George B. McClellan: Two Perspectives

McClellan 1
Running head: MCCLELLAN








McClellan: Two Perspectives
Christian Garzone
Excelsior College










McClellan 2
Abstract

History is the greatest judge of a man's actions. Sometimes, it deals a fair hand, other times, a raw deal. Take, for instance, the life of Union Civil War General George B. McClellan. Loved by his men, disliked by many and hated, it seems, by history. Most scholars believe this criticism is warranted, while small factions feel differently. This paper will compare and contrast two distinctive views on the life and actions of McClellan's generalship during the American Civil War and delve into Thomas J. Rowland's "George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman", as well as James M. McPherson's "Ordeal by Fire".












McClellan 3
McClellan: Two Perspectives
McPherson vs. Rowland

The greatest judge of man's achievements and follies in life is history. The old saying goes that "hindsight is twenty-twenty", which is absolutely true. Past conflicts like Viet Nam, World War I and II and the men who led their respective causes are so easy to judge and finger from the present.
However, there are always a handful of people who are labeled unfavorably by the press and public in their age, and those repulsive opinions seem to stick for decades. Such is the case of Civil War General George Brinton McClellan. While history has been kind to Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Ulysses S. Grant and a host of other war leaders, McClellan has been left in the shadows and spit upon. Are the ruthless beliefs in the incompetence and failures of McClellan's generalship warranted? Many historians agree, but a small handful of historians feel McClellan was undeservingly given a sour reputation.
In his book "Ordeal by Fire", James McPherson feels that criticism of McClellan is well-deserved and directly points the finger at McClellan numerous times. However, Thomas Rowland, in his work "George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman", attempts to create McClellan as a victim of unfortunate circumstance, rather than blame him directly.

McPherson's View


McPherson starts off his opinion of McClellan much like the U.S. did in 1861- favorably. McPherson says McClellan was "…an excellent organizer (he) was just what the army needed…" The press of the early 1860's loved McClellan and labeled him as
the man to save the Union, and there were even whispers among the common folk about a possible presidential run for McClellan.
Rather suddenly, McPherson turns his light opinion into near disgust in a mere couple of pages. The positive press and his new position in the Army of the Potomac, according to McPherson, gave McClellan a "Messiah Complex" and that he came to regard himself not as the "subordinate of the president and of general in chief, but as their master (McPherson, pp 233-234)."
By his own hand, McClellan wrote, "I am leaving nothing undone to increase our force; but the old general always comes in the way…The people call on me to save the country. I must save it, and cannot respect anything that is in the way…The President is an idiot and the old General is in his dotage…If (Scott) cannot be taken out of my path, I will not retain my position but will resign and let the administration take care of itself (McPherson, pp 233-234)."
McPherson feels that McClellan's view of the president caused him to "commit serious errors of judgment" in terms of battle strategy and generalship. He would not keep the White House informed about his strategy plans, seemingly feeling far above such "petty" tasks. McClellan also refused to make basic movements with his army, offensively and defensively, making Lincoln and the American public impatient with his lack of progress.


McPherson also actively compares McClellan with Confederate generals like Johnston and even makes the Confederate strategies seem superior, and they were in many respects.
McPherson points out that George had a somewhat "chronic" ability to exaggerate the size of opposing Confederate forces. This may have been a partial reason for losing battles, like the minor Ball's Bluff. Opposing author Thomas Rowland, in response to that conflict, sights vicious, un-thoughtful blaming by congress, saying "…the continued inactivity of the Army of the Potomac added to the mounting criticism aimed at McClellan (Rowland, pp 66, 142)."
In addition to Ball's Bluff, McClellan managed to miss many opportunities to engage the enemy, acting too late or delaying in some form. Manassas, Richmond, Seven Days, and the Maryland Campaign might very well have been Union victories, if McClellan had acted more accordingly. He also failed to support Pope at the Second Battle of Bull's Run by ignoring Halleck's orders to send one of his corps to aid the fight. People will remember a simple victory or a loss rather than excuses, something author Thomas Rowland (mentioned above) dishes out in abundance.
Rowland's View
Thomas Rowland attempts to explain "…how a general (McClellan) who was so talented and filled with so much promise ended up such a miserable failure." Numerous thoughts, or excuses, are presented, and by the end of Rowland's journey, McClellan is actually put in a vastly different light than McPherson's. Right from the preface, Rowland wastes no time. He writes "…McClellan is so completely overshadowed by Grant and Sherman as to practically ensure his receiving a low grade." And "I do not view him, despite his record as a field commander, as an abject failure. Therefore, I
categorically disagree with those who charge McClellan as the worst or among the worst, Northern commanders during the war."
Why does Rowland not view McClellan as failure, as no doubt many of his historical colleagues do? As stated earlier, Rowland paints the picture of a man victim to circumstance. Not only did McClellan suffer from manic depression since his childhood days, but also a "paranoid personality disorder with narcissistic tendencies", which, many believed, disabled him on the battlefield (Rowland, p 18). McClellan not only "lacked the temperament for waging war, but operated under such significant psychological disabilities as to ensure his ineffective handling of the Army of the Potomac (Rowland, p 16)."
These mental hang-ups may have led to the Messiah Complex mentioned before. Like McPherson, Rowland does not deny that McClellan believed God had called upon him personally to save the Union. Rowland quotes numerous sources about McClellan's belief in this military version of Divine Right and seems to be on the same page as McPherson in addressing this issue.
They also appear to agree that George inhaled far too many breaths of acclaim and outright praise, possibly leading to his belief, not only as touched by God, but by dreaming of himself as the long-awaited "Second Coming."
The pages of concurrence end there, however, and Rowland continues to justify McClellan's actions and inactions. Reaching back to George's cadet days at West Point,
Rowland tells the reader that "McClellan was well liked, and he was generous in helping other cadets who found their studies difficult. His evident self-confidence did not turn off
his classmates (Rowland, p 34)." Rowland seems to be subconsciously begging the question "if someone is so well-liked, how could anyone dislike him?!"
At various points in his book, (on the same track as McPherson), Rowland compares other Civil War leader's actions to McClellan's. Lincoln's touché "disrespectful tones" and "biting sarcasm" are mentioned, as well as Union General William T. Sherman's vain personality and inactivity and General Ulysses S. Grant's incredible drinking skills, faults and embarrassments during the 1860's.
Rowland further elaborates. "Not only are his (McClellan) faults viewed out of context, they also do not stand up to any measure of an objective standard. In any comparison with other Civil War commanders, particularly those to whom he is unfavorably compared, McClellan's personal shortcomings were not that remarkable (Rowland, p 75)."
Rowland does this attempting to bring everyone down to McClellan's level and give a very common, human perspective to powerful men and their methods in life and on the battlefield- and it works. We sympathize, relate and understand a little better, however, while we may understand, it does not mean we necessarily forgive. Battles lost that may have saved thousands of lives and ended our Civil War earlier than 1865, can never be fully washed away.
Rowland succeeds in leaps and bounds bringing McClellan to this level mentioned above and in diagnosing his apparent mental conditions that are known all too well today. He fails, however, in compensating for the delayed Union victory and the tremendous loss of life (over 600,000) on the blue and grey sides; many deaths which
could have been possibly prevented had an early, major Union victory taken foot under McClellan in the early 1860's.

