Great to hear that your brother is safe... that kind of anxiety can make minutes seem like years, as we all know.
Your point is a solid one, and as unfortunate as it is to think that this kind of "p.c." activity is at the root of such a tragedy, I don't see how it can be ignored. While I probably haven't been following the news from Hood the way you have, what I have heard is commentary on how "disturbing" it is for Muslim Americans serving in the armed forces to know they may have to work towards the killing of fellow Muslims... something forbidden by the Koran and by the hadith.
Now, having never served myself, I won't pretend to understand what goes through a man or woman's mind when contemplating what might happen during a deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq, but the possibility that one might have to defend one's self or one's comrades with deadly forces must be prominent, to say the least. I wonder why it is easier to reconcile the murder (there is no other word for it) of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq by the Taliban or al Qaeda than it is the murder of innocent Americans who are trying to stop the Taliban or al Qaeda? Obviously, someone capable of turning his weapon against his fellow soldiers because he doesn't want to be deployed is one unbalanced soldier himself (to say the least)... but many people commenting on this tragedy do feel that the greater crime is that perpetrated by the US Government than the one perpetrated by the soldier that killed those people and caused Ryan so much worry at Fort Hood.
How sad is that? Honestly... how sad is that?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Positing the absurd ...
In the days and weeks to come many a commentator, politician and average citizen will posit their own interpretation as to what happened at Fort Hood.
Yesterday afternoon as I said a few prayers I became very cognizant that my little brother was stationed at Fort Hood, as a proud member of the US Army. And as the flurry of text messages poured in from my other siblings, asking if anyone had gotten ahold of him, the obvious phone call to the folks was one none of us wanted to make. We simply kept trying to find out if anyone of us, the kids, had gotten ahold of him. Thankfully one of my brothers called to say that his wife had spoken to the family and she confirmed he was fine, and was simply still on lock down, on base.
Now once that subsided I started to notice a disturbing pattern, which I discovered only increased overnight into this morning's news coverage. A quick surf around the Internet or your television dial (although we scarcely have dials anymore do we) and you'll see a cohesive message emerging. "A military stretched to the brink"; "the stress of combat"; "fear of deployment", etc, etc. Now while I'm certainly ready to accept via a thorough investigation that Hasan had no official affiliation with a terrorist organization, I think it is ridiculous for the media to claim to have found the FIRST identifiable case of PRE-post traumatic stress syndrome. Let me posit another, more plausible theory ...
... not even the military is immune to political correctness. After decades of such an onslaught, what Western organization could be? From what I gather Hasan made Major in 6 years, a rank typically earned in today's military in 9 to 10. Also, an officer (let alone a Major) must go out of his way to get a poor performance review, as was the case with Hasan's last CO's official assessment. Yet he was afforded a prestigious posting at Fort Hood, and it is exactly that - the larger, nice bases are considered desirable by physicians within the military (he is a psychiatrist). He had been handing out Korans the morning of the shooting. Months back he expressed pleasure in the Little Rock, Arkansas assassination (two soldiers were gunned down outside of a recruitment center) to fellow soldiers to the point of his comments becoming a matter of record; and during the slaughter of our brave men & women he was screaming, "Allah Ak-bar", God is great. So my question is was this man promoted, unsettling behavior ignored, and perhaps transferred around in order to not seem "racist" given the chief enemy of America and her armed forces in 2009? Were kid gloves employed in order to dress up politically sensitive appearances? Was his ever growing dedication to radicalism, combined with poor, disturbing behavior not properly addressed due to his race? I can not assert this as fact, but it is at least AS (in my mind more) plausible then the stress of an impending deployment causing one to "snap." Especially when he had never faced combat before, there was no "post" stress about it, and because as a psychiatrist the likely hood of his going on combat missions would be near zero.
In addition the media seems bent on divorcing his religion from his behavior. A perversion of his religion to be sure, but clearly a plausible (if not OBVIOUS) influence nonetheless.
I just think these are questions that we owe the fallen to ask, and have answered. In terms of an investigation once the bodies of US Soldiers hit the ground, political correctness be damned, real questions must be asked because real people are dead.
Yesterday afternoon as I said a few prayers I became very cognizant that my little brother was stationed at Fort Hood, as a proud member of the US Army. And as the flurry of text messages poured in from my other siblings, asking if anyone had gotten ahold of him, the obvious phone call to the folks was one none of us wanted to make. We simply kept trying to find out if anyone of us, the kids, had gotten ahold of him. Thankfully one of my brothers called to say that his wife had spoken to the family and she confirmed he was fine, and was simply still on lock down, on base.
