1670 Pascal wrote “The more intelligent one is, the more men of originality one finds. Ordinary people find no difference between men.” Please pray with me . . .
December 23, 2007
Dear Fellow Concerned Citizen,
In 2007 Ann Coulter titled a book “IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS THEY’D BE REPUBLICANS”. The title is quite insulting, actually, but then that is Ann’s style, isn’t it?
In 1670 Pascal wrote “The more intelligent one is, the more men of originality one finds. Ordinary people find no difference between men.”
I have contemplated the relationship between these two statements.
Ms. Coulter might say that Pascal was foretelling that the elected Democrats who want to see no difference between men, are not the “more intelligent”.
I would propose that Congress as a whole is dumbed down, and has a tendency to seek compromise and consolation in the lowest-common-denominator. I would propose that Pascal might have been foretelling – or better yet, forewarning – regarding most all of the democracies elected officials, worldwide.
I, for one, refuse to believe that the elected members of congress – representing either party – are, as a whole, representative of the electorate that sent them to Washington.
Yes, yes – there are many exceptions, but I tend to believe that those “many” still only add up to a minority of those elected.
Furthermore, I have concluded that to win elections in today’s American political system, one has to be “calculating”, and that calculating is not directly related to “wisdom”.
We have elected 535 citizens to Congress – all quite successful “calculators”, but alas, only a few willing and able to display wisdom.
This is the one great failing of our country – the ONE great failing – our pervasiveness to elect calculating people, without the electorate discerning (and sometimes not caring) whether that calculating politician is a vessel of wisdom.
The entirety of the 50 United States are carved up into 435 Congressional districts. I wonder – if a poll were taken in each of those districts, how many of those districts would select their locally elected congressional representative as their “hero”? And if you have a problem with the word hero, how about polling to select the most honorable and wise person in their district – how many such districts would say it was their congressional representative?
If you agree with me that the congressional representative would be selected the most honorable and wise person in their district in only rare instances, then you might also agree with me that our system of democracy does not generally select our best and brightest to represent us. If not our wisest, then who goes to Washington? Perhaps you’d then agree with my assertion that it we tend to send forth our most calculating citizens to Congress.
Now, isn’t that a scary thought? Set aside the best and brightest, and call forth instead the most calculating?
There is an old saying that most of us are familiar with “People tend to get the government that they deserve”. I do not know whom to ascribe this pearl of wisdom to, but I certainly would agree with it vis-à-vis a democracy, if the phrase were to be reworded that “People tend to get a lesser government than they deserve, because they tend to send their lesser citizens off to represent them”.
And please remember, I DO NOT MEAN TO IMPUGNE ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. I certainly hold more than a few in high esteem, yet that lot is but a few of those who are currently serving.
This is not a gripe-session, but instead an opening prelude to a prayer request of mine.
For me, this is a holy season, as it is for most (though, not all) spiritual people.
I would ask you to pray for all democratic people – not just here in the U.S., but in democracies all around the world as well – to be better able to discern honor and wisdom – perhaps we can combine that into one adjective, “authentic” – in our election processes. Yes, let’s pray that voters are better able to discern who the authentic candidates are, and that those authentic candidates are elected to represent the people, and though bureaucracies might tend to extol corruption, that our authentic representatives stand fast and rise far above the lowest-common-denominator and better represent the entirety of their constituencies.
“Politics As Usual” will always result in less fairness from government – and often times, less fair becomes dangerous, first for one group, then another and another, until at last government is fair only for government itself, and not at all for the people.
May God bless you this holy season, and may you join with me in prayer that we voters are better able to discern authenticity, and that such characteristic becomes the common denominator of our elected officials – throughout the world.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Bad Generalling & Active Congressmen
It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command our forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, but unfortunately failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
- Robert E. Lee, 1863
***********************************************************************************************
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln, 1863
Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
- Robert E. Lee, 1863
***********************************************************************************************
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln, 1863
Today's Democrats are not your Father's Democrats
The "democrat" party over the past 100 years has produced some of the best of senators (both John and Robert Kennedy, for example) but also some of the most vile and heinous "leaders" this country has ever known, as per an article in IBD in June 2005:
Lynch Mob
Investors Business Daily Wednesday June 22, 2005
Civil Rights: As the Senate apologizes for not passing anti-lynching legislation and Sen. Byrd apologizes for his KKK past, we're reminded why such legislation failed and just which was the "white, Christian party."
