Why We Remember the Alamo

Posted on by
My own tourist picture of the Alamo chapel, with Crockett Hotel in the background

My own tourist picture of the Alamo chapel, with Crockett Hotel in the background

I ran across this week’s phrase while reading an article by Jeff Wagg about the legend of the Alamo. The article discusses several variations in the story from conflicting sources, as does the official Alamo website. I had only a vague notion of the Texan/Spanish/Mexican history behind the famous siege and battle. Texas belonged to Mexico at the time and many of the Anglos defending the fort were, in essence, illegal aliens invading Mexico. That terminology from Wagg is provocative (imagine the outrage if a high school text book used it), but pre-Civil War America was pursuing its Manifest Destiny. Texas joined the Union as part of that era.

What really intrigued me in Wagg’s article was speculation on why the Alamo became the quintessential piece of Texan history when other battles were at least as important. The official website calls the Alamo a shrine; that’s quite a commemoration. Continue reading →

Line in the Sand

Posted on by

Wikipedia says “a line in the sand” is a metaphor referring to a point beyond which no one can proceed, or an act with consequences that are permanent and irreversible. The article states the origin is unknown.

A suggested Biblical link seems like a stretch to me. (John 8:6 reads: This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. [NKJV] I don’t see the current meaning of “a line in the sand” here.)

Wikipedia lists instances of an “actual line being drawn in several historical, or legendary, military events” even if the phrase wasn’t used.

A National Geographic article says “one of the earliest recorded instances of anyone drawing a line in the sand took place in ancient Rome around 168 B.C.” when a Roman envoy “drew a line in the sand around [the opposing king] and told him he had to decide [if he would accede to Roman demands] before he crossed it.” Continue reading →

Biology is Undeniably Fascinating

Posted on by

UndeniableBill Nye recently participated in a controversial debate with young-Earth creationist Ken Ham. In his new book, Undeniable, Nye writes “For those readers who might be deeply religious, welcome… I did not disparage anyone’s religion.” He notes that “many people… see no conflict between their spiritual beliefs and their scientific understanding of evolution.” This fact always makes me wonder how individuals can be so sure they speak for God. When someone makes an assertion in science, scrutiny across the world and over time weeds out falsehoods. Similarly, in religions wisdom accumulates over time. Why some individuals cling to the past puzzles me.

Nye writes that “evolution is one of the most powerful and important ideas ever developed in the history of science,” with “essential practical applications.” He fears that if the “pseudoscience of creationism” makes inroads into education, it “is an assault not just on evolution but on the whole public understanding of science.”

Nye refutes creationism. For example, Ham claims that 7,000 kinds of animals were on Noah’s ark – there are 16 million species known today, so eleven new species would have come into existence every day under Ham’s vision of the Great Flood to reach today’s total. Surely someone would have noticed if that happened. Kangaroos would have had to climb down from snowcapped Mount Ararat and hop to Australia without leaving any sign they passed through. No recorded sightings, no bones in Tibet, and across a land bridge that left no trace of its existence. There’s loads of Internet information available on the debate, for example, here and Nye returns to Creationism at several places in the book. Continue reading →

Facing the Elephant in the Classroom

Posted on by

Tom Coyne had an excellent guest commentary article in the Denver Post about the status of education in Jefferson County, Colorado. The only complaint I have about the article is that it dances around defining the problem until page two. Taxpayers spend an enormous amount of money for education. In 2012-2013 Jeffco spent $10, 420 per student or over $260,000 per 25 student classroom. Denver metro expenditures on education were in the billions of dollars. All this spending is not resulting in decent educations for many of the students. “In 2014, only 46 percent of Jeffco students met the college and career ready… (requirements) in reading, only 47 percent in math, and only 45 percent in science.”  Sadly that means more than half the students were not adequately prepared to attend college or start any kind of career when they graduate from high school.

The school administrators and teachers union has a standard response to complaints students aren’t meeting standards. They first say they know what they are doing. They then will say something such as, “If you want better achievement results, you have to give us more money and trust us to use it wisely.” Does that mean the administrators and teachers are admitting they can work harder and smarter, but are holding back because they want more money. Everyone would always appreciate higher pay, but I think it would go over very poorly in a private business if a manager or employee said they will improve substandard performance only if they receive a raise Continue reading →

Outlaw Capitalism in Chicago, How People Survive

Posted on by

Gang LeaderYou’ve probably heard of Freakonomics, a book that has expanded to an empire that looks at how economics drives human behavior in unexpected and sometimes troubling ways. One of their most memorable topics was Chicago drug gangs. Most gang members earn less than minimum wage and stand a good chance of being killed or severely injured, all for a slim chance to become one of the few rich upper-level bosses. They’d be better off with a “legit” job and a lottery ticket.

The man behind the gang data is Sudhir Venkatesh. His book Gang Leader for a Day, A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets, tells the story of six years at Robert Taylor Homes, which in 1962 became “the largest public housing project in the United States” with thirty-thousand residents. By the 1980s when Venkatesh began work, it was “the epitome of an ‘underclass’ urban neighborhood, with the poor living hard and virtually separate lives from the mainstream” and over 90% of the residents receiving government welfare.

He began his study carrying ridiculous survey forms into the projects for his sociology professors and quickly discovered statistics could not describe life there. But this readable book is not his dissertation; it if full of very real personalities and experiences.

The best-known part of the book covers his time with the drug gang. Venkatesh states that he found it “thrilling” to be “observing the thug life.” A few times he was frightened for his own safety, but Venkatesh must be brave – I would have never gone back. Continue reading →

Bite the Bullet

Posted on by

The Phrase Finder, a trusted source information on the origin of expressions, says the meaning of this one is to, “Accept the inevitable impending hardship and endure the resulting pain with fortitude.” It is commonly believed that the origin was giving a soldier about to endure pain a bullet, which is malleable, to bite in order to “…concentrate their attention away from the pain and to protect against biting their own tongues.” A reference is found in Francis Grose’s 1796 A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue: “It is a point of honour in some regiments…never to cry out or become nightingales, whilst under the discipline of cat of nine tails; to avoid which, they chew a bullet.” The Phrase Finder mentions that a common belief is that the expression came from the Sepoy native Indian fighters with the British Army who hesitated biting the greased paper cartridges of the bullets to release the gun powder. Hindus wouldn’t want to bite something that had cow fat and Muslims would resist biting something that had pig fat. Regardless, research indicates this was not the original source of the expression.