Now once that subsided I started to notice a disturbing pattern, which I discovered only increased overnight into this morning's news coverage. A quick surf around the Internet or your television dial (although we scarcely have dials anymore do we) and you'll see a cohesive message emerging. "A military stretched to the brink"; "the stress of combat"; "fear of deployment", etc, etc. Now while I'm certainly ready to accept via a thorough investigation that Hasan had no official affiliation with a terrorist organization, I think it is ridiculous for the media to claim to have found the FIRST identifiable case of PRE-post traumatic stress syndrome. Let me posit another, more plausible theory ...
... not even the military is immune to political correctness. After decades of such an onslaught, what Western organization could be? From what I gather Hasan made Major in 6 years, a rank typically earned in today's military in 9 to 10. Also, an officer (let alone a Major) must go out of his way to get a poor performance review, as was the case with Hasan's last CO's official assessment. Yet he was afforded a prestigious posting at Fort Hood, and it is exactly that - the larger, nice bases are considered desirable by physicians within the military (he is a psychiatrist). He had been handing out Korans the morning of the shooting. Months back he expressed pleasure in the Little Rock, Arkansas assassination (two soldiers were gunned down outside of a recruitment center) to fellow soldiers to the point of his comments becoming a matter of record; and during the slaughter of our brave men & women he was screaming, "Allah Ak-bar", God is great. So my question is was this man promoted, unsettling behavior ignored, and perhaps transferred around in order to not seem "racist" given the chief enemy of America and her armed forces in 2009? Were kid gloves employed in order to dress up politically sensitive appearances? Was his ever growing dedication to radicalism, combined with poor, disturbing behavior not properly addressed due to his race? I can not assert this as fact, but it is at least AS (in my mind more) plausible then the stress of an impending deployment causing one to "snap." Especially when he had never faced combat before, there was no "post" stress about it, and because as a psychiatrist the likely hood of his going on combat missions would be near zero.
In addition the media seems bent on divorcing his religion from his behavior. A perversion of his religion to be sure, but clearly a plausible (if not OBVIOUS) influence nonetheless.
I just think these are questions that we owe the fallen to ask, and have answered. In terms of an investigation once the bodies of US Soldiers hit the ground, political correctness be damned, real questions must be asked because real people are dead.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The problem with "Union"...
The United States has shown the world that the formation of a Union from individual states can be a painful and prolonged process... but it would seem Europe has ignored this lesson.
A civil court in Strasbourg, France, has determined that the display of a crucifix within a public classroom is a violation of religious and educational freedom. This would seem to be a strictly local affair, symptomatic of the French trend towards secularism at all levels of society... but as of Dec 1st, when the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon goes into effect across the EU, that ruling will then have precedence across Europe.
Now, Europeans complaining about Christian faith and symbols is nothing new, I know... but what surprised me about this story was that the loudest voices raised against it are coming from the political leadership in Italy... and from both sides of the aisle! It seems that the former Communist and now left-center leaning opposition leader in the Italian Parliament has joined his voice to the more right-center PM of Italy (a divorcee and avowed atheist) in calling for a reversal of that decision based on the "traditional value" to European society that such symbols hold to millions across Europe.
Why?
Because they (seemingly) fear that the decision of a judge (or judges) in one portion of the Union can suddenly decide the fate of such traditional and fundamental aspects of daily life as a crucifix on a classroom wall across the entire continent.
It would seem that, in the day or so since the decision was handed down in Strasbourg, it first caught the attention of the Italian political machine, but quickly moved up the attention ladder in places like Poland, Ireland, Denmark and Spain, as well. In a region where the public display of faith is as natural to many as breathing, the possibility of government intrusion suddenly rears it's ugly head... and the EU hasn't even picked its President yet! Imagine cities like Armagh, Cologne, Krakow, Salzburg, Milan, Rheims, or Prague DENIED the ability to hold the centuries-old traditional celebrations where the images of beloved saints (and sometimes, even the saints themselves!) are taken from churches and paraded through the city streets to be followed by throngs of the faithful. Honestly, imagine what cities like Santiago de Compostela, Spain, will suffer if "public displays of religion" become a violation of individual rights across Europe, when at any one time, one quarter of that city's "population" is someone visiting the cathedral and shrine from other parts of the world!
