The Sky Has Fallen... (or was that just the dollar?)

WE all know the American economy is suffering. Just how bad it's going to get is a question on everyone's mind. Turn on the news and see how long it takes for a reminder of our plight. Wait for the latest announcement of huge corporate layoffs. Listen to the terms "stimulus package" and "bail-out". Suffer through the poor attempts at poetry. Check out the Dow Jones Index. If you can make it to the end of the broadcast, kick back for the human interest story. Can they still put a happy face on their product? This is not your father's evening news (unless you are a senior citizen). The fear is palpable, no matter how well-coiffed the news anchor is. This is a bigger security story than "terrorism".

Great. Now you know the truth. We have dug ourselves a very deep hole, and it has widened into a chasm. People are gathered around its periphery, trying to determine if it will be less painful to skirt around the edges or simply dive in headfirst. There is a huge industry devoted to making sure your choice is the latter. Throw a penny into the darkness and find out when it hits bottom. Now try it with a dollar, or a trillion of them. There are hundreds of "experts" and talking heads trying to fathom the depths. Some are nearsighted, and some are the opposite. They will tell you their predictions. They will help you make an informed choice. Maybe they will push you into the darkness.

I know that the picture is far from rosy. It just seems that everyone is trying to outdo each other with their Cassandra calls. Are there going to be people dying in the streets? Will they be expiring from hunger or loss of blood? Will China or India overtake the United States and become the next superpower? Will Bin Laden proclaim his victory over the West? Will your ancestors rise out of their mouldering graves and remind you that they told you so? Will your children stare at you in mute accusation? Do they know that their destiny is one of panhandling and indentured servitude? What compromises will you have to make to feed your family, or pay your mortgage? Will you have to serve fries at McDonald's?

There's just not that much useful information available. Do you have any relatives that are old enough to remember what it was like to live during the Great Depression of the 30's? Don't you wish that you had taken the opportunity to have that little chat? Were you too busy laughing at their strange little habits? Was it the way they ate leftovers? Was it the fact that they never threw anything away? Who would live like that in a time of abundance? Maybe (in high school) you heard about what they had lived through, but it never seemed quite real enough for you, did it? What did it have to do with your life, and your grand prosperous future, and your free markets of infinite growth?

Perhaps it's time to turn off the television, and start thinking about how your life may change. It just may be a time for reassessment. What is it in your life that you cannot lose? I'm already starting to think about ways to ensure my (and my family's) well-being. And I've come to the conclusion that the corporate media isn't helping very much. It's alarmist, which probably reflects the reality of the situation, but they aren't offering much useful information. I've talked to my friends about the things they know well. I've looked at my lifestyle and thought about the things that would be possible to give up. The funny thing is that a lot of what I have cannot be depreciated along with the value of currency. I'm finding it enlightening to gain that perspective.

A Day in the Life of a Nation.

By the time you read this, there will be a new President of the United States. It seems almost absurdly surreal to type that sentence and read it as it appears on the monitor. Personally, this fact alone would be cause for much satisfaction. I've made it pretty clear over the life of this blog that I've been no fan of George W. Bush. Just like the man himself said about a week ago, there have been disappointments during his two terms in office. That's a particularly egregious understatement- actually Bush's "disappointments" have helped foment this nation's impending depression. There is no way to encapsulate all that has happened over the last eight years. I'm sure all readers can make a list if they are so inclined.

Despite the administration's string of missteps staggered along this first decade of the Twentieth century, I have managed to advance my own life. The individualist strain of the American character certainly suggests that this is possible regardless of anything happening on the national stage. We're not supposed to make excuses for the trajectory of our own existences. I have been lucky enough to be able to take responsibility for my own outcomes. Yet while it is true that everyone has a degree of opportunity to chart his/her own course, I think it would be a mistake to imagine that all US citizens have been blessed equally. A cursory look through our country's history should clearly indicate otherwise.

Obviously social inequities have not been limited to factors such as race, gender, and ethnicity. I am a white man born of Christian extraction. That puts me within a demographic that has been historically most likely to reach the upper echelons of the power structure of the United States. However that doesn't mean that everyone with similar circumstances has the same potential. Some of the nation's poorest are to be found among those of Scots-Irish extraction living in the Appalachian region. I've driven through areas that feature tar paper shacks and outhouses. To see things like that is to doubt one's place in time. It's a mistake to draw conslusions about others simply based upon externally visible characteristics.

Still I can't help but acknowledge what Barack Hussein Obama's inauguration will mean to largely disenfranchised segments of the population. Walk into any public school history class, and you are likely to see a series of portraits representing every person ever to hold the presidency. It's hard to miss the homogeneity in their collective appearance. There are no women, no Latinos, no Asians, no Native Americans... nor are there any blacks. As strange as it may seem to those of us adults who sat in classrooms adorned with such images, the basic picture is going to change. And if an African-American can be added to the ranks of this club, then it seems to expand the range of possibility for everyone.