The Sources

Both authors rely on a large variety of sources, mostly the work of other writers with a sprinkling, as shown earlier in the essay, diary entries and manuscripts. However, in strictly forming an opinion of McClellan for the reader, a distinct difference is noted.
Rowland heavily includes the works of Stephen Sears ("George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon", "To the Gates of Richmond" and "Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan") to breathe life into the general, while McPherson borrows strictly from the official "McClellan Papers" (collected letters of correspondence directly from the hand of McClellan) which, it seems, is a more untarnished perspective. McPherson is not looking at a stranger's work to justify a secondary opinion, instead, McPherson heads straight to the primary source and spreads the crude facts before our eyes and leaves the interpretation open for the reader to decide.
The evidence presented by Rowland is, at times, anecdotal; he depends heavily on the works of others to complete his work, hence the enormous amount of foot notes. McPherson does the same, although to a lesser extent when dealing with General George.
This all being said, it does seem that Rowland concentrates on reforming history's "hindsight" and gives McClellan the book he deserves, while McPherson gives hurried historians the book they want.

The Better Author

In giving a comprehensive analysis of McClellan, Rowland is by far the superior author on the interpretation of McClellan. However, much like Stanly Elkins and the "Antebellum Slavery" term paper, Rowland really only had a specific topic to focus on- defending McClellan. McPherson's "Ordeal by Fire" deals with hundreds of events during the Civil War and Reconstruction, leaving him only a limited amount of time to center on just one personality subject.
McPherson takes on a tremendous task, and this analysis is no jab at him, or his work. Rowland gives us an extremely convincing defense of McClellan, no doubt based on years of research. Even though some may consider Rowland's book misguided, there is no debate on its thorough approach, stunning presentations and ability to sympathize with a known "dud".

Conclusion

Scholars will remember whether a battle was won or lost, rather than how it could, or might have been won or lost. While Rowland's look into McClellan's life is marvelously informative (and Rowland is the better writer on General George), it still probably will never change McClellan's status as a rejected Civil War leader.
Rowland succeeds in coming off more devoted than McPherson, revealing these tidbits about McClellan's personal life, but it can still not justify the missed opportunities and losses suffered at the general's hands. Rowland repeatedly tells us of McClellan's
mental disorders, sympathies, respect for human life, hatred of the Lincoln administration, and so fourth - those are nice factoids for possibly winning a bet and a
free drink at the bar with friends, but it probably won't clear up history's cloudy view of McClellan; but it can certainly change a few individual opinions.
Rowland holds out his fight to the end, bitterly proclaiming by the end of the book that since McClellan "…never made it to the end of the war, (he) cannot be considered a great commander, particularly when compared and contrasted to the two military goliaths, Grant and Sherman (Rowland, p 195)."
McClellan was certainly hailed and hyped up as a savior, although a bit too prematurely. As touched on before, if George had acted more quickly against the Rebel army, our Civil War would probably have been much shorter and with earlier military action, saved countless lives. Hindsight is usually twenty/twenty, but with McClellan, apparently, you'll need a magnifying glass.









References

McPherson, J. (2001). Ordeal by Fire New York: McGraw-Hill

Rowland, T. (1998). George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press

3:11 PM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Antebellum Slavery
Category: News and Politics

Slavery 1
Running head: SLAVERY








Antebellum Slavery
Christian Garzone
Excelsior College










Slavery 2
Abstract
The cause or causes of the American Civil War have been mulled over and debated for decades. Everything from state's rights, American expansion, and sectionalism have all been viewed relentlessly. However, the one primary topic that cannot escape as a major factor in the war is slavery- the right of one man to own and exploit another. This paper will primarily focus on this topic and in the process, compare and contrast two books: Stanley Elkins' "Slavery" and James McPherson's "Ordeal by Fire".















