If New Deal was an overall success, then fixing the current economic crisis should be a piece of cake for a new, New Deal agenda, right? I mean, if it beat back the Great Depression, then surely it could tame The Great Recession in 3 to 6 months, right? So why not advocate going forward with New Deal II immediately, Titus?
In addition, it occurs to me that you may split the difference - you may say that while New Deal worked to heal the economic crisis from 1933-40, it didn't "work" well enough for you to EVER, EVER, EVER recommend such an agenda to fix a crisis again. HA! That's one hell of an endorsement! I didn't realize the word "success" could be defined that far down. How many angels are you trying to fit on the head of that pin anyway ... hehehe.
If you do indeed "spilt the difference" per above, you must at the very least concede that New Deal was unsound economic policy. "Sound" economic policies are not typically barred from all future endorsements and implementation as a response to economic crisis.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Now that you've dained to read my entire post ...
We can get to the crux of the matter. And I beseech you, PLEASE, focus like a laser beam on this in your response. I am not, in this particular thread, interested in whether FDR was a "good" or "bad" president, nor do I wish to recount our statistical arguments. I want you to address what I see as a fundamental conflict in your personal ideology. Which is this: how can one be a "Conservative New Dealer?"
Now, you are undoubtedly going to justify it in a fashion similar to the following:
When fully one quarter of every able-bodied man (or working woman) is unemployed, and more than 50% of all home and farm mortgages have failed completely, there is a need for the government to step in and do something to stop the "bleed" and possibly to prevent the bleed from happening again... I believe this firmly, and I feel it is all the justification needed for what was done in the years between 1933 and 1940. When that same interventionist attitude is carried into the future, where no such economic hardship has ever happened again, I begin to question the rationale of those applying the same formulas and theories. This very clearly explains why I have a problem with the agendas put forward by Obama, Reid and Pelosi since 2006. In short, we haven't seen another Great Depression... so why try and fix what isn't broken?
Well that's all fine & dandy, and some 2nd year debate student might not know what to do with such staggering numbers. But "justification" is NOT what I'm interested in. I'm asking if New Deal "worked." There is a difference between justification and whether it worked. The core of our argument has always been my contention that New Deal failed, and your contention that it did not. So my question is: if it worked, as you conted, then why not employ New Deal style policy of a government managed economy; high tariffs; price controls; high taxes; alphabet soup federal programs; and a litany of public works projects on regular 5 year intervals so as to keep the economy humming along, crisis or no? I mean if it works, it works, right? And please, don't do the thing where you say "some aspects worked and some didn't", because once you peel away all those that did not work it really ceases to be New Deal. And regardless, our beef is whether over all it failed or succeeded as a sound economic agenda. And if it succeeded, why not advocate a similar implementation under every administration, crisis or not?
Now, if your contending it works ONLY as a response to a "crisis", then why not implement one now? Are we not bleeding? Nevada climbed to over 14% unemployment recently, the highest in the Nation. Foreclosures are off the charts. I can tell you, we're gushing blood. If New Deal was not a failure, then lets giddy up, get one going now on a state level at the very least, if it "works." Right?
Furthermore, if you're saying that the current crisis (in the top 2 since WWII) does not meet the threshold for justification of a New Deal style policy, then you tell me - where's the cut off line? When is "bad" bad enough for government to step in on the level of a New Deal? At what point does "Conservative ideology" fail to measure up, must be abandoned, and government need intercede? And remember, this insistence that government need step in to "stop the bleeding" is exactly the same argument used by the Bush and Obama administrations as a justification of the bailouts, which you opposed. Or is it a matter of "I know it when I see it"? (which of course effectively ends any rationale discussion on the matter).
My point being - I don't believe it rationale to say you're a New Dealer when it comes to the years 1933-1940, but NOT outside those years ... THEN you're a conservative. Because it's not a matter of other administrations being justified, or the wisdom in trying to fix what's not broken. It's whether New Deal worked, overall. And if it worked why not advocate a similar plan in the years since, or during Carter's mailaise, or at the very least during our current blood letting?
Now, you are undoubtedly going to justify it in a fashion similar to the following:
When fully one quarter of every able-bodied man (or working woman) is unemployed, and more than 50% of all home and farm mortgages have failed completely, there is a need for the government to step in and do something to stop the "bleed" and possibly to prevent the bleed from happening again... I believe this firmly, and I feel it is all the justification needed for what was done in the years between 1933 and 1940. When that same interventionist attitude is carried into the future, where no such economic hardship has ever happened again, I begin to question the rationale of those applying the same formulas and theories. This very clearly explains why I have a problem with the agendas put forward by Obama, Reid and Pelosi since 2006. In short, we haven't seen another Great Depression... so why try and fix what isn't broken?
Well that's all fine & dandy, and some 2nd year debate student might not know what to do with such staggering numbers. But "justification" is NOT what I'm interested in. I'm asking if New Deal "worked." There is a difference between justification and whether it worked. The core of our argument has always been my contention that New Deal failed, and your contention that it did not. So my question is: if it worked, as you conted, then why not employ New Deal style policy of a government managed economy; high tariffs; price controls; high taxes; alphabet soup federal programs; and a litany of public works projects on regular 5 year intervals so as to keep the economy humming along, crisis or no? I mean if it works, it works, right? And please, don't do the thing where you say "some aspects worked and some didn't", because once you peel away all those that did not work it really ceases to be New Deal. And regardless, our beef is whether over all it failed or succeeded as a sound economic agenda. And if it succeeded, why not advocate a similar implementation under every administration, crisis or not?
Now, if your contending it works ONLY as a response to a "crisis", then why not implement one now? Are we not bleeding? Nevada climbed to over 14% unemployment recently, the highest in the Nation. Foreclosures are off the charts. I can tell you, we're gushing blood. If New Deal was not a failure, then lets giddy up, get one going now on a state level at the very least, if it "works." Right?
Furthermore, if you're saying that the current crisis (in the top 2 since WWII) does not meet the threshold for justification of a New Deal style policy, then you tell me - where's the cut off line? When is "bad" bad enough for government to step in on the level of a New Deal? At what point does "Conservative ideology" fail to measure up, must be abandoned, and government need intercede? And remember, this insistence that government need step in to "stop the bleeding" is exactly the same argument used by the Bush and Obama administrations as a justification of the bailouts, which you opposed. Or is it a matter of "I know it when I see it"? (which of course effectively ends any rationale discussion on the matter).
My point being - I don't believe it rationale to say you're a New Dealer when it comes to the years 1933-1940, but NOT outside those years ... THEN you're a conservative. Because it's not a matter of other administrations being justified, or the wisdom in trying to fix what's not broken. It's whether New Deal worked, overall. And if it worked why not advocate a similar plan in the years since, or during Carter's mailaise, or at the very least during our current blood letting?
Ken Burn's "Civil War"
I'm sorry, people... I know there are many out there that think this is a liberal piece of tripe not worth the time to decry it's name... but it is my concerted opinion that this is the single greatest piece of documentary film making in my entire generation... very possibly ever.
For those that have Netflix instant view... spend the hours to watch it again, please. I just finished it for the second time since it came on instant view, and I can't express what a fantastic show it is. From its opening lines to its closing words and images... this is the defining work on the defining time of the American experience.
So much of what was lost after the war has been regained, but so much of what was won was lost and never really looked for again... and that is something we never really think about anymore in this modern age. It staggers the imagination to think on just how different ALL of America was before 1861... and how radically different it was again after 1865.
Damn good stuff...
For those that have Netflix instant view... spend the hours to watch it again, please. I just finished it for the second time since it came on instant view, and I can't express what a fantastic show it is. From its opening lines to its closing words and images... this is the defining work on the defining time of the American experience.
So much of what was lost after the war has been regained, but so much of what was won was lost and never really looked for again... and that is something we never really think about anymore in this modern age. It staggers the imagination to think on just how different ALL of America was before 1861... and how radically different it was again after 1865.
Damn good stuff...
Let's do this another way...
I DON'T want to hash out the whole New Deal era again... the stats and figures that have been quoted here already are enough to have filled numerous books... yet nothing has changed. You don't accept my presented information as valid, yet without it... I have no case to make.
Why don't we look at what FDR did WRONG... exactly... rather than try and defend what he did or didn't do right. Then, once we have determined exactly what it was that he did to "fundamentally alter" the fabric of Federal authority from what it had been in 1929 to what it was in 1945 and beyond... perhaps I will see where you equate him as such a despot in disguise.
You seem to think that I am revolted by the thought that someone would think FDR a "bad" President, and you have used terms and phrases in the past to show this opinion of me... but it simply isn't true. I simply don't see anything that FDR did to fundamentally change the Office of the President (and every President brings something to the job... I believe this firmly) that compares to what others have done before and since that you call GREAT Presidents. My revulsion stems from the seeming hypocrisy in your two positions... not in your distaste of FDR and his policies.
You have said in the past that FDR was a man bent on changing the Executive Branch to something it was never intended to be, and if we can show that was, indeed, the case... then I will concede that FDR WAS a bad President. However, I will need to know that you are just as willing to look long and hard at the REST of the Presidential pantheon and hold all of their names to the same yard stick as you are holding FDR to... and believe me when I say that there have been some pretty "good" Presidents in our past that have played awfully loose with the parameters of the Executive Branch, as defined in the US Constitution.
Does this seem like an acceptable path to finally resolve this question?
Why don't we look at what FDR did WRONG... exactly... rather than try and defend what he did or didn't do right. Then, once we have determined exactly what it was that he did to "fundamentally alter" the fabric of Federal authority from what it had been in 1929 to what it was in 1945 and beyond... perhaps I will see where you equate him as such a despot in disguise.
You seem to think that I am revolted by the thought that someone would think FDR a "bad" President, and you have used terms and phrases in the past to show this opinion of me... but it simply isn't true. I simply don't see anything that FDR did to fundamentally change the Office of the President (and every President brings something to the job... I believe this firmly) that compares to what others have done before and since that you call GREAT Presidents. My revulsion stems from the seeming hypocrisy in your two positions... not in your distaste of FDR and his policies.
You have said in the past that FDR was a man bent on changing the Executive Branch to something it was never intended to be, and if we can show that was, indeed, the case... then I will concede that FDR WAS a bad President. However, I will need to know that you are just as willing to look long and hard at the REST of the Presidential pantheon and hold all of their names to the same yard stick as you are holding FDR to... and believe me when I say that there have been some pretty "good" Presidents in our past that have played awfully loose with the parameters of the Executive Branch, as defined in the US Constitution.
Does this seem like an acceptable path to finally resolve this question?
On your "macro" and "micros"...
I'm fine with your smugness... feel free to gloat, honestly. I'm not being contrary or argumentative when I say that I don't feel my political views have changed all that much.
If I had to point to one area where I think I've made the biggest shift (politically speaking), I'd say it was on the Second Amendment. When we first met, I was a firm believer in the "collective right" interpretation of the Amendment... but in making my arguments with you, I was forced (by no one other than myself) to research and read on the topics, and have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely and without question an "individual right", both NOW and WHEN IT WAS FIRST WRITTEN. Thank God the Supreme Court agreed with me...
When we first met, I understood the importance of lower taxes to a vibrant and growing economy... I had, after all, actually lived through the Carter Recession of '80/'81, and saw what the Reagan tax cuts did for my folks and my home town. In college, I had the benefit of an instructor that actually understood the theory of John Maynard Keynes and how it applied to American economic policy, and he was able to demonstrate (through historical examples) why and how it worked. He also demonstrated where almost every President since Keynes wrote his works failed to follow his theory completely... and this list started with FDR and ended with Reagan (who was still in office when I went to college). I feel that my understanding of American economic theory is very much in-step with such "New Deal" Presidents as Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Ford... all of whom advocated lower taxes in strong economies to balance the cost of government spending with government revenue. Presidents that raised taxes in down economies to increase revenue and/or reduce deficits slowed a recovery or lengthened a cycle... this isn't something anyone can defend or oppose, it is simple historical fact.
As I have repeatedly said... repeatedly... FDR is one of these Presidents. FDR was a progressive President who wanted to increase the Federal government's ability to regulate and manage the national economy so that future recession/depression cycles wouldn't be as impacting or long-lasting as the one he was elected into the White House during. Like every President since FDR (and that includes Ronald Wilson Reagan), I feel that some government regulation of our national economy is a GOOD THING... or at the most minimalist level, at least the lesser of many evils. If the ability to dictate the amount of money in circulation at any one time, or the power to determine at what percentage rate interest is going to be applied to government loans by the Federal Reserve Banks keeps the rate of inflation at a more median constant than the wild ups-and-downs of a purely unregulated free market money system (thus avoiding the cycle of boom/depression/boom that the country experienced for the 110 years previous to the end of the Great Depression)... then that ability and power to regulate and manage is a GOOD THING, and I am in favor of its continued use and I'm still leery of its expansion.
When you write that "It is just as likely that allied (in the general sense of the word) world powers cleverly (perhaps too cleverly) linked their economies so as to prevent any one actor from going completely berserk. " you are simply saying that the New Deal policies were a success... because the government's ability to make this "link" with other economies equals greater government control of the national economy here at home. There is no clear demarcation between when the US stood alone as an individual economy amongst the world's many others... because there was no such period in our history. America has had an amazingly HUGE impact on the global economy since it was first settled by European powers four hundred years ago. If this were not so, then the British Empire wouldn't have spent the millions upon millions of pounds fighting to defend, maintain and then reacquire the "colonies" in the years between 1754 and 1815... nor would Napoleon have even considered selling all French colonial territories in North America to the up-start United States in 1803... nor would the Barbary corsairs have spent years of war and tons of gold fighting the fledgling US Navy over shipping and trade tariffs (what we call extortion nowadays). If you think that some savvy "secret" was arranged and maintained between the economic powers of the world in the post-war years, then that means that controls and regulations instituted during the New Deal era must have worked because we haven't had a depression since. You and I didn't institute those regulations, nor did the individual States... so it must have been the Federal government, and the Fed was following a New Deal outline from 1932 until 1981.
Where you and I differ (in my opinion, not yours) is that you see this vast and permanent expansion of Presidential powers during the years FDR was in office, while I can categorically state with sure and certain knowledge that the ONLY New Deal programs to remain entrenched within the Fed after 1945 were FDIC, SSI, and the SEC. Other "alphabet soup" programs had brief, unspectacular revivals over the decades since... but all were basically finished by the end of WWII, including WPA, the CCC, NIRA, and the FRA. The vast and permanent change that I see is in the focus of the American people in the years since swinging from self-reliance to dependency on governmental aid and assistance in times of trouble or need.
When fully one quarter of every able-bodied man (or working woman) is unemployed, and more than 50% of all home and farm mortgages have failed completely, there is a need for the government to step in and do something to stop the "bleed" and possibly to prevent the bleed from happening again... I believe this firmly, and I feel it is all the justification needed for what was done in the years between 1933 and 1940. When that same interventionist attitude is carried into the future, where no such economic hardship has ever happened again, I begin to question the rationale of those applying the same formulas and theories. This very clearly explains why I have a problem with the agendas put forward by Obama, Reid and Pelosi since 2006. In short, we haven't seen another Great Depression... so why try and fix what isn't broken?
As for your "Micro II"...
The Roosevelt Recession was just that... a recession lasting just over 9 months, where the national economy took a 7% header because the Congress wouldn't give the President the budget he wanted and spending needed to be cut to attempt a balanced budget. The indicators that I so frequently use to support my case show (in no uncertain terms) that the nation had recovered fully from the "depression" of 1929-1934... all GDP figures rising more than 8% a year, inflation falling from 14% to 5%, new business failures down a whopping 188%, and only unemployment was still higher than it was in '29 (but far lower than it was in '35).
If that 9 months of falling economic indicators needs explaining beyond the OBVIOUS reasoning that the hike in taxes coupled with the cuts in spending put a scare on the nation that bad times were coming again... then I would ask YOU a question: Why did Reagan see a fall in economic indicators after 1986, to the point where he had to raise taxes AFTER he had promised so loudly that cutting taxes was the answer to the nation's woes? Why wouldn't I be able to equate the failure of "Reaganomics" in '86 with the same indicators that you use to continuously argue that the '37 recession was a patent nullification of any good that may have stemmed from New Deal prior to '37? The answer is YOU CAN'T. Economies are fluid things, and to suggest that they aren't influenced by any factors OUTSIDE of White House control is asinine, isn't it? Reagan was FORCED to raise taxes by a Democratic Congress that played pure opposition politics with the White House in Reagan's second term... exactly the same thing that happened in FDR's second term when a GOP Congress forced a balanced budget down FDR's throat.
In all the times I have argued against the "St Ronald" image you routinely paint of Reagan, I didn't use the fact that he RAISED taxes as a point of order because I knew it was OUT OF HIS CONTROL... just as the budgetary fiasco of '37 was out of FDR's control. If Congress works against the stated policies of a President, and things go sour... how can that then be blamed on the President in question?
Isn't that like blaming Bush Jr for the fiscal woes of this nation AFTER the Congressional midterm elections of 2006, when Pelosi and Reid took over? Have we forgotten who actually SPENDS the money in this nation?
