Response to Steve Buttry

This is my response to an Editorial in the Cedar Rapids Gazette:

http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008711099940

I agree that our founding fathers did begin a tradition of country first.

Country first is a duty and a calling that I take seriously, more seriously today than I have ever had to do before.

My loyalty, my patriotism is to my country first, and not to any one man. Barack Obama was elected president, but his philosophy, his ideology, his policies and even his promises are counterintuitive to what this country needs and has stood for all through its history.

The vast majority of those who voted for Obama were not voting Country First. Many voted Race First, because he was the first black candidate, blacks to see a black president, whites to purge inappropriate "white guilt" over past racism. Many voted "Me First" because the things he promised to do, though not in the interests of the entire population, would give them things they would then be excused from striving for.

The writer is correct in saying that opposition to Obama was not all about race. In fact, opposition to Obama was much less about race than support of Obama was. I have said several times over the past week and I will continue to say, that in this election there were those who voted on the basis of colour of skin, and those who voted based on content of character.

The Content of Character Contingent was outvoted, and the Colour of Skin component won.

My patriotism now demands that I serve my country by being part of a conscious effort to oppose the dangerous policies he has threatened to enact, by informing and inspiring others to join in that effort, too. Not in some sort of vigilante action, but in using the avenues provided within the constructs of the system for citizens to preserve their rights against a leader with a sinister agenda.

I might point out that this editorial is not unpartisan itself, given the cheap and invalid shot at the current President, in the third to last paragraph, and that Obama can - and left to his own devices almost certainly will - do spectacularly worse than President Bush, who may have had his failings but never any motive but to do what he thought best for this country - a motive I am afraid cannot be attributed to Obama.

Obama has given us a clear indication through his campaign rhetoric of how he intends to address the challenges he will face. Of the wars, he would choose defeat as his victory strategy, leaving the world more dangerous than ever before, and us less protected against it. Of the financial markets in turmoil - well, the markets themselves gave us a preview the day after the election - and no, it was no coincidence that so many stocks were sold off after the election results were known. His punish-success approach to taxes will send the markets plummeting much farther over the next year.

Of the national debt? His proposed spending on new and existing programs isn't going to bring us into the black any time soon.

International dilemmas? Look for those to get worse and more numerous. Think the world was cheering at Obama's win because they were happy for us? Nope. They cheered because they knew in their jealous hearts that this was the pushoff event on a downhill slide that they have wanted us to experience for a long time. They were cheering with the gusto of a pack of street kids who just found out the candy store is wide open and the only person minding it is a narcoleptic senior citizen who walks with two canes.

Climate change? What's he going to do about that, reinforce the duct tape over the mouths of the myriad brilliant respected scientists who doubt the influence of man on planet temperature? Impose carbon taxes and other foolish policies designed to fight a problem that is less urgent than preparing for an army of killer hamsters to attack the White House? Take away citizens' Right to Choose their own home lighting options, forcing everyone to buy CFL lightbulbs that endanger their health and well-being?

His plans for the health care system are on track to have people on multi-year waiting lists for lifesaving surgery, and people waiting in hospital hallways for available beds, no matter how he tries to spin them.

Are we to believe he is going to embark on the only immediately practical solution to our dependence on foreign oil, drilling for our own sources here? (And please spare me the 10-year-wait talking point, since it's bogus and usually comes from the same mouths that tell us we have to sacrifice the quality of our lives today to prepare for environmental disasters that might come around in 100 years or so.) Because he has been against it so far. And even he can't power more than 100 windmills per speech or blow air into more than 800 tires a day with his mouth.

And seeing as how he'll be dipping into Social Security to give "tax breaks" to people who don't pay any, I'm as eager as anybody to see how he's going to fix that.

There is nothing to celebrate about this. I do not see it as a legitimate milestone. Had Hillary Clinton secured her party's nomination and the White House, I as a woman would not have celebrated a milestone, because I would not feel that her election was the best thing for the country.

Country first. That is my priority. Country first. Not race first. Not gender first.

If the writer believes, as he wants us to think by the opening lines of this article, that patriotism is about a tradition of "country first," then why does he advocate my celebrating an event that I believe is a bad thing for the country under the guise of patriotism?

I don't happen to think that Barack Obama is the best presidential material the black community has to offer. I happen to feel it's a gross insult to blacks everywhere to act as though the ill-advised election of a second-rate, unqualified, ungenuine man is a triumph for them all.

When you think of it, what this amounts to is the biggest example of affirmative action hiring America has ever seen. If I were black I would feel insulted, condescended-to, ill-represented.

Are You an Esau?

I was thinking today about the story of Esau in the Bible. For my readers whose remembrance of Bible stories may be sketchy, Esau and Jacob were brothers, the sons of Isaac and grandsons of Abraham. Esau was a hunter, and one day he came back from a hunting trip after Jacob had made what the Bible calls "a mess of pottage," probably what we might call a hearty stew or casserole.

