tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-265142732009-04-25T01:17:25.618-07:00Read Keith"The amateur, in consequence, will always grudgingly receive details of method, which can be stated but never can be wholly explained." -Robert Louis StevensonKeithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-28875628399427144252008-05-11T20:25:00.006-07:002008-11-13T09:58:06.580-08:00Remembering Old Books<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/SCe7jCZCKlI/AAAAAAAAADo/2K55AsgPGWQ/s1600-h/Image009.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/SCe7jCZCKlI/AAAAAAAAADo/2K55AsgPGWQ/s320/Image009.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5199330505434212946" border="0" /></a><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Recently I pulled an old book of my shelf.<span style=""> </span>The book was so old the gold foil lettering had worn off and I couldn’t tell what it was without opening it up.<span style=""> </span>It was a tiny hard cover, only 4”x5” with scrolling gold leaf on the spine and the author’s signature in relief on the cover.<span style=""> </span>A tattered red ribbon marker fell limply from between the first few pages which hung to the rest of the book by only the thinnest of fibers.<span style=""> </span>There is no publication date but Google tells me Collin’s Clear-Type Press most likely issued this book sometime between 1915 and 1927.<span style=""> </span>Then, it must have been a deep vibrant red.<span style=""> </span>Now it is worn, faded and water stained.<span style=""> </span>As I held it in my hand I saw it was a copy of “The Three Musketeers” by Alexandre Dumas.<span style=""> </span>It’s a story I’ve read before, but not one I’m particularly attached to and considering the poor condition of this copy I wondered why I would bother to buy it.<span style=""> </span>But as I thumbed through it the reason jumped out at me off the page.<span style=""> </span>It wasn’t anything Monsieur Dumas or his translator had written, or even the beautiful illustrations by F.C. Tilney scattered throughout.<span style=""> </span>On the inside of the title page is three short of lines of script written in pencil.<span style=""> </span>Most likely these lines are a quotation from a play or famous poet.<span style=""> </span>I’ve never tried to find out.<span style=""> </span>I prefer to think that they were written by the person who purchased the book, and meant as a comfort to someone they loved.<span style=""> </span>(I’m a romantic, sue me.)<span style=""> </span>Here are the lines as they appear in the book:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><i style="">When twilight draws the<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><i style="">Curtains and pins them with<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><i style="">A star, I will remember you<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><i style="">Dear.<span style=""> </span><br /></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><i style="">J. <span style=""> </span></i><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>I keep this book because there is a story behind it.<span style=""> </span>And I don’t mean Porthos, Athos, Aramis and D’Artagnan and “One for all, and all for one.”<span style=""> </span>I mean the story of J. and whomever he or she is remembering.<span style=""> </span>I’ll never know anything about those two people but nonetheless, every time I pull the book off my shelf, I’ll remember them both.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-2887562839942714425?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-19607021480548861042008-01-24T20:36:00.000-08:002008-11-13T09:58:06.753-08:00Regularly Scheduling<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/R5lrHe93NDI/AAAAAAAAADY/dDZUw1ReO7g/s1600-h/ColorBarsForPremiere.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/R5lrHe93NDI/AAAAAAAAADY/dDZUw1ReO7g/s320/ColorBarsForPremiere.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5159272624445404210" border="0" /></a><br />When I was in college I was the owner of the largest TV in my entire apartment complex. (That's not to say that I had a large TV. But when you live in campus housing, most of your neighbors tend to be on a budget, thus keeping the average television size pretty low.) Several nights a week, various friends, acquaintance and the occasional random passerby, would drop in to make use of the big screen, abundant seating (we were one of the few apartments to have two couches) and digital cable. (I sprang for the extra $10 a month service.) TV became a regular part of my routine. I even started planning my study sessions around new episodes of Battlestar Galactica and Grey's Anatomy. (A favorite of the girls downstairs.) When I moved home, I brought my TV habits with me. It's much more difficult to watch with a group in suburbia were everything seems to be a 20 minute drive away, but I managed to find one group to watch Heroes with and another for The Office. Plus there was always my sister who shares my taste in TV.<br /><br />But what to do about this writer's strike? I need my TV! And I needed on it's regularly schedule time. The answer? The glorious invention known as Digital Video Disc. Between myself, my sister and a couple of friends, I have access to what must be dozens of full seasons TV. But I couldn't just start watching shows at random. I needed that security of prime time lineup. So I made my own. One episode of each show, on the same night each week. If you see any thing you like, feel free to drop by.<br /><br /><b>Sunday</b><ul><br /><li>Malcolm in the Middle<br /></li><li>The Simpsons<br /></li><li>The X-Files<br /></li><li>Playmakers~<br /></li><li>Masterpiece Classics*<br /></li></ul><br /><b>Monday</b><ul><br /><li>Firefly<br /></li><li>Space: Above and Beyond<br /></li><li>Battlestar Galactica<br /></li><li>Terminator: The Sara Connor Chronicles*<br /></li></ul><br /><b>Tuesday</b><ul><br /><li>Scrubs<br /></li><li>The Office<br /></li><li>Keen Eddie<br /></li><li>Chuck<br /></li></ul><br /><b>Wednesday</b><ul><br /><li>Dark Angel<br /></li><li>Alias<br /></li><li>Veronica Mars<br /></li></ul><br /><b>Thursday</b><ul><br /><li>30 Rock<br /></li><li>What I Like About You<br /></li><li>Gilmore Girls<br /></li><li>Heroes<br /></li></ul><br /><b>Friday</b><ul><br /><li>Friday Night Lights+<br /></li><li>Dead Like Me<br /></li><li>Arrested Development<br /></li><li>How I Met Your Mother<br /></li></ul><br /><b>Saturday</b><ul><br /><li>Miniseries or Movie<br /></li></ul><br /><span style="">*new episodes<br />+new and dvd episodes<br />~subject to change without notice</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-1960702148054886104?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-30811570428594473392007-08-04T10:57:00.000-07:002008-11-13T09:58:07.183-08:00The Bourne Catchy-Title<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/RrS_mbGxAaI/AAAAAAAAABw/K5Lvzah4y9w/s1600-h/BLCVNS_D005_04858.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5094907745294942626" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/RrS_mbGxAaI/AAAAAAAAABw/K5Lvzah4y9w/s320/BLCVNS_D005_04858.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-size:+0;"></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">I read somewhere close to 300 film reviews in any given year.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Sometimes I’ll read a review because I’m interested in the film.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Other times, I respect the particular critic’s viewpoint or enjoy his or her writing.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In all the reviews I’ve read, a subject which comes up very rarely and then only in passing, is the actual movie going experience itself.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">Oh don’t get me wrong, critics love to talk about the theater as cathedral to the religion of film.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>They talk about the extra emotional weight a capacity crowd adds to the images on screen.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And they talk about viewer reaction to particularly funny/tense/scary/emotional moments in the movie.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>But they never talk about waiting in line.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then paying $10 for a ticket.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then waiting in line.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then paying $15 dollars for soda and popcorn.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then waiting in line.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then filing cattle-car style into the theater only to find that all the best seats have been taken and you have to sit between Comic Book Store Guy from The Simpsons and a woman trying to nurse her crying baby.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>(Oh and the chair is sticky from the 5 year old who managed to spill his entire soda onto the seat in the previous showing.)</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">They don’t talk about any of that, because they don’t have to <i>do</i> any of that.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>No, film critics get to go to <i>press screenings</i>.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I know because I’ve seen them.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I’m on the list.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>No, not “<i>THE</i> LIST”, or even “The List.”<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I’m on “the list.”<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Every once in a great while, when the stars align (in this case the stars being a press screening for a film produced by Universal Studios, that’s in Seattle, and isn’t already full) I get an email with information on how to get two passes into the screening.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">This is a very rare occurrence.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In fact, it has only happened three times in six years.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The first time was for a movie called <i>The Bourne Identity</i>.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Having read and loved the Robert Ludlum novel on which the film was based, I was very excited to see it.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I walked into the theater, flashed by pass at the skinny guy in the box office and was pointed toward a theater.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>No lines, no cash, no hassles, just walk right in and pick any seat I want.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>(Oh and instead of sticky dried up soda and candy wrappers on the seat, there’s a gift bag waiting for me.)<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then comes the hand delivered (free) popcorn and soda.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Then came the movie.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And it was awesome!<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>How can critics ever dislike a movie when it’s this much fun to go!</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">Last night I went to the late showing of the newest Matt Damon action-spy-thriller, <i>The Bourne Ultimatum</i>.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The follow up to 2002’s <i>The Bourne Identity</i> and 2004’ <i>The Bourne Supremacy</i>, Ultimatum stars Damon as an amnesiac government assassin hell-bent on exacting revenge (justice?) for his lover’s murder by his former employers.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>(As if you didn’t know that already.)<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The first two films were some of the best action movies of the past decade.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>So good in fact that many, myself included, believe they served as the model for the re-imagining of that most ubiquitous of action heroes James Bond.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>This third Bourne is better.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>(And not just because a prediction of mine about Julia Styles’ character Nicky was proved correct.)</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">In the first two films Jason Bourne must fight three of his fellow assassins who have been sent to kill him.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>All are members of a group called Treadstone.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In Ultimatum, the agents sent after Bourne belong to Treadstone’s successor Blackbriar.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Presumably they are products of training methods perfected beyond what was used on Bourne who is, we find, the very first agent.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In many ways they are better assassins than Bourne because of it. At one point I turned to my friend in the theater and said of one of the Blackbriar assassins, “Did that guy just outsmart <i>Jason Bourne</i>?!”<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In fact he had.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Bourne then proceeds to kick the crap out of him.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The enemy Bourne faces in this film is all powerful.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>They can tap into any security camera, listen in on any cell phone call, assassinate anyone, anywhere.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>But it doesn’t really matter.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>When they come up against Jason Bourne, they’re powerless.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Is it because they represent the filmmaker’s ideas of an intelligence community with too much freedom and not enough oversight?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Or because Bourne’s cause is just?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Or simply because it makes for a really cracking action movie?</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">I prefere the third explanation.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Yes, if you are so inclined you can infuse this film with some politically relevant theme.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>But for me that makes the film a waste of money.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I paid to see a movie and have a good time, not sit through a political science lecture.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And as for Bourne’s cause being just, it’s Bourne who commits the most heinous, despicable act in the whole movie.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>We identify with Jason Bourne because he has changed.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>He is no longer an assassin, but the fact remains that he killed quite a few people in cold blood and with no explanation necessary.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Jason Bourne’s quest has very little to do with him being righteous.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Instead, he understands that it is not enough to simply no longer be Jason Bourne.