Cap'n Ahab? Is That You?

Nah - not Ahab. Chase seems too nice to be Ahab; doesn't seem as obsessed with whales - or at least white whales. And I don't think that he's ever met a Moby Dick before. But I could be wrong... it's been known to happen.

Chase doesn't seem to be an Ahab. There's a certain drive that one has to have to be a good captain, and I think that Chase has that, and should the circumstances have been different, I think that he would have made a great captain. But in the end, let's face it; I wouldn't pit him against Jean-Luc Picard. 'Cause in one of my favorite Star Trek movies ever, *Star Trek First Contact*, one of the other characters compares Picard to Captain Ahab. Don't ask me how I would make the connection between Chase and Picard, but I did.

Anywho, I think where I was going with that was when Picard set the Enterprise to self-destruct, Picard wants to stay behind to destroy all the Borg. Ahab kept after that blasted whale. Neither would want to listen to reason, at first, but Picard did. Ahab didn't. Neither did Chase. If Chase would have used his instinct that told him to go back, go back, go back, then the men that were lost might have lived to see another whaling trip. Sure, at first the men may have "lost face", may have been ousted from that group of men that would marry the Nantucketers. But they would still be alive - still live to face another trip. And if Chase would have just restocked, they could have set right back out again. As Daddy always says, better safe than sorry. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If I were one of those women who wouldn't marry a man unless he had been whaling, I think that I would have been more impressed that they would have come back because they had the smarts to resupply. It would have looked like Chase and the other men knew when to hold 'em, knew when to fold 'em, knew when to walk away, knew when to run. (And you don't count your money, when you're sittin' at the table; there'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done. Interwebz chocolate chip cookies to anyone who gets the reference.)

Ok, more Star Trek now:

The reason I think Chase kinda lost his marbles, went a few fries short of a happy meal, yanno, was because he made everything out to be he was the hero. He was the one who did all this and that and the other. And I think that that gave him survivors' guilt. I think that he was haunted by all the souls that he lost out there - literally haunted. I believe in ghosts, and if they're really real, because Chase took the route of narcissism, they were on him like flies to a cow-pie. But in the beginning, Chase took the role of a strong, attractive captain figure. And Picard had that too. Now, where the two differed was that Picard knew when he was being full of himself - he knew when he was pushing too far, and Picard listened to his gut. Picard stopped being so hell-bent on destroying the Borg - and himself and possibly a few innocent people - that he didn't realize what he was doing until one of the other members on board made him see (granted, she smashed a case full of gold trophies or models or something, but hey; whatever opens your eyes, opens your eyes). It was then that Picard ordered everyone to get into the escape pods because self-destructing the Enterprise was the only thing that would save everyone. They were way too outnumbered by the Borg and people were being assimilated left and right, and it was the only way to destroy the collective. So, he said, "Make it so."

So, if Chase would have listened to what his gut was telling him - listened to his crew - he would have been more a Picard. And I would have liked him better. Picard was a sure man, confident in himself and his crew, but he knew when he was beaten. And Chase should have, too.

I'm still surprised that they made it around the tip of South America - Cape Horn. Good-golly, Miss Molly. That is some pretty nasty weather - even on a good day. I remember watching something on one of the Discovery channels or History channels or something (I can't find it now on the computer - bleh) about how dangerous it is for tankers to make the bend (let alone smaller boats; it's practically suicide!) because the warm water meets the cold water of Antarctica, and it really churns up the sea. Even on a good day, ships can sometimes face winds of around 50 knots and really high waves. It's crazy. And then they go and sink elsewhere. It figures, ne? They would survive one of the most dangerous parts of the entire ocean system to sink elsewhere.

Now, it's one of the most dangerous parts, but men today still go out and fish in the Bering Sea every year. They risk their lives in probably **the** most dangerous part of the ocean in the world. Conditions are scary bad. There are men lost out there every year. And if you eat crab - for example - you should really thank a fisherman, because they risk life and limb to get it to you.