Slavery 3
Antebellum Slavery
From Abraham to Abraham
Throughout its history, slavery was the designated occupation for countless millions. It became an accepted and fully ingrained fabric of society. From Greece, Egypt, Persia and Rome, and later, to the Americas and the European Empires, was a normal way of life.
Any historian can trace slavery to nearly any culture in the world. Africans, Europeans, Asians, Native Americans- humanity as a whole- guilty of enslaving their own or those conquered or exploited. The topic was nothing new, especially in the industrialized Western world of the 19th century- a world, in many respects, built on the backs and sweat of others.
So, why, after millennia, was there a sudden change of heart? Why did Britain and its empire, arguably the greatest on earth, decide to set anti-slavery examples for the West in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act, and later with the Slavery Abolition act in 1833? This great social change would shake one specific Anglicized nation half a world away to its core and cost over 600,000 lives. The divided republics known as the United States of America and the Confederate States of America would by far bear the brunt of the world's changing social consciousness through their own Civil War and permanently change the way the world viewed enslavement.
Human bondage in the U.S. had a history going back centuries before the Civil War. It was an active part of the culture and the norm in many areas of the country,
particularly the South. However, by the 19th century, some groups of people began to find enslavement unsettling and their numbers started to grow more than ever before.

God, Man and Slave

Even before the 19th century, there was significant dialogue regarding slavery around the world, specifically in religious circles. Quakers, Methodists and the members of the First Great Awakening all contributed to original American anti-slavery feelings. However, one series of events in the United States really started to open hearts and minds.
The Second Great Awakening was led by Northern revisionist Calvinists and preached on free will, the personal choice of salvation, and in their view, the sins of infidelity, Sabbath breaking, prostitution, intemperance and finally, slavery.
While the Jewish Torah or Christian Bible have no problems condoning slavery (one has to bear in mind the time frame in which they were recorded), human bondage by the 1800's was viewed more and more unfavorably, even by strict Judeo-Christians. Leviticus, Ephesians, Exodus and a handful of other chapters condone the practice of slavery; however the Northern leaders of The Second Great Awakening would not have stood for this, especially in the post-Enlightenment West, where Biblical interpretation was becoming normal behavior.
In his book, "Slavery", Stanley Elkins writes "To the Northern reformer, every other concrete fact concerning slavery was dwarfed by its character as a moral evil- as an obscenity condemned of God and universally offensive to humanity." Many Northern leaders felt that every man was his brother's keeper (in reference to Cain and Abel) and all Americans were to answer for the sin of slavery, so long as one citizen owned a slave.
Slavery 5
The Southerner would argue this, saying slavery was a "positive moral good- a necessary arrangement sanctioned in Scripture and thus by God Himself (Elkins, p. 36)."
In his book "Ordeal by Fire", James McPherson touched on new movements beginning to take form. After the initial start of the Second Great Awakening, notable men emerged to lead what would become the American Anti-Slavery movement in 1833. Charles Grandison Finney, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison (Liberator), the students of Lane Seminary School, Elijah Lovejoy, and the people of the Underground Railroad, to name a few, grew into a fellowship that would number a quarter million by 1838 (Elkins, pp180-186, McPherson, pp 45-48 ).
The overall objective of these movements was to obviously wipe out slavery, but to also eliminate racism and grant equal constitutional rights to all. These "radical" ideas ahead of their time really took hold, especially in the northern U.S. While these liberal sparks had yet to make a fire, the African-American continued to wait for change in chains.


Master and Slave
How much freedom did slaves in the U.S. have? Did slaves have any authority over their white masters? A lot depended on who the individual owner, or owners, were.
McPherson says "For the slaves, there was no paradox: slavery was slavery, and freedom was the opposite (p. 38)." The slave masters were free to buy or sell, punish, separate (from families), take sexual advantage of, or even murder their "property". This could all be done with little fear of being held responsible, from a legal standpoint.
Slavery 6
A North Carolina law from 1798 states that "Maliciously killing a slave" would result in a form of punishment that should be equal to that of murdering a free man, however, there is really no way to determine if this law "stuck to its guns" so to speak.
Even things like marriage (of which one-fifth to one-third were broken by owners), learning to read or write (in some states) were forbidden for slaves. Generous owners might let slaves have a family, earn money or possibly, buy their freedom.
Later events, such as the Compromise of 1850 and the Dred Scot Decision, did little to improve the conditions of the African-American, or preserve the Union (McPherson, pp 70-75, 109-114).
So many aspects of a slave's life were under the heel of whoever their owner was. However, there is one critical element that one man cannot take from another: hope. McPherson says that although faced with numerous obstacles, African Americans managed to produce a positive culture which resulted in "…an impressive example of survival in the face of adversity (McPherson, p. 38)." The human mind has an ability to overcome whatever situation it finds itself in; the power to create, to imagine can never be taken away.
Even while viewed in a juvenile light by many whites, with barely any rights of their own, blacks managed to work with whatever they had to make contributions to American culture. One excellent example is the creation of Blues music, which eventually evolved to its sister genre of Jazz (McPherson, pp 38-42).


Slavery 7
With these deplorable conditions, did the U.S. government practice any economic methods to at least begin to ease the suffering of the Afro-American? Did the practice of Lassie-Fare help at all?

