Food For Thought: Democracy vs Republic.

  How do you do,

  As head of a patriotic committee in my local assembly of the Knights of Columbus, I was asked to present something for knights who just came to the US to learn and think on. The topic chosen is rather the United States of America is a democracy or a republic. This topic was too good to pass up and thus I am including this in the blog. Why I put this is that most Americans believe that we are in a democracy. Very few say republic. In this blog, I am going to state and prove beyond reasonable doubt that our nation is less of a democracy and more of a republic.

Democracy

  What is a democracy? Democracy is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally in proposal, development, and creation of laws. The word "democracy" comes from the Greek word "demokratia", meaning "rule of the people." The concept is not Socialism, which is of a different matter. Just because the people are given a voice that does not make it Socialism. No, the matters of democracy are that the people would cast lots, or votes, to decide matters of law or decide who will serve the people.
    In a technical sense, any form of action that involves people casting votes is democracy. This happens  when a jury makes the vote to convict someone, or when cardinals elect a pope. The process happens when one of the persons, or matters, gets voted on by a majority vote (or in case of juries, by unanimous vote). This explains the phrase "rule of majority" when talking of democracy. If one were to vote in a measure it would need a large number of votes to be supported or opposed to go anywhere. Other wise, the measure will just stay where it is and become dead.
   There are definitions of "majority." The first is where the vote is solid, which is the unanimity vote. For example, it was decided by our founding fathers to make our declaration of independence vote be unaminous. If it was not, then our nation would not have come into existence. The second kind is the most common when a certain percentage is needed to count. It can be anywhere more than a half and less than all. In most cases it's three-fifths, or four-fifths.
   The example of finding democracy in history has always been to look to Athens.

Athenian Democracy

   More than 2500 years ago, Athens was ruled by a king. This king died and a new ruler came to power who turned down the crown. This ended the Athenian monarchy. During the 6th Century BC, Athens came under the guidance of philosopher and lawmaker, Solon. Solon came to power in a time of moral decline in Athens even under the guidance of its tyrants.
   Today, the word tyrant is synonymous with oppressive and authoritative dictator. The Ancient Greeks saw it as another word for monarch. Solon was partially related to one, Pisistratus, and was appointed chief magistrate, or archon. As archon, Solon made his reforms that set the stage for Athenian democracy. He introduced the Solonian Constitution and made it possible for Athenians of all classes to serve in the Ekklesia, which were courts. These reforms did away with the tradition of only Athenians of noble birth dictating the doings of Athenian government.
  In a short term, Solon's reforms were a failure but they inspired another philosopher in Athens. A generation after Solon came Cleisthenes. Cleisthenes came into the picture by overthrowing the son of Tyrant Pisistratus, Hippias. Determined to avoid the rivalry of tribes to lead to more tyrants, Cleisthenes set up additional reforms. In his reforms, the men who would rule Athens would not come so through their fathers but by the casting of lots by men. As a buffer against tyrants, Cleisthenes created Ostracism where by a vote a citizen who was a threat to democracy would be exiled.
  Cleisthenes called his reforms "insomnia." However, people who came after him called it "democracy."
  While the name implies that people have the voice in this matters, the democracy of Athens had some exclusions. In this time, only male Athenian citizens who owned land could vote. Everyone else did not have a say: not the landless Thetes, not the slaves, not women, and certainly not foreigners. Even with this, they stood out among most Greeks as having it, though since Spartans could remove kings made it less unique. Greek mythology is filled with scenes of democracy like actions: the twelve gods on Olympus casting votes on the entry of a new god, the kings of Greece over Helen, etc.
  Not everyone agreed with democracy or how it functioned. Such cases included the famous three philosophers who critiqued the notion of democracy. Socrates viewed it as not conforming to an ideal regime.  Plato, his student, wrote of democracy as "a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike" (Republic). Plato's student, Aristotle, had this to say: "one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth...And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave" (Politics). One could see what they mean for the parts of a democracy in which the majority rule can prove just as bad as having one with absolute rule over the masses. A common critique of democracy is "three hungry wolves and one sheep."
   Democracy in Athens only lasted a century. During the Peloponnese War, the Athenian Democracy collapsed and the rule of the 400 came to form, in what is called the oligarchy. They ruled until 410 BC when a coup restored democracy, by which point Athens was hanging by the ropes. Spartan victory insured the death of democracy and Athens was ruled by the Thirty Tyrants. These men saw Athens into the next year before they were overthrown and democracy was restored. Athenian democracy then lasted until Greece and Macedonia merged and all of Greece was ruled by King Philip. From this point on, Athenian Democracy was not restored. Greece became part of the Roman Empire and then Greece was inherited by the Byzantines. Even when Greece became independent of the Ottoman Empire in 1831, democracy would not be restored in the region. Such was the history of the Athenian Democracy.

Republic

    A republic has become a commonly used term on a governing sovereignty that is considered good. Almost every nation that has come since the Enlightenment has sought to be a republic instead of a monarchy. In pop culture, we see republic used as either something to look back to with affection (like in Star Wars which features a galactic republic) or something to create in place of something detested (as in the case of The Amber Spyglass where the heroes seek to create a "republic of heaven"). Yet most people do not even know what a republic really is.
   A republic is a form of government in which the powers reside in the people and the elected government officials rule by law, rather than inherited or appointed. A republic has often been made synonymous with democracy, though apart from the way they function they are not.
   Another thing they have in common is they are based off of an ancient language. Republic is believed to come from the Latin phrase "res publica", attributed to Cicero and used by other writers, meaning "public affairs" or "public property." By this statement, where democracy has people partaking in the government, republic has the government be property of the people.

Roman Republic

   Like Athens, Rome began as a city state. Also, like Athens, Rome was once ruled by kings. However, five centuries before Christ, Rome saw a crisis that removed its king. The King of Rome was removed by a group of Roman nobles who then set up what became a liberated form of a city-state. The events of this were later dramatized in Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucretia and, incidentally, one of the men removing the king was named Brutus.
   The Roman Republic didn't immediately form the way most do. After the King of Rome was overthrown, the transition began with the election of kings, later consuls. They would elect two at a time as a way of balancing power. If one were reaching the limits, the other could put him in check. This was being tested when a crisis came a decade after the king was deposed. The Plebeians became alert to the concept of people taking part of the public good that this concept presented and used it by refusing to march against enemy soldiers. Instead, they seceded to the Aventine Hill. Negotiations were made and it was discovered that the Plebeians wanted to elect their own tribunes. The ruling Patricians agreed and the Plebeians fought for Rome. This led to the creation of that tribune, being the plebeian tribune.
   This led to a calm that last more than a century. During the period, in forty-nine years that followed, the censorship was made. Today, censorship is synonymous with suppression of subversive material. In Ancient Rome, this entity not only regulated morality but also conducted the census and oversaw the finances. An assembly of men was created to act as the legislating body, called the Comitia Centuriata (Assembly of the Centuries). Then in 367 BC, there was passed a law that led to the election of at least one plebeian aedile each year.
   From this work, the Roman government had a legislative body in form of the Senate, which consisted of old men, originally called patres, or fathers, and the government be led by two consuls, who check on each other during their terms. The Roman Constitution had a clause where should a crisis happen, one of the consuls would be granted emergency powers as dictator. When the crisis is abated, he has to return the powers, and the senate has the power to remove him if he fails. As dictator, a consul would have authority over the Roman Armies as well, as noted in the Punic Wars.