There's a show on the Discovery channel called *The Deadliest Catch* that details what life is like for those guys. They're just as crazy as those old time whalers. But there's a pretty penny in it, and a sense of brotherhood that other professions just don't have. That, and there's the Coast Guard. Those old timers didn't the the USCG. The USCG does cut down a bit on the casualties, but it doesn't get rid of them all.

As far as I know, there hasn't been a really big accident in the history of the show, but that doesn't mean that there can't be one. And I'm sure that the members of the crew would be close enough to each other to be able to say, "If I die, you can eat me; it's ok. You have a family, and they need you." or "I'm not going to make it back; not to my family. You still have your family, and you have a chance at least; you eat me and make it back to everyone." At least, I hope they would. And I don't know how others would feel about eating the people they served with on the crew. I couldn't say one way or the other.

I think that if it came down to me eating someone, I might be able to. I'd feel so guilty about it, but...

I heard somewhere once, I think it was from the Food Network, that BBQ was used by cannibal tribes to make the human meat tender. And I think of that, and I think of how much people today like BBQ (be honest now; BBQ sounds good, eh?), and I have to wonder if John Q Smith was cooked and BBQ'd and made to look like some chicken or something, well, I just might be able to do it, if something in my gut told me to eat, to eat, and stay alive. I believe in God, and I think that if something told me to eat, and I was able to keep it down, then maybe God wanted me to live for some reason that I woulnd't really be able to grasp right away, if ever. If I couldn't eat it or couldn't keep it down, then maybe I was ment to go back home. Maybe it was my time.

Afterwards, if there was one, I don't think that I'd ever be able to eat BBQ again, though. But that's just me.

So, yeah. Chase should have listened to what he felt - shouldn't have let anyone talk him out of it. Chase should have been more like Picard. But Picard is fictional; Chase was real. And so were those men.

Maybe Chase wasn't ready yet. Maybe he could have had an old captain on the boat with him - as like a mentor or something. Maybe he wasn't ready for such a big hunt yet. Or maybe we just don't understand everything that happened. But the thing is, there are always going to be things that escape our knowledge. We shouldn't be too harsh on the man - or any of the men. They did what they had to do, and they did what they thought was right. It was the only thing that they could do. Remember that, kay?

And remember that if you're ever in any type of situation like the one of the Essex, you should trust your gut. No one is going to judge you for doing what you have to do to stay alive - even if it means eating someone.

Here're some other shows to check out. In them, people do and/or survived incredible, crazy things.

Untold Stories of the ER
I Survived
I'm Alive
Monster's Inside Me
Deadliest Catch
Impact: Stories of Survival
The Guardian (it's actually a movies)

"Oh, I Tell You What..." "Ok, what?" "Huh? Waddaya mean 'what'?"

Yes, that's actually a sentence down south. A complete sentence, I should add. And people get it down there - they don't wait for the explanation that comes after the 'what'. (And I can totally say that, because I'm from the south.)

I had a friend ask me what came after the 'what'. I didn't know what to tell him. It's just that I'm telling you what. There's really nothing that comes after it.... :| North people would be so confused when the brands of pop all fall under one category - Pepsi, Mt. Dew, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Sierra Mist, Coke, those all fall under Coke in some places (yes, even the orange and purple pops). In other areas they'd all fall under soda or cola. I once asked my oldest niece if she would grab me a Coke from the cooler (I think it was my graduation party from high school...), and she came back and said, "Aunt BeeBe, all we have is Pepsi." I face-palmed. I epic face-palmed. And then I went and got one myself. Niki asked me why I didn't say Pepsi instead of Coke, and I just shrugged. (Wow... I can't believe she's almost 16. When this happened, she was 13, so that means that I graduated just after I turned 18 - jeez-ums... where did the time go?! )

And even though I wasn't there for long (Texas, that is), I still picked up some speech patterns. We were there when I was little, and the time that a child's brain absorbs the most in language centers of their brains (which is why I will never talk "baby-talk" to babies - totally slows their L.C. down by at least a year or so). If you listen, you can faintly hear me say 'ah' for 'I' or 'rahigt' instead of 'right'. I call people sug, hon, dear, babe, doll, sweets - if you hear it in a truck-stop diner/dive (be it in movie or real life), I'll probably end up saying it or calling someone it at some time or another.

