"Separate" Does Not Mean "Equal"

Revisiting Plessy v. Ferguson
in the 21st Century

I am always fascinated to hear people today complaining about the Supreme Court.  For whatever reason, it seems as though a large number of Americans these days esteem our Supreme Court as a group of corrupt, disinterested socialites who care more about individual status than about delivering justice.  And while I am certain that some Supreme Court justices of the modern era have given a less-than-stellar performance while in office, I firmly believe that the past 2-3 generations of Americans have been blessed to have (overall) a strong Supreme Court.  Of course, I am not suggesting that our judges (and their decisions) have been perfect.  Far from it.  Mistakes have been made and I am sure that with the 20/20 hindsight of history, future generations will come to question a number of the court decisions made in our day.  With that said, I again maintain that the past couple of generations has been very fortunate to have the justices and court decisions that we have seen. 

Sadly, the same cannot be said of past generations.  During the 19th and early 20th centuries, for example, Americans witnessed first-hand how the decisions of the highest court of our land could utterly devastate a nation and its people. Cases like Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, which essentially stated that Native Americans could not become American citizens and were considered "less human" than Whites.  Or the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, which granted mental health institutions the right to sterilize the "unfit" and "mentally retarded" for the "protection and health of the state."  And then there is the infamous 1857 case, Dread Scott v. Sandford (in my opinion, the worst Supreme Court decision ever), which essentially held that African American slaves were to be considered as "property" rather than people, and that any fugitive slave was to be returned to his/her rightful "owner" without question.

And today we have the honor (or better put, responsibility) to recognize another shameful decision from our nation's past.  116 years ago today, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions of one Homer Plessy, who years earlier had attempted to travel from New Orleans to Covington, La. on a "White Only" railroad car.  Plessy, who was considered an "octoroon" (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent) by his contemporaries, refused to be segregated based on his race and protested the railroad's policy of separating its passengers based on skin color.  Eventually, Plessy was escorted from the train and booked into jail where he began a campaign to eradicate the budding but still infant practice of racial segregation in the South.  Long story short, Plessy's case ended up making it all the way to the Supreme Court in 1896, where sadly his appeals fell on deaf ears.

In what has become one of the most important and atrocious legal cases in American history, Plessy v. Ferguson stated that there was nothing unlawful about a state, business or institution choosing to separate members of different races, so long as they provided the same goods/services to all.  In what became known as the doctrine of Separate but Equal, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was not in violation of the 14th Amendment (which prohibits local and state governments from depriving its citizens of life, liberty and property without due process) as Mr. Plessy had claimed, but that the railroad company (and anyone else who wanted to follow suit) was completely justified in choosing to keep the races apart from one another.  Needless to say, Plessy v. Ferguson paved the way for extreme racial inequality to once again rear its ugly head in the South.  And though the ruling stipulated that all separate goods/services needed to also be equal, reality is that Southern governments refused to provide anything resembling equality for Blacks.  In short, racial segregation and inequality became standard operating procedure in the South. 

For nearly 60 years, Plessy v. Ferguson and its gospel of "Separate but Equal" kept the South from seeing things in any other way but Black and White.  It wasn't until 1954 and Brown v. Board of Education that the chains of segregation would finally start to come off.  And as we are all aware, the struggle to eradicate segregation from America took more than a Supreme Court decision to accomplish. It was only after decades of petition, protest, blood, hate and pain that the scars of segregation began to fade away (some rightfully maintain that those scars are still visible today).   This was the shameful legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson.

But thankfully we live in a more "civilized" world today...

...right?

After all, we would NEVER think of repeating those painful lessons of "Separate but Equal."

Or would we?

--When we suggest "separate but equal" health care for any patient in need, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.

--When we implement "separate but equal" laws for illegal immigrants, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.

--When we demand "separate but equal" schools and/or funding for affluent neighborhoods v. the inner city, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.

--When we recommend "separate but equal" tax rates for the rich and the poor, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.

--When we believe in "separate but equal" restrictions for those of a different religion than our own (i.e. the New York mosque), we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.

--When we preach "separate but equal" laws for those in the LGBT community, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.

In short, whenever we seek to divide humanity because of our perceived differences, we will be sure to reap our own hell.  Life is hard enough.  Why would anyone want to endure it all alone?  Sorry, but you cannot "divide" and "conquer" and the same time.  We don't have the luxury of simply changing the rules for those we don't like and/or understand.  Such an action is the epitome of bigotry. 

David Barton Lies About George Washington

Pseudo-historian and Christian Nation Advocate Extraordinaire, David Barton, has been caught in a lie. A bold faced lie to be exact. As a man who prides himself on knowing the "true" history of the American founding, Barton's latest historical faux pas is so blatantly false that it either reveals Barton's woeful ignorance of how to conduct basic historical research, or that he is a flat-out liar.  The following is Barton's latest offense:
 

I know that many of us have seen the "Prayer at Valley Forge" painting and probably find it very inspiring.  And to the citizen who may not be as familiar with American history, I don't blame them for accepting the painting at face value as historical fact.  But for David Barton to do so is unacceptable, and even worse, to preach it as fact is downright shameful.  I have actually blogged about the history of the "Prayer at Valley Forge" in the past, so I won't rehearse the history here.  The bottom line is this: the story of the "Prayer at Valley Forge" is a myth that anyone with half a brain could recognize.  For a "historian" like David Barton to not recognize this reality (or to simply not give a damn about the truth since he knows his audience won't investigate the matter) is reprehensible. 

I have tried to be patient with David Barton.  I have even given him the benefit of the doubt on many occasions.  He has ZERO training as a historian and it shows.  I have justified his ilk by pointing to his desire to link his Christian faith with American history.  It's a flawed but honest endeavor.  But this recent lie (and yes, I am accusing David Barton of lying) is so in-your-face that I think it has become obvious that Barton no longer cares about finding the truth.  Barton is hell-bent on proving his agenda, and he won't allow TRUE history to get in his way.  As a result, I believe it is now time to declare an intellectual jihad on David Barton.  To borrow from the words of historian John Fea (one of my favorite bloggers), "Is it time to gather Christian historians together to sign some kind of formal statement condemning Barton's brand of propaganda and hagiography?"  Hell yes it is time, Dr. Fea.  I hope the historical community will brand this man as the fraud he is...the sooner the better!!!   

The Medieval Origins of Capitalism

I've never been a huge fan of economics.  In my opinion, the difference between most economic theories and practices is predominantly one of semantics.  In the end, all systems of exchange can be reduced to their common denominator: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. No one system is really all that preferable to another (in my opinion). With that said, studying the history and evolution of economics does help to shed light on the changes and advances that have been made in society, and the efforts to even the playing field for all of humanity.

