Wednesday, May 31, 2006
New blog notice
If you click on the link that says "World of Fiction," you will find my new blog which has stories I write posted online. Starting tomorrow, the first story is being published. It is called The Mission From Mars. It will have new portions published every weekday with the weekends having no posts so that I can use my creative abilities to continue writing more of the story. Hope you all will give it a chance.
Top Ten Presidents
For the next couple of posts, I will be giving some of my best and worst lists when it comes to politics. For today, I decided to look at the Top Ten Best Presidents. So here we go:
10. William Henry Harrison (Whig, 1841) Although the man only served a grand total of thirty days as president, one cannot help but admit that during his short tenure, he did not have an scandals and was liked by all around him. If you consider this, technically he could be considered the greatest president of all time.
9. Harry S. Truman (Democrat, 1945-1953) History has vindicated this man more than we will ever know. When he left office, his approval rating was around twenty percent. The country was not thrilled about Korea and different sections of the country hated the sound of his name due to desegregation in the army. However, we must remember this is a man who ended World War II, made sure our economy would not tank itself, and created a policy which guaranteed our survival in a world were the greatest threat, communism, was beginning to flourish.
8. James K. Polk (Democrat, 1845-1849) He was the ultimate dark horse candidate. He made the promise of serving only one term if elected president and kept his end of the bargain on that one. During his four years, he settled the border between the United States and Canada, passed the Walker Tariff (which lowered tariffs and got the country out of the Depression of 1837), fought a successful war with Mexico and doubled the size of the country as a result of it, and finally got to take credit for the California gold rush at the end of his term.
7. Woodrow Wilson (Democrat, 1913-1921) One of the greatest Progressive Presidents the country ever saw, the man brought a strong sense of moral right and wrong to the White House. When World War I occurred, he tried to keep the United States out of it. However, when we were forced into going into the conflict, Wilson wanted to bring the ideas of American Progressivism to Europe in order to make it a better place. The Fourteen Point plan, while very noble, was flawed as Wilson assumed too much. Most importantly, he outlined the idea of an international community to help keep peace throughout the world.
6. Andrew Jackson (Democratic-Republican/Democrat, 1829-1837) While he has many critics, Jackson was as tough as they came when he was president. He ensured that the country would not split apart during the Nullification Crisis. It should also be noted that one way or another, the Indian Removal Act was going to happen. In my opinion, the main reason was Jackson is vilified for it is because it was on his watch..
5. Theodore Roosevelt (Republican, 1901-1909) Another one of the great Progressive Presidents, TR was a self made man when it came to his health. He overcame childhood disease and took great pains to make sure he could be a man’s man. As president, TR gave us the National Parks and pushed to reform business in order to help workers. However, you got to admit, TR was a tough guy. Anyone who is shot and decides to give a speech before going to hospital must be made of kryptonite.
4. Ronald Reagan (Republican, 1981-1989) Ronnie! Morning in America! Reagan was a man who showed that the best of the United States was yet to come. After the dark days of the Carter Administration, Reagan moved the nation forward. Unemployment rates fell during his administration. The Cold War was coming to an end because Reagan decided to take it to the Communists and show them who is boss.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat, 1933-1945) When the nation plunged into a depression, FDR gave the country its dignity back by creating programs designed specifically to get everyone back to work. He led a generation of people to become toughen and ready to face any hardships that might follow. Pity to see what the next generation turned out to be like. When World War II came to America, he provided strength and leadership to the nation.
2. Abraham Lincoln (Republican, 1861-1865) Most people know I am not the greatest fan of Mr. Lincoln, but even I have to admit the man did do a lot during his time as president. He governed a nation plunged into a civil war. He attempted to use diplomacy where he could, but knew that force was going to be needed to keep the country together. I must also say, there is something rather fascinating about a man who died on Good Friday after suffering pain unlike any other person in the world, as if God said you have done all that is needed and you have to come back to me. Finally, you got to love a man who is willing to tell dirty jokes at a party in front of women all the time.
1. George Washington (Federalist, 1789-1797) He was the father of our country. The first president we ever had. To do the job he had to do is something none of us can possibly imagine. He kept our nation neutral at a time where we could have jumped into a European war and gotten slaughtered. However, the most important thing to remember about Washington was that this is a man who gave up power twice.
10. William Henry Harrison (Whig, 1841) Although the man only served a grand total of thirty days as president, one cannot help but admit that during his short tenure, he did not have an scandals and was liked by all around him. If you consider this, technically he could be considered the greatest president of all time.
9. Harry S. Truman (Democrat, 1945-1953) History has vindicated this man more than we will ever know. When he left office, his approval rating was around twenty percent. The country was not thrilled about Korea and different sections of the country hated the sound of his name due to desegregation in the army. However, we must remember this is a man who ended World War II, made sure our economy would not tank itself, and created a policy which guaranteed our survival in a world were the greatest threat, communism, was beginning to flourish.
