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!!!!

Christopher Hitchens Strikes Out on Thomas Jefferson

One of my favorite things about early American religious history (one of my favorite topics to study) is the juxtaposition of actual history with the rhetoric of today's culture warriors who pose as historians. When pseudo-historians like David Barton or Howard Zinn present their cases to a historically illiterate public, they do so knowing that most of the resistance they will meet will come in the form of watered-down political/religious rhetoric that usually fizzles out somewhere on the never-ending highway of cable news and talk radio. And though most choose to accept the rhetoric of their chosen "team" in this never-ending culture war, I believe that it is still important to at least attempt to expose the historical faux pas wherever they may creep up. Whether it be a strange Glenn Beck rant or a Peter Lillback blunder, I believe that the "umpires" of history should call these impostors out whenever possible.

And today, I believe we have found another batter, who despite his massive swing and impressive batting average, has whiffed on a pitch that he promised to take yard. In one of his last works of mortality, Christopher Hitchens, the Late, great intellectual and atheist extraordinaire, elected to stand in the box and take a few swings at the religious legacy of one Thomas Jefferson. In his 2009 biography on Jefferson, Hitchens claimed that he wanted to present a more nuanced view of his subject than is usually found in the works of Jefferson critics and worshipers. Despite this claim, Hitchens' work quickly diverts from his supposed path of objectivity and travels head-on into an inevitable collision with modern pop-culture, thus rendering the work to be of little historical value. Aside from its strange conclusions on Jefferson's relationships with his mother and with Meriwhether Lewis, not to mention its lack of historical perspective on slavery, Indians, etc., Hitchens' book makes some astonishing claims in the very department that Hitchens loves/hates most: religion.

Right from the start, it becomes very obvious that Hitchens is attempting to "claim" Jefferson for the atheist camp more than he is trying to let Jefferson speak for himself. Hitchens somehow feels qualified to read between the lines of Jefferson's public and private declarations on religion, which affords him the ability to claim atheism where no atheism is to be had. For example, when discussing the final days of Jefferson's life, Hitchens writes:

(Pp. 182).

As his days began to wane, Jefferson more than once wrote to friends that he face the approaching end without either hope or fear. This was as much as to say, in the most unmistakable terms, that he was not a Christian. As to whether he was an atheist, we must reserve judgement if only because of the prudence he was compelled to reserve during his political life

In other words, Hitchens says, "Jefferson was probably an atheist but he couldn't admit it, due to his political duties."

And though it is true that Jefferson was far from being a Christian in any traditional way, to claim that Jefferson invoked religion purely for political reasons is reading between the lines. Virtually everything that Jefferson ever wrote on his personal religious beliefs reveal a private devotion to a providential god of nature, not a rejection of deity. So, while Hitchens was right to say that we must "reserve judgement" on Jefferson's religion, he could have done without the followup lines on political prudence being the exclusive reasons behind Jefferson's approval of religion.

***Strike 1***

Along with his weak attempt at portraying Thomas Jefferson as a closet atheist, Hitchens also fumbles the ball on his interpretation of deism. For Hitchens, deism of the 18th century was a strict belief in the absence of God from human affairs. No product of the Enlightenment could believe in any form of an intervening providential God and claim deism. This later proves problematic for Hitchens when he tries to classify Jefferson's public profession of faith (because he was privately an atheist) as deism, since Jefferson himself seemed to believe in a god who participated in human affairs:

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18).

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever

***STRRRRRRIKE 2***

And finally, Hitchens takes his final hack of the bat when he incorrectly interprets Jefferson's motives for rewriting the Bible to his own liking. Hitchens claims that Jefferson's creation of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was meant to "[Throw] away all of the superfluous, ridiculous and devotional parts" of the Bible, and expunge "all mentions of angels, miracles and the resurrection" all in an effort to to separate "reason from faith." And though it is true that Jefferson removed many of the New Testament miracles, not all of the "ridiculous and devotional parts" were taken out. For example, Jefferson's "Bible" retains Jesus' emphasis on prayer, along with the blessings that come as a result. Jefferson's Bible also retains many of the teachings on the Father and the Holy Ghost, and their role(s) in assisting mankind. And perhaps most striking, Jefferson's Bible retains the belief that Jesus Christ himself will one day return to earth to judge mankind.

