A Day In The Journey http://www.adayinthejourney.com/ some scenery before the Destination... en Copyright 2012 Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:06:20 -0600 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.2 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss paine doesn't like parent countries Whew. It’s been a while. It’s amazing how life gets in the way of writing at times. Also, here is a good place to admit that about this far into any endeavor, my motivation to finish get a little hazy. haha. Right. But onward we must go.

Last time, we dealt with several of Paine’s arguments for separation from England, most notably those dealing with the nature of America’s strength as a colony, and whether or not she owes that to the crown. In this post, we’ll deal with his address on the matter of the parental nature of England toward the colonies.

Paine immediately signals his opinion regarding this view that England is the “parent” or “mother” country by stating that if she is, “the more shame upon her conduct.” He continues by asserting “...the phrase PARENT or MOTHER COUNTRY hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America.” Clearly, Paine does not approve of viewing England as a parent country. (1) He does, though, make an excellent point. By this time, the American colonies were the home of a diverse population from across Europe. The view of England as parent country is certainly more of a technicality by this point than anything else. He continues by expanding upon this salient point: “Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.” Paine makes some strong arguments in this section for loyalty to America (your neighbor is your countryman, not a fellow Englishman or European) over loyalty to any parent country.

Further, because all of Europe should rightly be viewed as the parent of the American colonies, Paine offers that America ought to be free of all colonial ties and to remain a free port to all. As he notes, “Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.” Certainly, throughout her independent history, America’s foreign trade has been, and continues to be, one of her greatest tools for diplomacy and even world playing field. “As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it.” This is an interesting point. Certainly, Europe at the time was still embroiled in a great deal of residual monarchial conflict (particularly between France and England). (2) Paine uses this idea—-all of Europe as America’s parent—to build a case for trade neutrality which requires a separation from England. The relationship with England is actually a detriment. As America had forged trade relationships with other European countries, America’s trade was the hostage of England’s conflicts. Every one of England’s wars caused issues for American trade because of her place as a colony of England. Paine argues that this is one more reason that the time for separation is at hand—it is time for America to look out for her own interests, to no longer be concerned about the interests of some “parent country.”

Following this fairly rational argument, Paine then makes an incredible leap of loggias: “Even the distance at which the Almighty hath places England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven.” This is followed upon by a discussion of the timing and original colonization of America: the Reformation and the Puritan settlements being evidence of the fated destiny of America as a independent nation. Frankly, this is a leap even for a man of Paine’s time. He now circles back for a bit to note the many ways the current conflict belies the “parental” nature of England’s relationship, and that living away from the consequences of the conflict or having friends on England’s side of the conflict is no excuse for tolerating England’s position. This argument is taken to the ultimate end of saying, “But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.” Paine has finalized his point: England’s soldiers and England’s supporters are murders, and not only will true Americans not brook them, neither will true men. This is the probably the most nationalistic statement he has made thus far (and will make, as I recall). I sense at this point that he has built to a point at which he feels a verbal smack upside the head is what his readers need. It is certainly rhetorically dangerous—it has the propensity to offend those who are, in fact, friends and family members to loyalists. Putting it in literary context does help it make more sense from a persuasion point of view. This is, after all, the Age of Reason, the age of Jonathon Swift. Hyperbole and statements blatantly meant to shock the audience were usual features of essays at this time. In that light, Paine’s statements in this section can be seen in a better light by modern audiences. While we would not turn to such divisive statement now, his audience would likely merely be given cause to think about where their loyalty lay rather than feeling offended by his accusation. Of course, I think the nature of Paine’s writing also causes misinterpretation. Taken out of literary context, Paine’s statements in this section can certainly be read as a call to strict nationalism, as a defense for calling compromise or disagreement among comrades “un-American.” I cannot speak to Paine’s motives, but looking at it through the lens of context, I cannot imagine he intended to literally impugn the manhood of one who still counted a loyalist as a friend any more than Swift intended for the British to literally eat Irish babies. This, along with Paine’s biblical allusions, is best examined in the light of his experience and historic context.

And here I will leave this post. Well actually, I will leave you with a small tidbit to be gained from this section of Paine’s work: the beginning of disdain for appreciation of European ideas and achievements as a political talking point— “…and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three.”

(1) I find Paine’s use of Catholic references as derogatory terms quite intriguing. Given his social context, not entirely surprising; however, there would have been a significant enough number of Catholic colonists that I have to wonder at his blatancy. I suppose he just wasn’t particularly concerned about whether or not Catholic colonists were on board with his arguments.

(2) I do wonder how Paine would apply this theory today, in a much more global economy. And how he would feel about diplomacy in which trade is often used in a disciplinary fashion. Clearly, he views trade, at least in this argument, as a motivation for certain diplomatic approaches rather than diplomatic approaches as a reason for trade. (I hope that sentence made sense.) I’m particularly inclined to wonder how Paine would view special trade status with any country. He seems to favor absolutely equal trade with every European country. In a world where every country is a potential trading partner, would he continue that philosophy, or would he see the merits of adding human rights and the natures of government to the trade equation? It’s an interesting question.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/paine_doesnt_like_parent_count.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/paine_doesnt_like_parent_count.html Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:06:20 -0600 paine's america post-lexington and concord And now, the blog post you’ve been waiting for, the latest and greatest thing you’ve read this moment—Continuing through Common Sense by embarking on “Thoughts of the Present State of American Affairs.”

Those of you who have been following, know that I’ve been working through a summary of and response to the main ideas in Paine’s most mentioned work. Having complete the first two sections, it’s now time to examine Paine’s examination of the contemporary state of American political affairs. He has spent the previous segment analyzing the reasons why the very institution of monarchy is flawed and, in his view, against the very will and desires of God. The next logical step in his analysis is to examine the effects the British monarchy has had on the American colonies.