And when it comes to the study of economics, no system is more important to the modern Western world than capitalism.  For many Americans, capitalism is every bit as important of a component to the founding of their nation as is the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (even though the Founding Fathers never really put capitalism on their radar).  And though there is much to say for the more modern conceptualizations of capitalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Max Weber, etc.) the original origins of capitalism hail back to a time before the "New World" had even been discovered.  

The world that was 14th century Europe was a world in constant flux.  Severe political, religious, social, economic and health problems plagued (literally) the landscape.  These mitigating factors brought with them sweeping tides of change that helped to redefine European society.  For instance, the Black Death, along with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, had ravaged the countryside, claiming at least 1/3 of the populace in the process.  The massive loss of laborers caused a dramatic change to the Manorial and Feudal systems in almost all of Europe.  This lack of laborers created new opportunities for the peasantry to move about and benefit from additional markets.  In addition, the development of newer agricultural technologies revitalized the markets of a suffering Europe.  Eventually, the emergence of Calvinist doctrines, particularly regarding worldly success as a symbol of God's favor, encouraged further growth, all of which gave rise to the earliest embryonic form of capitalism known as Mercantilism.   Needless to say, these advances fit nicely with the discovery of the "New World" in the following century, and eventually evolved to become a staple in the Western world. 

Of course, I am not suggesting that our modern understanding of capitalism existed in the Middle Ages.  Far from it.  But it is fair to say that an infant form of the system was beginning to emerge during the middle part of the 14th century.  Improvements in naval travel helped to augment the trade markets to and from Europe, and increased the demand for goods.  As a result, an emerging class of specialized laborers found themselves having access to a measure of wealth that had never before existed under feudalism.   Skeptics will, of course, point out that improvements in trade and the emergence of new markets don't necessarily equate to capitalism and they are right.  But there is a large body of evidence for commercial activity in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Mediterranean, which deserves to be recognized for its enterprise and sophistication.  Mediterranean, and particularly Italian, merchants traded in high-value luxury goods, like spices, gems, dyes, and exotic metalwork. And although goods like these had circulated the seas for centuries, the volume and value of this trade increased dramatically in the wake of the struggles of the 14th century.  And it is very unlikely that such an expansion would have occurred under the old systems of manorialism and feudalism, which insisted on being self-reliant and relatively localized in scope.  Therefore, the expansion that took place in the 14th century should be seen as the result of the many social and economic changes that had taken place.

As you can see in the map above, European and Middle Eastern traders were active across a wide swathe of the Mediterranean world. To this end, the major Italian cities established trading colonies, to protect their interests abroad and monopolize the sources of desirable goods. These cities included, Amalfi, Naples, Genoa, and of course, Venice. The merchant-imperialism of these cities went hand in hand with the complex ways of investing and launching trading missions organised by the merchants themselves.  In addition, it was this expansive trade system that eventually allowed Arabian literature, architecture, mathematics, etc. to make their way into the European heartland, thus helping to ignite the Renaissance.  It's not a stretch to suggest that without these advances, Europe may never have had its De Vinci.

 In conclusion, what we can glean from the history and origins of capitalism (or any other economic system for that matter) is that it didn't come into existence overnight.  It took a great deal of time to evolve into what we have today, and frankly, it's still evolving.  Economic systems are static, unchangeable concepts, but rather are fluid and ever-changing.  This is certainly the case with capitalism.  From its birth in the Middle Ages to its existence today as the predominant means of exchange in the Western World today, capitalism has had a long and interesting history.  Will it last?  I have no idea.  As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't believe there is all that much difference between rival economic systems to begin with, but then again, I never lived in Feudal Europe.  

Hydatius: The Medieval World's Doomsday Prognosticator

Human beings have always been fascinated with "doomsday" stories.  For whatever reason, the idea that humanity might come to an end via alien invasion, a killer comet, nuclear war or religious apocalypse has caused almost every generation and civilization to predict where, when and how the end of days might play out.  I have actually blogged about this phenomenon  before.  American culture is full of examples of doomsday practitioners who tailor their rhetoric to invoke the desired reaction from their target audience.  Whether it takes the form of fire and brimstone televangelists, doom and gloom political pundits, awe inspiring Hollywood films or mysterious Mayan predictions, we Americans seem to have a love/hate relationship with all things apocalyptic. 

But we Americans are far from alone in our apparent affinity for the end of days.  Virtually every civilization in every corner of the world has their doomsday stories.  One of my all-time favorites comes out of Medieval Europe, from the 5th century to be specific. 

Along the Iberian Peninsula, in what is today Spain, a man named Hydatius lived a life of faithful devotion to the emerging religion known as Christianity.  In fact, so great was his piety that in 427, Hydatius was made Bishop of Chaves, where he labored extensively to establish the church in that particular part of the Late Roman Empire.  Hydatius had a reputation for rooting out any and all forms of Christian heresy and pagan loyalty.  As a result, his name was revered by many of the chief figureheads of both Rome and the church.

Despite his tenacity and zeal for the work of the church, Hydatius was forced to come to terms with the changing world around him.  The Western Roman Empire was dying a slow, painful death that was only being made worse by the intrusion of northern "barbarian" tribes who were eager to feast of the rotting carcases of the once great empire.  For Hydatius, this reality was an extremely bitter pill to swallow.  Rome, and the church, were the palpable reality of God's kingdom on Earth.  With Alaric's sacking of Rome in 410 still fresh in the minds of many (not to mention the other barbarian incursions and mounting political instability of the Western Roman Empire), the idea that the Roman Empire might disappear completely was a painful future to consider. 

Due in large part to the emergence of the Christian faith along with the rapidly approaching demise of the Roman Empire, men like Hydatius were quick to assume that not only might Rome come to an end, but the world itself by be nearing its conclusion.  Beginning with the creation story from the Book of Genesis, Hydatius sought to place all of human history within the context of a linear progression, starting with Adam and Eve and ending with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, which Hydatius believed to be right around the corner (some sources specify the date of May 27, 482).  In fact, Hydatrius could easily be considered as the "father" of the Christian end of days phenomenon, in which virtually every succeeding generation has followed his example.  As a member of the social elite, Hydatius had access to a number of chronographic and historical sources, and he cited them extensively in his forecasts of the end of the world (though he often exaggerated the historical records or simply made stuff up to fit his agenda).  As a result, Hydatius gained quite the following, even among some in the upper class.

In addition to establishing the precedent of fitting a world apocalypse within the construct of Christianity, Hydatius was a pro at depicting the end of the world as a doom and gloom event.  Much in the same way that a Glenn Beck or a Harold Camping of today spins their rhetoric to invoke fear and terror of the future, Hydatius was a master of fear mongering.  For example:

Such are the contents of the present volume, but I have left it to my successors to account of the Last Days, at that time at which they encounter them...famines run riot, so dire that driven by hunger human beings devoured human flesh; mothers too feasted upon the bodies of of their own children whom they had killed and cooked with their own hands...And thus with the four plagues of sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts raging everywhere throughout the world, the annunciations foretold by the Lord through his prophets came to fulfilment.

