This is a letter written by a man named Frederick Law Olmsted a landscape architect who is perhaps best known for designing Central Park in New York City. He is writing to his son, Henry, regarding Henry's request for the family dog, Quiz, to be sent to him (he was away from home apparently).
I read this in a book called 'Posterity' by Dorie McCullough Lawson (a great little book incidentally, filled with many interesting letters from well known folk to their kids) and I just love how Olmsted turns what could have been a simple 'No, I won't send the dog to you', into a far more elaborate tale. Marvellous.
Dear Henry,
The cats keep coming into the yard, six of them every day, and Quiz drives them out. If I should send Quiz to you to drive the cows away from your rhubarb he would not be here to drive the cats out of the yard. If six cats should keep coming into the yard every day and not go out, in a week there would be 42 of them and in a month 180 and before you came back next November 1260. Then if there should be 1260 cats in the yard before next November half of them at least would have kittens and if half of them should have 6 kittens apiece, there would be more than 5000 cats and kittens in the yard. There would not be any place for Rosanna to spread the clothes unless she drove them all off the grass plot, and if she did they would have to crowd at the end of the yard nearest the house, and if they did that they woul make a great pile as high as the top of my windows. A pile of 5000 cats and kittens, some of them black ones, in front of my window would make my office so dark I should not be able to write in it. Besides that those underneath, particularly the kittens, would be hurt by those standing on top of them and I expect they would make such a great squalling all the time that I should not be able to sleep, and if I was not able to sleep, I should not be able to work, and if I did not work I should not have any money, and if I had not any money, I could not send any to Plymouth to pay your fare back on the Fall River boat, and I could not pay my fare to go to Plymouth and so you and I would not ever see each other any more. No, Sir. I can't spare Quiz and you will have to watch for the cows and drive them off yourself or you will raise no rhubarb.
Your affectionate father.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The shifting times of blogging..
It seems odd to keep writing this blog. I have no idea if anyone still reads it, though I do broadcast many of the posts for all to see on facebook. What seems stranger though, is that I started this blog as part of a community of blogs.
At first I started at Brittney Lenhoff's(now Strange, though she was strange back then!) urging, along with Danny Temlett and I think a few others. Then more and more people came along. Andy Moll, KC Clark (now Wyse, though again she was quite wise back then too - appropriate names eh?), Sarah Toth (Shank), Angie King (Bryan), Danny Kwon, Kevin Hawley, Ryan Hawkins, Ashley Van Gelderen, Woody etc etc etc. The list could go on and on.
Many of those dropped away over time, but for a long while at least there were a cluster of 'bloggers' that kept up with it all, read each others posts etc. Andy Moll was on one. Kat Scofield another. Sara Treece (now Graham, but still treece!) also kept up with a blog, and infact still does.
Now though, its a dead world for my blog. Its a quiet place devoid of community. I'm sure it seems odd writing about this on my blog (not least if its as dead as I say!) but it occured to me before that just as i've moved out of incredible community in the real world, so my blog has survived through into a point were its probably one of the few still being updated. The parallel struck me I guess!
At first I started at Brittney Lenhoff's(now Strange, though she was strange back then!) urging, along with Danny Temlett and I think a few others. Then more and more people came along. Andy Moll, KC Clark (now Wyse, though again she was quite wise back then too - appropriate names eh?), Sarah Toth (Shank), Angie King (Bryan), Danny Kwon, Kevin Hawley, Ryan Hawkins, Ashley Van Gelderen, Woody etc etc etc. The list could go on and on.
Many of those dropped away over time, but for a long while at least there were a cluster of 'bloggers' that kept up with it all, read each others posts etc. Andy Moll was on one. Kat Scofield another. Sara Treece (now Graham, but still treece!) also kept up with a blog, and infact still does.
Now though, its a dead world for my blog. Its a quiet place devoid of community. I'm sure it seems odd writing about this on my blog (not least if its as dead as I say!) but it occured to me before that just as i've moved out of incredible community in the real world, so my blog has survived through into a point were its probably one of the few still being updated. The parallel struck me I guess!
Painted her letters...
I spent part of this evening down at my great aunt's house looking through a host of papers, documents and other bits and bobs that make up a great treasure trove of history that document part of my family history. I've had a few such evenings of late and each visit produces a few great little surprises.
Tonight came the realisation that Ed (my great aunt) has been living in her current house for 65 years, as confirmed by the orignal property deeds. Her dad (my great grandfather) purchased the house with cash for a grand sum of £400 way back in 1944. The family moved in in June 1944, with World War II raging around them, and Ed has been there ever since. I find that incredible, especially in a world in which there seems so much fluidity of movement.
Other documents that came up were a little more sobering. There was the doctors report on my great uncle Bob (Ed's brother) and his need to have a portion of his leg amputated when he was a young lad, closely followed by a court settlement which awarded him £1000 (this was back in the late 1920s so must have been quite a large sum of money) because of said amputation. I also found receipts for funeral expenses and tax adjustments related to family deaths. In a sense this opened up a little more of a world that I have heard much of in passing (conversations between various family members who knew all these folk) but knew so little of, being born after many of them had passed away.
In the midst of these more official documents I also found two pages of a letter written in old Lancashire dialect which, while interesting in itself, led on to a debate between my Mum and Ed as to who it could belong to, one option being my Nan (who passed away a few years back). Although it was decided she probably didn't write the letter, Ed recalled something that my Nan's work colleagues used to note about her letters - that she 'painted her letters' - meaning I think that they were so well written and phrased that they were more a work of art than communication.
I like that phrase - painting a letter. I know its tremendously arty in its expression but its also quite thought provoking in the sense of inspiring a change in your own letter writing style.
Tonight came the realisation that Ed (my great aunt) has been living in her current house for 65 years, as confirmed by the orignal property deeds. Her dad (my great grandfather) purchased the house with cash for a grand sum of £400 way back in 1944. The family moved in in June 1944, with World War II raging around them, and Ed has been there ever since. I find that incredible, especially in a world in which there seems so much fluidity of movement.
Other documents that came up were a little more sobering. There was the doctors report on my great uncle Bob (Ed's brother) and his need to have a portion of his leg amputated when he was a young lad, closely followed by a court settlement which awarded him £1000 (this was back in the late 1920s so must have been quite a large sum of money) because of said amputation. I also found receipts for funeral expenses and tax adjustments related to family deaths. In a sense this opened up a little more of a world that I have heard much of in passing (conversations between various family members who knew all these folk) but knew so little of, being born after many of them had passed away.
In the midst of these more official documents I also found two pages of a letter written in old Lancashire dialect which, while interesting in itself, led on to a debate between my Mum and Ed as to who it could belong to, one option being my Nan (who passed away a few years back). Although it was decided she probably didn't write the letter, Ed recalled something that my Nan's work colleagues used to note about her letters - that she 'painted her letters' - meaning I think that they were so well written and phrased that they were more a work of art than communication.
I like that phrase - painting a letter. I know its tremendously arty in its expression but its also quite thought provoking in the sense of inspiring a change in your own letter writing style.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Gladstone and Derby
I've been reading a book about Gladstone and Disraeli recently (both former British Prime Ministers in the Nineteenth Century) and its been eye opening in a variety of ways.
One of those eye openers has been the realisation that for a period of the Nineteenth Century the North West of England was something of a powerhouse of British and, as a result of the British Empire, global politics.
Largely that was the result of two men. One the one hand there was the Earl of Derby, a member of the Stanley family who resided at Knowsley Hall (now best known for its safari park), member of Cabinet for many years, and later held the title British Prime Minster on a number of occasions.
On the other side was William Gladstone, a leading member of both Conservative and Liberal governments who in his later years became MP for South Lancashire, a constituency that held at its centre, Liverpool, Manchester and most of the towns inbetween.
To suggest that they alone held power in the UK would be false - certainly the monarch and establishment was much stronger than it is now, not too mention a House of Commons and Lords that seemed far more capable of reeling in the singluar personalities of the Cabinet - but they did carry a great deal of poltical clout and it was very much rooted in the North West.
Examining that state of affairs from the North West of England in the Twenty First Century is a sobering reminder that all power is fleeting and to think that the current status quo will remain is at best short sighted.
One of those eye openers has been the realisation that for a period of the Nineteenth Century the North West of England was something of a powerhouse of British and, as a result of the British Empire, global politics.
Largely that was the result of two men. One the one hand there was the Earl of Derby, a member of the Stanley family who resided at Knowsley Hall (now best known for its safari park), member of Cabinet for many years, and later held the title British Prime Minster on a number of occasions.
On the other side was William Gladstone, a leading member of both Conservative and Liberal governments who in his later years became MP for South Lancashire, a constituency that held at its centre, Liverpool, Manchester and most of the towns inbetween.
To suggest that they alone held power in the UK would be false - certainly the monarch and establishment was much stronger than it is now, not too mention a House of Commons and Lords that seemed far more capable of reeling in the singluar personalities of the Cabinet - but they did carry a great deal of poltical clout and it was very much rooted in the North West.
Examining that state of affairs from the North West of England in the Twenty First Century is a sobering reminder that all power is fleeting and to think that the current status quo will remain is at best short sighted.
Monday, November 02, 2009
'But its 60 pence?!?!'
I was just in St Helens buying a few odds and ends for various birthdays that are coming up and as part of that I ventured into WH Smith to pick up a card. On going to pay for said card, I realised that the amount of change I was going to recieve was pretty negligable and so before the lady on the till could give me the change I asked her to put it in a little charity box that was there.
What followed was one of those moments when you realise that you've done something that to the other person was unexpected, unprecedented, strange and perhaps even straight out bizarre.
The lady paused for a moment and then with her mouth open and her eyes widening, she fixed me with a stare that already conveyed everything I needed to know. She was no doubt thinking ' you must be mad' or 'strange' or 'a complete weirdo' who spends his money with ease and abandon.' Then she opened her mouth and said with a great deal of vigor and horror:
'But its 60 pence!?!?!'
Somewhat taken aback by this reaction to what seemed like a very small amount of money, I assured her that it was ok, that I knew and understood the implications of what I was doing. Still looking - for the lack of a better word - gobsmacked she very reluctantly agreed to put the money in the charity box at which point I left, contemplating the moment.
I relate this story not to even vaguely suggest that I am something other than a very poor giver(obviously I would hope!) but simply because the lady's reaction to a tiny amount of money really threw me. That it did so was as much because I generally find the staff of WH Smith in St Helens to be warmer and more friendly than many other places. Still, this was also the shop where I tried to take back a book of first class stamps that I had been incorrectly given (which had a value of £5 so it wasn't inconsequential) and was viewed as some kind of looney.