Where did they go?

    As mentioned above, the Athenian democracy passed away in wake of the Peloponnese War, was briefly restored and removed repeatedly until Greece was conquered by Rome. The Roman Republic died through internal forces. It began in wake of the Punic Wars where the patrician class continued to grow richer as the borders expanded while the plebeians got poor. It came to a point that most elected a consul who promised them a better economic situation, as well as work, as millions were out of a job. In 133 BC, Tiberius Gracchus became tribune and set out to distribute land to the landless. This did not sit will with the aristocrats. His co-consul, Marcus Octavius, vetoed his law that would make it happen. In turn, Gracchus impeached Octavius and the law was passed.
   Sadly, Gracchus was murdered for his actions. His brother, Gaius, was elected in the tribune and he set out to weaken the senate and bring in democratic powers to Rome. He took equites, or knights, and placed them in the jury courts in place of senators. He also passed the grain law and wanted to extend rights to the Italians, which drove everyone away. Gaius Gracchus then followed his brother out of office and into his grave.
   Then came Rome's war with Pontus under Mithridates VI and a dictator named Sulla was sent to fight him. The once unified Roman government was fragmented now and his rivals made it hard for him to defeat Mithridates. This led to him taking on dictatorship to make constitutional reforms. Then he resigned. Years later, Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompey Magnus removed these reforms and set up a triumvirate, with Gaius Julius Caesar as the third pillar.
    Caesar became the coup de grace for the republic's fall. He ended the triumvirate by turning on them, after winning a war against the Gauls. When a period of violence came on Rome, Caesar marched his troops to Rome, crossing the Rubicon, and drove Pompey from Italia. After Pompey's death, Caesar was dictator for life, passing more constitutional reforms to the delight of the people and consternation of the senate. In 44 BC, Julius Caesar was assassinated in the senate.
    The moment that pronounced dead the Roman Republic was when his nephew, Octavian, followed him to power, creating and then dismantling the Second Triumvirate, and becoming the absolute ruler of the Roman Empire, with the name of Augustus. An effort to restore the Republic did come a few times but it finally crushed after Caligula's death and the ascension of Claudius.The new Roman Empire had a constitution just as the Republic. The senate still passed laws like before, the jury courts, the magistrates, and the patricians still held the top and the plebeians still worked. Yet, the main difference was the powers were now directed the emperor instead of the people. In the provinces of Rome, governors carried out the emperor's decree while the military enforced them all.
    After the Fall of Rome, the concept of Democracy and Republic were treated as relics of a pagan past in the west. In 930, the Vikings created an Icelandic Commonwealth that operated like the Roman Republic. This republic lasted until the 13th Century where it was made to be reunited with Norway. However, Iceland's senate, the Althling is still in work today. During the Middle Ages, there rose a host of such in Italy and Holland in what are called Mercantile republics. They were small and were controlled by merchant class families, in a time of feudal rule. Most powerful of them were Venice and Genoa, both of whom grew rich in the Crusades. They were under the shadow of the Holy Roman Empire, yet were able to be self ruled because of their powers. One case is when the Swiss Confederacy operated beyond the powers of the Habsburg dynasty. Novgorod and Pskov also became mercantile republics until they were conquered by Moscow.
    As to a democracy, the only known resemblance of it at the time could be found in the Catholic church, only in form of the election of popes. Unlike politicians, popes are elected for life instead of a few years. However, in the 13th Century, a group of nobles forced English King John to sign the Magna Carta which limited the powers of the king. This led to the creation of a parliament which could pass laws, levy armies, and make taxes, while the king, or queen, is gradually reduced to giving the final word in law. These examples don't completely resemble democracy but have planted the seeds of the modern democracy.
   The Protestant Reformation led to more cases of republics. The Calvinists republics appeared in Europe, such as the Dutch Republic and even the English Commonwealth, led by puritans. Republic and democracy really returned near the end of the Age of Enlightenment. First in France in 1789, a wave of liberalism went through Europe, breaking or ending the hold of absolute monarchy and leading to formation of liberal republics. This era of such ended when Napoleon became Emperor of the French and all of Europe united to defeat him. Yet while the flames of the two died in Europe, they expanded into Latin America in the 1810s and 1820s. Some of the Latin American nations became free as empires, such as Mexico and Brazil, and only became republics later. In the 20th Century, China became a republic after ending its thousands of years of a dynastic rule, as did Portugal with a socialist government. Near the end of World War I, Russia became one also following the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. This led to an explosion of republics all around the world, some with democratically elected governments like the US and others with socialist governments. Some become so through revolutions and others through decolonization. Even in the Middle East, there are republics rising up. Except for Israel, and those who have monarchs in charge, they are all called Islamic republics, which have the banners of such while using Islamic rhetoric and Sharia laws.
    Even with Calvinism, materialism, socialism, or Islam, these republics carry on the DNA of the Roman Republic, and where ever there's democracy, there are people breaking break with Athens. Each one of them has a constitution, each one has an elective legislation, each one has a consul (or president), and each one has ways of keeping a balance in power. Some of have also gotten dictators.

 Conclusion: Which of the two is United States of America?