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>He must ensure that they’re will never be another Bourne… born.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>(Sorry.)<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And in that, the character finds at least a small bit of redemption and allows us as an audience to root for him.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">But mostly there’s a lot of punching, crashing and shooting.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>And it’s awesome!<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Even if I did have to wait in line this time.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-3081157042859447339?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-23567785352134553342007-08-01T23:00:00.000-07:002007-08-03T18:27:03.128-07:00Today's TomorrowI'm supposed to publish something today. I wanted it to be a review of The Bourne Ultimatum. Problem is the movie won't be released until Friday. So I'll see you on Saturday.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-2356778535213455334?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-11456038373585103352007-07-05T21:42:00.000-07:002008-11-13T09:58:07.389-08:00Fighter Pilot Dreams, Part 1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/Ro3J6ao_DKI/AAAAAAAAABo/J3uYvyR_yxc/s1600-h/f15.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/Ro3J6ao_DKI/AAAAAAAAABo/J3uYvyR_yxc/s320/f15.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5083941559791979682" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;">When I was young I watched Top Gun every day for two years straight. I can still quote most of the film word for word. From age six to age seventeen all I ever thought about becoming was a fighter pilot. At first it was simply because I wanted to be Iceman. (Most kids want to be Maverick. Not me.) top Gun lead me very quickly to other sources. I cleared out the local library's aviation section. I watched the Discovery Channel religiously, hoping to hear about the Battle of Britain or “MIG alley.” I spent hours playing “A-10 Tank Killer” on out family computer. By the age of twelve, I was an expert in the history and lore surrounding combat aircraft and the men who flew them. I learned very quickly that I wanted to become a fighter pilot for reason other than just simple idol worship. I craved the freedom of the wild blue. I craved the power and performance provided by huge engines stuffed into tiny airframes. I craved the challenge, both physical and mental, of piloting a fast, agile craft right up to the edge of the envelope.</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />Tom Wolfe called it, “the right stuff.” The pilots he wrote about certainly never called it that. In fact, they never talked about it. But they all knew what it was, they all knew it when they saw it, and they were all completely confident that they had it. Wolfe says, “As to just what this ineffable quality was... well, it obviously involved bravery. But it was not bravery in the simple sense of being willing to risk your life... No the idea here (in the all-enclosing fraternity) seemed to be that a man should have the ability to go up in the hurtling piece of machinery ad put his hide on the line and then have the moxie, the reflexes, the experience, the coolness, to pull it back in the last yawning moment...” That's all very dramatic, but trying to learn from that just what “the right stuff” is and how you can get it, is like trying to learn combat tactics by watching Top Gun 400 times. What I needed to know was what “it” looked like. I needed to know how to get it. For that, I had to go straight to the source, to “the most righteous of all possessors of the right stuff: Chuck Yeager.” Yeager was and still is the yard stick by which all fighter pilots are measured.</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Charles Elwood Yeager was born in Lincoln County West Virginia in 1923. As an Army Air Corp. officer, he flew P-51 Mustangs in the European theater of World War II. He became the first man to eject over enemy territory and later return to combat. He is also one of only a handful of American pilots to score five or more kills on a single mission. To make five aerial kills, to “ace” has been the mark of a good fighter pilot since the very early days of air combat in the first World War. Less than 1000 people have ever done it. To become an “ace in a day,” elevates a pilot into even more rarefied air. He finished the war with twelve kills total, a “double ace.” While his combat record made him a legend in military and aviation circles, it was what he would accomplish after the war that would make Chuck Yeager a household name. On October 14, 1947 he did what no man had ever done before. At 45,000 feet above the Mojave Desert, Yeager flew the Bell X-1 test plane to a speed of Mach 1.1 (around 800mph) breaking the sound barrier. The list goes, Wright, Lindberg, <i>Yeager</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, Armstrong.</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />Yeager says ever since the film version of “The Right Stuff” came out, the question he's asked most often in if he thinks he has the right stuff. He says, “I know that golden trout have the right stuff, and I've seen a few gals here and there that I'd bet had it in spades, but those words seem meaningless when used to describe a pilot's attributes.” You can imagine my confusion upon finding these words in Yeager's autobiography. If I'm not looking for “the right stuff” then just what is it that I need to have? What is it that I need to know? What is it that I need to do to find my way into the cockpit of a jet fighter? </span></span><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" lang="en-US"> </p><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: normal;">“'Combat vision,' we call it. You focus out to infinity and back, searching a section of sky each time. To be able to see at such distances is a gift that's hard to explain, and only Andy [Yeager's best friend during the war] and I could do it.” And there it is. I had to have </span><i>eyes</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. Good ones! Of all the other qualities a fighter pilot had to have, Yeager believed that it was his eyesight that set him apart from every other “good” pilot. To be able to see the enemy first, be able to see trouble coming before it gets to you, before it's too late to do anything, it's what keeps a pilot flying and makes him one of the best.</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />When I was in the fourth grade, our entire class was sent down to the nurse's office in groups of three to have our eyes checked. I went first.</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />“Cover your right eye with your hand.</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />“Good, now please read line eight for me.”</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />I tried to read line eight but I couldn't tell the F's from the P's, the Q's from the O's. This was bad.</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />“O.K. Keith, how about we try line four.”</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /><br />I tried line four. I had to guess on most of them, but I was pretty sure I got them all right. I </span><i>had</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> to get them right.</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i><br /><br />Just write down on you little nurse's clipboard that I have good eye! Write it down. “Keith has great eyes! His eyes are so good he should be a fighter pilot!”</i></span></span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /><br />“O.K. Keith can you tell me what the top letter is?”</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i><br /><br />The top letter?! What is she talking about? Everyone knows only old people have to read the top letter. This is really bad.</i></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />“It's and 'E',” I say, utterly confused.</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i><br /><br />How is this possible? I have to have perfect eye sight.</i></span></span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /><br />She sends me back to class with a note for my parents. When it was all over, I had three visits to the optometrist and a set of this, gold framed lenses. Today I wear a contact lens with a diopter power of -5.00. That translates to rough y 20/400 vision without the lenses. It was a major set back for me. But I would continue to purse my goal. There was hope for me yet, as my eyesight in one-hundred percent correctable. With my contacts in, I have 20/15 vision in both eyes. I would need a medical waiver in order to fly, but my need for speed had not faltered. I would find a way.</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />There is a killer instinct which all good fighter pilots have. It's a blood lust. A willingness to do anything to win, to bring the other guy down. Yeager's closest friend during and after the war was Andy “Bud” Anderson, a “triple ace” with 17 kills. “On the ground, [Andy] was the nicest person you'd ever know, but in the sky, those damned Germans must've thought they were up against Frankenstein or the Wolfman; Andy would hammer them into the ground, dive with them into the damned grave, if necessary, to destroy them.”</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /><br />My father refused to let me play football until I was in the seventh grade. It was most likely just a financial concern as youth football was very expensive while junior high football was covered by his tax dollars. When junior high eventually rolled around I joined the team, and would finally get to prove I had that component of “the right stuff.” Football is the closest you can get to war in a civilized society, without actually going to war. </span>The game of Football is an avenue for aggression. In a developed society which frowns on violence, men have found it necessary to channel their fundamental need for combat into the arena of organized sport.<span style="font-style: normal;"> And in the game of football, there is no position which fits Yeager's description; a violent, relentless unopposable force of a fighter pilot better than middle linebacker. So that's what I'd be. And I was right. I </span><i>was</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> good at it. While I didn't have the pure athletic talent of some of my teammates, that willingness to go right into the “dive with them into the damned grave,” that I had. I was aggressive and ruthless and despite my lack of speed, still managed to find the ball carrier. I even started using the “Combat vision,” that Yeager talked about. I called it “tunnel vision.” It was like a spot light shooting out through my eyes. I could focus it down to one tiny, intense beam to notice the smallest change in an offensive lineman's balance. Or I would broaden it out to cover the whole field and see a splint end motioning down to crack block the defensive end. When the ball was snapped, I didn't hesitate. I flew to a spot on the field where I knew the ball would be. Often, I got there before the offensive player did. Just as a pilot has to know where every plane is in a dogfight, what's called “situational awareness,” I knew where all 21 other players on the field were, and more importantly where they were going to be. </span></span></span></span><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-1145603837358510335?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-15767827128103551762007-06-11T22:03:00.000-07:002007-06-11T22:10:58.335-07:00I Am a Lazy Person.Most of the stuff here on my blog was not written for the blog. It was written for a class or some other project then published here. This has to change. I won't be taking any more writing classes. Which means I have to motivate my self to write. It's not easy. I'm pretty busy with other stuff. But you can help me out. I am committing to publishing a new piece on the 1st and 15th of every month. If I do not do so, could the four of you who read this blog please be as annoying as possible in asking me why I haven't published. Thank you.<br /><br />And now, another (and possibly the last) piece I wrote for a class. This time, I was asked why I am seeking a Masters Degree. My answer follows.<br /><hr /><br /> I am a college graduate. I hold a Bachelor of Arts in History. This means I am qualified to do almost nothing. There are a few things I can do really well. I can use microfiche readers. I can perform complex boolean searches in obscure online databases. I can take information gleaned from microfilms, from online sources, and from books and articles and turn it into a coherent piece of original historical thought. Try putting that on a resume. For most open positions, having a history degree is roughly equivalent to speaking fluent Romanian. Interesting, but hardly useful. <br /><br />History, like a few other select subjects (Latin, Feminist Studies, etc…) is a self sustaining field. Meaning that the only thing learning it qualifies you to do is teach it. (I find this ironic, since the very thing that drew me to History was the fact that its scope is limitless. There is literally no subject which cannot be studied under the banner of “History.” In fact many historians find themselves experts in other fields because they have studied the history of those fields so extensively.) Whether the act of teaching comes in the form of lecture at an institution of learning, or through the publication of a book, or through an appearance on a History Channel special presentation, the only thing historians do, other than study history, is teach it to other people. Which is convenient for me, because teaching is exactly what I want to do. I love history. I have a love of all things past, a fascination with how what once was has shaped what is today. And having the opportunity to inspire that fascination in others has been the driving force behind my entire academic career.<br /><br />This is where my decision to seek a graduate degree comes in. I want to teach history. Specifically, I want to teach history at the middle/high school level. And while I have the history in “History Teacher” covered (I even know a little about the history of teaching. Socratic Method anyone?) the teaching part needs some work. I want to learn about connecting with students from different backgrounds. I want to learn about child development and psychology. I even want to learn about lesson plans and presentation methods. I am beginning the process of earning a Masters in Education because I want to be fully prepared to be a successful educator in today’s classroom. Also, no one will hire me with out it.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-1576782712810355176?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-10322011342841970122007-03-22T18:13:00.000-07:002007-03-22T22:41:59.347-07:00Am I Done, or Did I Just Start?I finished college today. Classes ended last week. These last few days were finals week. The only thing I had to do was finish up a paper. But not just any paper. I had to finish a 25 page monster of a History paper. Basically, it amounts to an undergraduate thesis. It is now done, and will be turned in early tomorrow morning. I am (justifiably I think) pretty proud of it so... here it is.