Philadelphia, July, 1776

Today is the day we celebrate the approval of the Declaration of Independence. The story is more interesting than we usually hear, however. Here’s a brief synopsis:

The last paragraph of the Declaration (which announces that the colonies are free and independent states) was adapted from a motion that had been brought by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia on June 7. Lee had been authorized by his state (which had been meeting in Williamsburg during the month of May to determine its relationship to Great Britain) to present the resolution. He made this motion:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.”

The motion was seconded by John Adams of Massachusetts and the debate began. The chief opposition came from the delegates of Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina, whose legislatures had not yet made up their minds regarding their future course. There was no doubt that the majority of the delegates favored independence but it was important to present to the world a united front, thus the delegates were willing to wait to achieve unanimity. For this reason the vote on the motion was postponed until July 1.

On July 1, the Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole to resume debate on Lee’s motion. At the end of the day, the vote to approve the motion was 9 to 4 (Pennsylvania and South Carolina opposed; Deleware, which only had two delegates present who disagreed with each other, and New York’s delegation who had still not received direction from their legislature). Again, the final decision was put off till the next day.

That evening, the South Carolinians decided to drop their opposition for the sake of unity. The majority of the delegates from Pennsylvania also decided to support the resolution which brought the number of colonies in favor of approval to 11. The Delaware delegation was stilled deadlocked, however, so a message was sent to the other delegate who had not been able to attend the convention, Caesar Rodney. The weather was so terrible the evening of July 1, no one thought Rodney would be able to get to Philadelphia. But Rodney rode all night through the storm, 80 miles, and arrived at the convention just in time to break the tie of the Delaware delegation and vote for independence. New York had still not received instructions, but in spite of this, it was decided to bring the motion to the floor for a vote. The motion passed 12-0 with New York abstaining (New York did finally vote in favor of independence on July 19). The vote of July 2 meant that the colonies were no longer colonies of Great Britain but free and independent states. There was now no turning back. (John Adams always believed that July 2 should be observed as Independence Day, since that was the day on which the colonies became “free and independent states”).

When the vote was announced, a solemn silence filled the room as the magnitude of what these men had done settled in. John Hancock broke the silence by remarking, “Gentlemen, the price on my head has just been doubled!” Samuel Adams then rose to speak: “We have this day restored the Sovereign, to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and . . . from the rising to the setting sun, may His Kingdom come.”

Congress ordered that the Declaration be authenticated and on July 4, President John Hancock and Secretary Charles Thomson signed it. An order went forth to print the document and it was printed that night by printer John Dunlap. On July 5, Congress ordered copies of the document be sent to the various legislatures, assemblies, and conventions of the colonies. The Declaration was read publicly in Philadelphia on July 8 and in Boston on July 18. In the days following, it was published in newspapers throughout the land.

On July 19 when Congress received word of New York’s approval of independence, it resolved that the Declaration be engrossed on parchment with the title, “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.” The copying was probably done by Timothy Matlack, who had served for a time as assistant of Secretary Charles Thomson.

The Declaration was then signed by all the delegates on August 2, 1776. The men who signed it knew full well what it meant to affix their signatures to this document. If the fight for independence failed, they would all be put to death for treason. This provoked John Hancock to observe, “We must be unanimous; there must be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together.” Benjamin Franklin hearing this, replied, “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

Legend has it that as the delegates lined up to sign, Benjamin Harrison, who was a rather large man, remarked to the slender Elbridge Gerry, “I shall have a great advantage over you Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead.”

Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Maryland stepped up soon after this remark to affix his name to the document. After he signed, someone said, “Carroll, you will get off easily; there are so many Charles Carrolls in Maryland they will never know which one it is.” At this remark, Carroll walked back up to the table and seizing the pen again stooped and wrote under his name, “of Carrollton” so that there would be no mistaking his identity.

What hath Mozart to do with Tiger Woods?

Ok, I’ve finished Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin and want to summarize a few of the points he makes. The point of these studies (this along with The Talent Code and others) is that though people are born with God-given ability, it is not so much natural “talent” as hard work that distinguishes the average Joe from the world-class performer. Colvin points to two amazingly gifted performers to illustrate this: Mozart and Tiger Woods.

These two men are viewed by most as “naturals” in their fields. Most believe that they are illustrations of the fact that outstanding performance and ability is a matter of genes rather than hard work. After all, they say, Mozart was composing music at age five and performing in public at age eight. And Tiger, well, he’s the Mozart of golf, right? Colvin calls us to question this conclusion with a closer look at their upbringing.

Mozart’s father was Leopold Mozart, a famous composer and performer (as well as a domineering parent). Leopold started Wolfgang on an serious program of musical training at age three. From age three, Mozart was receiving intensive instruction by an expert teacher, who devoted his life to training him to be an accomplished composer.

Most of Mozart’s early compositions were “borrowed” from others and were not original (as you would expect from a young artist). Colvin notes, “Wolfgang’s first four piano concertos, composed when he was eleven, actually contain no original music by him.” None of Mozart’s early works are considered to be great music, indeed, the first piece which is considered to be a true masterpiece is his Piano Concerto No. 9, which was composed when he was twenty-one (after he had been studying, performing, and composing for almost 18 years).

