Many Hands Make Light Work

Many hands make light work. The more people who are helping you, the faster and easier the task is. For many projects, this is true. Not every project is easier with more people; for instance, watchmaking is very delicate work done in a small space. More helpers would make it harder. But for large tasks such as yard work, cleaning up a lot of toys, or cleaning up at a camp, more people means lighter work.

Yard work involves clearing large patches of ground. For one person, it is quite a job to pick up all of the sticks and rake all of the leaves on an acre of land, or even half an acre. With a helper, the work is much easier. With five or six friends, the job won’t seem like much work at all. When I did yard work as part of 4-H community service, our club got together and went to a house that needed help clearing a large yard of branches and leaves or weeding a garden. We would spend several hours and have fun while helping. Having that many people made it a lot easier.


If you have ever been in charge of a group of preschoolers, you know they can make quite a mess with toys strewn everywhere. One preschooler can actually create the same amount of chaos, but that one child will have more difficulty cleaning it up. When you get a group of preschoolers to clean up together, the mess doesn’t seem as overwhelming to them and they will pitch in to help restore order. It will also get done a lot faster. Having more of them changes everything.


My youth group occasionally sends out teams of ten to twelve teenagers to go help do the dishes for a weekend at a local retreat center. When there isn’t a team to go, the councilors for that retreat have to do it themselves. They would agree that more hands makes easier and faster work. For a group of five or six people, the dishes for one to three hundred people are a lot of work. But for twelve or fourteen, it is much easier. We could finish cleaning up all of the dishes, wiping down the tables, and sweeping up within two hours or so. The extra hands made a difference.


This old adage is true for many tasks. Not every job is easier with more hands, but in general this is true. Many hands make light work for yard work, cleaning up toys, and doing a lot of dishes, among other things. The more people you have, the faster and easier it will be to do the work.

Computer Literate

We live in the age of computers. They are everywhere, from workplaces to homes. People use these powerful tools daily. But how many people are actually familiar with them? Computer familiarity means being able to communicate using a computer and being able to store information with a computer. A person who is familiar with a computer should also be able to do these things safely.

Computers allow people to communicate in a variety of ways. Emails are direct, and they work well for talking between two or three people. People use emails to keep friends and family updated or to send information at work. Websites allow people to talk with multiple people more easily. Some websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, offer direct messages. They make group communication simpler, because the whole group can see what each person said. Messages are also faster than emails. Forums are a way of talking with people who share an interest, such as computers or medieval fantasy. They give people a place to discuss hints, the latest model, and ask questions. Computers provide access to all of this.

Computers store information. People store documents, such as essays, stories, and instructions, to name a few. Since people can create as many folders as they need, documents can be filed away into categories for easy reference. People also store pictures. Storing pictures digitally is cheaper and easier than printing them out and putting them in an album. Some people also use a computer to prune through their pictures and decide which ones to print. Another thing people store on computers is music. Computers have a lot of storage space, and they can hold more music than a regular phone or iPod.

Computers need to be used safely, like any other tool. Passwords should be strong, such as a line from a poem or a memorable phrase. They should be written down in a secure place that only the creator knows about. Having a password for the Administrator account that the whole family knows means that children can install whatever they want on the computer. This leads to malware and viruses getting installed. A hacked bank account causes a lot of trouble, and a hacked Facebook account is bad, too. That compromised account can be mined for information about the account owner, their friends, and groups the owner belongs to. A stolen password for Facebook can be used for anything from simple mischief to job loss.

Secure habits, such as logging out of websites and locking the computer, keep information safer. Staying logged into a website lets anyone who gains access to your computer also gain access to all the accounts on those websites. Leaving the computer open compounds the problem. Not only can people access the Web from there, they can cause all sorts of mischief on the computer itself. An unlocked Administrator computer account means that whoever comes over there can install or uninstall anything they want to on that computer. Any account that gets left opened on an unlocked computer can access files and pictures for any other account. They can delete or copy those files easily.

People can copy posts or screenshot them; they can easily spread a post beyond the friends of the poster. What is posted on Facebook may not stay there. Choose wisely what gets posted, so that if it does get copied no one will embarrassed or endangered. Once a post is out there, it never truly goes away. Some people receive all posts from a person or their feed in emails, and those emails don’t get deleted when the post does. Google Hangouts messages can’t be edited or deleted after sending. Anyone who has access to the account can download them.

A computer is a versatile tool that, used safely, can enrich our lives. Communication and data storage are easier than ever before. With computers, the average person has more power than an emperor in the days of Rome—instantly access information or message a friend with the click of a mouse.