Paine begins this section by once again admonishing his readers to put off preconceived prejudices and allow their reason to inform their opinions. Too late, he states, are attempts to continue the debate—the king of England has pushed the contest between England and America into to the realm of armed combat and America must answer accordingly. America must answer this challenge because it is “not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent;” She must answer because it is “not the concern of a day, a year, or an age”—it is a concern of all posterity. Decisions made now affect every inhabitant of the future of this continent. This, for Paine, is a turning point that must be noted. There has been a shift in the dealings between England and America that cannot be reversed. “All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanac of the last your; which, though proper then are superseded and useless now.” Here again, Paine shows his talent for meeting his readers where they are: he has noted the necessity of a new approach without alienating those who had advocated plans of reconciliation and discourse prior to Lexington and Concord. Paine recognizes the “advantages of reconciliation,” but states that time has passed away “like an agreeable dream.” Ideas of reconciliation were good while they lasted, but King George has erased that possibility. A new approach must be taken, and that approach is to answer arms with arms—to separate from England.

Paine next addresses a logical argument against separation: that as America has seen success under the crown of England, she must remain there in order to continue with such success. Not only does Paine reject this argument (“We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk that it is never to have meat…”), he asserts “that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her.” He seems here to assume that some form of non-colonial trade would easily be established. Paine seems to feel this particular argument is hardly worth a response, for he gives little space to addressing it. He clearly seems to feel that any argument for avoiding separation on the basis of either past or hypothetical future success gained due to security under crown of England is not a compelling argument; that America would have done and would continue to do just fine on its own, and his readers should be able to see that. (1)

When faced with the argument of England’s protection, Paine summarily dismisses it as well. He begins by stating that England’s protection was not altruistic or maternal solely, but that the crown “...defended the continent at our expense as well as her own...” (2) He continues by explaining “...that she did not protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT, but from HER ENEMIES on HER OWN ACCOUNT,...” (3) Paine clearly wishes his readers to begin viewing England’s actions from a more suspicious standpoint, and thus focuses on pointing out the self-preservation aspect of England’s protection. Not only does he state unequivocally that England protects the colonies solely out of self-interest, he makes the application that were America to “Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain.” This is, of course, a direct application of Paine’s earlier contention that wars are the result of the pride of kings and nothing else. This would seem to entirely overlook the histories of Ancient Greece and Rome during their respective periods of democracy and republicanism.

Throughout this section, Paine seems to take for granted that his blunt and summary responses will be accepted as sense. He takes almost no time to elaborate any point, assuming that his bare sentiments are enough to prove his point. He will take more time to deal with the argument that Britain is America’s parent, perhaps seeing it as an argument worthy of more attention. Nevertheless, his responses to these two arguments against separation (“The crown has brought America success” and “England has protected us at her expense”) leave a bit to be desired. Paine treats them as though he feels they aren’t actually credible arguments. That seems shallow and short-sighted considering what was at stake at the time of his writing. If nothing else, the length and breadth of his arguments enable us now to see what he felt were the most compelling arguments brought by his contemporaries. And as he has so perceptively addressed his audience in other areas, it is perhaps enough that he addressed these arguments at all. As for us, we shall move on to his next answer—that addressed to the argument of England as the parent and America as the progeny—next time.


(1) In fact, I fear Paine is suffering from a bit of patriotic hyperbole here. Looking at the 17th and 18th centuries for what they were, it is unlikely that any new colonial growth could have survived long without colonial backing of some form. Just the overspill from European wars would have made the success of a purely independent colonial venture on the level with American success highly improbable. The mere act of signing a trade agreement with one European power would have created a conflict with all the others that a young colony could ill afford to handle.

(2) Paine seems to be ignoring the fact that the American colonies asked for defense, particularly during the French and Indian War. He certainly makes light of the deeper-than-mere-trade connection working in obvious favor for the colonies. Yes, the defense of the colonies cost the colonies as well as the crown, but it bestowed great benefit on the colonies in return.

(3) This could be true were we splitting hairs, but the question could be raised: is there an actual difference between the two when the colonies are part of the crown? Is not protection from the enemies of England the same as protection from enemies of the colonies? Had he wanted to make a difference between European enemies and tribes hostile to the colonials, he should perhaps have been more specific. Yet even there, the enemy is one of both due to disruptions of trades and taxes over the sea should the colonies face hostility from the native tribes around them. He appears to make distinctions where they don’t easily exist.

(4) Given the nature of war and colonies at the time, Paine’s scenario is unlikely. It is far more likely that had England dissolved her bonds with the colonies, the colonies would merely have been conquered by another power (likely France). He seems to be ignoring the history of contemporary colonialism in favor of his personal view of the motivations of warfare.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/paines_america_postlexington_a.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/paines_america_postlexington_a.html responses Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:26:48 -0600 on monarchies and their children Now then. It’s been an unjustifiably long time since I last post. My sincere apologies. Truly. So last time I finished up Paine’s first segment, “On the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” This section covered what Paine saw as the distinction between society and government (the first works positively uniting us by our affections, the second negatively by restraining our vices), what he felt was the natural reason for developing a government (to pick up the slack when morals and virtuous affection fail), and the basic purpose of that government (to provide security and freedom in the best possible way). Paine used a hypothetical colony to communicate these ideas of government, and at the end introduced his criticisms of the constitution of England (that it merged tyranny--hereditary aristocracy and monarchy--with republicanism--the house of commons). Here, he introduced his opposition to hereditary leadership because it is inherently flawed: it creates an unnatural divide by guaranteeing leadership based solely on birthright to those who are in many ways least qualified to lead due to their inherent “otherness” based on that birthright segregation.