(Just curious: How annoying would it be in I wrote in southern drawl? Guess what? Too bad! Because I'm totally going to do it from here on out in this entry! Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!)

Ok - so, just so we're clear on things: ah = I (or just about any place 'i' is used), ya + yuns + y'all = you, yar + yer = your/you're (sometimes - depends on how much 'shine someone's had or how utterly and completely hick they are), boy = just about any member of the male sex, girl + gal = just about any member of the female sex, sir + yessir = someone of authority (like a daddy), ma'am + yessum = someone of authority (like a momma), huntin' = looking for something/ searching. Anything more, y'all can go and fahnd it yerselves.

Rahght, so, onta mah point. See just how hick y'all think Ah am after this... (or how seri'sly yuns take meh or mah argument, for that mat'er - yessir, tell you what.)

The way Jacobs wrahghts, ya donna get the full effect of the drawl - not of course sayin' she had one, but mosta us do. 'Course, she prob'ly had to wrahght in such a way that would make her readers (her focus group, yanno) wanna read her story. We had read Jacobs in mah African American Lit class, and we puzzled out that her target audience was Northern whahte women of upper-middle class who were somehow abolitionists or connected to one. Why? 'Cause they'd have the most empathy - after all, those women were just as much slaves as Jacobs was - they were nust a different type, confined ta their stations and positions, forced ta be seen and not heard. They would understand Jacobs' want fer her freedom, because they had that very same want themselves ('course, they weren't mistreated as badly - publically anyway).

Don'cha y'all think that it's a mahght bit inter'sting that Emerson and Thoreau wrote of their desire for liberation as well? Alrahght, alraght... so them two were whahght men, and they preached about a more radical liberation - one that took yuns outta what ya felt comfort'ble in - outta yer little box of routine. And alrahght, Jacobs wanted liberation from **Man** himself. But, in a way, so did Em and Thor. They wanted ya to rise up 'gainst what'cha thought the gover'ment wanted for y'all - wanted ya to rise up and be an army of one, to 'rage against the machine' (isn't that a band?), to pull alla the stops and live for **you** and for **today**.

But, yanno, if ya read what Miss Jacobs is actually sayin', well, she's sayin' just about the same thing.

She wants to be free from her masters. She wants to own herself - be the master of herself. And there's not a thing wrong with that. Now, Ah'm a good ole Southern gal, and Ah ain't gonna let anyone own me - Ah donna believe that someone can own another person. Not at all. Ah believe that it goes 'gainst everything that God taught (and Ah am a Catholic, and it's what Ah believe, and Ah'm not tryin' to push anything on anyone - just sayin' what mah creed is, is all). The whole idea of slavery confuses meh a little, yanno - just kinda have to stop, put mah hands on mah hips and scratch mah head for a minute.

Now, the difference 'tween those two boys and Miss Jacobs is that Em and Thor were all just talk, and Miss Jacobs actually acted. Donna know about y'all, but in cases like this, actions speak a bit louder than words. Actions show, and not everyone knew howta read back in those days, yanno. Sure, sure: Em and Thor went into the woods and everything, but they didn't face death if they were found. They didn't face lashes until their backs were bloodied and their hands were raw. They didn't face 15 hours of work and then no food and terror when they fin'lly had tahme to rest. Miss Jacobs did. Hands down, Miss Jacobs wins in the battle of liberation.

But Ah'm still gonna say that they all'er askin' for just about the same thing. They all want ya to question normality - to go with yer gut. They didn't want ya to blend in - they wanted ya to be someone. They wanted ya to stand out, stand up, and be heard for what'cha believe in.

In the long run, did anyone really folla (follow) their advice?

Citizens still obey to police/gov'ment/law. Children still obey parents. Student obeys teacher. Servant obeys master. Inferior obeys superior (in cases of the army and whatnot). Employee obeys boss. Sure, there's no slavery per se anymore, but it doesn't really mat'er. Ah have taxes taken outta my check every pay, and Ah donna see where it's goin' to. (Now, Ah'm not sayin' that y'all should rise up and war against the gov'ment or anything, but if mah money is goin into someone's pocket instead of into school funding or something such, yer gonna see one pissed belle, that's fer damn sure.) Ah have no problem with any of those organizations as long as they listen to mah voice and what Ah'm sayin' - Ah donna want it goin' in one ear and out the other, yanno. And when or if it ever does, ya can bet damn sure that Ah'm just gonna talk louder 'til they pay attention to what Ah have to say.

