Wednesday, April 12, 2006

My Genealogy: My Nova Scotia Ancestors

I am looking for an ancestor who was born in 1775 who ended up in Nova Scotia and marrying John Jacob Hiltz in February 24, 1794 or prior to 1807. She is listed as Susanna Barkhouse, or Susanna Ruppert. She is also listed as Anna, Catherine, or Barbara for a given name. She
is even listed as Anna Barbara ROBAR in a Lunenburg marriage record to John Jacob Hiltz. Almost everywhere I look there is conflicting information.

A Nova Scotia HILTZ researcher has her as Catherine Anna Barbara Ruppert
and that she was a united empire loyalist. Her grandfather died fighting
on the British side and her father died on board a ship they were being evacuated to Nova Scotia on. She was raised by an aunt in Nova Scotia. I don't know the aunts name
but that may be where the Barkhouse name came from. He has more information, but
he seems to be unable to hand over the information.

It is important to note that there were no RUPPERT family members in Nova
Scotia.This is why I am thinking that she may have been sent away to Nova
Scotia to live with an aunt who was a Barkhouse when she was really young.
I have had difficulties coming up with a birth record for her with a 1775 birthdate
under any of her names in Nova Scotia. There doesn't seem to be any marriage
records prior to her marrying John Jacob Hiltz.

I am wondering if there were ever any loyalists with the surname RUPPERT
who may have had BARKHOUSE ties in Nova Scotia or had ties to anyone who
may have married into the Barkhouse or Robar family? Were there ships specifically
meant to evacuate loyalists to Nova Scotia? Is there a way to find out
if she was with her father or was on a later ship that were meant for loyalists?

From Blair G Whynacht:

I'm a direct descendant of John Jacob Hiltz and I have information stating that he married Anna Barbara Ruppert on April 12, 1801 either in Chester or Lunenburg. Anna was born in 1778 and died on October 31, 1818. I believe she's buried in the St. Stephen's Anglican Cemetery in Chester. Jacob is buried there as well. After Anna died, Jacob married Anna Corney Floyd on June 19, 1819.

I have some information that states when Anna's father Frederick died on the passage to Halifax, he had recomended that his children be taken cared for by his brother Christopher, also on board the same ship. He resided in Magowaggonish. Anna's sister appeared when Christopher filed claim for Frederick's land in Feb of 1787 and she appeared as being 12 years old and Anna did not appear. She was about 9 years old and lived with Daniel Mickler, who married her aunt and they resided in Shelbrune.

When I visited the Family History Center in the Ross Farm Museum in New Ross where some of my Hiltz ancestors once lived, I was told by a Ronald Barkhouse who works at the center that Jacob Hiltz did not marry a Barkhouse woman and all the church records seem to point to Ruppert. Jacob and Anna had 9 children 3 daughters first, followed by 6 sons. The 2 youngest sons were twins born on March 15, 1813 and they both drowned on April 30, 1815. I'm a descendant of Jacob and Anna's son Jacob Jr. who married Elizabeth Corkum and they lived in the New Ross area. Well I hope this information is of some help to you.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Random Politics

There are 3 political blogs we discovered, back in the days (just before Halloween 05) when "Fitzmas" was the buzzword. Pretty interesting to pretty funny blogs out there for political junkies like me and John. Of course, they all lean left. What's a girl to do when the right has gone not only wacky, but totally corrupted by power?

- The Huffington Post- DailyKos
- Wonkette
- Americablog

My heroine, Molly Ivins (I named my cat after her) makes a passioned argument for not voting for Hillary Clinton or anyone who doesn't have political courage. I certainly am sympathetic to her sentiments.

I am looking forward to seeing the movie, "Why We Fight," about how the political system we live under is driven by the military-industrial complex.

Oscar Night wrap up

It's me! It's me! I like to thank all the oscar articles which handicapped this year's oscar race and gave me the edge on our annual oscar party contest.

I won picking 17 out of 24 catagories correctly. In second place was John with 14. Last place was our friend, Shelley who got 10 right (actually our 2 year old, Lewis got 9 right -- picking Movies and people who should have won). People were bitter about the fact that I studied for this event. Let them stew, victory is mine. Bwahahaha.

I won, even though I have only been able to see four nominated movies so far, Revenge of the Sith (bad movie), Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were Rabbit (good movie), Charlie & The Chocolate Factory (bad movie), and Batman Begins (decent movie).