8. James K. Polk (Democrat, 1845-1849) He was the ultimate dark horse candidate. He made the promise of serving only one term if elected president and kept his end of the bargain on that one. During his four years, he settled the border between the United States and Canada, passed the Walker Tariff (which lowered tariffs and got the country out of the Depression of 1837), fought a successful war with Mexico and doubled the size of the country as a result of it, and finally got to take credit for the California gold rush at the end of his term.
7. Woodrow Wilson (Democrat, 1913-1921) One of the greatest Progressive Presidents the country ever saw, the man brought a strong sense of moral right and wrong to the White House. When World War I occurred, he tried to keep the United States out of it. However, when we were forced into going into the conflict, Wilson wanted to bring the ideas of American Progressivism to Europe in order to make it a better place. The Fourteen Point plan, while very noble, was flawed as Wilson assumed too much. Most importantly, he outlined the idea of an international community to help keep peace throughout the world.
6. Andrew Jackson (Democratic-Republican/Democrat, 1829-1837) While he has many critics, Jackson was as tough as they came when he was president. He ensured that the country would not split apart during the Nullification Crisis. It should also be noted that one way or another, the Indian Removal Act was going to happen. In my opinion, the main reason was Jackson is vilified for it is because it was on his watch..
5. Theodore Roosevelt (Republican, 1901-1909) Another one of the great Progressive Presidents, TR was a self made man when it came to his health. He overcame childhood disease and took great pains to make sure he could be a man’s man. As president, TR gave us the National Parks and pushed to reform business in order to help workers. However, you got to admit, TR was a tough guy. Anyone who is shot and decides to give a speech before going to hospital must be made of kryptonite.
4. Ronald Reagan (Republican, 1981-1989) Ronnie! Morning in America! Reagan was a man who showed that the best of the United States was yet to come. After the dark days of the Carter Administration, Reagan moved the nation forward. Unemployment rates fell during his administration. The Cold War was coming to an end because Reagan decided to take it to the Communists and show them who is boss.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat, 1933-1945) When the nation plunged into a depression, FDR gave the country its dignity back by creating programs designed specifically to get everyone back to work. He led a generation of people to become toughen and ready to face any hardships that might follow. Pity to see what the next generation turned out to be like. When World War II came to America, he provided strength and leadership to the nation.
2. Abraham Lincoln (Republican, 1861-1865) Most people know I am not the greatest fan of Mr. Lincoln, but even I have to admit the man did do a lot during his time as president. He governed a nation plunged into a civil war. He attempted to use diplomacy where he could, but knew that force was going to be needed to keep the country together. I must also say, there is something rather fascinating about a man who died on Good Friday after suffering pain unlike any other person in the world, as if God said you have done all that is needed and you have to come back to me. Finally, you got to love a man who is willing to tell dirty jokes at a party in front of women all the time.
1. George Washington (Federalist, 1789-1797) He was the father of our country. The first president we ever had. To do the job he had to do is something none of us can possibly imagine. He kept our nation neutral at a time where we could have jumped into a European war and gotten slaughtered. However, the most important thing to remember about Washington was that this is a man who gave up power twice.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Memorial Day
Today is Memorial Day. On this date we remember our fallen dead who died in the service of our country and honor them. While I know there are those who will say different things about our soldiers, I cannot help but remember that there was a specific cause for what these men died for.
They died for America. Throughout it all, we have had well over a million men and women who died to ensure that our nation is as strong as our nation is today. Critics of our current conflict can say what they will, but the fact still remains it is these soldiers who gave up their lives which allows these critics to voice their opinions. Our freedom is based on the greatest sacrifce made for our country.
So for these people, these fallen few, these heroes who still live today, I believe the best quote to remember at times like these is to think about what it is all of us are working towards.
"We know there are dangers ahead, as we know there are evils to fight and overcome, but we feel to the full the pulse of the prosperity we enjoy. Stout of heart, we see across the dangers the great future that lies beyond, and we rejoice as a giant refreshed, as a strong man girt for the race; and we go down into the arena where nations strive for mastery, our hearts lifted to the faith that to us and our children and our children’s children it shall be given to make this Republic the mightiest among the peoples of mankind.” -Theodore Roosevelt
They died for America. Throughout it all, we have had well over a million men and women who died to ensure that our nation is as strong as our nation is today. Critics of our current conflict can say what they will, but the fact still remains it is these soldiers who gave up their lives which allows these critics to voice their opinions. Our freedom is based on the greatest sacrifce made for our country.