Have yuns ever been in a situation where ya weren't listened to? Didn't feel like y'all were bein' heard? Ya donna have to say anything about it, but just think for a minute how it made y'all feel. Likewise, have ya ever maybe made someone else feel like that? Ever do the whole rahght hand doesn't know what the hell the left hand's doin'? (Nah, it happens to everyone, so donna feel bad 'bout it, kay?) Just consider it sorta personal reflection or somethine such.

And remember how three dif'rent people from two dif'rent culturs were inspired by the same ideas: personality, liberation, personal freedom, individuality, fearlessness, strenght, and desire for change. And remember how easily we all take such things for granted when some people didn't even have the ability to voice such things. If it's not remembered, it's bound to repeat itself, yanno. Past has a way of comin' back ta bite'cha in the ass if y'all forget it. It donna like to be forgotten, and Em and Thor and Miss Jacobs sure have a way of making it stick in yer mem'ry for a time or two.

The Rake, The Dashing Libertine, The Woman, and the Revolution Question

Ok, that was a long title... anywho, yeah.

Eliza, I feel, was a woman who was born before her time. That, in and of itself, is a revolution. Think about it: she wanted to be free from the confines of her parent's house. Eliza wanted her freedom; she wanted to live her life without people controlling her every movement. That is what makes her a revolutionary. It was the whole thriving idea of the revolution. The country had just won it's freedom from England - it's liberation. The concept was flowing through people, thriving off if the spirit. They were drunk from the send of freedom.

There's an argument that could be made that Eliza is the representation of the liberation and mistakes that the USA made in the founding decades. Eliza was a change in the ways in which women conducted themselves. She waited to get married - she wanted her time to play around. After all, Sanford was the dashing libertine - was somewhat akin to the Second Earl of Rochester. If a man can do such things, why not women? Is it because men can't get pregnant? Is it because men don't have as many clothes to take off? (Well, technically, all a woman would have to do then, is lift her skirts and shimmy out of her pantaloons. A man would just have to unlace his pants. So, it's just as easy. Never mind that question then.) Is it because women were stifled and treated more as property than as actual people before the 1900's? Eliza's (well, actually Elizabeth's, since it's based off of a true story) challenge of the Malthusian ideas of before made great advancements in the rights of women. Well, let me rephrase: it gave women a little more freedom to be more sexually independent.

But even today, if a man sleeps around or has several women or a mistress, he's considered a "player" and congratulated by his friends. When a woman has several men, she's called a slut or a whore or tramp by everyone, mostly behind her back, but also to her face. She's shunned somewhat, and I think that that idea was still prevalent even in Eliza's time. Her friends wrote to each other, gossiping about what poor, dear Eliza did. She went and played dull Boyer and the rakish Sanford. She went and got herself preggers. She went and ousted herself from "polite society" because she wanted to be a woman and control her sexuality - since birth control didn't appear until the 1960's - and, Biblical-terms anyway, abstinence is only 99.99999% effective. Hey, not to offend any, but America was founded on Christian ideals, and according to the Bible, if you believe that, God can do just about anything, so being a virgin doesn't guarntee that you'll not get preggers. Hey, just saying...

So, why the double standards? Why should men be ok with it - the playing around - and women think that it's the most horrible thing in the world? Why is it male students are "congratulated" (by their friends) when they sleep with a female teacher, but female students are thought of as wanton or somehow asking for it - be it something as simple as grades or something? Why? Why can't a woman be sexual and not thought of as a slut? Why can't they be just as sexually liberated as men? Why, if we fought for freedom and indepence, can't women choose who they sleep with, when they sleep with them, why they sleep with them and not be talked about?

So, I say then:

SEXUAL FREEDOM!!!!!!