Section two will be Paine’s detailed argument against the hereditary monarchy. “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession” begins by asserting the equality of mankind in the original order of creation. (1) Paine asserts that the distinction of “king” and “subject” is one for which there is neither natural nor religious reason. Male and female are distinctions of nature, good and bad those “of heaven” (religion), but the elevation of one man or group of men above the others is something entirely other. It is at this point that Paine makes an assertion that seems to be contradicted by the very source text from which he so heavily draws. Paine states: “In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion.” I did consider that perhaps Paine had a narrow view of history, or a limited availability of sources. Neither of these things would seem to be the case, though, nor does either of these things account for his sloppy scholarship of the Old Testament (OT) itself. He does refer to contemporary Holland as an example of a land at peace minus a monarchy, and he does limit his reference of non-monarchial peace in the OT to the ancient patriarchs. This seems to actively ignore the story of Jacob’s sons and Shechem and the Hebrew conquering of Canaan. (2) Paine then continues on to actively ascribe the institution of the monarchy to the devil. That certainly seems a harsh attribution, but considering his purpose and audience, what better way to argue against the monarchy than to point out it’s non-Hebrew origins (“heathen” being the word he uses) as an argument to support the monarchy being of infernal rather than heavenly origins? Certainly, the Hebrews justify their desire for a king to the prophet Samuel by noting “all the nations” have kings. Nevertheless, God himself tells Abraham in Genesis 17:6, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I make you into nations, and kings shall from from you.” This certainly implies that future kinds were a part of not a flouting of God’s plan. At this point, he accuses the monarchial governments of overlooking anti-monarchial scriptures. He’s going to base significant points of his argument on these scriptures he considers to be anti-monarchial.

From here, Paine outlines the development of Hebrew government from the elders to the judges to, finally, the anointing of Saul as king. To me, this becomes his weakest argument against the monarchy. He makes much (indeed several pages) of this history of Israel and God’s apparent disapproval of their desire for a king (“They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”), highlighting all the negative consequences that Samuel outlines will come as a result of having a king. (3) To Paine, all of this speaks ill of all monarchies rather than merely a criticism of a nation called out by their own record to serve God and be ruled by Him. I think it is a bit reaching to apply this perspective to a nation that is not Ancient Israel. In appealing to scripture, I think Paine undoes himself a bit. Scripture is silent on the good or ill of any particular form of government outside of the theocracy of Ancient Israel. And, as noted in the previous paragraph, part of God’s promise to and covenant with Abraham was that he would be the ancestor of kings. That in itself does seem to indicate that some form of monarchy was the intended plan. God’s correction of Israel’s call for a king would seem to be with their desire for a king like the other nations rather than a king God would choose for them. (4) It seems that Paine here falls victim to his zealotry by using irrelevant OT passages to support his point. His arguments founded on the principles of natural civic evolution and human equality are far stronger.

Paine now adds to the “evil” of monarchy, the “evil” of hereditary succession. It is here that his argument does grow stronger. Paine begins by reviewing his point that all men were originally equal, that it is not a natural point of birth to be set up in authority over others. He makes two strong points here: one, that while a man might “himself deserve SOME decent degree of honours of his contemporaries,” there is now reason to believe his descendants will; and two, a man’s public honors are bestowed on him by others and the “givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity.” In other words, a man may deserve to be elevated above his peers, but there is o justification for automatically elevating his children. Likewise, those who choose to elevate this man do not have the right to elevate his descendants above their own progeny for generations. This effectively removes the right of their own descendants to elevate those they choose. The givers of honors “could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, ‘that your children and your children’s children shall reign over OURS forever.’” (5)

Paine again uses the example of Saul in his addressing of hereditary succession when he examines how kings come to be. “The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession.” This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but doesn’t seem to be reflected by historical application. He attempts to defend this point by noting that Saul was appointed by lot and stating that “the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction that there was any intention it ever should be.” This again seems to show sloppy scholarship of his own source text. No mention is made of transferring the crown to another until Saul’s direct disobedience and unrepentance in I Samuel 15. It is there, after Saul has been king for years, that Samuel tells him the kingdom has been ripped from his family and will be given to another. Paine’s own text appears to argue against the point he is using it to make.

Paine continues his point noting that crowing a first king by election also tends to establish the right of succeeding generations to elect their own king at such times as necessary, unless said election appointed an entire family rather than an individual to the throne. His third answer of usurpation is merely noted as indefensible for establishing a monarchy, barbs are aimed at William the Conqueror again, and the “antiquity of the English monarchy” rejected on that basis. While it may be ugly to accept that a monarchy is granted by right of conquer (“usurpation”), it is a long-established tradition. Paine could certainly have taken more time to establish here why it is unnatural even while long-standing. Thus, it seems to me that Paine uses a poor defense for one of his strongest arguments regarding the nature of the establishment of kings and fails to firmly establish another.

He is soon to redeem himself somewhat with a significant argument against hereditary succession, one that would seem to apply to an aristocracy across the board. Naming hereditary succession as not merely absurd but “evil,” Paine begins to establish that its very nature leads to oppression. Firstly, “Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and other to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance.” Certainly the run of history indicates that seats of authority conferred upon by birth alone lend a path of arrogance and ugliness to those so born. Granted, it is a problem that can be combated on an individual basis, but in general, I think Paine is correct in pointing out that hereditary position lends itself to the oppression of those born to be ruled. Secondly, hereditary position inevitably lends itself to certain times when a minor or one aged and infirm is in possession of the throne. “In both these cases the public becomes prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies of either age or infancy.” Again, a wise regent will tend to alleviate this problem on a case by case basis, yet one can see that this problem is innate to the nature of a hereditary monarchy. Now, a thing that Paine did not see, for reasons well understood upon examination of his time period, was that a monarchy can certainly be tempered by the presence of a strong, balanced parliament. During Paine’s lifetime the flaws and corruption of the English Parliament were infamous, so it is understandable that he could not see a path toward using Parliament to provide a check and balance to the monarchy. Then again, based on earlier segments that we’ve examined, Paine would see the need for a strong parliament an argument against the very nature of the monarchy. As I quoted before, “HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK?” The historical argument for the monarchy has been some form of divine right; and as he logically points out, if that is indeed the foundation of the monarchy, why on earth would it need a check and balance? And if it needs a check and balance, why then is the monarchy the unquestioned authority? I have no argument for that logic, and certainly we have seen the minimization of the political power of the monarchy in England as Parliament has established itself as a strong governing authority. Or as Paine puts it farther along in this section, “The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king.”