<br /><br /><span style="color:red;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">WARNING:</span> Do not continue reading unless you are a History nerd! 7,300 words (not including endnotes and the bibliography) on the Protestant Rhetoric in Early Modern England can cause violent head aches, bloody stool and even death in those not properly acclimated to it. </span><br /><br /><a href="javascript:ReverseContentDisplay('catholics')"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Catholics in Disguise:</span> Protestant Rhetoric as Justification for English Conquest<br /></a><br /><div id="catholics" style="display: none;"><br />The Protestant Reformation is a seminal event in European history, and its effects were felt by much of the rest of the world in the years following as European powers spread their influence and built empire. The reformation was a city by city movement in the German states where it first took hold. While it found some support from men in high places, many of its primary proponents, men like Martin Luther, were lacking in hereditary power. Rather they gained their power through an appeal to the common man, using new tools of propaganda like Gutenberg's printing press. The reformation in Germany was set off by Luther and others as a reaction to what they viewed as corruption at high levels of the Catholic Church. But across the Channel in England, the Protestant Reformation took on a decidedly different character. In The Beginning of the English Reformation, Hugh Ross Williamson says of the initial separation between London and Rome, “For their was no immediate doctrinal cleavage. The Reformation in England differs radically from that in Germany.”1 Williamson continues on to explain that reformation ideologues of the Lutherian mold were scarce in English society. He quotes from Sir Maurice Powicke who states in The Reformation in England, “The one definite thing which can be said about the reformation in England is that it was an Act of State.”2 The English reformation was brought about primarily through the actions of a single person, the head of state, King Henry VIII. Williamson claims, “The later doctrinal change was merely an ideological justification for the political and economic revolution which the Act of State deliberately initiated.” While later proponents of Protestantism in England advanced religious reform of church doctrine, they did so inside the framework of a political revolution, meant to establish the King as supreme authority on all matters inside his borders, both secular and religious. Maintaining that supreme authority became a justification for the extension of the English Protestant Reformation outside the borders of England, and for the subjugation of Irish Catholics and Scottish Non-conformists alike.<br /><br />Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and a favorite of Henry's3 tells us, “...the English care neither for Pope nor Popes... not even if St. Peter should come to life again... the King is absolute both as Emperor and Pope in his own kingdom.”4 The King of England was the head of the Church of England, and that church, for the safety and security of the state, was the ultimate religious authority, independent of any outside influence, just as the political and economic policies of the state were independent of foreign actors and influence. This type of religious autonomy for a political state was unique to England. “The doctrine that within his realms a king was not only head of State... but also the head of the church—that he was the source,” says Richard Rex in Henry VIII and the English Reformation, “of not only temporal but spiritual jurisdiction—was unprecedented.”5 We see, in the justification for such a drastic change in political and religious power structure, a beginning of what Stewart Mottram refers to as the “rhetoric of nationhood”6 and even an extension of that nationhood into an external quest for empire.<br /><br />In Reading the Rhetoric of Nationhood..., Mottram suggests that, while Henry VIII and his royalist supporters, in their discussions of nation, may have only had an “...empire confined to the contours of England...”7 in mind, they used in their arguments the examples of Constantine and Arthur. He claims that for many observers, both at the time and in the coming years, the use of these, “historical figures imply, not Henry's pretensions to empire in the English Church, but his aspirations to conquest beyond the shores of his sceptred isle.”8 While in practice Henry may only have had consolidation of his internal power in mind with his break from the Pope, the language his supporters found it necessary to use, would imply to many that he had ambitions for the English throne of an empire in the model of Constantine's Rome.<br /><br />If under Henry VIII the foundation for English Protestant empire was laid, then it is under his daughter and eventual successor, Queen Elizabeth I and the following Stuart monarchs that the framework is put up, and the shape of a national identity can begin to be seen. In Bonfires & Belles, David Cressy details the formation of the Anglican calendar which took place during the Elizabethan and Stuart era. He says, “Though founded on Christianity, purged of the excesses of late-medieval Catholicism, the guiding landmarks were taken from recent incidents in English history. The calendar became an important instrument in declaring and disseminating a distinctively Protestant national culture.”9 Through use of a calendar which emphasized celebration of events exemplifying a distinct Protestant nature (newly established under Henry VIII) all of England began to be brought together by their common religion, forming a nation with a shared Protestant identity.<br /><br />Over the course of the sixteenth century, this English cultural identity was partially defined in positive terms. England was Protestant. But Elizabethan English subjects also defined their national identity in negative terms. They were not Catholic. Two events in particular, established a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in late sixteenth and early seventeenth century England. The first was the English Navy’s encounter with the Spanish Armada. Commanded by the Duke of Medina Sidonia, the Armada consisted of one-hundred thirty ships. It was an invasion fleet, sent by King Philip II of Spain with the support of Pope Sixtus V, meant to return England to the Catholic fold and place it under the control of Philip II who had a loose dynastic claim through his wife Mary, Elizabeth’s sister.10<br /><br />Despite attempts to mobilize the country-side, England was ill prepared for a ground defense should the Armada manage to land its troops. Cressy tells us that the navy on the other hand, was well equipped, well lead and, designed around small fast ships armed with quick-firing guns, was perfectly suited to fighting against the larger but slower Spanish galleons.11 This advantage, while evident to historians, was unknown to the English at the time. The Armada, and the Spanish and Catholic aggression toward England it represented, was a credible and dangerous threat. So grave was the situation, that to many only a miracle could save the English Realm. Prayer, according to Cressy, became as important to national defense as horses, guns, and sails. “These prayers formed a new national litany…” he states, “They served, at one level, to alert and to warn the country and to bring about a pious and determined national consensus.”12 The Armada served as a common enemy for all of England to unite against, under the banner of a beleaguered Protestant nation weathering the storm of Catholic aggression.<br /><br />The Armada did not land its armies on English soil. It was defeated, in the summer of 1588, in a series of battles with a smaller, more maneuverable English navy. The prayers of an entire nation were answered. As Cressy puts it, “Their request for a sign that God had taken England into his special protection was gloriously granted through his scattering of the Spanish fleet.”13 In the minds of its people, England became a favored nation. God had delivered it miraculously from the grasp of Catholic heathenism. But the threat of Catholicism still loomed. Cressy explains, “Yet England was still at war, facing the most formidable enemy in Europe. There were still traitors to deal with at home and the massed forces of Antichrist overseas. Even the breaking and scattering of the Armada, however miraculous, might only delay a renewed Spanish onslaught. The failure of the Armada meant respite, not victory.”14 The threat of foreign Catholic takeover remained a rallying point for the ever more zealous Protestant English.<br /><br />An international Catholic menace was not the only danger with which English Protestants had to deal. There was also the matter of Catholics within England itself. And no incident exemplified the threat these English Catholics posed more clearly in the minds of Protestant English, than the events of 5 November 1605. In 1604-5, a group of English Catholics devised and put into motion a plan to blow up the Parliament building while the royal family and both houses were present. One of the conspirators, Guy Fawks, placed twenty barrels (around one ton) of gunpowder in a cellar beneath the House of Lords. A group of Catholic Gentlemen, under the guise of a hunting party stood ready outside London to seize control of the government in the confusion of the aftermath. But the explosion never came. Fawks had been found out, and under torture, gave up the names of his co-conspirators who were rounded up, tried, convicted and executed.15<br />The Gunpowder Plot, as it would be known, confirmed Protestant England’s worst fears about their Catholic co-habitants. As Cressy states, “The plot was interpreted as further proof of the relentless evil of Roman Catholicism…”16 The nation of true Christian Protestants believed it was under attack from without and from within.<br /><br />Just as important to the formation of English identity as who was against them, was the way in which these two and other attacks were defeated. Credit was given, not to the men who had lead or served in the navy, or ferreted out the conspiracy, but instead to God and his mercy. England, Protestant England, was the chosen nation of God and received his mercy, protection and deliverance form the evil Catholic horde.17 For years (even centuries) afterward 5 November, Guy Fawks Day, and the Gunpowder Plot were used by preachers, statesmen and Kings alike to remind the people that their identity as Christians, as Protestants, as Englishmen, made them a part of God’s select. Any threat to the state or its royal person was a threat to the Church of England. The reverse was also true; any threat to the Church of England was a threat to the Crown and the State and to their status as privileged members of God’s protectorate nation.<br /><br />While grave threats to the English nation from abroad existed, a great physical separation between these threats and the British Isles meant that the danger they posed, while serious and important was not always immediate. And while the Gunpowder Plot certainly brought to light the dangers that Catholics living in England could pose, the number of Papists willing to go to such lengths to strike at the state and its representatives remained, for the most part at a manageable level. But another threat, made up of a large and hostile population, existed within the British Isles themselves. Ireland, while remaining a separate kingdom, had been partially or completely under English control since the twelfth century. But following the English Protestant Reformation, a movement breaking England’s ties with the Catholic Church in Rome and a revolutionary change in which Ireland did not share, remaining Catholic by in large, conflict between to two kingdoms, always a possibility, appeared to be inevitable. Nicholas Canny, in his text, Making Ireland British: 1580-1650 explains that, while England had tried in 1598, to settle English Protestants in Ireland, they had been thrown out with Spanish backing and support. This, “…brought it home to Queen Elizabeth and her advisers that a real possibility existed that England’s interest in Ireland would be obliterated, and that Ireland would become a satellite jurisdiction of the Spanish monarchy.”18 Once again, the threat of Spanish Catholicism rears its head. Canny continues, “It was to prevent the effective encirclement of England by the power of Spain that the government authorized a level of military expenditure in Ireland such as could not have been imagined even a decade earlier.”19 What had primarily been a civilian settlement operation now became a military occupation. These occupations lead to several more Irish uprisings including the Irish Rebellion of 1641. It was this rebellion which convinced, “…even reasonable Protestants, that society in Ireland was depraved.”20 This depravity prevented the Irish from joining their English neighbors in a civilized Kingdom.<br /><br />The goal of these English occupations was not simply to keep Spain out of the British Isles. The English settlers, “…were determined to reshape the character of the people and society in Ireland to a model which they defined as British.”21 The English settlers saw it as their goal to convert Irish Catholics to Protestantism, thus allowing them to remove themselves from their depravity and join with them as Britons. In an open letter written in 1698 to “the Roman Catholics of Ireland” Sir Richard Cox writes, “I May Reason expect that you should give some regard to the following Admonitions, since They Result from the Compassion of a Gentleman, the Charity of a Christian, and the Affection of a Friend; and their Design is to promote the Safety and Happiness of the Kingdom in general, and of You in particular.”22 Cox, who would eventually become lord chancellor of Ireland, was an Irishman, orphaned at a young age and educated in England.23 His goal in writing this letter is to convince Irish Catholics to convert to Protestantism. His reason for wanting them to do so is to further the “safety and happiness” of the entire British Kingdom.<br /><br />Cox states clearly that he does not believe the Irish Catholics to be Christians, and therefore they can not be good subjects of the Crown. They cannot be British. “I ought first to Enquire how far you are from being Good Subjects or Good Christians, whilst you continue Papists.”24 Cox paints a picture of the Irish Catholics as feuding, violent, distempered people. This feuding, he says, did not improve after the English conquests.25 But his primary point of contention with the Irish Roman Catholics is not their apparent lack of a civilized societal structure. It is their lack of loyalty to the King, caused he believes by their prior loyalties to the Pope. He says, “How far too many of You are from being Good Subjects to a Protestant King, who you believe Damn’d, and wish Dethron’d.”26 He points out that while the Irish claimed loyalty to King James II, they did so only as a, “…Popish Friend, and not as an English King.”27 Thus, any loyalties that the Irish may profess while still remaining Catholic are the, “Pretended Loyalty of Superstitious and Bigotted Papists, especially Clergy-man, [and are] appropriated to the Court of Rome, not to the Crown of England”28 Here, both the loyalty and honesty of Irish Catholics is called into question.