When Esau smelled the pottage cooking, he was so hungry that when Jacob offered to give him some in exchange for Esau's birthright, all that the law entitled him to as the oldest son of Isaac, he agreed and sold Jacob his birthright.

I don't know what the trigger was that brought this to my mind, but it reminded me of the current situation the country faces in regard to the upcoming election.

Conventional wisdom and punditry tells us that when the economy is perceived to be in bad shape, that gives the Democratic party an edge among the voters, because in what could only be a degree of blind panic they reach out for "change" as a straw, a possible panacea to their immediate want.

Leaving aside for now the ironic truth that the Democratic Party is responsible for much of what does ail the current economy and the fact that if they are elected into power their big-government, success-punishing tactics will drive the economy into a state that will make the current situation seem like an economic boom; and even supposing there would be some short-term relief after a Democrat was voted into office, let me ask you: what are you willing to give for the tasty illusion of pottage Barack Obama and the Democratic party are selling?

Freedom is our birthright as American citizens. Freedom to prosper through our own hard work and talent and ingenuity without being punished for crossing the line into too much success. Freedom to choose the kind of education our children will have. Freedom to protect ourselves and our homes and families against violence, with responsibly owned firearms. Freedom to choose our own health care.

I am not willing to sell my birthright for what really only amounts to a long-shot lottery ticket that might win me a bowl of consomme.

Are you?

For all we know, Esau didn't even feel that ravenous until the smell of that food hit his nostrils. And we have politicians telling us how bad we have it because they have to make us feel like we want what they're cooking before they tell us they're the ones that can give it to us.

Barack Obama has to fill his speeches with word pictures illustrating misery, because you have to feel like you're miserable and desperate before what he's selling looks good enough to buy.

Pollsters and pundits tell us that the economy is the most important issue in this year's election. Let me ask you: what is most people's gut reaction to people who sell out, who put money before all else that should be valued in life, be it love, family, honesty and integrity, the well-being of themselves and others, and so on?

We tend to look on those people with disgust and contempt, don't we?

But isn't that what we will be doing in the voting booth, if we let the spectre of recession and the empty promises of an empty-suit politician drive us to vote against our values and interests?

So let me ask you: are you an Esau?

I'm not.

Crying Out For Change

This is what I keep hearing to explain the popularity of Barack Obama. People are crying out for change.

So I was thinking the other day. Who is crying out for change?

I thought about it and here is a general sampling of the kind of people who beg for change.

People who are chronically short of cash because they'd a lot rather get a handout from somebody are always asking for change.

Among those in this category are people who hang out on the street, people who hit up wealthier friends who put out because they feel guilty about their own success, addicts who spend everything they get on substance, people who had money but wasted it and now want somebody to feel sorry for them, people who want to get something to eat but didn't budget for food again.

Kids who don't want to deliver papers or mow lawns for spending money cry out for change everytime their mother opens her purse or the ice cream wagon goes by.

People whine for change when they don't want to put in the effort to succeed under the system that they have. These are the people who would rather keep buying new socks and underwear than wash the ones they've been wearing.

Then there are people who change their significant others every time they hit a rough patch. Or change the decor of their living rooms every six months having never sat down on the sofa to read a book and enjoy the surroundings before switching them again.

People crying out for change are people who have convinced themselves or have been convinced by others that things need changing that in actuality don't particularly.

These are people who have never really become involved or invested in anything, so they bore easily and don't really think about or care what may be lost in an undefined quest for "change."

These are the people who want the channel changed, but would not get up off the couch to change it themselves if they couldn't find the remote.

Do we really want these people influencing the nation? Or worse, do we really want the kind of person that panders to them at the helm of the free world?

Just some thoughts.

Next entry I'll change the subject.

The Irony of Hope

I knew Obama was a gifted speaker. I was aware that he had a rare knack for sweeping rhetoric that could catch the most unsuspecting bystanders in its grandeur. I have acknowledged more than once that he has a persuasive tongue.

But I didn't know just how persuasive he could be until I watched the live broadcast of his speech last night (Feb. 12) in Madison, Wisconsin.

And as I listened to him, he gave me hope that I have not felt for some time. He made me feel something that a week ago I thought I might never feel.

What he made me feel was a lot more optimistic about Senator John McCain being my party's presumed presidential nominee. As Obama pompously warned about America's future under a McCain administration, a seed of hope was born - the hope that perhaps Senator McCain will rise to the occasion and really become the leader that his would-be challenger was darkly portending that he will be. The man who still continue to wage the war on terror as long as it takes - a hundred years if necessary! The man who will continue the so-called "tax cuts for the rich" that in reality benefited the entire nation.

OK, so I may have a way to go before I can boost McCain with the kind of passion and fire I felt for President Bush in 2004. He's got some work to do to prove he's serious about earning the respect and trust of conservatives. (One of the things he needs to do, incidentally, is to show that he cares more for the esteem of conservatives than the praise of liberals like Senator Obama.) I'm not kidding myself that he's going to win me over overnight. I'm too good a judge of character for that and my BS detection mechanism is state-of-the-art.