As you can see, Hydatius didn't have to look far to find his "ammunition."  All around, examples of the crumbling Roman world were to be found, and Hydatius was like a kid in a candy store.  The animalistic, heathen barbarians, intent on rape, pillage, plunder, destruction, enslavement and conquest, were the perfect characters for any and all devil/anti-Christ roles that could be imagined.  In short, Hydatius' life, and that of his contemporaries, is a miserable, hopeless, decrepit and evil existence, but all is well because the end was coming...and coming SOON!   

All of this begs the question, "Were things really as bad in the 5th century as Hydatius makes them out to be?"  The quick answer to this question is a resounding, "No."  Sure, the Western Roman world was a world in change and constant flux.  Political strife and social decay, coupled with the rise of "barbarian" northerners and the Christian religion, all made for a very unpredictable world.  But this does not mean that the world itself was hanging by a thread or that good, innocent people were living in a constant state of panic.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of commoners probably never heard or cared about the type of rhetoric that Hydatius was spinning.  For most peasants, coloni, etc., like was pretty much the status quo existence of farming, socializing within a very limited and localized structure, praying to god(s), etc.  Hydatius' message was not one that got a ton of airtime and he was clearly embellishing things to advance his apocalyptic message.  From historian E.A. Thompson's book, Romans and Barbarians:

The entry of the barbarians into Spain in 409 was an event which made an impact, but not a resounding impact, on the chroniclers of the outside world.  Most of them speak of it, but the do so briefly -- only in a few words...For Hydatius, on the other hand, it was a calamity which deserved as much space as the Fall of Rome itself...a disaster which dumbfounded the civilized world.

With that said, Hydatius' accounts, though sensationalized and often misleading, provide some important glimpses into the 5th century history of Spain.  As such, they are an invaluable treasure.  Of course, much of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  After all, we now know with the blessing of hindsight that the world didn't end in 482 (far from it), nor was the "barbarian invasion" into the dying Roman Empire the end of the world.  In fact, it marked the beginning for the emerging Medieval societies of Europe, not to mention the future greatness of Christianity as the single most influential force of the next 1000+ years.

Paul Revere, the "Immersion" of Jesus, and the Complex Nature of Early American Religion

This past month, officials with the Library Preservation Department of Brown University uncovered a rare engraving (seen on the left) from our nation's founding period, which I believe illustrates the complexities of early American religion.  This engraving, which was completed by none other than Paul Revere, is a depiction of the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist.  As you can see, the engraving illustrates Christ's baptism as being done through immersion. 

Paul Revere was well known in his day for several of his artistic engravings, the most famous of course being his depiction of the Boston Massacre.  As an artisan, silversmith and dentist by trade, Revere was exceptionally gifted with his ability to create these artistic engravings, all of which helped to gain him notoriety during the early years of the American Revolution. 

But this particular engraving of Christ's baptism is noteworthy not just because of the artist who created it, but because it also sheds light on some interesting aspects of early American religion and the personal creed of Paul Revere himself.  As the son of a very devout French Huguenot who had immigrated to Boston, Revere was raised in a very devout Protestant home.  The family's primary loyalty rested with Christ's Church (Old North Church) where the children were raised in the traditional orthodoxy of their day. 

And though orthodoxy was an important component in the lives of many early American colonists, the sweeping tides of the First Great Awakening had brought about new ideas regarding humanity and its place with the divine.  For a young and intelligent boy like Paul Revere (who seemed to have an inherent attraction to revolutionary ways of thinking) these new ideas seemed to strike a chord.  Though originally drawn to the teachings of the Church of England, Revere eventually began to align himself with the West Church, and its controversial pastor Jonathan Mayhew.  Mayhew's provocative brand to preaching, particularly his support of resistance to civil authority and opposition of British "tyranny" had earned him a large number of supporters within the Boston area, particularly the young fifteen-year-old Paul Revere. 

Needless to say, Revere's newfound faith did not sit well with his extremely orthodox father.  In fact, Revere's decision to give ear to the radical Mayhew ended with him being on the receiving end of a severe beating at the hand of his father, which caused the young lad to "repent" of his error and return to his family's church (though he stayed close friends with Mayhew).  But it wasn't Mayhew's political views that angered Revere's father.  According to Joel Miller, author of the book, The Revolutionary Paul Revere, Revere's father wasn't upset over Mayhew's political rhetoric but rather over his "heretic" teachings:

Mayhew's politics weren't as radical as they might seem. Mayhew was speaking from what was by then a long tradition of civil resistance, primarily from the Calvinists. While John Calvin himself opposed rebellion, his Huguenot heirs in France penned treatises defending it: François Hotman, Theodore Beza, and Phillipe du Plessis-Mor-nay and his famous Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos. Ditto for Calvin's Puritan heirs like George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford, and John Ponet. These writers shaped Puritan and Huguenot ideas about civil power and rights and were hardly radical to those standing in their stream. John Adams spoke glowingly of them. "The original plantation of our country was occasioned, her continual growth has been promoted, and her present liberties have been established by these generous theories," he wrote, specifically referring to Ponet and the Vindiciae.  All this matters because Paul's family was Calvinist. His dad was a Huguenot refugee from France and married into a Puritan family in Boston. Mayhew's politics wouldn't have been radical to him at all, and preachers all over Boston echoed Mayhew's political sentiments. The problem for Revere's dad was the rest of Mayhew's theology. Mayhew was a winsome, exciting preacher -- and also a heretic. He denied some basic Christian teachings, such as the Trinity. From my reading, Paul got the beating for lending ear to a heretic. Mayhew's politics were actually pretty orthodox for their time and place, which was one of the reasons Boston so quickly fell into their resistance against England. (My emphasis).

It was Mayhew's infamous unitarianism, mingled with Christianity, that angered Revere's family so much.  Resistance to some distant king or some foolish tax was one thing, but resistance to the Holy Trinity or God's one true faith was quite another.  This is why I find the engraving above to be of such interest.  As already mentioned, Revere was raised to embrace a very orthodox view of Puritan Christianity.  As a result, one has to wonder why Revere chose to depict the baptism of Jesus as being one by immersion, when the Puritans/Congregationalists taught baptism by sprinkling (particularly at infancy).  Could it be that Revere was once again challenging the faith of his father? 

Of course, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty why Revere chose to make this engraving.  Perhaps, like many others of his faith, he believed that Jesus was baptized by immersion but that the same was not needed for his followers.  Or perhaps he was simply trying to profit from the growing revivalism in the early years of the Second Great Awakening.  After all, we know that Revere had profited handsomely from the growing demand for church bells, becoming America's best-known bell caster.  Could engravings like these also been the result of his desire to make an extra buck?