With nearly a month to go until the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as law throughout the European Union, it would seem the place is already feeling the liberal pinch as the anti-traditional, secular world begins to take the reigns of control.
Welcome to my nightmare.
A civil court in Strasbourg, France, has determined that the display of a crucifix within a public classroom is a violation of religious and educational freedom. This would seem to be a strictly local affair, symptomatic of the French trend towards secularism at all levels of society... but as of Dec 1st, when the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon goes into effect across the EU, that ruling will then have precedence across Europe.
Now, Europeans complaining about Christian faith and symbols is nothing new, I know... but what surprised me about this story was that the loudest voices raised against it are coming from the political leadership in Italy... and from both sides of the aisle! It seems that the former Communist and now left-center leaning opposition leader in the Italian Parliament has joined his voice to the more right-center PM of Italy (a divorcee and avowed atheist) in calling for a reversal of that decision based on the "traditional value" to European society that such symbols hold to millions across Europe.
Why?
Because they (seemingly) fear that the decision of a judge (or judges) in one portion of the Union can suddenly decide the fate of such traditional and fundamental aspects of daily life as a crucifix on a classroom wall across the entire continent.
It would seem that, in the day or so since the decision was handed down in Strasbourg, it first caught the attention of the Italian political machine, but quickly moved up the attention ladder in places like Poland, Ireland, Denmark and Spain, as well. In a region where the public display of faith is as natural to many as breathing, the possibility of government intrusion suddenly rears it's ugly head... and the EU hasn't even picked its President yet! Imagine cities like Armagh, Cologne, Krakow, Salzburg, Milan, Rheims, or Prague DENIED the ability to hold the centuries-old traditional celebrations where the images of beloved saints (and sometimes, even the saints themselves!) are taken from churches and paraded through the city streets to be followed by throngs of the faithful. Honestly, imagine what cities like Santiago de Compostela, Spain, will suffer if "public displays of religion" become a violation of individual rights across Europe, when at any one time, one quarter of that city's "population" is someone visiting the cathedral and shrine from other parts of the world!
With nearly a month to go until the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as law throughout the European Union, it would seem the place is already feeling the liberal pinch as the anti-traditional, secular world begins to take the reigns of control.
Welcome to my nightmare.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Breaking news...
The Bund's unofficial "pub-partner" Mick Cronin has won his seat on the school board!
While at the polls yesterday, I noticed that I had the option to elect two school board members, but only two were listed as my choices (both Dems), so it seemed a foregone conclusion right from the start... but I hope Mick takes heart from the fact that he won the majority of votes ANYWAY! Not sure who would vote for only ONE when you could vote for both... but Mick took the lion's share.
Speaking of Mick... he took me out to ease the pain of my jobless state the other night to a little local watering hole by the lake (where we could drink AND smoke!). The last time we were there, he was talking with me about arranging a trip to Ireland so that his brother could meet me. He seems to think that his younger brother would enjoy the discussions and debates we seem to bring with us where ever we go. Well, knowing that my ability to travel had been seriously curtailed by my newly impoverished state of being, he and his brother decided that it would work best if the brother came to the US... and that is what was arranged on the phone while I sat nursing my pint.
So, if there is going to be a Bund-style reunion in 2009, it needs to be HERE in NEPA and it needs to happen as close to Christmas as possible, so that we can deliver all the fun and entertainment that Mick has promised his brother. Let's face it... you guys work, I'm jobless... you are coming here.
While at the polls yesterday, I noticed that I had the option to elect two school board members, but only two were listed as my choices (both Dems), so it seemed a foregone conclusion right from the start... but I hope Mick takes heart from the fact that he won the majority of votes ANYWAY! Not sure who would vote for only ONE when you could vote for both... but Mick took the lion's share.
Speaking of Mick... he took me out to ease the pain of my jobless state the other night to a little local watering hole by the lake (where we could drink AND smoke!). The last time we were there, he was talking with me about arranging a trip to Ireland so that his brother could meet me. He seems to think that his younger brother would enjoy the discussions and debates we seem to bring with us where ever we go. Well, knowing that my ability to travel had been seriously curtailed by my newly impoverished state of being, he and his brother decided that it would work best if the brother came to the US... and that is what was arranged on the phone while I sat nursing my pint.