The remainder of this section Paine devotes to pointing out the bloody civil war fought in England over the throne and noting how the development of a parliament in England did indeed remove matters of governance from the king over time. He asserts that the problems present in parliament, the weakness of the constitution, are the fault of the very presence of a monarchy. Looking at modern England, I would say that Paine’s statement is hyperbolic but contains a kernel of truth. There do continue to be inequities in the application of legal and social justice in England that directly relate to the continued presence of a titled class. Nevertheless, her constitution and parliament were strengthened and reformed while still under the power and presence of a monarchy. Again, Paine knows he is best served by presenting the most directly black and white argument to his audience at a time when many were frustrated by divided loyalties and unsure what side of the fence on which to step down. Overall, I feel that Paine’s practical arguments against hereditary monarchy are strongest. His attempt to defend an anti-monarchial stance using the Old Testament does not serve him well upon examination as that very text argues against him. Thus, while it can be understood that he felt the need to present a biblically based argument to his audience, it is flimsy and fails to stand the test of time.

And there we end our examination of “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.” Paine will next address “Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs,” wherein he will show his audience where their soon-to-be nation stands. I took a lot of notes in that section, so prepare for a couple of posts. haha

(1) This, I suppose, would be the place to note Paine’s adherence to the scriptural literacy. He will be founding the development of several of his arguments on the Old Testament. In an effort to prevent any type of apologetic derailing, let’s all agree to accept that Paine viewed the Old Testament as a reliable source of, at least, Hebrew national history and accepted that the universe was a product of some form of creation (as even the most secular of our founders did). I will note that an evolutionary perspective certainly does not negate the prospect of mankind being originally equal until some later point in his development spurred the development of social classes and monarchies. Further, as it is typically considered historical fact that Saul was the first king of Ancient Israel, and that prior to Saul, Israel was governed as a nearly pure Theocracy, I will be approaching his arguments as founded truth. Granted, Paine makes an argument based on what God indicated His preferences were, and this argument will have less weight with those of my readers who are neither Christian nor even Deist, but in order to continue to point here--addressing Paine’s actual arguments and statements on their own merit--I’m going to work through it on Paine’s assumptions: the Judeo-Christian God is true, and the circumstances of His expression and involvement in the anointing of Saul are accurate. Any other approach to Paine’s points is for another day. Paine saw the world a certain way, and his arguments should be seen and addressed the way he saw them.

(2) Granted, Shechem was a prince of a city. That said, Jacob at that point could also be considered a nomadic king based on the same leadership code that made Shechem’s father, Hamor, a king. Further, the argument could be made that Joshua and the Hebrews were fighting against tribal kings when they conquered Canaan, there seems to be no logical justification for assigning that series of battles to the “pride of kings.” Historically speaking, unless all tribal leaders are granted the title “king,” Paine’s argument here just doesn’t work. Tribal conflict is old. Perhaps Paine’s definition of king is, in fact, quite that broad, but that would end up making the term meaningless, I would think.

(3) The point is never proven that a non-monarchial government would not also have some of those necessary “ills,” such as taxes and a draft.

(4) This is evidenced by His instruction to Samuel later to anoint David as His choice for king after Saul. David, in fact, is later referred to as a man after God’s own heart. This turn of events does seem to argue against Paine’s insistence that God Himself is and was anti-monarchial.

Amongst his argument against hereditary succession, Paine takes some several paragraphs to rail against William the Conqueror. This seems a bit out of place to me since he established monarchy not by hereditary or divine right, but by the right of the conqueror. It seems as though Paine is venting bitter dislike here rather than defending a reasonable argument. /random address of random rabbit trail.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/literature/on_monarchies_and_their_childr.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/literature/on_monarchies_and_their_childr.html literature Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:00:17 -0600 i am quite neglectful Oh the neglect I have allowed my blog of late! I am quite sorry for that. This summer ended up busier than expected, and then the beginning of the school year was quite hectic. I offer my sincerest apologies to my handful of readers and to Thomas Paine. I hope to grace everyone with something intriguing to read in the next few days as an offer of peace. :-)

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/i_am_quite_neglectful.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/i_am_quite_neglectful.html Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:02:56 -0600 continuing through the pages of Paine All right. So in my last blog I began my attempt to both summarize and respond to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. And now, in case you hadn’t guessed already, comes part two of this exciting event!

Last time, I stopped just as Paine had finished demonstrating the development of a representative government by using the example of a hypothetical colony. He finished by noting specifically that frequent interaction between the citizenry and the representatives/government “... will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this...depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.” I noted that Paine is adamant (he even uses all caps!) about what causes this desire result of strength and happiness--it is mutual and natural support. This, of course, is generally at odds with the idea prevalent in some circles (on both sides of the aisle, it is true) that government should be distrusted. Paine’s remarks would lead one to believe he would find this a very unhealthy idea for a citizen to hold.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/continuing_through_the_pages_o.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/continuing_through_the_pages_o.html responses Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:12:49 -0600 on common sense...the pamphlet, not the vital skill **Before I start, my previous decision-tangled post does have an update.

Not long ago, I embarked upon a reading of Common Sense by Thomas Paine. I was spurred on to read it because of the way it had gained ascendance of mention among the Tea Party and their respective, more right of right legislative counterparts. So I suppose you could chalk it up to wanting to see what all the fuss was about. And also, it is a staple piece of Early American literature, one that was pivotal in the lead-up to the Revolution. That would make it a worthwhile read at any rate. I had been meaning to extend my reading of American lit. Why not start with Paine?