I dunno. I think its sad that they were so surprised about someone choosing to give 60p to charity.
What followed was one of those moments when you realise that you've done something that to the other person was unexpected, unprecedented, strange and perhaps even straight out bizarre.
The lady paused for a moment and then with her mouth open and her eyes widening, she fixed me with a stare that already conveyed everything I needed to know. She was no doubt thinking ' you must be mad' or 'strange' or 'a complete weirdo' who spends his money with ease and abandon.' Then she opened her mouth and said with a great deal of vigor and horror:
'But its 60 pence!?!?!'
Somewhat taken aback by this reaction to what seemed like a very small amount of money, I assured her that it was ok, that I knew and understood the implications of what I was doing. Still looking - for the lack of a better word - gobsmacked she very reluctantly agreed to put the money in the charity box at which point I left, contemplating the moment.
I relate this story not to even vaguely suggest that I am something other than a very poor giver(obviously I would hope!) but simply because the lady's reaction to a tiny amount of money really threw me. That it did so was as much because I generally find the staff of WH Smith in St Helens to be warmer and more friendly than many other places. Still, this was also the shop where I tried to take back a book of first class stamps that I had been incorrectly given (which had a value of £5 so it wasn't inconsequential) and was viewed as some kind of looney.
I dunno. I think its sad that they were so surprised about someone choosing to give 60p to charity.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Linen Belt
I've been reading through the book of Jeremiah over the last few days and I'm astonished at how great it is. I realise I shouldn't be astonished but I am! Even in its sobering narrative of Israel's rejection of God, it contains so much truth that is deeply encouraging and sharpening.
One of the stand out passages for me is the tale of the Linen Belt in Jeremiah 13 (13, v 1-11). Who would have thought a story about a Linen Belt could be so powerful? I certainly didn't and you are probably thinking that I'm a bit mad. But read on and see what you think.
'This is what the Lord said to me: "Go and buy a linen belt and put it round your waist, but do not let it touch water." So I bought a belt, as the Lord directed, and put it around my waist.
Then the word of the Lord came to me a second time: "Take the belt you bought and are wearing around your waist, and go now to Perath and hide it there in a crevice in the rocks." So I went and hid it at Perath, as the Lord told me.
Many days later the Lord said to me, "Go now to Perath and get the belt I told you to hide there." So I went to Perath and dug up the belt and took it from the place where I had hidden it, but now it was ruined and completely useless.
Then the word of the Lord came to me: "This is waht the Lord says. 'In the same way I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubborness of their hearts and go after other gods to serve and worship them, will be like this belt - completely useless! For as a belt is bound round a man's waist, so I bound the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to me,' declares the Lord, 'to be my people for my renown and praise and honour. But they have not listened.'
Maybe you are still confused, but to me this passage spoke deeply of the dangers of leaving go of God's love, guidence and wisdom and seeking to replace it with something other than God. When the belt is wrapped round the man (when Israel, or now the Christian or those who have rejected Christ are seeking God) then it is as it should be. Once the belt is cast off into the ground (thereby Israel, the Church, Man, reject God for something else) it goes to ruin. Sobering stuff.
One of the stand out passages for me is the tale of the Linen Belt in Jeremiah 13 (13, v 1-11). Who would have thought a story about a Linen Belt could be so powerful? I certainly didn't and you are probably thinking that I'm a bit mad. But read on and see what you think.
'This is what the Lord said to me: "Go and buy a linen belt and put it round your waist, but do not let it touch water." So I bought a belt, as the Lord directed, and put it around my waist.
Then the word of the Lord came to me a second time: "Take the belt you bought and are wearing around your waist, and go now to Perath and hide it there in a crevice in the rocks." So I went and hid it at Perath, as the Lord told me.
Many days later the Lord said to me, "Go now to Perath and get the belt I told you to hide there." So I went to Perath and dug up the belt and took it from the place where I had hidden it, but now it was ruined and completely useless.
Then the word of the Lord came to me: "This is waht the Lord says. 'In the same way I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubborness of their hearts and go after other gods to serve and worship them, will be like this belt - completely useless! For as a belt is bound round a man's waist, so I bound the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to me,' declares the Lord, 'to be my people for my renown and praise and honour. But they have not listened.'
Maybe you are still confused, but to me this passage spoke deeply of the dangers of leaving go of God's love, guidence and wisdom and seeking to replace it with something other than God. When the belt is wrapped round the man (when Israel, or now the Christian or those who have rejected Christ are seeking God) then it is as it should be. Once the belt is cast off into the ground (thereby Israel, the Church, Man, reject God for something else) it goes to ruin. Sobering stuff.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Space Shuttle
I'm currently weighing up the possibility of going to see one of the last ever Space Shuttle launches next year. I've been interested in space, and the Shuttle in particular, since I was a little kid, wandering down to the library with my Mum and almost always coming back with at least one book on the subject.
That interest persisted right up until I got to sixth form college and then it died out, being replaced by any number of things, from studies to becoming a Christian. However, in the last year or so my interest in the space programme and the shuttle has returned with avengeance. I suspect it has much to do with going to the US and actually seeing, first hand, some of the amazing (and tiny) spacecraft that were involved in the great space project.
Standing looking at and touching some of these space craft is amazing. Craning your neck skywards to examine the top of a full blown rocket gives you a real sense of just how crazy the early astronauts were to sit on top of what was essentially a giant firework. Yet, you don't get the experience of seeing, hearing and experiencing the launch. Even watching it on tv or youtube, its all dulled down by the limits of technology.
With that in mind i'd love to go to Florida next year and actually see the Shuttle lift off. Hear and see it in real life, in real time. I'd like to do it even more because next year marks the end of the Space Shuttle programme. Whatever follows (If something follows - Mr Obama is proving a little illusive on whether America will develop a new manned space programme) could be many, many years in the making, and this seems like one of the last opportunities to go and see something trully unique and spectacular - if you are a geek!
That interest persisted right up until I got to sixth form college and then it died out, being replaced by any number of things, from studies to becoming a Christian. However, in the last year or so my interest in the space programme and the shuttle has returned with avengeance. I suspect it has much to do with going to the US and actually seeing, first hand, some of the amazing (and tiny) spacecraft that were involved in the great space project.
Standing looking at and touching some of these space craft is amazing. Craning your neck skywards to examine the top of a full blown rocket gives you a real sense of just how crazy the early astronauts were to sit on top of what was essentially a giant firework. Yet, you don't get the experience of seeing, hearing and experiencing the launch. Even watching it on tv or youtube, its all dulled down by the limits of technology.
With that in mind i'd love to go to Florida next year and actually see the Shuttle lift off. Hear and see it in real life, in real time. I'd like to do it even more because next year marks the end of the Space Shuttle programme. Whatever follows (If something follows - Mr Obama is proving a little illusive on whether America will develop a new manned space programme) could be many, many years in the making, and this seems like one of the last opportunities to go and see something trully unique and spectacular - if you are a geek!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Great Work of God: Rain
I bought a wonderful little (Actually fairly large but little sounds better) book of devotionals by John Piper when I was in Ohio. I've only read a few thus far, but i've enjoyed reading some insights which link Biblical truth to the practical realities faced in the world today. It is refreshing.
Today's dose was all about rain and God's hand in it. I enjoyed it and I hope you do too!
The Great Work of God: Rain
A Thanksgiving Meditation
Job 5:8-10
But as for me, I would seek God, And I would place my cause before God; Who does great and unsearchable things, Wonders without number. He gives rain on the earth, And sends water on the fields. Job 5:8-10
If you said to someone: "My God does great and unsearchable things; He does wonders without number," and they responded, "Really? Like what?" would you say, "Rain"?
When I read these verses recently I felt like I did when I heard the lyrics to a Sonny and Cher song in 1969: "I'd live for you. I'd die for you. I'd even climb the mountain high for you." Even? I would die for you. I would even climb a high mountain for you? The song was good for a joke. Or a good illustration of bad poetry. Not much else.
But Job is not joking. "God does great and unsearchable things, wonders without number." He gives rain on the earth." In Job's mind, rain really is one of the great, unsearchable wonders that God does. So when I read this a few weeks ago, I resolved not to treat it as meaningless pop musical lyrics. I decided to have a conversation with myself (= meditation).
Is rain a great and unsearchable wonder wrought by God? Picture yourself as a farmer in the Near East, far from any lake or stream. A few wells keep the family and animals supplied with water. But if the crops are to grow and the family is to be fed from month to month, water has to come on the fields from another source. From where?
Well, the sky. The sky? Water will come out of the clear blue sky? Well, not exactly. Water will have to be carried in the sky from the Mediterranean Sea, over several hundred miles and then be poured out from the sky onto the fields. Carried? How much does it weigh? Well, if one inch of rain falls on one square mile of farmland during the night, that would be 27,878,400 cubic feet of water, which is 206,300,160 gallons, which is 1,650,501,280 pounds of water.
That's heavy. So how does it get up in the sky and stay up there if it's so heavy? Well, it gets up there by evaporation. Really? That's a nice word. What's it mean? It means that the water sort of stops being water for a while so it can go up and not down. I see. Then how does it get down? Well, condensation happens. What's that? The water starts becoming water again by gathering around little dust particles between .00001 and .0001 centimeters wide. That's small.
What about the salt? Salt? Yes, the Mediterranean Sea is salt water. That would kill the crops. What about the salt? Well, the salt has to be taken out. Oh. So the sky picks up a billion pounds of water from the sea and takes out the salt and then carries it for three hundred miles and then dumps it on the farm?
Well it doesn't dump it. If it dumped a billion pounds of water on the farm, the wheat would be crushed. So the sky dribbles the billion pounds water down in little drops. And they have to be big enough to fall for one mile or so without evaporating, and small enough to keep from crushing the wheat stalks.
How do all these microscopic specks of water that weigh a billion pounds get heavy enough to fall (if that's the way to ask the question)? Well, it's called coalescence. What's that? It means the specks of water start bumping into each other and join up and get bigger. And when they are big enough, they fall. Just like that? Well, not exactly, because they would just bounce off each other instead of joining up, if there were no electric field present. What? Never mind. Take my word for it.
I think, instead, I will just take Job's word for it. I still don't see why drops ever get to the ground, because if they start falling as soon as they are heavier than air, they would be too small not to evaporate on the way down, but if they wait to come down, what holds them up till they are big enough not to evaporate? Yes, I am sure there is a name for that too. But I am satisfied now that, by any name, this is a great and unsearchable thing that God has done. I think I should be thankful - lots more thankful than I am.