If I had to point to one area where I think I've made the biggest shift (politically speaking), I'd say it was on the Second Amendment. When we first met, I was a firm believer in the "collective right" interpretation of the Amendment... but in making my arguments with you, I was forced (by no one other than myself) to research and read on the topics, and have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely and without question an "individual right", both NOW and WHEN IT WAS FIRST WRITTEN. Thank God the Supreme Court agreed with me...
When we first met, I understood the importance of lower taxes to a vibrant and growing economy... I had, after all, actually lived through the Carter Recession of '80/'81, and saw what the Reagan tax cuts did for my folks and my home town. In college, I had the benefit of an instructor that actually understood the theory of John Maynard Keynes and how it applied to American economic policy, and he was able to demonstrate (through historical examples) why and how it worked. He also demonstrated where almost every President since Keynes wrote his works failed to follow his theory completely... and this list started with FDR and ended with Reagan (who was still in office when I went to college). I feel that my understanding of American economic theory is very much in-step with such "New Deal" Presidents as Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Ford... all of whom advocated lower taxes in strong economies to balance the cost of government spending with government revenue. Presidents that raised taxes in down economies to increase revenue and/or reduce deficits slowed a recovery or lengthened a cycle... this isn't something anyone can defend or oppose, it is simple historical fact.
As I have repeatedly said... repeatedly... FDR is one of these Presidents. FDR was a progressive President who wanted to increase the Federal government's ability to regulate and manage the national economy so that future recession/depression cycles wouldn't be as impacting or long-lasting as the one he was elected into the White House during. Like every President since FDR (and that includes Ronald Wilson Reagan), I feel that some government regulation of our national economy is a GOOD THING... or at the most minimalist level, at least the lesser of many evils. If the ability to dictate the amount of money in circulation at any one time, or the power to determine at what percentage rate interest is going to be applied to government loans by the Federal Reserve Banks keeps the rate of inflation at a more median constant than the wild ups-and-downs of a purely unregulated free market money system (thus avoiding the cycle of boom/depression/boom that the country experienced for the 110 years previous to the end of the Great Depression)... then that ability and power to regulate and manage is a GOOD THING, and I am in favor of its continued use and I'm still leery of its expansion.
When you write that "It is just as likely that allied (in the general sense of the word) world powers cleverly (perhaps too cleverly) linked their economies so as to prevent any one actor from going completely berserk. " you are simply saying that the New Deal policies were a success... because the government's ability to make this "link" with other economies equals greater government control of the national economy here at home. There is no clear demarcation between when the US stood alone as an individual economy amongst the world's many others... because there was no such period in our history. America has had an amazingly HUGE impact on the global economy since it was first settled by European powers four hundred years ago. If this were not so, then the British Empire wouldn't have spent the millions upon millions of pounds fighting to defend, maintain and then reacquire the "colonies" in the years between 1754 and 1815... nor would Napoleon have even considered selling all French colonial territories in North America to the up-start United States in 1803... nor would the Barbary corsairs have spent years of war and tons of gold fighting the fledgling US Navy over shipping and trade tariffs (what we call extortion nowadays). If you think that some savvy "secret" was arranged and maintained between the economic powers of the world in the post-war years, then that means that controls and regulations instituted during the New Deal era must have worked because we haven't had a depression since. You and I didn't institute those regulations, nor did the individual States... so it must have been the Federal government, and the Fed was following a New Deal outline from 1932 until 1981.
Where you and I differ (in my opinion, not yours) is that you see this vast and permanent expansion of Presidential powers during the years FDR was in office, while I can categorically state with sure and certain knowledge that the ONLY New Deal programs to remain entrenched within the Fed after 1945 were FDIC, SSI, and the SEC. Other "alphabet soup" programs had brief, unspectacular revivals over the decades since... but all were basically finished by the end of WWII, including WPA, the CCC, NIRA, and the FRA. The vast and permanent change that I see is in the focus of the American people in the years since swinging from self-reliance to dependency on governmental aid and assistance in times of trouble or need.
When fully one quarter of every able-bodied man (or working woman) is unemployed, and more than 50% of all home and farm mortgages have failed completely, there is a need for the government to step in and do something to stop the "bleed" and possibly to prevent the bleed from happening again... I believe this firmly, and I feel it is all the justification needed for what was done in the years between 1933 and 1940. When that same interventionist attitude is carried into the future, where no such economic hardship has ever happened again, I begin to question the rationale of those applying the same formulas and theories. This very clearly explains why I have a problem with the agendas put forward by Obama, Reid and Pelosi since 2006. In short, we haven't seen another Great Depression... so why try and fix what isn't broken?
As for your "Micro II"...
The Roosevelt Recession was just that... a recession lasting just over 9 months, where the national economy took a 7% header because the Congress wouldn't give the President the budget he wanted and spending needed to be cut to attempt a balanced budget. The indicators that I so frequently use to support my case show (in no uncertain terms) that the nation had recovered fully from the "depression" of 1929-1934... all GDP figures rising more than 8% a year, inflation falling from 14% to 5%, new business failures down a whopping 188%, and only unemployment was still higher than it was in '29 (but far lower than it was in '35).
If that 9 months of falling economic indicators needs explaining beyond the OBVIOUS reasoning that the hike in taxes coupled with the cuts in spending put a scare on the nation that bad times were coming again... then I would ask YOU a question: Why did Reagan see a fall in economic indicators after 1986, to the point where he had to raise taxes AFTER he had promised so loudly that cutting taxes was the answer to the nation's woes? Why wouldn't I be able to equate the failure of "Reaganomics" in '86 with the same indicators that you use to continuously argue that the '37 recession was a patent nullification of any good that may have stemmed from New Deal prior to '37? The answer is YOU CAN'T. Economies are fluid things, and to suggest that they aren't influenced by any factors OUTSIDE of White House control is asinine, isn't it? Reagan was FORCED to raise taxes by a Democratic Congress that played pure opposition politics with the White House in Reagan's second term... exactly the same thing that happened in FDR's second term when a GOP Congress forced a balanced budget down FDR's throat.
In all the times I have argued against the "St Ronald" image you routinely paint of Reagan, I didn't use the fact that he RAISED taxes as a point of order because I knew it was OUT OF HIS CONTROL... just as the budgetary fiasco of '37 was out of FDR's control. If Congress works against the stated policies of a President, and things go sour... how can that then be blamed on the President in question?
Isn't that like blaming Bush Jr for the fiscal woes of this nation AFTER the Congressional midterm elections of 2006, when Pelosi and Reid took over? Have we forgotten who actually SPENDS the money in this nation?
The Last Patrol
I have two aspects to this post: the micro (parts I & II), and the macro. Don't be concerned, it's not nearly as long as that makes it sound. First, the micro.
Micro I ...
Just to be clear here, you did not read in its entirety my last post, yet you felt qualified to comment on it? Just checking. At the risk of again waisting my time - seeing as you summarily judge my posts as of late in the first few paragraphs - I will endeavour to communicate this more succinctly. You do realize of course that your entire rebuttal was spent defending positions I never attacked. Of course I "got" the Katrina analogy. Yes, I saw there were aspects that defended Beck. And above all I acknowledge fully that you were advocating less government intrusion/help and more individual initiative towards charity. I never argued nor commented to the contrary. What I did take umbrage with were two very specific points in your original post. The two you either chose not to address, or didn't get to seeing as you ended your reading prematurely. And they were simply this:
1.) I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately ... for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing. I felt this an unwarranted disappointment. In fact, Beck has been quite specific in defining the social justice he finds evil. In short he advocates (& I paraphrase), if your preacher, pastor, candidate, or community leader suggests that social justice is outside the scope of the individual initiative, a collective responsibility, the prerogative of government, "run." As in, run away from that notion and individual. Now, does Beck include this caveat every time he utters a critique of quote, "social justice"? No. But any regular listener would be familiar with the explanation I just authored, even Catholic ones.
2.) If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. First, no amount of charitable giving, no matter the level, would dissuade leftists, liberals or progressives from their agenda. The very idea of the modern progressive is to "progress" past individualism and the restraints of the Constitution so as to affect a collective salvation of equal outcomes. They would never accept as a substitute the free will and unregulated charity of individuals caring for their fellow man. And more important, you have the fundamentals of this equation reversed. It isn't that if we were more charitable privately then the government would be able to do less. Rather, if the government did less we would be more able to be give privately, both financially and as an emotionally induced imperative. And if you reread carefully what you wrote it isn't unreasonable to conclude you were chastising Americans for not caring enough privately, resulting in the ballooned government presence.
****
Micro II ...
New Deal.
To date I have not reconciled a fundamental conflict (as I see it) in your defense of New Deal. I consider the entire affair a "net loss" for the prosperity of America. You do not. The fundamental conflict I speak of is this: you have embraced a conservative ideology - smaller, decentralized government and maximum individual liberty, in a nut shell. And as a Conservative and thinking person you recognize that centralized planning and collectivist economic policy are inherently flawed. In addition, high taxes during tough economic times and large government intervention are things you find counter productive, both to the economic health of a nation and notions of individualism. How is it then that New Deal could have possibly of worked if you have concluded that such an agenda is flawed at a fundamental level? Lets say I concede to the numbers in modest gains you can point to from 1931-41. Fine, there were improvements. But as a Conservative, as someone whom rejects centralized big government planning/control (not to mention high taxes) as a road map for prosperity, isn't it reasonable for you to conclude that these gains happened despite New Deal, and not because of it? In other words we can find positive indicators in any economic calamity, because the US economy is so dynamic. If the principles at the core of New Deal ideology are flawed (which as a Conservative you have concluded), how could it be they worked in this one instance of history? I find it rather irrational to say that leftist economic planning can work in this era, but not that one. Yet, as I take it, that is exactly your position when you say that New Deal worked during FDR's tenure yet oppose such an agenda now. I mean, this sort of economic model of government - deficit spending to prime the pump; massive public works; and alphabet soup of programs, it either works as an economic recovery model or it does not, right? So how do you reconcile embracing "conservative" economic principles, because their opposite fails to produce, yet claim that indeed the opposite did produce in the 1930"s? (And please, don't give me "Reagan did it." Reagan deficit spent to win the Cold War & as a compromise to the Democrat controlled congress. He did not deficit spend to end unemployment and effect an economic recovery, as FDR attempted. In neither case would I claim deficit spending caused an effective economic recovery).
In addition, I have never gotten a straight answer as to the 37-38' Roosevelt Recession. A healthy economy, a recovered economy, is not one that goes into tail spins because the fed attempts to balance its' books. Isn't the agreement we arrived at, that the turning off the spigot caused that sharp recession, proof that whatever recovery the nation was enjoying to that point was artificial? Government propped? Not sustainable? Not "real?"
Furthermore, I don't think any respectable debating partner would accept as proof of New Deal success the fact that we haven't had a depression since. Not when you can't point to specifically the aspect of New Deal that caused this trend. In debate terms, correlation does not equal causation. Just because C follows A and B does not mean A+B = C. It is just as likely that allied (in the general sense of the word) world powers cleverly (perhaps too cleverly) linked their economies so as to prevent any one actor from going completely berserk. Mutually assured Economic Destruction gave cause to make sure nobody 'crashed" or "failed." I can't profess this as 100% the reason for not having a depression since, but neither can you offer such a guarantee for New Deal.
So again, I ask rhetorically (as I have asked literally before and gotten no response ... maybe you stopped half way through my post and didn't see the question, I don't know): if sitting here in 2010 you are a Conservative, and advocate a "conservative" agenda as the prescription for what ails us now (& in general for any economic recovery), how could its opposite, embodied in New Deal, have worked in the 1930's? In other words, if it worked, if it did not fail, then why not advocate such a plan now? Why haven't the conclusions you sought out and arrived at, which caused you to embrace a conservative political philosophy, also lead you to believe that New Deal couldn't have possibly achieved success (& subsequently assigned any gains to despite, not because)? If New Deal wasn't a failure, why have you adopted a political orientation that is 180 degrees from New Deal styled policy?
****
The Macro ... and I say the following with NO malice, no attitude whatsoever:
"I am perfectly aware that I am a conservative, in almost every sense of the word ..." Standing in the pit, the night we first met (& first disagreed), 10+ years ago or so, I would have never thought to hear (or read) you utter such words. Now here's why I title this the macro: I win. Hehehe, well that's not to say I triumphed in every argument. And it's not to say you are a conservative because of "me" or my bristling analysis low these many years. I attribute your "conversion" from a "center-left/solid Democrat Party voter" into a "conservative/almost down the ticket GOP voter" to your own intellectually honest pursuit of truth. Truth in what works and what does not. So no, I'm not taking credit ... Rather, with "I win" I mean to convey the sense of validation, near harmony, with the idea that during all those years of argument, of political ideological clashes, of hoarse throats coming back onto a game, that I was operating from a base political orientation that you eventually adopted. In other words, I was on the "correct side" all along, even if you disagreed with my presentation. This of course means Limbaugh, all those years you chided him, was "right" (as in right and wrong), even if you disagreed with his presentation. Tax policy; the false wisdom in finding reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate (Bushs's tenure ended that argument); the environmental movement and its tenuous science; the 2nd Amendment; Reaganomics; a "living breathing" interpretation of the Constitution; health care (you did support Clinton despite Hillarycare, and I remember something about it being a "right" at one point); the Southern Border; even Newt Gingrich - on nearly all these issues and countless others you have come 180 degrees. The Titus I met that day in the pit would indeed have screaming matches with the one that sits before his key board today. Again, I don't take an ounce of credit, nor is this to say "I told you so" (well, maybe a little of the latter). I just find a calm sort of solace in the idea that at a core, fundamental level, during all those arguments, I was arguing on the right (read: correct) side ... that's all. And because you have so fundamentally changed, I hold out hope that New Deal will eventually go the way of these many other issues.
In conclusion ... (I feel like Bill Clinton at that 88' Democrat convention), let me say this. As it is clear to me that we have arrived at a point where we fundamentally agree; and more directly, since at those few times when we disagree you choose to dismiss out of hand and not even read my posts in their entirety - the Cardinal Sin of the blogosphere - I will let you hence forth engage your "God Given Right" of expression unimpeded by my participation.
Good day gents ...
Micro I ...
Just to be clear here, you did not read in its entirety my last post, yet you felt qualified to comment on it? Just checking. At the risk of again waisting my time - seeing as you summarily judge my posts as of late in the first few paragraphs - I will endeavour to communicate this more succinctly. You do realize of course that your entire rebuttal was spent defending positions I never attacked. Of course I "got" the Katrina analogy. Yes, I saw there were aspects that defended Beck. And above all I acknowledge fully that you were advocating less government intrusion/help and more individual initiative towards charity. I never argued nor commented to the contrary. What I did take umbrage with were two very specific points in your original post. The two you either chose not to address, or didn't get to seeing as you ended your reading prematurely. And they were simply this:
1.) I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately ... for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing. I felt this an unwarranted disappointment. In fact, Beck has been quite specific in defining the social justice he finds evil. In short he advocates (& I paraphrase), if your preacher, pastor, candidate, or community leader suggests that social justice is outside the scope of the individual initiative, a collective responsibility, the prerogative of government, "run." As in, run away from that notion and individual. Now, does Beck include this caveat every time he utters a critique of quote, "social justice"? No. But any regular listener would be familiar with the explanation I just authored, even Catholic ones.
2.) If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. First, no amount of charitable giving, no matter the level, would dissuade leftists, liberals or progressives from their agenda. The very idea of the modern progressive is to "progress" past individualism and the restraints of the Constitution so as to affect a collective salvation of equal outcomes. They would never accept as a substitute the free will and unregulated charity of individuals caring for their fellow man. And more important, you have the fundamentals of this equation reversed. It isn't that if we were more charitable privately then the government would be able to do less. Rather, if the government did less we would be more able to be give privately, both financially and as an emotionally induced imperative. And if you reread carefully what you wrote it isn't unreasonable to conclude you were chastising Americans for not caring enough privately, resulting in the ballooned government presence.
****
Micro II ...
New Deal.
To date I have not reconciled a fundamental conflict (as I see it) in your defense of New Deal. I consider the entire affair a "net loss" for the prosperity of America. You do not. The fundamental conflict I speak of is this: you have embraced a conservative ideology - smaller, decentralized government and maximum individual liberty, in a nut shell. And as a Conservative and thinking person you recognize that centralized planning and collectivist economic policy are inherently flawed. In addition, high taxes during tough economic times and large government intervention are things you find counter productive, both to the economic health of a nation and notions of individualism. How is it then that New Deal could have possibly of worked if you have concluded that such an agenda is flawed at a fundamental level? Lets say I concede to the numbers in modest gains you can point to from 1931-41. Fine, there were improvements. But as a Conservative, as someone whom rejects centralized big government planning/control (not to mention high taxes) as a road map for prosperity, isn't it reasonable for you to conclude that these gains happened despite New Deal, and not because of it? In other words we can find positive indicators in any economic calamity, because the US economy is so dynamic. If the principles at the core of New Deal ideology are flawed (which as a Conservative you have concluded), how could it be they worked in this one instance of history? I find it rather irrational to say that leftist economic planning can work in this era, but not that one. Yet, as I take it, that is exactly your position when you say that New Deal worked during FDR's tenure yet oppose such an agenda now. I mean, this sort of economic model of government - deficit spending to prime the pump; massive public works; and alphabet soup of programs, it either works as an economic recovery model or it does not, right? So how do you reconcile embracing "conservative" economic principles, because their opposite fails to produce, yet claim that indeed the opposite did produce in the 1930"s? (And please, don't give me "Reagan did it." Reagan deficit spent to win the Cold War & as a compromise to the Democrat controlled congress. He did not deficit spend to end unemployment and effect an economic recovery, as FDR attempted. In neither case would I claim deficit spending caused an effective economic recovery).