<br /><br />William Penn, a Quaker and the founder of the Pennsylvania colony29 says in his essay The Oaths of Irish Papists no Evidence Against Protestants, “Protestants in general are suppos'd to be very well satisfied of this Real Truth, That 'tis a Popish Principle inseparably annext to that Faithless Religion, That Faith is not to be kept with hereticks.”30 Penn argues that the oaths of Catholics can not be trusted in court, because their oaths of loyalty to the King and his representatives are not genuine. It is a principle of the “Faithless Religion,” to break trust with those who are not Catholic, therefore the word of these Irish Papists is not to be trusted.<br />Sir Richard Cox's reasoning operates on this same idea, that Irish Catholics can not be trusted, because they are Catholic. He says, “And if you will consider that you in Ireland, who believe the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope. Whenever the Pope Excommunicates the King [you] must either renounce your Allegiance or your Religion, and turn either Protestants or Rebels.” According to Cox, there is no middle ground for these Irish Papists. They must either remain Catholic and therefore be forced to break their oaths of loyalty to the English Protestant King, or convert themselves and be welcomed into civilized, faithful, Protestant Britain. According to Alexandra Walsham's text Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700, an, “...emotional and imaginative elision between Catholicism and treacherous support for foreign powers,” existed in England.31 To be Catholic was to lend your support to a foreign body. One could not be both Catholic and British.<br /><br />The two Kingdoms of England and Ireland fell under control of the English monarchy. Due to separation both by the Irish Sea and by heritage, they remained separate entities. England controlled Irish politics and courts, but they did so as an occupying force, often a military one. The attorney general for Ireland, Sir John Davies,32 discusses in detail the various attempts by both the Crown and wealthy English subjects to subdue Ireland and bring it under the full control of the English monarchy beginning during the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century. Originally published as two separate texts in 1612 and 1613, the full title of Davies’ combined 1664 edition was, Historical relations, or, A discovery of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued nor brought under obedience of the crown of England, until the beginning of the reign of King James of happy memory.33 Davies claims that it was a lack of resolve on the part of the English would-be conquerors which lead to Ireland remaining functionally separate from England beginning with the original invasions by Henry II and continuing up to the reign of “King James [I of England] of happy memory.” (When, as has already been discussed, the threat posed by Spain’s support of Catholic Ireland forced English Protestants to take a more serious approach to the conquest of Ireland.) He then compares the conquest of a nation to farming a plot of land. He says:<br /><br />"For the Husbandman must break the land, before it be made capable of good seed: and when it is thoroughly broken and manured, if he do not forthwith cast good seed into it, it will grow wilde again, and bear nothing but weeds. So a barbarous Country must be first broken by a war, before it will be capable of good Government; and when it is fully subdued and conquered, it if be not well planted and governed after the conquest, it will eft-soons return to the former Barbarism."34<br /><br />Ireland must be firmly broken through military action, then seeded with civilian government and settlement. None of the previous occupations of Ireland met Davies’ conditions for the “Perfect Conquest,” because they did not bring about the, “…reduc[tion of] all the people thereof [in Ireland] to the Condition of Subjects: and those I call Subjects, which are governed by the ordinary Laws and Magistrates of the Soveraign.”35 This is Davies primary point of contention. Though the King of England bore the title of Lord of Ireland, he was unable to, “…punish Treasons, Murthers, or Thefts, unless he send an Army to do it.”36 The King could not enforce the law, and was therefore Lord in name only. This was a problem for the English during the time period Davies is discussing, but for Sir John and his contemporaries, the continued resistance of barbarian Ireland to the civilizing effects of English conquest takes on an even greater importance during and after the English Protestant Reformation.<br /><br />In late 1643, Evan Tyler published a series of resolutions sent between the parliaments of Scotland and England that same year. The stated goal of these documents was the, “…reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happinesse of the King, and the peace and safety of the three kingdomes of Scotland, England and Ireland.”37 For the authors, the goal of “…bringing the Kingdomes to a more near conjuction and union…”38 could come about only after a reformation of religion. They state their intent, “By the blessing of God , for [] settling and preserving the true Protestant Religion, with perfect Peace in his Majesties Dominions, and propagation of the same to other nations, and for establishing his Majesties throne to all ages and generations.”39 The concept of “Britain,” the joining of all the territories of the British Isles under one sovereign King, and a “British Empire” the expansion of British civilization into other nations, existed in the minds of English Protestants, but the political bodies of Great Britain and the British Empire did not, and could not so long as the Irish continued to remain Catholic. The beginning of a British empire would not be the joining of England and Ireland, but of England and Scotland.<br /><br />England began its physical transformation into the British Empire in 1603 with the death of Queen Elizabeth I, and the ascension of James I. It is important to note that James I of England was also James VI of Scotland. James I (VI) became in effect, the first British emperor, ruling over, and recognized as the King of two separate nations at once. But two nations they remained. In The Formation of the British State, Brian P. Levack, writing of the coronation of James I says, “It did not unite the laws, political institutions, or churches of the two kingdoms and did not therefore create a united kingdom, a united British state, or a single British nation.”40 The union of England and Scotland was dynastic only, and the religions and cultures of the two nations stayed separate. James however, was reluctant to let them remain so. Almost immediately he began a series of attempts to unite his two kingdoms politically, economically, and religiously. Part of his reasoning was logistical. Since he intended to rule both kingdoms from London, the possibility existed for Scotland to become alienated if its political system remained entirely separate from England's. The other half of his reasoning was less pragmatic. Levack says again, in reference to James and his supporter's logic, “The further union of England and Scotland was the fulfillment of a historical and divinely inspired plan.”41 The new English King believed it was God's will to have the two kingdoms united, and since James I was now the head of the Anglican Church, his church had a divine right to rule over the worship of his Scottish subjects as well as his English ones. These attempts to unite the kingdoms met with resistance on both sides of the border, and in the north much of the objection centered on the ecclesiastical hierarchy which James and the Church of England wanted to subject Scotland to. These unionizing attempts were for the next century, largely ineffective.<br /><br />It takes one hundred years and a civil war and a and the defeat of a Scottish religious uprising to unite the two kingdoms permanently beyond the sharing of a crown. In 1707, with the support of Queen Anne in England and the Court Party in Scotland, The Treaty of Union was signed into law by both parliaments. Levack says, “The Treaty established a single British state—the United Kingdom of Great Britain.”42 In between the regal union of 1603 and the parliamentary union 1707, is a century of upheaval, conflict, propaganda and negotiation. Cromwell's union attempt typifies the nature of Anglican-Scottish relations during the seventeenth century. Scotland's parliament was merged with England's, but Scotland remained a militarily occupied territory and a protectorate of England, after its and the King's defeat in the civil war in 1651. This prevented the rising of any sort of national union from Cromwell's revolution. The Anglo-Scottish union would return to is regal character after the Restoration in 1660 when English troops were removed from Scottish land.<br /><br />Into this climate of tenuous relations the Scottish rebellion of 1679 enters. The rebellion is the work of religious agitators who are upset by Charles II attempt to establish ecclesiastical control over their services. To English observers, the rebellion is an overt attempt to subvert the development of a British state, something which good supporters of the King have been seeking since even before the Regal union of 1603.<br /><br />Published in London in 1679, A Fresh Relation of the King's Army in Scotland... is a discussion of the movements of troops on both sides of the Scottish Rebellion and a listing of certain officers and other important men who had joined the fight on one side or the other. Though we know the exact time and date of its writing, midnight June 20th, all that is known of the author are his initials; T.W. Taking the form of a letter, the piece is addressed simply to “Sir,” hinting that the author most likely expected his words to find a much more broad audience. In fact, T.W. very quickly states his wish to have his letter read by persons other than his addressee; “For I do not doubt but all good Subjects in England are much concern'd to be from time to time inform'd of the true matter of Fact of such an insolent Rebellion.”43 A Fresh Relation..., which is at its heart a piece of war propaganda, has for itself a very general English audience in mind. Opinions expressed in the letter are meant to be shared by and disseminated among a public congregation.<br /><br />The author uses religious imagery throughout the piece. He begins with a portrayal of the primary actors in the Scottish Rebellion as the crucifiers of Christ. This general use of Biblical reference very quickly moves into a more specific, Anglican protestant versus all others conflict. “Further then as We are good Subjects and hearty Well wishers to the true Protestant Interest which at such a juncture of Time seems not a little endangered by this Insurrection...”44 This conflict then, is one of importance to a “protestant interest” which it is expected will be understood by a general English audience.<br /><br />Had the rebellious Scots been Catholic, this “protestant interest” could be easily seen in the Anglican Church's need to suppress any Popish strong hold so near their own borders, as was the case in Ireland. But the dissenters here are not Catholic at all, they are Presbyterian. The rebellion is in response to Charles II attempts to introduce Anglican worship into Scotland. How then can the suppression of Presbyterian Protestantism by an Anglican Protestant army be seen as advancing a “protestant interest?” The important piece is the “true” protestant interest, as opposed to the interests of the Presbyterians who must, because their interests do not align with Anglican ones, not be true Protestants. It was in fact an “English interest” which is being promoted. But the author of A Fresh Relation... draws no distinction between the two. Protestantism defines what it means to be English and English Protestantism is the “true” Protestantism. Any threat to England is therefore a threat to Protestantism. Any threat to Anglican Protestantism is a threat to England itself.<br /><br />Just as the Catholics of Ireland could not be British because of their ties to Rome, the Presbyterians can not be British because they refuse to recognize the authority of the King in religious matters. Because the King was both head of Church and head of State, and because he was clearly recognized as the King of Scotland, this heresy of Scottish Protestants was also treason. “During the reigns of Elizabeth, James and their successors,” says Alexandra Walsham “this resulted in the legislative coalescence of Protestantism with patriotism.”45 Religious non-conformists were prosecuted as traitors to the Crown, who was also head of the Church, rather than simply as heretics. Walsham claims that a key to the success of the English Protestant Reformation was, “...to focus questions about its legitimacy on loyalty rather than theology.”46 Any attack on the theology of the Anglican Church was an attack on the Kingdom of England and proved the disloyalty of those voicing it.<br /><br />Anglican Protestants believed that they were in fact in conflict with the Catholic Church, and that Scottish Presbyterianism was simply a manifestation of the influence of Catholicism in any part of the world not currently recognizing the authority of the Anglican Church.<br /><br />The Scottish Rebellion of 1679 was almost exclusively religiously motivated. Its primary promoters were Presbyterian ministers angered by King Charles II attempts to convert Scotland to the Anglican version of Protestantism. Two of these ministers, John Kid and John King were executed for treason on the 14th of August, less than a month after the effective end of the military rebellion at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.<br /><br />Of the two, King was the more famous, or infamous, having been arrested or captured no less than four times. He was made a wanted man in 1675 and upon his final capture on the 9th of June 1679 (less than a week after having to be rescued from another imprisonment by rebel soldiers) he was tried, convicted and hanged along with Kid the following month. The two minister’s heads, arms and legs were removed and placed on public display.47 King and Kid's<br />final sermons were published that same year, and in 1680 were republished along with a preface and commentary by George Hickes. Hickes, an Anglican bishop from Yorkshire48 was adamant in his condemnation of King and Kid. Written for both Scottish and English readers his book, The Spirit of Popery Speaking out of the Mouths of Phanatical-Protestants..., begins with a preface laying out his intention to connect the heretical teachings of Scottish Presbyterians with Papal loyalists and Catholic bishops within England and on the European continent.