    After this background information, let us look at the United States of America. When our founding fathers sought to be independent of Great Britain and make their own country, they looked to Athens and Rome for guidance. Of the two, Rome was the one most looked to. Like Rome, the United States has a constitution and multiple branches of a government. Yet, in 1787, the American equivalent of the Patrician class (being white, landowning, males) could vote. The modern plebeians: the women, the poor whites, the African Americans, the foreigners, the Native Americans, could not. This exclusion is similiar to that of Athenian Democracy. This has changed, as explained in the third paragraph.
   When one looks at the definition of a democracy and of a republic, the blanket statement of the US being a democracy needs inspection. The only place in the US that resembles democracy in its true form is whenever people vote, being in election of a politician or making decisions in meetings. Of course, people concede and use the phrase "representative democracy." However, in looking at the definition, the US does not really act as a democracy. Even as people vote in a person for office, the Electoral College makes the final decision on the candidate, which sometimes has been be controversial. As to the definition of a republic, the US gets in more points. The United States government consists of three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial), all operating under the guidance of the constitution, and with all but the justices of the Supreme Court being elected for a set of years called terms. That while everything the government does or says is a "public affair." When adding these factors, the conclusion is that the United States of America is a republic. It doesn't hurt to add that the song is called "Battle Hymn of the Republic", not "Battle Hymn of the Democracy", nor does the pledge say "And to the Democracy for which it stands."
   In both models, the United States is currently updated. In Athens, only free-born Greek citizen men could vote. Today, it is total suffrage for any US citizen to vote: all he or she needs is to be at least 18, be a citizen for a set number of years, and not imprisoned. Athens had method of preventing tyrants called Ostracism, where men who are threats to democracy are exiled. Today, the US merely impeaches politicians who abuse their powers and when the politician leaves office, he is allowed to live in the country though his name is sometimes ruined. In Rome, tribunes were set up between the Patricians and the Plebeians. Today, both the Senate and the House consist of members who speaks for everyone. In Rome, the elective legislative body was composed of the Senate. Today, the US has the congress consisting of the senate to speak for a state (consisting of two per state) and the House of Representatives who speak for the population (with each voting district represented by a single congressman) In Rome, two consuls were elected, who were granted the powers of a dictator during a crisis. Today, the US has one president and a counter measure called checks and balances are set up so that not one branch can be above the other. Instead of another consul to bring up impeachment, it is the Senate that votes on the articles. One important difference is in the constitution. The US has added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution during the early days, all of which guarantees the government will not infringe on your rights or make laws that do. It's important because neither Athens nor Rome included a Bill of Rights in their constitutions.
   Thus concludes this food for thought. You do not have to take my word for it, you can type "democracy", "republic", "United States", etc into that search engine up in the upper right hand corner, and you can also look into your local library on the topic.

Food for Thought: Knights and Knighthood

  How do you do,

  This blog post is for anyone who has noted the title and wondered "what the heck is a southern knight?" Some may have looked it up on google or yahoo and found a link or two to some white supremacist web page. First, I'll assure that despite similar titles, I am not associated with the Ku Klux Klan. I am actually in the Knights of Columbus. Second, the blog's name is due to the fact that I am a knight in the latter of the two mentioned and Southern by Grace of God.

  The Knights of Columbus, for anyone who wishes to know, is a product of the 19th Century New England that is still currently in full vigor today (I know, a Southerner is a member of a northern organization. Ironic). It was founded for Catholic men, by a New Haven priest named Father Michael J. McGivney. It largely worked for the community of immigrants from Catholic countries, providing care of widows, and those whose income makers died or lost jobs. In a time before all these welfare programs that are payed by the government, the Knights of Columbus took care of anyone in the community who could not. The reason they chose Columbus is based on Christopher Columbus, the Italian born explorer who discovered the New World for Spain in 1492. There's additional information provided in these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus  and Knights of Columbus.

  As to knights, the ideas of what a knight is may have changed in recent years. The Knights of Columbus handles community affairs and found raisers for the church. Yet, there was a time that knights had a different purpose. Once upon a time, knights were warriors. The word knight comes from the Old English "Cniht", which resembles the Germanic word "Knecht" which meant "servant" or "bondsman." In short, a knight is a servant of his lord, one who is allowed to hold a sword. Most of the none-English speakers had other names for knights. In German speaking lands, he was called a "Ritter." In France, he was a "chevalier." In Spain, he was a "caballero." Chevalier and caballero are based on the word "caballarius" which is Latin for "horseman." This should be no surprising as knights are often depicted on horses. 

  The Roman Empire had created a class of men called Ordo Esquestris, an order of mounted horsemen. These served as the bases of such horsemen who rode across Europe during the Middle Ages. However, it was the Franks who perfected the appearance of the knight. Interestingly, they weren't called knights, at first. With Latin still be spoken, many called them "miles" (pronounced "MEE-les", not "MY-L's"). Two such evolved in the Middle Ages: the "miles gregardi" and the milites nobiles.

   While we may have the romantic image of the knight, the early knights in Medieval Europe were thugs on payroll of their lieges. As they serve their respected lords, a knight was forbidden to inflict harm to his lord's kin or house. As enforces, they could go in and see out a decree, which sometimes became violent. Anyone who resisted knights found themselves at the end of their swords. When wars did happen, the knights would turn their attention away to whoever their lords was at war with. 

    During the reign of Charlemagne, efforts were made by the king and the church to curtail such behavior. This leads to chivalry. Knights were expected to be more than brave but also courteous. They were to show respect to the ladies and to defend the helpless. Religion was brought in and knights would hear of lectures from clergy over relics and pieces of the saints. There was one who was Lord of Lords and King of Kings and to Him would they serve allegiance to the most. That one they were told to serve was God. As servants of God, they were to defend the helpless from injustice. The helpless were defined as women and children, especially the widow and the orphan. Examples of chivalry not only mentioned scripture but also La Chanson de Roland, Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival, and Ramon Llull's Book of the Order of Chivalry. Knights were expected to be active in times of peace which explains why they spend time jousting in tournaments, hunting in the woods, and holding round tables (the last may serve basis of the King Arthur legends involving the Knights of the Round Table). Knights were not just warriors by now, but they were also poets and song writers. They would write out in verse on many topics and would dedicate them to a lady. Sometimes he sang them himself. Sometimes, he would allow the minstrels to sing it. 

    As to the ladies, the romantic notion of the knights and his lady is half of the picture. A knight would have a lady to dedicate his exploits to and he would hold her up on high esteem. This soon evolved into courtly love. Now, this courtly love is one sided, as the ladies tend to be married or from a higher class. Of course, it rarely mattered as a knight would defend her honor if anyone infringed upon it. 

   Knights are depicted in popular media as loners, the prototype of the cowboy in armor, but knights tend to be accompanied in all their journeys. They traveled with their steeds who could be considered their best friends. They also had squires, young assistants to the knights who aided him when he was wounded and held his weapons when he wasn't fighting. Squires were the only people who could hold intimacy of the knight in a world where social rank and honor determine how much one could converse directly with one another (even if they always address them as "sir"). Knights often had one squire, but those rich enough would have two. On many occasions, a knight traveled with other knights. When three or more knights come together they form an order. This is how we get Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, Teutonic Knights, Order of the Holy Sepulcher, and Order of Saint Lazarus, and many other knightly orders spawned during the Crusades. 