So much for the Jefferson Bible doing away with "all ridiculous and devotional parts." (Hat tip: M. DeForrest).

STRIKE 3. You're OUT!!!***

In summation, though Hitchens was a brilliant speaker, debater, writer and intellectual, he was not a historian. His biography (which really shouldn't even be considered a real biography but more of a "treatment") of Jefferson does not add much to the historiography of one of America's greatest statesmen. Regardless of this fact, Hitchens' book, like so many others from fellow culture warriors on both sides, is likely to influence many who regard history as the pursuit of "presentist" agendas mingled with the past. For me the book is pretty much on an equal footing with anything written by David Barton, Peter Lillback or Howard Zinn: on demand, fast food, quick fix, feel good, pill-that-numbs-the-pain, diluted commentary, camouflaged as history.

Life, Liberty and Property: Slavery and the Founding of America

America is a nation that has become synonymous with freedom. The hope that people of all races, religions, genders and backgrounds can have an equal and protected right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has become the principal creed of the American experiment. This belief has been a constant work in progress, dating back to the time of our Founding Fathers. During the American Revolution, men Like John Adams, Patrick Henry and others tirelessly campaigned and urged the American public to embrace the ideals of independence, and to break the bands of tyranny from England. America’s war hero George Washington was inspiring troops to come together in a common cause, to win their freedom from what they saw as an oppressive King of England.

And though these founders are rightfully praised for their incredible efforts, the American Revolution was far from the perfect personification of human freedom. An entire race of people, for example, would not receive the benefits of independence or of personal liberty. The African American slave population was the greatest contradiction to the ideals of American independence. Their legacy not only confuses many Americans today, but it also greatly troubled the citizens of the early American republic. Citizens endeavored to justify their "rights" to Black "property" while at the same time praising the "self-evident" truths that "all men are created equal." Needless to say, this contradiction was an ugly and uncomfortable truth of American society that was simply brushed under the table in most cases. The "peculiar institution", as it became known, was arguably the most ugly and painful thorn in the side of our nation's founders, a thorn they never fully removed.

With mounting tensions between England and her rebel colonies mounting, the Continental Congress looked to the redheaded, thirty-three-year-old Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, to create the "marching orders" for the new nation. In a matter of days Jefferson would write one of the most amazing documents in world history, the Declaration of Independence. In this document Jefferson spelled out the reasons and justifications that the colonists had for independence, along with a list of grievances they had against the King of England. In addition, this Virginian master of hundreds of slaves attempted to address the slave issue. In his first draft of the DoI, Jefferson not only condemned the slave trade, but placed full blame for slavery in America on the shoulders of the King of England:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither… to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold.

As wonderful as all of this may have sounded, the Continental Congress elected to delete all references to the slave trade, fearing that it may actually harm the revolutionary movement. No doubt many of the signers themselves were slaveholders. While we today may look at Jefferson and others as hypocrites, it is worth remembering that they were (like us today) a product of their times. Slavery had become a reality for many early Americans. If the Congress truly wanted to gain the backing of the masses, the best way to do that was to ignore the slavery issue altogether.

With the "revised" draft of Jefferson’s Declaration now complete, the Continental Congress distributed the document to the masses. General Washington ordered it read to the men under his command. With all the excitement that this document caused, there is little doubt that many found it to be contradictory to the realities of 18th Century American life. The bold phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" only rang true for a section of the population. Women, Blacks, Native Americans, and many others were far from "equal" to their sophisticated American gentry neighbors. Regardless of this fact, the DoI inspired and gave hope to thousands of slaves, who sought for a way to break the chains of servitude.

Once the exhilaration of victory over Britain had worn off, the American people faced the challenge of creating a new government. With thirteen separate states, each with its unique culture and ideals, this proved to be a very difficult task. Under the Articles of Confederation the new nation was loosely tied together through a virtually powerless national authority. The new government quickly realized that it had little to no influence over the states. As problems arose, the new government was powerless to help. Since the Confederation was powerless to tax the states, they created the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance was created to help the government sell off the land north of the Ohio River and west of the Appalachian Mountains for colonization. This proved to be one of the Confederation’s finest moments. As historian Carol Berlin stated, the Northwest Ordinance was "without question, the government’s finest peacetime establishment" (A Brilliant Solution, 23).