For me, today is probably not going to be substantially different than any other ordinary Tuesday. I'll follow my customary routine, and mark the passing of another workday. Unlike more than a million of my fellow countrymen/women, I'm not going to journey to DC to see the swearing in of our new Commander-in-Chief. I'm not going to join the crowds that are swelling the Capitol to witness this historical event. But like legions of folks dotting the American landscape, I'm going to devote some time to reflect upon this moment in our story. We are living through a time of extraordinary upheaval and challenge. Without succumbing to melodrama, it's possible to say that President Obama will have an unprecedented chance to make a difference.

George Bush's Final Press Conference.

President George W. Bush gave his very last press conference this past Monday. Throughout his time in office, Dubya has made a point of showing his disdain for the national media by giving it few opportunities to substantially question him about national policy. Even when he did appear in front of the press, he was evasive and cocky. Now that he is in his last week as the national executive, he is obviously thinking about his legacy. So he apparently decided to give a handful of reporters an opportunity to help him get a head start in rehabilitating his record. I stumbled across the live coverage by accident. The Q-and-A session was held during lunchtime on a workday. I have no doubt the White House communications director insisted on that.

If you went from being a major world leader with a near-record-high approval rating in the first year of your presidency, to a documented record-low by your last year- would you be eager to stand up and face the nation in prime time? This guy is literally slinking away under the weight of his own failure. He doesn't have much wiggle room to make himself look good. What could he possibly say that would make the average American feel better after the last eight years (besides an acknowledgment that he is leaving)? Certainly there was a bit more than a hint of bloodthirsty anticipation apparent in the tone of some of the journalists lobbing their queries. It was clear that a lot of them felt they deserved a shot or two after two frustrating Bush terms.

Yet I have to give him credit for having a sense of humor. Bush knows how much many of the Washington correspondents dislike him and his administration. And naturally he has a response for that, filled with a complicated mix of hubris and unreflective comedy. In fact this was one of the highlights of the entire press conference as far as I'm concerned- he actually compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, pointing out that the 16th president had plenty of critics too (just like the 43rd). But the funniest thing is that he said that he came about this revelation from reading a lot about Lincoln's presidency. It makes me wonder about the authorship of the literature that passes through Bush's hands.

Still, when the POTUS says that the press often "misunderestimated" me, it does show a certain cognizance of the general level of respect many Americans have for him. No doubt the average citizen could come up with a laundry list of mistakes he/she believes that Mr. Bush has made. And one wouldn't even need to necessarily read books to compile items for that list. That reality makes it especially difficult to understand George Bush's demonstrated inability to assess his own record. At least he has finally come around to identifying the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing as a "mistake". To wit- "It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.

When it comes to talking about "the enemy', George W. Bush has never had any trouble in using the broadest and most sensational terminology. Yet when it comes to his own actions, he can be a master of understatement. The debacle of Abu Ghraib... the response to Katrina,.. starting a "pe-emptive war on the pretext of WMD that never turned up- these were things (in Dubya's words) that "didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way." Give him credit for realizing that some folks viewed these issues as serious. During the majority of his presidency it was often hard to figure out just what the hell was going through his mind. Some people will insist that he was just plain stupid, but I'm not sure I agree. Either way, I'll leave you with a few other choice cuts from his "ultimate exit interview":

"I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope."

"And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland."

"We had a -- people -- we -- I had a fabulous team around me of highly dedicated, smart, capable people, and we had fun. I tell people that, you know, some days happy, some days not so happy, every day has been joyous."

"And I thank you for giving me a chance to defend a record that I am going to continue to defend, because I think it's a good, strong record."

My "First" Father's Day.

As many readers may be aware, this is the first Father's Day I am celebrating as an honoree, as well as observing my own Dad's role in my life. It was a bit surreal (but meaningful) to be wished happiness on this holiday by my direct forbear. Obviously I've never been in the position to process it in just this way. One would be forgiven for thinking that people have been commemorating fatherhood in June for centuries, but it's not true. In fact it was Richard Nixon that made this an official holiday in the United States. That was on the official recommendation of his predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson. However, the very first Father's Day in this nation was in Fairmont, West Virginia on July 5th, 1908.

A woman named Grace Golden Clayton made the suggestion to her Methodist pastor that they should have a special service to remember the 361 men who died in a mine explosion in nearby Monongah the previous December. Two years later (in Creston, Washington), a woman named Sonora Smart Dodd was instrumental in creating a Father's Day inspired by her own Dad- a Civil War veteran who had raised her and her five siblings singlehandedly after the tragic death of their mother. This was the first such observance held in the month of June. Some of its early supporters included William Jennings Bryan and Calvin Coolidge (who was the first president to recommend it as a national holiday).