There's a certain irony in this apology coming so soon after the Democrats engineered a deal to preserve the hallowed Senate tradition known as the filibuster to protect the rights of the Senate minority. It was the use of the filibuster by Democrats that prevented anti-lynching legislation from passing the Senate and helping protect the rights of black Americans.
As the Senate resolution duly notes, nearly 200 anti-lynching bills, backed by seven presidents, were introduced in Congress during the first half of 20th century, with the House passing such bills three times. As far back as 1938, 70 senators were willing to sponsor an anti-lynching bill. Yet each of those three times, it was the use of the filibuster by Southern Democrats that caused the bills to fail.
When important civil rights legislation needed passing, it was Republicans who got it done while Democrats filibustered. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership.
That legislation was not only a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, then minority leader, but Republicans in both the House and Senate, who supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats.
Sen. Robert Byrd, who in a new book says his past as an Exalted Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan was "due to immaturity," led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation. Byrd holds the distinction of being the only senator to have opposed both of the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
In Byrd's 770-page memoir, it is amazing he could leave anything out, but he did, with even The Washington Post saying Byrd's account of his KKK activity "is not complete." One of the things he left out was a 1945 letter he wrote to the infamous racist Mississippi Sen. Theodore Bilbo saying he would never fight "with a Negro by my side."
Sen. Al Gore, father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton recently dedicated a memorial. Other opponents included South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time.
In 2002, Bill Clinton traveled to Fayetteville, Ark., to honor the life of Fulbright by dedicating a seven-foot-tall bronze statue of the man. In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement titled the "Southern Manifesto." This screed condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
We forget that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned fire hoses against civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools.
It was Republican welfare reform that ended a Democrat welfare plantation that devastated black families by encouraging fathers to leave the home and rewarding mothers for having illegitimate babies, a policy that left a legacy of poverty and crime.
As long as apologies are in vogue, maybe somebody owes the GOP an apology as well.
Lynch Mob
Investors Business Daily Wednesday June 22, 2005
Civil Rights: As the Senate apologizes for not passing anti-lynching legislation and Sen. Byrd apologizes for his KKK past, we're reminded why such legislation failed and just which was the "white, Christian party."
There's a certain irony in this apology coming so soon after the Democrats engineered a deal to preserve the hallowed Senate tradition known as the filibuster to protect the rights of the Senate minority. It was the use of the filibuster by Democrats that prevented anti-lynching legislation from passing the Senate and helping protect the rights of black Americans.
As the Senate resolution duly notes, nearly 200 anti-lynching bills, backed by seven presidents, were introduced in Congress during the first half of 20th century, with the House passing such bills three times. As far back as 1938, 70 senators were willing to sponsor an anti-lynching bill. Yet each of those three times, it was the use of the filibuster by Southern Democrats that caused the bills to fail.
When important civil rights legislation needed passing, it was Republicans who got it done while Democrats filibustered. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership.
That legislation was not only a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, then minority leader, but Republicans in both the House and Senate, who supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats.
Sen. Robert Byrd, who in a new book says his past as an Exalted Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan was "due to immaturity," led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation. Byrd holds the distinction of being the only senator to have opposed both of the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
In Byrd's 770-page memoir, it is amazing he could leave anything out, but he did, with even The Washington Post saying Byrd's account of his KKK activity "is not complete." One of the things he left out was a 1945 letter he wrote to the infamous racist Mississippi Sen. Theodore Bilbo saying he would never fight "with a Negro by my side."
Sen. Al Gore, father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton recently dedicated a memorial. Other opponents included South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time.
In 2002, Bill Clinton traveled to Fayetteville, Ark., to honor the life of Fulbright by dedicating a seven-foot-tall bronze statue of the man. In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement titled the "Southern Manifesto." This screed condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
We forget that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned fire hoses against civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools.