So, if there is going to be a Bund-style reunion in 2009, it needs to be HERE in NEPA and it needs to happen as close to Christmas as possible, so that we can deliver all the fun and entertainment that Mick has promised his brother. Let's face it... you guys work, I'm jobless... you are coming here.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
I don't know who said that ...
but they're an idiot.
And I say that in full knowledge that you may then reveal the name of someone I've endorsed in the past. I would add that I have heard conservative commentators advocate that the conservative movement of 2009+ is one that embraces and advocates the traditional principles of America dating back to its' founding. I can only hope the commentator you heard "meant" this and botched the delivery, otherwise he is ridiculously uninformed. I will take one glaring example ...
Perhaps the most famous Republican after Lincoln and Reagan is Teddy Roosevelt. And up until Bull Moose he was every bit a member of the Republican party ... and perhaps the BIGGEST progressive of his era. No one was seen as "anti-free market" by the business community more than ol' TR. Now there is some debate over whether he had a true strain of populism within his DNA or whether he was acting in his own political expediency by adopting a sort of William Jennings Bryant tongue towards "the rich", but either way the affect was the same. On the other hand, the founding Fathers can be considered WILDLY liberal for their day in suggesting equality among men regardless of birth status; voting in and out leaders; challenging Divine Right, etc. But "liberal" in the classical sense, not the modern political sense. And just that kind of differential must be clearly articulated at the onset of any intelligent conversation of the evolution of political labels.
As an nice addendum there is an ideological civil war being waged at current. At stake is the soul of the GOP. Modern conservatives have recognized a self defeating organism within their Party, manifested in what I call a "them light" syndrome. Lyndsey Graham & John McCain are good examples but a fantastic scenario illustrating just what is going on has unfolded in upstate New York in recent days. Today is election day in 3 notable states - gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, and a congressional race in New York. The seat in question has been held by the GOP for over 100 years, literally. The most recent longtime occupant was tapped by Obama to be the new Army Chief of Staff, thus a special off year election was arranged (which as I said just happens to be taking place today). Just days ago a new poll emerged showing for the first time that Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman were both leading Republican Dede Scozzafava.
Why? Given the century old hold, why?
Answer: Scozzafava is a pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro card check Republican. In light of the poll and the growing grass roots demand for "true" conservatives to retake the GOP (my voice being among them) she withdrew - and promptly endorsed the Democrat candidate, validating every fear and criticism being expressed by conservatives! And just as interesting famous names such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson openly endorsed the Conservative Party nominee rather than their own Party's nominee, and long before she dropped out.
It is my opinion that a 2009+ conservative is properly defined as: 1.)strong national security; 2.) limited government (this captures everything from low taxes to rejecting public health care) and; 3.)traditional social values. And that this definition includes the largest swath of the American electorate ... meaning if an articulate representative of that "conservatism" would simply emerge he or she would quickly find great popularity and electoral success. So while Gingrich et al may argue a GOP "purge" wont help enlarge our coalition, I submit that it is precisely by demanding our GOP nominees be of such a stripe that we will construct the largest possible tent.
And I say that in full knowledge that you may then reveal the name of someone I've endorsed in the past. I would add that I have heard conservative commentators advocate that the conservative movement of 2009+ is one that embraces and advocates the traditional principles of America dating back to its' founding. I can only hope the commentator you heard "meant" this and botched the delivery, otherwise he is ridiculously uninformed. I will take one glaring example ...
Perhaps the most famous Republican after Lincoln and Reagan is Teddy Roosevelt. And up until Bull Moose he was every bit a member of the Republican party ... and perhaps the BIGGEST progressive of his era. No one was seen as "anti-free market" by the business community more than ol' TR. Now there is some debate over whether he had a true strain of populism within his DNA or whether he was acting in his own political expediency by adopting a sort of William Jennings Bryant tongue towards "the rich", but either way the affect was the same. On the other hand, the founding Fathers can be considered WILDLY liberal for their day in suggesting equality among men regardless of birth status; voting in and out leaders; challenging Divine Right, etc. But "liberal" in the classical sense, not the modern political sense. And just that kind of differential must be clearly articulated at the onset of any intelligent conversation of the evolution of political labels.