In addition, I have never gotten a straight answer as to the 37-38' Roosevelt Recession. A healthy economy, a recovered economy, is not one that goes into tail spins because the fed attempts to balance its' books. Isn't the agreement we arrived at, that the turning off the spigot caused that sharp recession, proof that whatever recovery the nation was enjoying to that point was artificial? Government propped? Not sustainable? Not "real?"
Furthermore, I don't think any respectable debating partner would accept as proof of New Deal success the fact that we haven't had a depression since. Not when you can't point to specifically the aspect of New Deal that caused this trend. In debate terms, correlation does not equal causation. Just because C follows A and B does not mean A+B = C. It is just as likely that allied (in the general sense of the word) world powers cleverly (perhaps too cleverly) linked their economies so as to prevent any one actor from going completely berserk. Mutually assured Economic Destruction gave cause to make sure nobody 'crashed" or "failed." I can't profess this as 100% the reason for not having a depression since, but neither can you offer such a guarantee for New Deal.
So again, I ask rhetorically (as I have asked literally before and gotten no response ... maybe you stopped half way through my post and didn't see the question, I don't know): if sitting here in 2010 you are a Conservative, and advocate a "conservative" agenda as the prescription for what ails us now (& in general for any economic recovery), how could its opposite, embodied in New Deal, have worked in the 1930's? In other words, if it worked, if it did not fail, then why not advocate such a plan now? Why haven't the conclusions you sought out and arrived at, which caused you to embrace a conservative political philosophy, also lead you to believe that New Deal couldn't have possibly achieved success (& subsequently assigned any gains to despite, not because)? If New Deal wasn't a failure, why have you adopted a political orientation that is 180 degrees from New Deal styled policy?
****
The Macro ... and I say the following with NO malice, no attitude whatsoever:
"I am perfectly aware that I am a conservative, in almost every sense of the word ..." Standing in the pit, the night we first met (& first disagreed), 10+ years ago or so, I would have never thought to hear (or read) you utter such words. Now here's why I title this the macro: I win. Hehehe, well that's not to say I triumphed in every argument. And it's not to say you are a conservative because of "me" or my bristling analysis low these many years. I attribute your "conversion" from a "center-left/solid Democrat Party voter" into a "conservative/almost down the ticket GOP voter" to your own intellectually honest pursuit of truth. Truth in what works and what does not. So no, I'm not taking credit ... Rather, with "I win" I mean to convey the sense of validation, near harmony, with the idea that during all those years of argument, of political ideological clashes, of hoarse throats coming back onto a game, that I was operating from a base political orientation that you eventually adopted. In other words, I was on the "correct side" all along, even if you disagreed with my presentation. This of course means Limbaugh, all those years you chided him, was "right" (as in right and wrong), even if you disagreed with his presentation. Tax policy; the false wisdom in finding reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate (Bushs's tenure ended that argument); the environmental movement and its tenuous science; the 2nd Amendment; Reaganomics; a "living breathing" interpretation of the Constitution; health care (you did support Clinton despite Hillarycare, and I remember something about it being a "right" at one point); the Southern Border; even Newt Gingrich - on nearly all these issues and countless others you have come 180 degrees. The Titus I met that day in the pit would indeed have screaming matches with the one that sits before his key board today. Again, I don't take an ounce of credit, nor is this to say "I told you so" (well, maybe a little of the latter). I just find a calm sort of solace in the idea that at a core, fundamental level, during all those arguments, I was arguing on the right (read: correct) side ... that's all. And because you have so fundamentally changed, I hold out hope that New Deal will eventually go the way of these many other issues.
In conclusion ... (I feel like Bill Clinton at that 88' Democrat convention), let me say this. As it is clear to me that we have arrived at a point where we fundamentally agree; and more directly, since at those few times when we disagree you choose to dismiss out of hand and not even read my posts in their entirety - the Cardinal Sin of the blogosphere - I will let you hence forth engage your "God Given Right" of expression unimpeded by my participation.
Good day gents ...
Monday, August 30, 2010
I'm not even going to try...
I quit reading you post halfway through (I think). Seemed utterly useless to continue, since nothing I wrote was read or understood by you anyway, either.
I was DEFENDING Beck, not criticizing him. Yes, I said I was disappointed in his show lately... because he was "ambiguous" in his use of terminology, not because of the content of his message. I applaud his faith, and his ability to apply it to his chosen profession so adeptly. Personally, I do think he lays it on a bit think, at times... but its HIS show, and he can do with it what he wishes. I still listen, if you hadn't noticed...
My entire point was that we don't NEED the government to take care of the poor, the indigent, the elderly, and the incapable... We, the People, do a much better job of it through our charitable works than any government could hope to do anyway (thus, my Katrina analogy, which you either didn't read or didn't grasp).
I am perfectly aware that I am a conservative, in almost every sense of the word, and that is why I listen to conservative radio... it is not the message I am arguing with, but the manner in which it is routinely presented. Limbaugh, Hannity and the bulk of conservative pundits do what they do for ratings (I dare anyone to listen to Hannity and tell me that isn't true). Beck has a better presentation most of the time... but when he deviates from what I think is the most effective (or most efficient) means to gain the end we all want to see gained, I'm going to raise my voice as loud as I like. That, my friend, is my God given right... as understood and defended by the entire conservative movement.
Not everything I say is critical, confrontational or anti-conservative... and the only one in THIS group that needs to start putting aside preconceived notions and stereotypes, that I am aware of, is you, my friend.
I was DEFENDING Beck, not criticizing him. Yes, I said I was disappointed in his show lately... because he was "ambiguous" in his use of terminology, not because of the content of his message. I applaud his faith, and his ability to apply it to his chosen profession so adeptly. Personally, I do think he lays it on a bit think, at times... but its HIS show, and he can do with it what he wishes. I still listen, if you hadn't noticed...
My entire point was that we don't NEED the government to take care of the poor, the indigent, the elderly, and the incapable... We, the People, do a much better job of it through our charitable works than any government could hope to do anyway (thus, my Katrina analogy, which you either didn't read or didn't grasp).
I am perfectly aware that I am a conservative, in almost every sense of the word, and that is why I listen to conservative radio... it is not the message I am arguing with, but the manner in which it is routinely presented. Limbaugh, Hannity and the bulk of conservative pundits do what they do for ratings (I dare anyone to listen to Hannity and tell me that isn't true). Beck has a better presentation most of the time... but when he deviates from what I think is the most effective (or most efficient) means to gain the end we all want to see gained, I'm going to raise my voice as loud as I like. That, my friend, is my God given right... as understood and defended by the entire conservative movement.
Not everything I say is critical, confrontational or anti-conservative... and the only one in THIS group that needs to start putting aside preconceived notions and stereotypes, that I am aware of, is you, my friend.
What is wrong with you?
This is complete and utter nonsense! You have this about as ass backwards as any thinking individual can.
"I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately, because he has made such an effort to focus on the need for the country to embrace the Gospels... rather than focus on the need for the country to take responsibility for individual actions... and for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing.
The Catholic faith (which he regularly refers to in his commentary) says that social justice means that we, as individuals, MUST maintain a high level of participation in and awareness of the broader, more general condition of society, rather than simply looking at where "I" am in the scheme of things. If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. The very act of "giving" makes us a stronger, more vibrant society, while simply dismissing the problems of the poor and suffering as "someone else's problem" (i.e. the Government) detracts from our society."
Let me pull this apart ...
First off, if you don't like his insertion of a religious tone as of late, FINE. That's your particular taste, you cringe when he goes there, others do not. He is attempting to "restore honor" as he sees it, by restoring the guiding principles of the Founding Fathers. And religion, divine providence, was a fundamental aspect of the Founders character, thus the recent religious over tones from Beck. I mean, here you have sat complaining that liberals, the ACLU, etc try and eject God from the public square, and yet here's a man that flatly announces he doesn't have all the answers but proudly exclaims he turns to his faith for strength, and perhaps America as a whole should too, and you sit cringing, or whatever it is you do when Beck says the name "God." But "whatever", back to what I was saying ... Religion has been a personal journey of his played out on his very public show. As a multi-year listener, I happen to know this. But as I said, if it's not your cup of tea, no problem. What is a problem is specifically this: "If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead." Excuse me? Have you seen the per capita stats on charitable donations of Americans versus Europe? Or anywhere else? Lets put it this way - we are Oprah, they're Jerry Springer, it's not even close. The disparity between ourselves and France is a particularly huge chasm (and I might add, "red states" donate more per household than "blue"). Domestically or in terms of personal donations abroad, the numbers are all out there, undeniable - the US of A is the MOST CHARITABLE peoples in the history of man.
With that said, you have the equation backwards. It isn't that if Americans would give more that their government would do less. It is plainly evident to me that if government did less, Americans would give more. And as an aside - if Americans gave "more", liberals would not stop calling for government intervention/assistance. That's ridiculous. Do you REALLY believe a huge, sustained, jump in charitable donations (money, time, energy, any form) would really dissuade progressives from their agenda? Seriously? Come on. But back to what you have backwards - government spending tax dollars on social programs have made us more jaded then we otherwise would be. How many times has the phrase, "my tax dollars, hard at work" been uttered at the sight of trash on the road; or hookers/drug dealers operating unmolested by law enforcement? Or a man with a cardboard sign being looked at as a motorist mutters, "can't he get into some job training program?" The entire concept of government provided social assistance has suppressed personal charity. We figure, "that's what I'm paying taxes for", so why pick up the trash yourself? Why form a neighborhood watch? Why give personal assistance to a homeless man? And the proof is in the practice - Western Europe has a lavish social welfare program compared to ours (so far anyway), and their charitable donations are a pittance to ours. They have had the tax dollars so beaten out of them for every imaginable program under the sun that not only do they not feel financially inclined towards charity, but generationally they have had it drilled into them that the charity of their fellow man is exclusively the domain of government. If government would back off of its center role in Europe, and quasi-central role here, private charitable activity would sky rocket, I have no doubt. After all, why feed your hungry neighbor, that's what food stamps are for, right? So don't you DARE lay the reason government has expanded social programs at the feet of "uncharitable Americans." Quite the opposite is true - had government not muscled in, the charity of individual Americans would be higher then it is even now (which is still pretty damn high compared to other first world nations). We shouldn't give more so that government will do less. Government should do less so we will be inclined to do even more.
On social justice - do you see anti-Catholics behind every corner or what? Beck goes out of his way to quote the Pope. He goes out of his way to make PERSONAL CHARITY one of the three central themes of both his television and radio programs - have you not seen the red and blue images of Washington, Jefferson and Franklin that read at the bottom (one on each) "FAITH, HOPE, CHARITY"? They are a permanent fixture on his television program, just behind him in every shot. They were at the rally, and you can get tees of their likeness on his site (& paintings which he auctioned off for the 8/28 event). His entire critique of "social justice" is centered on the way progressives pervert it into "collective" justice, or government dictated social justice. His food storage efforts, of which vendors specializing in that sector advertise on his show via his personal pitch, is replete with the suggestion that it is up to YOU to feed those around you, your family, your neighbors, anyone you can if the "worst" happens. It is up to YOU to grab the flash light and say, "this way." Not government, not the "next man", YOU. In other words he has continually espoused just the type of personal responsibility to preform charity on your fellow man as you did above. Yet you rip him as if being opposed to "social justice" as politically defined by the left (along with "living wage", etc) is tantamount to opposing personal charity, and the efforts of the Catholic Church.
Now I realize full well that the Catholic Church uses the term "social justice." But unfortunately they have lost the battle of definitions in the world of politics, at least when it comes to that term. That term has been co opted (if not flat out hijacked) by the Left. They scream it in demand that government do more to doll out equality of outcome, and "level the playing field." It is THAT "social justice" that he, and I, and countless millions oppose. The fact that Beck has gone out of his way to compliment the Catholic Church, gone out of his way to define the sort of political social justice he opposes, and the fact that he has gone out of his way to advocate the duty of personal charity means that a person of your intelligence should have not made the mistake you did in your last, accusing Beck of not "understanding" what good Catholics mean by the phrase, and bristling at his critique of the term itself.
And while we're at it. You have become, thoroughly, a Conservative in the political sense circa 2010. Now let me tell you something - you're going to have to make peace with the fact that you have more in common with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, and Beck then any other personality in the American media landscape. You do realize that don't you? Yet, you take any and every opportunity to still cling to the idea that you are the "average" or "moderate" American whom has little to nothing in common with a Limbaugh ... then you go on to espouse about 98% of his ideology. Face it - THEY are your new political home. Make peace with it, accept it, embrace it. You ARE NOT a moderate. YOU are a conservative. YOU have more in common with Rush then ANY individual with a (D) after his or her name ... so quit trying to find something, ANYTHING to disagree with them on as you desperately search for any degree of separation betwen yourself and those you once loathed ... hehehe.
And by the way - you wanna pick on my boy? My LDS bother? Then get it right next time.
"I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately, because he has made such an effort to focus on the need for the country to embrace the Gospels... rather than focus on the need for the country to take responsibility for individual actions... and for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing.
The Catholic faith (which he regularly refers to in his commentary) says that social justice means that we, as individuals, MUST maintain a high level of participation in and awareness of the broader, more general condition of society, rather than simply looking at where "I" am in the scheme of things. If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. The very act of "giving" makes us a stronger, more vibrant society, while simply dismissing the problems of the poor and suffering as "someone else's problem" (i.e. the Government) detracts from our society."
Let me pull this apart ...
First off, if you don't like his insertion of a religious tone as of late, FINE. That's your particular taste, you cringe when he goes there, others do not. He is attempting to "restore honor" as he sees it, by restoring the guiding principles of the Founding Fathers. And religion, divine providence, was a fundamental aspect of the Founders character, thus the recent religious over tones from Beck. I mean, here you have sat complaining that liberals, the ACLU, etc try and eject God from the public square, and yet here's a man that flatly announces he doesn't have all the answers but proudly exclaims he turns to his faith for strength, and perhaps America as a whole should too, and you sit cringing, or whatever it is you do when Beck says the name "God." But "whatever", back to what I was saying ... Religion has been a personal journey of his played out on his very public show. As a multi-year listener, I happen to know this. But as I said, if it's not your cup of tea, no problem. What is a problem is specifically this: "If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead." Excuse me? Have you seen the per capita stats on charitable donations of Americans versus Europe? Or anywhere else? Lets put it this way - we are Oprah, they're Jerry Springer, it's not even close. The disparity between ourselves and France is a particularly huge chasm (and I might add, "red states" donate more per household than "blue"). Domestically or in terms of personal donations abroad, the numbers are all out there, undeniable - the US of A is the MOST CHARITABLE peoples in the history of man.
With that said, you have the equation backwards. It isn't that if Americans would give more that their government would do less. It is plainly evident to me that if government did less, Americans would give more. And as an aside - if Americans gave "more", liberals would not stop calling for government intervention/assistance. That's ridiculous. Do you REALLY believe a huge, sustained, jump in charitable donations (money, time, energy, any form) would really dissuade progressives from their agenda? Seriously? Come on. But back to what you have backwards - government spending tax dollars on social programs have made us more jaded then we otherwise would be. How many times has the phrase, "my tax dollars, hard at work" been uttered at the sight of trash on the road; or hookers/drug dealers operating unmolested by law enforcement? Or a man with a cardboard sign being looked at as a motorist mutters, "can't he get into some job training program?" The entire concept of government provided social assistance has suppressed personal charity. We figure, "that's what I'm paying taxes for", so why pick up the trash yourself? Why form a neighborhood watch? Why give personal assistance to a homeless man? And the proof is in the practice - Western Europe has a lavish social welfare program compared to ours (so far anyway), and their charitable donations are a pittance to ours. They have had the tax dollars so beaten out of them for every imaginable program under the sun that not only do they not feel financially inclined towards charity, but generationally they have had it drilled into them that the charity of their fellow man is exclusively the domain of government. If government would back off of its center role in Europe, and quasi-central role here, private charitable activity would sky rocket, I have no doubt. After all, why feed your hungry neighbor, that's what food stamps are for, right? So don't you DARE lay the reason government has expanded social programs at the feet of "uncharitable Americans." Quite the opposite is true - had government not muscled in, the charity of individual Americans would be higher then it is even now (which is still pretty damn high compared to other first world nations). We shouldn't give more so that government will do less. Government should do less so we will be inclined to do even more.