If you go further back on a different continent you might find mention of Männertagen (Men's Day), or gentlemen's day (Herrentag). This regional German celebration involves clannish activities whereby men hike through the woods, pulling a wagon-load of beer and wine. Apparently it devolves into a drunken feast featuring traditional foods such as blood sausage and liverwurst. I'm reasonably sure that such a tradition would be heartily embraced by menfolk throughout the Americas. Still I suspect that Father's Day is a much more sedate affair for most fathers in the US. No doubt it typically involves doing a lot of sitting on the couch while one's offspring do the chores routinely relegated to Dads.

As for myself, I've had a pleasant start to the day. Five-month-old Baby E. was decked out in a Ralph Lauren onesie that had been updated with a hand-drawn heart obscuring the ridiculously prominent polo player logo. It read "I love Daddy". My favorite drink from the chain store coffee shop was waiting for me when I awoke, and I was given PiMs as a special breakfast treat. I also received a nice necktie and a handmade card with a tracing of E.'s little hand. It was all extraordinarily touching, and I had to admire my infant's exquisite tastes. After M. visits her own father, we will be going out to lunch at the restaurant of my own choosing. And then I will take E. for a walk while M. changes the kitty litter. I am truly spoiled.

Of course tradition dictates that I still call my own Dad. This is always a painless affair because I actually like him. He's a good man who has taught me some important virtues about how to treat others without judging them. That quality has made our relationship run pretty smoothly over the years. He's now enjoying the fruits of retirement, doing a lot of travel, and taking lots of photographs. Like me, he enjoys sharing his images with others. If you get a chance, check out his photos at the Flickr site.

Happy Intercalary Day!

An astronomical year is actually 365.242 days long. That means that every four years, there is an extra day. We call the phenomena "Leap Year". Actually that's not entirely precise- there is an exception to the rule. Not many people are aware of it. Because a full year isn't quite 365.25 days, adding February 29th every fourth year would result in 3 extra days every four centuries. Therefore only the turn-of-the-century years that are divisible by four hundred contain an extra day. 2000 was a leap year, but 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not. Of course there has been no reason to learn this little fact during our lifetimes, as our pattern of Leap Years has remained unaffected by the rule. Still it's a good thing that we've recorded the information, as the oversight might otherwise throw the seasons out of whack in an almost imperceptible manner.

Civilization has been observing Leap Year since the time of Julius Caesar (44 BC). Back in his day, a 22 or 23-day month was added every second year to their standard 355-day calendar in order to keep the festivals seasonal. Still time kept on slipping. In 45 BC the great leader had to extend the year to 445 days, just to get the schedule completely back on track. Not surprisingly it was referred to as the Year of Confusion. Caesar decided that this was a bit laborious, and so he set his astronomer Sosigenes to working on a viable alternative for the future. In this instance he was following the example of the Egyptians, who were said to have been the first to realize the necessity of an adjustment. The 400-year corrective was instituted under the reign of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Thanks in part to him, we only have to worry about a divergence (between the Gregorian calendar and solar years) of about one day every eight thousand years . I'm sure someone's keeping track of that.

The timing of the intercalary (added) day is confounding. Hell... February is a notoriously unpleasant month (at least in the climate I live in), and I'd be happy with keeping it at 28 days for all of eternity. It appears that Caesar picked the time of year because of religious festivals that were held during the last five days of February. The added day was the ante diem bis sextum Kalendas Martii, which was basically a doubling of February 24th (making the added day the first Feb 24th, the sixth day before the Calends of March). The following day was the traditional Feast of St. Matthias.

Despite the rather complex reasoning for its timing, there are surprisingly few historical traditions associated with Leap Year. Reportedly there is a tradition in the English-speaking world that women can only propose during Leap Days. The "rule" is apocryphally attributed to Queen Margaret of Scotland in the Thirteenth Century. It is said that she levied a fine upon men who refused a marriage proposal from a woman. Some men were apparently aghast at the severity of the punishment, so a law was supposedly passed restricting women to offering betrothal only on February 24th. In Greece it is thought unlucky to marry during a leap year, and so it is claimed that many couples wait for it to pass.

Due to the proportion of "common years" to "leap years", your chance of being born on February 29th is approximately 1 in 1461. When I was a kid I remember one little boy who seriously insisted that those whose birthdays fell on February 29th would remain young forever. However such "leaplings" usually choose to celebrate 75% of their birthdays on either the day before, or on March 1st. One would expect many fewer celebrities to have been born on the 29th of February- but there are a surprising number throughout history, including Jah Rule, Simon Gagne, "Rocket Richard", Antonio Sabato, Jr., Tony Robbins, Dennis Farina, Senator William Hathaway, Dinah Shore, General Montcalm, Pope Paul III, and some German guy* that had a Christian name for every letter in the alphabet.



*Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenberdorft Sr.

Who Was Gordon B. Hinckley?