<br /><br />Hickes' first order of business is to establish the Scottish Presbyterians as belonging to a wholly different sect then their English counterparts. “Therefore the principle design which I had in publishing all this, was for your sakes, O ye Nonconformists from our Sister Church of England... who I cannot but believe, are ignorant of the nature of the Separatists... because upon all occasions, you appear as much concerned for them, as if you thought that their cause and yours were the same.” Hickes Scottish sympathizers within the English Presbyterian community (who he still clearly identifies as English) are simply uninformed of the true nature of the rebellious Scots. He continues, “Did you not take them for a more rational, and innocent Sect than they are, you would, I am confident, be ashamed to correspond with them, who are the shame of the Presbyterian name.”49 Within England, there way be subjects who do not accept the theological cannon of the Anglican church, yet they nonetheless submit to the authority of Charles II as head of state and church. These sentences are the first seeds of the argument which will grow from Hickes' exhaustive commentary on the speeches of King and Kid.<br /><br />The bishop's primary points of contention with the Scottish Presbyterians are not strictly theological, but have to do with how the church interacts with the secular state. He maintains that the minister is only able to preach when he possesses an indulgence from the King granting him permission to do so. He believes, “...that ministers depend on the secular power for the actual exercise of their ministry.”50 It is the minister's refusal to accept any sort of direction from a secular source (the King) in the prosecution of their ministry which Hickes claims is so dangerous to the health of the nation.<br /><br />Throughout his commentaries, Hickes makes direct comparisons between Scottish Presbyterians and the Jesuits. “Like a Jesuit he pretends to suffer upon a Religious account, though he really suffer'd as a disturber of the government, and as a Traitor and Rebel to the King.”51 The minister (in this case, Kid) claims that his hardships are a result of religious piety while Hickes claims it is simply due to his unwillingness to submit his teachings to the oversight of the Anglican church. Where Kid tells his congregation about his previous imprisonment and torture, Hickes has very little sympathy for him saying of the torture, “Which was applied to him to make him confess his accomplices in the rebellion.”52 For Hickes, the imprisonment and torture of these rebels is acceptable, and even necessary for the protection of the kingdom. He compares the minister's refusal to acquiesce under torture to that of the Jesuit monks. Much of his commentaries on the two sermons are devoted to this topic; connecting the actions of Scottish Presbyterians to those of the Jesuits. He claims that, like Jesuits, whom the English widely believe to be members of a secret society bent on the overthrow of God’s chosen nation of England, the sectarian ministers refuse to accept any sort of secular authority over their actions.<br /><br />Hickes is not the first to use the language of church and state in describing a Scottish rebellion. One-hundred and sixty years earlier, Sir Richard Morison used similar language in describing the rebels still loyal to the Pope after Henry VIII reformation and the creation of the Anglican church. Morison spent four years as a law student at the University of Padua in Italy. It was here that he was first exposed to the ideas of religious reform and where he became involved with a group called the spirituali.53 In, An English Friendship and Italian Reform: Richard Morison, 1532-1538, M.A. Overell describes Morison as a well liked young student, interested in many subjects, but also points out that he was extremely short on cash. He took loans from several of his fellow students and even pawned many of his books. Overell says, “The young Morison might be expected to be especially watchful, not because he was firmly in the reform camp in the early 1530s, but because he was a hard-up young humanist in search of a job. At a time of dramatic change, he needed to observe religious 'form' and choose winners.”54 Overell continues, explaining that Morison's reform leanings, brought on both by his surrounding influences and his need for gainful employment, caused him to look to prominent English protestants for employment, among them Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII chief minister. In 1536, he was called back to England by Cromwell.<br /><br />The same year, amidst the conflict between royalists loyal to the crown and Papist loyal to the Pope, Morison wrote a book called A Remedy for Sedition... In it he outlines a system of government which includes, but is not subject to, an Anglican protestant church. He writes, “For as there must be some men of polycie and prudence, to discern what is [] to be done in the government of states, even so there must be other of strength and redynes, to do what the wyser shall thynk expedient, both for the mayntenance of them that governe, and for the eschewying of the infinite ioperdies that a multitude not governid falleth into.”55 For Morison the state, England, has become more important and more powerful than the church. As such, the needs of the state must come before the needs of the church. It is the government, made up of wise men which decides what is expedient for the nation. This is in stark contrast to continental Europe Morison had just left, where each state is in a very real sense subject to the decisions of the Pope and the powerful Catholic Church. Morison then, was a nationalist, placing King and country above the rule of a far away religious ruler.<br /><br />The extent to which Morison's type of nationalism toward kingdom and religion became common place in the century and a half after the reformation becomes evident in the writings of T.W. and Hickes on the subject of rebellion in the late seventeenth century. First, the Presbyterian rebels are not to be viewed as true protestants. T.W. says, “...I am satisfi'd that the Principles of the tumultuous Rebels here, are so different from the sentiments of those commonly call'd Presbyterians amongst You in England, that they can have no more concernment in or kindness for these Traitoerous [], than all the Nonconformists had for those Madbrain'd Fifth-Monarchy-men that once attempted to disturb Your Peace.”56 As was noted earlier, this echoes a statement made by Hickes. T.W. and Hickes are in agreement, the Presbyterian rebels are not true protestants because they are not Anglican; in fact, they are little better than Catholics dressed up as Presbyterians, spreading the insidious words of the Vatican. These Presbyterians, like Jesuits, refuse to submit to secular rule and are therefore a threat to the prosperity of the nation, and since the welfare of the nation is of greater importance than the sectarian religious beliefs of a portion of its people, these rebels must be made to submit to the rule of the King as head of the Church, else the entire nation is at placed at risk.<br /><br />What would come to be called the British Empire, began as an English empire with conquests in and victories over Scottish and Irish dissidents. The formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain was the first step toward the creation of the largest empire in history. While this expansion would often bring England into direct conflict with Catholicism, particularly France and Spain, even when there was no Catholic enemy to be found, the empire would always be defined as an expansion of Protestantism.<br /><br />Extending into North America, Africa, Central and South Asia and Australia, the vast landholdings of the Kings and Queens of England constituted what was for a time one of the largest and most powerful nations in history. While this holding is commonly referred to as the British Empire, Peter Scott reminds us “Britain is an invented nation, not so much older than the United States.”57 “Britain” and “British” as concepts are created as real entities only after the joining of the four nations (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) through conquests, either political or military, and a series of rebellions. While the populations and resources of all of the United Kingdom were used for the expansion of the Empire outside the British Isles, within them, distinct divisions still existed.<br /><br />In her article Britishness and Otherness: An Argument, Linda Colley claims that Britons defined themselves as such not because of what they had in common, but rather because of their common differences to “the Other;” an unnamed antagonizing force outside of Britain having something to do with Catholicism and against which a constant vigil had to be maintained. She says, “Britons defined themselves in terms of their common Protestantism and contrasted with the Catholicism of Continental Europe... They defined themselves, in short, not just through an internal and domestic dialogue but in conscious opposition to the Other beyond their shores.”58 While a united front becomes necessary in order for imperial expansion to succeed, Colley states, “The invention of a British national identity after 1700 did not obliterate these other, older loyalties.”59 Scots still used derogatory terms to describe Englishmen. A large majority of Welshmen still spoke Welsh by choice. And Ireland, due in part to its separation from England by the Irish Sea and in even greater part to its aversion to the Protestant reformations of England Scotland and Wales, remained (as much as it could) a separate nation politically as well as socially, taking part in Imperial expansion only on an individual level.<br /><br />The early origins of the British Empire lie in the English Protestant Reformation. Henry VIII, in establishing himself as head, not only of the Kingdom of England, but also of the new Church of England, gave precedent to the defining of Britishness as Protestantism. Through obvious and overt threats to the Kingdom of England from Spain and other Catholic realms and from Catholics within England, a hostility and suspicion of Catholics permeated English politics and social attitudes in late Tudor and Stuart England. The Anglican Church was a division of the state, therefore any deviation from the teaching of the church, Catholic or otherwise was seen as treasonous and threatening to the Crown and to the integrity of the nation as a whole.<br /><br />In Ireland, this belief that differing theological views could be politically damaging lead to the occupation and attempted conversion of Irish Catholics still loyal to the Pope. The Catholics were seen, because they were not Protestant and therefore not British, as uncivilized and depraved, seeking the direct downfall of the Kingdom of England. In Scotland similar language was used to describe non-conforming Protestants who refused to recognize the authority of the King in matters of religion. Their insurrection, viewed as damaging to the state, placed them firmly outside the British fold. These two sister nations to England had to be brought into line, both for the safety and security of the British Isles, and in order to allow the expansion of Anglican Protestantism.<br /><br />The idea of England as a chosen nation of God, delivered from the grasp of evil Catholic opponents by the grace of the Almighty is one that gives the English a reason, a right, an obligation even, to pursue the uniting of the British Isles for the protection of the state. It is possible that this manifest destiny is the cause of the remarkable expansion of the British Empire across the globe in the centuries following the Reformation. England had an obligation to continue to assert its holy status by expanding against the forces opposing it, whether those forces took the form of barbarous Ireland, non-conforming Scotland, Catholic Spain in the New World, or to use Linda Colley’s example, the Chinese Empire,60 made little difference to Protestant England.<br />-----<br /><font="bold">Notes:<br /></font="bold"><ol><br /><li>Hugh Ross Williamson, The Beginning of the English Reformation (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1957), 6.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>F. M. Powicke, The Reformation in England (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 1.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, eds., The Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1917), vol. II, 1126-1130.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Stewart Mottram, “Reading the Rhetoric of Nationhood in Two Reformation Era Pamphlets by Richard Morison and Nicholas Bodrugan.” Renaissance Studies 19, vol. 4 (2005): 523-540.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Richard Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation (New York: St. Marin's Press, 1993), 13.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Mottram, 523.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 530.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 530.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>David Cressy, Bonfires & Belles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), xi.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>James S. Olson, Sam L. Slick, Samuel Freeman, Virginia Garrard Brunett and Fred Koestler, eds., Historical Dictionary of the Spanish Empire, 1402-1975 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), s.v. “Spanish Armada,” by William Robison.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Cressy, 111.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 113.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 117.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 116.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ronald H. Fritze and William B. Robison, eds., Historical Dictionary of Stuart England, 1603-1689 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1996), s.v. “Gunpowder Plot (1605),” by Jo Eldridge Carney.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Cressy, 142.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British: 1580-1650 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 165.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 551<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Sir Richard Cox, An Essay for the Conversion of the Irish (Dublin: Joseph Ray, 1698), 1.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Stephen and Lee, vol. I, 1339-1341.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Cox, 1.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 3.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 2.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 5.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 7.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Stephen and Lee, vol. XV, 756-765.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>William Penn, The Oaths of Irish Papists no Evidence Against Protestants (London: William Inghall, 1681), 2.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), 52.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Stephen and Lee, vol. V, 590-594.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Sir John Davies, Historical Relations… (Dublin: Samuel Dancer, 1664)<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 4-5.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 6.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>A solemn league and covenant… (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1643), 1.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 2.