On social justice - do you see anti-Catholics behind every corner or what? Beck goes out of his way to quote the Pope. He goes out of his way to make PERSONAL CHARITY one of the three central themes of both his television and radio programs - have you not seen the red and blue images of Washington, Jefferson and Franklin that read at the bottom (one on each) "FAITH, HOPE, CHARITY"? They are a permanent fixture on his television program, just behind him in every shot. They were at the rally, and you can get tees of their likeness on his site (& paintings which he auctioned off for the 8/28 event). His entire critique of "social justice" is centered on the way progressives pervert it into "collective" justice, or government dictated social justice. His food storage efforts, of which vendors specializing in that sector advertise on his show via his personal pitch, is replete with the suggestion that it is up to YOU to feed those around you, your family, your neighbors, anyone you can if the "worst" happens. It is up to YOU to grab the flash light and say, "this way." Not government, not the "next man", YOU. In other words he has continually espoused just the type of personal responsibility to preform charity on your fellow man as you did above. Yet you rip him as if being opposed to "social justice" as politically defined by the left (along with "living wage", etc) is tantamount to opposing personal charity, and the efforts of the Catholic Church.
Now I realize full well that the Catholic Church uses the term "social justice." But unfortunately they have lost the battle of definitions in the world of politics, at least when it comes to that term. That term has been co opted (if not flat out hijacked) by the Left. They scream it in demand that government do more to doll out equality of outcome, and "level the playing field." It is THAT "social justice" that he, and I, and countless millions oppose. The fact that Beck has gone out of his way to compliment the Catholic Church, gone out of his way to define the sort of political social justice he opposes, and the fact that he has gone out of his way to advocate the duty of personal charity means that a person of your intelligence should have not made the mistake you did in your last, accusing Beck of not "understanding" what good Catholics mean by the phrase, and bristling at his critique of the term itself.
And while we're at it. You have become, thoroughly, a Conservative in the political sense circa 2010. Now let me tell you something - you're going to have to make peace with the fact that you have more in common with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, and Beck then any other personality in the American media landscape. You do realize that don't you? Yet, you take any and every opportunity to still cling to the idea that you are the "average" or "moderate" American whom has little to nothing in common with a Limbaugh ... then you go on to espouse about 98% of his ideology. Face it - THEY are your new political home. Make peace with it, accept it, embrace it. You ARE NOT a moderate. YOU are a conservative. YOU have more in common with Rush then ANY individual with a (D) after his or her name ... so quit trying to find something, ANYTHING to disagree with them on as you desperately search for any degree of separation betwen yourself and those you once loathed ... hehehe.
And by the way - you wanna pick on my boy? My LDS bother? Then get it right next time.
What is it about Beck?
My God... the man is almost iconic in his ability to make people love him or hate him.
Reasonable estimates on the numbers for his rally top 300,000 people at the Memorial in Washington DC. I've heard clips from the speeches given, and none were overtly political in nature... in fact, I'd say that most struck a very religious note.
Still, comparisons continue to be made between Beck and people like Father Coughlin of the 1930s. Is the comparison made because Beck is so opposed to Obama's policies and agendas, the same way Coughlin was against FDR and the New Deal? If that were the case, then why isn't Limbaugh or Hannity labeled the same way? Is it because Beck is (typically) more "faith oriented" in his broadcasts than the rest of conservative talk-show hosts? Because he is an avowed and practicing Mormon?
Unlike Coughlin, Beck speaks continually against "social justice" and "collective salvation", both of which were topics that Coughlin railed about continually. Coughlin called for the nationalization of banking and the Federal Reserve, saying over and over that "private industry" should not and could not be trusted to "regulate itself" without "cheating the public"... while Beck routinely states that government should stay away from the private sector. Coughlin was convinced that the Depression was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"... while Beck is one of the more out-spoken supporters of Israel in America today (one of the media's biggest critiques, in fact). Is the comparison based on Coughlin and his antisemitic attitudes and Beck's statements against the mosque at Ground Zero? To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't said that the mosque "can't" be built... he has only asked if the building of the mosque is a good idea.
I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately, because he has made such an effort to focus on the need for the country to embrace the Gospels... rather than focus on the need for the country to take responsibility for individual actions... and for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing.
The Catholic faith (which he regularly refers to in his commentary) says that social justice means that we, as individuals, MUST maintain a high level of participation in and awareness of the broader, more general condition of society, rather than simply looking at where "I" am in the scheme of things. If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. The very act of "giving" makes us a stronger, more vibrant society, while simply dismissing the problems of the poor and suffering as "someone else's problem" (i.e. the Government) detracts from our society.
Again, I can use my Katrina experiences as an example. In the 60 days immediately after the storm, the only "assistance" I got from the "government" was the delivery of water and ice from the Georgia National Guard troops stationed near my home (technically, this assistance was from the Governor and citizens the State of Georgia, and NOT from the Feds). ALL OTHER AID was in the form of donations of material and time by volunteer citizens from across the nation. Church groups that came in droves to cut down trees off of houses, schools that collected clothes, diapers and toilet paper to be delivered in semi-trucks, fire departments and police officers that donated their vacation time to assist, construction companies that donated time, equipment and material to patch leaky roofs until such time as insurance settlements were made... that was the assistance I saw every day. For me, and the vast bulk of the people I know, FEMA was some distant and very-hard-to-find office where you MIGHT get a $2500 check to see you through to your insurance adjuster's first visit. There was no other government aid for me.
THAT is social justice at work in my experience. Being able to count on your neighbors in times of crisis... rather than hoping for government assistance. WHY is that so antithetical to modern progressive thinking? Why is it so difficult for Beck to see that not ALL definitions of "social justice" are as narrow and evil as his?
Reasonable estimates on the numbers for his rally top 300,000 people at the Memorial in Washington DC. I've heard clips from the speeches given, and none were overtly political in nature... in fact, I'd say that most struck a very religious note.
Still, comparisons continue to be made between Beck and people like Father Coughlin of the 1930s. Is the comparison made because Beck is so opposed to Obama's policies and agendas, the same way Coughlin was against FDR and the New Deal? If that were the case, then why isn't Limbaugh or Hannity labeled the same way? Is it because Beck is (typically) more "faith oriented" in his broadcasts than the rest of conservative talk-show hosts? Because he is an avowed and practicing Mormon?
Unlike Coughlin, Beck speaks continually against "social justice" and "collective salvation", both of which were topics that Coughlin railed about continually. Coughlin called for the nationalization of banking and the Federal Reserve, saying over and over that "private industry" should not and could not be trusted to "regulate itself" without "cheating the public"... while Beck routinely states that government should stay away from the private sector. Coughlin was convinced that the Depression was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"... while Beck is one of the more out-spoken supporters of Israel in America today (one of the media's biggest critiques, in fact). Is the comparison based on Coughlin and his antisemitic attitudes and Beck's statements against the mosque at Ground Zero? To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't said that the mosque "can't" be built... he has only asked if the building of the mosque is a good idea.
I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately, because he has made such an effort to focus on the need for the country to embrace the Gospels... rather than focus on the need for the country to take responsibility for individual actions... and for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing.
The Catholic faith (which he regularly refers to in his commentary) says that social justice means that we, as individuals, MUST maintain a high level of participation in and awareness of the broader, more general condition of society, rather than simply looking at where "I" am in the scheme of things. If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. The very act of "giving" makes us a stronger, more vibrant society, while simply dismissing the problems of the poor and suffering as "someone else's problem" (i.e. the Government) detracts from our society.
Again, I can use my Katrina experiences as an example. In the 60 days immediately after the storm, the only "assistance" I got from the "government" was the delivery of water and ice from the Georgia National Guard troops stationed near my home (technically, this assistance was from the Governor and citizens the State of Georgia, and NOT from the Feds). ALL OTHER AID was in the form of donations of material and time by volunteer citizens from across the nation. Church groups that came in droves to cut down trees off of houses, schools that collected clothes, diapers and toilet paper to be delivered in semi-trucks, fire departments and police officers that donated their vacation time to assist, construction companies that donated time, equipment and material to patch leaky roofs until such time as insurance settlements were made... that was the assistance I saw every day. For me, and the vast bulk of the people I know, FEMA was some distant and very-hard-to-find office where you MIGHT get a $2500 check to see you through to your insurance adjuster's first visit. There was no other government aid for me.
THAT is social justice at work in my experience. Being able to count on your neighbors in times of crisis... rather than hoping for government assistance. WHY is that so antithetical to modern progressive thinking? Why is it so difficult for Beck to see that not ALL definitions of "social justice" are as narrow and evil as his?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Something Michelle said made me think...
Our latest comments from Michelle (world-famous wife of the infamous C Joe!) made me think of something else that Katrina taught me...
Neighborhoods.
Those of us that lived inside of Gulfpark Estates (and maybe St Andrews, too) were able to pool resources and help each other through tough times after the storm. Some of us had vehicles that could be used by those that didn't (thanks Fish!), and some of us made ourselves available to help when clean up got to be too much for one person to handle (thanks Fish, C Joe, Harvey, Jambo, Cramey... that list gets long real fast), and all of us were there when we needed someone to lean on and listen to our bitching. I moved from my porch to C Joe and Michelle's then on to Beau and Di's and back to mine in one night on more than one occasion... alcohol not withstanding.
Places like Paul Lee's store were much in use after the storm (Fish and I actually volunteered to work there during the gasoline rush), but imagine if that store had been an actual market instead of just a gas station/convenience store. How much better would our life in GP Estates have been then?
A hundred years ago, big cities like New York and Chicago had neighborhoods where all your needs were met within a few "walkable" blocks... and while these (and other) cities still have those neighborhoods, they are no where near as "self sufficient" as they were then. Towns all across this country were centered around "main street", where everything you needed to live in that town could be found... a grocer, a hardware/dry goods store, a doctor, a school, a church and a pub.
Those places that still have that self-sufficient layout are the ones that will weather the next version of Katrina that hits this nation... and if you live somewhere without that sort of "convenience", then the onus is on YOU to make sure you have all you need.
Neighborhoods.
Those of us that lived inside of Gulfpark Estates (and maybe St Andrews, too) were able to pool resources and help each other through tough times after the storm. Some of us had vehicles that could be used by those that didn't (thanks Fish!), and some of us made ourselves available to help when clean up got to be too much for one person to handle (thanks Fish, C Joe, Harvey, Jambo, Cramey... that list gets long real fast), and all of us were there when we needed someone to lean on and listen to our bitching. I moved from my porch to C Joe and Michelle's then on to Beau and Di's and back to mine in one night on more than one occasion... alcohol not withstanding.
Places like Paul Lee's store were much in use after the storm (Fish and I actually volunteered to work there during the gasoline rush), but imagine if that store had been an actual market instead of just a gas station/convenience store. How much better would our life in GP Estates have been then?
A hundred years ago, big cities like New York and Chicago had neighborhoods where all your needs were met within a few "walkable" blocks... and while these (and other) cities still have those neighborhoods, they are no where near as "self sufficient" as they were then. Towns all across this country were centered around "main street", where everything you needed to live in that town could be found... a grocer, a hardware/dry goods store, a doctor, a school, a church and a pub.
Those places that still have that self-sufficient layout are the ones that will weather the next version of Katrina that hits this nation... and if you live somewhere without that sort of "convenience", then the onus is on YOU to make sure you have all you need.
Good post man ...
You know if you think about it, Katrina gained you your new wife (& family). If I remember correctly, standing in your living room about 3 months post storm, you were telling me that a past high school crush named Liz had contacted you (I think for a high school reunion, or perhaps just checking on folks she knew, & that were affected by Katrina). In any event in your return commincae' you noted to her that in the storm you'd lost your employer, furniture, home & wife. I remember looking at Jambo saying, "she thinks Robin is dead!" Now THERE'S a way to pull sympathy out of an ol' high school babe, let me tell you! At any rate, even though that misperception was quickly corrected, I doubt you would have been as open to the idea of restarting your life in NEPA if Katrina hadn't effectively ended (in every material way) the one you were living in South Mississippi. Who would of guessed that when you were puking your guts out?!
5 years on I must say that I am better off then that day as well. In the interim my wife left me ... which was painful. Then she came back to me ... which was excruciating. But my sons are healthy, legally mine, & I spend nearly every day with them. And I know myself, much, much better.
And P.S.> this very blog is a result of the storm as well ...
5 years on I must say that I am better off then that day as well. In the interim my wife left me ... which was painful. Then she came back to me ... which was excruciating. But my sons are healthy, legally mine, & I spend nearly every day with them. And I know myself, much, much better.
And P.S.> this very blog is a result of the storm as well ...
Finally...
I can't get off the 'puter today and not say that, looking back to five years ago right now, I am millions of times better off. This very morning, five years ago, I was exhausted, wet, desperate and scared out of my mind. I know that by 10 AM, the water was up and the wind was still blowing at over 80 mph, but the fact that we were up to our necks in sewage and salt water was keeping our minds off the prospect of losing the roof for the next several hours.
We had five trees on the house (one a 60' magnolia tree that crushed my deck and patio area), no power, phones or water, and the surge was rapidly approaching the house itself. Over the course of the next several hours, both my fridge and my freezer floated off the floor enough to overturn, meaning that what water and supplies we had in each was suddenly ruined. My water heater also floated up, but remained connected to the walls by the copper pipes, so that as it bobbed merrily on top of the flood water, it tore more and more of the drywall out of the walls. We would find out later that appliances such as washers, dryers, ovens and dishwashers all filled with this disgusting water and held it quite nicely for the next several days, allowing it to develop a smell that cannot be described in words (but was strong enough to make myself, Jambo and another friend vomit as we tried to get them out of the house).
We saw no one in our subdivision for the next day or two... and there wasn't a sound to be heard at night. Not just a lack of "people noise"... which there wasn't any of because no one had returned yet... but no bugs or birds either. Nothing but absolute quite for as long as you wanted to listen. Eventually, people came back, and there was the occasional National Guard APC rolling through to make sure all was as well as could be... but those first nights after the storm were surreal in a way I will never, ever forget.
Looking back, I can't but think that the first day must have been completed totally in shock. I recall the day, but it blurs together when I try and recall details. I know that within hours of the water receding, the carpets and furniture started to stink of mildew and mold... and as exhausted as we were, we started to pull everything out of the house and onto the front porch. It didn't help...
Yep... I can't express how glad I am that this particular memory is now five years behind me. I have a new home, a new job, and the most wonderful new family a man could ever hope for. Thank you, Lord.
We had five trees on the house (one a 60' magnolia tree that crushed my deck and patio area), no power, phones or water, and the surge was rapidly approaching the house itself. Over the course of the next several hours, both my fridge and my freezer floated off the floor enough to overturn, meaning that what water and supplies we had in each was suddenly ruined. My water heater also floated up, but remained connected to the walls by the copper pipes, so that as it bobbed merrily on top of the flood water, it tore more and more of the drywall out of the walls. We would find out later that appliances such as washers, dryers, ovens and dishwashers all filled with this disgusting water and held it quite nicely for the next several days, allowing it to develop a smell that cannot be described in words (but was strong enough to make myself, Jambo and another friend vomit as we tried to get them out of the house).
We saw no one in our subdivision for the next day or two... and there wasn't a sound to be heard at night. Not just a lack of "people noise"... which there wasn't any of because no one had returned yet... but no bugs or birds either. Nothing but absolute quite for as long as you wanted to listen. Eventually, people came back, and there was the occasional National Guard APC rolling through to make sure all was as well as could be... but those first nights after the storm were surreal in a way I will never, ever forget.
Looking back, I can't but think that the first day must have been completed totally in shock. I recall the day, but it blurs together when I try and recall details. I know that within hours of the water receding, the carpets and furniture started to stink of mildew and mold... and as exhausted as we were, we started to pull everything out of the house and onto the front porch. It didn't help...
Yep... I can't express how glad I am that this particular memory is now five years behind me. I have a new home, a new job, and the most wonderful new family a man could ever hope for. Thank you, Lord.
Technology marches on...
All of us have kids, and all of us will someday have to have those children sit for their senior portraits, just as we all sat for ours. Katey, our 17 year old, just had hers taken, and we've now seen the proofs.
Today's modern cameras all seem to be digital, so the proofs are offered online. Where the pics I had taken (more than a quarter century ago) were proofed in six shots, Katey's are shown in 168 different shots and poses, any of which we can have ordered, enhanced, matted and framed for delivery... all from your home PC. Talk about making money... this photographer has made sure she offers the most product in the most convenient manner possible, all in order to get the most orders possible. Good for her... expensive for me, I'm thinking.
All I can say is that anyone expecting a Christmas gift from our family other than a framed portrait of our oldest needs to get with the program now, in order to avoid disappointment later. Hehe...
Today's modern cameras all seem to be digital, so the proofs are offered online. Where the pics I had taken (more than a quarter century ago) were proofed in six shots, Katey's are shown in 168 different shots and poses, any of which we can have ordered, enhanced, matted and framed for delivery... all from your home PC. Talk about making money... this photographer has made sure she offers the most product in the most convenient manner possible, all in order to get the most orders possible. Good for her... expensive for me, I'm thinking.
All I can say is that anyone expecting a Christmas gift from our family other than a framed portrait of our oldest needs to get with the program now, in order to avoid disappointment later. Hehe...
August 28th...