   Many of these knightly orders were devoutly religious, some having members who took vows of celibacy while serving. This is why the five mentioned are called Monastic orders as well as militaristic. The rest of the orders are Chivalric orders, like the Order of Saint George and the Order of St. Michael. While most orders used religious names, some adopted names of animals and plants. There was even an Order of the Dragon. 

   With this aside, let us look in on how one became a knight. The journey into becoming a knight involved years of hardship and training. Most who joined were sons of noble families (anywhere from royal families to lesser nobles) who left the care of their parents at age seven to become a page. Pages were the boys seen running errands in a castle in popular images. They waited on their lords and took care of the stables where the horses were kept. When they weren't working, they were studying. Pages were taught manners from a group of ladies and sports from the various men in the castle. They were also taught religion from the clergy. When the page reached of age, he was made a squire who experienced the more brutal training. He journeyed with a knight everywhere and rarely got any comfort out of it. Squires sometimes were put in training grounds where they were supervised by professionals. They would go out at using swords, waving axes, and other fighting tactics. They were taught how to charge without holding the bridals on their horses.While they do this, squires learned how to do combat on foot as well, often in mock duels with other squires. They learned how to laugh at cuts and bruises, shrug off going for long periods without food, get use to sleeping in their armor, and many other extremities. Yes, many squires died in this training but most died from diseases instead of brute force.
    Besides dying, there were some men who never got knighted. Some would live their whole lives as simple squires. This meant they would be the assistants trailing behind a knight forever. Squires could defend themselves and their knights if it were necessary, though this was very rare as knights could not attack squires, unless provoked. There are some squires who prefer to remain mostly due to little responsibility that comes with being a squire. But there comes a time that a squire becomes a knight.
    In the early days, squires got knighted for doing something great in service of his knight, often in a pitch battle, and thus they got the tap on a shoulder told they were knights. The knighting ceremony became more common in the later Middle Ages. The candidate for knighthood was chosen and was placed in a chapel for vigil over his arms. For an entire night, he stands watch. Then, the next morning, he undergoes the sacramental routines and is dressed in white after a bath. He is then directed to the hall of the castle for a ceremony called "Accolade." The knight-elect swears allegiance to his monarch, or lord, in the presence of others. He does so on his knees with a left hand on a held sword, which is held to resemble the cross. The German tradition has the candidate be given a sword, to show the minor now at of age. He is then reminded to draw only in defense of the right and to protect the weak. This then leads to the famous moment that everyone is familiar with.
    Historians do not agree on what came first or what was used most. All we know is that the moment the candidate is made a knight comes in different forms. Most famous, used in romantic portrayals, has the monarch tap the candidate on the shoulder with the flat part of the sword. It would be a tap in one side and then the head and then the other side. English monarchs would say "In name of the Almighty God, of St. Michael and of St. George, I dub thee a knight." French kings had a variant in the early stages where the king would bestow the shoulder gilt and then kiss the candidate on the left cheek. Another was the blow, or colee, in which one received a blow on the side of the skull, often enough to knock someone down. These were intended to make one remember his vows. Once the moment has passed the new knight will rise, not by the command of "arise, sir..." (In my personal thoughts, this moment is always the favorite in looking over the ceremony and it often gives me chills).
    As soon as the knight stands, the monarch places on the insignia, while additional people would place on the spurs. Thus, the knight is presented to the crowds who cheer. In the later Middle Ages, the accolade is followed by a feast with the new knight, or knights, as the center of attention. In France, the new knight would be given a fief as well.
   Not all have something with so many people watching. As evidenced in the film The Kingdom of Heaven, when a king, or any titled aristocrat, is dying and his son is still squire, the knighting process is either sped up or conferred on him, as squires cannot be king. If a clergyman should become a knight, which was rare, he is not given the blow and swords are not used. In fact, he is not dubbed.

   Today, with knightly orders that were common in the Middle Ages gone, the practical use of knights as soldiers is replaced in this age of the machine. Knightly orders are purely social affairs, almost like an elk club with titles. Most that welcome men in develop kinship among them. The rituals of knighthood are something of a trade secret, only held behind closed doors. The Knights of Columbus are no exception. I will say anything of the Knights of Columbus but I won't say how I advanced to Fourth degree, or how the entry ceremony goes. If you wish to see the ceremony, join the Knights.
   While one cannot see these knightly ceremonies, people are given some picture of it in Medieval fairs. The knighting ceremonies used are fanciful and rely on fantasy elements instead of reality. In fact, most people don't even have to go through being squires to be knighted. There are also organizations where the knights are just actors in costumes, only there for purposes.
   Knights do still exist besides Knights of Columbus and Medieval Times. Every year, the current crowned heads of Europe will knight a man, or woman, in an honorary fashion, just as one does here with Kentucky Colonels. Most famously documented are the Brits. Once only nobles could be knighted, now anyone could be: authors, soldiers, diplomats, inventors, actors, etc. Knighting is not only exclusively for men in Europe. Women could be knighted, though instead of sir they get dame. In some occasions, the knight does not even come from the kingdom. While the tapping of a sword on the shoulder is still done the insignia is now changed to a medal that is wore around the neck.

1776 (film): Review and Commentary

   Welcome to the first of the movie and TV show review and commentaries. In honor of Independence Day, I have selected 1776.

  1776 is based on the Broadway musical that was made in the late Sixties, with the bi-centennial anniversary of the Birth of the United States speedily approaching. It was conceived by Sherman Edwards and presented as a musical melodrama set against the backdrop of the creation and signing of the Declaration of Independence. It premiered in 1969 which was quite a year to premiere any musical on the topic. In that year, the US was still in Vietnam and the war was appearing to not be going so well; the public was questioning the moral support of the war especially after it was revealed that a group of America soldiers were involved in the My Lai Massacre; at the same time, bombings were done in Laos and Cambodia. Nearer home was less tranquil. This was the year of Woodstock and Altamont Free Concerts, both of which were attended by Hippies and radicals. One concert celebrated peace and love but the other resulted in chaos and murder. Politicians lost favor or saw their names blackened by actions, such as Senator Ted Kennedy fleeing the scene of a fatal accident. The only good thing to happen in 1969 was that a man walked on the moon. 

  The rights to the musical, which did modestly and won the Tony Award for best musical, were eventually sold to Columbia Pictures. Jack Warner, formerly of the Warner Brothers Studios, became producer of the film adaptation that came out in 1972, another year filled with history making events, some of which involved questioning all things American. In 1972, Richard Nixon reelected by a landslide and his involvement in Watergate would be revealed later; diplomacy was opened with China while the Vietnam War continued on; during the latter, a Vietnam vet hijacked an airplane to extoll $500,000 while Jane Fonda was seen entertaining enemy soldiers; Alabama governor George C. Wallace survived an assassination attempt while running for presidency; Supreme Court declares capital punishment unconstitutional; and Apollo 17 landed on the Moon, becoming the last landing of a manned spaceship there.