Get that Flag

A bullet whizzed over Leah’s head and struck the tree behind her. They found me. Oops. She dashed to the next tree and fired at a couple of enemy soldiers. Behind the tree Leah had just deserted, Jasmine crouched with a sniper rifle. “”Leah!” she whispered fiercely. “They hit Dominic. Margret got him back to base, but he’ll be out for a while.”

“If we aren’t careful, it’ll be over before he gets back.” Leah cocked her rifle and fired at a head poked around a bush. “Got him! Just his hand, but still.” The medic came over and wrapped up the injured limb.

While they were busy watching one side, trouble was brewing on the other. Two enemy soldiers charged the two other defenders. One began firing rapidly and barely missed Mason. “Jasmine!” he yelled. Startled, she swung around just in time to see him peg one. She shot at the other, but missed when he ducked.

Leah spotted the enemy flag left seemingly unguarded. Jumping up, she ran for it and actually touched the pole before a bullet struck her. They just got my hand. She set hand to it again, but she was shot in the back and fell.

“No, Leah!” shouted Dominic. Jasmine, about to cry out herself, was a little startled by his vehemence. She shook herself, however, and fended off the attackers. Mason and Alana came up.

“We need to get Leah back to our base,” said Alana.

“Can’t risk losing someone else,” Mason said.

“I’ll pick off a couple of them first. That should help.”

“Got it,” said Jasmine. “Besides, Dominic will be back in a minute.”

As she spoke, he joined them. “What happened to them?” pointing to the other side. Alana took one look and crouched behind a tree.
“They are reloading. We’re out of time!”

“Hold on, now,” Jasmine said. “Alana, you snipe at them, maybe from a tree or somewhere unexpected. Mason, you and I will pin them down. Dominic, get the flag.”

“What about Leah?” he asked. “They still have all of their troops.”

Jasmine looked over at the prison where a medic was tending to Leah. “If you see a good opening. But try to get the flag!”

All three nodded agreement and took up their positions. Margret, their medic, came closer so that she could assist the wounded more quickly.

“On three,” Jasmine whispered. “One, two -”

Yelling at the top of his lungs, one of the enemy charged their camp. Alana, halfway up a tree, fired and missed. The attack was completely unexpected. Mason ran after him. Just as the soldier reached the flag, Mason caught up and shot him point-blank.

“What was the point of that?” he demanded.

The soldier grinned. “There wasn’t one.”

“Whatever. Medic!”

Margret ran over. “He’s hurt. Could you take him to prison once he can walk?” She nodded and Mason turned his attention back to the front.

“Guys!” Leah shouted from across the battlefield. “That was just a distraction! Look out to the left!”

“Quiet!” growled her guard.

Alana, heeding the warning, spotted two of the enemy creeping in. She fired twice, taking careful aim. One was hit in the head. The other dodged.

“Jasmine! Mason!” Alana called out. Jasmine spun around and nearly shot the second, but missed. He grabbed the flag and ran back. Just before he crossed the line, Alana got his arm. He dropped the flag. Jasmine ran over and picked it up. “Dominic, go!” she hissed. He dashed from tree to tree while Mason laid down covering fire. As he reached for the flag, Jasmine and Mason yelled and charged. The defenders, not expecting this new onslaught, fired wildly. Dominic’s hand was wounded, so Jasmine seized the flag and raced off. He ran over to Leah, whose guard was chasing Mason and Jasmine, and freed her. They got back just in time to see Jasmine triumphantly lay the enemy flag before their own.
“Good game, guys!” called Sadie. She was panting hard.

“Good game!” Leah and Jasmine called back.

“I say we play with real guns next time,” said Drake. “That would add more spice than just using Nerf.”

A Comparison of Two Debate Accounts: Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Freeport

In 1858, a new President was being elected. Two candidates battled for the office: Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.  They held debates in different cities and put forth their positions on various topics. Unlike today, the newspapers were openly biased one way or the other. The text of the debate differed from paper to paper, depending on which way they leaned. http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews has the complete text of the articles from about fourteen newspapers, both Republican and Democratic. Articles on the debate at Freeport from two newspapers are compared here: The Alton Weekly Courier (Republican) and the Jacksonville Sentinel (Democrat). By putting together the several accounts, a fairly accurate picture presents itself. There are a few similarities. But the differences far outstrip them.

The Alton Weekly Courier, or the AWC, has few things in common with the Jacksonville Sentinel, or the JS. Both newspapers openly proclaim their bias. People read the newspaper that supported their party, and expected to hear a rather one-sided account of events. Also, the newspapers recorded the same debate. Other than those two points, the two newspapers' articles don't match up.