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/on_common_sensethe_pamphlet_no.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/on_common_sensethe_pamphlet_no.html responses Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:32:44 -0600 i like simple things Update: Well, circumstances (and bank balances) worked out such that I did turn in my signed contract. But with a view to the future. Now, I've got a goal and timeline, and off we go. Here's to getting a job in London for the 2012-2013 school year. Anyone with connections--I'm so all about using those. hahaha

Have you ever found yourself in the throes of a decision you didn’t know how to make? Where one choice is simple and direct and the consequences are easy to see, and the other choice is more like jumping off a cliff and hoping there’s a nice deep body of water underneath? I’ve got one of those right now. At least, it feels that way. And I hate it. The thing is that since last summer, England has owned a large portion of my heart. A big enough one that I’ve been surreptitiously applying for secondary English teaching positions for the past few months. I haven’t gotten a job, though, and now I’m down to a week (a gracious week given my incredibly gracious principal) to make a life-altering decision. I’m still holding out for that call or email that says, “Hey, come on over--we have a position just for you!” If I don’t, then I’m a bit stuck. Without a job offer, I’m left with the simple, direct choice--turn in my signed contract, work at Victory for another year, look for a teaching position for the 2012-2013 school year while saving the monies--and the cliff-diving choice--go to England anyway on the small fundage I have, get a temp job(s) while looking for a teaching position over there hoping that I get something so that I can qualify for a visa before my six months of “tourism” is up. And the thing is, I just don’t know what to do. I guess when it comes down to it, I like safe choices. I like things I can count on. I like the security of knowing I have something to go to rather than going to find something. And I’m afraid that if I go, it won’t work out and I’ll be jobless in two countries and regretting every minute of it. Perhaps being impulsive and risk-taking is just another word for foolhardy. But on the other hand, I’m haunted by the thought that staying another year is cowardly, that something will happen and I’ll never get to England, that I’ll regret it. Maybe doing the responsible thing is just another way of saying boring and cowardly. I guess either way, I fear regretting the decision I’ve made. This whole thing would be so much simpler if I get a surprise job (!) in the next week.

At any rate, all that venting just shows my serious dislike of making decisions. At least ones like this where the outcome of my choices are a bit more permanent. Would it be completely irresponsible of me to base my decision on a Magic 8 ball?

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/i_like_simple_things_1.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/i_like_simple_things_1.html life Thu, 26 May 2011 10:21:08 -0600 what to do with that Fort Sumpter shot Today is the 150th anniversary of the first shots fired at Fort Sumpter. In other words, the start of the Civil War. I was mulling over writing about it when this NPR story looking to the sesquicentennial of Fort Sumpter that made my decision for me. It’s a thoughtful story that I encourage you all to take the time to read. The story encapsulated for me a lot of the struggle here in the South with how to handle our past. I’ve been at various places of dealing with that over the years but have yet to really know any answers. I suppose it’s the kind of situation that may not have any answers for a very long time. After all, when it comes to history in a place where bloodlines and family trees run deep and claim significant loyalty, 150 years isn’t that long. ]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/what_to_do_with_that_fort_sump.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/what_to_do_with_that_fort_sump.html life Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:53:24 -0600 everything is seen by it It's been a bit busy around here, and that has put a cramp in my writing. The past four weeks have been one big catch-up for me, it feels. Let me tell you, two days of migraine yucko can really cause the grading to pile up. And after that, it just felt like I never could get a handle on things. Finally, though, last week I managed it. It feels good. haha And just in time, too, as my sister and brother-in-law acquired the perfect house, and there's all sorts of moving/painting/unpacking action going on. Nevertheless, I felt I should not let my blogging slide completely here, so I'm updating with a short film review. So here goes.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/everything_is_seen_by_it.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/responses/everything_is_seen_by_it.html responses Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:43:47 -0600 on sorrowing as a group Today, I went to a funeral. It was beautiful and exhausting. Later, I tweeted that I did not like funerals very much. Actually, that isn’t really true. I think funerals are a deeply important part of how we humans grieve. Yes, this may be a melancholy post, but this post is part of how I’m grieving.

When we think about funerals, regardless of our religious or philosophical thoughts, we tend to lean towards “dislike” on the scale between “like” and “dislike.” I think that response doesn’t accurately represent how funerals affect us or touch our humanly soul. Perhaps there was an inordinate amount of pondering this on my part on my way home from school. Perhaps. There is a reason behind, though. I almost wasn’t able to go to this funeral. There weren’t any substitutes to be had. The 8th grade is on their “See Louisiana or Bust” history/graduationy trip, so three teachers are already gone. Then, it seems, that not only were two other teacher out for various reasons, the substitutes were all out of town, at doctor’s appointments with their kids/dads, or just didn’t want to return my call. I had resigned myself to a solely individual path for taking leave of my friend. I knew it would add to my utter disappointment and loss, but I was out of options. But the principal came to my rescue. She stepped in and subbed for me. Because of this, I had the chance to consider an individual sorrowing in comparison to a group sorrow.

Really, it’s rather like the phenomena of seeing a comedy in a group. Certainly the movie or television show or play is funny to us when we watch it alone, but there is an added joy in sharing humor with others. You know what I mean. There’s a sense of community when 5 or 80 other people are laughing along with you. It’s a good thing. In a similar way, group sorrow is an aid and comfort to our grief. The Greeks seem to be the first to truly understand this in the creative arena. Greek tragic plays allowed for social catharsis, a social sharing of sorrow, albeit for created characters. Consider--the long-standing experience of sharing grief as the audience of a play reflects the real-life catharsis we experience grieving our friend of family member with others who loved them, too. As exhausting as it was to grieve, to acknowledge with others how much I will miss this amazing lady, it was cleansing. Like tears, shared grief is cathartic for us all, regardless of background, culture, creed or, history. So when I said that I didn’t like funerals earlier, it wasn’t really that at all. What I don’t like is losing loved ones. Sharing the reality of that loss with others who have lost--that’s community.