I won't focus too much on the Beck rally, other than to say that Sharpton's claim that King called on the Federal government to "ensure equality" is patently false. King called on the Federal government to recognize that the people of this nation had the same "inherent" rights granted by their Creator, and that nothing in government should interfere with those rights... things like race, religion or gender (among others). King wanted the institutionalized "racial" segments of our society removed, so that each of us could succeed (or fail) based on our own, individual merits and abilities.
King fought against the American status quo of "white versus black" that had existed since Reconstruction, but his followers have taken the message full-swing and now see it as a "black versus white" struggle, where the people of color in this nation must still be treated differently (which was always the case in the past), but instead of marginalizing the minorities, the majority must now be marginalized... be it the white, Christian, conservative majority of America or not.
With the implementation of affirmative action by Kennedy, but the hesitation by mainstream America to adopt it's original intent (that race or creed never be a factor in employment consideration), I think King wanted that injustice corrected by the Feds... but when President Johnson gave a speech in June of '65 calling for greater scope and depth to the policy, I think the process went too far (way too far). In that speech, Johnson said: "To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough." I disagree 100%, because anything more is just discrimination of another group... as in Johnson's (and, later, Carter's) rewriting of the affirmative action policies to ensure that a designated percentage of government employees and contractor's employees were of minority status regardless of ability or qualifications, to the exclusion of those more able or qualified. That may be the goal of Johnson's vision, but it is antithetical to King's vision, in which only the content of a man's character is measured, and never his race or religion (or gender).
King (and Kennedy, and modern conservatives) had it right... no consideration for employment opportunity should be made on the basis of race, religion or sex. Sharpton and the others that protested Beck's rally have it wrong, and have forgotten the message that King died to promote.
King fought against the American status quo of "white versus black" that had existed since Reconstruction, but his followers have taken the message full-swing and now see it as a "black versus white" struggle, where the people of color in this nation must still be treated differently (which was always the case in the past), but instead of marginalizing the minorities, the majority must now be marginalized... be it the white, Christian, conservative majority of America or not.
With the implementation of affirmative action by Kennedy, but the hesitation by mainstream America to adopt it's original intent (that race or creed never be a factor in employment consideration), I think King wanted that injustice corrected by the Feds... but when President Johnson gave a speech in June of '65 calling for greater scope and depth to the policy, I think the process went too far (way too far). In that speech, Johnson said: "To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough." I disagree 100%, because anything more is just discrimination of another group... as in Johnson's (and, later, Carter's) rewriting of the affirmative action policies to ensure that a designated percentage of government employees and contractor's employees were of minority status regardless of ability or qualifications, to the exclusion of those more able or qualified. That may be the goal of Johnson's vision, but it is antithetical to King's vision, in which only the content of a man's character is measured, and never his race or religion (or gender).
King (and Kennedy, and modern conservatives) had it right... no consideration for employment opportunity should be made on the basis of race, religion or sex. Sharpton and the others that protested Beck's rally have it wrong, and have forgotten the message that King died to promote.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
I'm not troubled...
Other than to think that so much of America has become so polluted as to think that Man is inherently "bad". Original sin (something I believe to be undeniably true, theologically speaking) is a stain on Man's soul from our propensity to sin... it is not an indelible mark that can never be removed, but only "covered up" by the blood of Christ's sacrifice. Catholics (of which I count myself one of... thank God!) believe, as a matter of faith, that original sin is erased completely, utterly and forever with the waters of baptism... and with those waters, the indelible stamp of the anointing chrism marks us as belonging to Christ, once and for all time.
No, my concern is that so much of our nation has forgotten the philosophical meaning of "human nature", and instead associate the word with thoughts and comparisons between and within societies. "Society" may have the nature of being "inherently bad"... in fact, I think it is, if it is constantly trying to make itself the dictator of what is "good" in all our lives, rather than leaving us to do that... but the individuals that make up any society CANNOT be inherently bad, or no society would be worth redeeming (as Ryan pointed out).
Ryan is also correct when he says that much of his faith (LDS) causes me to pause... but I am also a huge fan of ecumenism, and of trying to always practice the tolerance and understanding of others that Christ constantly called on us to act out. We can differ about the details (that's where the devil is, after all), but the proof is in the pudding... and when it all comes down to the wire and we stand before our God awaiting judgment, I'm confident that even Mormons will stand well with Christ if they've followed their faith's call to compassion, charity, family and neighborly love, and moral and ethical actions throughout their lives.
I'm not being condescending now... honestly... when I say that any Christian denomination enjoys the grace and fellowship of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit if they do so with charitable love in their hearts (which is what I think Beck was shooting for on 8/28). My Church and its last Pope say I am right in thinking this.
As John Paul II said in 1989... one can live quite nicely on soup, bread and water... but why would one want to when a feast of endless bounty and variety is spread before you by your Savior? He has invited us ALL to sit with Him and dine at this feast, and some come... but not everyone stays, and even fewer partake of all that is offered.
Okay... I'm done preaching. Back to talking trash about Obama...
No, my concern is that so much of our nation has forgotten the philosophical meaning of "human nature", and instead associate the word with thoughts and comparisons between and within societies. "Society" may have the nature of being "inherently bad"... in fact, I think it is, if it is constantly trying to make itself the dictator of what is "good" in all our lives, rather than leaving us to do that... but the individuals that make up any society CANNOT be inherently bad, or no society would be worth redeeming (as Ryan pointed out).
Ryan is also correct when he says that much of his faith (LDS) causes me to pause... but I am also a huge fan of ecumenism, and of trying to always practice the tolerance and understanding of others that Christ constantly called on us to act out. We can differ about the details (that's where the devil is, after all), but the proof is in the pudding... and when it all comes down to the wire and we stand before our God awaiting judgment, I'm confident that even Mormons will stand well with Christ if they've followed their faith's call to compassion, charity, family and neighborly love, and moral and ethical actions throughout their lives.
I'm not being condescending now... honestly... when I say that any Christian denomination enjoys the grace and fellowship of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit if they do so with charitable love in their hearts (which is what I think Beck was shooting for on 8/28). My Church and its last Pope say I am right in thinking this.
As John Paul II said in 1989... one can live quite nicely on soup, bread and water... but why would one want to when a feast of endless bounty and variety is spread before you by your Savior? He has invited us ALL to sit with Him and dine at this feast, and some come... but not everyone stays, and even fewer partake of all that is offered.
Okay... I'm done preaching. Back to talking trash about Obama...
On 8/28...
I don't know much about it, other than what I heard on the radio from Beck himself, but it seemed more a rally... a call to arms, as in... rather than a protest. They seem to want to find "God" in America again... with no denominational requirements. Prayer, faith, understanding and compassion that isn't mandated or required by Federal regulations.
I thought it particularly interesting that, while Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were "officially" protesting Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial because he was trying to "steal" the dream from King's message and make it political, King's own niece, Dr. Alveda King, was speaking at Beck's rally to say that MLK would stand there, again, with Beck... rather than with Jackson and Sharpton, who have forgotten his message of looking at the "content of character" rather than the color of one's skin.
I'm sorry, but that has GOT to hurt...
I thought it particularly interesting that, while Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were "officially" protesting Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial because he was trying to "steal" the dream from King's message and make it political, King's own niece, Dr. Alveda King, was speaking at Beck's rally to say that MLK would stand there, again, with Beck... rather than with Jackson and Sharpton, who have forgotten his message of looking at the "content of character" rather than the color of one's skin.
I'm sorry, but that has GOT to hurt...
A further thought ...
I would ask any whom believe man inherently bad: is mankind redeemable? And if so, do you believe his soul worth the endeavor of redemption? And if yes, aren't you assigning an intrinsic worth to the soul itself (otherwise why save it)? So how can we describe as "inherently bad" that which has intrinsic worth?
A word on Beck's 8/28 rally & tea party protests in general ...
During this global economic crisis we have seen protests in many parts of the world as public coffers feel the pinch, Greece and France come to mind. But everywhere else those protests are against the proposed cuts in public programs, services, and spending. Only here, only AMERICANS, are out protesting against the continuation of such spending. They take to the streets at the idea of government withdrawing its' support ... we pour into the streets with the notion that government does too much.
And that gives me a particular sense of pride in my nation.
And that gives me a particular sense of pride in my nation.
Why does this trouble you so?
Need all Conservatives agree on theology in order to be hitched to the same political wagon? Levine doesn't even believe Christ to be the Son of God. Need I differentiate "my conservatism" from his, based on that, in each political engagement so as to make sure I haven't indirectly endorsed "heresy?" I dare say that there are aspects of Mormonism that make your toes curl, yet you would pull the lever for Romney, no? My point is that political ideological allies need not agree on every, or even fundamental, aspects of theology in order to stand together against what they agree is bad.
Personally, I believe that we are born fundamentally good ... but also fundamentally weak. And only in God's redemption do we find the strength to embrace and live within our inherint goodness.
Personally, I believe that we are born fundamentally good ... but also fundamentally weak. And only in God's redemption do we find the strength to embrace and live within our inherint goodness.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Time for a very serious question...
I'm riding in to work, and listening to the morning time slot on my satellite radio... which belongs to Glenn Beck. He's talking almost exclusively about his "8-28" rally in DC this weekend (the anniversary of Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech... not because of Hurricane Katrina, which also has an anniversary that day), but he touches on an aspect of "conservative, Christian" understanding that people (meaning mankind in general) are NOT inherently good, but are instead inherently "not good". He said (more than once) that the Bible says "dark is the heart of man"... but I don't know what verse he is quoting, or if it is in the Bible at all.
Then, on the way home, I'm listening to Levin, and the guest host there says "man is NOT inherently good", no matter what Reagan may have said to the contrary. I KNOW Reagan wasn't a Catholic... but surely the Calvinist view that all that is material is "evil" can't be so pervasive as to have become "mainstream" even in the eyes of American politicians?
Or am I wrong? Didn't Aquinas define man as created in all goodness, but wounded in nature because of consequences of original sin? Wasn't the premise that man was inherently BAD the fundamental error in both Luther and Calvin's theology? If man ISN'T inherently GOOD, then what does the sacrifice of Christ change in US to make us worthy of heaven? We are created, body and soul, in God's holy Image... the theological term for this is ex nihilo, or "out of nothing", meaning "deliberately made" by God's hand for a purpose of His choosing... and I ask again, how we can be made thus but still be inherently not good?
Has Luther's "snow covered dung heaps" and Calvin's "tainted, spoiled fruit inside a perfect peel" become the understanding that Protestant America holds... inherently, it seems... about the very nature of mankind? My goodness... I can't have THAT be the standard by which I am measured if I am to be called a "conservative"... because I DO believe in the inherent "goodness" of Man as a creation of God in His perfect Image, even if that nature is "wounded" by concupiscence until such time as the stain is REMOVED entirely by baptism of either water, blood or intent.
Does anyone else share my distress at this prospective "heresy" remaining at the root of the current political movement I seem to be hitching my wagon to? Does anyone else think Man is inherently "bad"?
Then, on the way home, I'm listening to Levin, and the guest host there says "man is NOT inherently good", no matter what Reagan may have said to the contrary. I KNOW Reagan wasn't a Catholic... but surely the Calvinist view that all that is material is "evil" can't be so pervasive as to have become "mainstream" even in the eyes of American politicians?
Or am I wrong? Didn't Aquinas define man as created in all goodness, but wounded in nature because of consequences of original sin? Wasn't the premise that man was inherently BAD the fundamental error in both Luther and Calvin's theology? If man ISN'T inherently GOOD, then what does the sacrifice of Christ change in US to make us worthy of heaven? We are created, body and soul, in God's holy Image... the theological term for this is ex nihilo, or "out of nothing", meaning "deliberately made" by God's hand for a purpose of His choosing... and I ask again, how we can be made thus but still be inherently not good?
Has Luther's "snow covered dung heaps" and Calvin's "tainted, spoiled fruit inside a perfect peel" become the understanding that Protestant America holds... inherently, it seems... about the very nature of mankind? My goodness... I can't have THAT be the standard by which I am measured if I am to be called a "conservative"... because I DO believe in the inherent "goodness" of Man as a creation of God in His perfect Image, even if that nature is "wounded" by concupiscence until such time as the stain is REMOVED entirely by baptism of either water, blood or intent.
Does anyone else share my distress at this prospective "heresy" remaining at the root of the current political movement I seem to be hitching my wagon to? Does anyone else think Man is inherently "bad"?
It's almost inevitable, isn't it?
Knowing that the anniversary of Katrina coming ashore was fast approaching, who wouldn't expect to see more criticism of the "response" in the headlines... even here in NEPA?
Like Ryan said, we had it better than many others did, living where we did in MS (rather than in southern LA). There was virtually no looting... we listened to our radio constantly (it was all we had... thank God it was wind-up!) and knew things in New Orleans were out of control those first days after the storm, but heard of only a very few (four, I believe) arrests for looting anywhere along the Coast. Of course, our main saving grace was that we didn't have to deal with flood waters after the first few hours after the storm passed... I had salt water in my living room for four hours... tops. People in the Ninth Ward had water in their homes for nearly a month.
More than even that, though, was the local response to the disaster, and how different that was handled in MS compared to LA. Turning on your local radio station tuned you in to regular, scheduled broadcast information from the local authorities (such as they were). We heard, routinely, the mayors of Biloxi and Gulfport and their designated officials giving vital, timely and very organized information about where, when and how assistance was being distributed at a local level. Whenever we heard Mayor Nagin speak, he spent nearly the whole time blaming someone else for what wasn't being done... or what was being done, even. He blamed Bush, FEMA, Governor Blancho, the police chief of New Orleans (I recall they very nearly came to blows on television once, even though I was listening to it on radio simulcast), the National Guard... anyone but himself or his own office. Blancho, Nagin and the rest seemed to learn as much about what was working and not working at these "press conferences" as the listeners... which is NOT a good way to instill confidence in the listening audience, let me tell you.
To this day, I still take time to thank each and every Pennsylvania State Police trooper I see for the help and assistance that I received from four troopers who drove to MS in two cruisers and camped out at the entrance to our subdivision and provided the ONLY security service we had for the next 60 days, living off their accumulated vacation time while doing it. They drove around the neighborhoods in their cruisers, offering help, assistance, comfort and advice whenever and where ever they could (often giving me a lift from the POD near my home so I wouldn't have to walk the nearly two miles back to the house carrying four gallons of water in record-breaking heat). That is the kind of assistance that the local government organized... volunteers where assigned areas to assist by the city authorities, so that no area was without while others had multiple coverage. That is also the kind of assistance that seemed to be totally lacking in New Orleans and its suburbs for the first month after the storm.
Ryan's family is a good example of the preparations that can be made by ANYONE to provide a small level of security and comfort in times of crisis or emergency, at very small cost, that simply cannot be provided by any other means... whether it is expected from the Feds, the State or the local authorities. In the example offered by Katrina, the local and state authorities and emergency services were just as helpless as we were (civilians, I mean), because all of their vehicles, supplies and facilities were as flooded and useless as my home was (obviously).
I have learned some valuable lessons from Katrina... not the least of which is that fresh water kept in five-gallon food-grade buckets float very nicely, and in a flood environment, that is a bad thing. Our water is now stored INSIDE the house, in five-gallon bottles, behind closed doors. Our food is stored in water-proof bins kept high up off the floor, and my propane tanks are secured to the deck so that they won't "go missing" in the event of a disaster (even though my current home isn't somewhere where I would ever expect a Katrina-style flood). My freezer is blocked up off the floor, and will be weighted down in the event of a flood (these appliances also float). The freezer contains large blocks of ice, which will be used to fill coolers if the power ever goes out for an extended period of time, because keeping ANYTHING in a fridge when the power is out for more than 12 hours is a recipe for disaster. Say what you will, nothing gets that smell out of a fridge... nothing.
Our plans for improvements to our home include a hand-pump for our well (cost: $389 at the local farm supply house), which fits over the existing well head and doesn't effect the submerged pump at all, but will allow us to draw water up from the well even with no electricity. We also plan on an improved brick cooking area for the yard, which will allow a greater level of comfort, ease and functionality in the event that we are forced to work outside to prepare, cook and clean up after eating. We already have plans for temporary outdoor privy, but I haven't convinced the wife that an actual "outhouse" is an acceptable feature for our property. Still, knowing what I know about using a bag-lined 5-gallon bucket as a toilet, anything is an improvement over what I had during Katrina. We can heat 4 gallons of water to boiling in less than 9 minutes with my propane burner, so hot, clean water isn't an issue here (as long as my five 20 lb cylinders last).
My point is mainly that, given what I feel is the "average" in any American home, anyone can make it the 3 days that the Feds ask us to prepare for... the danger lies in an event or crisis that lasts longer than 3 days. We feel two weeks is our minimum, and try our best to prepare accordingly. That way, if we live through another "3-day event", it will seem like easy street... and we can afford to assist family or friends that might not be as prepared as we are with the balance of our supplies. If the event is larger or longer, we know we can make it. What we are NOT going to do is look for any substantial help or assistance from the GOVERNMENT. Down that path, madness lies...
A family must be able to provide for itself, at least in the short term... period. That is the lesson of Katrina that everyone should have learned by now, even those that weren't there in the thick of it five years ago tomorrow.