The AWC favored Lincoln over Douglas, and records the crowd as liking Lincoln more. Douglas is shown as not able to answer any of the questions put to him by Lincoln. A second article declares that Douglas is switching his position around on the Dred Scott decision, and provides a comparison of his Chicago speech and his Freeport speech to illustrate it. In the first article, which gives a running account of the debate, Douglas is portrayed as a rude, lying politician who is polite and decent only as long as it serves his purposes. The purport of what both candidates say is recorded, though not verbatim.

In contrast, the JS is completely for Douglas. The crowd is said to be all for him, and Lincoln totally crushed by his blows. One article gives Douglas' speech in quotation marks. The other article claims that the “Black Republicans” endorse Fredrick Douglass and “Negro Equality.” To prove this, they quote Douglas, their own candidate!  The first article says nothing about Lincoln's speeches, just Douglas' answers to Lincoln's questions.

The AWC gives both Lincoln's questions and Douglas' answers:
    “Mr. Lincoln, having answered all of Mr. Douglas's interrogatories, then,    
proceeded to propound the following interrogatories to him, requesting him
to answer them:

    1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State Constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants, according to the English bill — ninety-three thousand — would you vote to admit them?

    2. Can the people of a United States territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States exclude slavery from their limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution?
    3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of political action?
    4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question?”1

        “1st. He [Douglas] said he believed that, when a Territory has a population enough for a slave State, she has also enough for a free State; but believes, nevertheless, that no Territory ought to be admitted or apply for admission with a less population than 93,000.
    2d. He said he believes that the people of a Territory can by lawful mean prohibit slavery if they see it, through their Territorial Legislature. The Nebraska bill, he said, provided that the Legislature of the Territory should have power over all subjects consistent with the organic set and the Federal Constitution.
    3d. He dismissed this interrogatory by saying that he does not believe the Supreme Court would ever dream of such a thing as deciding that no State has the right to abolish slavery, and therefore considered the question simply aboard, said a vile imputation upon the character of the Federal Judiciary.
    4th. He was in favor of the acquisition of Territory, when he considered it necessary or proper, whether the acquisition is from the north, the South, the east or the west. True, he said, we have Territory enough for the present, but we are a growing nation, and in fifteen years, all this territory, will be filled up and we mush have more. Expansion is the law of this Republic, and the nation would die if we restrict its limits.”2

The JS takes a different approach. Lincoln's questions to Douglas are not quoted, but Douglas' responses are. Instead of paraphrasing, the JS devotes a paragraph or two to each answer, with the comments of the crowd in parentheses. Included are comments from Douglas such as “I regret exceedingly that he [Lincoln] did not answer that interrogation himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is.” The paragraph of comment at the beginning says that “These questions were got up with all the ingenuity and cunning that Lincoln's guardian committee could command, and were regarded by Lovejoy, Bross & Co., as stunners.”3

With respect to the Democrats in general, the AWC doesn't have much to say. The article on the debate mentions them only four times. They are said to be in the minority, “four Republicans present for every Douglasite,”4 and to have left town after the debate, “ashamed and afraid to show their heads.”5 Two of those four times refer to Douglas' followers, not Democrats. The rest of their remarks are reserved for Douglas.

The JS, however, is vocal against the “Black Republicans,”6 and has an entire article claiming that they are all for Fredrick Douglas. In the comment at the beginning, the article claims that “It will be seen that the republicans stood up openly for Fred Douglas and negro equality.”7 The extract is from Douglas. In it, he insults the Republicans, calling them “black.”8 The quote shows that the crowd was not pleased with him and that many vigorously denied the charges.

Reading just one newspaper's account of the Freeport debate does not give an accurate picture of what happened. All of the newspapers were biased, and each reported their own side as winning. The reports have few things in common. The few similarities are outnumbered by the many differences.  











Citations:

1. The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:34792
2.  The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:34792
3.  The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:3774
4. The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:34792
5. The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:34792
6.  The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:3774
7.  The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:35125
8. The Northern Illinois University Library, online digital collection.  http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndouglas/debatetextnews,
   http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln:35125

Famous and Infamous

Famous and Infamous

A comparison of Washington and Napoleon

 

“What a story my life has been!” Napoleon, the “terror of Europe,” exclaimed as he lay dying. Before hygiene and proper medical techniques, doctors often killed patients who had minor illnesses. The doctors were not trying to kill patients, but their improper understanding of the way illness operates and spreads would many times lead to the patient's death. Napoleon's illness might have been curable by modern science, and he was not the only great man to fall because of inferior medical development. Another famous case is that of George Washington. The main cause of their deaths presents only one of the many similarities between them. Some of these include their love of children and the respect and admiration they gathered. At the same time, the circumstances of each leading up to their deaths are quite different, presenting one of the still more numerous differences between Washington and Napoleon. A few are how they dealt with power, their personal lives, their military tactics, and their situations when fighting.