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 3.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Brian P. Levack, The Formation of the British State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 1.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 7.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 12.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>T.W., A Fresh Relation from the Kings Army in Scotland... (London: s.n., 1679), 1.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 2.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Walsham, 52.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Stephen and Lee, vol. XI, 139-140.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, vol. IX, 801.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>George Hickes, The Spirit of Popery Speaking out of the Mouths of Phanatical-Protestants... (London: H. Hills &amp; Walter Kittleby, 1680), 2.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 16.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 15.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid, 11.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>M.A. Overell, “An English Friendship and Italian Reform: Richard Morison and Michael Throckmorton, 1532-1538,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 3 (2006): 478-493.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Sir Richard Morison, A Remedy for Sedition... (London: Thomae Bertheleti, 1536), 4.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>T.W., 2.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Peter Scott, Knowledge and Nation (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), 168.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Linda Colley, “Britishness and Otherness: An Argument.” The Journal of British Studies 4, vol. 31 (1992): 309-329.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Ibid.<br /><br /></li><br /><li>Colley, 311.<br /><br /></li><br /></ol><br />-----<br /><font="bold">Bibliography:<br /><br />Secondary Sources:</font><br /><br />Armitage, David. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200.<br /><br />Brady, Thomas A. Protestant Politics: Jacob Strum (1489-1553) and the German Reformation. Atlantic Highland, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1995.<br /><br />Canny, Nicholas. Making Ireland British: 1580-1650. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.<br /><br />Colley, Linda. “Britishness and Otherness: An Argument.” The Journal of British Studies, 1992 31(4): 309-329.<br /><br />Conway, Stephen. “War, Imperial Expansion and Religious Developments in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Britain and Ireland.” War in History, 2004 11(2): 125-147.<br /><br />Cowan, Ian B. “Anglo-Scottish Relations.” Historical Journal, 1989 32(1): 229-235.<br /><br />Cressy, David. Bonfires & Belles: Nation Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.<br /><br />Fritze, Ronald H., and William B. Robison eds. Historical Dictionary of Stuart England, 1603-1689. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1996. s.v. “Gunpowder Plot (1605),” by Jo Eldridge Carney.<br /><br />Fry, Somerset. The History of Scotland. London: Routledge &amp; Keagan Paul, 1982.<br /><br />Levack, Brian P. The Formation of the British State: England, Scotland, and the Union. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.<br /><br />Marotti, Arthur F. Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy: Catholic and Anti-Catholic Discourses in Early Modern England. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.<br /><br />Mottram, Stewart. “Reading the Rhetoric of nationhood in Two Reformation Pamphlets by Richard Morison and Nicholas Bodrugan.” Renaissance Studies, 2005 19(4): 523-540<br /><br />Olson, James S., Sam L. Slick, Samuel Freeman, Virginia Gerrard Brunett and Fred Koestler eds. Historical Dictionary of the Spanish Empire, 1402-1975. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. s.v. “Spanish Armada,” by William Robison.<br /><br />Overell, M.A. “An English Friendship and Italian Reform: Richard Morison and Michael Throckmorton, 1532-1538.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2006 57(3): 478-493.<br /><br />Pincus, Steven C.A. Protestantism and Patriotism: Ideologies and the Making of English Foreign Policy, 1650-1668. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.<br /><br />Rex, Richard. Henry VIII and the English Reformation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.<br /><br />Scott, Peter. Knowledge and Nation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990.<br /><br />Stephen, Sir Leslie and Sir Sidney Lee, eds. The Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.<br /><br />Terry, C. Stanford. “The Duke of Monmouth’s Instructions in June 1679.” The English Historical Review, 1905 20(77): 127-129.<br /><br />Walsham, Alexandra. Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.<br /><br />Williamson, Hugh Ross. The Beginning of the English Reformation. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1957.<br /><br /><font="bold">Primary Sources:</font><br /><br />A Bloody and Cruel Plot Intended by the Popish Army and Their Adherents Against the Kings Majesty… London: H.R., 1643. (STC 243:E91, 29)<br /><br />A Further Account of the Proceedings Against the Rebels in Scotland… London: s.n., 1679. (STC 1093:1)<br /><br />A Further and More Particular Account of the Total Defeat of the Rebels in Scotland… S.I.: s.n., 1679. (STC 1093:2)<br /><br />A Solemn League and Covenant… Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1643. (STC 1623:5)<br /><br />A True Account of the Great Victory Obtained Over the Rebels in Scotland by His Majesties Forces… London: s.n. 1679. (STC 853:11)<br /><br />Cox, Sir Richard. An Essay for the Conversion of the Irish… Dublin: Joseph Ray, 1698. (STC 1328:24)<br /><br />Davies, Sir John. Historical Relations… Dublin: Samuel Dancer, 1664. (STC 488:1)<br /><br />Hickes, George. The Spirit of Popery Speaking Out of the Mouths of Phanatical-Protestants. London: H. Hills &amp; Walter Kittleby, 1680. (STC 357:6)<br /><br />L.W. A Full and True Account of the Late Brave Action Perform’d by the Inniskilling-men… London: E. Brown, 1690. (STC 678:9)<br /><br />Morison, Sir Richard. A Remedy for Sedition… Londini: In aedibus Thomae Bertheleti regii impressoris, 1536. (STC 1800:9)<br /><br />--- An Exhortation to Styre All Englyshe Men to the Defence of Theyre Contreye… Londini: In aedibus Thomae Bertheleti regii impressoris, 1539. (STC 1837:10)<br /><br />Penn, William. The Oaths of Irish Papists no Evidence Against Protestants… London: William Inghall, 1681. (STC 1025:9)<br /><br />T.W. A Fresh Relation from the King’s Army in Scotland… London: s.n., 1679. (STC 678:12)<br /><br />Well-wisher to His Majesty. A Short Compend or a Description of the Rebels in Scotland in Anno 1679. Edinburg: s.n., 1681. (STC 1579:10)<br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-1032201134284197012?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-2692741612459832072007-03-21T11:43:00.000-07:002007-03-24T21:02:35.902-07:00Endeverance - Club Corridor<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.endeverance.com"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://i14.tinypic.com/309mpp5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-269274161245983207?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-50474278107584892592007-03-14T18:11:00.000-07:002007-03-22T22:22:48.896-07:00Re-Entry.mp3I recently read aloud a revised (once again) version of the Re-Entry piece posted below for a class I'm taking. I thought it was an interesting form of expression, so I've recorded myself reading it, and posted the .mp3 bellow.<br /><br /><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" class="abp-objtab visible ontop" href="http://readkeith505.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/audio-player/player.swf"></a><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://readkeith505.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/audio-player/player.swf" id="audioplayer1" height="24" width="290"><param name="movie" value="http://readkeith505.wordpress.com/wp-content/plugins/audio-player/player.swf"><param name="FlashVars" value="playerID=1&amp;bg=0xf8f8f8&leftbg=0xeeeeee&amp;lefticon=0x666666&rightbg=0xcccccc&amp;rightbghover=0x999999&righticon=0x666666&amp;righticonhover=0xffffff&text=0x666666&amp;slider=0x666666&amp;track=0xFFFFFF&border=0x666666&amp;loader=0xBF8DFE&amp;soundFile=http://www.gabcast.com/casts/8548/episodes/1173920379.mp3"><param name="quality" value="high"><param name="menu" value="false"><param name="bgcolor" value="#eaecd7"></object><br /><span style="font-size:-2;">download file:</span> <a href="http://www.gabcast.com/casts/8548/episodes/1173920379.mp3"><span style="font-size:-2;">reentry.mp3</span></a><p></p><br /><br />Sorry about the poor audio quality. I think it turned out pretty good considering I used my cell phone to record it. Let me know what you think. If this is something you'd like to hear more of, maybe I'll invest a couple of bucks in a microphone.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-5047427810758489259?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-9378710811080398972007-03-09T13:28:00.000-08:002008-11-13T09:58:07.834-08:00Re-Entry<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/Rdz8kd-eG-I/AAAAAAAAABI/p3LMrESoBlI/s400/earthrise2.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/Rdz8kd-eG-I/AAAAAAAAABI/p3LMrESoBlI/s400/earthrise2.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I was born on a Monday and the following Sunday was my first visit to church. The habit that began on my sixth day of life, would continue through my 21st year. The church became my community. It was my family, my home and my social center. It was where I could find all the people I couldn't live without. Then I moved away. I’ve spent the last few years in college. Having lived without a church, having lived a hundred miles away from the structure that defined me, I wonder how it will be when I go back. In just a few weeks I'll be graduating. I'll be moving back home. And that will mean a re-entry into my world of faith. <br /><br />I feel as if I've been on the moon, with only a sixth of the earth’s gravity to keep my feet on the ground. I’ve changed my perspective on faith. It’s not a matter of losing it. My faith has never wavered. Faith, like gravity, is a constant. But the magnitude of that faith has lessened. Soon I’ll be making my way back, on the verge of starting that fiery drop back into the atmosphere. The re-entry will be fast and turbulent. Falling like so much metal and plastic back into the gravity well. And for a while afterward, my legs will be weakened from the low-g environment of college life where your only concern is your own well being. But eventually, that physical adjustment will get made. I’ll remember that life is a shared experience. Eventually I'll relearn how to act like an inhabitant of my blue and green church world. Won't I?<br /><br />Did Pete Conrad ever feel like this? As he stepped off that tiny craft 240,000 miles from home? Did he ever feel like having stood here, in this place, he could never truly go back? I imagine there was a sign there to greet him, like the ones on the road leading into little towns in Idaho. “Welcome to the Moon. ‘A great place to see the world.’ Population: You.” And that's how I feel. Like it's just me. The only inhabitant of an entire celestial body. <br /><br />I can only imagine what Captain Charles “Pete” Conrad, USN, saw as he shuffled through the eons old dust sprinkling the surface of his new satellite. But I know what he saw when he looked up into the sky, with no atmosphere to distort the view. What he saw was home. The earth, so small he could close one eye, hold up a thumb and make it disappear. A pure, unfiltered view of all life, all at once. What better place to find God than the surface of the moon, where there's 300 degrees difference between night and day, and where the magnitude of his creation can be seen in a way no human eye ever has before. <br /><br />So maybe that's what I remember seeing now. Standing away, looking back. Despite the isolation of life alone at college, I could turn back and see, really see for the first time, everything that made life worth living. Maybe it won’t be like it was. I can forget about canned air and dried ice cream. I can move on from piles of dirty t-shirts and ramen noodles four nights a week. But I’ll never forget that view.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-937871081108039897?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-21183814818949932432007-02-21T17:52:00.000-08:002007-03-09T13:28:24.436-08:00To the Moon and Back (How the university experience altered everything.)Scratch that. See above.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-2118381481894993243?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-72150800878141629772007-02-11T20:44:00.000-08:002007-02-11T18:44:31.440-08:00To Rhonda: Explosions and Car Chases!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thecia.com.au/reviews/d/images/departed-poster-1.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://thecia.com.au/reviews/d/images/departed-poster-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />It is no coincidence that the words "actor" and "action" have the same root. My sister implied (most likely in jest) that the prospect of an action movie containing a good performance by an actor or actress was unheard of. (Read her piece <a href="http://wattsupwithrhonda.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-action-movie-with-good-acting_11.html">here</a>.) This is a common misconception among women* and film snobs. I hereby submit as evidence a listing of action films which received an Academy Award nomination in one of the four acting categories. (This is by no means a comprehensive list. Most of it is from memory and I have excluded sports films.)<br /><br />The Right Stuff (Shepard)<br />Apocalypse Now (Duvall)<br />Gladiator (Crowe, Phoenix)<br />Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (Depp)<br />Platoon (Berenger, Dafoe)<br />Saving Private Ryan (Hanks)<br />Glory (Washington)<br />Apollo 13 (Harris)<br />Aliens (Weaver)<br />Pulp Fiction (Jackson)<br />The Departed (Wahlberg)<br />Unforgiven (Hackman)<br />The Deer Hunter (Walken)<br />The French Connection (Scheider, Hackman)<br />The Sand Pebbles (McQueen)<br />The Bridge On the River Kwai (Guinness)<br />Star Wars (Guinness)<br />A History of Violence (Hurt)<br />Collateral (Foxx)<br /><br />Plus a few more which received no nomination, but probably should have.