I know, it probably feels that on some level I’m intellectualizing sorrow and loss. Perhaps part of me is. But I’ve cried all the tears I can manage to cry today. I’ve sorrowed with the sorrowing. I’ve shared my loss at the Bible study table with ladies who care about my loss and sorrow. Words are the thing I have left. The place I need to go to take the next step of facing such sudden loss. Funerals can seem so macabre, so wallowing. But we need them. We need to share our loss and grief, or it can more easily stifle us, can consume us. It’s probably also a trifle self-indulgent to share my “revelations” about funerals with you all, but hey--it’s my blog. I can be a little self-indulgent if I want to. Right? :-)

I am going to miss Nancy. It seems that since her death on Saturday, it has hit me more and more how much. Yes, I firmly believe she’s better off now. I firmly believe we’ll meet again. (Yes, I also know that not everyone who reads this believes as I do and Nancy did about life after death. Please indulge me a bit, though, my friends, as for a rare moment, my spiritual beliefs must be included in a post.) And given the severity of the accident, it seems a mercy she’s gone on. But dammit, we needed her still. It’s so difficult sometimes to balance “I’ll meet you in the morning” with how much we love and miss someone. Nancy was such a joyful, giving lady. She could make me smile no matter how I felt that day. When I was going through a difficult time and couldn’t fulfill my responsibilities at Kids’ Club one week, she understood, she never asked questions, and she hugged me when she saw me next. I’ve never met someone so naturally filled with love for others, with a desire to serve and bless those in need, whoever they might be. I can’t tell you how much I’ll miss her enthusiasm, how much I’ll miss sitting next to her in choir in the summers, how much I’ll miss her heart. Nancy, I loved you so much. You were such an encouragement and inspiration to me. You made me step out and minister to others when I never would have without your sweet appeal. I am honored to have known you here. And I feel honored to have been a part of the community grieving your loss today. On the farther shore, my dear friend.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/on_sorrowing_as_a_group.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/on_sorrowing_as_a_group.html life Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:30:54 -0600 if i were an artist... Today, on "In the life of a 5th grader," we look at how a 5th grader finishes this sentence: "If I were an artist..."

...I would take photographs. If I were a photographer I would take pictures of cities. It would be about cities and buildings in cities. I would choose that so I could explore cities.

...I would make sculptures. I like making sculptures. My art would be about the swamp. Also the Civil War. I choose that art because I like it, and it’s interesting.

...I would write music. It would be about candy. I would choose that kind of art because I like music and candy.

...I would choose music and photography. My art would be about everything you can think of!

...I would write music. My art would be about love. Love makes great music and art.

...I would make sculptures. I would make sculptures out of video games. I think sculptures are cool to look at so that’s why I would make sculptures.

...I would take photographs. It would be about animals. I would choose this art because animals are awesome.

...I would write music. I’ve written about 7 songs, but they stink. Love inspires me; it gives me peace of mind. Music is AWESOME.

...I would paint. I love to paint. My paintings would be about anything. Painting is about expressing yourself. And not just painting one thing. Everything.

...I would take pictures. My art will be about basketball. I can relate to basketball.

...I would choose to paint and make beautiful scenery. My scenery would be by a beautiful ocean. And the grass would be tall, and the sand would be wonderful. Maybe throw in a couple of sailboats. I would choose the ocean because it inspires me to do anything!

...I would create paintings. I would make paintings of outer space with the stars, sun, and moon. I would choose that art because I could show people what outer space looks like. Also to show people important information about outer space.

...I would write songs. My art would be about things that happened in my life. I would choose that art because I love music. I like to dance and sing, so I like to write songs.

...I would paint. Not just paint, but I would paint scenery, flowers, and animal life. I would choose that kind of art because I feel that it would express my true feelings about specific people, places, things, and ideas. I also feel that it would show the world who I really am.

...I would sculpt. My art would be about mostly abstract. I chose this kind of art because it’s what I enjoy the most. And my name (Tyler) does mean builder.

...I would take photographs. My art would be about beauty. I want to take pictures of the beautiful, breathtaking sites I can see. I would choose that kind of art to bring beauty to the world.

...I would choose to paint. My art would be about animals. They would be all different animals. I would choose this art because I like to paint animals.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/vocation/if_i_were_an_artist.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/vocation/if_i_were_an_artist.html vocation Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:13:27 -0600 african-american heritage month. and don't you forget it. i mean it. I know it's halfway through the month, but I've been oddly absent from my blog lately. All the things I want to write about are unformed or too hot-button or my thoughts fizzle out before I can successfully conclude a post. Therefore, I offer you a simple post: an admonition to spend a little time honoring the incredible contributions African-Americans have made to our national history by learning something new. And don't give me that excuse, "Well, I just don't think one minority group get a whole month of focus, so I'm not going to give in to political correctness and observe it at all!" Frankly, I find that attitude snotty, self-righteous, and a bit prejudiced. You may feel an entire month's focus is unwarranted; don't let that keep you from discovering what decades of segregation and biased history curricula left out of the education system. As I told one student today, I figure a month's focus on the achievements of African-Americans is but little we can do to make up for 200+ years of slavery and for 100 years of maltreatment and abuse. Take a few minutes to discover one new person, one previously unknown journey, one door of knowledge. Take a few minutes to recognize that no one today can truly empathize with the struggles of blacks before the Civil Rights Act. Take a few minutes to understand why it's important to go that extra step, to make that extra bit of eye contact, to say "Sir" and "Ma'am." It will be a worthwhile few minutes, I promise you.