The Northwest Ordinance had another side to it though. Article IV of the document stated that, "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory" (Slavery and the Founders, 40). This move on the part of the Northwest Ordinance was an obvious challenge to many of the accepted norms of the time. Clearly the slavery issue had been a popular topic of the time, and many people felt that the institution had to be eradicated before the revolutionary ideals could be fully realized. Others, however, felt that slavery was an institution worthy of full government protection. As historian Joseph Ellis points out, "slavery was woven into the fabric of American society in ways that defied appeals to logic or morality" (Founding Brothers, 91).

Despite its controversy verbiage, Article IV did not become a source of debate for those for and against slavery. As historian Paul Finkelman argues, southern slaveholders were more than willing to accept the article because to them it meant slavery would continue in the south, and it would prevent settlers of the new territory from competing with their monopoly on Black labor (Slavery and the Founders, 42). Slaveholders also took comfort in the apparent ambiguity of Article IV. For example, Article IV (and the ordinance in general) said nothing about the fate of slaves already living in the territory. It also said nothing about the children of slaves who would be born in the territory. Much of the ambiguity of this article came as a result of its hasty adoption. It was quickly created and accepted with little to no revision. As Paul Finkelman calls it, "The Ordinance illustrates the danger of hastily drafted legislation" (Slavery and the Founders, 48). Had Article IV been better scrutinized before being accepted, then perhaps the pro-slavery arguments would have had not footing to stand on.

As the infant nation continued to define itself, many prominent members of society began seeing a shadow of uncertainty cast over their republican experiment. Men like Madison, Hamilton and Washington began to believe that only a strong nationalized government could secure America’s future. As a result, a Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, in the very building where the Declaration of Independence had been signed. Men from 12 of the 13 states came together to discuss different solutions to a growing problem. Opinions varied greatly on whether a new government should be created, and how that new government should look.

After great debates and great compromises the Constitution of the United States was created and ratified. Debates over representation in the national legislature, the nature of the Executive branch, and the protection of individual rights were among the issues debated. But of all the debates that came to the forefront of the convention, the problem of slavery took center stage. As James Madison stated, "the States were divided into different interests not by their difference in size, but principally from their having or not of slaves" (Founding Brothers, 91). Southern states desperately wanted to protect the institution, or at least extend its lifespan. Those who sought to destroy slavery through Constitutional laws were met with disappointment. As Carol Berkin states, "Any attempt to raise the moral issue of slavery was just as quickly rejected" (A Brilliant Solution, 113). Eventually, northern states gave up on the slavery issue and acquiesced to the demands of their southern brethren by accepting the compromise to allow slaves to be counted as 3/5 a person in the representation of a state. This 3/5 Compromise gave slaveholders the comfort of knowing that they would be able to safeguard their "property" from northern abolitionists, and ensured that they would play a major (perhaps the major) role in American politics for the next 70-80 years.

The newly ratified Constitution also served to protect slavery in other ways. The southern delegates were able to gain the guarantee that the slave trade would be Constitutionally protected for at least twenty years. Although many abolitionists were no doubt devastated, many also realized that securing the ratification of the Constitution was a more pressing need. Southern delegates would have been reluctant to sign any Constitution that did not give specific safeguards to slavery. As Joseph Ellis points out, "The distinguishing feature of the document (Constitution) when it came to slavery was its evasiveness. It was neither a contract with abolition nor a covenant with death, but rather a prudent exercise in ambiguity" (Founding Brothers, 93). The southern slaveholders had won a major victory in securing their slave-holding rights. Any effort to restrict or eliminate the institution would have to overcome the massive hurdle of the Constitution. In short, the south had won one of the key battles to secure the legacy of the American Revolution. The rest of the war would have to wait to be settled till the 1860s.