   Given the way the events were happening when each premiered it's no wonder that one might call it the patriotic medicine that was sorely needed. The irony of such a statement is the fact that 1776 is not about patriotic flag waving or the red,white, and blue. It's actually about sedition and insurrection of a group of men from an empire. From this insurrection comes forth the American nation. So, in a time when people sought to remove the US Government from power was going rampant and everyone saw himself as a modern day patriot, this movie that features protagonists who plan, plot, and conspire to dissolve their association with a corrupt government stroke a cord with the audience. It does seem that since this time period, the Framers have become either a bunch of racist, rich, white men who refused to pay their share of taxes and rebelled against a King only to keep women and African Americans enslaved, deny votes to poor men, and steal land from Native Americans; or role models used in a fantasy of being in insurrection against the surrogate Great Britain and the British King. I, myself, plea guilty to always imagining myself in this role each time I see something that appears to threaten my rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." But what these men actually went through is not a fantasy but a reality. They knew that it won't end with the end of the fantasy but with lives changed, if they come out alive, or end with them answering for it. To quote John Dickinson in the movie: "Between the fish and souffle, you'll find yourself hanging from an English rope."

   Both the musical and the movie boil it down to John Adams, played by William Daniels, is frustrated at Congress not granting a proposal on Independence and that he is disliked in Congress, and thus employs the help of a few fellow congressmen to make it reality. Richard Lee, played by Ronald Holgate, proposes it but the opposition, led by Dickinson, go to great lengths to downgrade, disregard, and down vote the resolution. So, to aid the stalled vote, Adams decides that a declaration is needed and a committee is formed where Thomas Jefferson, played by Ken Howard, is commissioned to draft. Unfortunately, Jefferson would rather make love to his wife than write the paper which frustrates Adams even more. Meanwhile, depressing news from the front, told through an off-screen George Washington, read by Secretary Charles Thomson, played by Ralston Hill, appear to convince the Congress that independency is a far off dream. When the declaration is brought forth, the Congress goes through to tear it apart to the consternation of Adams and Jefferson, with the greatest blow coming from the South over slavery. Yet with encouragement from Adams' wife, and from Benjamin Franklin, played by Howard Da Silva, Adams pulls through and makes moves to get Congress to vote. The Congress adopts the resolution and signs the declaration, and the rest is history. 

   The music in 1776 has some of the flavor of patriotism, also like that of The Music Man. The opening introduction has notes that resemble "Yankee Doodle", yet it's actually the song "Lee's of Old Virginia," later sung by Lee. In the theatrical cut, and the video cassette tape of the film, this was only played at the end, but it was restored in the DVD to its location, along with the opening montage which is charcoal sketch of a group of men and women. The faces belong to various members of the crew and some of the cast, according to the commentary. This location puts the credits in the opening, where the other version had it happen as Adams walked down the stairs. 

    One commendable thing Jack Warner and director Peter H. Hunt did was to not recast the film the way most occasions happen but instead use the original cast of the musical in the movie. The reason to do so is that these actors are already familiar with their roles and thus there is no need to have to get them to learn the role out. If you look at the cast list of the musical and find the cast list of the movie on IMBd, you can see that about half of the cast is in both locations.

    William Daniels plays John Adams, as mentioned in the summary. You may recognize the name if you are a fan of Boy Meets World where he plays George Feeny. He was also in The Graduate where played Benjamin's father. He plays a frustrated and foul mouthed John Adams, though the real deal is supposedly milder. Apart from these, Daniels is the quintessential John Adams. Howard Da Silva plays Benjamin Franklin. Da Silva had also brought a Broadway character to life before. In 1943, he was in the premiere of Oklahoma! where he was the villainous Jud Fry. Da Silva's Franklin is a contrast to his Jud Fry. Jud Fry is menacing, bullying, and can ruin everything he touches; Franklin is loveable, humorous, gentle, and wise. This sort of thing proves the dynamics between the two. Daniels is fussy and insulting while Da Silva is patient and wise cracking. The only time that Franklin actually gets angry at Adams is when the latter questions his stance on slavery, and it's the only time Franklin does not utter blasphemy or profanity. He says it best on the matter of dealing with his colleagues: "These men...are not clerks to be ordered around; they are the cream of their colonies...rather you like or not, they are a part of this nation...either you learn how to live with them or pack up and go home!" 

   Ken Howard plays Thomas Jefferson and he creates a quiet, reserved, yet determined Jefferson. He is shown brooding also, almost like that of a teenager. He has to be forced into doing the declaration when no one else can and he doesn't work on the declaration for most of the time. A fan of Boy Meets World could look at the scene when Adams checks up on Jefferson and think "Mr. Feeny's gonna give him an F." Then, when he does speak, it's enough to cause silence. 

   Another musical alumni include David Ford as President Hancock, Roy Poole as Stephen Hopkins, William Duell as Andrew McNair, Ralston Hill as Charles Thomson, Ronald Holgate as Richard Lee, and Virginia Vestoff as Abigail Adams.These people are placed as secondary characters, practically stock characters, who show little to no character growth, in opposition to the main three. Lee is shown as someone who is hopped on his last name that he adds it to almost every word. He even gets a song for his family. This boisterous version of Lee doesn't match up with history but it does provide a lot of gags, including his last line: "Therefore, I must decline, respectful-lee." Similarly, Stephen Hopkins is shown as a hard drinking, foul-mouthed man who claimed to be the oldest man in Congress, until reminded by McNair. This is opposite Thomson who resembles an 18th Century school master. Next to him, President Hancock comes out as a stressed out president who complains about the heat and the noise. At least he is the referee in the debates. Then there's McNair who serves the Congress in making the room better for Congressmen and running their arrands. He is shown with an apprenticed youth who has no name but is called A Leather Apron in the cast list. Both are basically stock characters to represent the working class groups. 

   The musical and the movie is largely dominated by men, since women were not elected in Congress at the time. As a result, there are only two female characters in the story, Abigail Adams and Martha Jefferson. Of the two, Abigail is the only one who can be considered a female protagonist though she has only three scenes. Abigail can also be considered the strong female character, even if she does not have a scene in Congress. She is strong because she runs the farm with her husband gone and she is the only character who can subdue Adams, as evidenced in "Piddle Twiddle and Resolve". She is also listed as a romantic heroine for the same reason and both have their love song, "Yours, Yours, Yours." 