So for these people, these fallen few, these heroes who still live today, I believe the best quote to remember at times like these is to think about what it is all of us are working towards.
"We know there are dangers ahead, as we know there are evils to fight and overcome, but we feel to the full the pulse of the prosperity we enjoy. Stout of heart, we see across the dangers the great future that lies beyond, and we rejoice as a giant refreshed, as a strong man girt for the race; and we go down into the arena where nations strive for mastery, our hearts lifted to the faith that to us and our children and our children’s children it shall be given to make this Republic the mightiest among the peoples of mankind.” -Theodore Roosevelt
Monday, May 15, 2006
Immigration Address
Tonight, President Bush addressed the nation and discussed the issue of illegal immigration and how to handle. In the address, the President discussed five points for fixing this problem.
1. Secure the border.
2. Temporary work program.
3. Make employers accountable
4. Millions are here, so we must use a middle ground with them
5. Work to continue to American idea of being the "melting pot."
When it comes to each of these things, they are all very valid points. The "melting pot" image is something the United States has been famous for. As a result, we need English to be our national language. By having this in place, it will give us the opportunity to make sure that this particular point of American culture remains in place and secures the fact that immigrants coming into the country will become more America.
Making employers accountable for hiring illegals will help dealing with the ones who are here. Current illegal immigrants will be forced to go for the worker program that can get them towards full legal status. As for temporary work/guest worker programs, this will allows us to make sure that people looking to help their families can still do that, but with legal protection and the ability to make sure they will not be exploited for their labor.
However, before we can do anything else, the border must be made secure. The President has discussed putting the National Guard on the border. Their primary responsibility is to do the grunt work and allow all the border patrol agents who are there to go out and be on the border. In addition to this, by having unmanned and technological advances be used to patrol the border, immigrants wanting to cross the border will realize the need to do it legally.
For me, I believe one system we can use is our friend in the picture above. Meet ED 309. Movie buffs might know him as the robot from Robocop. While there are a few bugs out there, it would be a heck of a deterant because he isn't something to ignore. A big robot with lots of fire power will scare some folks while also saying to themselves "Perhaps the legal way isn't as bad as I thought."
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Eight Ways to Destory America?
*Note to readers: The following came from an email I recieved from a friend. I would advise all to think, reflect, and discuss with others*
We know Dick Lamm as the former Democratic Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders.
A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It i s not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
Here is how they do it," Lamm said:
"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country ." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national exi stence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."
Lamm went on:
Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture . I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much eff ort . The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group t he least educated . I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. School."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money . I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' Instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity .' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
In the last minute of h is speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. " Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America. deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.". There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American j obs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
Fact of the Matter
Like I said before, the above came to me from a friend in an email. In reflecting on this, I cannot help but note there are a few problems with the Governor’s argument. First, all of this assumes the government remains complacent and does not want to do anything about this. As we can see, the issue of immigration is something that has been on the minds of many people. As such, a lot of people are thinking about it. Tomorrow, President Bush plans on giving a speech to the nation. On the whole, he plans on talking about how he wants to place the National Guard along the border with Mexico. This is a good plan. The border with Mexico must be secured. Yes, there are people who want to come here, but I cannot help but stress the point that it must be done LEGALLY.
Another problem is that of making it taboo to talk about this. Lets face it, blogs have crushed the stranglehold conventional media once had on the disperssment of information in this country. We also have 24 hour news services which makes sure no one can try to hide some news from the people. Concerned citizens would make sure the information of schools only teaching in a single language that was not English would become public knowledge.
Third, the history of the United States has always had multi-culturalism atmosphere to it. This isn’t the first time this nation has had to deal with immigrant influences in the national identity. The only real credible threat we have is that schools are not making sure the student learn to speak English all the time. By making sure the students have English as their primary language, it makes a complete difference.
Finally, while there will be critics who claim that people are racist only because we don’t want immigrants to come in, there is nothing wrong with a person wanting to control the number of people coming into the country. Part of the reason we must do it is because we must think about our own national security. If the nation does not know who is coming in, what is to prevent one of those people being a terrorist? To claim that some people are racist on the basis of that proves a much stronger point, the accuser is ignorant while also being single minded.
We know Dick Lamm as the former Democratic Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders.
A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It i s not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
Here is how they do it," Lamm said:
"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country ." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national exi stence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."
Lamm went on:
Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture . I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much eff ort . The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group t he least educated . I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. School."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money . I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' Instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity .' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
In the last minute of h is speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. " Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America. deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.". There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American j obs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
Fact of the Matter
Like I said before, the above came to me from a friend in an email. In reflecting on this, I cannot help but note there are a few problems with the Governor’s argument. First, all of this assumes the government remains complacent and does not want to do anything about this. As we can see, the issue of immigration is something that has been on the minds of many people. As such, a lot of people are thinking about it. Tomorrow, President Bush plans on giving a speech to the nation. On the whole, he plans on talking about how he wants to place the National Guard along the border with Mexico. This is a good plan. The border with Mexico must be secured. Yes, there are people who want to come here, but I cannot help but stress the point that it must be done LEGALLY.