As one Mormon aspires to the US Presidency, the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints has passed on. Gordon B. Hinckley was the 15th president in LDS history, and served almost 13 years in that position. He was 97 years old. His grandfather actually knew and traveled with the church's founder- chief prophet Joseph Smith himself. Those kind of credentials apparently enhanced his standing from the very beginning. His father ran the LDS business college and his mother was a former English teacher. Young Gordon originally aspired to be a journalist, but fate had a different role for him to play. He would actually be chosen as a direct prophet of God instead.

The Hinckley era was noted for its missionary zeal, and the man himself began that work in England in 1933. He soon noticed that the promotional materials for the relatively young religion were insufficient for the task of conversion, and was placed in charge of updating them. He became known for producing a temple film to explain the rituals to new members, and it's reportedly still being used overseas to this day. From that success Hinckley was promoted to a high-ranking leadership group called the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1961. In the early 80's, he ascended to the penultimate governing body- the First Presidency, a body that counsels the president of LDS. In 1995 he was ordained in the top position.

As president of the Mormons, Hinckley continued to devote his efforts to overseas growth. It is said that during his tenure, the faith attracted four million new members. He personally designed a template for a smaller temple that could be reproduced quickly and cheaply to provide new members with an essential place of worship. He also used his substantial P.R. experience on the ongoing struggles to redefine the LDS as a legitimate religion, as opposed to a cult. In order to do this, he attempted to clarify the association of the Mormons as a sect of Christianity. He also addressed thorny aspects of church history, such as the role of followers in the 1857 massacre of a wagon train of Western pioneer emigrants.

Life as the spiritual leader of a religious community with 12 million members did present some significant challenges. Hinckley held the line as a traditionalist when it came to the "institution" of marriage. He was active in the political fight to define the concept as the union of a man and woman. His church financed constitutional amendments and political campaigns to ban same-sex marriages at both the federal and state levels. As a prophet, Hinckley received and announced revelations that families live on together after death, and that gender is a defined characteristic prior to one's birth. He did however strike a blow to the hearts of traditionalists by condemning domestic abuse.

Overall Hinckley did a lot within his long life to spread the Mormon message, as a "good" apostle should. Unlike most previous Mormon leaders, Hinckley was not shy about representing his religion in the media. He appeared on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace, on Larry King Live and within the pages of Time Magazine. He is probably more responsible than anyone else in history for convincing a large portion of America (including some Mormons themselves) that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is indeed a "Christian" church. Regardless of the theological details and disputes behind this assertion, Hinckley is to be credited with achieving social respectability for a long misunderstood religion.

Extreme Motherhood.

Due to the absence of a decent independent coffeehouse in my neighborhood, I am forced to sate my caffeine jones at a corporate shop. Luckily the people that work the counter are sticklers for detail. They really seem to make a commitment to serving quality product. They are helpful, courteous, and make an effort to remember what each and every regular prefers. Every day they affix a daily horoscope to the mini-counter from which you pick up your finished drink. Another added touch is the daily trivia question. The stakes aren't very high, but it's a nice extra. If you answer correctly you get ten cents off your order. I have a weakness for trivia, and I can often elicit a laugh with an irreverent answer. Occasionally I take away something to think about for awhile after I leave.

Such was the case today. The query was, "What is the record for the most children born to a mother?" Of course this was a timely question for me. I'm aware of women who have had more than ten screaming whelps over the course of a lifetime. I figured that the typical human female has about 30-40 years to deliver kids. With this in mind, I gave an irrationally low number for my answer. I guess I was affected by the empathy I have accumulated for M. while going through this process together for the first time. It's easy to want a few children, but altogether a different reality when you consider the work that goes into bearing them. Anyway I guessed that eighteen was an inordinately high number, and was (therefore) probably a reasonable assumption.

I was actually a bit amazed to learn just how far off the correct answer I was. The barista told me that a woman had actually borne 69 offspring. I immediately wondered how this was possible, given the the limitations of individual fertility. Obviously I figured there must have been multiple births. Well, they didn't have more details for me at the shop, and so I resolved to Google the case when I got home. Indeed, between the years of 1725 and 1765, the first wife of Russian Feodor Vassilyev got pregnant 27 times. There were 16 pairs of twins, seven groups of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets. Amazingly, 67 of these children survived past infancy. The striking thing about this feat is that her first name is nowhere on record. If that's not an example of the crassest sort of gender injustice, then I truly don't understand sexism.

Naturally I view this little factoid with a bit of skepticism. Surely the story is apocryphal? This couple was said to be among the peasant population of a little town called Shuya. How is it that such humble people were able to afford to feed that large a brood? Shouldn't there have been folktales and songs written about that woman? The only thing I could find out about her, besides the location and number of her children, is that she was the first wife of Feodor Vassilyev. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that she likely died from the strain on her body. Anyway, she certainly left a legacy. Imagine facing the prospect of marrying into that obligation. Perhaps our man Feodor felt a bit overwhelmed. But how was he able to convince his second wife to share his burden? And then... did the new couple have more kids? The logistics of such a family are mind-boggling.