I don't think so.  First off, this engraving is only one of five known in existence today.  In addition, there is zero evidence that the engraving was published in any of the books or pamphlets of the time.  Instead it appears that Revere made a relatively small number of these engravings and sent them to close associates.  As a result, it would stand to reason that these engravings were more for sentimental value than anything else.  This makes sense when we consider the fact that Revere elected to further his studies of "infidel" Christianity at the hands of Mayhew and others. 

With that said, it is important that we be careful not to classify Paul Revere as a unitarian, closet unitarian, etc.  Revere maintained a very close alliance with Congregationalism throughout the course of his adulthood.  Boston's New Brick Church was like a second home to Revere, as he was a regular in Sunday church services.  Clearly Revere maintained a love for his family's orthodox faith.  As a result, I have no problem with those who wish to classify Revere as a devout disciple of Christian orthodoxy.  With that said, I do think that these apparent "heathen" blips on the radar are noteworthy because they reveal the fact that almost nothing about early American religion (or any religion of any era for that matter) is cut and dry.  Like many of his time, Revere was questioning and thinking about matters of faith.  Was God really the totality of an obscure Trinity?  Is infant baptism/baptism by sprinkling really a requirement for heaven?  Is there really such a thing as "the one true faith?"  In the end, these are questions that are just as relevant today as they were 200 or 2,000 years ago, which proves that Paul Revere was a pretty stereotypical Christian of his time.

The Shadowy Life of Robert Frost

If you were to ask the average person to name a 20th century poet, chances are that a large number of people would name Robert Frost. Frost’s poetry has become legendary in modern times. He holds a unique place in the pantheon of elite poets as one of the best (or at the very least most popular) of the modern era.

One of the many attributes that make Frost unique is his interpretation of nature. Unlike most people, Frost seems to be not only unappreciative of nature, but he also associates nature with sadness, as opposed to most poets/writers who view nature as a thing of beauty. For Frost, nature is not beautiful, inviting and warm, but rather a world of darkness and emptiness. In reading and comparing the poems “Desert Places”, “The Road Not Taken”, and “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” (two of his most popular works) one can clearly see Frost’s view of nature as dark, lonely, and cold. Frost’s depiction of nature is a result of his personal hardships that in turn define nature as dark, lonely, and cold but also give the reader the reassurance that eventually everything will be ok. By understanding this reality, one can come to a greater appreciation and understanding of what Robert Frost is trying to convey through poetry.

The best way for a reader of poetry to understand Frost’s poems is to realize that Frost himself was a man well acquainted with grief. Frost lost several members of his immediate family to death in various ways. His wife died in the middle ages of her life, and three of Frost’s children also passed away unexpectedly, one committing suicide. Losing so many members of his immediate family must have taken a toll of Frost and served as influential moments in his life that shaped his character. Along with losing so many people to death, Frost also saw one of his daughters and a sister, succumb to mental illness. Suffering such tragedies would surely affect the mind of any human being, and Frost was sure to reflect upon those experiences at length during his life. These events come to life throughout his poetry. His ability to use nature as an outlet for his grief is more than apparent, and as Frost himself stated, “I’ve never written a poem without a person in it.” 

Being that Frost was used to death and grief, it makes sense to see images of dark, lonely and cold places in his poetry. In the poem “Desert Places”, Frost refers to the darkness of nature in the first line when he writes, “Snow falling and night falling fast, oh, fast. In a field I looked into going past.” Frost relates the rapidly approaching darkness with the coldness of snow. The feeling of emptiness in this particular setting, and in Frost’s life, helps us understand the field Frost “looked into going past” as possibly looking back to better days.

The darkness of Frost’s work and its interpretation can also be applied to his poem “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” The ending of this poem states, “The woods are lovely, dark and deep/ But I have promises to keep/ And miles to go before I sleep/ And miles to go before I sleep.” Here the image of a dark, snow-covered forest seems enticing to Frost. He appears to be longing to enter them, but then realizes he has “promises to keep.” What promises? Clearly this is left up to the interpretation of the reader, but can be better understood when taking Frost’s life experiences into account. Perhaps the woods serve as an escape from the painful realities of life. This interpretation would help to explain Frost’s realization of the promises he has to keep, and the miles he must go before being freed from the pains of his life. Frost could have been thinking back on the promises he had made to dying loved ones. Thinking on those promises then serve as the strength to avoid the woods, and to continue on the painful, but correct path.

In his poem “The Road Not Taken” Frost writes about a traveler coming to a fork in the road, and having to decide which route to take. He mentions how the traveler justifies to himself that he can take one rout and save “the first for another day!” This justification eventually gives way to reality when Frost writes, “Yet knowing how way leads on to way/ I doubted if I should ever come back.” The traveler’s justification makes it easier for him to stay on the course that has been chosen. Undoubtedly, many readers will look to this passage (and this poem) and relate it to those individuals in life who have made good choices, which have made “all the difference.” Frost however, may have seen this differently. The passage might signify mankind’s ability to justify the decisions they’ve made, so that they are able to feel better about the things they’ve done. There is no doubt that a person who has faced grief and tragedy would reflect on such things.

Throughout these three poems the reader is able to see the picture of emptiness and loneliness that Frost has painted. There are however, reassuring tones that reach out to the reader and reassure him/her that everything is going to be alright. “In Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” Frost depicts the traveler as aloof in the world when he writes, “Between the woods and the frozen lake/ The darkest evening of the year.” Frost then mentions the fact that the traveler is not alone. The traveler’s horse, “gives his harness bells a shake/ To ask if there is some mistake.” The reader may interpret the horse to be confused as to why they have stopped, but perhaps Frost was trying to say something else. The horse could have been trying to reassure the traveler that he is not alone, and that he (the horse) is also along for the ride. This reassuring interpretation helps the reader understand why the traveler continued on his way, instead of stopping at the inviting farmhouse.

This theme of reassurance after the darkness of nature is evident also in “The Road Not Taken.” In this poem a traveler comes to a fork in the road. After choosing which path to endure the traveler looks back on the journey, realizing that the path he/she has taken was the correct one. Frost takes courage in the conclusion of this poem when he writes, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by/ And that has made all the difference.” After all the struggles and difficulties of choosing and enduring a chosen path, Frost proves here how everything works itself out in the end. By taking Frost’s life experiences into account, the reader can better understand what a dramatic and fulfilling moment it must be to choose the road less traveled, and all that was learned on the way.

Robert Frost is no doubt a man defined by his personal sufferings. The fact that Frost had to learn how to deal with such tragedies throughout his life helps us to understand the motives behind his poetry. In all likelihood, had Frost not endured such hardships, there is a good chance that his poetry would have been much different. It was only through enduring personal trials that Frost was able to portray nature in its dark, lonely and cold elements. In the end however, Frost’s ability to come to terms with the difficulties of life, give the added reassurance in his poetry that everything will be just fine and, “that has made all the difference.”