Another problem is that of making it taboo to talk about this. Lets face it, blogs have crushed the stranglehold conventional media once had on the disperssment of information in this country. We also have 24 hour news services which makes sure no one can try to hide some news from the people. Concerned citizens would make sure the information of schools only teaching in a single language that was not English would become public knowledge.
Third, the history of the United States has always had multi-culturalism atmosphere to it. This isn’t the first time this nation has had to deal with immigrant influences in the national identity. The only real credible threat we have is that schools are not making sure the student learn to speak English all the time. By making sure the students have English as their primary language, it makes a complete difference.
Finally, while there will be critics who claim that people are racist only because we don’t want immigrants to come in, there is nothing wrong with a person wanting to control the number of people coming into the country. Part of the reason we must do it is because we must think about our own national security. If the nation does not know who is coming in, what is to prevent one of those people being a terrorist? To claim that some people are racist on the basis of that proves a much stronger point, the accuser is ignorant while also being single minded.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Chess Minions
Ever wonder what goes on in Chess Club? While the traditional norms of a bunch of "geeks and nerds" sitting around playing chess goes through most peoples minds, surprisingly the group can be very funto be around and extremely entertaining. Often times, the group discuss different things like video games or pokes fun at how they each play the game of chess.
One of the most interesting things that was brought up was how women are evil. Often times, men have stated that and can never comes up with a way to show it. So, here is the formula that some of these guys came up with:
Woman = Money x Time
Time = Money
Woman = Money x Money
Woman = Money Squared
The square root of evil = Money
Money Squared = Evil
Woman = Evil
Now, while every guy laughs and every woman fumes, you got to remember that this is all tongue in cheek. To believe that this "theory" is actually legitimate is ridiculous. Common sense can dictate that the root of all evil is greed, something both sexes can be tempted by. Therefore, in effect, both sexes are evil if they so desire to be. However, I will say, the formula is funny and if a guy ever finds himself in a position where he gets dumped, at least now he can sound smarter when he says his ex was evil.
One of the most interesting things that was brought up was how women are evil. Often times, men have stated that and can never comes up with a way to show it. So, here is the formula that some of these guys came up with:
Woman = Money x Time
Time = Money
Woman = Money x Money
Woman = Money Squared
The square root of evil = Money
Money Squared = Evil
Woman = Evil
Now, while every guy laughs and every woman fumes, you got to remember that this is all tongue in cheek. To believe that this "theory" is actually legitimate is ridiculous. Common sense can dictate that the root of all evil is greed, something both sexes can be tempted by. Therefore, in effect, both sexes are evil if they so desire to be. However, I will say, the formula is funny and if a guy ever finds himself in a position where he gets dumped, at least now he can sound smarter when he says his ex was evil.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Just too cool
Everyone's favorite bear who can't help but get his nose stuck in the honey jar turns 80 this year. For Winnie the Pooh, to have his picture taken to celebrate his birthdya was both a thrill for himself and the photographer. As such, he joins a list of famous people to have their 80th Birthday portrait done. As you can see, this pic is pretty cool to look at namely because it shows that some things, despite their age, are timeless.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
A Strong Leader
Now more than ever, I cannot help but feel we are in need of a shining beacon of leadership who is not afraid of what others think of him and knows how to not only put them in their place, but grab them by the balls (when it comes to men) or ovaries (when it comes to women) and show them who is boss.I give you Francis Urquhart. Here is a man who is confident, descisive, and knows how to govern. If any of you need proof of this, I would advise watching him in House of Cards and To Play the King. You can always watch The Final Cut, but perhaps only certain parts of it. Needless to say, if you are not impressed by FU, then I think you can guess what my response might be to you.
A Trip to the Past
During this weekend, the City of Fairfax had its 9th Annual Civil War weekend at the Blenheim House. Featured at this event were re-enactors who portrayed the roles of General Robert E. Lee, General James Longstreet, General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, and General Lewis Armistead. As it is known, recently the blog world had a debate pertaining to the issue of Southern history. Considering how the current trend was, I decided to take advantage of this weekend and ask questions to these men in order to understand some of the view points of those who lived at the time.
*Note: I am aware that re-enactors are not the actual individuals that they portray. However, since these men have studied the lives of the people they portray so thoroughly, it is about the next best thing.*
There were three questions that were very specifically asked to these gentleman,
1) What are your views on state’s rights?
2) Is secession constitutionally legal?