    While the alumni of the musical was casted, newer faces were introduced for the movie. Donald Madden was cast as John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, next to musical alumnus Emory Bass as James Wilson. Madden brings in a dominating Dickinson, opposite Bass' meek Wilson. The two carry on as the villain and minion archetype, where Wilson hangs in Dickinson's shadow. Wilson is portrayed as reserved like Jefferson, yet wants to be taken seriously, even seconding Pennsylvania's motions. Dickinson, however is more of a leader, even being the leading man during the "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" number. Recast for another antagonist is with Edward Rutledge, now played by John Cullum. Cullum's Rutledge is sneaky and doesn't seem to do much except when slavery comes in. In a scene that was cut but restored to DVD there is a moment where he reveals that he does favor independence but not the way the others do. Interesting how he is not the main antagonist as he becomes the man who nearly derails the debate. 

    The Delaware delegation is portrayed as a squabbling trio. We find patriot Col. McKean played by Ray Middleton, who speaks with an over the top Scottish accent. Next to him is loyalist George Read played by Leo Leyden, who portrays Read as effeminate compared to the militarist McKean. The two make up the right and left sides of the political spectrum with patriot Caesar Rodney, played by William Hensen, in the center. Rodney is portrayed as sickly, even though the actual Rodney was robust. Another newcomer is Blythe Danner as Martha Jefferson. Danner, in real life, is the mother of Gwyneth Paltrow. In the movie, she portrays Martha as being all aglow from her love making with Jefferson and sings gaily of his violin skills. Knowing Danner's brother also plays the violin makes the song seem squirmish. In actual history, Martha Jefferson never visited Philadelphia, as she was recovering from a miscarriage. They also weren't newlywed as the story implies. They were married for a few years and already had two children. Martha also died prior to her husband's presidency, which makes the line "When Heaven calls to me / sing me no sad eulogy / say I died loving bride / loving wife / loving life" very moving.

    As mentioned, the character growth happens with the main three but it can spread out to the others also. John Adams starts out as an old fuss pot and complains to all. When he is talking with Franklin, he treats him not as the sage we know and love but as an underling. Basically, Adams is the leading man in this show, and the star, and thus is shown given the treatment of a star where he starts out acting like center of attention. Benjamin Franklin has to show him that he is but a small part of the larger story and get others to help. First to come in is Richard Henry Lee. Adams doesn't like losing the spot light, hence his sarcastic line "incredible, we're free and he [Lee] hasn't even left yet." In a scene cut from the film, and not restored, Adams expresses doubts to Franklin on the man and practically calls Franklin an idiot, evidenced in this scene cut from the film but not restored on DVD: Lee's of Old Virginia.  Then, when Congress assembles, he vows that he is going to take over if Lee does not come. Evidently, he is yet to learn to trust others. One believes that this is why he is "obnoxious and disliked." 

    Adams continues this during the debates, raising his voice in emphasizing his points while Dickinson tries to keep calm and then proceeds to start a fight at being called "lawyer." He even tries to rush the newcomer Reverend John Witherspoon on his stance. However, when he comes to propose on postponing the vote, he has troubles formulating the words right. This action is enough to make one want to feel for him. He then goes into another disapproved mode by guilting the reluctant Jefferson into writing the declaration. When Jefferson expresses that he is still writing, Adams practically kicks him in the gut by calling him "Virginia's most famous lover." He has set up an unrealistic expectation of Jefferson by demanding he could do what only God could do, create something grand in a week. "The entire earth was created in a week." His obnoxiousness goes high when he finds Franklin napping and rudely wakes him up. He later disregards morning greetings the next day, sits outside Jefferson's apartment (an action that would warrant a restraining order today) when the latter is at work, and he pushes Chase, who he rudely interrupted his meal earlier, with his cane out the door when he goes up to New Brunswick. 

    By the time he comes back, one would wish Adams would just "sit down." He insists that the bird be the eagle, and gets his way, and then he becomes Jefferson's self appointed mouth piece during the editing of the declaration. When the South brings up slavery, Adams attempts to attack the Southern preference to the economy, which leads to Rutledge call the North out on hypocrisy of slavery and walks out, a sort of foreshadow of the South leaving the Union in the Civil War. Finally, he gets a brow beating from Franklin who reminds him of what he had been trying to get him to learn from the start that his colleagues are a part of what he is making and he has to learn to be along side them. He then talks with Abigail who encourages him to continue his work. By the end of the story, Adams is more subdued and more willing to work with others. 

    If Adams' character growth offers anything it is one of the many themes of 1776, being there is strength in unity. Another theme is shown through the character growth of Jefferson and Wilson. In both, we see two men who stand in other people's shadows: Wilson stands in Dickinson's while Jefferson has Lee. In the only time we see Lee in Congress, apart from "Sit Down, John", Lee does all the speaking for Virginia while Jefferson only speaks once. In fact, both Jefferson and Wilson have the speaking issue. Jefferson doesn't like to speak ("I had hoped the work would speak for itself.") and is quite satisfied at letting others speak up. This is opposite of Wilson who longs to speak up but is intimidated too easily. Thus, both men are shown as being manipulated by their respected peers.
    Jefferson does develop a backbone in the story. First it comes from trying to back out of the writing of the Declaration, first case of which has him silenced and the second has him forced into writing. He then goes in and writes, though needing more pushing from Adams and loving from his wife. He appears to not do anything after it is written and allows a revision to be applied, but he finally stands up to someone when Dickinson brings on the issue of King George being called a tyrant. By saying he does not consent, he is showing that he intends to not sit down and let people speak for him anymore. He also stands up to Rutledge during the slavery issue, though when the latter reminds him that he is a slave owner, Jefferson almost appears to back down. In a shaky voice he says, "I have already resolved to release my slaves." (In history, Jefferson didn't free them). His final standing comes when Adams brings up the issue of the right word in the second paragraph. For the first time, he not only stands up to Adams but he refuses to yield and Adams withdraws it, though he "will speak with the printer on this." Contrast this to a scene that wasn't restored where Jefferson daydreams during Adams' speech, We will more than compensate with spirit! At the start, Jefferson would rather be with his books and his wife but in the end he is the patriot we know him as.
    Wilson's standing up is not as developed. He attempts at standing at first but does it wrong. When asked to take a chance, he sits down. Basically, Wilson was letting people control him during the drama. This even proves the useful tool that Adams and Franklin use to sway the Pennsylvania Delegation. Wilson, not wanting to be remembered for anything, stands up to Dickinson and makes his vote known. Thus, both Wilson and Jefferson have the theme of being willing to stand for one's principals, otherwise be controlled, being demonstrated.
    Even the film's antagonists, Dickinson and Rutledge, go through some trial. Dickinson operates as the  main adversary to independence, which is ironic as he was also among the signers of the Constitution. Rutledge is a secondary, yet enough to make Franklin say "look out" when he speaks. Because he calls out the Northern hypocrisy on slavery he almost derails the independence debate. Interestingly, Rutledge is given a bone by having the offending paragraph removed. Afterwards, Rutledge votes yay, as does Joseph Hughs, delegate of North Carolina. Rutledge also signs the Declaration, which makes one wish to view him as a hypocrite (ironic as he attacked others as such). Dickinson, however, refuses to sign but he redeems himself by saying he was going to join the army and fight for freedom. This justifies the applause he gets as he leaves.
     Other characters exhibit growth. Most known is Dr. Lymen Hall, new Delegate of Georgia, who doesn't say where he stands on the question of independence. When called to vote, he only swings in favor of the nay-sayers (including his fellow Southerners) because he doesn't know if representing the people means relying on his judgement or theirs. He is even present during "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" and walks out with the South. However, he returns, after remembering a quote from Edmund Burke, and votes yay. Hall's developing is that he goes from following the crowd to thinking for himself.