While many sites gave the Best Picture to Brokeback, I was intrigued by a possibility of an upset that I read on a few sites. This morning I am reading discussions on why Brokeback lost. There is much talk of homophobia, which I cannot say that it doesnt exist, but doesn't really seem to be the case.

Gene Stone claims, "60-year-old straight white men who compose most of the voting." Then why did "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" win over Dolly Parton? If there is this monolithic old white boy's club in the Academy, wouldn't Dolly Parton have won? George Clooney would have won for Best Director over Ang Lee.

The academy honored the film for what they thought was exceptional, the director Ang Lee and the writing. What I think is the more compelling reason is that
it lost in the sea of Oscar campaigning -- the world of buzz and peaking. Some say Brokeback just peaked too soon. There was so much hype and interest in the movie as a phenom that all the surprise or curiosity of the film dried up.
It got to the point where there were too many jokes and too many quotes from the film that it was hard to take it seriously as a film.

Perhaps if the film was viewed as just another great movie about forbidden love, Brokeback would have done better. Gay themed film will do better when it is no longer a big deal, and merely movies about human affection, attraction, and relationships. I understand that Gays and Lesbians face great societal scorn and injustice. I have fought on various public forums for their right to marry, adopt, and enjoy the same rights as all other citizens of this country. I just don't think that it was about the discomfort about homosexuality as much as too much hype and too much wrong hype.

I have not gone to see it because of all the jokes and spoilers that are out there have basically threatened my enjoyment of discovery of this film. The hype was about homosexuality in film rather than the merits of the storytelling skills of the film.

Additionally, I make it a policy to see movies well after oscar season to clear the palatte, so to speak, and see a movie sans the hype. Overly hyped movies almost always seem to disappoint.

My wish is that films about gays and lesbians become just part of a body of film about the human condition in recognition that there is a full spectrum of human experience.

People who are miffed about the Brokeback/Crash upset, should really check out what the religious right has to say.

"Not only are the Oscars out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, they have indeed become an "atheistic pleasure dome" ruled by neo-Marxist liberals and cultural pimps who hate the traditional American family and its Christian values." - Dr. Ted Baehr, founder of MovieGuide and Chairman of Christian Film & Television Commission.

Bottom line is that it is best not to take Oscar night or Hollywood very seriously. The voting often has more to do with the timing and nature of the studio campaigning than the merits or demerits of films themselves.

It turns out that the biggest theme of this Oscar night was to encourage us to go to the theaters more and reject DVDs and downloads. So,
Hollywood is not about liberalism or hedonism, but more about good, old-fashioned capitalism.

Jon Stewart

I tend to agree with the mixed reviews that Stewart did on whole an okay job. After reading Andy Dehnart's article, Stewart may have done better than it seemed. The reason it seemed that he had a tough time, and many comedians have a tough time is that it is an audience that cannot laugh or see the how puffed up they are. David Hiltbrand of the Philadelphia Inquirer talks about the no-win situation facing Jon Stewart. If the audience at the Kodak can't take a joke it can look like the comic is bombing when he is actually hitting the mark. It makes one think that what might please the audience at home may not please the audience at the Kodak theatre.

Anyone who isn't Billy Crystal is just going to pale in comparison with Steve Martin who is in somewhat distant second place. Billy Crystal is an ideal host for the Oscars since he is embued with Vaudeville spirit and old school skill sets needed to host the Oscars. He is the new Bob Hope and Steve Martin is kind of a new Johnny Carson, but with musical talents in his back pocket.

Whoopi Goldberg is a strange creature. She seems to be embraced by Hollywood, while I never found her work on the Oscars particularly entertaining, even though I do like her and her off-Oscar work.

It is not enough to be smart and funny. It is not enough to be likeable. This is proven by the long line of smart, funny, and likeable yet hosts like Chris Rock, David Letterman, and now Jon Stewart. In any other forum these people are brilliant and highly entertaining, but Oscar night does something to them. They either have to mute or tone down what we love about them and risk boredom or risk having what we like about them seeming crass and ill-suited to the event.

Billy Crystal can sing, dance, tell jokes like a Hollywood insider, and he has this smile that blasts sunshine even when he is making jokes at Nicholson's expense. He has the pixie dust about him, and that is why when somebody other than Billy Crystal does the Oscars there is a sense of doom laced with hopeful optimism.