3) What are your views on slavery?
For the first question, all four men cited the book A View on the Constitution by William Rawle. The text, which was used by all cadets at West Point, discussed the issue of secession and details that it was legal for any state to leave the United States. In effect, the nation was a republic built on smaller republics. If one of those said smaller republics wished to leave the bigger one, then it was allowed to do that. Bringing things into a contemporary light, the gentleman played General Longstreet pointed out that the United States could, therefore, leave the United Nations and not be told that it had to remain in the organization.
Therefore, the answer to the second question was rather obvious. All four men believed beyond any doubt that secession was legal. In fact, if one were to think of it to today’s standards, you could still argue that a state could secede from the Union, but that is another debate for another day.
The final question dealing with slavery was an interesting. Both Generals Longstreet and Armistead did not own slaves. In their opinion, the war was fought heavily over the issue of state’s rights and that, while slavery was an issue, it was this one which was central to fighting the war. Now, Generals Lee and Jackson did own slaves. However, both men did acknowledge that slavery, while not moral, was a legal institution.
Now, granted, these questions are broad based, but it does give a sight insight into the thinking of some people who lived at the time. If ever there is an opportunity to go to an event like this, by all means go. It is actually a lot of fun, but more importantly, the people who work at these events LOVE to talk about it. They enjoy teaching and educating the public on their interests and want to make sure that all aspects of history are explored.
*Note: I am aware that re-enactors are not the actual individuals that they portray. However, since these men have studied the lives of the people they portray so thoroughly, it is about the next best thing.*
There were three questions that were very specifically asked to these gentleman,
1) What are your views on state’s rights?
2) Is secession constitutionally legal?
3) What are your views on slavery?
For the first question, all four men cited the book A View on the Constitution by William Rawle. The text, which was used by all cadets at West Point, discussed the issue of secession and details that it was legal for any state to leave the United States. In effect, the nation was a republic built on smaller republics. If one of those said smaller republics wished to leave the bigger one, then it was allowed to do that. Bringing things into a contemporary light, the gentleman played General Longstreet pointed out that the United States could, therefore, leave the United Nations and not be told that it had to remain in the organization.
Therefore, the answer to the second question was rather obvious. All four men believed beyond any doubt that secession was legal. In fact, if one were to think of it to today’s standards, you could still argue that a state could secede from the Union, but that is another debate for another day.
The final question dealing with slavery was an interesting. Both Generals Longstreet and Armistead did not own slaves. In their opinion, the war was fought heavily over the issue of state’s rights and that, while slavery was an issue, it was this one which was central to fighting the war. Now, Generals Lee and Jackson did own slaves. However, both men did acknowledge that slavery, while not moral, was a legal institution.
Now, granted, these questions are broad based, but it does give a sight insight into the thinking of some people who lived at the time. If ever there is an opportunity to go to an event like this, by all means go. It is actually a lot of fun, but more importantly, the people who work at these events LOVE to talk about it. They enjoy teaching and educating the public on their interests and want to make sure that all aspects of history are explored.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The Southern Cross
So last night I spent two hours doing something I rarely get to do in my life, debate history and the effect of it with someone who knows what they are talking about and can give me a challenge when it comes to debating. I will say first a foremost, I need to make sure I do this earlier in the evening because I am getting a little older and can’t stay up past 1am on a weeknight anymore. So on to the debate.
For two hours Mason Conservative and I verbally debated the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag when being used in a public, state manner. All of this was stemmed from the issue of George Allen and his move towards racial reconciliation. Now both of us were able to agree on the point that people are able to change their minds on an issue from one point in their life to another. The area of contention for the two of us dealt with whether or not the Battle Flag could be used in a state flag.
Mason Conservative’s point of view was that no it should not. As he argued, the flag was used a symbol of hate which still causes problems today. In addition, how is that Mississippi can have the Battle Flag in their state flag?
Now, both of us argued the issue with valid points. He argued that when it came to the issue of heritage and that Confederate soldiers were fighting for states rights, the core of it still came down to the issue of slavery. The issue he could not get past is how a person can support and revere this flag without keeping in mind the negative aspect of it. In his opinion, the only way a person is able to do that is to selectively choose what it is they want to remember about the flag and ignore the rest of the history behind.
For myself, I argued the lines of heritage groups that outside sources want the flag removed and that their history is being paved over. Granted, it is hard to pave over history. However, once only one particular point of view is allowed to be shown, or acknowledged, then we find ourselves creating a VERY one sided view of history. Mason Conservative himself said, “The African-American definition is as valid as the southern white one, and given our past on racial issues, the black definition should be the standard we hold to.” If that is the case, then the very argument I just mentioned of where we allow only one point of view to exist becomes valid right then and there.