Like Ryan said, we had it better than many others did, living where we did in MS (rather than in southern LA). There was virtually no looting... we listened to our radio constantly (it was all we had... thank God it was wind-up!) and knew things in New Orleans were out of control those first days after the storm, but heard of only a very few (four, I believe) arrests for looting anywhere along the Coast. Of course, our main saving grace was that we didn't have to deal with flood waters after the first few hours after the storm passed... I had salt water in my living room for four hours... tops. People in the Ninth Ward had water in their homes for nearly a month.
More than even that, though, was the local response to the disaster, and how different that was handled in MS compared to LA. Turning on your local radio station tuned you in to regular, scheduled broadcast information from the local authorities (such as they were). We heard, routinely, the mayors of Biloxi and Gulfport and their designated officials giving vital, timely and very organized information about where, when and how assistance was being distributed at a local level. Whenever we heard Mayor Nagin speak, he spent nearly the whole time blaming someone else for what wasn't being done... or what was being done, even. He blamed Bush, FEMA, Governor Blancho, the police chief of New Orleans (I recall they very nearly came to blows on television once, even though I was listening to it on radio simulcast), the National Guard... anyone but himself or his own office. Blancho, Nagin and the rest seemed to learn as much about what was working and not working at these "press conferences" as the listeners... which is NOT a good way to instill confidence in the listening audience, let me tell you.
To this day, I still take time to thank each and every Pennsylvania State Police trooper I see for the help and assistance that I received from four troopers who drove to MS in two cruisers and camped out at the entrance to our subdivision and provided the ONLY security service we had for the next 60 days, living off their accumulated vacation time while doing it. They drove around the neighborhoods in their cruisers, offering help, assistance, comfort and advice whenever and where ever they could (often giving me a lift from the POD near my home so I wouldn't have to walk the nearly two miles back to the house carrying four gallons of water in record-breaking heat). That is the kind of assistance that the local government organized... volunteers where assigned areas to assist by the city authorities, so that no area was without while others had multiple coverage. That is also the kind of assistance that seemed to be totally lacking in New Orleans and its suburbs for the first month after the storm.
Ryan's family is a good example of the preparations that can be made by ANYONE to provide a small level of security and comfort in times of crisis or emergency, at very small cost, that simply cannot be provided by any other means... whether it is expected from the Feds, the State or the local authorities. In the example offered by Katrina, the local and state authorities and emergency services were just as helpless as we were (civilians, I mean), because all of their vehicles, supplies and facilities were as flooded and useless as my home was (obviously).
I have learned some valuable lessons from Katrina... not the least of which is that fresh water kept in five-gallon food-grade buckets float very nicely, and in a flood environment, that is a bad thing. Our water is now stored INSIDE the house, in five-gallon bottles, behind closed doors. Our food is stored in water-proof bins kept high up off the floor, and my propane tanks are secured to the deck so that they won't "go missing" in the event of a disaster (even though my current home isn't somewhere where I would ever expect a Katrina-style flood). My freezer is blocked up off the floor, and will be weighted down in the event of a flood (these appliances also float). The freezer contains large blocks of ice, which will be used to fill coolers if the power ever goes out for an extended period of time, because keeping ANYTHING in a fridge when the power is out for more than 12 hours is a recipe for disaster. Say what you will, nothing gets that smell out of a fridge... nothing.
Our plans for improvements to our home include a hand-pump for our well (cost: $389 at the local farm supply house), which fits over the existing well head and doesn't effect the submerged pump at all, but will allow us to draw water up from the well even with no electricity. We also plan on an improved brick cooking area for the yard, which will allow a greater level of comfort, ease and functionality in the event that we are forced to work outside to prepare, cook and clean up after eating. We already have plans for temporary outdoor privy, but I haven't convinced the wife that an actual "outhouse" is an acceptable feature for our property. Still, knowing what I know about using a bag-lined 5-gallon bucket as a toilet, anything is an improvement over what I had during Katrina. We can heat 4 gallons of water to boiling in less than 9 minutes with my propane burner, so hot, clean water isn't an issue here (as long as my five 20 lb cylinders last).
My point is mainly that, given what I feel is the "average" in any American home, anyone can make it the 3 days that the Feds ask us to prepare for... the danger lies in an event or crisis that lasts longer than 3 days. We feel two weeks is our minimum, and try our best to prepare accordingly. That way, if we live through another "3-day event", it will seem like easy street... and we can afford to assist family or friends that might not be as prepared as we are with the balance of our supplies. If the event is larger or longer, we know we can make it. What we are NOT going to do is look for any substantial help or assistance from the GOVERNMENT. Down that path, madness lies...
A family must be able to provide for itself, at least in the short term... period. That is the lesson of Katrina that everyone should have learned by now, even those that weren't there in the thick of it five years ago tomorrow.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The end of August ...
One day, years from now, I'll be gathered around a grand fire, with my many grandchildren, and their brows will furrow in disbelief as I explain that post storm we were able to visually survey the Gulf Coast on ABC via a small portable TV equipped with nothing more than rabbit ears.
As I read your posts I tried to decide what Katrina means to "me." See, I had a physically much less painful experience then that my Bund brethren. The preparedness Titus explains he is now enveloped in was (and is) the state of affairs for my mother's household. Just about 2 hours north of Biloxi white sand sits her farm. Now while farms typically enjoy some level of self sufficiency, emergency or no, this one is owned/ran by Mormons. And for those of you whom aren't familiar, such is a religion that regularly encourages food storage, and practices such preparedness as if it were a stated tenant of faith (a characteristic undoubtedly forged in the fire of the early Latter Day Saint experience). So, while trees were uprooted, power out for weeks, and a general state of chaos reigned (even that far North), we were at least safe in the knowledge that between available food and the kinship of 40+ family members whom retreated to the clan's make shift compound, there was no immediate threat.
The entire affair though, as I think back on it, is an emotional blur. Ironically, because my diaspora was to a desert, I now miss the rain. Wind ... now that's a different story. In that neck of the woods (literally) tornadoes were a real concern during Katrina's passing. The night she made landfall the wind was so fierce that I physically sat near my sleeping children in the idea that if a wall or roof suddenly ripped away and disappeared into the blinding darkness, that I could some how gather them in my arms and run. And although it doesn't rain here in the Valley, it blows something fierce during winter. And that howling, whipping sound can cause me to lose my place on the page in any book I'm reading, I assure you. Finishing as a close 2nd is the emergency broadcast message on radio. I listen to a lot of talk AM (versus the satellite choice of Titus). And I'll tell you what, that interrupting blaring beep followed by that automated voice - which I heard countless times just before the storm - can freeze me in my tracks as I glare at the radio, waiting for the impending instructions. And this happens regularly out here, it seems South Eastern California (35 miles South of Vegas) is under a biweekly threat of flash floods. At the conclusion of the "emergency" broadcast I mutter to myslef the same words every time: "Get back to me when there's a real emergency" (although I'd probably feel different were I living in SE CA).
I remember getting ahold of Jambo about 10 days out, and his adamant warning for me to stay put, and not attempt to reenter the Coast. An ominous enough phone call, given I had that conversation on Hwy 49, headed South. The hot garbage smell hit well before Gulfport. See, my wife and I were on our way down, to check on our houses ... plural. At the time, although still legally man and wife, we were on the back 9 of our marriage, and she had moved out only a few weeks prior. She was residing in a beach house 2 blocks from the water, and was demanding that we see what she could salvage. Leaving the relative comfort (and at the very least, sustainability) of my mother's farm was not my idea, but I yielded. We arrived ...
Her place was gone, Old Testament style. The foundation remained, as junk, homes, and everything imaginable within a household was shoveled like so much snow, piled 6, 7 feet high on either side of the roads in order to clear a path. National guardsmen patrolled, with holsters unbuckled (this was the post storm fears of crowds looting that never really materialized in MS, unlike LA). We recovered a laundry basket worth of her belongings, and headed back. I remember the trees seemed like something from the imagination of M. Night Shymilan. It was as if they were sprouting Levis and tangled tees. As the water retreated with our collective belongings, cloth and every soft material imaginable clung to the the trees, acting as some great sift.
Now I mentioned it was an emotional blur. Well, providing yet more evidence that God has a sense of humor, my wedding anniversary is August 30th. And as a result of Katrina I have never, not once, spent a night along the Coast I grew up on - I was swiping in at Treasure Island within 60 days of the storm. My wife and I officially split 43 days after arriving in Las Vegas, a number I remember because Nevada state law requires a minimum 6 weeks residency to file for divorce. And because the stars just seemed to align that way, our brief 24 month reconciliation ended last year on August 29th, the exact day I moved out and signed my apartment lease papers. So at the end of August, when that emergency broadcast goes off (as it did today), I pause just a second or two longer.
It's ironic really. I rode out the storm in relative safety compared to most - food, water, shelter, multiple family members around, and most of my belongings even survived in our Long Beach, MS home. Yet when I think about it, it is that anniversary, that date which serves as the demarcation line in my life - when I knew I had lost my marriage; the last time I would spend a night (to date) in the region I grew up in; and when I lost the seemingly simple ability to drive to my mother's for Sunday dinner. And funny enough, at the time, I took it as a nominal evacuation for yet one more storm - I had no idea it would be the last time I slept in my home. I had no idea that my life was about to so radically change. And believe me, this is not say "woest me." I have 2 beautiful boys, of which I have custody. And Vegas has provided me the time and solitude (from adult company) to, as corny as it sounds, "find myself." As I said, I was simply thinking about what Katrina means to me.
Funny ... when I think about it I shake my head and bare a half smile - as a kid growing up in Mississippi I always assumed that to be "really successful" I would one day have to leave my little town. Now all I want is to become successful enough to move back.
As I read your posts I tried to decide what Katrina means to "me." See, I had a physically much less painful experience then that my Bund brethren. The preparedness Titus explains he is now enveloped in was (and is) the state of affairs for my mother's household. Just about 2 hours north of Biloxi white sand sits her farm. Now while farms typically enjoy some level of self sufficiency, emergency or no, this one is owned/ran by Mormons. And for those of you whom aren't familiar, such is a religion that regularly encourages food storage, and practices such preparedness as if it were a stated tenant of faith (a characteristic undoubtedly forged in the fire of the early Latter Day Saint experience). So, while trees were uprooted, power out for weeks, and a general state of chaos reigned (even that far North), we were at least safe in the knowledge that between available food and the kinship of 40+ family members whom retreated to the clan's make shift compound, there was no immediate threat.
The entire affair though, as I think back on it, is an emotional blur. Ironically, because my diaspora was to a desert, I now miss the rain. Wind ... now that's a different story. In that neck of the woods (literally) tornadoes were a real concern during Katrina's passing. The night she made landfall the wind was so fierce that I physically sat near my sleeping children in the idea that if a wall or roof suddenly ripped away and disappeared into the blinding darkness, that I could some how gather them in my arms and run. And although it doesn't rain here in the Valley, it blows something fierce during winter. And that howling, whipping sound can cause me to lose my place on the page in any book I'm reading, I assure you. Finishing as a close 2nd is the emergency broadcast message on radio. I listen to a lot of talk AM (versus the satellite choice of Titus). And I'll tell you what, that interrupting blaring beep followed by that automated voice - which I heard countless times just before the storm - can freeze me in my tracks as I glare at the radio, waiting for the impending instructions. And this happens regularly out here, it seems South Eastern California (35 miles South of Vegas) is under a biweekly threat of flash floods. At the conclusion of the "emergency" broadcast I mutter to myslef the same words every time: "Get back to me when there's a real emergency" (although I'd probably feel different were I living in SE CA).
I remember getting ahold of Jambo about 10 days out, and his adamant warning for me to stay put, and not attempt to reenter the Coast. An ominous enough phone call, given I had that conversation on Hwy 49, headed South. The hot garbage smell hit well before Gulfport. See, my wife and I were on our way down, to check on our houses ... plural. At the time, although still legally man and wife, we were on the back 9 of our marriage, and she had moved out only a few weeks prior. She was residing in a beach house 2 blocks from the water, and was demanding that we see what she could salvage. Leaving the relative comfort (and at the very least, sustainability) of my mother's farm was not my idea, but I yielded. We arrived ...
Her place was gone, Old Testament style. The foundation remained, as junk, homes, and everything imaginable within a household was shoveled like so much snow, piled 6, 7 feet high on either side of the roads in order to clear a path. National guardsmen patrolled, with holsters unbuckled (this was the post storm fears of crowds looting that never really materialized in MS, unlike LA). We recovered a laundry basket worth of her belongings, and headed back. I remember the trees seemed like something from the imagination of M. Night Shymilan. It was as if they were sprouting Levis and tangled tees. As the water retreated with our collective belongings, cloth and every soft material imaginable clung to the the trees, acting as some great sift.
Now I mentioned it was an emotional blur. Well, providing yet more evidence that God has a sense of humor, my wedding anniversary is August 30th. And as a result of Katrina I have never, not once, spent a night along the Coast I grew up on - I was swiping in at Treasure Island within 60 days of the storm. My wife and I officially split 43 days after arriving in Las Vegas, a number I remember because Nevada state law requires a minimum 6 weeks residency to file for divorce. And because the stars just seemed to align that way, our brief 24 month reconciliation ended last year on August 29th, the exact day I moved out and signed my apartment lease papers. So at the end of August, when that emergency broadcast goes off (as it did today), I pause just a second or two longer.
It's ironic really. I rode out the storm in relative safety compared to most - food, water, shelter, multiple family members around, and most of my belongings even survived in our Long Beach, MS home. Yet when I think about it, it is that anniversary, that date which serves as the demarcation line in my life - when I knew I had lost my marriage; the last time I would spend a night (to date) in the region I grew up in; and when I lost the seemingly simple ability to drive to my mother's for Sunday dinner. And funny enough, at the time, I took it as a nominal evacuation for yet one more storm - I had no idea it would be the last time I slept in my home. I had no idea that my life was about to so radically change. And believe me, this is not say "woest me." I have 2 beautiful boys, of which I have custody. And Vegas has provided me the time and solitude (from adult company) to, as corny as it sounds, "find myself." As I said, I was simply thinking about what Katrina means to me.
Funny ... when I think about it I shake my head and bare a half smile - as a kid growing up in Mississippi I always assumed that to be "really successful" I would one day have to leave my little town. Now all I want is to become successful enough to move back.
This got me thinking...
I'm a bit pressed right now... we have an appointment with Jake's doctor this morning, and I'm rushing this while Lizardo is in the shower, so forgive me if it is confused.
Looking at the existing stats for all the conflicts and casualty reports of all the wars we've fought since 1789, the ability of this nation's military to keep soldiers alive after a wound is staggering. By 1865, the number of dead versus the number of wounded was (on the Union side... no Confederate numbers are available) 140,000 dead to 281,000 wounded, or roughly 26% of every man that enlisted or was drafted into the Army or Navy. That's a one in four chance of coming out of the conflict without a combat injury... not good.
World War One saw the number of combat deaths at 53,400 and wounded at 204,000, with a total casualty rate of roughly 19%... still very high, but the dead to wounded ratio is much, much better, right?
World War Two saw the numbers of combat deaths at 292,000 and wounded at 671,000, but that total number of casualties accounted for only 4.1% of serving personnel, one of the lowest casualty rates of all combatant countries in the entire war. The USSR saw a rate of military casualties topping 38%... greater than the Union had in the Civil War, with an estimated Red Army death toll of between 8 and 10 MILLION men... and these are listed as "combat deaths", not disease, desertion or MIA.
Since 2002, we have had more than 2.7 million men and women cycle through the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, with combat operations continuing for very nearly that entire span of time, and have only seen 4,300 deaths and 38,000 wounded (don't mistake my meaning... that's a LOT of death and destruction... and I take nothing away from those that have given everything to accomplish our goals overseas). Unless my math is WAY off, that is a 1.6% casualty rate... only half a percent above the rate at which a peacetime Army in the US estimates its training and operational casualties at (training accidents and injuries, occupational hazards, etc).
In less than 100 years, we have gone from a rate of casualty (not rate of mortality, mind you) measured at one in five to less than one in fifty... that's damn impressive, isn't it?
Looking at the existing stats for all the conflicts and casualty reports of all the wars we've fought since 1789, the ability of this nation's military to keep soldiers alive after a wound is staggering. By 1865, the number of dead versus the number of wounded was (on the Union side... no Confederate numbers are available) 140,000 dead to 281,000 wounded, or roughly 26% of every man that enlisted or was drafted into the Army or Navy. That's a one in four chance of coming out of the conflict without a combat injury... not good.
World War One saw the number of combat deaths at 53,400 and wounded at 204,000, with a total casualty rate of roughly 19%... still very high, but the dead to wounded ratio is much, much better, right?
World War Two saw the numbers of combat deaths at 292,000 and wounded at 671,000, but that total number of casualties accounted for only 4.1% of serving personnel, one of the lowest casualty rates of all combatant countries in the entire war. The USSR saw a rate of military casualties topping 38%... greater than the Union had in the Civil War, with an estimated Red Army death toll of between 8 and 10 MILLION men... and these are listed as "combat deaths", not disease, desertion or MIA.