   For a few years, I have watched this movie on VHS, but I did get it on DVD, eventually, which included parts that I had not seen on video. While the DVD restores a few scenes, some parts are still out. For example, this is the whole number "Piddle Twiddle and Resolve." Piddle Twiddle and Resolve (extended)The extended number features an example of what the Congress would rather focus on and it features an anachronism, as dollars weren't the currency at the time. In actual time period, the charge would be slightly more than twenty pounds.
    The DVD does restore other things. It includes Rutledge's questioning of the fate of the states, Franklin proposing a joke to compensate the lack of manpower ("increase and multiply"), Martha talking to Adams and Franklin through the window, which seems an echo of the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet, Col. McKean bringing up the issue of the Scots being mentioned and arguing with Read on the words "in many cases", and a few others. The movie was rated G when it premiered but some of the added material made it raised to PG, which included the moment in a heated argument, Hancock cries out "Christ, it's hot!" But no other restoration deserves attention more than the deleted number, "Cool, Cool Considerate Men", which will be taken on in the music review.
    Humor and wit walk hand and hand in 1776. Many of the silly gags are provided by Benjamin Franklin. For example, when Dickinson asks if there was a problem with being an Englishman, Franklin says that being called so without the rights as an Englishman is as insulting as "calling an ox a bull. He's thankful the honor but he would like restore what's rightfully his." "When did you first notice they were missing, sir?" counters Dickinson. The joke is that an ox is a castrated bull employed for draft. The things that are rightfully the bull's are his testicles, of course, thus the reason why Dickinson's remark is just as funny. He infers that Franklin has no balls, if you will, and that Franklin has been ignorant of the fact. Later, when informed that his son is arrested, Franklin asks "why did they arrest the little bastard?" Bastard is a word thrown around by men to refer to men they have fallen out of favor with, just as women use bitch to each other. A bastard child is a child born out of wedlock. So, this phrase has both meanings, as Franklin acknowledges that his son was born out of wedlock and that they had fallen out of favor with each other. At the prospect of hanging, Franklin makes his famous quip: "if we do not hang together we shall assuredly hang separately." Franklin remarks on not knowing Plato had been to Philadelphia is also funny as there was a Greek city called Philadelphia, currently by another name in Turkey. Franklin's suggestion of compensating America's manpower is a joke because it implies the manpower will be equal if we have more babies. Of course, in order to have more babies, one has to have plenty of people willing to make them, and that is not always one hundred percent of the population.
  Another bit of humor is not provided by Franklin but by the officers of Congress. Thomson calls for Hopkins only to find him missing. McNair then tells him that Hopkins has gone to the outhouse (this was before indoor plumbing was installed) so Thomson says "Rhode Island passes." Right there, you got yourself a fart joke, and the only one I laugh to. In "Cool, Cool Considerate Men", Hancock asks rhetorically, "traitors to whom, Mr. Dickinson? To the British Crown or the British Half-crown?" Prior to this number, the Congressmen laugh at Witherspoon for having an aunt in New Brunswick and Dickinson implies her to be a prostitute by saying "tell her to keep up the good work." McKean is willing to use a gun to "break the tie." Then there's him comparing him and Read when it comes to hanging, noting the latter "will be dancing a jig long after I am gone." Even Adams and Jefferson use double entendre on two occasions. First Jefferson says "but I burn, Mr. A." and Adams replies "so do I, Mr. J." causing everyone in the room to be shocked. Later, when he calls Jefferson "Virginia's most famous lover", Jefferson replies with "Virginia abstains." This last is done all the time by Lewis Morris, which angers President Hancock to no end. "Why must New York constantly abstain?" he asks once. Of course, this ventures into jokes that center around sex. Later, he writes a note to Adams saying "I am taking my wife back to bed, kindly go away, your obedient T. Jefferson." Franklin provides one by saying "At my age, there's little doubt the pen is mightier than the sword." (just put the words pen and is together and guess what you get).
   One funny incident is not in the original Broadway show: the Fire Wagon scene. This was intended to be the entrance of Lee returning and it also gives the audience something to cheer at. It is funny to see the Congressmen run after the wagon as if they were children and watch it go off while debating on what was burning.
    Finally, we come to the music. 1776 is a musical film and thus there is songs and dancing involved. The first number is "Sit Down, John" with the Congress telling Adams to shut up and sit down. A debate comes in the song on opening up a window, with one end saying there's too many flies but the other says "it's hot as hell in Philadelphia." But when Adams butts in, they all unite and say "For God's sake's, John, sit down!" "Piddle Twiddle and Resolve" looks like an appeal to God combined with Adams' ranting. The first lines appear so as Adams is looking up to Heaven while singing. Afterwards, he is not. "The Lee's of Old Virginia" is a good number to march to. One funny moment is that when Lee sings "May my horses turn to glue", the horse brushes his nose on Lee's coat. Who knows what the horse was thinking. For some strange reason, Adams is shown removing his coat and performing the rest of the number without it. The ride off was obviously done with a stunt double and the way the actor held that last note was done in pre-production recording. That's the thing with musicals, they are almost never done with actors singing in the camera but lip-synching to recordings done prior to filming. This becomes the last number until "But, Mr. Adams" which is a period of about forty minutes.
   Adams and his wife have a single love song that is broken in pieces. The first is called "Yours, Yours, Yours" which is done in style to "Piddle Twiddle and Resolve" and then in tune to "Till Then." The latter is the second part which reviews the longing between the two. The pastoral of them walking down the farm, by a horse, then a lake, really makes it a perfect love scene. The Jeffersons don't get a love song but Martha sings "He Plays the Violin" which includes a moment when they dance a waltz, something not done in 1776. All of these are gentle harmonies in a show filled with either rousing or depressing tunes. "He Plays the Violin" is chalk full of sexual humor: "I'm always undone","My strings are unstrung", "I hold Tom and his fiddle", etc
   The number cut from the film was called "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" which is something to wonder on how it got cut. President Richard Nixon was supposedly offended at the lines: "Let us dance together to the same minuet / To the right, ever to the right / Never to the left; forever to the right." Personally, I like the tune, even wanting it to be the anthem of the Knights of Columbus. Speaking of anthems, the song opens and closes with the opening notes of "The Star Spangled Banner", and includes the notes in the chorus. This song is followed by "Mama, Look Sharp" which starts out as being narrated by a dying soldier and then the soldier's mother. The song is foreboding with its theme of death lingering. "The Egg" is next, when Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, sing of America being born. The song, believe it or not, was among the last songs written by Edwards in the Broadway production, inspired by the image of an eaglet breaking out of an egg with the Union Jack, while flying the Betty Ross flag in its beak. Symbolism is done in the last number "Is Anybody There?" where Adams likens his march to that of the Crossing of the Rubicon. Images of fireworks and pomp are given in the lyrics. This stands contrast to horror brought on by "Molasses to Rum." Rutledge gives us a tour de force into the Atlantic Slave Trade, called Triangle Trade due to it going at three points. The song does not include a stop in Europe where the material is sent to make goods, some of which is sent to Africa. However, imagery that the words give are enough to one wish it were not so. The camera is then pulling back from Rutledge at the end of the song as though the hopes of Independence was sailing away, as the producers commented. The movie does not include a finale to send people on their way. Instead we get the bells ringing and seeing the men sign the Declaration.
    There were more than a hundred men in Congress at the time but the musical had to cut it down to size to fit the stage. The movie adds a few men but they are just background characters. Reverend Witherspoon enters with two additional men, for example, but neither speak or sing in the movie. When the signing does happen, they only call up one man from each colony.
    1776 is truly a three dimensional film. Peter H. Hunt had the camera film the actors, in a few scenes, at every angle in one shot, practically going around them or following them as they walk around the room. Normally, movies are filmed with the actors in front of the camera which had a legion of crewmen behind. If the camera turned a certain way, those crew might get filmed. In 1776, the camera will turn 180 degrees and we don't see the boom guy, the script caller, the light operators, the best boy, the coffee girls, or the director. Not only that, it's filmed on a track, which is kept hidden from the audience. This means the camera can go onto the stage and film at every angle and not film the crew by accident. They don't do this trick anymore, sadly.
    That's 1776, the musical film based on the play of the same name. It may not be historically accurate and it runs on cliches, it does provide plenty of humor, plenty of entertainment, plenty of suspense, and plenty of tension.Thus, 1776, for all its historical inaccuracies, will still be a good classic.