Grateful to God for the wonder of rain,
Pastor John
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
Today's dose was all about rain and God's hand in it. I enjoyed it and I hope you do too!
The Great Work of God: Rain
A Thanksgiving Meditation
Job 5:8-10
But as for me, I would seek God, And I would place my cause before God; Who does great and unsearchable things, Wonders without number. He gives rain on the earth, And sends water on the fields. Job 5:8-10
If you said to someone: "My God does great and unsearchable things; He does wonders without number," and they responded, "Really? Like what?" would you say, "Rain"?
When I read these verses recently I felt like I did when I heard the lyrics to a Sonny and Cher song in 1969: "I'd live for you. I'd die for you. I'd even climb the mountain high for you." Even? I would die for you. I would even climb a high mountain for you? The song was good for a joke. Or a good illustration of bad poetry. Not much else.
But Job is not joking. "God does great and unsearchable things, wonders without number." He gives rain on the earth." In Job's mind, rain really is one of the great, unsearchable wonders that God does. So when I read this a few weeks ago, I resolved not to treat it as meaningless pop musical lyrics. I decided to have a conversation with myself (= meditation).
Is rain a great and unsearchable wonder wrought by God? Picture yourself as a farmer in the Near East, far from any lake or stream. A few wells keep the family and animals supplied with water. But if the crops are to grow and the family is to be fed from month to month, water has to come on the fields from another source. From where?
Well, the sky. The sky? Water will come out of the clear blue sky? Well, not exactly. Water will have to be carried in the sky from the Mediterranean Sea, over several hundred miles and then be poured out from the sky onto the fields. Carried? How much does it weigh? Well, if one inch of rain falls on one square mile of farmland during the night, that would be 27,878,400 cubic feet of water, which is 206,300,160 gallons, which is 1,650,501,280 pounds of water.
That's heavy. So how does it get up in the sky and stay up there if it's so heavy? Well, it gets up there by evaporation. Really? That's a nice word. What's it mean? It means that the water sort of stops being water for a while so it can go up and not down. I see. Then how does it get down? Well, condensation happens. What's that? The water starts becoming water again by gathering around little dust particles between .00001 and .0001 centimeters wide. That's small.
What about the salt? Salt? Yes, the Mediterranean Sea is salt water. That would kill the crops. What about the salt? Well, the salt has to be taken out. Oh. So the sky picks up a billion pounds of water from the sea and takes out the salt and then carries it for three hundred miles and then dumps it on the farm?
Well it doesn't dump it. If it dumped a billion pounds of water on the farm, the wheat would be crushed. So the sky dribbles the billion pounds water down in little drops. And they have to be big enough to fall for one mile or so without evaporating, and small enough to keep from crushing the wheat stalks.
How do all these microscopic specks of water that weigh a billion pounds get heavy enough to fall (if that's the way to ask the question)? Well, it's called coalescence. What's that? It means the specks of water start bumping into each other and join up and get bigger. And when they are big enough, they fall. Just like that? Well, not exactly, because they would just bounce off each other instead of joining up, if there were no electric field present. What? Never mind. Take my word for it.
I think, instead, I will just take Job's word for it. I still don't see why drops ever get to the ground, because if they start falling as soon as they are heavier than air, they would be too small not to evaporate on the way down, but if they wait to come down, what holds them up till they are big enough not to evaporate? Yes, I am sure there is a name for that too. But I am satisfied now that, by any name, this is a great and unsearchable thing that God has done. I think I should be thankful - lots more thankful than I am.
Grateful to God for the wonder of rain,
Pastor John
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
Mercy Ships
Earlier this year a member of my church gave a brief talk about how she was going to be spending the next 6 months of her life, specifically that of serving on board the Africa Mercy, a hospital ship operated by a Christian charity called Mercy Ships.
I was both deeply impressed and moved by what I saw in that short presentation. I was especially stunned at just what a relatively small number of volunteers and one ship can make to whole nations in Africa. My conviction was also great when I considered the the fact that we in the west can build whole fleets of warships and yet manage to only send one small hospital ship to the coasts of some of the poorest nations on Earth.
Now I don't want to turn this into a rally against the world's navies (I would actually be someone who defends their existence and maintains the importance of a strong naval force), nor do I want to suggest that Mercy Ships is the only organistion in Africa working with these poorer communities. Likewise I am sure Mercy Ships has its faults and carries some 'baggage' into the countries it goes in to help. But I just want to encourage you to take more of an interest in their work, to pray over their work, to even perhaps contribute in some way financially.
This is on my mind this afternoon as I read through the Annual Review of Mercy Ships and consider the words of the Mercy Ships Chairman in the UK on the ships impact on the recently war-torn Liberia:
'When the Africa Mercy sailed out of the port of Monrovia last December, this nation was not the same! A new Hope hadcome! In close collaboration with a new and positive government, the Africa Mercy had played a key role in helping so many.
In those four years, Mercy Ships and her volunteer doctors provided over 4,500 eye operations, over 3,700 reconstructive surgeries and more than 49,000 dental treatments. Added to this, our health care teams provided training in vollages throughout the Country.'
Mercy ships not only provides impressive care in communities in terms of health and education, it also does so with a Christian spiritual awareness. It is a fantastic outreach and demonstration of God's love and service to the poor. So, please consider giving it a few minutes of prayerful attention today. Thanks!
http://www.mercyships.org.uk/
I was both deeply impressed and moved by what I saw in that short presentation. I was especially stunned at just what a relatively small number of volunteers and one ship can make to whole nations in Africa. My conviction was also great when I considered the the fact that we in the west can build whole fleets of warships and yet manage to only send one small hospital ship to the coasts of some of the poorest nations on Earth.
Now I don't want to turn this into a rally against the world's navies (I would actually be someone who defends their existence and maintains the importance of a strong naval force), nor do I want to suggest that Mercy Ships is the only organistion in Africa working with these poorer communities. Likewise I am sure Mercy Ships has its faults and carries some 'baggage' into the countries it goes in to help. But I just want to encourage you to take more of an interest in their work, to pray over their work, to even perhaps contribute in some way financially.
This is on my mind this afternoon as I read through the Annual Review of Mercy Ships and consider the words of the Mercy Ships Chairman in the UK on the ships impact on the recently war-torn Liberia:
'When the Africa Mercy sailed out of the port of Monrovia last December, this nation was not the same! A new Hope hadcome! In close collaboration with a new and positive government, the Africa Mercy had played a key role in helping so many.
In those four years, Mercy Ships and her volunteer doctors provided over 4,500 eye operations, over 3,700 reconstructive surgeries and more than 49,000 dental treatments. Added to this, our health care teams provided training in vollages throughout the Country.'
Mercy ships not only provides impressive care in communities in terms of health and education, it also does so with a Christian spiritual awareness. It is a fantastic outreach and demonstration of God's love and service to the poor. So, please consider giving it a few minutes of prayerful attention today. Thanks!
http://www.mercyships.org.uk/
Saturday, September 19, 2009
American TV Take 2
I suppose the title of this note should really be American Adverts Take 2. I've been home for a few days now and I'm deeply sadened that I will no longer be able to witness the amazing wonder that are American adverts. For instance I shall not be able to see the miraculous talking dog advert for a Delaware computer shop, which not only looked like it was shot on a cheap hand held video camera, but also finished with the dog flying. Oh, and did I mention it featured great scenes such as the one in which a group of young trendy kids meet the wonder dog and nearly fall over in surprise, speaking one of the all time great lines of television in the process:
'Whoa!!! Its a talking Daaawwwg!'
Inspiring stuff.
Then, keeping the dog theme, you have the advert for dog food which forces you to think about and answer one of the great questions of our time:
'Do you want your dog to be a good pooper, or an optimum pooper?'
A good pooper, or an optimum pooper. Well, I have to admit i've never thought about that but the answer of course is that my dog must be an optimum pooper.
Seriously, how will I live without such high caliber entertainment.
'Whoa!!! Its a talking Daaawwwg!'
Inspiring stuff.
Then, keeping the dog theme, you have the advert for dog food which forces you to think about and answer one of the great questions of our time:
'Do you want your dog to be a good pooper, or an optimum pooper?'
A good pooper, or an optimum pooper. Well, I have to admit i've never thought about that but the answer of course is that my dog must be an optimum pooper.
Seriously, how will I live without such high caliber entertainment.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
American TV
I've been in the US for a few days now, and though I have done and seen some interesting things, quite a bit of my time has been spent watching television. This is mostly because Steph is working and whilst I could maybe walk to the local supermarket or a few fast food places there isn't really much to do if you don't have a car.
Still, I digress. Watching American television is I think quite unique. I don't mean the programmes themselves. We obviously get quite a lot of them in the UK and by and large they tend to be of a high quality and entertaining/interesting. What makes US TV so different is the adverts. The adverts here are... odd. I realise that in the UK we have a plethora of bizarre and usually dodgy adverts for just about everything, but the American adverts are strange in very different ways.
First of all there are adverts for prescription drugs. That there are adverts for medicine is not strange. Its more the fact that each advert must clearly state the potential hazards of each product. That in itself is a good thing - this drug might do the following to you etc and is therefore probably not a good thing! However, the way this is done still leaves my mind in a state of bafflement even having seen countless numbers of these ads.
The template seems to go like this. Introduce the drug with a 'real' person who has used said drug and the goes on to warn of the consequences to family of not using it, or of the wonderous benefits from using said product. Whilst this is going on there will be people -usually children - playing in the background, the sky is blue, the grass is green and theres a gentle summer breeze wafting through the picture. Then to top it off a gentle piano recital will kick in. All in all a very mellow scene and not that unusal for trying to sell a product.
The strange part comes about a third if the way through. The image and the music stay the same, but a voice over starts listing what seem like hundreds of potential side effects of taking the drug. So it goes 'Digitise may produce headaces, loss of hearing, loss of legs and arms, servere diarrohea, chronic heart disease, mutations such as extra hands and feet, in addition to probable death.' And the crazy thing is thats not much of an exaggeration. The feeling I get at the end is that no-one in their right mind would buy these drugs, and thus why advertise when two thirds of your advert is saying your drug will probably leave you severely afflicted.
The second advertising oddities are perhaps not so much to do with the adverts themselves but more with the sheer range of products available in America, and more specifically products which seem to serve no useful purpose at all. The one that sticks in my mind was for an American Football television package (think Sky Sports) that had the ability to display on the tv who was calling you on the phone (ie caller ID). The advert was professionally made, very slick and was extremely enthusastic about the importance of knowing who was calling you whilst watching American Football in such a way that was displayed on the tv itself. Infact it made it sound as though you couldn't live without such a feature.