I thought the opening with Billy Crystal, former Oscar hosts, Halle Berry, and George Clooney was hilarious. The Bjork joke worked in his current favorite object of ridicule, Cheney's markmanship.
"I do have some sad news. Bjork couldn't be here tonight. She was trying on her Oscar dress and Dick Cheney shot her."
I loved his comment after a montage of clips about issue films, "And none of those issues were ever a problem again."

"Tonight is the night we celebrate excellence in film. . .with me, the fourth male lead from 'Death to Smoochy.' Rent it."

"not all gay people are cowboys — some are effete New York intellectuals."
"There are women here who could barely afford enough gown to cover their breasts."
Just when you start wondering how the antics on The Daily Show could intersect with the Oscars, you get rather clever send ups of Oscar Campaigning and infamous political campaign ads. These ads included claims that Charlize Theron was “hagging it up” in her quest for Oscar glory while Keira Knightley bravely acts “with cheekbones so improbable, they may well be flecked with God dust.” Thanks to Steven Colbert for great voiceover.

Our oscar party laughed out loud at Tom Hanks being assaulted by a trombone and the rest of the orchestra. Given the orchestra's history of aggressively cutting award winners off, you know they they are capable of battery if necessary.

Bottom line is that it wasn't the best oscar show ever because Bill Crystal wasn't there, but it wasn't the worst oscars because Jon Stewart was there.

Hazzuh Patriot Guard Riders

I am a staunch staunch First Amendment supporter. That means that I support the First Amendment when it is speech that I hate. It is always unpopular thought and people in our country that need protection most of all -- popular beliefs do not need protection.

One group that really puts my beliefs to the test is the group headed by Rev. Fred Phelps. Phelps and his group has gotten their yahoos from attending the funerals of AIDS victims with offensive anti-gay hail and brimstone protest signs. They get off on terrorizing grieving family and friends during the darkest times in their lives.

Now this group is going to military funerals saying that US soldiers deserve to die on IEDs as God's punishment for the United States "harboring homosexuals." Again, Phelp's group completely violates the tradition of giving grieving family and friends the dignity and space to say goodbye to their loved ones. All human beings deserve that -- it is just common decency.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and are appalled by the gross negligence and incompetence of the planning and direction of the conflict in Iraq. My ire has been always directed toward the civilian leadership of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and crew, never the troops. The troops have been put in an impossible situation where they feel an overwhelming duty to serve our country and their fellow soldiers in being in Iraq. They go in our name, regardless if we agree with the policy that sent them there. So, we are obligated to receive all who serve with the dignity they earned.

Phelps and his group have constitutional right to speak and protest peaceably, but they also earned the right to be scorned and have their so-called Christianity called into question. Personally, I believe Phelps doesn't deserve the label of reverend, because nothing he does resembles what Christ would want.

This is why I praise the bikers, the Patriot Guard Riders, who are using their first amendment rights to drive to all the funerals to protect friends and family of the fallen from Phelps harrassment. I say HAZZUH to the Riders. Good for you!

Great Quote

"...We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." - Edward R. Murrow
See it Now (CBS-TV, March 9, 1954)
"A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy"

Banner Ads & Checkout Stands

Current mood: disgruntled

I join Myspace and I find the most obnoxious banner ad ever. It has the bouncing Brad Pitt head. No. I do not want to kiss Brad Pitt. No, not even for a powder pink RAZR phone. In fact, I may never purchase anything from RAZR. So there! Hear that RAZR? Hear THAT advertising guy?

Soon, I will have to drive to Safeway and stand in that express lane that isn't. I will be inundated with highly inappropriate personal information about celebrities. Who cares about Brad and Angelina? Who cares about Brittney Spears' "baby bump" or Lohan's eating disorder? How does it matter to my life that Brad and Angelina have "wild plans" to adopt more children?

There is another way. I can drive farther to Whole Foods Market, where there are magazines about yoga and the vegan lifestyle. I am in line and feel more relaxed and healthier by osmosis.

Why can't we have magazines about politics, art, literature, and other interesting topics? I try to bring this up with the guy at the cash register. He thinks I am a crazy woman.

It all makes me think that there is some unseen hand or force trying to reduce our brains to mush by trivial tabloidism.