Thursday, November 4, 2010

Who's the Live Wire Today?

This just in from TPMuckraker:

Four candidates who died while campaigning won their elections on Tuesday. Two deceased candidates lost.


In California, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D) won re-election with 59% of the vote. Oropeza, who was 53, died two weeks ago from complications of cancer. The local Democrats, however, mailed supporters encouraging them to vote for Oropeza anyway.


"The Republicans are trying to take unfair advantage of Jenny's tragedy," said the mailer which, according to CNN, did not mention her death. "I am asking you to vote for Jenny Oropeza. If a Special Election is called in a few months, you'll have the chance to thoughtfully elect your Senator for a new four-year term."
One wonders how the other three got elected.  But then, maybe we should elect more dead candidates, they might not be so destructive.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Election Day, 2010

John Adams: "the man who at certain point...Image via Wikipedia
As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.


                                                                 John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, November 1, 2010

This is Improvment?

Back in July, a Texas congressman, Rep. Kevin Brady, released a chart put together by the Joint Economic Committee minority staff, and taking over two months to complete, it maps  the beauracy put in place under the health care bill passed early this year.  But not all, only about a third, as it turns out.  There wasn't room on the chart to show it all.   It's worth a revisit, just to show the absolute impossibility of the thing.


Saturday, October 30, 2010

Honest Abe - GEICO Commercial

So often, commericals these days are, how shall I put it, stupid.  Those Sonic commercials come to mind.  Companies that approve commercials like that, to me, are saying their customers are idiots.  What is worse, I think, is that such commercials don't accomplish what they intend, the selling of a particular product. Sorry to be so blunt.  I think the only reason I can fairly say that, is that there is evidence that ad agencies still exist that are capable of being creative and getting their message across at the same time.  One shining example, one that appears too infrequently on TV, is this Geico Abe Lincoln commercial.  It's real, at least for us guys, because we've all been there.  C'mon ladies, you know it's true. 

The only other thing I could add is, that while Abe Lincoln was an honest man, he wasn't a stupid man.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Branching Out

I'm branching out a little, trying to broaden my horizons.  For several years, I focused my study nearly exclusively on monastic topics.  But, I need a change, and there is no reason to believe that monastic spirituality excludes the entirety of life.  In fact, it should be just the opposite and embrace all of life.

One way I've done this is to begin reading de Toqueville's Democracy in America, which I have never read.  I've seen it quoted many times, and it seems proper to read it now.  Also, my brother-in-law called this week to recommend Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical in Chief, which examins  Barack Obama's political, and as seems likely, personal philosophy.  I wasn't sure I wanted to read the book, but saw that it was available on Kindle, so I ordered it, more to keep up with family conversation on Thanksgiving if the topic arises than any other reason.

When I first heard about the book, I djd think could be an important one; Obama has not been clear or consistent in defining himself to the American public. 

So, my first impressions of the book?

Kurtz didn't set out to write a smear of Obama, and the book is not of that ilk.  In addition, Kurtz makes the point several times that he initially didn't believe Obama to be a socialist; it was only in researching the president's early years, especially his years in New York, that he came to the conclusion he did. 

Kurtz shows that Obama decided early on that he wanted to be a community organizer and that, under his socialist mentors, one of the key traits of a community organizer is to keep the objective of implementing a socialist system as secret from those being organized.  They profess high ideals that sound close to American ideals, but they mean something entirely different.

It seems to me, that people who take on such tasks end of living a lie.  They calculate to deceive others about who and what they really are.  Not only is that fundamentally dishonest, it must take a great toll on the personhood of the individual.  At some point, the lies must come out.

This is the very opposite of the monastic ideal; Benedict would have us know ourselves, be honest with ourselves and those around us about who and what we are; not always a pretty picture, but in the end, it's the best way to live as a fully human being.

I'm not judging Obama, I don't know what his motives were or are, but his past is more than a little scary.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Danger of a Single Despot


"When the Constitution was thus perfected and established, a new form of government was created, but it was neither speculative nor experimental as to the principles on which it was based. If they were true principles, as they were, the government founded upon them was destined to a life and an influence that would continue while the liberties it was intended to preserve should be valued by the human family. Those liberties had been wrung from reluctant monarchs in many contests, in many countries, and were grouped into creeds and established in ordinances sealed with blood, in many great struggles of the people. They were not new to the people. They were consecrated theories, but no government had been previously established for the great purpose of their preservation and enforcement. That which was experimental in our plan of government was the question whether democratic rule could be so organized and conducted that it would not degenerate into license and result in the tyranny of absolutism, without saving to the people the power so often found necessary of repressing or destroying their enemy, when he was found in the person of a single despot."
Our president recently referred to people who value the ideals on which our government was founded as his "enemies."  I wonder if we might see in him the single despot so feared by the Founders?  Fortunately, they left us the saving power to prevent such things, if only we will be wise enough to use it.

UPDATE

The above quote is from an introduction to Democracy in America, by John T. Morgan in the Kindle edition of the book.  However, readers should be warned that this introduction is a product of, I believe, a 19th century historian, and some of his views on race are unfortunate, at best, at worst, racist.  Still, the truth of some points he makes about deToqueville's understanding of America are still valid.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 14, 2010

The Washington Monument

Scrolling through my album, I came across this picture from the recent trip to DC.   I have found the Washington Monument to be fascinating, mostly because, when I was very young, perhaps only 6 or 7 years old,  my father took us a trip to Florida.  On the way, we stopped in Washington, and he and I walked up the stairs to the top of the Monument.  I remember him insisting we do this because he had, when he lived in Virginia, had something to do with the actual construction of the Monument, it wasn't something I was anxious to tackle, even at that young age.  I later studied history a bit and found this wasn't possible.  I've been confused about that ever since.

While we were attending the Restoring Honor Rally, however, I heard Glenn Beck make some mention of the fact that, about a third of the way up the Monument, there is a noticeable color change. (See second photo)  He explained it, but I couldn't hear the explanation.  Today, I researched it, and learned that the color change occurs about at the point where the initial phase of construction stopped in the 1850's.  I also learned that the Monument was considered a Masonic symbol; the cornerstone, apparently, was laid by members of the Masonic Order.  That would be one explanation of why my father was so attracted to the structure, he was a second, possibly third, generation Mason.
This second photo, by the way, was taken on Thursday, two days before the Rally when the set up for the big day was still in progress.  This is a "Glenn's" eye view of the Washington Monument and the Capital Building in the background.  Also visible is the WWII Memorial.  It also shows the color change quite clearly. Posted by Picasa