The Reality of "Reaganomics"

We've all heard it before. Crazy uncles at family reunions, co-workers around the water cooler, and fellow worshipers you sit next to in your church's congregation all invoke his name. "I'm not a Republican" they say, "I am a Reagan conservative." The declaration is usually followed up by a lecture on the evils of taxation, government spending and the overly-complex economic policies of Washington. "Reagan was for the people" they say, as they speak his name with reverence and conclude with the petition: "I want my country back." Yes, it is safe to say that the most conservative elements of modern day conservatism have a love affair with all things Reagan.

Or do they?

As crazy as it might be to suggest, I maintain that most "Reagan conservatives" know next to nothing about the actual presidency of Ronald Reagan (I have blogged about it before here). Reality is that Ronald Reagan was far from your modern day Tea Party disciple. Reagan opposed torture, was against military action against terrorists, and actually supported amnesty for illegal aliens. But setting all of those points aside for now, I want to focus on what is arguably the most popular component of "Reagan conservatism", that being "Reaganomics."

If you were to ask your average Reagan disciple what "Reaganomics" or "Trickle Down" economics are all about, chances are you would hear a lot of rhetoric about cutting taxes, eliminating government oversight, creating jobs, privatizing industry, experiencing indescribably Utopian prosperity, yadda, yadda, yadda. In short, you'd get a lot of hot air with little actual history behind it, almost like a talk radio pundit. Funny thing about those political pundits, isn't it. They really don't like ACTUAL history, do they?!?

The truth about "Reaganomics" is that Ronald Reagan didn't have a whole lot to do with it. Ronald Reagan’s tax plan actually had its roots in the 1970s, with economist Arthur Laffer. Laffer originally drew up his ideas on a restaurant napkin and shared them with an advisor to President Ford. His idea outlined the obvious paradoxes that exist whenever tax rates approached 0% and 100%. Laffer suggested that raising taxes too high would reduce business activity, while lowering taxes would result in dangerously low revenue (really nothing all that profound, even to the layman). Ronald Reagan liked Laffer’s basic approach to economics, and consulted with him and others on his staff regarding how best to implement it. The difference, however, was that Reagan (unlike many on his staff) pushed for a much lower tax rate initially than did his advisers. According to many member of his staff, Reagan seemed to be oblivious to the idea of needed tax revenues, and enchanted with the idea cutting them. In David Stockton’s words, it seemed as though Reagan “had only the foggiest idea of what supply side was all about.” Stockton warned Reagan repeatedly that a large tax cut would spell doom to the national deficit, unless cuts in spending could be implemented. Even during the campaign of 1980 George Bush, Reagan’s opponent for the Republican nomination and eventual vice-president, called Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics.” Eventually, Reagan would realize the error of keeping such low tax rates in place, and as a result, raised taxes on four different occasions during his administration. Not exactly the type of facts you hear from self-proclaimed "Reagan Conservative" Sean Hannity!

Reagan’s economic philosophy embraced the idea that by lowering taxes, the people would end up with more money in their pockets. Reagan called his plan a “new beginning” for Americans, and a sure-fire way to economic recovery. This idea was, in part, fulfilled. While the majority of Americans experienced little or no actual economic prosperity, the top 1% of Americans blossomed. The net worth of the 400 richest Americans quadrupled under Reagan's presidency, and corporate CEO’s made, on average, 93 times as much money as did the common American.

While it is true that Reagan’s economic policy gave relief to the problems of the 70s (a fact that Republicans should be very proud of), Reagan also managed to impact the federal deficit as well, which soared from 700 billion to 2.7 trillion during his eight-year tenure. Reagan’s commitment to military buildup created a conflict with his desire to lower taxes. Many began questioning where Reagan planned to find the money. To increase revenue, Reagan signed legislation that created “sin taxes” on alcohol and tobacco (isn't Glenn Beck against those taxes?). Reagan also increased social security taxes, and forced the burden of funding various programs onto the states, who in turn raised taxes as well to fund the programs. In essence, “Reaganomics” was hardly the tax-cutting phenomenon that so many conservatives celebrate today. In fact, President Clinton had a lower tax rate than did Reagan!

Despite many of the problems he faced, Ronald Reagan should still be celebrated for the many successes he enjoyed. Though managing to raise the deficit, Reagan also helped the nation overcome the financial problems of the 70s, and build up a military that the Soviet Union was incapable of matching. Reagan’s ability to relate to the common man inspired many, who, despite never really benefiting from “Reaganomics” rallied behind their Commander-in-Chief. Reagan became the epitome of patriotism and American greatness. No matter how far the gap between the rich and the poor grew, he will probably be remembered, for many years to come, as one of America’s most beloved leaders, and as proof that a successful modern presidency, at least in the eyes of the masses, rests more with presenting a pretty picture than actual facts and figures.

Titanic's Final Words

On this day, 100 years ago, the HMS Titanic sank after striking an ice berg, taking with her the souls of 1,514 passengers and crew to a cold, dark Atlantic grave. The Titanic disaster has been deemed one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history. The ship, which was the crown jewel of White Star Line, was considered the first truly "unsinkable" boat in the world. At the time of her launch, Titanic was the largest and most luxurious ship in the world. Among some of her most popular luxuries, Titanic prided herself on offering its guests access to an on-board gymnasium, swimming pool, four libraries, a high-class restaurants and opulent cabins.

One of the most interesting of Titanic's luxuries was its high-tech, super-powered "wireless" radio transmitter, which afforded passengers (mostly upper class) the ability to send and receive Morse Code dispatches to and from the eastern United States, Great Britain and parts of Europe. The transmitter also had a practical benefit for Titanic's crew, giving them the ability to easily communicate with other ships on the Atlantic and receive up to date weather reports. Needless to say, the device was in great use on the night of Titanic's horrific tragedy. For us today (especially on this day) these Morse Code messages provide an interesting and compelling narrative of Titanic's final hours and the struggle that her passengers and crew faced as the reality of their fate became more obvious. These messages, which read almost like an early 20th century version of Twitter, are the final glimpses that historians will ever have into the last moments of life for both Titanic and her human compliment. It therefore goes without saying that these messages deserve the interest and the reverence of all who read them.

Titanic's chief radio officer was a 25-year-old man named John (Jack) Phillips. On the surface, the job of a radio operator might appear somewhat boring, since most radio traffic consisted of monitoring weather reports and other dispatches from ships at sea. Titanic, however, was quite different. Jack was also responsible for meeting the needs of passengers who wanted to communicate with friends and family. This kept Jack quite busy and engaged with some of the most prominent of Titanic's compliment. For just 12 shillings and sixpence for the first 10 words, and 9 pence per word thereafter (a substantial sum in 1912, although not for a First-Class passenger) Jack Phillips or Harold Bride (Titanic's deputy radio officer) could send a message roughly 2,000 miles away.