As an nice addendum there is an ideological civil war being waged at current. At stake is the soul of the GOP. Modern conservatives have recognized a self defeating organism within their Party, manifested in what I call a "them light" syndrome. Lyndsey Graham & John McCain are good examples but a fantastic scenario illustrating just what is going on has unfolded in upstate New York in recent days. Today is election day in 3 notable states - gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, and a congressional race in New York. The seat in question has been held by the GOP for over 100 years, literally. The most recent longtime occupant was tapped by Obama to be the new Army Chief of Staff, thus a special off year election was arranged (which as I said just happens to be taking place today). Just days ago a new poll emerged showing for the first time that Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman were both leading Republican Dede Scozzafava.
Why? Given the century old hold, why?
Answer: Scozzafava is a pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro card check Republican. In light of the poll and the growing grass roots demand for "true" conservatives to retake the GOP (my voice being among them) she withdrew - and promptly endorsed the Democrat candidate, validating every fear and criticism being expressed by conservatives! And just as interesting famous names such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson openly endorsed the Conservative Party nominee rather than their own Party's nominee, and long before she dropped out.
It is my opinion that a 2009+ conservative is properly defined as: 1.)strong national security; 2.) limited government (this captures everything from low taxes to rejecting public health care) and; 3.)traditional social values. And that this definition includes the largest swath of the American electorate ... meaning if an articulate representative of that "conservatism" would simply emerge he or she would quickly find great popularity and electoral success. So while Gingrich et al may argue a GOP "purge" wont help enlarge our coalition, I submit that it is precisely by demanding our GOP nominees be of such a stripe that we will construct the largest possible tent.
How far have we come?
I have said this before, and I am saying it again... revisionist history is bad.
Since losing my job at the casino, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the battery of talk radio programs that I used to hear on a daily basis, but I did hear a blurb about how "conservatism" today is the same as it was in 1980, 1900, and even 1776. The insinuation is that the GOP maintains the core principles of conservative politics now just as it has since the inception of the nation. I do not feel this is true at all.
Now, before I go any further, I'm NOT suggesting the same isn't true of the DNC. No greater degree of ideological change can be shown than that of the DNC over the last 100+ years... but those changes are ones we have discussed at length here at the Bund, and I want to focus for a minute on the GOP's changes over the same period.
In 1912, the GOP split its allegiances between Taft (the RNC candidate) and the "Bull Moose" Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Most people attribute the scope of the Democratic candidate's (Wilson) overwhelming victory to the split in the GOP vote... but I'd say the numbers and results from the national election results don't entirely back that up. Wilson won by a margin of very nearly 5 to 1 in the electoral college, and carried the popular vote by more than 2 to 1 over both his rivals. The standing Democratic majority in the House was increased by 21 seats, and the Senate saw the first Democratic majority (51/96) in nearly 20 years.
If one takes the time to read the platforms of each of the three parties involved in the 1912 election, one sees a surprising association with today's political platforms.
Here are those platforms:
The 1912 Progressive Party
The 1912 Democratic Party
The 1912 Republican Party
The most glaring difference between the GOP of '12 and the modern incarnation is in "protectionist economics". Since 1868, the GOP had maintained a stated goal of protecting American production (industrial and agricultural) by means of tariffs, and the 1912 convention re-asserted that goal. In point of fact, protectionism was a mainstream fact of GOP policy right up until the Reagan Administrations, and then came back in vogue with the elections of George H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush (whose 2002 import steel tariff still stands as a model of repressive protectionist economic policy).
Other planks that stand out today as "counter-conservative" are the Party's support of large national (meaning Federal) works projects aimed at building interstate commerce and business opportunities through the developed control of the Mississippi River Flood Control projects. Removing that responsibility from the States and placing it in the hands of the (even then) overly-large and tangled Federal system sounds an awful lot like what we hear today in regards to health care. The GOP (and Progressive) plans thoroughly regulate such interstate commerce fields as the railroads, inter-coastal waterways, and "post road" systems (we didn't have interstate highways then) also smacks of rather "liberal" planning.
The DNC platform focused a lot on the "general welfare" of the working class and poor in America (as it does now), and some of the phrases raises even my eyebrows as sounding remarkably "socialist" in nature... but the main planks of the DNC were a re-affirmation of States rights over the Federal authority (as is the modern 10the Amendment movement), lower taxes for the majority of wage earners (granted, they favored the graduated income tax as the primary means of government funding... but it was the GOP-majority that passed the legislation enacting the Federal Income Tax in 1908), the removal of tariffs and limits on free trade, and the popular election of Senators over the House elections. They looked to increase the amount of natural resource development in places like Alaska, Arizona and New Mexico (the latter two the latest additions to the star field on "Old Glory") over the "protection and preservation" of such lands and resources by the GOP and Progressives... meaning the "tree hugger" crowd were originally Republicans, not Dems.