Now, if the advert was for the American Football television package and the caller ID thing was just thrown in as an extra then I could understand that. But it wasn't. It was for the caller ID integrated with your tv. I can't for the life of me understand the need for such a thing. Its just.. mind boggling.
I like it though. Its the oddities that make you appreciate America all the more.
Still, I digress. Watching American television is I think quite unique. I don't mean the programmes themselves. We obviously get quite a lot of them in the UK and by and large they tend to be of a high quality and entertaining/interesting. What makes US TV so different is the adverts. The adverts here are... odd. I realise that in the UK we have a plethora of bizarre and usually dodgy adverts for just about everything, but the American adverts are strange in very different ways.
First of all there are adverts for prescription drugs. That there are adverts for medicine is not strange. Its more the fact that each advert must clearly state the potential hazards of each product. That in itself is a good thing - this drug might do the following to you etc and is therefore probably not a good thing! However, the way this is done still leaves my mind in a state of bafflement even having seen countless numbers of these ads.
The template seems to go like this. Introduce the drug with a 'real' person who has used said drug and the goes on to warn of the consequences to family of not using it, or of the wonderous benefits from using said product. Whilst this is going on there will be people -usually children - playing in the background, the sky is blue, the grass is green and theres a gentle summer breeze wafting through the picture. Then to top it off a gentle piano recital will kick in. All in all a very mellow scene and not that unusal for trying to sell a product.
The strange part comes about a third if the way through. The image and the music stay the same, but a voice over starts listing what seem like hundreds of potential side effects of taking the drug. So it goes 'Digitise may produce headaces, loss of hearing, loss of legs and arms, servere diarrohea, chronic heart disease, mutations such as extra hands and feet, in addition to probable death.' And the crazy thing is thats not much of an exaggeration. The feeling I get at the end is that no-one in their right mind would buy these drugs, and thus why advertise when two thirds of your advert is saying your drug will probably leave you severely afflicted.
The second advertising oddities are perhaps not so much to do with the adverts themselves but more with the sheer range of products available in America, and more specifically products which seem to serve no useful purpose at all. The one that sticks in my mind was for an American Football television package (think Sky Sports) that had the ability to display on the tv who was calling you on the phone (ie caller ID). The advert was professionally made, very slick and was extremely enthusastic about the importance of knowing who was calling you whilst watching American Football in such a way that was displayed on the tv itself. Infact it made it sound as though you couldn't live without such a feature.
Now, if the advert was for the American Football television package and the caller ID thing was just thrown in as an extra then I could understand that. But it wasn't. It was for the caller ID integrated with your tv. I can't for the life of me understand the need for such a thing. Its just.. mind boggling.
I like it though. Its the oddities that make you appreciate America all the more.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Proverbs
During the summer of 2006 I travelled to Germany for a weeks holiday. I went at the request of my parents, perhaps a little reluctantly, but also knowing that I needed a rest. I was reaching burn out in terms of my ability to work consistently hard on my MPhil, had some difficult decisions to make which at the time felt as though they would potentially have dire consequences whichever way I went, and was deeply confused as to what exactly was happening in terms of my relationship with Steph.Thankfully the holiday turned out to be a wonderful week. We stayed with family friends who treated us with great care and consideration and gave us the opportunity to relax in their home without fear of being a burden or nuissence. Various trips out into the local area allowed for a good combination of magnificent German architecture, home cooked Italian food, as well as a bit of adventure. The two stand out moments for me (And they really do fill me with a sense of relaxation and thankfullness even now) where walking up the Brocken Mountain (which as well as being a huge great lump of a mountain, also marked one of the key locations of the Cold War, the West-East dividing wall running through it, and a Soviet army base - now hotel - occupying the summit), and even more so wandering through the streets of Hanover, only to emerge from the urban area and be confronted by a huge artificial lake surrounded by people relaxing, reading, talking. I instantly felt all the troubles lift and sat contentedly reading, taking photos, talking under the canopy of big old trees. Great stuff!
However, the key aspect of that trip for me was the ability I had in the evening to just sit on my own, free from distractions or obligations, and read Proverbs. Up until that point Proverbs had been something that I knew of rather than knew. I'd come across many references in books and talks, and had even read Bill Hybels book 'Making Life Work' which takes as its centre Proverbs. However I'd never taken a look at the text itself in the Bible. So it was that I was astonished at just how much unrelenting wisdom is contained in that book. It trully is magnificent, and for the next year I made frequent returns to re-examine the various chapters, or as seems to happen, discover new insights and truths that somehow eluded me on the previous viewpoint.
The reason i'm bringing this up now is that once more I feel like i'm exhausted. I realise that might sound ridiculous to those of you in the working world, knowing as you do that i'm unemployed, but it is that unemployment, coupled with other uncertainty and the doubts and difficulties that that can bring to my faith, that have left my mind a bit frazzled. For a while i've been leaving my frazzled nature untouched, in part because its been easier to ignore as my official responsibilities are few and also because I myself am convinced that I have no reason to be exhausted and thus have nothing to sort out! Recently though i've opened up the book of Proverbs once more and been both stunned and humbled at the tidal wave of wisdom that poors out of that simple text. It is magnificent, on its own certainly, but even more so when viewed in the context of the whole Bible as it reaffirms God's magnificence and rightousness. Check it out!
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Ranulph Fiennes
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to go and listen to Sir Ranulph Fiennes speak in Liverpool Cathedral. Sat in the oppulence of that magestic building (which is unfortunately not the best place in the world to listen to anything really - the acoustics are attrocious), one of the most facinating people i've ever come across (in the form of the written word) spoke with great wit and impressive detail on some of the incredible aspects of a very full life. It was captivating from start to finish, and packed an awful lot in for just an hours worth of talk time.
If you are thinking 'So what? Who is this random fella?' then let me explain a little bit about who he is. Ranulph Fiennes princiaplly is an explorer. He has completed a series of expeditions over the years, the two most notable being the first (and only) circumnavigation of the earth via the poles and the first unsupported crossing of Antarctica (meaning that in an extremely inhospitable place where you burn in excess of 8000 calories a day they had to carry all their equipment and food with them for a considerable period of time, with no outside assitance). On top of those two expeditions, he has served in the SAS (Albeit briefly), fought for the Oman government against a much superior force, discovered the lost city of the Queen of Sheeba, and after suffering a severe heart attack proceeded to run seven marathons on seven continents in seven days (that was 3 months after the heart attack), and made three attempts to climb Mount Everest (two unsuccessful, one successful). Oh and to 'cure' his severe vertigo, he climbed the North Face of the Eiger - which is essentially a very large sheer cliff that is so large you have to camp on the face itself to complete).
In essence the man is a dude, a true defination of The Machine. If you want to know more detail about his exploits then read his book Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know. However he is a great example of someone who refuses to give up, be beaten, or be daunted by challenges. He explained that to get up Everest he simply adopted the principal that there was no top and that he would rather die higher up than low down. When he was crippled with severe frost bite, he decided to cut off the damaged tissue on his hands in his tool shed with a Black and Dekker blade, rather than wait for surgery in hospital. Insane!
As a matter of trivia he is also related to the actors Ranuph Fiennes and Joseph Fiennes, the former probably best known right now for playing Voldemort in the Harry Potter films.
It was great to go and listen to him speak though. Good stuff!
If you are thinking 'So what? Who is this random fella?' then let me explain a little bit about who he is. Ranulph Fiennes princiaplly is an explorer. He has completed a series of expeditions over the years, the two most notable being the first (and only) circumnavigation of the earth via the poles and the first unsupported crossing of Antarctica (meaning that in an extremely inhospitable place where you burn in excess of 8000 calories a day they had to carry all their equipment and food with them for a considerable period of time, with no outside assitance). On top of those two expeditions, he has served in the SAS (Albeit briefly), fought for the Oman government against a much superior force, discovered the lost city of the Queen of Sheeba, and after suffering a severe heart attack proceeded to run seven marathons on seven continents in seven days (that was 3 months after the heart attack), and made three attempts to climb Mount Everest (two unsuccessful, one successful). Oh and to 'cure' his severe vertigo, he climbed the North Face of the Eiger - which is essentially a very large sheer cliff that is so large you have to camp on the face itself to complete).
In essence the man is a dude, a true defination of The Machine. If you want to know more detail about his exploits then read his book Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know. However he is a great example of someone who refuses to give up, be beaten, or be daunted by challenges. He explained that to get up Everest he simply adopted the principal that there was no top and that he would rather die higher up than low down. When he was crippled with severe frost bite, he decided to cut off the damaged tissue on his hands in his tool shed with a Black and Dekker blade, rather than wait for surgery in hospital. Insane!
As a matter of trivia he is also related to the actors Ranuph Fiennes and Joseph Fiennes, the former probably best known right now for playing Voldemort in the Harry Potter films.
It was great to go and listen to him speak though. Good stuff!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
On corporate re-naming...
I just read a BBC article talking about the Sears Tower being renamed the Willis Tower. Though in a sense it makes sense to name a building after the people who own it (because the Sears tower is named Sears because Sears built and owned it of course!), the article says that there is quite a bit of local opposition to the change in name, with one resident claiming that they'll never call it anything but Sears because thats what it is.
I do understand that. In a sense i'm sure its all blown out of proportion - the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis etc because the Sears Tower is renamed - but I do appreciate the frustration of corporate re-naming. It happened here in St Helens recently when the hundred-or-so year old rugby league stadium Knowsley Road was named the GPS Recruitment Statium after GPS bought the naming rights.
Whats the problem you may ask? Surely it makes good business sense to package the naming rights for the stadium and fund the team to greater sporting success, or rename the skyscraper and ensure it continues to be used and function as a successful business enterprise. Well, yes i'm sure it does. But once you have an iconic building on your hands you move into that preverbial quicksand that is culture and heritage.
These buildings are symbolic for many people. They are inheritently local. Knowsley Road -the St Helens rugby stadium - was a name that instantly brought identification with something local, something historical, a link to the team's (and the town's) ups and downs for a hundred years. It overflowed with character. GPS Recruitment stadium on the other hand oozes about as much passion and heritage as a Tesco microwave dinner. Its just so unappetising, so dull and meaningless and it seems so bizare to seemingly abandon that heritage for what is a small amount of money.