As shocking as that whole tale is, it doesn't compare to another case I read about while researching "extreme motherhood". This one is particularly disturbing. On May 14th, 1939, the Peruvian Lina Medina gave birth to to a six pound boy named Gerardo (after the doctor that delivered him). Lina was five years, seven months old at the time. When she first started showing her pregnancy, it was believed that she had an abdominal tumor. She was seven months into term before they diagnosed her true condition. As one might expect, the new born was delivered via c-section. Apparently her period came first at 8 months of age, and she had prominently developed breasts at age four (signs of "precocious puberty"). Although her father was initially arrested for rape and incest, and later released for lack of evidence, the biological source of the sperm that impregnated Lina was never identified.

Who Was Benazir Bhutto?

As we were all settling into the torpor following the Christmas holiday, a woman on the other side of the Earth died in an intentional explosion. Like many others in this country, the news flew past me without notice. I had gift certificates to spend, and was preoccupied with some focused relaxation. I wasn't tuned in to the news media at all. So I don't really recall when I heard the news that Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan, was killed. Although I knew very little about Bhutto, I was immediately aware that her death was a big deal. After all she had been the very first female head of a Muslim nation, having been elected to the Prime Minister position of Pakistan twice. She had been removed from office due to corruption charges, and had even left her homeland for Dubai. But recently she had returned to her homeland, in an attempt to re-establish her political influence.

Benazir Bhutto was the eldest child of a former Pakistani Prime Minister. She was born a Shiite, but attended Christian primary school. She continued her education in the United States at Harvard. Later she studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University in England. Soon after completing her academic studies, her father was overthrown by a military coup, and executed. Benazir and her mother were kept on house arrest until they were allowed to flee to the United Kingdom. From the UK, Benazir led her father's center-left political party- the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). In 1988, when the PPP won the most seats in the Pakistani National Assembly, Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister. She served twenty months until she was removed from office, and then returned for an additional three years in 1993. Bhutto drew much acclaim from the West, and overwhelming criticism in Pakistan, for her attempts to modernize the nation.

Although she had pledged to help the plight of women during her campaign for office, intense political opposition kept her from following through on her promises. Ironically, as Prime Minister, Bhutto supported the rise of the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. She believed they would stabilize the troubled nation, and provide trade access to Central Asian republics. There is ample speculation and some documented evidence that Bhutto valued personal economics at the expense of national aims. Along with her husband, she had been accused of striking multiple government deals that resulted in huge windfalls for herself and her extended family. In exile she became the target of International Police for those activities, but that did not stop President Bush and Republican Congressional leaders from embracing her.

Until very recently, Benazir Bhutto had been highly critical of current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his policies. Musharraf was seeking to delay her return to her homeland until after the general elections. Throughout 2007, the United States had attempted to get Musharraf to step down as military head, and install Bhutto as Prime Minister (despite Pakistani term limits that would prohibit this). The suggestion of amnesty for existing corruption charges and whisperings about a Bhutto/Musharraf power-sharing agreement paved the way for Benazir's final trip home. In exchange for protection against outstanding charges, Bhutto agreed to convince the PPP not to boycott the upcoming presidential elections.

In November of 2007, Musharraf pronounced a state of emergency due to a wave of religious extremism. Bhutto called for its end, and claimed that an open and fair election was not possible under such conditions. She produced a list of demands to be met if Musharraf wanted to stop the PPP from boycotting the election. On December 27th, 2007, Bhutto was assassinated while leaving a PPP campaign rally. Responsibility for the explosion that killed her remains unclear. The Pakistani government claims that Lashkar i Jhangvi (an al Qaeda afilliate) planned and executed the act. Apparently certain al Qaeda commanders considered Bhutto a major American asset and thus wanted her eliminated. The United States government seems to accept this account of the event. However the Bhutto family and the PPP dispute it. They suspect the involvement of Pakistani intelligence agencies, and are calling for a UN investigation into Bhutto's death.

Reading "early" American History.

Although I generally enjoy reading about history, I've never been particularly drawn toward the "early American" period. For one thing, I'm not completely sold on the categorization of what's referred to as "early American". Some would consider that terminology to refer to the history of early indigenous populations of the Americas. That seems to me to be the most appropriate definition. But more commonly people use the words to refer to the settlements of European colonists, and the subsequent independence of the United States as a nation. Perhaps this is simply another confirmation of the truth of the old saying- "History is written by the victorious". Yet it seems to me to be an essentially misleading way to understand the past in this region of the world.