Some resources (articles, photo galleries, and interactive media) you may enjoy:
The History Channel
Biography
The History Makers
The Census Bureau
The Smithsonian

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/africanamerican_heritage_month.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/africanamerican_heritage_month.html life Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:41:16 -0600 an admonition to parents I would just like to take a moment to encourage parents: if your child's teacher(s) or pediatrician(s) has consistently suggested that you have your child tested for a learning or developmental disorder--do it, please. I understand that you may fear your child will now be "labeled" for the rest of their life. I understand that you fear what a positive diagnosis might involve. I understand that you want to avoid your child having an excuse to not give their all or do their best academically. But I understand some other things as well because I am a teacher.

Your child's file will have a label not your child. Unless your child chooses to tell his classmates that he has ADD or Asperger's or dyslexia or receives accommodations, they will likely never know. Certainly, if your child's symptoms are evident, his classmates will know. Much of the time this is a helpful not hurtful thing, however. I have seen my own students be far less than kind to their classmates. I have never seen them taunt an autistic classmate. Ever. And the younger they are when their classmate is diagnosed, the more they work together with them, the more leeway they give that classmate. If you are still concerned, talk to the administrators and teachers; see what a diagnosis would mean. Many parents have an understandable fear of their child being in a "special ed" program. In many schools, a learning or behavioral disorder diagnosis means nothing more than certain in-class accommodations, some behavioral interventions, and special resources tutoring during inconspicuous times. Having an educational exceptionality doesn't mean segregation.

You will be better equipped to handle your child's struggles and symptoms if you know what you are dealing with and how best to deal with it. With a diagnosis, you have a guide. Without a diagnosis, you will be subject to the very same difficulties only with the guide, without the support of therapists, without the extra aid teachers can give. Having your child tested and diagnosed is far better than flying blindly through frustration after frustration because your child continues to struggle in school or behaviorally, and your best efforts aren't working the way you'd hoped.

You are the one who sets the expectations for your child as ever. I have had numerous students who have learning struggles and who receive academic accommodations; I am aware of one whose parents allowed her to use that as an excuse for work that was below her abilities. You will teach your child how to view their struggle: as an excuse for not meeting their potential, or as a challenge to beat every time they do better than they expected.

But the biggest issue, the one that inspires this post today: if you avoid testing and diagnosis, you are robbing--yes, I said robbing--your child of the aid and treatment he needs to get the step up to grade level acquisition and success. Delaying testing merely means that your child will be older and less able to respond to therapy and coaching. For instance, for many learning and behavioral disorders, 5th grade is hitting the upper age limit on therapy. This means that if you wait until your child is finally hitting a wall in upper elementary, you've already missed the time period when therapy and coaching is most effective, and you're quickly approaching an age when it will be nearly ineffective. And trust me when I say, this is no help to your child. No help at all. Delaying diagnosis means your child will struggle and be below grade level in every grade. By middle school, this will start to be very frustrating for him. And by high school, unless he is able to self-construct coping mechanisms, it will be defeating. The earlier the diagnosis, the more able intervention is to put your child on a path of success. For some children, it's enough to eliminate any hindrance to grade level or above grade level accomplishment. For all of them, it equips them with the tools they need early on so that when they reach upper levels and difficult subjects, they already know how to approach them. They already are prepared.

Watching a student continue to struggle, continue to slip behind, merely because his parents failed to heed admonitions to have him evaluated is not fun. It is frustrating. It is difficult. You do everything you can, but without well-developed tools and skill patterns, it is very difficult to help a student in that position by 5th grade. As a teacher, I fear for this type of student when they reach middle school and high school. Not only will they be coping with more and more difficult work, they'll still be struggling to acquire and integrate the skills they need to accommodate for whatever struggle they're facing. Please, parents, do not hinder your child because you fear labels or opinions or complications or excuses. Do not let your fears and anxieties get in the way of what will best equip your child for the future. Don't put yourself or your child in a position to regret that fear. The outcome isn't what you hope. Heed admonitions--if it's clear that evaluation is recommended, have your child evaluated early. You will only be helping them to discover the best ways to prepare for success.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/vocation/an_admonition_to_parents.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/vocation/an_admonition_to_parents.html vocation Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:23:14 -0600 if I were a superhero in a secret lair... I asked my kids what super power they would choose if they were a superhero, and what they would want to accomplish with that power. They gave me some really interesting answers. Also, some had trouble limiting themselves to one power. haha

*If I could be a superhero, the power I would choose would be to turn invisible.

*If I was a superhero, I would want lots of powers. I would like to be able to fly, have a force field, and have invisibility. I would go by the name Super Leighton. One thing I would like to accomplish would be to kill all the villains.

*I would choose the power of making money. My name would be “Richest Man on Earth.” I would like to accomplish getting 1 million every time I say “money.”

*I would want to have invisibility. I would go by Invisible Person because I wouldn’t want anyone to know who I was. My life as a superhero would be awesome because nobody would see me. There is nothing I would really want to accomplish. I would just like to be invisible.

*My power would be to rewind and fast-forward time. My name is Remote Guy. It would be awesome. If I got a bad grade, I could reverse time to redo it, or I could fast-forward to Saturday. I would want to accomplish better grades with my super hero power.

*If I were a superhero, I would choose the power to shapeshift. I would be the name Bob. My life would be crazy because I would constantly have to save people, but I could also shapeshift into a normal person. One thing I would try to accomplish is to shapeshift into a monkey and climb like a monkey.

*I would choose flying. I would go by the name Superkid. My life would be awesome because everyone would love me. I would try to accomplish ruling the world!!!!!!!

*If I were a superhero, my power would be super stealth. I would go by the name Phantom of the Peace. The life of a superhero would be pretty hard with real life and crime fighting. If there was one thing I could accomplish, it would be squeezing in time.