The Sears Tower is a bit different I guess (its neither as old, nor perhaps has the same affection held over by fans of a team), but it is no doubt synonymous with Chicago. It dominates the skyline (sadly i've never seen it from the ground but flying over it certainly does hold a prominent place in a skyline packed with skyscrapers), and was (perhaps is) heralded as the premiere Chicago landmark. As such people probably take offense to what they might percieve as an outsider coming in and renaming their building.
Also, think of it this way. New York is famed for many skyscrapers, but certainly two of the better known would be the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. I would imagine that both of those buildings have had many owners over the years, but they have retained their original names. What if these classics of American architecture, with all their history, heritage and art deco styling were suddenly unveiled to the world as the Walmart Plaza and the Gatorade Emporium? Perhaps it wouldn't make you blink and you'ld think 'oh, ok,' or 'cool!' I think though i'd be sad that money and corporate business had muscled in yet again. It would be akin to the Tower of London being renamed Beefeater World or something (I apologise for the lack of imaginative rebrandings but you get the idea!).
I dunno. It just seems a shame.
I do understand that. In a sense i'm sure its all blown out of proportion - the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis etc because the Sears Tower is renamed - but I do appreciate the frustration of corporate re-naming. It happened here in St Helens recently when the hundred-or-so year old rugby league stadium Knowsley Road was named the GPS Recruitment Statium after GPS bought the naming rights.
Whats the problem you may ask? Surely it makes good business sense to package the naming rights for the stadium and fund the team to greater sporting success, or rename the skyscraper and ensure it continues to be used and function as a successful business enterprise. Well, yes i'm sure it does. But once you have an iconic building on your hands you move into that preverbial quicksand that is culture and heritage.
These buildings are symbolic for many people. They are inheritently local. Knowsley Road -the St Helens rugby stadium - was a name that instantly brought identification with something local, something historical, a link to the team's (and the town's) ups and downs for a hundred years. It overflowed with character. GPS Recruitment stadium on the other hand oozes about as much passion and heritage as a Tesco microwave dinner. Its just so unappetising, so dull and meaningless and it seems so bizare to seemingly abandon that heritage for what is a small amount of money.
The Sears Tower is a bit different I guess (its neither as old, nor perhaps has the same affection held over by fans of a team), but it is no doubt synonymous with Chicago. It dominates the skyline (sadly i've never seen it from the ground but flying over it certainly does hold a prominent place in a skyline packed with skyscrapers), and was (perhaps is) heralded as the premiere Chicago landmark. As such people probably take offense to what they might percieve as an outsider coming in and renaming their building.
Also, think of it this way. New York is famed for many skyscrapers, but certainly two of the better known would be the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. I would imagine that both of those buildings have had many owners over the years, but they have retained their original names. What if these classics of American architecture, with all their history, heritage and art deco styling were suddenly unveiled to the world as the Walmart Plaza and the Gatorade Emporium? Perhaps it wouldn't make you blink and you'ld think 'oh, ok,' or 'cool!' I think though i'd be sad that money and corporate business had muscled in yet again. It would be akin to the Tower of London being renamed Beefeater World or something (I apologise for the lack of imaginative rebrandings but you get the idea!).
I dunno. It just seems a shame.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Founding Brothers
I have recently finished reading a book entitled ‘Founding Brothers’ by Joseph J Ellis. I picked it up in Borders a few weeks ago, eager to read a little more about the generation of Americans who are covered by the collective title ‘The Founding Fathers.’
For the most part, it is a great book, setting out to examine the characters of a few of the more high profile Founding Fathers and some of the unique ways in which they interacted with one another. In the process you begin to see that they were at once a remarkable bunch of men, and yet also deeply afflicted with all of the same maladies and flaws that afflict every other generation.
Take Alexander Hamilton for instance. Hamilton had a relatively high profile career in the Continental Army (that is the US army during the American Revolution for British folk who like me had no concept of American history at all until recently), was a key force in the Washington administration (serving as he did as the first Secretary of the Treasury and in doing so establishing many aspects of the US economy that still persist to this day), and also came to be the most prominent member of what was the Federalist Party (one of the two main political parties of the day). However, at the same time he seems to have had ideas that even now seem a bit peculiar. For instance he raised a large standing army without any recourse from the then President John Adams, with the intention of marching into Virginia and removing the political opposition to his party (with the army) before marching into Mexico and the rest of Latin America and conquering (and according to Hamilton liberating) those nations by bringing them into the American Empire. This didn’t happen largely as John Adams recognised that this would be a disastrous turn of events and pulled the plug on the army by taking away the justification Hamilton gave for its existence (by securing peace with, and averting a potential war with, France).
Even Hamilton’s death is a bizarre story. He seems to have been a man who attracted (even courted) a great deal of controversy, and one such man who seemed to take issue with Hamilton was Aaron Burr. Burr, who served as Thomas Jefferson’s first Vice President, determined that he would settle his particular quarrel with Hamilton with a duel (as was still common at the time) and thus the two men were rowed out to a remote location along the Hudson River, took aim with their pistols (apparently in the belief that if they aimed straight at each other and fired they would inevitably miss as the pistol was so inaccurate!), and fired. Unfortunately for both men, Hamilton was hit and subsequently died. Burr, deeply upset that he had actually hit Hamilton, fled. Thus in a moment the vice president of the United States and one of the key figures of the American Revolution entered the pages of bizarre notoriety.
The book also shed light on James Madison and George Washington, and in the discussion of the latter I certainly gained more respect for his abilities and discernment. He seems to have been the ideal figurehead for the nation both in war and in peace, showing a clear understanding of what was necessary, rather than what was deemed popular. Interestingly though not even the man who led the Americans to Independence could escape sharp criticism and Washington was virulently attacked in the press as a monarchist and a new King of America.
However, the focus of the book (certainly for me) are the two figures of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In some respects I probably don’t know enough about Jefferson to know whether the tales regarding him in this book are an accurate representation of the man as a whole. Part of me already wants to rush out and purchase a suitable biography on him! However at the moment i’m not going to do that so in regards to what i’ve already read, I find him very hard to like as a historical figure. Certainly he accomplished a number of significant steps on the way to establishing the United States – his drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the Louisiana Purchase for instance – and he was undoubtedly both very well read and also very shrewd in his understanding of the tide of public opinion (more specifically how to use that ebb and flow and when it was ebbing and flowing). However for all his intelligence and political skill, he also seems to have either been very naive or exceptionally deceitful. For instance after George Washington stepped down as president, an effective two horse race began between John Adams and Jefferson for President. Jefferson effectively denied both any knowledge that he was running for President or a desire for the position publically, but then also endorsed Adams to his friends on the basis that whoever took the Presidency after Washington was doomed to fail and that he (Jefferson) wanted to attain the position after Adams. So it would seem that Jefferson was actually aware of his presidential campaign (in his dictating that Adams not he should be President) and had desires on the position himself, albeit preferring to defer to better political times.
During Adams Presidency, Jefferson served as Vice President and continued to act in that naive or duplicitous manner. Adams specifically invited Jefferson to work with him to achieve a well rounded policy, to which Jefferson said no, and then proceeded to complain that Adams was neglecting his opinion. Jefferson denied and condemned the rise of political parties, whilst at the same time effectively serving as head of the Republican Party (which was actually something of a different animal to the current Republican Party). Then whilst Adams was attempting to negotiate a peace with a belligerent French government, Jefferson lead the attacks on Adams (from behind close doors) and accused him of war mongering against a French government desperate for peace with America. Later when it turned out Adams was right Jefferson denied ever supporting the French. Jefferson, who had (and would later have) a strong friendship with Adams and his wife Abigail also wrote letters pledging the strength of his friendship to Adams, whilst at the same time paying a newspaper correspondent to attack Adams personally. He then denied all such claims until it was confirmed in another newspaper, and then he kept on denying it!
The list could go on, though it should be noted that later Jefferson did express some remorse for his actions and thoughts, whilst Jefferson was of course not perfect. But this is a man who has been received by posterity as one of the great American Presidents (his head adorns Mount Rushmore for instance) and yet I do find him deeply hard to like. Ellis praises him for his political foresight and his ability to adjust to the demands of public opinion, as well as romantic and simplistic understanding of the American dreams of liberty and freedom. In respect to the latter two points it is easy to see why he has been so fondly remembered in that people will always like someone who does what they want (or seems to understand their desires) and who paints the picture they want to hear (that of an unstoppable, universally popular American Revolution). However, does that necessarily make for a good leader?
Adams on the other hand I find much more palatable, though if the two histories i’ve read of him are to be believed neither his contemporaries nor generations of scholars and critics since have found him to be a man who could be easily liked or admired. I’ve discussed Adams before (on my blog that is in reference to a biography of him by David McCullough) but again his essential characteristics shine through. Like Jefferson he was extremely well read. He was a fighter and also very adamant in his perspectives and beliefs on an issue. If he saw something that was unjust or a cause that had to be won in the national interest, he would fight for it, no matter the cost to his own reputation or popularity. So it was that he accepted the Presidency after Washington as his duty to the United States (whereas Jefferson ducked the task knowing it would be deeply unpopular). In the course of that Presidency he faced both rage from the Federalists for not attacking France and disdain from the Republicans for attempting to start a war, all the while trying to secure peace (which he eventually did just as he left office, leaving Jefferson to claim the spoils so to speak).
Adams comes across as something of a realist, recognising that human nature is inherently flawed and that America was open to the same perils as any other nation (whereas Jefferson believed America would be free from the same problems as experience in Europe or Latin America). Joseph Ellis seems to see Adams’ realism as a weakness, if not even a sign of actually physical madness (in that he didn’t view the world as black and white) though (perhaps as this is how I tend to see things) I think Adams strength lay in that he saw things for what they were – messy. So in Adams estimation the American Revolution was a deeply protracted affair, not always universally supported, never certain, fought for relentlessly by many individuals and having its origins in so many different events, documents and acts. As such he hated the idea of the 4th July becoming a pivotal date as it was just one of many dates, whilst he also warned of the dangers of rewriting history to fit the desires of people looking for a mythical creation.
He did of course have his flaws – stubbornness, a bit of a temper, vanity all being labels given to him by close friends – but on the whole I like Adams much more than Jefferson. Adams is described as being like an oak tree, in that when public opinion went against him he refused to move unless he saw it in the national interest. Of course this made him unpopular but I think he was spot on given his recognition that the will of the people isn’t always correct. In that sense he seems by far the better leader to me.
As for the book, then it’s a great read of which I’ve only skimmed the surface here (and I apologise for the lack of references – it’s a disgrace especially given I have two history degrees, but then this is only for my blog!), and it definitely helps to explain the character of modern America a little more.