It was Republican welfare reform that ended a Democrat welfare plantation that devastated black families by encouraging fathers to leave the home and rewarding mothers for having illegitimate babies, a policy that left a legacy of poverty and crime.
As long as apologies are in vogue, maybe somebody owes the GOP an apology as well.
The year is 1907…..but the speaker knew what he was talking about !!!
The year is 1907…..but the speaker knew what he was talking about !!!
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Walter Cronkite "Media Reform: : Is It Good for Journalism?"
Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS has caused me to revisit a speech that Rather's predecesor gave earlier this year.
As I reread an article I clipped from a newspaper earlier this year covering Walter Cronkite's comments to the Columbia School of Journalism on February 8, 2007 (http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer?childpagename=Journalism%2FJRN_Page_C%2FJRNSimplePage&c=JRN_Page_C&p=null&pagename=JRN%2FWrapper&cid=1175295260590), I am again reminded of how statements are made and assumed to be correct - even when they are not backed up by any facts.
Mr. Cronkite said news accuracy has declined because of consolidations and closures. I find that remarkable in that there are more daily newspapers available in Metro Phoenix than ever before, there are more news broadcasts on more channels - including 24-hour news networks - than ever before. Even college publications are more readily available to me (via the internet) than ever before. I believe that Mr. Cronkite has misstated the facts, and that a proper review of the facts might yield a completely different analysis than his stated conclusions.
Although I do not have any "hard data" to back up my following statement, it is my belief that the "story" Mr. Cronkite himself reported on the most - by a large margin - would have been the war in Vietnam. Growing up I watched him reporting virtually every weeknight about Vietnam for about a decade. Yet one of the largest stories of Vietnam - that the TET Offensive of 1968 was a victory for the Viet Cong - was ONLY a propaganda victory - that the Viet Cong and their allies were sounded defeated in the battles - and that such a propaganda victory was only possible because Mr. Cronkite and his peers did not accurately report the facts of what actually happened.
Regarding Mr. Cronkite's comments that "profits threaten democracy", I suggest that lack of profits is what has caused certain news outlets to close up shop - not an excess of profits - and that such lack of profits is what may lead to fewer-than-otherwise voices and sources. I'll bet that Mr. Cronkite asked his employers for a little more pay from time to time, and that he supported an increase in pay for his co-workers and suppliers from time to time. Where else would that little more come from but from profits - you need to have the profits first before you can afford increased payroll and other costs. Perhaps Mr. Cronkite needs a review of Econ 101.
Curious that the messenger and/or maestro of such egregious reporting errors such at the Tet Offensive would state that there is less accuracy in the media today. Mr. Cronkite's lack of attention to the facts in 1968 perhaps led to a wrong conclusion regarding those events, much the same as his lack of attention to the facts about the journalism industry today may be leading to yet another wrong conclusion on his part.
As I reread an article I clipped from a newspaper earlier this year covering Walter Cronkite's comments to the Columbia School of Journalism on February 8, 2007 (http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer?childpagename=Journalism%2FJRN_Page_C%2FJRNSimplePage&c=JRN_Page_C&p=null&pagename=JRN%2FWrapper&cid=1175295260590), I am again reminded of how statements are made and assumed to be correct - even when they are not backed up by any facts.
Mr. Cronkite said news accuracy has declined because of consolidations and closures. I find that remarkable in that there are more daily newspapers available in Metro Phoenix than ever before, there are more news broadcasts on more channels - including 24-hour news networks - than ever before. Even college publications are more readily available to me (via the internet) than ever before. I believe that Mr. Cronkite has misstated the facts, and that a proper review of the facts might yield a completely different analysis than his stated conclusions.
Although I do not have any "hard data" to back up my following statement, it is my belief that the "story" Mr. Cronkite himself reported on the most - by a large margin - would have been the war in Vietnam. Growing up I watched him reporting virtually every weeknight about Vietnam for about a decade. Yet one of the largest stories of Vietnam - that the TET Offensive of 1968 was a victory for the Viet Cong - was ONLY a propaganda victory - that the Viet Cong and their allies were sounded defeated in the battles - and that such a propaganda victory was only possible because Mr. Cronkite and his peers did not accurately report the facts of what actually happened.