Since 2002, we have had more than 2.7 million men and women cycle through the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, with combat operations continuing for very nearly that entire span of time, and have only seen 4,300 deaths and 38,000 wounded (don't mistake my meaning... that's a LOT of death and destruction... and I take nothing away from those that have given everything to accomplish our goals overseas). Unless my math is WAY off, that is a 1.6% casualty rate... only half a percent above the rate at which a peacetime Army in the US estimates its training and operational casualties at (training accidents and injuries, occupational hazards, etc).
In less than 100 years, we have gone from a rate of casualty (not rate of mortality, mind you) measured at one in five to less than one in fifty... that's damn impressive, isn't it?
On the Medal of Honor...
Shelby Foote had something to say on this point...
Originally, 864 Medals of Honor were awarded to the 27th Maine Infantry Regiment for re-enlisting prior to the Battle at Gettysburg, when only 311 men actually remained to fight in the battle. These Medals were all rescinded in 1911, but no effort was made to enforce the statute that said it was illegal to wear or display the Medal if it wasn't "officially" awarded (a statute that is still in effect). Obviously, this was a gross misappropriation of the Medals, and it was corrected (48 years after the fact...).
The Civil War saw more than 1,500 Medals of Honor awarded, while WWII saw just under 500... quite a disparity, I think... but Foote feels otherwise. The manner in which we fought in the 1860s was so radically different from how we fought in the 1940s (and today) that we sometimes forget just how hard it was to survive combat in the Civil War. I think our "Bund" trip to Gettysburg really brought that home to all of us. When you can stand on the edge of the Wheat Field, and look across that one mile of slope to the crest of Cemetery Ridge behind the Emmitsburg Road, and know that the men who stood there on July 3, 1863 knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were going to die before they reached the far side yet still made the march across, you begin to see just how different a time it was. You walked into that rain of 1 oz lead balls that would take off an arm or shatter a leg bone, while 9 lb explosive shells dug one foot craters into the dirt all around you and spread shard-sized bits of wrought iron 30 feet in every direction... but you kept walking. Each and every man.
I'm not sure that the real travesty lays not with the number of Medals awarded at Gettysburg or throughout the Civil War, but instead in the lack of Medals awarded in World War I... the last, great "war of attrition" to be fought by America. The means to fight a war hadn't changed radically since the Civil War... but the weaponry had improved by orders of magnitude, meaning the courage and dedication that was required to cross into the fields of Flanders and Central France is not reflected in the 124 Medals awarded for American service in France in 1918.
Originally, 864 Medals of Honor were awarded to the 27th Maine Infantry Regiment for re-enlisting prior to the Battle at Gettysburg, when only 311 men actually remained to fight in the battle. These Medals were all rescinded in 1911, but no effort was made to enforce the statute that said it was illegal to wear or display the Medal if it wasn't "officially" awarded (a statute that is still in effect). Obviously, this was a gross misappropriation of the Medals, and it was corrected (48 years after the fact...).
The Civil War saw more than 1,500 Medals of Honor awarded, while WWII saw just under 500... quite a disparity, I think... but Foote feels otherwise. The manner in which we fought in the 1860s was so radically different from how we fought in the 1940s (and today) that we sometimes forget just how hard it was to survive combat in the Civil War. I think our "Bund" trip to Gettysburg really brought that home to all of us. When you can stand on the edge of the Wheat Field, and look across that one mile of slope to the crest of Cemetery Ridge behind the Emmitsburg Road, and know that the men who stood there on July 3, 1863 knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were going to die before they reached the far side yet still made the march across, you begin to see just how different a time it was. You walked into that rain of 1 oz lead balls that would take off an arm or shatter a leg bone, while 9 lb explosive shells dug one foot craters into the dirt all around you and spread shard-sized bits of wrought iron 30 feet in every direction... but you kept walking. Each and every man.
I'm not sure that the real travesty lays not with the number of Medals awarded at Gettysburg or throughout the Civil War, but instead in the lack of Medals awarded in World War I... the last, great "war of attrition" to be fought by America. The means to fight a war hadn't changed radically since the Civil War... but the weaponry had improved by orders of magnitude, meaning the courage and dedication that was required to cross into the fields of Flanders and Central France is not reflected in the 124 Medals awarded for American service in France in 1918.
On PTSD...
I don't wake up anymore (but I certainly remember doing it)... but the smells are what triggers me. For example, right here at the house last week, we forgot to take the garbage to the street. No trouble, just a hassle, really... until I got a whiff of one of those cans this week as we were walking them to the street. One nose full of that smell, and I could see (not literally...) the driveway at Beachview, with the pile of all my belongings heaped in the ditch, the drowned trucks, and the "kitchen" set up at the end of the porch. The flashback was almost staggering in its effect, and it (more than anything else) reminded me that we were fast approaching the anniversary of that damned storm.
I'm probably never going to be entirely comfortable in hot, humid weather again, either. Sitting on my back deck this summer, or any summer, I can enjoy myself with friends and family... but I'm going to think back and recall the same feeling of heat and humidity that I couldn't run away from in 2005... at least not for 39 days. I remember at one point after the storm, Jambo called on his cell saying he had hot water (natural gas and water pressure), and did I want to come over and shower? Back then, to get from my place to his before the storm was a 20 minute drive... after the storm (weeks after, if I recall correctly) it was over an hour because of failed bridges. I made the drive... only to find that the water had been shut off between the time that I left and when I arrived at his door. Oh well... I rinsed off in his tub with bottled water and spent the afternoon with his kids. Jambo cooked something to eat on a small pile of loose bricks made into a mini-barbecue in his driveway, and we all ate MRE desserts while the kids watched DVDs in the minivan (I think Jambo's entire gas ration was spent on giving the kids DVD and A/C during the hottest part of the day).
I'll tell you this, though... we will NEVER suffer like that again. Not here in NEPA, anyway. We are loaded and ready to go upwards of 10 days without power, and the only real concern that we haven't been able to completely address yet is how to heat the house comfortably if that outage were to occur in winter. Currently, my primary source of heat is a fuel oil furnace, but it requires electricity to operate... no power, no heat. Otherwise, we have water and food ready-to-go for all of us for ten days, with the means to cook, clean (ourselves and our belongings) and maintain our dignity for much more than a week.
I'm probably never going to be entirely comfortable in hot, humid weather again, either. Sitting on my back deck this summer, or any summer, I can enjoy myself with friends and family... but I'm going to think back and recall the same feeling of heat and humidity that I couldn't run away from in 2005... at least not for 39 days. I remember at one point after the storm, Jambo called on his cell saying he had hot water (natural gas and water pressure), and did I want to come over and shower? Back then, to get from my place to his before the storm was a 20 minute drive... after the storm (weeks after, if I recall correctly) it was over an hour because of failed bridges. I made the drive... only to find that the water had been shut off between the time that I left and when I arrived at his door. Oh well... I rinsed off in his tub with bottled water and spent the afternoon with his kids. Jambo cooked something to eat on a small pile of loose bricks made into a mini-barbecue in his driveway, and we all ate MRE desserts while the kids watched DVDs in the minivan (I think Jambo's entire gas ration was spent on giving the kids DVD and A/C during the hottest part of the day).
I'll tell you this, though... we will NEVER suffer like that again. Not here in NEPA, anyway. We are loaded and ready to go upwards of 10 days without power, and the only real concern that we haven't been able to completely address yet is how to heat the house comfortably if that outage were to occur in winter. Currently, my primary source of heat is a fuel oil furnace, but it requires electricity to operate... no power, no heat. Otherwise, we have water and food ready-to-go for all of us for ten days, with the means to cook, clean (ourselves and our belongings) and maintain our dignity for much more than a week.
Just when the PTSD was easing...
I don't know if you guys can see the photos of the Biloxi Sun Herald online, but plastered on Wednesday's front page was a vintage photograph of the Copa Casino's barge resting across two parking lots on the wrong side of Highway 90.
So as the fifth anniversary of The Storm approaches, I have one question.
Do you guys still have the symptoms?
Five years as of Sunday and I still cannot sleep if it's raining out. If the rain is wind driven enough to hit the glass, patio doors or windows, I shake.
I remember Titus in our hotel room while working for Pilot sometime in November after the storm, pacing the room at 3AM looking for water. Did the big move make all that go away? I know there are smells that send me RIGHT BACK, as in do not pass go, do not collect $200.
It's only going to get worse over the next few days as the before and after pictorials flood the local media. Just wondering how the Diaspora respond.
So as the fifth anniversary of The Storm approaches, I have one question.
Do you guys still have the symptoms?
Five years as of Sunday and I still cannot sleep if it's raining out. If the rain is wind driven enough to hit the glass, patio doors or windows, I shake.
I remember Titus in our hotel room while working for Pilot sometime in November after the storm, pacing the room at 3AM looking for water. Did the big move make all that go away? I know there are smells that send me RIGHT BACK, as in do not pass go, do not collect $200.
It's only going to get worse over the next few days as the before and after pictorials flood the local media. Just wondering how the Diaspora respond.
A point of history...
Here's something for you.
Just finished watching "Zulu", it's on Instant View on Netflix, if you haven't seen it shame on you. I've seen it numerous times but you can never see a good movie too many times and "Zulu" is a CLASSIC.
Richard Burton narrates a small blurb at the end, citing that of the 1347 Victoria Crosses awarded since the inception of the award in the British military (all branches) for actions of gallantry under fire above and beyond the call of duty, eleven (11) of those Crosses were awarded to the defenders of the mission at Rourke's Drift, Natal, January 22-23 1879.
I have three different sources that quote three different numbers for the defenders... The highest number is 123, the lowest 114. The sources were in agreement that the attacking Zulus numbered no less than 4000, no more than 5000. Either way, just shy of ten percent of the survivors were awarded the Victoria's Cross. A staggering number.
Which made me think about American actions and the Medal of Honor.
Of the 120,000 + Union troops at Gettysburg, 63 were awarded the Medal of Honor. It remains the highest single number of awards for one event. In terms of the percentage of awards in proportion to the number of combatants, it isn't even close to Rourke's Drift.
(A complete aside... The War on Terror has seen six (6) Medal of Honors awarded, three Army, Two Navy and one Marine. All posthumous.)
Some other comparable numbers... The Normandy Campaign saw twelve (12) Medals of Honor awarded, The Battle of the Bulge seventeen (17), Guadalcanal eleven (11), Iwo Jima twenty-seven (27), (23 to Marines, which represented 30% of the total number of Medals of Honor awarded to Marines during WW2) and Okinawa twenty-four (24).
It's a great movie.
Just finished watching "Zulu", it's on Instant View on Netflix, if you haven't seen it shame on you. I've seen it numerous times but you can never see a good movie too many times and "Zulu" is a CLASSIC.
Richard Burton narrates a small blurb at the end, citing that of the 1347 Victoria Crosses awarded since the inception of the award in the British military (all branches) for actions of gallantry under fire above and beyond the call of duty, eleven (11) of those Crosses were awarded to the defenders of the mission at Rourke's Drift, Natal, January 22-23 1879.
I have three different sources that quote three different numbers for the defenders... The highest number is 123, the lowest 114. The sources were in agreement that the attacking Zulus numbered no less than 4000, no more than 5000. Either way, just shy of ten percent of the survivors were awarded the Victoria's Cross. A staggering number.
Which made me think about American actions and the Medal of Honor.
Of the 120,000 + Union troops at Gettysburg, 63 were awarded the Medal of Honor. It remains the highest single number of awards for one event. In terms of the percentage of awards in proportion to the number of combatants, it isn't even close to Rourke's Drift.
(A complete aside... The War on Terror has seen six (6) Medal of Honors awarded, three Army, Two Navy and one Marine. All posthumous.)
Some other comparable numbers... The Normandy Campaign saw twelve (12) Medals of Honor awarded, The Battle of the Bulge seventeen (17), Guadalcanal eleven (11), Iwo Jima twenty-seven (27), (23 to Marines, which represented 30% of the total number of Medals of Honor awarded to Marines during WW2) and Okinawa twenty-four (24).
It's a great movie.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Alright, I won't ignore Paul Ryan...
Your stats were good... and got me thinking. Perhaps what I should have said was that the Senate produces more Presidential candidates than either the Army or the House... especially in the last 125 years. The list of Senatorial candidates for the White House is long, indeed, and if you can't win a primary race in this country... you can't win the White House.
Since 1980, the last 8 Presidential election cycles have seen five different Senators in the races: Obama, McCain, Kerry, Dole and Dukakis, with another seven sitting in as VP on the tickets... Biden, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, Kemp, Benson and Ferraro. That's just the last 30 years, people... with twelve out of a possible 16 names (I'm not counting incumbents) all holding active Senate seats at the time of the election. THAT is the statistics I was referring to when I said the Senate is the road to the White House, but what I should have said was that the Senate was the road to the road to the White House.
I'm not going to nit-pick words with you in regards to "moderate" or "average" or "independent" voters. Call them what you will, I am convinced that while the majority of Americans do hold traditional conservative values, and base their political views on the same, the vast majority of voters in this nation are not of the same political views as Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck (and I'm only using those names because they are the Big Three). There are issues in today's political arena that people feel close to, and there are others they couldn't care less about... that is simply a reality that never changes in American politics. What is as close to a constant in American politics is always the ECONOMY, though... and if you can't fix that, you're doomed at the polls.
I wouldn't think it would take a genius to show that nothing Obama/Reid/Pelosi has done over the course of the last four years has done ANYTHING to substantially fix the economy... but if someone can't get up and make the case effectively, then the incumbents win again, and we have four more years of progressive/liberal agenda to deal with.
Since 1980, the last 8 Presidential election cycles have seen five different Senators in the races: Obama, McCain, Kerry, Dole and Dukakis, with another seven sitting in as VP on the tickets... Biden, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, Kemp, Benson and Ferraro. That's just the last 30 years, people... with twelve out of a possible 16 names (I'm not counting incumbents) all holding active Senate seats at the time of the election. THAT is the statistics I was referring to when I said the Senate is the road to the White House, but what I should have said was that the Senate was the road to the road to the White House.
I'm not going to nit-pick words with you in regards to "moderate" or "average" or "independent" voters. Call them what you will, I am convinced that while the majority of Americans do hold traditional conservative values, and base their political views on the same, the vast majority of voters in this nation are not of the same political views as Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck (and I'm only using those names because they are the Big Three). There are issues in today's political arena that people feel close to, and there are others they couldn't care less about... that is simply a reality that never changes in American politics. What is as close to a constant in American politics is always the ECONOMY, though... and if you can't fix that, you're doomed at the polls.
I wouldn't think it would take a genius to show that nothing Obama/Reid/Pelosi has done over the course of the last four years has done ANYTHING to substantially fix the economy... but if someone can't get up and make the case effectively, then the incumbents win again, and we have four more years of progressive/liberal agenda to deal with.
And PS>
If we are talking historical odds stacked against Paul Ryan, there have been just as many House members elected president as there have been black men. Im just saying ... as recently as 23 months ago a sitting Representative had more historical precedent going for him then Senator Obama. So I'm with Jambo, lets not count Ryan out so quickly (either one .. hehe).
Yes, still confusion ... however
I think I've identified the problem.
You keep using the word "moderate", but after reading your last few posts I think you mean to write "average" American. You see, by 2010 "moderate" has become a politically loaded phrase. In fact, a political class all unto itself. Someone whom generally likes tax cuts; believes in global warming; soft on gay marriage; doesn't mind quick wars; believes teachers need more pay no matter the state's economic situation; defends the freedom to become rich but doesn't really trust people who are, etc, etc - you get the picture. The voter I believe you mean to identify is the "average - not particularly politically engaged outside of their vote because they're too busy raising their kids & going to work - American", whom could cast their ballot either way depending on how effective the messenger (i.e. candidate) is in a given cycle. Is that correct?
If so, and what you're saying (writing) is that we need a conservative that can effectively, and plainly, communicate how conservative ideals/policy will benefit them and America as a whole, then we are on the same page. Conservatives need to plainly lay out a cohesive alternative so as to engage the average American, not the political moderate, is what I believe you are attempting to get across.
And if what you were trying to say about McCain is he couldn't cohesively lay out a conservative alternative because he is not a "conservative" (at least not on the highest profile issues), then I agree and have been espousing that since shortly after he won the nomination. In fact he is the quintessential political moderate, when he's not in a primary fight that is. Whatever Obama said was the answer to our economic woes (or immigration) he essentially answered, "yes, government or amnesty is the answer, but only a little." Well hell, if both candidates agree on what the solution is, why vote for the guy offering only a "little" of that agreed upon solution? McCain was the quintessential "them light" candidate ... or "political moderate."
On Paul Ryan ...
... just a thought, not picking a fight. Yes, Garfield was the only sitting House member elected (he was simultaneously the Senator-elect via the vote of the Ohio state legislature). However, how many candidates have been elected directly from the Senate? 3? Including Obama I count (top of my head) JFK & Warren G. Harding as the other 2. The vast majority have been elected directly from either governorships (17) or VPs (14). This means that before Obama there was just as many generals as Senators , and only 1 more Senator than House Representative. And if I'm recalling right Obama is the only sitting first term senator to win the presidency. My point in all this is that given the new communication mediums that aided Obama - 24 hour news, countless social networking sites, instant media access via the web and a plethora of mobile devices - perhaps innovations in communication, the raw ability to get your message out in non traditional forms, means the time has come when a modern day House member can make a viable run. But I will plainly admit, it's still "unlikely." As a VP though, he easily makes any short list.