Further, Mozart’s composing was not like it’s sometimes been presented (i.e. he conceived of pieces entirely in his head and merely wrote them down in one go). This view which was based on a letter (a letter that has since been proven to be a forgery) is false as can be clearly seen from surviving manuscripts. Mozart’s manuscripts show extensive revisions, reworkings, and rewritings — just like the work of other composers. Nothing at all out of the ordinary.

In other words, Mozart’s greatness came through an extended period of instruction, practice, and performing. Or, as Alex Ross, the music critic for the New Yorker puts it, “Ambitious parents who are currently playing the ‘Baby Mozart’ video for their toddlers may be disappointed to learn that Mozart became Mozart by working furiously hard.”

What about Tiger? Remember, Tiger’s father, Earl, was a golf fanatic who determined at Tiger’s birth to do everything in his power to make his son a great golfer. Tiger was an only child, so he received all his father’s attention and Earl decided to make Tiger the “first priority” of his life. Tiger would be a golfer. At age seven months, Earl gave his son his first golf club, a putter (NOT a plastic one, a real putter).

When he could sit up in a high chair, Earl set him in the garage so that he could watch his father hit balls into a net for hours on end. Before Tiger was two years-old, he was accompanying his father around the golf course (beginning to learn to play and practice). At age four, Tiger began receiving professional instruction. He finally reached a level of play which would be considered elite at age 19 (after intense instruction, practice, and play for over 17 years).

Tiger did not have “natural” talent for golf. He had to learn to play and his play reached the level it reached because of intense practice and expert instruction. In this, he was exactly like Mozart. Both became elite performers through through an insane amount of hard practice and intense dedication to learn their craft.

Obviously, both men had a great deal of God-given ability. But what set them apart was not their “natural-born” gifts but the time and effort they were willing to put in to develop these abilities to an extraordinary level.

Really weird sea animals

ok, this one is pretty scary, meet Mr. “I can see you in the dark with my scary lamp eyes . . . then I can eat you with my huuuuge mouth”

A little help?

hey, if you’ve read Face to Face and found typos, errors, misstatements, things left out, etc., I would appreciate you letting me know. Anything that is unclear and needs to be clarified? Anything? Lemme know. Canon Press is about to do a reprint and it is a good time to clean up anything that needs cleaning.

thanks for your help.

Strange creatures of the deep

Meet Mr. “Am I ugly or what?”

Movies and marriage

If you haven’t yet started listening to the Nuclearity podcasts, start today. Hugh Duncan does a great job in producing an interesting, informative, and provocative (in the Hebrews 10 sense) 15 minutes. Especially good is his “You Love a Lucy” series on marriage. Very helpful. In part 2 of the series Duncan addresses the issue of how actors and actresses protect their marriages while on stage/on camera. Most movies involve love scenes with men/women who are not married. So what is an actor to do if he is concerned to protect his marriage or avoid temptation to immorality?

Hugh interviews Eduardo Verástegui (producer of and lead actor in the outstanding movie, Bella) and Kirk Cameron (star of the movie Fireproof) on how they seek to guard themselves and the actresses they work with, from the temptation to infidelity. Both men have determined to treat all women with the respect God has commanded they be given and so they have determined not to participate in scenes that involve kissing, inappropriate behavior with women, and, of course, nudity. Can this be done without turning every film into a stiff and weird “Billy Graham” movie? Sure it can and it can be done with beauty, grace, and romance — it just takes a little more creativity to make it work.

Hugh Duncan observes that we use stunt doubles to protect the lives of actors (since preserving life is more important than any movie), so why not use “kissing doubles” in an effort to protect the marriages (and purity) of the actors? Isn’t protecting marriages more important than a movie as well?

Nowadays we’re even being assured that no injuries were caused to any animals during the production of the film. Duncan notes that he looks forward to the day when movies include the assurance that “no marriages were harmed during the making of this movie.” Great point. Give Nuclearity a listen.

Here’s why

Some wonder why there are others of us out here on the frontier who are in favor of common citizens (hunters AND non-hunters) being allowed to carry weapons of self-defense. Here’s a video which gives part of the rationale for why we think this is a grand idea.

The video is a portion of the testimony given by Suzanna Gratia-Hupp before a congressional committee. Suzanna was eating in a restaurant with her parents when a man drove his truck through the front window, got out and started shooting. She had a gun, but because of a law forbidding citizens from carrying weapons, she had left it in her car. Consequently, both her parents were killed by the gunman. Listen to what she says.

HT: Jeff Meyers

Easy come, easy go

And John Piper used to have such a good reputation too.

not any more.

too bad.

[register here.]

Les Choristes

The Chorus is a movie that has been making the rounds among some of our members but I just got to watch it a couple of nights ago — and I’m glad I did. It’s the story of a failed musician turned school teacher (Clement Mathieu) who takes the position of prefect at a French boarding school for orphans and troubled (and in trouble) young men. The name of the school is Fond de l’Etang (”the bottom of the pond” or “rock bottom”) and it lives up to its name (indeed, you expect to see “Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here” engraved above the main gate under the school’s name).