Fact of the Matter
The fact of the matter on this situation is this: the debate over the Battle Flag is a difficult one to wrestle. There is no doubt about this one. However, when it comes to having the Battle Flag in a state flag, we must remember that if the democratic process was done and the people of the state voted to have it in their flag, then the will of the people was spoken.
However, the issue of having a person disassociate themselves from slavery and selectively choose the history they want to look at is something that has been happening for thousands of years. Still, the questioned nagged me as to why it is some Southerners are so passionate about the flag. So it is about 140am and something pops into my head: the American Revolution.
OK, so where am I going with this. Well, let us look at it this way:
1) Both the Civil War and the Revolution had its origins begin ten years before shots were fired.
2) Both conflicts had issues dealing with an over arching federal government that was pushing its will on a segment of the country/empire.
3) Both situations had a group of people arguing that they were preserving the rights of the people based off of the political writings of their predecessors.
4) Undeniably, there was the issue of expansion in both conflicts. For the Revolution, it was American expansion into the west past the Appalachian Mountains. For the South, it was the expansion of slavery in order to keep the institution alive.
5) Now that slavery has been brought up, both conflicts dealt with a group of people holding others in bondage while saying they were fighting for their freedom and their rights.
6) Undeniably, the economic greed and desires of people in both generations were heavily weighed upon in private circles.
So what makes these two conflicts different? When it comes to the American Revolution, the colonists won while the South lost the Civil War. Winston Churchill said that history is written by the winners, and he planned on writing the history. Guess what, he did. So selective history is naturally something that comes up. The winners will always get to have their view points written.
How does this go back to the Battle Flag? Well, because the South lost and there was the creation of the Lost Cause, certainly selective history creates an atmosphere where people look at individual citizens fighting back against an intrusive government that wanted to tell them what to do. However, can we say the Stars and Stripes might not have become a divisive flag/issue had the British won the Revolution?
I mean let’s face it, the Americans were the antagonists when it came to the Revolution. The Sons of Liberty were, by modern standards, terrorists who are now revered. The issue of taxation without representation is, as Mason Conservative seems to like to say, disingenuous because Great Britain had every right to tax its colonies as it saw fit. Example: A History of the United States by Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley has a small section which deals with the Townshend Acts. In it, they write, “Benjamin Franklin had told Parliament that the colonists opposed it (the Stamp Act) because it was an internal tax but that they would accept external taxes, like the import duties.” Continuing on this, the authors write, “Townshend chose to take Franklin at his word. He proposed duties on many items Americans imported: lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea.” The Boston Massacre was forced upon by Americans egging on British soldiers, screaming at them, and when one man flinches, everything goes up in smoke.
Now, I know some folks are saying we can’t ask the what if questions on this part of history. I disagree. Part of asking the “what if” questions is that it allows you to look at other avenues. You are still forced to consider history and the way things happened in the light of history. However, you are also forced to look at other areas of history and shed aspects on the social and economic forces of not only this country, but others. As a result, you find yourself considering multiple points of view.
Back to the Revolution, if the British had won, then the leaders of the Revolution would have been executed the United States would not exist today. Odds are there might be those who would want to fly the Stars and Stripes or acknowledge it in some way because of its history. Would a subject of the British Empire take offense to this and demand it be removed? We don’t know. It didn’t happen that way.
So the key result here is once again who writes the history. Now yes, black history has been something which has only within the past forty some odd years been put to the forefront of historical books with the rise of cultural historians and such. However, these books seem to do detract from the main narrative of history by saying the other groups out there need to have their own history separate of American history.
Even with the Revolution, we see new information coming out. When I was a student in high school, I was taught the British opened fire on the Americans without provocation. It would not be until I was in college I learned otherwise. Now, this information is in the textbooks of school children. They are learning all the aspects of history.
In my opinion, when it comes to revering the Confederacy and the symbols which are associated with it, it all comes down to a personal choice. For me, I think the Confederacy does symbolize an age that is lost to us. We no longer have an age of gentleman and ladies who act in public with certain degree of honor and dignity. Instead, we are replaced with images of songs calling for the beating of women, presidents who wish to stick objects inside interns, and people who feel that it is alright to mouth off at another because their point of view is the only one that matters. Yes, I know there was slavery, but even I am not a fool. In looking at the world of 1860-1900, while slavery was one of the reasons of the war, if the Confederacy were to have won, slavery as an institution would have become economically infeasible.
What is the rationale behind this?
1) The British were already an anti-slavery nation. If they were to have helped secure the Confederacy’s independence, they would have started to press on the CSA the need to free their slaves.
2) In the event the slave trade would have been reopened, British warships would have intercepted slave trading vessels. Maybe not all of them, but certainly enough.