There's also an accompanying conceit that teaches that the United States is somehow the most divinely favored among nations. According to this perspective, the European interlopers that formed the country had been destined to expand across the continent. Of course it is also assumed that it was only natural that the original populations of the land would be either displaced or exterminated. The philosophies and documents that justified this campaign of dominance are given an almost sacred sheen. It's an ugly reality that the founding fathers were filled with a sense of entitlement and a hubris that made them believe that they were God's Chosen People. All of this does not have the effect of compelling me to study them. So much of the work published has a self-congratulatory tone. And much of it is idealized to the point that it tells us little of the realities of the time.

So when I spotted Andrew Burstein's America's Jubilee: How in 1826 a generation remembered fifty years of independence (2001), it was with a complex feeling of obligation and hope that I purchased it. At some level I believe that my association requires that I learn as much as I can about what it means to be an "American". I also thought that I might get some special insights into a time and place that I haven't explored very much. It seemed to me from the title that Burstein might present information about the way most Americans lived in the early 1800's. Perhaps the book would defy the conventional historical approach and reach past the lives of the political aristocrats and power elites. Maybe the author would humanize the era in a way that might capture and sustain my interest. Unfortunately this wasn't the case.

From the very first page, reading American Jubilee felt like a chore. I realized quickly that (while I was going to be introduced to some lesser figures) Burstein was more interested in veneration than illumination. It was moderately interesting to read about early Attorney General William Wirt, who was considered to be one of the most talented orators of his day. The section regarding the return of Revolutionary War hero Marquis de Lafayette for a late-life tour of his adopted country was generally engaging. An examination of the complex political relationships of John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay was informative. Facts about the descendants of early presidents broadened my understanding of the legacy of the "first families". Still I got very little feel for the way that ordinary Americans were affected by all the pomp and circumstance of patriotic memory.

To make matters worse, there's an entire chapter focused on the writings of mother and daughter pair, Hannah and Eliza Foster. I'm sure that this analysis was included because there weren't many female authors around back then. These two wrote melodramatic romance novels in a Revolutionary War setting. For some godforsaken reason, Burstein decides to burden his readers with a multi-page plot synopsis of one of these works. It is one of the most patently uninteresting sections I have ever read. Not only do we get a blow-by-blow recap, but we get an in depth look at the characterization of the role of women during this time. However, the lead figures are so idealized that they couldn't possibly transcend the treacle of what passed for literary fiction during the time. Even Burstein admits that these examples aren't very well written.

Perhaps I should let Burstein off the hook due to what could well be a dearth in material about the rank-and-file of society. In the first quarter of the 19th century, the US wasn't a very democratic place. There was still a lot of condescension directed at the "masses". Women, African-Americans, and poor white men still awaited the vote. Senators were chosen by state legislators. And there was a distinct lack of variety in media options. Newspapers and pamphlets (by necessity) would cover only the activities of the most prominent citizens. So it could be that there wasn't much choice- and thus we get forty pages detailing the last words of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on the occasion of their coincidental death (they both expired on July 4th, fifty years after the passage of the Declaration of Independence). My guess would be that you'd have to be a bit of a fetishist for early American history to care.

Edmund Morgan, "The Genuine Article".

Plagued by the thought that I should withdraw from my ongoing study of serial killers, I decided to pick up Edmund Morgan's The Genuine Article. Morgan is a distinguished professor at Yale and a renowned historian specializing in early American history. This particular tome is a collection of book reviews he's written over the years for the New York Times Book Review. As I made my way through the first portion of the book, I wondered what had compelled me to pick it up in the first place. What self-respecting modern American bothers reading this type of stuff in the first place... let alone an entire collection of it? Perhaps I was feeling some strange sense of literary masochism? Regardless I resolved to make my way through it, even when I felt I could better spend my leisure time elsewhere.

As page after page turned, I developed a rhythm and began to see the merits of the endeavor. For despite the fact that I spend much of my life with similar material, I realized just how narrow my view is. No matter how critical we have become, many American citizens still labor under the suppositions that we formed in primary school. This tendency especially applies when we deal with stories of the "founding fathers". These are real-life historical figures- men who walked the earth and had many of the same compulsions and desires as everybody else. Yet we have made them into national symbols, vaguely representing one or another political ideal that they were famous for having expressed. Many of us tend to consider them as if they existed in a vacuum, or as if they popped out of their mothers' wombs ready to spout revolutionary platitudes. Obviously that approach doesn't accurately convey the complexity of their lives.

We also tend to think of historians as ultraconservative keepers of our historical legacy. It is too easy to believe that they know everything there is to know about the Revolutionary War era. We believe that early American history is static and ossified. What new discoveries could we possibly find in this distant segment of our past? Haven't academics agreed by now on the fundamental meanings and interpretations of this particular time period? Well, the fact is that nothing is set in stone. Historical analysis is influenced by the perspectives of the time in which it is written. If we are undergoing a period of social unrest, then that disorder is going to color the spectacles through which historians look backwards. If society is enjoying a time of stability and constancy, then our experts are going to reflect that in their writings. Ultimately the lessons we learn from studying early American history (or any time period, for that matter) are going to be just as much about us as whatever subject they claim to deal with. The observer can't help but affect the observed.