Regarding Mr. Cronkite's comments that "profits threaten democracy", I suggest that lack of profits is what has caused certain news outlets to close up shop - not an excess of profits - and that such lack of profits is what may lead to fewer-than-otherwise voices and sources. I'll bet that Mr. Cronkite asked his employers for a little more pay from time to time, and that he supported an increase in pay for his co-workers and suppliers from time to time. Where else would that little more come from but from profits - you need to have the profits first before you can afford increased payroll and other costs. Perhaps Mr. Cronkite needs a review of Econ 101.
Curious that the messenger and/or maestro of such egregious reporting errors such at the Tet Offensive would state that there is less accuracy in the media today. Mr. Cronkite's lack of attention to the facts in 1968 perhaps led to a wrong conclusion regarding those events, much the same as his lack of attention to the facts about the journalism industry today may be leading to yet another wrong conclusion on his part.
So Much For Allies!
I was sent this by a friend a few yeas back - it kind of makes you stop and think . . .
The first German serviceman killed in World War II was killed by the Japanese (China, 1937), the first American serviceman killed was killed by the Russians (Finland 1940), the highest ranking American killed was Lt. Gen. Lesley McNair, killed by the US Army Air Corps. So much for allies.
It was a common practice on fighter planes to load every 5th round with a tracer round to aid in aiming. This was a mistake. Tracers had different ballistics so at long range if your tracers were hitting the target 80 percent of your rounds were missing. Worse yet, tracers instantly told your enemy he was under fire and from which direction. Worst of all was the practice of loading a string of tracers at the end of the belt to tell you that you were out of ammo. This was definitely not something you wanted to tell the enemy. Units that stopped using tracers saw their success rate nearly double and their loss rate go down.
Following a massive naval bombardment, 35,000 U.S. and Canadian troops stormed ashore at Kiska, in the Aleutian Islands. Twenty-one troops were killed in the firefight. It would have been worse if there had been any Japanese soldiers on the island.
Among the first "Germans" captured at Normandy were several Koreans. They had been forced to fight for the Japanese Army until they were captured by the Russians and then forced to fight for the Russian Army until they were captured by the Germans and further forced to fight for the German Army until they were captured by the U.S. Army.
Did you know that the largest number of individuals killed from a single chemical weapons attack was by Saddam Hussein? He ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iraq's Kurdish population for supporting Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. He killed an estimated 4,000 total during this attack in March 1988.
The first German serviceman killed in World War II was killed by the Japanese (China, 1937), the first American serviceman killed was killed by the Russians (Finland 1940), the highest ranking American killed was Lt. Gen. Lesley McNair, killed by the US Army Air Corps. So much for allies.
It was a common practice on fighter planes to load every 5th round with a tracer round to aid in aiming. This was a mistake. Tracers had different ballistics so at long range if your tracers were hitting the target 80 percent of your rounds were missing. Worse yet, tracers instantly told your enemy he was under fire and from which direction. Worst of all was the practice of loading a string of tracers at the end of the belt to tell you that you were out of ammo. This was definitely not something you wanted to tell the enemy. Units that stopped using tracers saw their success rate nearly double and their loss rate go down.
Following a massive naval bombardment, 35,000 U.S. and Canadian troops stormed ashore at Kiska, in the Aleutian Islands. Twenty-one troops were killed in the firefight. It would have been worse if there had been any Japanese soldiers on the island.
Among the first "Germans" captured at Normandy were several Koreans. They had been forced to fight for the Japanese Army until they were captured by the Russians and then forced to fight for the Russian Army until they were captured by the Germans and further forced to fight for the German Army until they were captured by the U.S. Army.
Did you know that the largest number of individuals killed from a single chemical weapons attack was by Saddam Hussein? He ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iraq's Kurdish population for supporting Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. He killed an estimated 4,000 total during this attack in March 1988.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