For the most part, it is a great book, setting out to examine the characters of a few of the more high profile Founding Fathers and some of the unique ways in which they interacted with one another. In the process you begin to see that they were at once a remarkable bunch of men, and yet also deeply afflicted with all of the same maladies and flaws that afflict every other generation.
Take Alexander Hamilton for instance. Hamilton had a relatively high profile career in the Continental Army (that is the US army during the American Revolution for British folk who like me had no concept of American history at all until recently), was a key force in the Washington administration (serving as he did as the first Secretary of the Treasury and in doing so establishing many aspects of the US economy that still persist to this day), and also came to be the most prominent member of what was the Federalist Party (one of the two main political parties of the day). However, at the same time he seems to have had ideas that even now seem a bit peculiar. For instance he raised a large standing army without any recourse from the then President John Adams, with the intention of marching into Virginia and removing the political opposition to his party (with the army) before marching into Mexico and the rest of Latin America and conquering (and according to Hamilton liberating) those nations by bringing them into the American Empire. This didn’t happen largely as John Adams recognised that this would be a disastrous turn of events and pulled the plug on the army by taking away the justification Hamilton gave for its existence (by securing peace with, and averting a potential war with, France).
Even Hamilton’s death is a bizarre story. He seems to have been a man who attracted (even courted) a great deal of controversy, and one such man who seemed to take issue with Hamilton was Aaron Burr. Burr, who served as Thomas Jefferson’s first Vice President, determined that he would settle his particular quarrel with Hamilton with a duel (as was still common at the time) and thus the two men were rowed out to a remote location along the Hudson River, took aim with their pistols (apparently in the belief that if they aimed straight at each other and fired they would inevitably miss as the pistol was so inaccurate!), and fired. Unfortunately for both men, Hamilton was hit and subsequently died. Burr, deeply upset that he had actually hit Hamilton, fled. Thus in a moment the vice president of the United States and one of the key figures of the American Revolution entered the pages of bizarre notoriety.
The book also shed light on James Madison and George Washington, and in the discussion of the latter I certainly gained more respect for his abilities and discernment. He seems to have been the ideal figurehead for the nation both in war and in peace, showing a clear understanding of what was necessary, rather than what was deemed popular. Interestingly though not even the man who led the Americans to Independence could escape sharp criticism and Washington was virulently attacked in the press as a monarchist and a new King of America.
However, the focus of the book (certainly for me) are the two figures of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In some respects I probably don’t know enough about Jefferson to know whether the tales regarding him in this book are an accurate representation of the man as a whole. Part of me already wants to rush out and purchase a suitable biography on him! However at the moment i’m not going to do that so in regards to what i’ve already read, I find him very hard to like as a historical figure. Certainly he accomplished a number of significant steps on the way to establishing the United States – his drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the Louisiana Purchase for instance – and he was undoubtedly both very well read and also very shrewd in his understanding of the tide of public opinion (more specifically how to use that ebb and flow and when it was ebbing and flowing). However for all his intelligence and political skill, he also seems to have either been very naive or exceptionally deceitful. For instance after George Washington stepped down as president, an effective two horse race began between John Adams and Jefferson for President. Jefferson effectively denied both any knowledge that he was running for President or a desire for the position publically, but then also endorsed Adams to his friends on the basis that whoever took the Presidency after Washington was doomed to fail and that he (Jefferson) wanted to attain the position after Adams. So it would seem that Jefferson was actually aware of his presidential campaign (in his dictating that Adams not he should be President) and had desires on the position himself, albeit preferring to defer to better political times.
During Adams Presidency, Jefferson served as Vice President and continued to act in that naive or duplicitous manner. Adams specifically invited Jefferson to work with him to achieve a well rounded policy, to which Jefferson said no, and then proceeded to complain that Adams was neglecting his opinion. Jefferson denied and condemned the rise of political parties, whilst at the same time effectively serving as head of the Republican Party (which was actually something of a different animal to the current Republican Party). Then whilst Adams was attempting to negotiate a peace with a belligerent French government, Jefferson lead the attacks on Adams (from behind close doors) and accused him of war mongering against a French government desperate for peace with America. Later when it turned out Adams was right Jefferson denied ever supporting the French. Jefferson, who had (and would later have) a strong friendship with Adams and his wife Abigail also wrote letters pledging the strength of his friendship to Adams, whilst at the same time paying a newspaper correspondent to attack Adams personally. He then denied all such claims until it was confirmed in another newspaper, and then he kept on denying it!
The list could go on, though it should be noted that later Jefferson did express some remorse for his actions and thoughts, whilst Jefferson was of course not perfect. But this is a man who has been received by posterity as one of the great American Presidents (his head adorns Mount Rushmore for instance) and yet I do find him deeply hard to like. Ellis praises him for his political foresight and his ability to adjust to the demands of public opinion, as well as romantic and simplistic understanding of the American dreams of liberty and freedom. In respect to the latter two points it is easy to see why he has been so fondly remembered in that people will always like someone who does what they want (or seems to understand their desires) and who paints the picture they want to hear (that of an unstoppable, universally popular American Revolution). However, does that necessarily make for a good leader?
Adams on the other hand I find much more palatable, though if the two histories i’ve read of him are to be believed neither his contemporaries nor generations of scholars and critics since have found him to be a man who could be easily liked or admired. I’ve discussed Adams before (on my blog that is in reference to a biography of him by David McCullough) but again his essential characteristics shine through. Like Jefferson he was extremely well read. He was a fighter and also very adamant in his perspectives and beliefs on an issue. If he saw something that was unjust or a cause that had to be won in the national interest, he would fight for it, no matter the cost to his own reputation or popularity. So it was that he accepted the Presidency after Washington as his duty to the United States (whereas Jefferson ducked the task knowing it would be deeply unpopular). In the course of that Presidency he faced both rage from the Federalists for not attacking France and disdain from the Republicans for attempting to start a war, all the while trying to secure peace (which he eventually did just as he left office, leaving Jefferson to claim the spoils so to speak).
Adams comes across as something of a realist, recognising that human nature is inherently flawed and that America was open to the same perils as any other nation (whereas Jefferson believed America would be free from the same problems as experience in Europe or Latin America). Joseph Ellis seems to see Adams’ realism as a weakness, if not even a sign of actually physical madness (in that he didn’t view the world as black and white) though (perhaps as this is how I tend to see things) I think Adams strength lay in that he saw things for what they were – messy. So in Adams estimation the American Revolution was a deeply protracted affair, not always universally supported, never certain, fought for relentlessly by many individuals and having its origins in so many different events, documents and acts. As such he hated the idea of the 4th July becoming a pivotal date as it was just one of many dates, whilst he also warned of the dangers of rewriting history to fit the desires of people looking for a mythical creation.
He did of course have his flaws – stubbornness, a bit of a temper, vanity all being labels given to him by close friends – but on the whole I like Adams much more than Jefferson. Adams is described as being like an oak tree, in that when public opinion went against him he refused to move unless he saw it in the national interest. Of course this made him unpopular but I think he was spot on given his recognition that the will of the people isn’t always correct. In that sense he seems by far the better leader to me.
As for the book, then it’s a great read of which I’ve only skimmed the surface here (and I apologise for the lack of references – it’s a disgrace especially given I have two history degrees, but then this is only for my blog!), and it definitely helps to explain the character of modern America a little more.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Oh To Be Thankful
About a week a go I was sat on the M6 heading to the Lakes listening to a talk given by an American Bible teacher on prayer. During the talk he raised a key Biblical point about how we should pray - namely that all our prayer should be made in the light of thanksgiving. Giving thanks for the multitude of things we have recieved from our Father, our Creator.
Now, thats not something new to me. I've heard it said countless times, by many different teachers, pastors, speakers, friends etc. I've read it in books and even come across the concept of thanksgiving on endless tv shows seeking to make a definative counter-cultural insight.
And yet, it is a striking and deeply challenging aspect to the way in which we view and lead out our lives. I can sit here now and say with both a deep conviction and a profound frustration that I do not approach prayer with an attitude of thanksgiving. Infact, if anything I approach prayer right now with a high level of indifference - a 'Why doesen't this make an difference?' state. No doubt the two are linked. I spend my days deeply saddned at what i'm missing in life (eg a job, or my own home, a more active social life), and as I pray about those things and ask God for wisdom and encouragement, strength etc to come to a point where those 'dilemas' in my life are rectified, I become deeply despondent as He seems to ignore those prayers. But how ridiculous is that? I have so, so, so, so much in this life to be thankful for, beginning with a great faith in God. Add to that family, friends, a long-term relationship, financial security, a nation that is blessed with economic prosperity and a good standard of living.
Yet I never say thankyou for that. How spoilt, ungrateful and annoying am I? And yet the Lord still loves me. Incredible. Time though for some thanksgiven prayer.
Now, thats not something new to me. I've heard it said countless times, by many different teachers, pastors, speakers, friends etc. I've read it in books and even come across the concept of thanksgiving on endless tv shows seeking to make a definative counter-cultural insight.
And yet, it is a striking and deeply challenging aspect to the way in which we view and lead out our lives. I can sit here now and say with both a deep conviction and a profound frustration that I do not approach prayer with an attitude of thanksgiving. Infact, if anything I approach prayer right now with a high level of indifference - a 'Why doesen't this make an difference?' state. No doubt the two are linked. I spend my days deeply saddned at what i'm missing in life (eg a job, or my own home, a more active social life), and as I pray about those things and ask God for wisdom and encouragement, strength etc to come to a point where those 'dilemas' in my life are rectified, I become deeply despondent as He seems to ignore those prayers. But how ridiculous is that? I have so, so, so, so much in this life to be thankful for, beginning with a great faith in God. Add to that family, friends, a long-term relationship, financial security, a nation that is blessed with economic prosperity and a good standard of living.
Yet I never say thankyou for that. How spoilt, ungrateful and annoying am I? And yet the Lord still loves me. Incredible. Time though for some thanksgiven prayer.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The Contradiction of Certainty
Good evening folks. I write this tonight having just watched a programme about snow. Yes, I am that geeky! However, before you turn off/fall asleep/flick back to facebook give me a second to explain a bit more.The programme was a mixture of scientific explination (how snow is made, how many incredible varieties of snow actually exist etc), as well as historical case studies demonstrating both the typical way in which snow falls in the UK and some of the more freakish patterns of snowfall. For the most part it was also very interesting and entertaining - the story about a cricket match in the middle of June being interupted by a sudden flurry of snow bringing about some amusing anecdotes for instance.