Greetings

    How do you do.
    Welcome to this blog titled A Southern Knight's Fireside Chat, brought to you by a Knight of Columbus from the Heart of Dixie. It is combining the forms of review and analysis in what is called a commentary combined with the down to earth and friendly method of speaking to the people, known as the fireside chat, into this modern form of literature: the blog.

   In the terms he was in office Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to make a familiar connection with the American people by using the then popular medium of the radio. He had begun this practice as Governor of New York, later made it known as President of the United States. The so-called fireside chats were done in the evening when the day's work was over (by the East coast's time, that is) and dinner had been consumed. Picture, dear reader, the image of a family of six in the den of a simple American home: the three children on the floor, Grandpa in his chair, Mama and Daddy in their own, with Fido resting by the fireplace, all listening as the president spoke in a less formal manner that normal. This was meant to explain and enlighten the citizens listening on what he was doing and how and thus they would not need to consult the press on the matter. They did not happen every day, as any president does not have the time to make such radio reports every day with his demanding schedule. Instead, he would air his chat once in a while. This explains why in his twelve years in office he did thirty. 

  What I am proposing in this fireside chat differs from what President Roosevelt had offered in the Depression and World War II. First and foremost, this will be done in this new form of medium: the blog. Secondly, this will not be a series of speeches on what is being done as I am not a president or any politician. Instead, this kind of fireside chat will focus on examining, dissecting, and reviewing works of literature, music, TV shows, movies, and many other items of interest. And thirdly, because it does not rely on radio schedules and has no commercials, it can be read and felt at any time of the day or night.

   How this fireside chat functions is that likened to the blogs you find on the Internet that you might read on certain days while at home, or in a coffee shop, or even in a library, from the library owned MAC. But of course, as explained in the preceding paragraph, this blog will not be a serious of slush inducing rants that is commonly occupying the Internet like an invading army. Instead, the topics and the commentaries will be as scholastic and intelligent as possible.

  Three forms of literature will be examined in this fireside chat. The first is the narrative literature, which includes novels, plays, and old epics. The second is the kind that has no specific plot but is examined for the way the words flow. This leads to poetry and rhetoric. Then there's the third kind where the text is included in the literary canon simply for the sake of words. One such focus that will be done this up-coming July 4th is the Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America, which is a piece of literature of the third kind. The title offers no meaning other than the description of the text which is a declaration of independence.

   Movies will also be reviewed in the same form. In the movies reviewed I will focus on examining and providing intelligent insights and dissertations in the storytelling and other technical aspects of the film. TV shows will have similar moves. These are going to be covered in Reviews and Commentaries. The same with music and art as well as video games.

    What you will read in the the above chat forms is a dissertation, examination, and commentaries that might be handed to you by a scholar of at least a bachelor's degree level on any particular item. This will not be like the muddled methods that are used in video reviews you find on the Internet on the same topic; even the language will be kept clean save for quotations and tones will be unbiased. It will instead resemble the kind of report that might formulate in your brain and transcribe through your finger tips to the keyboard if you were in a college class and making a thesis about it. Since many of y'all might not have a degree in college you might be more or less conscience of the vocabulary and the dissertation. So, this commentary, while attempting to be scholastic, will also be easy to read and understand with references to something related. Occasionally, a little quirk or two will be thrown in for the sake of intrigue. Attempts will be made at researching an item and back a few things up with quotations, all sources cited. There may also be links to a video or a text, in case one would wish to see one of these sources.
   So now I present this blog: a modern fireside chat interpreted in blog format examining and analyzing literature, movies, TV shows, and other intelligent subjects with occasional quirks.