The school’s headmaster (Rachin) has succeeded in producing a depressing and soul-killing environment in the school by his indifference and cruelty. Prefect Mathieu is at first overwhelmed by the hardness and bleakness of the school and he quickly becomes the target of the students’ pranks and mocking. Things deteriorate until one night he hears the boys singing a song ridiculing him. It’s then, at his lowest point (”rock bottom”), that Mathieu gets the idea of starting a chorus and teaching the boys to sing (and, in the process, to love) music — which he hopes will open up new doors for the young men who have themselves reached “rock bottom” at Fond de l’Etang.

This movie is all the more surprising given the fact that director Christophe Barratier, made the movie with a budget under $6 million, only one camera, and a cast made up largely of amateur child actors.

The film (like others of this same type) shows the power of music to restore and transform (and if you’re thinking Mr. Holland’s Opus or Music of the Heart, you know the story). But this time the story is better told. It’s worth watching, even if, as one reviewer said, it’s a bit filled with le fromage (French cheese).

Blood Meridian redux

Harold Bloom is trying to talk me into liking Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian.

I don’t think it’s going to work, though I’m willing to listen.

I think the book is better than my first impression, though.

Maybe I was so overwhelmed by the violence, I wasn’t able to think straight.

Maybe.

Weird creatures of the deep

Ok, this one is not from the “deep” but still, he’s pretty good, no? Here’s Mr. “Look at me, I look just like the obnoxious happy face you still see everywhere even though it’s not cool anymore”

Really crazy-weird creatures

Over the past fifty years or so with the development of remote control exploration vehicles and equipment that is able to take pictures and unheard of depths in the ocean, we’ve been finding all sorts of creatures that we never knew existed. Amazing, crazy-wild, hilarious creatures who’ve existed for thousands of years without any eye seeing them except God’s. For all this time, the sole purpose of their existence, apparently, was to make God laugh.

They are scary, ugly, funny, strange, and sometimes look like one of your relatives. I want to post some pictures of a few of them. So here’s the first one: Meet Mr. “I look like a floating transparent skull with a little pea for a brain.”

Good advice

“Be sure to follow your dreams, unless your dreams are stupid.”
– Eugene Mirman

Don’t think about it, do it

Final notes from The Talent Code: A few random observations and quotes.

Studies show that the baby-brain DVDs don’t make children smarter. In fact, they dumb your children down. Baby-brain DVDs don’t work because they don’t create deep practice, rather, they prevent it. They prevent it by taking up time that could be used for doing something (like staggering around in the real world) that would actually contribute to their learning and skill.

“Neurosis is just a high-class word for whining. The trouble with most therapy is that it helps you to feel better. But you don’t get better. You have to back it up with action, action, action.” Dr. Albert Ellis

What’s more important, IQ or self-discipline? In 2005 psychologists Martin Seligman and Angela Duckworth studied several parameters of 164 eighth graders, including IQ, along with five tests that measured self-discipline. It turned out that self-discipline was twice as accurate as IQ in predicting the students’ grade-point average.

Rather than sitting around speculating on what gift your child has or trying to imagine his destiny, allow him to follow his interests. Carol Dweck, psychologist, says that all the world’s parenting advice can be distilled to two simple rules: pay attention to what your children are fascinated by, and praise them for their effort.

Always praise for effort (”Dude, you really worked hard for that!” “Really great effort, that’s what I’m looking for!”) rather than praising intelligence (”Wow, you must be very smart.”). The reality is that success is based more upon struggling to succeed and learning to do it the right way, than it is upon mere native intelligence or innate talent. When you’re just starting out, you don’t “play” tennis; you fight at it. You struggle to hit the ball correctly, accurately, in the proper way. It is a battle to learn to “play.” And if you’re not willing to put forth the effort to fight at tennis, you will never experience the joy of playing tennis.

Master coaching

Once again, more notes from The Talent Code: After studying some of the world’s most successful coaches in various fields, Coyle has devised a list of the “skills” needed to coach effectively. He calls them the “Four Virtues of Master Coaches”:

First: The Matrix — A great teacher has the capacity to always take his student deeper into the skill. Most master coaches are older (in their sixties or seventies) but all have spent decades learning how to teach others to excel. Many of them were once promising talents who failed to succeed and then set about to figure out why they failed.

Second: Perceptiveness — Master coaches seek to know each of their students so that they can customize their instructions to fit the personality and patterns of the student’s life. This is taken quite seriously. Coyle says “the coaches I met approached new students with the curiousity of an investigative reporter.”

Third: The GPS Reflex — Most master coaches deliver their instructions in short, vivid, high-definition bursts, rather than through long lectures. They never begin their sentences with “Please, would you” or “Do you think” or “What about.” Rather, they speak in short imperatives, “Now do this” or “Not that way, this way.”

Fourth: Theatrical Honesty — Great coaches take different approaches to different students (raising their voices (or lowering them), asking questions to see how the student reacts, being mean, tough, or easygoing and laid back). This is not mere hokum but a serious and honest effort to make a connection for the purpose of assisting the student to grow in his ability.