Edmund Morgan is well aware of the type of projection that occurs in any examination of history. He is also careful to take into consideration the context surrounding the primary sources. What one or another figure says in his own time is inflected by the events surrounding him. Naturally we impose our own frames and philosophies when we read them, these 200 (or so) years later. Morgan picks a wide variety of texts to review. Many of them are modern collections of the original papers of the founding fathers. In some cases, much of the included material has been recently rediscovered. In other places the stuff has never before been presented together. A true intellect can construct new associations and gain original insights from looking at the work as a whole. Morgan goes one step further and factors in the biases of the editors.

What's ultimately remarkable about The Genuine Article is the author's obvious attempts to remain evenhanded in his assessment of works of such disparate nature. He's quite clearly leery of drawing conclusions based upon demographic statistics, but he is not so brash as to simply discount them. Even when Morgan does not favor a particular viewpoint because it seems outlandish or fanciful, he seems inclined to give it due consideration. That doesn't mean that there is no piss and/or vinegar in his writing style- he often uses his vast store of wit to subtly jab at the authors he disagrees with. Yet it's evident how much Wilson enjoys his task, even when he is at extreme odds with an author's judgments. The palpable joy he displays in learning something fresh makes what could be an unbearable chore into an enlightening read.

Shepherdstown and Harper's Ferry.

Because we confined our trip to Berkely Springs to a single weekend, and we got settled in Friday night, we only really had one full day to explore the area. Through the relatively modest amount of research I did beforehand I knew that there wasn't a lot of essentials that I would regret missing. I figured we'd spend part of Saturday on the road, and had some vague plans about towns I'd like to visit while I had the chance.

We were in the easternmost part of WV, and that section of the state seems more like Virginia or Maryland then the land of "hoopies". Part of the reason for that is its proximity to Washington DC. It was pretty clear that many people from the capitol region have summer houses near Berkely Springs. It's not as hilly as the main part of West Virginia, and it has a discernibly different identity. The most common description that ran through my head was "quaint". There are a lot of self-consciously old-fashioned small towns, with clean streets and little shops. In addition the area has a whole lot of Civil War history. Having enjoyed our trip to Gettysburg a few years ago, we figured seeing some similar battle sights might be worthwhile.

Unfortunately since the previous few days had been exhausting, we got a late start. Around noon we plotted a course, and I despaired of seeing much of all. Then of course the bridge spanning that particular stretch of the Potomac was confined to a single lane of costruction (relecting perhaps the recent tragedy of bridge collapse?) , and that took away another bite of precious time. But we made a big circle around our target towns on route 70, and eventually got off around Antietam. I know almost nothing about the specifics of that battle, and I was looking forward to seeing the miniature replica of the conflict at a roadside museum. Can you believe that it was closed at 2PM on a Saturday? This added to our overall bleak impression of our itinerary. We drove a bit through the battleground itself and scanned a few plaques, but without a greater context it meant close to nothing. Anyway neither of us are particularly interested in staring at barren expanses- we are more likely to appreciated a cheesy wax museum. We drove on through Sharpsburg.

Eventually we found Shepherdstown which contains the small Shepherd College. I was struck by the contrived old-timey feeling of the business district. It felt like a living reconstruction of a contemporary yuppie's dream of historically significant shopping. Yes... it was quaint. I did however find several shops worth spending time in. Four Season Books has a nice back room of remainders and used books. Their selection was broad and hip. We grabbed lunch at the Yellow Brick Bank. We probably would not have chosen the restaurant at dinner (too expensive), but lunch was excellent and reasonably priced. I had a pasta dish with several different cheeses, and it was delectable. The interior is charming with its old-school stylings and decor. They also have a good beer selection (which I chose not to take advantage of). I followed lunch with a stop at The Lost Dog coffeehouse, which was surprisingly progressive and hip. There was vaguely edgy art on the walls, and its staff would be completely at home in any prospering inner city enclave. And they didn't stumble on my extremely finicky drink order.

Thus fortified we continued down the road to Harper's Ferry. I had desired a look at at the scene of John Brown's aborted rebellion, and I figured on taking a relaxed walk through another forgotten village. Almost immediately we realized that it's actually a significant tourist destination. The town-planners have set up a system to encourage visitors to park in a lot outside of town, and pay $6 to ride a shuttle bus. I wasn't having it. I figured I'd be able to find street parking. Once we got to its center, I thought I had made a mistake. But against all odds we found a free space right in the thick of things. It was surprisingly crowded with white faces perched atop business-casual outfits. If you ever plan to visit, you need to wear your "sensible" shoes, because it is packed with steep inclines and outdoor stairways. The park service has restored several buildings with artifacts and original designs, and the history buff can peer through glass at the interiors. Among those buildings are a mass of shops and restaurants where you can buy civil war replicas and sweets.