Capitalism, Limited Government and the Slave

America's devotion to Lassie-Fare capitalism and limited government did little to ameliorate the brutality of slavery. McPherson said Capitalism and slavery were basically irreconcilable; if anything capitalism worsened slavery. With the U.S. government having a "let it be" attitude, the plight of the Southern farmer went basically unnoticed. In some ways, the North, in the tune of the British, pressed many "imperial"-like demands upon the South.
The constant need for raw materials needed for shipment up to Yankee factories for manufacturing, did terrible harm to the Dixie farmer. He was forced to work his slaves, in many cases, to death to meet Northern demands. While the American government did set up some banking programs, it was not enough to help the South become independent of the need for slavery.
Elkins vs. McPherson
The Better Author
When one reads Stanley Elkin's "Slavery" and James McPherson's "Ordeal by Fire", it becomes clear that Elkins only had to focus on one topic- slavery-throughout his book. McPherson had to cover the entire Civil War, its roots and causes and Reconstruction, therefore not doing one specific topic like slavery due justice.

Slavery 8
In answer to the question of the better author in regards to the specific topic of describing antebellum slavery, Elkins far outdoes McPherson. Elkins uses a broad range of references and stories to explore the issue of slavery, from its ancient beginnings, to the Spanish and Portuguese, up to the elimination of the slave trade and American slavery.
He goes above and beyond to bring a study on enslavement that provides a refined compromise based on thorough historical research. No footnote is left unturned, and in todays politically correct world (if you can get past some of the dated terminology), Elkins' book can be viewed as a great middle ground for any student of any racial or ethnic background to pick up and study this controversial topic.
The evidence presented by Elkins is, at times, anecdotal; he relays heavily on the words of others to complete his work (hence the enormous amount of foot notes). McPherson does the same, although to a lesser extent.
It does seem that these books, while filled with information from various authors, give each viewpoint a fair presentation and a chance to fully round out the slavery debate.
This analysis, however, is no stab at McPherson, who did a tremendous job taking on the gigantic task of deciphering and presenting the American Civil War. The question asked which writer did a better job with the specific topic of slavery. Both authors present nearly every argument with sufficient back-up and knowledge from a plethora or sources.



Slavery 9
Conclusion
It is so easy decades, centuries or millennia later to pass judgment and point fingers for wrong doings. It is imperative to look at history with an open-mindedness and a forgiving understanding. Revisionist history is nothing new and it had always been deadly. Elkins and McPherson don't pull any plugs or make apologies. It seems both had an attitude of sticking to the facts, no matter how gruesome or glamorous they sounded. It is important to study the past, and for current and future generations not to carry the weight of their ancestor's mistakes. The past can't be sugar-coated to sound sweeter- it has to be served raw if necessary, and that is precisely what these two authors have done.













Slavery 10
References

Elkins, S. (1959). Slavery Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.

McPherson, J. (2001). Ordeal by Fire New York: McGraw-Hill

11:34 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Astronomy and the Church
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Astronomy and the Church
Christian Garzone
Excelsior College

Abstract
The solar systems, the galaxies, and the rest of the known universe all seem to rotate and dance in such a delicate manner, that it is, at times, too difficult to even imagine how such a force could have created and organized it in such perfect harmony. Human beings, even today, know so little compared with the vastness of time and space. This paper will touch upon the great astronomical debates of the 16th to 18th centuries, their effects on established religion, church and state and whether or not these discoveries presented a confrontational or non-confrontational model to the topics of science and religion.

Ptolemy vs. Copernicus

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in A.D. 476, Europe entered the period of the Dark Ages. Feudal governments rarely allowed people to leave their land to explore the outside world and the Roman Catholic Church; national and local governments had final authority in many aspects of life. People were left in a cloud of ignorance and if someone discovered something anew, created a theory or behaved in any way that challenged the legitimacy of the Christian Faith or the Church, they were usually silenced. Jacques-Benigne Bossuet claims that the Catholic Church, in his time, condemned things simply because they were new (McGrath, pg. 14). Still, bold men spoke what they believed to be true in relation to God and the heavens. One such dialogue, the astronomical debates from 1500-1700, caused more than a few problems for established religion.

Out of the Dark Ages
The dawn of the Renaissance, the printing press and the Protestant Reformation in Europe set its people alive with possibilities. People became freer to travel, read the vernacular, and exchange ideas- all with a somewhat lessened fear, although that dismay had not been completely quelled, especially when it came to certain topics, like geocentrism. Since the days of Ptolemy in Egypt, it was the assumed and accepted thought that the sun revolved around the earth and our planet was the center of the universe. Move forward 1400 years and a man from Poland named Nicolas Copernicus was about to develop a mathematical theory to prove that Ptolemy was wrong (Curry, 2006).