But none of Jack Phillips' experience could have prepared him for what he would endure on the night of April 15, 1912. At approximately 11:40 P.M., Captain Eward Smith received the first reports that Titanic had struck an ice berg on its starboard side. It took the crew an additional twenty minutes before they could assess the actual damage done to Titanic, but once the truth was discovered, Jack Phillips became the most important man on board.

The following are some of the actual surviving Morse Code transcripts between Titanic and responding vessels. They serve to illustrate just how real and tense this tragedy was for those who participated in it, and the efforts made by those (like Jack Phillips) who tried to save Titanic's human compliment. I have added my commentary and explanations of the transcripts in bold, otherwise everything else comes from the transcripts that were made 100 years ago today:

12:14- Titanic: "C.Q.D., C.Q.D., C.Q.D. This is MGY. This is MGY. This is MGY. Position 41.44 N. 50.24 W.
***"C.Q.D." was the Morse Code sign for distress that was implemented by the Marconi International Marine Communication Company. The letters stood for "Come Quick Distress" or "Come Quick Drowning." Even though "S.O.S." had become the accepted international sign of distress in 1908, many radio operators still used "C.Q.D." out of habit, especially when Marconi communication equipment was being used, as was the case on Titanic. "MGY" was the official call sign for Titanic.***

12:15- La Provence, Mount Temple, Cape Race and Frankfurt receive Titanic's first distress signals.

12:18- Titanic: "C.Q.D., C.Q.D., C.Q.D. Position 41.44 N. 50.24 W. Require assistance."

12:25- HMS Carpathia: "Do you know that Cape Cod is sending a batch of messages for you?"
***The Carpathia was eventually the ship which arrived to save Titanic's remaining surviving passengers. Ironically, Carpathia herself was sunk on July 17, 1918, the result of a German U-Boat torpedo during WWI.***

Titanic: "Come at once. We have struck a berg. C.Q.D. Position 41.46 N 50.14 W."

Carpathia: "Shall I tell my Captain? Do you require assistance?"

Titanic: "Yes, come quick. Are you coming to our assistance? We have collision with iceberg. Sinking. Please tell Captain to come."

12:27- Titanic: "I require assistance immediately. Struck by iceberg in 41.46 N. 50.14 W."

12:34- Titanic (to Frankfurt): "Are you coming to our assistance?"
Frankfurt: "What is the matter with you?"

Titanic: "We have struck an iceberg and sinking. Please tell Captain to come."

Frankfurt:"O.K. Will tell the bridge right away."

***This type of exchange between different ships continues for nearly an hour.***

1:51: Titanic issues its first S.O.S. message. HMS Frankfurt responds, "What is the matter with u?" Titanic replies: "You fool, stdbi and keep out."
***It is obvious from this exchange that stress is mounting on Titanic. Frustrated at the Frankfurt's reply, Phillips becomes hostile. This exchange also highlights some of the struggles that different crews had with distress calls. The "C.Q.D." warnings from before did not trigger as big of a response as did the "S.O.S."***

1:52- Titanic: "We are putting passengers off in small boats. Women and children in boats. Cannot last much longer. Losing power," said the Titanic as the situation grew ever more desperate. This is Titanic. C.Q.D. Engine room flooded."

1:55- Virginia hears Titanic calling very faintly, power being greatly reduced. Titanic reports to Virginia: "The Captain visits the wireless room for the last time and says: 'Men, you have done your full duty. You can do no more. Abandon your cabin. Now it's every man for himself'"
***Phillips refuses to abandon post***

1:56-2:15: Several ships receive faint messages from Titanic but are unable to get a reply through.

2:17- At this point, Titanic is beginning to lose power. Water has flooded the engine compartments and is even beginning to fill up in the radio room. There are a series of messages that Titanic is able to get out (along with several replies from other ships) but some of it becomes jumbled in transmission. Eventually, Jack Phillips and his partner, Harold Bride, are forced to abandon the radio room. All transmissions from Titanic cease at 2:17 with the final message being "C.Q.D. MGY", a final plea for help. Jack Phillips was last seen climbing the rooftop of Titanic's radio tower in a desperate attempt to make it to an inflatable life boat. Hypothermia, however, had already severely limited his physical abilities. Jack Phillips' body was never recovered.

And though the story if Titanic is esteemed by most as a terrible tragedy, it can and should also be appreciated as a tale of human endurance in the face of certain death. For the 1,500+ souls who perished together, their death reminds us all of the frailties of our mortal existence. But it also reminds us of how bravery, true bravery, when facing one's ultimate demise, is worthy of our reverence and respect. I'm sure that even after another 100 years passes away, Titanic will still be remembered as a story of tragedy, but hopefully, and more importantly, of human bravery.

Jon McNaughton: Bringing Hate to a Canvas Near You

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are probably well aware of just how polarized American politics has become. It seems that you can't look anywhere these days without seeing some sort of a political spin applied to even the most mundane of daily activities. Everything from Dr. Seuss movies to Christmas trees has become fodder in the never-ending, supercharged, back-and-forth drama that is American politics. The 24/7 media blitz of talk radio and cable news seems to have only exacerbated the problem, as pundits spew hateful rhetoric that depends less on journalistic integrity and more on sensationalized entertainment and doomsday predictions. We have become a society where we prefer to listen to the man/woman yelling at us the loudest through their microphone instead of considering the quiet, steady reflections of level-headed and thorough thinkers.

But this rhetoric isn't limited exclusively to the spoken word. Though political rhetoric does depend greatly on the vocalization of a particular viewpoint, artwork too has an important seat at the table. Whether taking the form of cartoons, posters or campaign ads, the visual image is arguably the most effective and important arrow in the quiver of both partisan and politician. An inspiring painting, a poignant photo, a stirring motif, all have the ability to rouse the soul to higher (or lower) levels of thinking than almost any discourse or poem could hope to accomplish. As the saying goes, a picture really is worth a thousand words!

And sadly, some “artists” have embraced this reality to the point of virtual insanity. Case in point: Jon McNaughton. My Mormon friends are probably more familiar with McNaughton's ilk...er..."art" than are others. As a devout Mormon, his "art" is often a feature in stores like Deseret Book and (until recently) the BYU Bookstore (that is, until BYU became too "liberal" for the uber-sophisticated McNaughton and banned his crap). To put things as simple as I possibly can, Jon McNaughton is a troubled individual. He has taken what I would consider to be a truly remarkable gift (painting) and used it for nothing more than to make a series of cheap, lame, classless, tasteless, mindless, heartless, pointless, idiotic, rude, obscene, hateful and downright pathetic pieces of political propaganda. See for yourself:


Of course, for some, this "art" probably seems like an appropriate summation of "reality." To those of such sentiment I will simply say this: I don't begrudge you your right to your own political views, nor to I deny the fact that Mr. McNaughton has some real talent, but please, for the love of Karl Marx, QUIT BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE DAMN RADIO!!! For once in your life, set your political beliefs aside and consider the following: 1.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" uplifting in any way, shape or form? 2.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" the type of stuff that invokes peace and harmony? Or does it breed anger and contention? 3.) Would Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Gandhi, Mother Theresa or any other remarkable person of great character choose to hang Jon McNaughton's "art" in their home? Or would they not even give it the time of day? If you can answer "yes" to any of these three questions, then chances are you probably hate my humble little blog for its "socialist" leanings and have already de-friended me from Facebook for being an evil fascist. That's ok, no hard feelings. Chances are you haven't even read this far into my post anyway, so you won't have the chance to hear me say, "I just won the Mega Millions jackpot and want to buy you a new car!"