Though the two leaders have many striking differences, they also shared some traits. Both enjoyed children, and Napoleon had several himself. Washington and Napoleon were both generals who have come down in history for their feats of war, though that may not be the only reason. Fate decreed that they should share a common enemy, the British. Though later America and Britain were to form a strong bond of friendship, it still holds true that the two nations fought each other. France and Britain would also fight on the same side in later wars, but before then an almost continuous history of war and animosity exists between them. Another similar point between these two great and famous men is that they liked fine clothing. Both men dressed well and fashionably, which to Washington meant having fine manners as well as clothing.

Washington and Napoleon both gained great respect and admiration, both among their men and others whom they met. Under them, troops would follow anywhere. Washington's troops were ready to march on Congress and disband it, if he wished. His presence helped to quell the small number of rebellions that arose after the Revolution. Napoleon's men followed him until his defeat and first exile, but still remained loyal to him as evidenced by the mass return when Napoleon escaped. Not only men, but nations, followed both leaders. All America went into mourning when Washington died. Likewise, France mourned Napoleon's passing. Those who met the great men at social functions, or in Napoleon's case as he was going to his new “island empire,” were impressed and remembered the incident for years.

Both leaders are similar in several respects, but there are many more differences than similarities. One of the most prominent is how they each handled power. Washington refused to take over the government when asked to, and would not serve as president for more than two terms. But Napoleon seized control of the government and kept it until forced to abdicate. Washington kept the government's powers small and limited its power. Instead, Napoleon chose to grow his government until it was extensively involved in the business and affairs of several nations, all under his eye. Under Napoleon, private rights, unless you were French, were mostly ignored. Nations he conquered lived in fear of his army. Washington presents a great contrast, with most personal rights being protected and recovery from the war moving along rapidly.

Their personal life and appearance also present great contrast. While Washington kept his temper under control except for a few instances, Napoleon threw huge fits, rather like Kylo Ren. If he didn't get his way, a tantrum followed. Washington seldom raised his voice and never threw a fit. Napoleon was quite short, while Washington was tall. Like many powerful people, Napoleon had several mistresses. Washington had none.

As leaders, they conducted their careers differently. Washington did not use much, if any, propaganda. Napoleon employed propaganda so much that he ended up believing it. Throughout the war, Washington had enormous difficulty in obtaining necessary supplies such as food and clothing. Napoleon was an emperor, and the decision-maker, so he had no trouble about the granting or collecting of supplies. Napoleon's troops had rigorous training, strong discipline, good equipment, and numbers on their side. Washington's troops had varying levels of training, little discipline, poor or no equipment, and the army was small. Even their tactics were different. Washington fought a war of endurance, and his men performed best in a guerrilla-style war, shooting like Indians from behind trees. Napoleon fought European-style, though this only worked well against Austria, Prussia, and those others who fought likewise. Against the Russians, this tactic led to disaster.

Also, the two leaders fought in different situations, with different outcomes. Washington battled the British alone, but Napoleon attacked most of Europe. Only Britain, safe over the Channel, kept well away from Napoleon. Napoleon fought to subdue and conquer both countries and people. In contrast, Washington sought only to defend and protect his newly-formed country. Like the Spanish fighting Napoleon, in a way, France helped Washington finish the war. French troops and ships helped corner Cornwallis at Yorktown, and the French provided much-needed supplies. When Napoleon battled his way across Europe, he had no allies—except those forced to help because they were conquered. And when given a chance, these “allies” turned against him. Washington's allies stayed with him.

Two leaders, two different, even contrasting, places in history. Yet similarities are easily found between them, such as their fondness for children and the admiration they inspired among their men and others. Still, more differences than similarities present themselves to the observer. Though Washington and Napoleon were both leaders, they handled power differently, behaved differently in personal life, used widely separated military tactics, and fought in different situations. Because of these differences, Washington and Napoleon cannot be called similar. Washington went down to history as famous, and Napoleon went down as infamous. The two leaders are not equally worth of praise. 

Bell 
Note: Sorry about the different line spacings! I copied this over from a word processor and it did not transfer correctly.