Slavery was not only an institution protected by law in the early American republic, but it also became an institution that defined the early American republic. The complex and immoral debates that arose in defense of the institution helped to determine the actions of many Founding Fathers. The creation of the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution were all influenced by the existence of slavery. Through the actions of our early founders, slavery became not only an institution but also a culture, fully protected by law. It is no wonder that slavery, and all the debates that went with it, would continue to shape American history and eventually contribute to our bloodiest war ever: The Civil War.

Dear GOP: Thomas Paine Wouldn't Like You

Over at his excellent blog, historian J.L. Bell takes Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to task for a recent (and fake) quote he used during his Nevada Caucus speech. Here is the video:



This is a stirring quote and Romney supporters gobbled it up like there was no tomorrow. Only one problem: it's bogus. As J.L. Bell points out via Buzzfeed:

The quote is widely attributed to Paine online, but searching through his works [also easily done online] revealed that the quote doesn't appear in any of them. Fred Shapiro, editor of the authoritative Yale Book of Quotations published by Yale University Press, told BuzzFeed that "the notion that Thomas Paine said this is extremely ridiculous."

Apparently Mitt Romney got the message...kinda...sorta. A couple days after making the historical faux pas, Romney abandoned referencing Thomas Paine but not the quote:


Sorry, Governor. Thanks for trying. You still failed.

But in fairness to Governor Romney (and I personally have no problem with the man or his candidacy), this is not the first time that a GOP figure has misused Thomas Paine. I am reminded of a few years ago when radio nut-job Glenn Beck kept invoking the legacy of Thomas Paine to support his conservative talking points. Heck, Beck even went so far as to write a book entitled "Common Sense" (just like Paine's), which he claimed was written in part to honor one of his favorite revolutionary characters. Beck also invoked Thomas Paine on his television and radio programs on numerous occasions. For example:


Yes, it is fair to say that Glenn Beck once had a deep love affair with one Thomas Paine, and GOP activists surely gobbled up this bogus actor's intense portrayal of a modern day, Tea Party-loving Thomas Paine, who not only just happened to agree with everything they believe, but also presents himself as a creepy Dracula figure.

But, sadly, Glenn Beck has given up on Thomas Paine in recent years. Why is that, you ask? Because Beck eventually learned the painful truth that Thomas Paine had almost nothing in common with modern day conservatism. I guess this is what happens when you try to preach history at the same time that you are learning it. Things can get a bit messy, a lesson Glenn Beck has learned first-hand as he came to the realization that the REAL Thomas Paine stood for almost everything Beck hates. For example:

1.) Beck believes that America is a "Christian Nation" and that religion in America is under attack. Thomas Paine believed that religion was a fraud and a plague in society. As Paine stated, "The Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any” and " “We must be compelled to hold this doctrine to be false, and the old and new law called the Old and New Testament, to be impositions, fables and forgeries.”

2.) Beck believes that progressive taxation is unconstitutional and destructive of American society. Thomas Paine believed strongly in progressive taxation. Paine wanted estate taxes, land taxes, revenue taxes, taxes on the rich, etc.

3.) Beck believes that America was never meant to be a welfare nation. Thomas Paine believed that it was one of the duties of the new republic to provide welfare for the needy.

Thomas Paine also favored feminism, large government, government programs, animal rights, restrictions on religion, and a number of other things that Glenn Beck believes are "evil." In short, Thomas Paine and Glenn Beck are about as far apart from one another as you can get. Perhaps this is why Glenn Beck has moved on to hijacking and pretending to be a different founder these days?

So what is the deal with modern day conservatives invoking the legacy of arguably our most liberal founding father? Are they just stupid?

I believe it is because Thomas Paine is such a quotable founder and his rhetoric appeals to virtually everyone these days (as it did back in his day). Paine was a FANTASTIC writer. His words cut as deep to the 21st century reader as they did to the 18th century citizen. For this reason, Paine is a desirable man to have in your corner. But the fact remains that Thomas Paine was not supportive of the type of government/politics that Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and most of today's GOP proclaim as gospel. And I am not criticizing those political views. There is much in modern day conservatism that I find valuable. With that said, this bizarre GOP love affair with all things Thomas Paine needs to stop. Thomas Paine was NOT a conservative, and I believe he would detest today's Republican candidates, windbag talk radio hosts and Tea Party protesters.