The truth of the matter is this: Jon McNaughton is not the problem, but is the SYMPTOM of the problem. McNut...er...McNaughton is the end result of a society that has diluted its political discourse to little more than short, apocalyptic soundbites bent on spreading fear and hate for the "other guy." McNaughton's "art" is essentially a fancy political bumper sticker that tells the world, "My political views are better than yours. Na-na nana boo-boo" Simple-minded men like McNaughton are easy prey for all of the Limbaugh's Hannity's and Beck's of the world. They feel the "call" and begin their "quest" to "save" America from all that is evil in society, which, coincidentally, just happens to be everything found on the other side of the political isle. This is how they can justify creating "scary" pictures of evil, liberal Black presidents burning the Constitution, destroying our freedoms, and receiving the heavenly rebukings of Jesus Christ and our Founding Fathers (while, of course, those of conservative leanings are showered with the gifts of eternal life and always being right). American politics at its best!

We live in a world where religious fervor and political passion are virtually synonymous, so much so that it can be difficult work to separate the partisan politicians, priestly pastors, and philosophical professors from one another. And this convoluted mess has created a labyrinth of confusion that makes almost any sincere political discourse virtually impossible. Any rational or thoughtful inquiry is rendered completely helpless to the impenetrable wall of the prideful partisan mob mentality. This is precisely where Jon McNaughton resides. He is not a critical thinker. He is not a valiant voice crying in the wilderness. He is a bitter, hateful, silly little man. This may sound too harsh or hard but that's ok. I'm sure that Mr. McNaughton is familiar with the verse from the Book of Mormon which states: "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." Besides, most hate-mongers rarely if ever realize that they are hate-mongers. They see themselves as brave voices of change who are misunderstood by the "evil" majority of their day. In addition, they usually rationalize their hate by appealing to religion as a justification for their actions (i.e. the KKK, Civil Rights opponents, etc.) But these weak appeals to religion serve as nothing more than temporary salves for their cankered souls. Hate, no matter how it is camouflaged, will always be hate.

In conclusion, if given the chance to meet him face-to-face, I would simply say to Jon McNaughton's the following: Don't give up on your passion for politics. Don't give up your religion. Don't give up on your amazing artistic talent. But please...PLEASE spare us this pointless nonsense. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain with the "art" you have produced as of late. As a professional artist, I am guessing that you are probably familiar with the RIDICULOUS work of one Andres Serrano. If not, let me introduce you to him. He is the IDIOT "artist" who created the "Piss Christ." The "Piss Christ" is a picture of a crucifix that was submersed in the artist's urine. According to Serrano, the purpose of the "Piss Christ" was to "get people thinking" and to "question what we believe." Shockingly, this pile of nonsense was even sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. Not shockingly, the public saw the "Piss Christ" for what it really was: cheap shock value nonsense masquerading as sophisticated "art."

And though you haven't urinated in any of your own art (more like vomit than urine), isn't your political "art" essentially the same thing, Mr. McNaughton? Like Serrano, didn't you also say that the purpose of your "art" was to "get people thinking." Aren't you just wielding your brush as a weapon of mass DISTRACTION that does nothing but piss people off? You may have avoided urinating on your art itself, but you have certainly pissed all over President Obama. Again, I don't begrudge you the right to your political views. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe. But is that really what you want to call the fruits of your amazing talent? If so, I pity you. But, if not, I look forward to your other art...your REAL art. The good stuff that I would be more than happy to display in my home:


“In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” -Thomas Jefferson

My Take on the Tebow/Manning Drama

It has been a while since my last blog post, so I thought this topic might be an easy way for me to ease back into the habit. I decided to take a brief hiatus from blogging/Facebook. Sometimes it is just nice to unplug.

I normally don't blog about sports, but this particular issue is of note simply because for some it transcends sports. Last week, the Denver Broncos elected to sign Peyton Manning, the star free agent quarterback from the Indianapolis Colts. For anyone with even an elementary understanding of NFL football, you know that Peyton Manning is a name that is larger than life. He is considered by many to not only be one of the best quarterbacks today, but one of the greatest all-time. So, naturally, Manning's choice to sign with the Broncos has created an electricity of excitement throughout the football world.

But the Broncos didn't just sign Manning. To make room for their new star, Denver also decided to trade away their most popular player, Tim Tebow. For some, the disappointment of losing Tebow could not be overcome even by the signing of a living legend. After all, Tebow was fast becoming a fixture in the Denver community.

Let me just say right from the beginning that I LOVE Tim Tebow. I love what he did in Denver last season. I cannot remember watching a more enjoyable season of Bronco football in the past decade. Virtually every game came right down to the wire. Watching Tim Tebow struggle for 3 1/2 quarters only to lead his team to a miraculous final minute comeback was the stuff of Hollywood scripts. And even though I have never been that big of a Bronco fan, I can honestly say that Tim Tebow made me a quasi-convert. What can I say, I'm a sucker for the underdog.

But this isn't the only reason that I love Tim Tebow. I love Tim Tebow because he is arguably the best role model in professional athletics today. Regardless of his passing percentage or his difficulty running a pro offense, nobody can argue that Tim Tebow is one of the kindest, hardest working, and moral athletes in all of professional sports, and in a world full of promiscuous, selfish and narcissistic prick athletes and celebrities, Tim Tebow is a welcomed breath of fresh air. Those who hate Tebow for the man he is are either selfish, diluted or just downright bitter at heart. Reviling Tebow for his public demonstrations of faith reveals more about the character of the critic than it does about Tebow himself. Tim Tebow is the epitome of a class act.

Let's face it, the NFL (like any professional sports league) is a business; a business that is concerned with one thing: making money. And nothing rings in the dollar signs more than winning. Winning is the only thing that matters in professional sports. Now, people may argue that there is more to life than winning (and I would agree 100%) but the fact remains that players, coaches, managers and owners are paid VERY good money to do one thing: win. And though Tim Tebow is a proven fighter, the Denver Broncos were more than justified to trade him away this week. And just how were they justified? The answer is simple: For all of his class, character, work ethic, leadership, grit and tenacity, Tim Tebow is still no Peyton Manning.