*If I was a superhero, I would be part of a superfamily. My super powers would be able to see what’s happening in a different place. So me and my family would be sitting on the couch, and then I would say that the bank is being robbed on the corner of Flannery Road and Parnel Drive. We would save the day and call ourselves “Justice Force.”

*If I could be a superhero, I would have the power of telepathy. My name to go by would be Brain Man. People would have bad thoughts to destroy the city, and I would run behind them and catch them. If bad criminals were breaking the law, I would catch them and turn them over to law officials. I would help law officials any time they needed help. I would try to clean up the streets in cities.

*I would have multiple powers. I could do anything I wanted. I would go by Super Kid. My life would be great! Saving the world one step at a time. I would try to save the world before dinner and make some superfriends along the way.

*If I was a superhero, a power I would have would be that I’d be able to fly. My life as a superhero would be cool. I would try accomplishing being the best superhero ever. I’d hope I’d save the world from evil space monkeys.

*My power would be to turn invisible. My name would be “Super Pink Awesome Cute Power Girl.” My life would be fighting crimes and saving the world. I would try to accomplish being invisible for 48 hours (2 days).

*My power is strength. I’ll be called Alexander the Great. I’d use my power to help people and hurt criminals. I’ll help with the war.

*I would have laser eyes, night vision, being invisible, super strength, and fly. My name would be Ultra Guy. I would try to go around the universe and fly over planets.

*The one power that I would like to have is probably to move things with my mind. My life would be fun. I could move things and nobody would know. I could be invincible. Everybody would like me (I guess).

*If I was a superhero, I would have the power of telekinesis. My name would “Super Kid.” My life as a superhero would be cool cause I could get stuff instead of having to get up and get it. I would try to accomplish getting a satellite dish out of space.

And on a slightly different note, which pet would you pick--Monkey, Snake, or Goat?

*I would pick a monkey. I would choose a monkey because they’re awesome. My parents would probably NOT let me keep it. I would need to have LOTS of bananas and some toys to entertain it.

*I would like a snake as a pet because I would keep it in my glass cage. I would want a snake because it would not leave droppings anywhere. I think my parents would not let me have a snake. I would get a snake sitter to take care of it.

*I would choose the snake. I would choose it because they are cool (and I could freak the girls out with it)! My mom would say, “NO!,” and my dad would say, “YES!” I would need a glass box, grass, sticks, and leaves for the house, and lots of gerbils to feed it (it would be a python).

*I would choose a monkey because they like bananas. Goats smell, and snakes would bit everything, but you can teach a monkey a lot of tricks. I’m not sure what my parents would say. That is hard to predict. To care for it, I would need lots of bananas and fruit. And by the way, I would want an Orange Tameran.

*I would want to have a goat. I would choose that one because he is fuzzy and soft and he looks sweet. I think my parents would say “put him outside!” I would probably need lots of grass and lots of water.

*I would have a monkey. I would choose a monkey because they’re fun to play with and fun to have around. I think my parents would say, “A monkey? Are you serious? A monkey?!” I would need lots of bananas, fruits, and milk to take care of her. Her name would be Serena. The name Serena is so exotic.

*I would want the monkey because the goat would eat my pants, and the snake would eat my parents! Plus, monkeys would eat pesky bugs if they could catch them. To care for my pet monkey, I would need a brush, a comb, a bunch of bananas, a cage, a monkey leash, and a sweater in case she got cold. My parents would wonder why I have a pet monkey.

*I would want a snake. I would want a snake because I can teach it all different tricks. My parents would say Noooooooooooooooo. I would need to have a lot of animals for it to eat.

*I would rather have a monkey. My parents would say keep it in its cage. I would need a cage, bananas,
and something for the monkey to hang on.

*I would have the monkey. I would choose the monkey because we could train it like a human. But I think my parents would say they would rather me get the goat. To take of it I’ll need a cage or extra room, fruits, potty training supplies, diapers, and hair trimmers. If it’s a girl, I’ll need a bow.

*I would rather have a snake because a monkey or a goat can hurt you worse sometimes, and snakes are more interesting. I think my mom would say no. My dad would probably say yes if I take good care of it. To take care of a snake, I would need a five foot long, three foot wide, and four foot tall glass cage with many mice in another cage as the food source. I would also need two heat lamps with spare bulbs and many decorations in his cage.

*I would rather have a monkey. I choose him because monkeys are cute. My parents would totally disagree. I would dye the monkey blue. I would need to care for him by brushing its hair and giving him baths. I would have to train him. I think it would be fun.

*I would have a goat. I would like a goat cause my dad really wants one. He said we could make a goat farm and make cheese. I would need food, space, and water.

*I would have a snake because they are cool. I would get him a jungleish cage. My mom would say, “Get that thingy out of her NOW!!!!!!” But my dad would say, “Awesome!” I want a snake because they are awesome.

*I would have a pet monkey. I chose a monkey because it won’t chew my furniture up like a goat does, or bite and kill me like a snake does. My parents would probably say no, but if I was spoiled then yes. I would go tot he vet to get it shots. I would have to search from store to store to find monkey food. I would have to work extra to buy my monkey a bed and other stuff. That’s the kid of pet I would have out of a monkey, snake, or a goat.

*I would have a snake for my pet. The reason I picked a snake is because I can use it to scare my enemies and my brother.

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/if_i_were_a_superhero_in_a_sec.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/if_i_were_a_superhero_in_a_sec.html life Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:22:28 -0600 in 1773, the tea party wasn't what you think So I really should be grading tonight. Instead, I've to decide to power through and finish my blog post on the T.E.A. party, and their misguided (at best) appropriation of the 1773 Boston Tea Party as their mascot of sorts. Hey, it's the 237th anniversary; what better time to write this, right?

]]> http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/in_1773_the_tea_party_wasnt_wh.html http://www.adayinthejourney.com/life/in_1773_the_tea_party_wasnt_wh.html life Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:18:45 -0600