On Jindal ...
I've been texting, posting and otherwise singing his praises for well over a YEAR now, you Bobby-come-lately rascal you! I told you flatly to watch him as the presidential candidate on the make since he won the LA governor's mansion. Solid conservative, bright as all hell, and yes, he marks "present" in the minority check box.
Let me now offer my dark horse candidate ...
Patraeus. General David Patraeus, commander of all US forces in the Near East (and now in direct ground command in Afghanistan after the recent McChrystal dust up). He's a "warrior Ph.D", literally. Word is he's a traditional conservative family man, low taxes, all the normal ducks in a row. And he is the ONE thing no presidential candidate running this cycle can lay claim to (besides being a 4 Star General) - he's NOT an incumbent, of any kind. Countless sound bites of Obama praising him, unquestionable leadership ability (so he must be able to communicate his message), the pros are endless. He would need to retire in the next 12 months to make it viable, which is unlikely. But then again, he is my dark horse candidate.
Cheerio lads ...
You keep using the word "moderate", but after reading your last few posts I think you mean to write "average" American. You see, by 2010 "moderate" has become a politically loaded phrase. In fact, a political class all unto itself. Someone whom generally likes tax cuts; believes in global warming; soft on gay marriage; doesn't mind quick wars; believes teachers need more pay no matter the state's economic situation; defends the freedom to become rich but doesn't really trust people who are, etc, etc - you get the picture. The voter I believe you mean to identify is the "average - not particularly politically engaged outside of their vote because they're too busy raising their kids & going to work - American", whom could cast their ballot either way depending on how effective the messenger (i.e. candidate) is in a given cycle. Is that correct?
If so, and what you're saying (writing) is that we need a conservative that can effectively, and plainly, communicate how conservative ideals/policy will benefit them and America as a whole, then we are on the same page. Conservatives need to plainly lay out a cohesive alternative so as to engage the average American, not the political moderate, is what I believe you are attempting to get across.
And if what you were trying to say about McCain is he couldn't cohesively lay out a conservative alternative because he is not a "conservative" (at least not on the highest profile issues), then I agree and have been espousing that since shortly after he won the nomination. In fact he is the quintessential political moderate, when he's not in a primary fight that is. Whatever Obama said was the answer to our economic woes (or immigration) he essentially answered, "yes, government or amnesty is the answer, but only a little." Well hell, if both candidates agree on what the solution is, why vote for the guy offering only a "little" of that agreed upon solution? McCain was the quintessential "them light" candidate ... or "political moderate."
On Paul Ryan ...
... just a thought, not picking a fight. Yes, Garfield was the only sitting House member elected (he was simultaneously the Senator-elect via the vote of the Ohio state legislature). However, how many candidates have been elected directly from the Senate? 3? Including Obama I count (top of my head) JFK & Warren G. Harding as the other 2. The vast majority have been elected directly from either governorships (17) or VPs (14). This means that before Obama there was just as many generals as Senators , and only 1 more Senator than House Representative. And if I'm recalling right Obama is the only sitting first term senator to win the presidency. My point in all this is that given the new communication mediums that aided Obama - 24 hour news, countless social networking sites, instant media access via the web and a plethora of mobile devices - perhaps innovations in communication, the raw ability to get your message out in non traditional forms, means the time has come when a modern day House member can make a viable run. But I will plainly admit, it's still "unlikely." As a VP though, he easily makes any short list.
On Jindal ...
I've been texting, posting and otherwise singing his praises for well over a YEAR now, you Bobby-come-lately rascal you! I told you flatly to watch him as the presidential candidate on the make since he won the LA governor's mansion. Solid conservative, bright as all hell, and yes, he marks "present" in the minority check box.
Let me now offer my dark horse candidate ...
Patraeus. General David Patraeus, commander of all US forces in the Near East (and now in direct ground command in Afghanistan after the recent McChrystal dust up). He's a "warrior Ph.D", literally. Word is he's a traditional conservative family man, low taxes, all the normal ducks in a row. And he is the ONE thing no presidential candidate running this cycle can lay claim to (besides being a 4 Star General) - he's NOT an incumbent, of any kind. Countless sound bites of Obama praising him, unquestionable leadership ability (so he must be able to communicate his message), the pros are endless. He would need to retire in the next 12 months to make it viable, which is unlikely. But then again, he is my dark horse candidate.
Cheerio lads ...
One more thing...
I know you "read my post twice"... but you missed something in both readings.
McCain failed because he couldn't reconcile himself as a mediocre conservative with his promise to do "something" to fix America's woes... in other words, he failed to appeal to moderates with his conservative promises because he didn't have anything substantially different to say than Obama was saying. Palin presented a more conservative model of a candidate as running-mate than McCain did as the Presidential hopeful... and that is never a good thing. Were this NOT the case, them McCain would have been smeared just as much in the months since the election as Palin was (and is), but instead he is fighting for his very position in the Senate like a rabid Democratic candidate would... lots of money and lots of angry, mud-slinging ads. There are an awful lot of Democrats that were rooting for McCain in this primary cycle in Arizona, I can tell you... the alternative was an even tougher road for the Democrats in the Senate than they already have.
Running a conservative candidate that has a chance to win doesn't mean we have to compromise on principles and ideals... only that we need to find someone that can TALK, and can talk in a manner that will get voters to LISTEN. McCain was NOT that man... more's the pity. Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck won't run... that's a given... but they won't present their cases for who should run without all the hyperbole and invectives that make great and entertaining radio time, but make lousy forensic cases for the average moderate American.
I did think Romney was probably the better man for the job... but he couldn't win, and I'm not sure that isn't what will doom him again this time around. Granted, Reagan did pull off a second-time win (and so did Bush, Sr... in a round-about way)... but Romney is no Reagan, not by a long shot. Too much "flip-flop" baggage with Mitt, I'm afraid... and that kind of news never goes out of style.
I think Barbour is the strongest "conservative" candidate... who else can have the functional understanding of what a "bigger, stronger, slower" Federal government can mean to a State in a crisis? Who else can better make the case that depending on the Fed is the surest way to slow down any assistance or aid that might be needed at a local level? Who else has the success story behind their time in the Governor's Mansion that he has? My question is: can he win? Can a man like Barbour overcome the stereotype of an "Old Guard" Southern Republican with his age and accent as such hallmarks of just that? Can you pit a gray-haired Southern governor against America's first black President and NOT hit the "race" roadblock, even if the Dems don't play it up intentionally? Maybe... but I'm not sure.
There's been talk of Ridge running (yep... Tom Ridge isn't gone yet), but I can't stand the thought of his winning the ticket. He was a do-nothing Governor, and a do-nothing Secretary of the largest Cabinet-level department in American history... how does that make him a good candidate for President?
I think Jindal has all the requirements... and I think he wants to run. Honestly... he's doing great in LA, but I think he knows he can do even more in the White House. I think he is a good candidate (one of many reasons) because the ONLY thing I ever hear Liberals bitch about when it comes to him is his rather lack-luster response to Obama's address to Congress in 2009. Oh, they try and find "ethics" violations in his refusal to take stimulus money from the Fed, but that doesn't stand up very long. All they have to point at is one bad speech... and even Reagan gave a couple of those in his day. Add to this the simple (yet undeniable) fact that he is also a member of an ethnic minority (hell, he's more "black" than Obama is!), he's young, and he gives a damn fine off-the-cuff speech (WAY better than Bush Jr ever could... comparable to Reagan, I think), he's "Southern" (which is great if you want to carry the South, which the GOP needs), he's a practicing Catholic (which has far broader appeal in the Christian world than even I thought, recently... given Beck's propensity to quote the Pope), and he has a happy, healthy family that is every bit as photogenic as Obama's... I think he's the ONLY real choice right now.
Anyone think I'm wrong? Is there still any misunderstanding about what I was trying to say?
McCain failed because he couldn't reconcile himself as a mediocre conservative with his promise to do "something" to fix America's woes... in other words, he failed to appeal to moderates with his conservative promises because he didn't have anything substantially different to say than Obama was saying. Palin presented a more conservative model of a candidate as running-mate than McCain did as the Presidential hopeful... and that is never a good thing. Were this NOT the case, them McCain would have been smeared just as much in the months since the election as Palin was (and is), but instead he is fighting for his very position in the Senate like a rabid Democratic candidate would... lots of money and lots of angry, mud-slinging ads. There are an awful lot of Democrats that were rooting for McCain in this primary cycle in Arizona, I can tell you... the alternative was an even tougher road for the Democrats in the Senate than they already have.
Running a conservative candidate that has a chance to win doesn't mean we have to compromise on principles and ideals... only that we need to find someone that can TALK, and can talk in a manner that will get voters to LISTEN. McCain was NOT that man... more's the pity. Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck won't run... that's a given... but they won't present their cases for who should run without all the hyperbole and invectives that make great and entertaining radio time, but make lousy forensic cases for the average moderate American.
I did think Romney was probably the better man for the job... but he couldn't win, and I'm not sure that isn't what will doom him again this time around. Granted, Reagan did pull off a second-time win (and so did Bush, Sr... in a round-about way)... but Romney is no Reagan, not by a long shot. Too much "flip-flop" baggage with Mitt, I'm afraid... and that kind of news never goes out of style.
I think Barbour is the strongest "conservative" candidate... who else can have the functional understanding of what a "bigger, stronger, slower" Federal government can mean to a State in a crisis? Who else can better make the case that depending on the Fed is the surest way to slow down any assistance or aid that might be needed at a local level? Who else has the success story behind their time in the Governor's Mansion that he has? My question is: can he win? Can a man like Barbour overcome the stereotype of an "Old Guard" Southern Republican with his age and accent as such hallmarks of just that? Can you pit a gray-haired Southern governor against America's first black President and NOT hit the "race" roadblock, even if the Dems don't play it up intentionally? Maybe... but I'm not sure.
There's been talk of Ridge running (yep... Tom Ridge isn't gone yet), but I can't stand the thought of his winning the ticket. He was a do-nothing Governor, and a do-nothing Secretary of the largest Cabinet-level department in American history... how does that make him a good candidate for President?
I think Jindal has all the requirements... and I think he wants to run. Honestly... he's doing great in LA, but I think he knows he can do even more in the White House. I think he is a good candidate (one of many reasons) because the ONLY thing I ever hear Liberals bitch about when it comes to him is his rather lack-luster response to Obama's address to Congress in 2009. Oh, they try and find "ethics" violations in his refusal to take stimulus money from the Fed, but that doesn't stand up very long. All they have to point at is one bad speech... and even Reagan gave a couple of those in his day. Add to this the simple (yet undeniable) fact that he is also a member of an ethnic minority (hell, he's more "black" than Obama is!), he's young, and he gives a damn fine off-the-cuff speech (WAY better than Bush Jr ever could... comparable to Reagan, I think), he's "Southern" (which is great if you want to carry the South, which the GOP needs), he's a practicing Catholic (which has far broader appeal in the Christian world than even I thought, recently... given Beck's propensity to quote the Pope), and he has a happy, healthy family that is every bit as photogenic as Obama's... I think he's the ONLY real choice right now.
Anyone think I'm wrong? Is there still any misunderstanding about what I was trying to say?
On Paul Ryan...
I'd vote for Paul Ryan... in a heartbeat... but can we deny that Representatives do not win the White House? Who was the last Congressman elected President? Wasn't it Garfield? And wasn't he a Senator-elect when he was sworn in, anyway? I'm splitting hairs, I know... but this is a LOT of history to buck when it comes to Presidential candidates, isn't it?
Successful candidates for the White House come from the Senate or from State governorships... not from the House. Exceptions are only the very rare and exceptionally popular ex-military leaders like Grant and Ike, and the 200-day Presidency of someone like Garfield... who was pretty controversial even if he wasn't the victim of an assassination. Even the most influential Speakers have failed to move into the Executive Branch... probably because they are so often seen as "opposition" to sitting CICs by the public, based on their prominent legislative roles.
I think Ryan is a clear GOP voice in a jungle of liberal babble, and his strength is that his position is clear and well-presented, while his opponents offer nothing in rational rebuttal... only slander and rhetoric. I still haven't decided if his new "Road Map" is the clear answer he presents... but it is a DAMN sight better than what we have now, no question about it.
Successful candidates for the White House come from the Senate or from State governorships... not from the House. Exceptions are only the very rare and exceptionally popular ex-military leaders like Grant and Ike, and the 200-day Presidency of someone like Garfield... who was pretty controversial even if he wasn't the victim of an assassination. Even the most influential Speakers have failed to move into the Executive Branch... probably because they are so often seen as "opposition" to sitting CICs by the public, based on their prominent legislative roles.
I think Ryan is a clear GOP voice in a jungle of liberal babble, and his strength is that his position is clear and well-presented, while his opponents offer nothing in rational rebuttal... only slander and rhetoric. I still haven't decided if his new "Road Map" is the clear answer he presents... but it is a DAMN sight better than what we have now, no question about it.
Again, I wasn't being clear...
I'm not calling for a moderate to run, or for a candidate to promise watered-down conservative values as his or her platform... instead, I was saying we need a conservative candidate with solid, measurable values that will appeal to the moderate voter, as Reagan did in 1980, and as Newt and Co. did in 1994.
Yes, I think Reagan could have defeated Obama were he to come back and run in 2012 (forgetting that his two-term limit is up, of course)... but my point is more along the lines of "Could Dole have beaten Obama?" or "Could Perot have beaten Obama?"
In those two examples, we see extremes of exactly what I was talking about... one was almost without personal appeal and the other was so far out of touch with the moderate voter that he seemed almost comical to the average American. Both were solid, dedicated conservatives of very similar molds as Reagan... but neither had the capacity to reach out to moderate, independent voters the way Reagan did.
I do not argue that the failing may have been in "how" they were selling, rather than what... as I think Ryan detailed... but the result was the same, either way... they lost. I simply do not know if we can afford another term of Obama the way we could with Clinton.
Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity...
Most of America may hold traditional, Judeo-Christian values and ideals that are best encapsulated in the GOP platform right now... I agree with that 100%. I was saying that the views of Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh (and the plethora of other pundits) are not equal to nor completely follow the views of the majority of voting Americans. Were that the case, then Obama would never have won in the first place, right?
Where Obama has "failed" utterly was in his plans and policies that so plainly and measurably showed that the "hope and change" Obama was supposed to bring is tantamount to socialism, and that he really DID have every intention of "fundamentally reshaping America", and that this quote wasn't simply election-cycle hyperbole. The scope of what he has tried to do (and what he has accomplished to date) has staggered even the most liberal-leaning moderate... while at the same time, he has failed to deliver on so many of his other promises (Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc). He has allied himself with the most controversial and questionable people he could find, and has never said WHY. He has thrown in his hat with people like Pelosi and Reid, and their policies... only to watch their "voter support" evaporate into the most unpopular Congress in the last 98 years.
Even the "30-second sound byte" American doesn't WANT someone to tell them whom they should or shouldn't vote for... they want to make the decision themselves (even if they don't vote come November, which most don't). Reagan's victory stemmed from his ability to APPEAL to people that normally wouldn't have given him a second thought... and THAT is what the GOP (and America as a whole) needs today.
Yes, I think Reagan could have defeated Obama were he to come back and run in 2012 (forgetting that his two-term limit is up, of course)... but my point is more along the lines of "Could Dole have beaten Obama?" or "Could Perot have beaten Obama?"
In those two examples, we see extremes of exactly what I was talking about... one was almost without personal appeal and the other was so far out of touch with the moderate voter that he seemed almost comical to the average American. Both were solid, dedicated conservatives of very similar molds as Reagan... but neither had the capacity to reach out to moderate, independent voters the way Reagan did.
I do not argue that the failing may have been in "how" they were selling, rather than what... as I think Ryan detailed... but the result was the same, either way... they lost. I simply do not know if we can afford another term of Obama the way we could with Clinton.
Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity...
Most of America may hold traditional, Judeo-Christian values and ideals that are best encapsulated in the GOP platform right now... I agree with that 100%. I was saying that the views of Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh (and the plethora of other pundits) are not equal to nor completely follow the views of the majority of voting Americans. Were that the case, then Obama would never have won in the first place, right?
Where Obama has "failed" utterly was in his plans and policies that so plainly and measurably showed that the "hope and change" Obama was supposed to bring is tantamount to socialism, and that he really DID have every intention of "fundamentally reshaping America", and that this quote wasn't simply election-cycle hyperbole. The scope of what he has tried to do (and what he has accomplished to date) has staggered even the most liberal-leaning moderate... while at the same time, he has failed to deliver on so many of his other promises (Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc). He has allied himself with the most controversial and questionable people he could find, and has never said WHY. He has thrown in his hat with people like Pelosi and Reid, and their policies... only to watch their "voter support" evaporate into the most unpopular Congress in the last 98 years.
Even the "30-second sound byte" American doesn't WANT someone to tell them whom they should or shouldn't vote for... they want to make the decision themselves (even if they don't vote come November, which most don't). Reagan's victory stemmed from his ability to APPEAL to people that normally wouldn't have given him a second thought... and THAT is what the GOP (and America as a whole) needs today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