The astronomical debates began with Copernicus' book, entitled "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium", or "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies" in 1543, directly challenging the known world's geocentric views. Copernicus was the first to be able to explain, mathematically, that the earth revolved around the sun, and the earth was probably not the center of the universe (McGrath, p. 8).
Copernicus' Seed is Planted
In post-Copernican Europe, Copernicus' thoughts encouraged others to investigate and further the ideas he put forth. Germany's Johannes Kepler became the first to explain planetary motion, thus becoming the father of celestial mechanics. Italy's Galileo Galilei was the first to use a refracting telescope to make heavenly discoveries. England's Isaac Newton explained the solar system as a mechanism that operated according to certain universal principals, thus creating the idea of the universe as one giant machine (McGrath, pp 6-9).
These great discoveries and modes of thinking did not come without retribution, however, especially when dealing with the Catholic Church. Galileo was convicted of heresy in 1633 by the Vatican and was sentenced to life in prison, later to be given house arrest. Even though the church was condemning such "radical" ideology, some from inside the very walls of the city-state had supported these Copernican astronomical perspectives before Galileo and were beginning to teach a more elaborate version of Genesis.
Condemnation
Foscarini's Problems
The Carmelite friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini said heliocentrism was not incompatible with the Bible. True to Bossuet's quote, with the church condemning things simply because they were new, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine, the leading Catholic theologian of 1615, wrote a letter to Foscarini saying, "for to say that assuming the whole earth moves and the sun stands still saves all the appearances better than eccentrics and epicycles is to speak well…but to affirm that the sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and the earth revolves very swiftly around the sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but by injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false" (Bellarmine).
Further cementing the church's stance with geocentrism, Popes Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII issued decrees on the topic and ratified the following statement: "the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith".
Even though Foscarini was speaking out for science and reason, he was doing so not so much in a confrontational manner towards Christianity, but towards the Catholic
Church. After years of persecution and denial people became more accepting of the legitimacy of science and the questioning of religious institutions.

Confrontational, or not?
Do these men and their discoveries about the heavens present a confrontational model between science and religion? No. The Bible is not specific enough in its description of the workings of the earth and the universe to make a solid assumption on its specific design. Passages such as "The world is firmly established, it will not be moved (Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30)" or "The sun, moon, and stars were created after the 'foundation of the earth' was laid. (Genesis 1:9-18)", do not pin down a specialized view on the rotation of the earth or sun; although these verses have been used before to legitimize the supposed geocentric view of the Old Testament (Babinski, 2003).
It is through science that we are continually brought toward the creations of God and what He laid forth and set in motion. The astronomical debates were non-confrontational in regards to the Judeo-Christian faiths of Europe. They were confrontational only to the church and other established institutions who believed the earth was the center of the universe. However, the assumptions of Ptolemy were not ill-conceived at all; to anyone standing on earth, it does appear that the sun revolves around the earth. People even today say, "the sun rose at eight", when they should more precisely say, "the earth rotated to face the sun at eight".

Conclusion
Besides studying the earth itself, humans have nothing more to go on in regards to the creation of the universe or our planet other than various oral traditions and ancestral writings. In the West, we have the Old Testament, or Jewish Torah. It states that God created the earth and all of its glory in six days and rested on the seventh. Modern
Evangelicals and others subscribe to the literal interpretation of Genesis, in defense saying there is no way to determine what God can or cannot do and that no single event can be put past God's doing. Yet, others have tried to come to a medium between science and religion; sharing the view that there is nowhere in the Bible stating God's day is 24 hours. In other words, one of God's days could be a billion of our years…the debates into the legitimacy and the interpretation of the Bible rage on, and probably always will.
To say that any new scientific discovery or legitimate theory is confrontational to science and religion is, for the most part, false. Rather, new discoveries and breakthroughs start to provide more of an intermediary view between the two subjects. Slowly, God's plans and divine workings have come to light, evident in the astronomical debates of the past and most certainly will in the debates yet to come.

6:05 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Indiana Jones IV
Current mood: amused
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

By CHRISTIAN GARZONE, AFN Tokyo Press Writer 1 hour, 46
minutes ago

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - George Lucas said Friday that
filming of the long-awaited "Indiana Jones" movie will
begin in 2012.

Harrison Ford, who appeared in the three earlier
flicks, the last one coming in 1989, is set to star as
Tuscany Brimstone, a hard cop chasing a younger
Indiana Jones- that young lad being Home Improvement's
Jonathan Taylor-Thomas.

Lucas said he, Bill Murray and Chevy Chase recently
finalized the script for the film.

"It's going to be fantastic. It's going to be the best
one yet," the 62-year-old filmmaker said which were
also his famous last words before "Star Wars- Episode I: The
Phantom Menace" hit the screens in 1999.

Exact film locations have not been decided yet, but
Lucas said part of the movie will be shot in
Shortsville, NY.

The fourth chapter of the "Indiana Jones" saga, "Florida Seniors
in Atlantis", which
will hit theaters in May 2013, has been in development
for over a decade with 476 screenwriters taking a
crack at the script, but it only recently gained
momentum.

Lucas kept mum about the plot, but said that the
latest action flick will be a "CGI piece" that will
include "very interesting digital actors and
locations" including a visit from a new
version of Jar Jar Binks and
some wacky trans-sexual clowns chasing Short Round's
Shankara pancakes.

Lucas also let this tid-bit leak out: "Let's just say
that Atlantis is found and Indy and the gang fight off
Soviet Commies and the CGI continent sinks back into the CGI
ocean at the end with Indy saving the day; but, I
don't want to give the plot away here..."

"I think it's going to be really cool," Lucas said. "I
can't wait for that Mola Ram guy to reprise his role.
You know, the guy from 'Temple of Doom' who ripped the
heart out? You see, Mola-Ram is really the good guy.
He does on the spot heart transplants for that poor
Indian village now."

At the inaugural Rome Film Festival in October, the
64-year-old Ford said he was thrilled to team up with
Lucas and Spielberg again for the fourth "Indiana
Jones" installment. Ford then said he was "acually, sort of
happy" to play the title role despite his age.

Ford played Indiana Jones in 1981's "Raiders of the
Lost Ark," 1984's "Temple of Doom" and 1989's "The
Last Crusade."