3) As Mason Conservative will tell you, and as will I, the price for buying a slave at auction was rather steep. As a result, very few people could actually buy slaves. As a whole, only about five percent of the Southern white owned large numbers of slaves and would have, if given a chance to buy more, bought the majority of them, thus leaving lower planters to have nothing.
4) Even if the confederacy had wanted to try and maintain the peculiar institution, technological advances would have forced things to change. Even the Empire of Brazil was eventually forced to end slavery before the end of the 19th century.
In today’s standards, the democratic process has shown that people have considered the issue. Mississippi has decided to stick with their flag which shows the Battle Flag in the upper canton. So be it. George decided to change their flag numerous times. Not everyone is going to be happy with the decisions. And certainly everyone is entitled to their own views. However, when we start getting into the name callings and refer to having the symbol the flag as “ass backwards,” then we are no better than the hypocrite who criticize our country as a whole. Name calling does absolutely nothing.
So I end this rather long discussion on this point. Why do I revere the Confederacy? The answer is noble in purpose. What is the measure of a man who lifts up the banner to a cause, willing to give up the most precious gift of all, his life, for it, to march onto a field and face a death made of lead, the roar of a cannon spewing out hot death, comrades falling around him, and even though he might know his cause could be wrong, still fights on? The measure of this man can be found in his principles, his morals, his dignity, and his honor. It is these four ideals, columns of humanity, which I find inspiring. These are things in my opinion we as a society have lost and as such must fin again.
So if I am guilty of selective history, then so be it. But I say to you, sir or madam, do not judge me. For if you still say I am wrong, I say to you that even you are guilty of using selective history. For it is you who are only looking at one side of the sphere of history and it is you who choose to block out the other side.
For two hours Mason Conservative and I verbally debated the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag when being used in a public, state manner. All of this was stemmed from the issue of George Allen and his move towards racial reconciliation. Now both of us were able to agree on the point that people are able to change their minds on an issue from one point in their life to another. The area of contention for the two of us dealt with whether or not the Battle Flag could be used in a state flag.
Mason Conservative’s point of view was that no it should not. As he argued, the flag was used a symbol of hate which still causes problems today. In addition, how is that Mississippi can have the Battle Flag in their state flag?
Now, both of us argued the issue with valid points. He argued that when it came to the issue of heritage and that Confederate soldiers were fighting for states rights, the core of it still came down to the issue of slavery. The issue he could not get past is how a person can support and revere this flag without keeping in mind the negative aspect of it. In his opinion, the only way a person is able to do that is to selectively choose what it is they want to remember about the flag and ignore the rest of the history behind.
For myself, I argued the lines of heritage groups that outside sources want the flag removed and that their history is being paved over. Granted, it is hard to pave over history. However, once only one particular point of view is allowed to be shown, or acknowledged, then we find ourselves creating a VERY one sided view of history. Mason Conservative himself said, “The African-American definition is as valid as the southern white one, and given our past on racial issues, the black definition should be the standard we hold to.” If that is the case, then the very argument I just mentioned of where we allow only one point of view to exist becomes valid right then and there.
Fact of the Matter
The fact of the matter on this situation is this: the debate over the Battle Flag is a difficult one to wrestle. There is no doubt about this one. However, when it comes to having the Battle Flag in a state flag, we must remember that if the democratic process was done and the people of the state voted to have it in their flag, then the will of the people was spoken.
However, the issue of having a person disassociate themselves from slavery and selectively choose the history they want to look at is something that has been happening for thousands of years. Still, the questioned nagged me as to why it is some Southerners are so passionate about the flag. So it is about 140am and something pops into my head: the American Revolution.
OK, so where am I going with this. Well, let us look at it this way:
1) Both the Civil War and the Revolution had its origins begin ten years before shots were fired.
2) Both conflicts had issues dealing with an over arching federal government that was pushing its will on a segment of the country/empire.
3) Both situations had a group of people arguing that they were preserving the rights of the people based off of the political writings of their predecessors.
4) Undeniably, there was the issue of expansion in both conflicts. For the Revolution, it was American expansion into the west past the Appalachian Mountains. For the South, it was the expansion of slavery in order to keep the institution alive.
5) Now that slavery has been brought up, both conflicts dealt with a group of people holding others in bondage while saying they were fighting for their freedom and their rights.
6) Undeniably, the economic greed and desires of people in both generations were heavily weighed upon in private circles.
So what makes these two conflicts different? When it comes to the American Revolution, the colonists won while the South lost the Civil War. Winston Churchill said that history is written by the winners, and he planned on writing the history. Guess what, he did. So selective history is naturally something that comes up. The winners will always get to have their view points written.