I have read and watched the responses from a number of people this week, who have expressed their disappointment at the Broncos for trading away Tim Tebow. Many have insinuated that Tebow's Christian beliefs are the motivation behind such a course of action. Even America's favorite crazy man with a bully pulpit (no, not Glenn Beck), Pat Roberston has suggested that the Broncos traded away Tebow for his Christian beliefs, and that he (and other Christians) would like to see Peyton Manning get hurt or fail (because nothing reveals one's Christian beliefs more than wanting bad things for those you dislike. Screw the whole "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek" thing).

In fairness, I agree with many of my Christian friends when they point out that Tebow is often the brunt of many a low-blow joke against his religion. I have read many ridiculous commentaries in sports columns, blogs and Facebook posts, all knocking Tebow for being a man of faith (as if that is something to be ashamed of). Heck, I have even had a little fun at Tebow's expense. And though there will always be those who poke fun at Tebow for his beliefs, I find it absolutely ridiculous to read the words of those who believe that the Denver Broncos were somehow motivated (whether consciously or sub-conscientiously) to trade Tebow out of religious bigotry.

As they say on ESPN, Monday Night Countdown, "C'mon man!"

There are two major reasons why this argument is laughable:

Reason # 1.) Tim Tebow isn't the only devout Christian on the Denver Broncos.

I couldn't find a ton of information on the topic (nor did I look that hard) but from even the minor research I did, I was able to discover that at least 9 other players on the Denver Broncos are vocal, self-proclaimed Christians: Britton Colquit, Elvis Dumervil, Andre Goodman, Caleb Hanie (who was just signed), Tracy Porter, Demaryius Thomas, Willis McGahee (has hinted at it) and Tony Hillis. I am sure there are others on the team who would consider themselves to be Christians but I haven't seen any evidence of it, so I didn't want to include them here. In addition it has been star safety Brian Dawkins, not Tim Tebow, who has led team Bible study groups for the past couple of seasons, and has vocalized his Christian beliefs as well.

Obviously Tebow has been a focal point for attention due in part to his very vocal expression of personal faith, but again, Tebow is far from the first athlete to take such a stance. Not long ago it was Kurt Warner who garnered attention for his personal beliefs. Before him, we can recall Karl Lewis or Evander Holyfield expressing their gratitude to Jesus Christ for all of their athletic success. Heck, even Lou Gehrig paid homage to the Christian god for his illustrious baseball career. The point is this: Tim Tebow isn't the first athlete to express his Christian faith in the public arena, nor was it the reason that the Denver Broncos chose to trade him away. Denver is literally obsessed with finding somebody to replace the great John Elway, and they don't believe they have found that "heir apparent" in Tim Tebow. Replacing quarterbacks has been the basic M.O. for the Denver Broncos over the past 12 seasons. Since John Elway's departure, the Denver Broncos have had ten different starting QB's:

Kyle Orton
Tim Tebow
Chris Sims
Jay Cutler
Jake Plummer
Steve Beuerlein
Danny Kanell
Jarious Jackson
Gus Frerotte
Brian Griese

Clearly the "Christianity" of a player has had little impact when it comes to the Broncos parting ways with one of their past QB's. Maybe they are being overly-picky about who plays QB for their team but that is a separate issue. Denver just wants consistency at the quarterback position. Had Tebow passed for 4,000 yards and 35 TD's, I have no doubt that the organization would not have even considered signing Manning, nor would they care about him paying public homage to Jesus, Allah, or even chili cheese fries.

Reason # 2.) It's Peyton Friggin' Manning!

Yes, I realize that Peyton Manning's greatest days may very well be behind him but I think it is safe to say that an aging Manning is far superior to a young Tebow. And yes, Manning's injury may be worse than advertised but isn't every NFL player one hit away from ending their career? All things considered, Peyton Manning is more than worth all of the risk. Case in point:

-- Manning has won 4 MVP awards, more than any other player in NFL history. Tebow hasn't even been in contention for the award.

-- Manning has led his team to 2 Super Bowls, winning once and also taking home the game's MVP award. Tebow hasn't come close...yet.

-- Manning has thrown for over 4,000 yards in a season ,11 different times, more than any other QB ever. Tebow has never come close to a 4,000 yard season.

-- Manning has thrown for over 300 yards in 63 games (tied for most ever). Tebow has thrown for over 300 yards only once.

-- Manning reached the milestone of 50,000 passing yards faster than any other QB in history. Who out there really thinks that Tebow will reach 50,000? Ever?

-- Manning is 3rd all-time in TD passes, behind only Dan Marino and Brett Favre. Tebow has a mere 17 TD passes in his career.

***One impressive stat that Tebow owns from last season: six 4th quarter comeback wins! That is a very impressive and important stat. But do you know who did it even more than that? Peyton Manning. He did it 7 times in 2009. The most ever in a single season.

It should be obvious to anyone with even an elementary understanding of football that Peyton Manning is a MUCH better QB than Tim Tebow. Of course, Tebow is younger and may very well blossom into an amazing player in his own right, but in the here and now, Peyton Manning is as elite as it gets. There are only a few teams that would pass on such a player (Green Bay, New Orleans, New England, Pittsburgh), but they are teams that already have an elite QB. Manning is a steal for the Broncos. Sure, it is possible that the Broncos will eventually regret having signed Manning and traded away Tebow. Manning could get hurt, he could suck, or he could choke, while Tebow could go on to lead the Jets to Super Bowl immortality. All players are prospects, which is just a fancy way of saying a gamble. Manning is a gamble, but he's a SMART gamble. With 14 seasons of successful, predictable and productive results, Manning is a safer and more secure bet than Tebow. It really is that simple. If I were a coach, I would happily put all of my money down on Peyton Manning before I did Tim Tebow. It's nothing personal, it's just the smart bet, and this is why the Denver Broncos did what they did.

In conclusion, I will always be a Tim Tebow fan. I wish him nothing but the best in New York. In fact, I would LOVE to see him prove all of his critics wrong and make Denver choke on their decision to trade him away. That would be a wonderful storybook ending for his career, and would anger his detractors to no end. But in the here and now, without the blessing of hindsight, Peyton Manning is the CLEAR choice. If Denver is truly wanting a quarterback to replace John Elway, Peyton Manning certainly fits that bill (heck, you could argue that Manning is even better than Elway).

So, let me say THANK YOU to Mr. Timothy Richard Tebow for all of the memories! Thank you for rekindling my interest in Bronco football. Thank you for a fantastic and enjoyable season! Thank you for never giving up. Thank you for all of the hard work. Thank you for your leadership. But most importantly, THANK YOU for being the man you are. Thank you for being a class act when you had every reason to bite back at your critics. Thank you for your example. Thank you for your charity. Thank you for being a great role model. This is especially meaningful to me, as I am the father of two young boys, and hope that they will choose role models like you instead of the other less-than-positive idiot celebrities out there today. In short, thank you for EVERYTHING. I wish you nothing but the best in New York. May you go out there and prove EVERYONE (including me) wrong.

Now, bring on PETYON MANNING!!!!