<br /><br />The Bourne Supremacy (Damon, Cox)<br />The Bone Collector (Jolie, Washington)<br />Enemy at the Gates (Fiennes, Harris, Weisz)<br />Inside Man (Foster, Owen, Washington)<br />Silverado (Glenn, Glover, Hunt)<br />Panic Room (Foster, Whitaker)<br /><br />Generally speaking, performances in action movies are assumed to be bad. This is because if an action movie contains good performances, the movie critic will simply rename it a "drama" and state that the action sequences were "particularly well done." Thus making bad or mediocre performances the only ones left in the action genre. Thankfully this cop-out of cynical snobbery is a loophole through which so many good films and good performances have received their just rewards from critics as well as from the movie going public. It's a shame comedies don't have a similar back door into award ceremonies. There appears to be an unwritten rule that no actor or actress performing in a comedic role will ever be nominated for a major award. (Johnny Depp being the exception which proves it.) This is of course excluding the Golden Globes, which wisely sets aside an entire category for musical or comedic performance. Naturally this category tends to be dominated by the "musical" half of that equation... hmmm, maybe another list is in order. Rhonda, care to help me out?<br /><br />*I am fully aware that there are women who enjoy action movies. I am also aware that the number of them is directly proportional to the number of men who enjoy romantic comedies.)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-7215080087814162977?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-14523792517423437202007-01-22T10:25:00.000-08:002008-11-13T09:58:08.065-08:00A Five Sent Motel Room<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/RbUDThPHJVI/AAAAAAAAAA8/mmOizVEtqdc/s1600-h/HoHumMotel.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/RbUDThPHJVI/AAAAAAAAAA8/mmOizVEtqdc/s320/HoHumMotel.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5022924593275807058" /></a><br /> Best Westerns are dives. Motel 6's? Junk heaps. Travelodges? Arm pits of the motel industry. I've been to and slept in more shoddy little chain motels than I care to count. Mostly on road trips with my family. They're all the same. Same sheets, same towels, same low pressure shower heads sputtering out the same lukewarm water. The day old pastries at the complimentary continental breakfast always give you the same queasy full but far from satisfied feeling. You ate the first two strawberry/raspberry/blueberry/cinnamon/custard/raisin glazed whatevers and thought that would be enough. But now there's that sense that what you just ate may have taken up space in your stomach but won't provide sustenance. So you have another, or five. Then there's the raisin-bran in the giant plastic container with the sliding door on the front. How can they screw up raisin-bran? Easy! They just give you tiny little styrofoam bowls that only hold two or three plastic spoonfuls of cereal. Good luck getting a full breakfast out of one of those. By the time you realize what's happening, that it doesn't matter what or how much you eat from the lackluster display, you've no room left for real food. Yep, that's the same too. Until I was twelve I thought “continental” meant _______.<br /> <br /> God forbid you get the smoking room. For years smokers were spread out among all the rooms. The only time you noticed was when the occupant immediately before you was a smoker. Now, there's only one smoking room. It's room 114. It's where all the smokers stay. So many cartons of cigarettes have hacked and burned and tared their way through so many pairs of lungs in that one small space that the room is no longer called the smoking room because of what happens in it. It's called the smoking room because of what it does. It smokes. Literally. The walls and floor and furniture have all been slow roasted in poison gas and they gradually release their deadly vaporous cargo into the air. When you open the door it hits you in the face like a rotten egg. When given the smoking room, it's best to just walk down the block to the next identically generic motel, and hope they have a non-smoking vacancy.<br /><br /> There's a reason most of the rooms in the these places only have windows on the front side, looking inward toward the courtyard. If you ever get a room with a window on the backside, do not, under any circumstances look through it. Out that window is a poorly lit back ally, or a scrap yard, or a line of dumpsters, or a crazy cat lady's back yard. It will be filled with cinder blocks, railroad ties, a baby pool covered in two inches of mold, and a white 1973 Ford van where her 45 year old son lives because his room in the house is now filled with boxes of old junk mail which can't be thrown out since the garbage in this town is handled by the prisoners at the county jail and one of them might use the address printed on an envelope to steal the cat lady's identity. It's best to just leave the drapes closed and spare yourself the sight.<br /><br /> No one ever cleans the pool at chain motels. When the water starts looking dirty, someone just pours more chlorine in. Some time in 1980's the mixture became more chemicals than water and the ratio has been steadily increasing ever since. Actually swimming in the pool will turn you green and cover your skin with a thin, slick film of bleach and toddler urine. Good luck washing it off in the aforementioned motel shower.<br /><br /> You will never get a good nights sleep in a chain motel. It's not because the mattresses are filled with small stones or because the television won't turn off. And it's not because the air conditioning won't turn on in the summer and is stuck wide open in the winter. You won't sleep because the person you're staying with is a snorer. They will wake the next morning annoyingly refreshed and ready for the day having honked and snorted their way through the night like a entire flight of Canadian geese. And don't think you can get around this problem by staying alone. Because the person in the room next door will definitely not be alone. Maybe you weren't able to get any sleep during the night, but at least when you get up the next morning you can go downstairs for the complimentary continental breakfast.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-1452379251742343720?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-85482991800831020952006-12-10T21:46:00.000-08:002008-11-13T09:58:08.567-08:00Unfinished BusinessSorting through files on my computer as I prepare for the switch from WindowsXP to <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/">Ubuntu,</a> I found a piece I began writing a couple of years ago and never finished. It's one that I've wanted to get done, but when I remembered it I wasn't motivated to write, and when I felt like writing I would forget about it and move on to something else. So what I've decided to do is post it in its current (crappy) state. Having it displayed in public should give me plenty of reason to finish it. Plus it will give anyone who may be curious a look into my writing process as I update the post with each draft.<br /><br />What you see below is a direct transcription of my handwritten notes minus (most of) the spelling errors.<br /><hr /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/RXz9LGPs-HI/AAAAAAAAAAY/Epv6ZvtOtlA/s1600-h/u2hotelwide.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ffgj3JjSiik/RXz9LGPs-HI/AAAAAAAAAAY/Epv6ZvtOtlA/s400/u2hotelwide.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5007155252826011762" border="0" /></a>The park is crowed with people on this bright, clear Sunday evening. It’s the third week of April and it seems like the entire city has come out from under their winter coats and umbrellas to enjoy the first few days of spring weather here at Seattle Center. I’m sitting on the steps outside the east entrance to Key Arena watching as families and couples and groups of teenagers walk past. They talk and yell and laugh, surrounding me with the noise of a city on its day off. But over it, I hear something else. A guitar coming from the Arena, slightly muffled by yards of concrete and glass yet still very loud, is playing the same three notes over and over again. It’s The Edge. Inside, U2 is doing a sound check, warming up for their concert set to begin in three hours time.<br /><br />As he walked around the perimeter of the stage, Bono reached into the audience and took a flag being offered to him by a fan. It was the Irish flag and as Bono waved the orange and green banner of his homeland, I was struck by a sense of irony. In 1983, while on stage during their War Tour, Bono frequently waved a giant White flag of surrender during Sunday, Bloody Sunday. He would open the song by saying, “There is but one flag, the white flag!” U2 have never been afraid to declare their beliefs, and Bono is certainly conscience of the fact that he is Irish; he has made it clear that he feels a connection…<br /><br />U2 were made famous by the energy, volume and passion of their live shows in the 1980’s and made infamous by their over the top, tongue-in-cheek commercialized tours of the 1990’s. (1997’s Popmart tour featured a giant McDonald's arch and a 40 foot lemon as part of the stage.) It was not until the 2000 Elevation tour that they were able to combine the emotion and power of their earlier War and Joshua Tree tours with the high production quality and audio-visual elements of the later Zoo TV and Popmart shows.<br />The band’s current tour titled, “Vertigo” after the first single off their latest album is in many ways an extension of the Elevation shows of four years ago. The stage is the centerpiece of the show. Shaped like a giant egg, it extends half way across the floor of the arena. One half of the interior of the ellipse is taken up by a circular platform that elevates the band above the audience while the other half is left open. Around 300 fans are able to stand in this interior section and are privileged to a 360 degree experience as Bono, The Edge and bassist Adam Clayton spend much of the concert moving around the perimeter walkway.<br /><br />Back outside the arena, it’s now just minutes before the doors open. I stand near the front of the mass of bodies that constitutes the “line” as more and more people push in from behind. The crowd is buzzing with conversation as everyone jabbers nervously with their companions in anticipation. Having come alone, I have no one in particular to talk to and instead listen in on the conversations around me…<br />…The doors open, and the first wait is finally over. The reservoir of people built up behind the doors breaks through the entrance and quickly disperses to the various section of the venue. My fleece jacket hangs heavy on my shoulders as I make my way up the stairs to my second level seat. My pockets are stuffed full of T-shirts and other memorabilia I purchased outside…<br /><br />The stench emanating from the aging hippie in front of me is nearly overpowering. Its eight day BO thinly veiled by bad colon. These two elements I’ve encountered before. But the third component of the funk is unexpected. As I try harder to forget about the man who I’m now convinced is a thoroughly lost Grateful Dead fan, it becomes more and more impossible to ignore the putrid quaff flowing up from him. Then I see it. A small plastic bottle quickly lifted to his lips and dropped back down again. They’re not serving alcohol at the concession stands, I realize. And this man, apparently unable to sit through the concert without his booze, has with him the only form of alcohol he could get past security, NyQil. He’s worked his way through about half the bottle already. How is this guy even staying awake?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-8548299180083102095?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-12781691418703758522006-11-20T16:04:00.000-08:002006-11-22T13:29:48.463-08:00Buy Me Stuff!Well it's that time of year again. Time to gorge ourselves on dead animal flesh and football. It's a truly American holiday as we celebrate either the founding of one nation under God, or the subjugation of a native people, depending on how liberal your history teachers were. It also ushers in the annual month-long veritable frat party of capitalism where the modesty of fiscal responsibility is thrown out the window in favor of the debauchery of credit card culture. For those of you out there who may wish to use <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span> as an outlet for your wanton spending, here's a list of things you can buy me:<br /><br />Stuff:<br /><ul><br /><li>Xbox 360 Pro</li><li>PSP (PlayStation Portable)<br /></li><li>Scrubs Season 4 DVD</li><li>Battlestar Galactica DVDs (Any season, including the miniseries, but from the current version, not the one from the 70's)</li><li>External Hardrive (Any size is fine, the bigger the better. An internal drive with a case is also more than acceptable as this is a far better value for the money.)</li><li>Notebook PC RAM (512 or bigger, as I already have a 256 and only have the one expansion slot.)</li><li>Motorcycle and motorcycle related t-shirts. (NO HARLEY CRAP! Racing and Euro bikes are best. Japanese stuff is cool too. Buell is iffy. When in doubt, ask my Dad... unless you are my dad, then it really shouldn't be a problem.)</li><li>High school sports t-shirts. (The more far-flung and obscure the better, but local stuff is great too. Football is my first choice, but I'll wear just about anything, including girls sports.)</li><li>“A Feast for Crows,” by George R.R. Martin</li><li>The Magnificent Seven DVD</li><li>Switchfoot, Oh! Gravity CD</li><li>The Office DVDs (Any seasons from either the BBC or the NBC version would be great.)</li></ul>Gift certificates to places where I can go to buy stuff:<br /><ul><li>Game Stop</li><li>Target</li><li>Duluth Trading Company</li><li>Barnes & Nobel</li><li>Amazon.com</li><li>iTunes Music Store</li><li>Regal Cinemas</li><li>Old Navy</li><li>K-Swiss.com</li><li>Macy's</li></ul>Common myth holds that we give gifts at Christmas in order to celebrate the three wise men giving Jesus gold, frankincense and myrrh on the occasion of his birth. This is in fact, wrong and may be a major contributing factor to the materialist nature of Christmas today. The gift we represent every time we wrap up an iPod or a diamond necklace or a pair of argyle socks, is not the treasure given to the Christ child, it's Christ himself. It's God's gift of salvation through the person of Jesus his son.<br /><br />Go ahead! Spend like crazy this December. Your small business owning neighbors, as well as our collective economic livelihood is depending on you. (And if you want to throw a little bit of that excess my way, I won't mind.) But this Christmas season, make sure you take time out of your busy schedule to remember the first Christmas present you ever received. The one given to you two-thousand years ago, in tiny little town in the Middle-East. <span style="font-style: italic;">This </span>is the gift we should be emulating. Give as He gave, and love as He loved.<br /><br />Merry Christmas Everyone!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-1278169141870375852?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-45059193436038424522006-10-16T15:59:00.001-07:002006-12-11T00:48:54.012-08:00Mario!<p class="mobile-photo"><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/4961/3236/1600/Image032-769751.jpg"><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/4961/3236/320/Image032-769751.jpg" width="320"/></a></p>Fraser Hall, WWU<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-4505919343603842452?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1160774658721034652006-10-13T14:10:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:58.202-07:00Letter to the EditorStrictly speaking this is not a letter to the editor, but "Letter to the Subscription Services Department" is a pretty lame title.