Ford is set to play ther lead role in next year's
"Captain Planet" as the tourqouise mullet-wearing
global superhero. Gene Wilder is set to play Dr.
Toxin.

When asked if Sean Connery would reprise his
role of Henry Jones, Sr., Lucas giggled saying
"yeah, if he doesn't die first."

Lucas praised Ford and Connery for breathing life into his
characters.

"Mostly it's the charm of Harrison and Sean that makes it
work," he said.

11:07 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Response to "F*** the Troops"
Category: Blogging

I was absolutly thunderstruck upon reading the petition to "F- The Troops" and the ignorance of the author, whoever he or she may be.  The author called military men and women "murderers" and that America should not be allowed to have armed forces.  Here's what I had to say in response-

Unfortunatly, human nature does not allow for a military-free utopian society. If we were to strip away our armed forces, which seems to be the author's dream, we would, for lack of a better term, be "sitting ducks". Nations with militaries would be on our doorsteps, no...they'd be in our houses.

If we were invaded, who would fight or put up any kind of front to the opposing forces? Don't tell me the American people would fight.  A few would, but not enough to ward off any disiplined foreign army


Let me tell you about the types of people who join the militatry.

They are men and women who believe the values of Western civilization are worth fighting and/or dying for. The ideas from such awesome philosophers as Plato and Aristotle; the words from great champions of freedom, like Thomas Paine ring true in thier hearts. They uphold and keep in the backs of thier minds the ideas of the great religious leaders, like Moses and Jesus, who have formed the conciousness of the west. They never forget the sacrifices of previous generations and the stuggles our parents and grandparents endured before we had it so good. Think about that. What do you really have to worry about in life?

In my travels with the men and women of the military, I have yet to find one blood-thirsty soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Shame on you for even suggesting that they fall into some murding "Jack the Ripper" lot. If you want to find a group of killers Hell-bent on the destruction of the west- look to that small percentage of radicals who claim Islam is a ticket to killing off anyone who wants a free mind or opinion. Those are the people you should be blogging about, not your fellow countrymen.

Think about this...If there were no US military, where would the continents of Europe and Asia be today? The answer- under the dark spell of a Teutonic Reich and an Empire of the Sun.

Here are some more thougts and possiblities, in no particular order, if the US never had a militaty- We would still be British subjects, California might be controlled by Japan, the Taliban would rule Afghanistan and other sections of the ME, Hitler's great grandson would now be the head of state for much of Europe, the Japanese Emperor would still retain his "divine" influence and cause more ruthless bloodshed in imperial dominions opposed to him- ie: Manchuria and the Phillipines; not 6,000,000 but 16,000,000 Jews were killed across Europe, causing the Jewish race to number less than 2 million world-wide today, most of what was the US is now controlled by various republics, kingdoms and empires, and...oh yeah, that little piece of anal fodder writing his blog petitioning to "F*** the Troops" was arrested and executed today by some occupying nation's police force because he had an opinion.

Please do not compare the men an women of the military to murders, rapists or theives. We are far from that, and maybe, just maybe, if you spent some time with us, you would realize we are just normal people making a living, and you'd see the great past we share as Americans. Yes, there have been mistakes- but that is how we learn and grow and why history is taught in schools.

Oh, and our vocabulary is just a tad more extensive than yours. You couldn't come up with a better word than "Fuck" to title your bulletin? Get out of your parents house and do something with your life.

10:05 PM - 7 Comments - 12 Kudos - Add Comment

Truth, Justice and Stuff Like That
Category: Life

Truth, Justice and Stuff Like That

Christian Garzone

    Every person from the ages of 20 to 80 probably remembers the old Superman TV shows, cartoons and movies. From George Reeves to Christopher Reeve, Superman always stood for "Truth, Justice and the American Way". The latest installment of Warner Brothers Superman flicks, "Superman Returns", tells us that our hero now stands for, in the words of Perry White, "Truth, justice and Stuff Like That". A little annoyed, I did some research on the stuff like that comment.

    As it turns out, the producers of Superman Returns were afraid of offending people by mentioning that Superman stands for the American way. Are most of us really that embarrassed to stand for and celebrate our freedoms and the past sacrifices of others?Perhaps the producers of Returns were fearful to say anything because they know all too well about the neo-phonies who sit at coffee shops and complain about the US and how awful it is. Maybe the producers did not want to lose some of their neo-phony audience. For example, maybe they did not want to offend-

I. People who have never had to work or pay for anything in their lives and are so tied up in their lives getting fake tits, taking Prozac and filling up some ridiculously big SUV so they can drive to Starbucks for a non-fat blended decaf whipped-up waste of money and are, at the same time, ignorant or dont care about the billions of people in this world who live on less than $2 a day.

II. The fruits and nuts in California. Unless youre some metro-sexual with a hot ride, dont even try to talk to anyone south of Sacramento.

III. People who hate America for no apparent reason other than the fact that Sean Penn or some other high school drop-out celebrity said so.

IV. People who think military members are stupid assholes who just want to blow things up and nuke the Mid East, while college kids on mommy and daddys buck have all the answers to life and the way the world should be run. I mean, I know Condoleezza Rice has a Ph. D. in political science, but we should really give an ear to Green Days Billy Joe Armstrong. He knows whats best!

