroes from video games – Master Chief from Halo and Marcus Fenix from Gears of War. Do males generally look like that? Overly buff bad asses who have absolutely no fear? I think it’s fair to say that both male and female characters are overly exaggerated. Of course that doesn’t defeat the mindset that both male and female gamers give to the respective characters.

Men don’t mind to indulge themselves in playing the characters that are fearless. It exaggerates the best qualities in male warriors that are necessary for the games. The females are exaggerated for their looks and it of course objectifies women and that is why female gamers probably don’t like the games. Either the characters need to be developed more to suit the female gamers without  ruining it for the men. Maybe the characters need to be less like Lara Croft, and more like Tifa Lockhart from Final Fantasy Advent Children or Rebecca Chambers of Resident Evil Zero.

In my concluding remarks, I must say that having more female gamers would be a fantastic thing to have in the gaming community. Men wouldn’t be put down for their hobby, and it could lead to better relationships. I don’t think any reasonable guy gamers would object to playing with their significant others if they really put their heart into it. Otherwise, things like this could happen, and that is just a deal breaker all around.

“‘I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived,’ Blagojevich said. ‘I saw it all growing up.’”

I, as a white male, find this incredibly disturbing and racist towards the black community for multiple reasons. First, and foremost, Blagojevich is portraying blacks in a generalist fashion by saying that they all live in rather poor conditions. An individual who makes their living by shining shoes is one who would probably not make a decent living. The very same evidence goes to the apartment portion of the statement as well. A five room apartment is not a very luxurious place to reside in. Who is Blagojevich to insinuate that all blacks are poor? There are many successful black people all around the world. There are many individuals who make a lot of money that this statement would easily offend. Blagojevich’s comments can easily be rightfully labeled as racist.

Furthermore, one who is under the restrictions that poverty provides is probably also not well educated. Once again, of course, Blagojevich is wrong. Just to drop a few names as examples (although no examples are really needed) – Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michael Steele, and Oprah are just a few who defy the racism expressed by Blagojevich both in their financial earnings and education. At first I could not fathom how Blagojevich could come to such a conclusion, or even why he would release it to the public. Its political public suicide, right? Not exactly.

Someone once said that there is no such thing as bad press. Blagojevich, who according to Bellandi, is going to appear on the next season of Celebrity Apprentice in March is testing the statement. Blagojevich is trying to get the public riled up, and those who have forgotten Blago to remember him. It is my opinion, that the result that Blagojevich is going for is higher ratings for the popular Trump program. Helping Trump is not the former Governor’s concern however, as it may be a move to try to come off as the nice guy on the show. If he can get enough viewers, be portrayed as a nice fellow that is also hardworking, it may be aid Blagojevich in persuading a jury for his acquittal. Its just a thought that crossed my mind, and it certainly does not make it correct.

Jets @ Bengals - The Bengals will win because the Jets are less talented. The Jets may have one of the best RBs in the league for the season, but they also have a rookie quarterback who made a lot of mistakes. Carson Palmer will step up and prove he is one of the best quarterbacks in the league. I don’t care if the Jets blasted the Bengals in week 17; the playoffs are a differenct monster entirely, and they will win on Saturday.

Ravens @ Patriots – I really wanted to pick the Ravens, but they didn’t meet my expectations all season long. I think they are a better team than the Patriots right now, but due to their disappointing nature and the high level of playoff experience of the Patriots will allow them to emerge victorious.

Eagles @ Cowboys - I think the Eagles are a better team, but its just about time that the Cowboys and Tony Romo win a damn playoff game. The Cowboys haven’t won one since 1996. Romo has been playing quite well recently, and I think he will continue to roll the Cowboys to victory.

Packers @ Cardinals – This is my upset pick. I think the Packers are a vastly underrated team, and the Packers quarterback, Aaron Rogers, is one of the best quarterbacks on the team. With the Cardinals having a couple key injuries  (Bolden & Rogers-Cromartie), the Packers will take this opportunity to take out the Cards and advance to the second round of the Playoffs. In fact, the Packers are kinda my darkhorse team for the Playoffs. I think they are going to go quite far, maybe not to the Superbowl but I can easily see them getting to the NFC championship game.  I think they even have a chance at the Superbowl, but it would be pretty tough to get past the Saints.

Within a minute, it will be a new year. The year that was 2009 will be over, and a new decade will begin. Its a time for fresh starts, clean slates, and resolutions that will fail within the first three weeks. It is a time to forget the mistakes of yesteryear or the horrors that the last decade brought. Also, it is a time to look forward to the history that has yet to be made, and  with the events that have recently unfolded, the teen decade of the twenty-first century will be challenging and interesting. I do not want to ramble for too long, so I just want to say that I hope the new year and decade will be better than the last for you, me, and all humankind.