<br /><blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">To Whom It May Concern:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Theory:<span style=""> </span>TV Guide is run by chimpanzees.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Exhibit A:<span style=""> </span>TV Guide, a magazine with one of the largest distributions in the nation, does not provide a way, by mail or electronically, for new subscribers to pay with a credit card.<span style=""> </span>New subscribers are not informed of this fact beforehand.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><span style=""> </span>-This means that people like myself, who do not use a checkbook, are unable to pay for a subscription to TV Guide.-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Exhibit B:<span style=""> </span>TV Guide's subscriber service hot line, 1-800-866-1400, has been unable to take subscriber calls of any nature other than address changes for the past three months.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">-This means that people like myself, who subscribed to TV Guide without the knowledge that they would be unable to pay for their subscription with a credit card, are also unable to contact TV Guide about their inability to pay for their subscription by phone.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Exhibit C:<span style=""> </span>TV Guide's method for contact through the internet does not recognize names and subscription numbers of subscribers who have not, or have not been able to, pay for their subscriptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">-This means that people like myself, who subscribed to TV Guide with out the knowledge that they would be unable to pay for their subscription with a credit card, and who are also unable to contact TV Guide about their inability to pay for their subscription over the phone, are also unable to contact TV Guide about their inability to pay for their subscription through email.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Please cancel my subscription, I do not wish to subscribe to a magazine run by chimpanzees.<span style=""> </span>I do not have a problem with you primates, in fact I appreciate your contribution to the evolutionary process of us humans, but frankly a magazine written by you holds no appeal to me, a logical, rational homo-sapiens.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">My subscription number is: *********** **** *********** *********<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">My name and address is:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Keith *****<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:address st="on"><st1:street st="on"><span style="font-size:10;">**** ****</span></st1:street><span style="font-size:10;"></span></st1:address><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:street st="on"><st1:address st="on"><span style="font-size:10;">**** **** ******** *****</span></st1:address></st1:street><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on"><span style="font-size:10;">Bellingham</span></st1:city><span style="font-size:10;">, <st1:state st="on">WA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode st="on">98225-5923</st1:postalcode></span></st1:place><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">Keith *****<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">P.S.<span style=""> </span>If you report me to a collection agency for <i style="">your</i> inability to accept <i style="">my</i> payment, I will be forced to look into the process of taking a group of monkeys to court for libel.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10;">P.P.S.<span style=""> </span>I would be willing to pay the amount of the subscription represented by the issues I have already received, <b style="">by credit card</b>.<span style=""> </span>I certainly would not want to short anyone, chimp or human, the money they are owed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </blockquote><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-116077465872103465?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1158814915373240352006-09-20T21:58:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:58.119-07:00The All-nighter (Incomplete)<p class="MsoNormal"> It’s a common practice among college students.<span style=""> </span>Pulling the all-nighter.<span style=""> </span>Coffee, Mountain Dew, and Red Bull are consumed in mass quantities as the hours tick by.<span style=""> </span>1 am, 2 am, 3am, and now just 5 more hours to go.<span style=""> </span>That paper won’t finish it-self.<span style=""> </span>Thousands of under-grads across the country spend thousands of hours every year furiously toiling away at their computers while the rest of us sleep.<span style=""> </span>I say “the rest of us” because the all-nighter is a university ritual I’ve so far managed to avoid.<span style=""> </span>Through a combination of semi-careful planning, and a sincere belief that I benefit far more from a full nights rest than from possessing a “complete” assignment, I have always managed to spend my nights in bed, rather than in a desk chair.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> The prospect of being forced into the all-nighter has none-the-less loomed heavy on the horizon on several occasions.<span style=""> </span>But here it’s actually my innate laziness that pays off.<span style=""> </span>The act of sleeping-in is sacred to me.<span style=""> </span>Managing to sleep well into the late morning gives one a certain feeling of accomplishment.<span style=""> </span>To ensure that I continue to be able to sleep late, I only sign up for classes that are held latter in the day.<span style=""> </span>When mid-terms and finals roll around, this means that I can sleep 7 to 8 hours, and still have time in the morning for any extra work my classes may require.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> I pride myself on my all-nighter avoidance strategy.<span style=""> </span>Its principles are sound and it has served me well through 4 years of school.<span style=""> </span>But last week my perfect record was shattered!<span style=""> </span>You can hardly blame me for not seeing it coming.<span style=""> </span>It’s August.<span style=""> </span>There are no assignments or test or papers.<span style=""> </span>I’m ready for all of that.<span style=""> </span>I’m prepared.<span style=""> </span>What my planning hadn’t anticipated was work.<span style=""> </span>An all-nighter at work?<span style=""> </span>Impossible!<span style=""> </span>Work ends at 6:00pm.<span style=""> </span>I go home, I eat, I sit, I watch, I read, I sleep.<span style=""> </span>I sleep!<span style=""> </span>But not last Friday.<span style=""> </span>That Friday, I worked, I worked, I worked, I worked, and then I think I might have blacked out.<span style=""> </span>At some point, I shut my internal recorders off.<span style=""> </span>And I did all this to fix a motorcycle.<span style=""> </span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115881491537324035?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1155616318541708962006-08-14T21:31:00.001-07:002006-10-13T15:52:58.046-07:00Abbotsford Internation AirshowMy roommate and I made the short trip across the boarder yesterday to see the Abbotsford Airshow. At one time the Abbotsford show was second only in size to the Paris Airshow. It was an interesting mix of Canadian citizens and U.S Military personnel. A Lengthier article is to follow at a later date.<br /><hr /><br />This video is a little hard to see, but the guy on the PA can be heard clearly and he gives a pretty good description of what's happening.<br /><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8FasBYeF8QU"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8FasBYeF8QU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="350" width="425"></embed></object><br />EDIT: Ok so maybe he's not so easy to understand. The pilot brings the plane in over the crowd at his minimum airspeed, then points the nose straight up and lights the afterburner. The fighter goes from 500 feet to 15,000 in a matter of seconds. It literally disappears. Pretty freakin' cool!<br /><hr /><br />30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun, housed in a Fairchild/Rupublic A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/0/Image027-718541.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/0/Image027-718541.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><hr />Boeing F-15 Eagle<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/0/Image026-789863.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/0/Image026-789863.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><hr />Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk, that's an armed gaurd in fatigues under the nose in the background. There are two more guys with fully loaded CAR-15s standing to the left out of frame. It may be early 70's stealth technology, but it's stealth all the same.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/0/Image028-742426.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/0/Image028-742426.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115561631854170896?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1155584286379292952006-08-14T12:22:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:57.799-07:00Turf NotesWith the 2006 football season fast approaching, I have realized that people who may have been directly involved in the events described in "The Astroturf Uncertainty Principle" may in fact read it. Thus I feel it is incumbent upon me to place this disclaimer both here and at the bottom of the piece itself.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Note: This article is very closely based on real events and real people. Some of the events may be condensed and certain details (the score of the game for example) may be incorrect as everything was written simply as I remembered it. As far as I know there was no record of the game to which I could refer. Names have not been changed. Robert is a real person. His actions on the night of the game are as accurately described as I could make them, but my knowledge of his life before I met him and away from the football field should be considered second hand at best. </span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115558428637929295?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1155362197716273482006-08-11T22:46:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:57.735-07:00Signpost Forest<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://community.webshots.com/album/552802780TCrkrf"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/400/2044713560059001672YEVdJJ_ph.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><align="middle"><i>Watson Lake, YT. Photo courtesy <a href="http://community.webshots.com/user/tntdub">Tim Watts</a></i></align><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115536219771627348?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1155004747310785382006-08-07T19:35:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:57.674-07:00readkeith.comRead Keith can now be reached by simply typing in <a href="http://readkeith.com">readkeith.com</a>.<br /><br />You can still find it at readkeith.blogspot.com so no need to change bookmarks or links, but now it should be easier for other people to find the site.<br /><br />Many thanks to the people over at <a href="http://domains.yahoo.com">yahoo</a> for the insanely cheap domain name registration.<br /><hr><br />Check out what I did this summer!<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/1600/keitheverest.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/400/keitheverest.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115500474731078538?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1154581041719814292006-08-02T21:56:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:57.553-07:00How Close?This is from an add campaign currently being run in the UK.<br /><br /><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MfqwIWMb_rA"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MfqwIWMb_rA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="350" width="425"></object><br /><br />Everyone please take an extra second or two durring your commute to start <span style="font-style: italic;">seeing</span> motorcyclists.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115458104171981429?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1154299691734570322006-07-30T15:48:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:57.494-07:00What's Up With My Little Sister?Check out my sister's new blog at <a href="http://wattsupwithrhonda.blogspot.com">wattsupwithrhonda.blogspot.com</a>!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115429969173457032?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26514273.post-1154293940314250782006-07-30T13:37:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:52:57.431-07:00WWU Library SearchI created a search plugin for the Western Library catalog. This plugin works with <a href="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_blank">Mozilla Firefox.</a><br /><br />You can download the plugin <a href="http://www.rogepost.com/dn/61ss/WesternLibraries.exe" target="_blank">here.</a> Once your download is done, click on the .exe file wherever you saved it on your hard disk. It will run as a self extracting .rar (.zip) file. Choose your browser's search plugin directory as the "extract to" or "destination" folder. Usually this folder is C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\searchplugins . Then just restart Firefox.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/1600/Screenshot%20%2801h51m36s%29.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/400/Screenshot%20%2801h51m36s%29.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The search plug in loads in your search bar in the top right of the browser.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/1600/Screenshot%20%2801h51m48s%29.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/504/2776/400/Screenshot%20%2801h51m48s%29.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>By default, it will search by title, but you can change this setting in the code for the plug in. Just open the .src file with notepad. The file is in the searchplugins folder. Then edit this line of text: <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">action="http://lis.wwu.edu/search~/t"</span><br /><br /></span>By changing the last letter, you change the search parameter, "a" for author, etc... Then save the file as new, and give it a new title. Something like "Western by Author," and your done. You can also create a 16x16 .gif file as an icon for your new search plugin. Just give it the same title as your new .src file, save it to the same folder and Firefox will do the rest.<br /><br />If you have any problems, if you know of a better way to host/download the plug in or if you just have questions or comments, please email me.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/26514273-115429394031425078?l=readkeith.blogspot.com'/></div>Keithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892331811115011020noreply@blogger.com0