Although we couldn't find anything that looked like a centralized museum, we did go inside the John Brown Wax Museum. Even though I made sure to get permission to take photos, the old crone manning the desk felt obliged to threaten a lawsuit should I deign to sell any images. In every moment she gave us the impression that she hates her plight in life. Maybe she is paranoid that some ambitious competitor will rise up and start a rival wax museum in town. She was actually babbling to herself as we looked at the first few vignettes. Perhaps she continued, but eventually we were beyond the reach of her whiney voice. In retrospect- if she was so suspicious of my intentions, she should have simply prohibited any photography. I would have accepted that, as it is policy at many such places. Anyway the exhibits were vaguely entertaining, if not exactly life-like. I would suggest that when that bitter old woman at the front counter dies, she should be stuffed and promoted as John Brown's long-suffering wife. It will give the place some added bite.

Overall I would recommend Harper's Ferry as a diverting family experience. It does seem that its modern inhabitants have a wish to insulate it from the homogenization of gimmicky technology. I admire the commitment to preserve the historical authenticity of the village. There are a host of live actors in period costumes that lend a serious tenor to the events that took place there. Unfortunately the arsenal itself is long gone, and the firehouse that housed the captured rebels has been moved repeatedly. But there is enough to see to warrant spending the better part of a day in Harper's Ferry. And if the kids get restless they can always go for a dip in the river.

The Pinkertons.

They were hired by private corporations and the government for security, law enforcement and espionage. They have taken up arms against the American people, killing more than a few. They were founded and led by reactionary, ultraconservative men. They've infiltrated lawful assemblies of US citizens. They had the first database of information relating to criminals and suspects across this nation. Who were they? The FBI? The CIA? The United States Military? Halliburton? Blackwater? Nope... none of the above. They were the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. And I was once their employee.

It's ironic that I worked for a company that was widely despised in Pittsburgh. It was the summer after my freshman year at Pitt, and I needed some spending cash. During those long, hot months I was tasked with protecting a Daytimers factory and a water treatment plant (read the details here). That was before I had come around to embracing Western Pennsylvania as my new hometown. I didn't know much of the local history, and I wasn't really all that interested in learning about it. My high school in Allentown certainly never taught us about the labor conflict at the Carnegie Steel Mill in Homestead, PA, nor the Pinkerton thugs who came to wage war with union workers.

Andrew Carnegie was off in Scotland when Henry Clay Frick employed the Pinkerton "detectives" to provide security for the scab replacements filling in for striking steelworkers. When the groups clashed, men on both sides were injured and even killed. Despite the fact that the Pinkertons were eventually turned away, the state militia was called in and the strike was broken. This was both a temporary setback and a longtime rallying cry for the labor movement. The legacy of the events in Homestead still informs the mindset and politics of the region. This bit of history is now a source of pride for many in Pittsburgh (at least for people who have made it a point to learn about the past).

Before the Pinkertons came to Frick's aide, they were already an established presence in the national scene. Formed by Allan Pinkerton in 1851, they were initially used by business leaders to maintain more control over their employees. The company's motto was "We Never Sleep", and their logo was an all-seeing eye. In fact that symbol is the origination of the term "private eye". They first gained national exposure when they were contracted as bodyguards for President-Elect Abraham Lincoln. Through that work the firm made crucial contacts with political elites and the military establishment.

After the Civil War the Pinkertons gained further fame through providing security for the all-powerful railroad conglomerates. They were primarily tasked with tracking down train robbers, many of whom formed notorious Western outlaw gangs. The company operated branches in most of the growing Western cities- including Spokane, Omaha, and Denver. In the 1870's they were given a Department of Justice contract to investigate and prosecute federal crime (they would continue to serve in this role until the formation of the FBI in 1908). Meanwhile the Spanish Government hired them to quash a democratic revolution in Cuba. The early decades of the Twentieth Century saw them once again focused on corporate espionage and anti-union activities.

At the peak of their power the Pinkerton National Detective Agency had more agents than the US Army had soldiers. This prompted the state of Ohio to outlaw the company because of the fear that they constituted a private militia, or were simply mercenaries. They became widely known as the enemy of working people and reformers. It wasn't until the Wagner Act (1937) and the LaFollete Commitee (1937) heralded a change in employee relations that the Pinkertons began their transition to the relatively innocuous private security company that I worked for in the early 1990's. Yet they have continued to dabble in industrial security and electronic surveillance. They also provide consulting services for governmental security personnel.

In the wake of the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act, the Pinkertons have been overshadowed by more insidious private corporations immersed in crowd control, weapons systems, espionage, counterinsurgency, tracking, enforcement, surveillance and even warfare in Iraq. But the Pinkerton National Detective Agency is the father of them all.

For detailed information regarding the Pinkerton's... click HERE.