How does this go back to the Battle Flag? Well, because the South lost and there was the creation of the Lost Cause, certainly selective history creates an atmosphere where people look at individual citizens fighting back against an intrusive government that wanted to tell them what to do. However, can we say the Stars and Stripes might not have become a divisive flag/issue had the British won the Revolution?
I mean let’s face it, the Americans were the antagonists when it came to the Revolution. The Sons of Liberty were, by modern standards, terrorists who are now revered. The issue of taxation without representation is, as Mason Conservative seems to like to say, disingenuous because Great Britain had every right to tax its colonies as it saw fit. Example: A History of the United States by Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley has a small section which deals with the Townshend Acts. In it, they write, “Benjamin Franklin had told Parliament that the colonists opposed it (the Stamp Act) because it was an internal tax but that they would accept external taxes, like the import duties.” Continuing on this, the authors write, “Townshend chose to take Franklin at his word. He proposed duties on many items Americans imported: lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea.” The Boston Massacre was forced upon by Americans egging on British soldiers, screaming at them, and when one man flinches, everything goes up in smoke.
Now, I know some folks are saying we can’t ask the what if questions on this part of history. I disagree. Part of asking the “what if” questions is that it allows you to look at other avenues. You are still forced to consider history and the way things happened in the light of history. However, you are also forced to look at other areas of history and shed aspects on the social and economic forces of not only this country, but others. As a result, you find yourself considering multiple points of view.
Back to the Revolution, if the British had won, then the leaders of the Revolution would have been executed the United States would not exist today. Odds are there might be those who would want to fly the Stars and Stripes or acknowledge it in some way because of its history. Would a subject of the British Empire take offense to this and demand it be removed? We don’t know. It didn’t happen that way.
So the key result here is once again who writes the history. Now yes, black history has been something which has only within the past forty some odd years been put to the forefront of historical books with the rise of cultural historians and such. However, these books seem to do detract from the main narrative of history by saying the other groups out there need to have their own history separate of American history.
Even with the Revolution, we see new information coming out. When I was a student in high school, I was taught the British opened fire on the Americans without provocation. It would not be until I was in college I learned otherwise. Now, this information is in the textbooks of school children. They are learning all the aspects of history.
In my opinion, when it comes to revering the Confederacy and the symbols which are associated with it, it all comes down to a personal choice. For me, I think the Confederacy does symbolize an age that is lost to us. We no longer have an age of gentleman and ladies who act in public with certain degree of honor and dignity. Instead, we are replaced with images of songs calling for the beating of women, presidents who wish to stick objects inside interns, and people who feel that it is alright to mouth off at another because their point of view is the only one that matters. Yes, I know there was slavery, but even I am not a fool. In looking at the world of 1860-1900, while slavery was one of the reasons of the war, if the Confederacy were to have won, slavery as an institution would have become economically infeasible.
What is the rationale behind this?
1) The British were already an anti-slavery nation. If they were to have helped secure the Confederacy’s independence, they would have started to press on the CSA the need to free their slaves.
2) In the event the slave trade would have been reopened, British warships would have intercepted slave trading vessels. Maybe not all of them, but certainly enough.
3) As Mason Conservative will tell you, and as will I, the price for buying a slave at auction was rather steep. As a result, very few people could actually buy slaves. As a whole, only about five percent of the Southern white owned large numbers of slaves and would have, if given a chance to buy more, bought the majority of them, thus leaving lower planters to have nothing.
4) Even if the confederacy had wanted to try and maintain the peculiar institution, technological advances would have forced things to change. Even the Empire of Brazil was eventually forced to end slavery before the end of the 19th century.
In today’s standards, the democratic process has shown that people have considered the issue. Mississippi has decided to stick with their flag which shows the Battle Flag in the upper canton. So be it. George decided to change their flag numerous times. Not everyone is going to be happy with the decisions. And certainly everyone is entitled to their own views. However, when we start getting into the name callings and refer to having the symbol the flag as “ass backwards,” then we are no better than the hypocrite who criticize our country as a whole. Name calling does absolutely nothing.
So I end this rather long discussion on this point. Why do I revere the Confederacy? The answer is noble in purpose. What is the measure of a man who lifts up the banner to a cause, willing to give up the most precious gift of all, his life, for it, to march onto a field and face a death made of lead, the roar of a cannon spewing out hot death, comrades falling around him, and even though he might know his cause could be wrong, still fights on? The measure of this man can be found in his principles, his morals, his dignity, and his honor. It is these four ideals, columns of humanity, which I find inspiring. These are things in my opinion we as a society have lost and as such must fin again.
So if I am guilty of selective history, then so be it. But I say to you, sir or madam, do not judge me. For if you still say I am wrong, I say to you that even you are guilty of using selective history. For it is you who are only looking at one side of the sphere of history and it is you who choose to block out the other side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)