    I just want to ask you this question: Is living in America really so bad that you have to talk down about it? I know we have to beg for food and worry about government censorship in every aspect of our lives. George Bush listens to all of our phone calls. We cant walk down the street anymore because guns and white trash are out of control. We can no longer worship as we choose. Clean water is non-existent. Geez, I wish I could just speak my mind and be heard! I will live in fear the minute this blog is posted. I know George Bush and his goons are after me and everyone else that has an opinion. Give me a break!!!!

    Too many young people are desperate for a cause and to rebel against everything traditional in western society. If you so despise this nation, go ahead and leave- youll be back. I thought Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand were leaving the country if George Bush won the 2000 election. Hmmm.they must have a lot of stuff to pack.

    I know that no country is without its past faults. However, I hope this 4th of July youll reflect on the freedoms, greatness and the endless possibilities of this nation we share and call home. In some fashion on Tuesday, stand for truth, justice and the American way. Its who you are. Try and find some pride in America, and tell the neo-phonies and the makers of "Superman Returns" to get a grip!

12:07 PM - 4 Comments - 6 Kudos - Add Comment

Queen Elizabeth II and the Modern World
Category: News and Politics

Christian Garzone

Thames Valley University, London

10 October, 2001   

When the history books have been written, the reign of Queen Elizabeth II will be judged according to her astounding and revolutionary changes to the throne, Great Britain and its former empire. 

After the Second World War, nearly bankrupt, Britain could no longer afford to maintain a quarter of the globe and the monarchy became increasingly subjected to the will of the people and parliament.

Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 upon the death of her father, George VI.  Elizabeth is currently one of the longest reigning monarchs in the history of the world. Her reign has been centered on a decline in power, this done solely to relate to the changing times of the global community and to meet the demands of other world leaders and former imperial citizens.

Elizabeth has managed to combine her traditional titles and roles in a rapidly changing Britain, which, based on the latest polls, would rather see an elected president in the U.K. and an empty House of Lords.

Elizabeth exerts her main influence through the commonwealth, formerly known as the British Empire. The commonwealth is made up of 54 nations around the world, including: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Cameroon, Canada, Dominica, Fiji Islands, Ghana, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. 15 of the 54 countries are classified as realms, where the queen is still the head of state, i.e. Canada and Australia. If the queen is on the money, that usually means she is the queen of that country, represented by a governor or governor-general, respectively.

When traveling to other realms, Elizabeth does not act as the Queen of England, but as the queen of that particular country, which is important for her to retain a global acceptance.

With considerable thought and advisement from others, Her Majesty has made the former empire more acceptable to an unforgiving post-colonial world.

The commonwealth assists many of its members by offering educational, financial and medical programs, and fiercely promotes democracy.

Its large focus and contributions to the third world have made the commonwealth an important force in the fight against HIV/AIDS, illiteracy, hunger and gender and racial discriminations. For more information, visit www.thecommonwealth.org 

While the Queen acts very responsible and appropriately, her children, with the exception of Princess Anne, do not. They have embarrassed the institution to the point of disgust by many, which may be why those nasty poll numbers are so unfavorable. The Queen has had her own mistakes, but her boys (Charles, Andrew and Edward) seem to make a fool of the country. Time will only tell if naughty Charles (someday Charles III), can fill his mothers shoes; lets just hope he never weds Camilla.

Queen Elizabeths contributions to reforming and modernizing the U.K. are paramount for inclusion in the modern world. Granted, others do a lot of work, but she is the head of state, and deserves the credit. It is just the same as giving George W. Bush credit for all he does, while we all know his secretaries and congress do a lot of the work.

So, what is the future of the monarchy and the commonwealth? Eventually, the United Kingdom may give way and become more and more a part of the European Union, furthering it by converting to the euro and getting rid of the pound. It is odd to think that Europe is becoming more centralized much like the time of ancient Rome and its empire. The once awesome identities of individual countries are now being known as nation states, losing national pride, and becoming a combined European culture.

11:18 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

What is a Nation?
Current mood: annoyed
Category: News and Politics

What is a Nation?

Christian Garzone

12:26 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Letter to Congress
Category: News and Politics

Message sent to the following recipients: Representative Houghton Message text follows: Christian Garzone, 2 Stephens St. Clifton Springs, NY 14432

February 20, 2004

Dear Rep. Houghton,

     As your constituent, I'm writing to ask you to please support the "Ten Commandments Defense Act" (HR 2045). The Commandments are our basis of law, and have been for many other civilized nations for thousands of years. I was upset to see such a monument removed like it was a piece of pornography. This country has a huge Judeo-Christian majority (90 Why are so few speaking up?

     This bill is simple in what it attempts to accomplish. It simply returns to the individual states the power to make the decision of whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on or within publicly owned buildings. Similar legislation was introduced during the 106th Congress as an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Bill. It met with overwhelming approval from both Democrats and Republicans, passing 248-180. The House and Senate versions of the Juvenile Justice Bill, unfortunately, were never resolved for it to be signed into law.

     Please don't let this happen again. Support bringing the "Ten Commandments Defense Act" (HR 2045) to the full floor for a vote, and please vote in favor of it. I will be watching to see your actions on this important bill. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Christian Garzone

12:25 PM - 2 Comments - 3 Kudos - Add Comment

Capone, Ness & Prohibition

Capone, Ness & Prohibition

The first few decades of the Twentieth Century were no easy period for America. Endless immigration into crowded cities, ethnic gangs, lawlessness and restrictions such as prohibition (the ban on alcohol), damaged the society and economy in the post World War I era. To combat the aforementioned obstacles and things such as unemployment and hunger, many turned to crime as a way of life to support themselves and their families. Others, however, turned to the wrong side of the law simply to exploit weaknesses in the system and make gigantic profits.