Sorry folks, Paine was an evil "progressive."

Book Review: Architects of Annihilation

Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction. By Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002. Pp. 514).

The events that led up to the atrocities of the Holocaust have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the fog of Holocaust historiography is no small task for any writer. In their work, Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, historians Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim have effectively provided simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to this critical historical event. Instead of prescribing to the traditional view of Holocaust historiography, Aly and Heim have challenged the status quo interpretation of the causes of the Holocaust by rejecting the notion that Nazi atrocities are simply too evil to be understood from a scholarly perspective. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that it is both logical and prudent to view the Holocaust as a well constructed and detailed plan of mass execution (Pp. 4-5).

The central component in the development of Aly and Heim’s thesis is their suggestion that the Nazi extermination of the Jewish population was not motivated purely by racial hatred, but by a desire to establish German economic hegemony over the whole of Europe. In an effort to secure their economic destiny, the Nazi regime embarked on a, “negative population policy,” which sought to achieve, “an optimum population size” (Pp. 4). In other words, the Nazi’s targeted undesirable groups of the population in an effort to purify the German economic machine. The Nazi justification for the elimination of specific groups of the population came from the belief that, ‘Europe was one vast wasteland crying out for ‘readjustment’ and ‘reconstruction,’” (Pp. 7). Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population made a perfect target for the Nazi’s “negative population policy,” because of their strong participation in the German and Austrian economies, which was quickly branded as a detriment to Germany’s quest for economic superiority. Instead of being branded and persecuted by racist xenophobes, Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population’s sufferings originate out of the Nazi doctrine of economic domination.

To help support their claims, Aly and Heim appeal to the role of Auschwitz as a micro history of sorts, which they believe is representative of the larger Nazi policy of “negative population.” Aly and Heim point out the fact that the construction of Auschwitz coincided with Germany’s plan to improve the economic situation in Poland. From the Nazi perspective, Poland was a virtual economic backwater in desperate need of modernization. According to Aly and Heim, the construction and implementation of Auschwitz as a means of population control became a medium through which Poland could be put on the path towards economic prosperity, In other words, the “undesirable” or “excess” segments of the population that were seen as a burden to the Polish economy could simply be collected and eventually eliminated in the most efficient way possible. This bold move towards “social modernization,” in which segments of the Polish population were forced into camps such as Auschwitz, gave the Nazi regime all the justification it needed to further its acts of brutality.

In addition to their analysis of Auschwitz and other parts of Eastern Europe, Aly and Heim devote a large amount of their book to the role of social and economic “technocrats,” who they believe were the principle developers of the Nazi policy of population control. In this regard, Aly and Heim are, yet again, directly challenging the traditional historiography of Holocaust research. Instead of placing the blame on the shoulders of Nazi elites, Aly and Heim suggest that it was the contributions of social scientists (sociologists, economists, demographers, etc.) that were instrumental in developing the Nazi doctrine of negative population. Aly and Heim clearly support the notion that the German policy of population control would not have come to fruition without the involvement of these social “technocrats,” who were given free rein to develop and present their Darwinian-influenced ideas of population control and economic growth to the Nazi hierarchy.

Though clearly a unique perspective into the development of German economics and population control, this book fails to address the role of racism anti-Semitism in the Nazi doctrine of “negative population.” Despite Aly and Heim’s sporadic mentioning of German racism, there is a noticeable omission of its possible influence in shaping Germany’s policy towards the “undesirable” segments of society. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that German racism and anti-Semitism were used as a secondary influence, which helped to bring about the primary goal of German economic superiority.

Despite its controversial claims, Architects of Annihilation should be seen as an enlightening perspective into the possible motives behind the horrors of the Holocaust. Gots Aly and Susanne Heim’s interpretation of Nazi policy is likely to inspire a plethora of debate between critics and supporters on the issue. Regardless of what skeptics or believers may say, this work should remain as a unique contribution to the historiography of the Holocaust.

Zakary's First Play

Here are a few pictures (and video) from Zakary's first school play. His part: an ant. Cute stuff:


And a video:

Great job, little buddy! The best ant I have EVER seen!