I am the last person here to say that the Democratic Party hasn't seen a shift in focus over the last 10, 25, or even 100 years... they have, and dramatically so. But I refuse to listen to anyone that says that the GOP hasn't seen the same changes in attitude over the same periods of time. To argue to the contrary is pure revisionism, in my opinion.
Since losing my job at the casino, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the battery of talk radio programs that I used to hear on a daily basis, but I did hear a blurb about how "conservatism" today is the same as it was in 1980, 1900, and even 1776. The insinuation is that the GOP maintains the core principles of conservative politics now just as it has since the inception of the nation. I do not feel this is true at all.
Now, before I go any further, I'm NOT suggesting the same isn't true of the DNC. No greater degree of ideological change can be shown than that of the DNC over the last 100+ years... but those changes are ones we have discussed at length here at the Bund, and I want to focus for a minute on the GOP's changes over the same period.
In 1912, the GOP split its allegiances between Taft (the RNC candidate) and the "Bull Moose" Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Most people attribute the scope of the Democratic candidate's (Wilson) overwhelming victory to the split in the GOP vote... but I'd say the numbers and results from the national election results don't entirely back that up. Wilson won by a margin of very nearly 5 to 1 in the electoral college, and carried the popular vote by more than 2 to 1 over both his rivals. The standing Democratic majority in the House was increased by 21 seats, and the Senate saw the first Democratic majority (51/96) in nearly 20 years.
If one takes the time to read the platforms of each of the three parties involved in the 1912 election, one sees a surprising association with today's political platforms.
Here are those platforms:
The 1912 Progressive Party
The 1912 Democratic Party
The 1912 Republican Party
The most glaring difference between the GOP of '12 and the modern incarnation is in "protectionist economics". Since 1868, the GOP had maintained a stated goal of protecting American production (industrial and agricultural) by means of tariffs, and the 1912 convention re-asserted that goal. In point of fact, protectionism was a mainstream fact of GOP policy right up until the Reagan Administrations, and then came back in vogue with the elections of George H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush (whose 2002 import steel tariff still stands as a model of repressive protectionist economic policy).
Other planks that stand out today as "counter-conservative" are the Party's support of large national (meaning Federal) works projects aimed at building interstate commerce and business opportunities through the developed control of the Mississippi River Flood Control projects. Removing that responsibility from the States and placing it in the hands of the (even then) overly-large and tangled Federal system sounds an awful lot like what we hear today in regards to health care. The GOP (and Progressive) plans thoroughly regulate such interstate commerce fields as the railroads, inter-coastal waterways, and "post road" systems (we didn't have interstate highways then) also smacks of rather "liberal" planning.
The DNC platform focused a lot on the "general welfare" of the working class and poor in America (as it does now), and some of the phrases raises even my eyebrows as sounding remarkably "socialist" in nature... but the main planks of the DNC were a re-affirmation of States rights over the Federal authority (as is the modern 10the Amendment movement), lower taxes for the majority of wage earners (granted, they favored the graduated income tax as the primary means of government funding... but it was the GOP-majority that passed the legislation enacting the Federal Income Tax in 1908), the removal of tariffs and limits on free trade, and the popular election of Senators over the House elections. They looked to increase the amount of natural resource development in places like Alaska, Arizona and New Mexico (the latter two the latest additions to the star field on "Old Glory") over the "protection and preservation" of such lands and resources by the GOP and Progressives... meaning the "tree hugger" crowd were originally Republicans, not Dems.
I am the last person here to say that the Democratic Party hasn't seen a shift in focus over the last 10, 25, or even 100 years... they have, and dramatically so. But I refuse to listen to anyone that says that the GOP hasn't seen the same changes in attitude over the same periods of time. To argue to the contrary is pure revisionism, in my opinion.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Cooperation and ultimatums
I find it ironic that I wake up this morning and read that North Korea is giving the US ultimatums and Britain and Russia are promising renewed cooperation and demanding that Iran concede on their JOINT demands... something Russia refused to do with the US.
An auspicious beginning to the promised diplomacy and statesmanship of the Obama Administration that we all heard so much about...
An auspicious beginning to the promised diplomacy and statesmanship of the Obama Administration that we all heard so much about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