Claiming to his peers and the media that he lived as a “businessman”, Alfonse “Al” Capone of Chicago bullied his way to the top of the illegal booze chain. He used the businessman title so delicately for being a gangster of the worst degree. Capone was the epitome of everything corrupt and one of the fiercest combatants of decent rule since Attila the Hun.

In Brian De Palma’s film, “The Untouchables”, the underworld of the mob is exposed and broken, at least temporarily, by Eliot Ness- a police officer who would stop at nothing to spit in the face of those disregarding the law and bring down Capone, played by Robert De Niro, and his alcoholic empire.
Many in Chicago lived in fear and felt that if they did not follow the Mafia tributary system in their places of business, they would be driven out, and many were in some most barbaric ways. In the opening of The Untouchables, we observe a young girl running out of a general store to catch a departing customer she thinks mistakenly left behind a briefcase; seconds later, she is blown to pieces. Caught in the middle of whatever bad transaction was talking place between the murderous gangster and the store, her death later serves as a testament to Ness who vows to end instances such as this and bring down the gangs running his beloved Chicago.

The main story line revolves around a black and white view of good versus evil with no grey area in between. You automatically know that out of the two main characters, Ness is the good guy and Capone is the bad guy. The ensuing conflict, as stated before, is bringing down Capone, which proves to be difficult for a criminal with so much money and protection. Capone could buy off police, lawyers and judges, thus eliminating any form of justice indebted to him for the monstrosities he committed. We know, thanks to the history books, that Capone was brought down by the tax man. Oscar, a financial specialist, played by Charles Martin Smith, discovers that Al had not bothered to pay his taxes in years, and owes a large sum of money to the federal government. After exposing Capone’s crime ring and jailing some of his henchmen, Eliot can now nip Al in the bud.

Being a period piece, numerous special effects are not terribly needed; therefore, what you see is what you get. The decrease in using artificial imaging gives a more realistic element and makes for better acting. Compared with films that rely solely on computer generated images (CGI), as was the case of the last three “Star Wars” films (1999, 2002 & 2005), the performances of the actors suffer greatly. Thankfully, The Untouchables was made in the late 1980’s before the computer started to play such an influential role in the motion picture industry.

The only downfall to the film is the soundtrack. A blur of phony, synthesized and out of place pieces, you are reminded that some person in a Hollywood editing room, combing their mullet and wearing bright neon clothes was putting together this film and thinking “Oh, what cool, bodacious music!”

The Untouchables is a direct refection of America in the early decades of last century and in many cases, a mirror to the present. Even today, in the third millennium, we struggle with immigration, ethnic gangs, illegal stimulants and a blatant disregard for any type of authority. These facts of life will not end anytime in the foreseeable future, and the ghost of Scarface will live on in the minds of many underground criminal leaders.

DePalma’s film clearly expresses these thoughts on celluloid and gives us a new perspective as to just how terrible a human being can be, and just how determined and noble another can be. The best stories have a central conflict and do not stray from the ending resolution of that particular problem. While DePalma shows us the Chicago underworld in a quasi-gruesome way, he never once goes overboard, and remains “classy”. Even the awful death of Malone, played by Sean Connery, is tolerable and done with a careful eye. Directors such a Quentin (Pulp Fiction) Tarentino, Oliver (Platoon) Stone, show us movies with excessive and unnecessary forms of violence, sex, drugs and dirty language. These films convey a very loud message of indecency and thanks to the constant onslaught of gore, are considered “cooler” by many young people who are now challenging the notion of what it means to be the “good guy” in life. The American youth no longer looks to Eliot Ness, Babe Ruth or Superman as role models, but to Capone, Dennis Rodman and Eminem as the heroes. In the future, hopefully the pendulum will swing back to a more conservative mindset and deliver “R” rated films that are not lost in the land of filth and borderline pornography.

On a comparative “gangster” note, my grandfather, Charles Garzonia, ventured to America in the early 1900’s from Milan, Italy. Being Italian, finding work was an awful task and trying to make a living for his family was even more difficult. He finally found employment with the Black Hand organization, and like Capone, smuggled alcohol from Canada during prohibition. Charles opened up a popular speak easy in Syracuse, New York called “Café Garzone”, which is still open today, however, as a legal liquor establishment. He was involved someway with the underworld, but it was to survive and make it in the New World, not to sponge off everyone in town and overindulge in every vice known to man like Capone.

DePalma’s film touches the hearts and minds of Americans today by tapping into our past, making it so foreign and different, yet so familiar. We have The Untouchables as a testament to a glorious and ruthless age of conflicting WASPs, Italians, Irishmen and everything else in between. It shows the melting pot of America at its best and worst, and makes no apologies in between. It reminds us that there are so many different groups of people living together in this country. While we have managed to maintain a common Anglo-Saxon identity of sorts, we cannot afford to divide and segregate ourselves into the Old World identities of our ancestors. DePalma tells us this message boldly, yet subconsciously and pushes the point to take his film at face value, learn from the mistakes of the past, and hopefully live not to repeat them. We love to hate the famous criminals embedded in the films of Scorsese, Coppola and DePalma. However, the image of the classic gangster has now given way to moronic, tattooed thugs with baggy pants, bad music and ridiculous hand shakes. The “businessmen” of the past are surly turning in their graves. However, thanks to Depalma’s film and others like it, they might not but turning as much.

12:22 PM - 4 Comments - 6 Kudos - Add Comment