Yet, the last ten minutes of the programme left me with a distinctly puzzled thought process. One minute the documentary was explaining how Charles Dickens (who, we were being told, essentially created the notion of a 'white Christmas' in his book The Christmas Carol) grew up experiencing a sucession of literal white Christmas' largely as a result of the massive dumping of sulpheric material in the atmosphere by a truly collosal volcanic eruption in the Philipines in 1815. Such was the impact of the eruption that it altered global weather patterns for a large number of years.
The next minute though the narrator began explaining how Dicken's white Christmas' are becoming increasingly less frequent and that 'worryingly' this is largely a result of the essentially unstoppable process of global warming, or climate change as is now more p.c. in the media.
Fare enough you may be thinking. Whats the problem? Well, in my mind I can't get away from how certain that last point was put across. Essentially climate change and the progressive warming of the planet was put over as if we know for certain that it will happen. Yet, in my mind the documentary itself contradicted that certainty before the point on climate change was even made. The volcanic eruption, an event that by and large we don't really know is going to happen, had such an effect that it produced a climactic event (or events even) that was then discussed as a norm which climate change was altering. So the colder winters of Dicken's childhood, influenced by a proliferation of volcanic material ejected into the atmosphere, are changing because of global warming.
Thus the programme bases something that it just regarded as a change produced in the meteorology by an unsual event (the volcano) as its starting point (which seems a bit unfortunate scientifically), and then seems to reject the way in which an unusual event (such as a volcano, but there are others including the sun which is apparently much less active at the moment than normal and could produced an unexpected global cooling affect) can influence the climate in a way that is hitherto unforseen.
I realise that to slam climate change and its potential effects based on a single documentary seems on the one hand a tad harsh and on the other perhaps even irresponsible. I understand that quite a bit of evidence may well show that the climate is warming as a result of human activity (I say may well because I don't know for certain and have read reports by people who do seem to know what they are taking about which disagrees with the accepted climate change position), and that that evidence is based on long term trends. But my point is that we don't know whats going to happen. The programme on snow talked of freakish events for which we have no explination (in the case of random June snowfall for example, although we understand how it happened - ie a low pressure system was able to move over the UK for an adverse time because a high pressure system moved out to sea - we don't know why that happened, if that makes sense), as well as the mini ice age - a 300 year cooling period that no-one can quite make sense of.
So it is that even with long-term trends suggesting that the earth is possibly warming, it does seem that history is teaching us that we don't know what is going to happen. A volcano could erupt tomorrow which will cool the earth for the next twenty years (indeed it is not without good reason that scientists are considering seeding the Earth's atmostphere with dust so as to replicate a volcanic eruption as means to tackle climate change). The lack of solar activity could produce a stabilisation of the climate in a way not forseen, and that is not to even consider the potential for another mini-ice age.
You may have guessed from reading this that I am a climate change sceptic, if only in the sense that I am aware of the possibilities that lie ahead that we don't know of, that history tells us have happened previously and may occur again. If you are Christian then the Bible speaks of how no-one knows anything about their future (Ecclesiastes 7, v14). I believe that we should not forget that lesson from history (and the Bible) and it is deeply lamentable that the media at least are choosing to present a view of the climate debate that is so certain of the reality of what will happen in our future, that of unstopable man-made climate change.
However I do not believe that should be taken as an excuse for not caring about what we do with this marvellous and amazing planet that we live upon. As a Christian I believe that we are to be good stewards of what God has given us. As someone who is passionate about the outdoors and facinated by so many of the natural sciences (biology, botany, hydrology, meteorology, vulcanology) then I think we should do all we can to care for what we have. But let us do it within reason, and let the debate on climate change be a debate. Rather than presenting each documentary with such an absolute truth of what will happen, lets be humble and willing to listen and present the our arguments with the possibility that we are wrong, whilst caring for this world we all live on.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Bond, James Bond
When I was a young lad I loved James Bond. Even though I was born pretty much as the Bond franchise entered its long drought of no new films, you could always be guaranteed a classic OO7 caper on Saturday afternoon television. For me it was the thrill of the gadget packed chases, filled with British (and a bit of American) patriotism that really made them great spectacles and they inspired any number of spy games between me and my friends (though we always had a plastic spud gun rather than a Walther PPK). Back then I was always facinated by the Roger Moore films in particular as they were always the most gadget packed, the most fun, the most cartoonish, and being a youngster I was blissfully unaware of most of the dodgy innuendo that characterised so many of his films. Genius.
My interest in Bond continued when Pierce Brosnan took over with Goldeneye and I revelled in being part of a generation that actually had its own Bond (since it seemed that wouldn't happen). However, three things happened which changed my appreciation of Bond films. Firstly the Pierce Brosnan films went progressively more and more ridiculous (in a way that the Roger Moore outings somehow managed to avoid). Secondly, as Bond was entering the world of the completely bonkers (Die Another Day being the worst of the lot - lasers and invisible cars. Why?) I was starting to take a great interest in much more clever films. Basically a bit more arty, plot based, beautifully shot films, films that seemed to push boundaries - American Beauty being just one example. Then, to almost kill my interest in Bond I became a Christian and with that gradually began to become more and more put off the films by the way in which Bond interacts with women.
So it was that for most of my time at Uni Bond films dissappeared off my radar. Just as I was beginning to think that that was it though, along came Casino Royale, a film that completely restored the notion of a Bond film as a proper film in its own right, no longer trading of the success of the Bond franchise. Here was a secret agent cut more in the style of Jason Bourne. Hurrah I thought - finally a good reason to watch Bond! Indeed, even the typically mass of innuendo had all but gone. Great stuff! Then Quantum of Solace came out and continued the revitalised Bond genre.
And it is that film, Quantum of Solace, that has brought me to write a Bond blog. I saw the film in cinemas back in the summer of 2008 and I left thinking that it was a pretty good film. Not brilliant but certainly not bad. I then spoke to friends who had seen it who felt that it was awful, a complete rejection of the Bond tradition. That placed question marks for myself on whether I hadn't really left the cinema with a good impression of just how good or bad it was. So, when I saw the dvd on special early release price at Tesco a few weeks back I jumped at the opportunity and bought it.
It was a good decision. What a great film! Watching it a second time gave me an even greater impression of the film. It really is a Bond for our times and I think it needed to be ultra realistic to iron out some of the creases of the later Brosnan films. Like Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan rescued Batman from the terrible cartoonish Val Kilmer and George Clooney years, so Daniel Craig and various directors are working wonders on Bond.
Indeed, I enjoyed watching Quantum of Solace so much that when in HMV the other day, having noticed a Bond dvd sale, I indulged in Thunderball, one of the classic orignal Sean Connery Bonds. And how good was that! I tended to avoid Connery films as a child as they seemed a bit dull compared to Rodger Moore. Watching them now though I can really appreciate just how good a film they were. They were proper films, well written, well produced, extremely well acted. Thunderball even won an Oscar! Can you imagine that happening now?
Watching Thunderball though also gave me some food for thought about Quantum of Solace and Daniel Craig's bond. The Craig films are a real throwback to the Connery era. Comparing the current Bond to Jason Bourne is a bit of a misnomer as Sean Connery's bond was almost as realistic (it goes a bit wrong with You Only Live Twice - space rockets, underground volcanic layers - but still) and just as ruthless. However Connery's bond had the humour and sillyness of Roger Moore and Brosnan. Daniel Craig hasn't yet pulled that off.
If theres any conclusion to this post, its that I am most certainly appreciating James Bond more these days, and that I really, really like whats going on in the world of Bond cinema right now, even if its not as good as Connery. Why? Well it seems that it not going to the case that there will be a Bond film up to the standards of the original, but each successive Bond captures some of the original ingrediants and pushes that to the fore. If you look at the series as a whole you end up with a nice balance. Connery had a it all, George Lazenby took he ultra serious way, Roger Moore produced the escapist silly Bond, Timothy Dalton took us back to ultra serious, Pierce Brosnan started off seriously then went for zaney crazyness and Daniel Craig is taking us to serious again. I would imagine that some sillyness is heading out way soon.
Thanks for reading. :)
My interest in Bond continued when Pierce Brosnan took over with Goldeneye and I revelled in being part of a generation that actually had its own Bond (since it seemed that wouldn't happen). However, three things happened which changed my appreciation of Bond films. Firstly the Pierce Brosnan films went progressively more and more ridiculous (in a way that the Roger Moore outings somehow managed to avoid). Secondly, as Bond was entering the world of the completely bonkers (Die Another Day being the worst of the lot - lasers and invisible cars. Why?) I was starting to take a great interest in much more clever films. Basically a bit more arty, plot based, beautifully shot films, films that seemed to push boundaries - American Beauty being just one example. Then, to almost kill my interest in Bond I became a Christian and with that gradually began to become more and more put off the films by the way in which Bond interacts with women.
So it was that for most of my time at Uni Bond films dissappeared off my radar. Just as I was beginning to think that that was it though, along came Casino Royale, a film that completely restored the notion of a Bond film as a proper film in its own right, no longer trading of the success of the Bond franchise. Here was a secret agent cut more in the style of Jason Bourne. Hurrah I thought - finally a good reason to watch Bond! Indeed, even the typically mass of innuendo had all but gone. Great stuff! Then Quantum of Solace came out and continued the revitalised Bond genre.
And it is that film, Quantum of Solace, that has brought me to write a Bond blog. I saw the film in cinemas back in the summer of 2008 and I left thinking that it was a pretty good film. Not brilliant but certainly not bad. I then spoke to friends who had seen it who felt that it was awful, a complete rejection of the Bond tradition. That placed question marks for myself on whether I hadn't really left the cinema with a good impression of just how good or bad it was. So, when I saw the dvd on special early release price at Tesco a few weeks back I jumped at the opportunity and bought it.
It was a good decision. What a great film! Watching it a second time gave me an even greater impression of the film. It really is a Bond for our times and I think it needed to be ultra realistic to iron out some of the creases of the later Brosnan films. Like Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan rescued Batman from the terrible cartoonish Val Kilmer and George Clooney years, so Daniel Craig and various directors are working wonders on Bond.
Indeed, I enjoyed watching Quantum of Solace so much that when in HMV the other day, having noticed a Bond dvd sale, I indulged in Thunderball, one of the classic orignal Sean Connery Bonds. And how good was that! I tended to avoid Connery films as a child as they seemed a bit dull compared to Rodger Moore. Watching them now though I can really appreciate just how good a film they were. They were proper films, well written, well produced, extremely well acted. Thunderball even won an Oscar! Can you imagine that happening now?
Watching Thunderball though also gave me some food for thought about Quantum of Solace and Daniel Craig's bond. The Craig films are a real throwback to the Connery era. Comparing the current Bond to Jason Bourne is a bit of a misnomer as Sean Connery's bond was almost as realistic (it goes a bit wrong with You Only Live Twice - space rockets, underground volcanic layers - but still) and just as ruthless. However Connery's bond had the humour and sillyness of Roger Moore and Brosnan. Daniel Craig hasn't yet pulled that off.
If theres any conclusion to this post, its that I am most certainly appreciating James Bond more these days, and that I really, really like whats going on in the world of Bond cinema right now, even if its not as good as Connery. Why? Well it seems that it not going to the case that there will be a Bond film up to the standards of the original, but each successive Bond captures some of the original ingrediants and pushes that to the fore. If you look at the series as a whole you end up with a nice balance. Connery had a it all, George Lazenby took he ultra serious way, Roger Moore produced the escapist silly Bond, Timothy Dalton took us back to ultra serious, Pierce Brosnan started off seriously then went for zaney crazyness and Daniel Craig is taking us to serious again. I would imagine that some sillyness is heading out way soon.
Thanks for reading. :)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
On John Adams,,,
John Adams is a man who, if you are a fan of HBO or have been in any branch of Borders or Barnes and Noble (in the US) in the last six months, is in vogue. HBO (with Tom Hanks heavily involved) recently produced a hugely expensive mini-series documenting Adams life (which won many awards and featured a high profile cast centred on Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney), and that mini-series was in turn based off a rather large tombe of book written by David McCullough, one of the leading lights of historical scholarship in the English language.
Being a fan of both HBO produced television and David McCullough I was inrigued when I kept hearing many good things about both tv series and book. And then when I was last in the USA I was regailled with stories about Adams himself, about how as the second president of the United States he was a bit of dude.
So in the last six months I have gradually explored both the mini series and book and as a result greatly increased my knowledge of the man that was and John Adams. And who was John Adams? He was a farmer, a lawyer, a central player in the American Revolution, a diplomat, an economist, a teacher, a friend, a husband and a father. He was the first American ambassador to Holland and to Britain. He nominated George Washington to be the commander of the Continental Army, while at the same time leading Congress to make the decision to declare independence. He secured American credit from Dutch bankers (in effect kick starting the American economy). In between his rather more grand affairs he drafted the Massachussets constitution, before assuming the post of first Vice President of the United States. Then after 8 years as George Washingtons deputy he became the Second President of the United States, a term of office which amongs other things resulted in the formation of the US Navy and the construction of the White House.
And yet this only part highlight Adams the man. He was an exceptional learner and educator (consuming books and such at a phenomenal rate). He strove to be removed from party politics and was willing to take the unpopular stand on issues (perhaps most clearly seen in his defence of British soliders in the aftermath of the Boston massacre). Frequently he would rise early and undertake a 6 mile walk before undertaking the education of himself and his sons, and then go on to meet with the Kings of England and France.
His son John Quincy adams would also go on to be a formidable man in his own write and the Sixth President of the US.
To top all this off John Adams was a Christian, a man who believed that the success of the United States and its government were decided by God.
John Adams was then a remarkable man. To many Americans this may already be a given, but to a Brit who had known nothing of him whatsoever David McCullough's study was something of a revelation. More than just a study of an exceptional fella, McCullough's book was a great insight into the Founding Father's of the United States and something of the reality of how America as a nation came into being.
Having recently read a book on the British perspective of the American Revolution I was beginning to think that America as a nation was that of an unstoppable force, united, organised, led by God's providence to an inevitable nationhood. Indeed, this is an attitude somewhat embraced by modern America too. And in a sense I do not doubt that God's providence was at work in America's creation. However, far from the relentless creation of a instantly unified noble nation, the perspective from the founding father's themselves seems to have been that of a nation weak and hanging nervously on the presipice of destiny, dependant on God or good fortune (depending on which Founding Father) to survive.
Squabbling, dispute, backstabbing - all were features even as the Revolution was still in the making. Once America was established as a nation and recognised by the British amongs others, the features of modern politcs and the media involvement in that process that are so familiar today came into being. Former friends and colleagues in congress ripped whole heartedily into each other. Even Washington was accused of being a monarchist despot. Newspapers tore into politicians on either side of the fence. In short the late eighteenth century seems to be remarkably like the early twentyfirst century in the manner in which politics was enacted, politicians fought and the media sought to manipulate the situation.
All very fascinating. I would heartily recommend both David McCullough's book and the HBO series (though the series takes certain liberties to convey an epic story in 7 episodes) to anyone seeking either a great story (make no mistake that McCullough is great story teller first and formost, presenting history in such a way that is both easy to read and digest) or a real insight into the birth of the USA. Of course, to take one book or tv series as a singular source on people like the Founding Fathers and the Revolution itself is not necessarily wise, but as many out there are not history students, this book is a great place to start, and the tv series is the short and easy option to the book.
To close, some interesting thoughts Adams had on politics:
Being a fan of both HBO produced television and David McCullough I was inrigued when I kept hearing many good things about both tv series and book. And then when I was last in the USA I was regailled with stories about Adams himself, about how as the second president of the United States he was a bit of dude.
So in the last six months I have gradually explored both the mini series and book and as a result greatly increased my knowledge of the man that was and John Adams. And who was John Adams? He was a farmer, a lawyer, a central player in the American Revolution, a diplomat, an economist, a teacher, a friend, a husband and a father. He was the first American ambassador to Holland and to Britain. He nominated George Washington to be the commander of the Continental Army, while at the same time leading Congress to make the decision to declare independence. He secured American credit from Dutch bankers (in effect kick starting the American economy). In between his rather more grand affairs he drafted the Massachussets constitution, before assuming the post of first Vice President of the United States. Then after 8 years as George Washingtons deputy he became the Second President of the United States, a term of office which amongs other things resulted in the formation of the US Navy and the construction of the White House.
And yet this only part highlight Adams the man. He was an exceptional learner and educator (consuming books and such at a phenomenal rate). He strove to be removed from party politics and was willing to take the unpopular stand on issues (perhaps most clearly seen in his defence of British soliders in the aftermath of the Boston massacre). Frequently he would rise early and undertake a 6 mile walk before undertaking the education of himself and his sons, and then go on to meet with the Kings of England and France.
His son John Quincy adams would also go on to be a formidable man in his own write and the Sixth President of the US.
To top all this off John Adams was a Christian, a man who believed that the success of the United States and its government were decided by God.
John Adams was then a remarkable man. To many Americans this may already be a given, but to a Brit who had known nothing of him whatsoever David McCullough's study was something of a revelation. More than just a study of an exceptional fella, McCullough's book was a great insight into the Founding Father's of the United States and something of the reality of how America as a nation came into being.
Having recently read a book on the British perspective of the American Revolution I was beginning to think that America as a nation was that of an unstoppable force, united, organised, led by God's providence to an inevitable nationhood. Indeed, this is an attitude somewhat embraced by modern America too. And in a sense I do not doubt that God's providence was at work in America's creation. However, far from the relentless creation of a instantly unified noble nation, the perspective from the founding father's themselves seems to have been that of a nation weak and hanging nervously on the presipice of destiny, dependant on God or good fortune (depending on which Founding Father) to survive.
Squabbling, dispute, backstabbing - all were features even as the Revolution was still in the making. Once America was established as a nation and recognised by the British amongs others, the features of modern politcs and the media involvement in that process that are so familiar today came into being. Former friends and colleagues in congress ripped whole heartedily into each other. Even Washington was accused of being a monarchist despot. Newspapers tore into politicians on either side of the fence. In short the late eighteenth century seems to be remarkably like the early twentyfirst century in the manner in which politics was enacted, politicians fought and the media sought to manipulate the situation.
All very fascinating. I would heartily recommend both David McCullough's book and the HBO series (though the series takes certain liberties to convey an epic story in 7 episodes) to anyone seeking either a great story (make no mistake that McCullough is great story teller first and formost, presenting history in such a way that is both easy to read and digest) or a real insight into the birth of the USA. Of course, to take one book or tv series as a singular source on people like the Founding Fathers and the Revolution itself is not necessarily wise, but as many out there are not history students, this book is a great place to start, and the tv series is the short and easy option to the book.
To close, some interesting thoughts Adams had on politics:
- He was fiercely against politcal parties, believing it would deeply harm America as a nation.
- He was bemused at the idea of creating a nation in which everyone would be completely equal and felt that trying to attempt to create such a country was a bit silly. Everyone is equal before God and slavery was an abomination (to Adams) but in every country in history and forever more, there would always be disparites in wealth and such between people.
- He was also deeply suspicious that even something like democracy would have its short comings as it still depended on humans and they were and would be deeply flawed.
- He wisely noted that it was inevitable that any nation would throw up an average leader as all of society contained average people, so why should a leader always be exceptional.
I could go on but it is perhaps better to read the book yourself. Enjoy.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Time Table
Perhaps one of the least interesting blog posts I've put up of late, but I hope this is a topic that will itself be useful in helping me to take two steps forward rather than two steps back (if you'll forgive the poor use of phrase), which seems to have been the case of late..In essence, after a few hours of prayer the other day I've decided that I could really use a timetable of sorts. One that will help me to gain discipline and structure in what would otherwise be an unstructured day/week/month/year. I have no idea what it will entail but here are some of the things I believe it should provide for:
- At least one time with the Lord a day - prayer and Bible study.
- At least one time with the Lord each week dedicated to Steph, and another for friends, and another for family.
- At least one period each day dedicated to jobs - even if I choose a course of study in the next year, I think this is important.
- One or two periods a week considering, researching, talking to people about a PhD and/or a Masters.
- Some form of exercise each day - even if its just an hour.
- Make time available for relaxation - I realise I do a lot of this already, but its not stress releaving. Infact its more often as not me watching something or reading whilst also being very stressed about not having a job etc. To relax knowing that I have been putting in some effort would be great.
- Invest some time each week in friendships. Be it e-mails, texts or even (gasp!) meeting up with people.
- Make cleaning and general domestic activity a priority at least once a week - cleaning my room and another part of the house.
- E-mail, send a card to, or facebook message Steph - as we move into the tail end of our second year of transatlantic dating, this surely has more importance than ever before.
- Spend an hour a week considering receipts and my finances.
I realise thats probably of no interest to you dear reader, but its been a useful five minute brain storm of activity as I plan this new timetable. Remarkably there seems like a lot to cram in there.
Thankyou as ever for checking in and reading. I do hope you enjoy the picture. It is of a rather remarkable sunset at Formby beach just the other day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