Cautiousness keeps my imagination from running ahead to a day when, before the votes are casts, McCain has finally morphed into the Reagan conservative he claims to be and I can cast my vote for him with no reservations.

But for one shining, glorious moment, Barack Obama took me there with his soaring eloquence.

Maverick John McCain? Not.

The term "maverick" has been thrown around a lot lately, mostly because John McCain is currently seen as the Republican front-runner in the Presidential nomination race, and because the label is mistakenly slapped on him often.

Well, I know what a maverick is. I know what it is to be a maverick. And John McCain is no maverick.

A maverick may be a dissenter, a lone voice, one who declines to adhere to the dictates of a group, but in spirit, a maverick is somebody who differs from the pack on principle, and not to gain the hollow acclaim of a different pack while undermining his own pack of origin.

A maverick is somebody who is who he is because he is wired differently, simply marching to the beat of a different drum. A maverick may wander from the beaten path, but not to spite his fellow travelers. He's simply drawn from the path by the possibilities or the vision of a different path to the same destination.

Who are true conservative mavericks? They are people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who say what nobody else has the guts to, who see what other people miss, who make bold predictions outside of the box and turn out to be right. One of the reasons people like Rush, Ann, and yes, yours truly are so irritated by McCain's claim to be a maverick is that true mavericks are offended by wanna-be ones. A maverick is an honorable thing to be. When somebody is called a maverick on the basis of dishonorable behaviour simply because it's "different," it is a gross insult to real mavericks everywhere.

George W. Bush has been a maverick at various points in his presidency. He stood his ground, eschewed the notion of compromising for the sake of popularity and the preservation of his legacy, in favour of his principles and the good of the country.

Mavericks are true-blue beneath their sore-thumb exterior. A maverick may shuck traditions that are more ritual than substance, because they have not the time or energy to waste on micromanaging the small stuff, but they are often more traditional at their core than their conformist cohorts.

A maverick does not fail to conform for the purpose of scorning his own. He simply is what he is, and if what that is does not fit the mold, he simply accepts that, and hopes more than anything that his own will see his value and accept it too. It is shallow protocol that a maverick flouts, conventional wisdom that is no more than commonly held misconceptions that he contradicts. He doesn't lightly toss away or turn up his nose at the dearly held, deeply rooted values instilled within him that are timeless and priceless.

John McCain is no more a maverick than is a teenager who dons odd clothing and undergoes body piercings to be "different" rather than standing out by virtue of his character and outstanding inner qualities and achievements. John McCain has gone off the beaten path of his party, but not to accomplish great things that proved him a visionary. He has collaborated with people whose ideology given power and left unchecked would cause incalculable damage to this nation, simply because it got him kudos from a razor-thin sliver of the population who happen to have TV cameras in their faces or by-lines in national newspapers.

A maverick is a maverick when it is difficult to be nonconforming. When it would simply be easier to be "normal" and do what everyone else is doing. When somebody like John McCain does what he does that gets him labelled a maverick, he does it because it's easier and gets him praise from the media. There's nothing of the maverick in that.

A maverick may be a leader, but he's not a follower. He may not follow a hard straight line, but he's not inconsistent.

Above all, a maverick does not pretend to be what he's not. John McCain does. Now that he needs to be a conservative to win his party's nomination, he's billing himself as a conservative. When he wanted to be seen as All-Round Nice Guy, he jettisoned major conservative principles like he was throwing Whopper wrappers out the window of a moving car. Some of those he is scrambling to fetch and flatten out again. Other bad decisions he refuses to repudiate, showing a lingering disregard for the principles of those whose votes he wishes to win.

If a maverick does not conform to his own people entirely because he simply can't, then he sure as heck doesn't try to conform to please those who seek the downfall of his people.

I am sure that there was a point when the British press lauded Benedict Arnold as the eighteenth-century synonym for "maverick" (the word wasn't coined until the 1880's). The comparison of Senator McCain to Benedict Arnold may be a trifle strong, but not without merit. After all, Arnold was a spectacular war hero who accomplished great military feats for his country before he switched loyalties to gain money and a prestigious job.

And - word to the wise - once he gained that job, he never did have a grasp on the respect and approval that should have come with it.

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose - and he is no maverick who gives up what must not be lost to gain what he can't keep - the approval of the media and spineless "moderates."

McCain may cling to claim of the maverick label on the basis of his support for the War on Terror and in Iraq and that certainly does deserve credit. But when he hasn't supported action that would keep terrorists from coming in unchecked through the back door from Mexico, and when he has let his own experience cloud his judgment regarding interrogation of enemies, which is absolutely essential to stopping attacks and winning the war, then I have to wonder how deep his committment is. He's loudly reminding us all that he supported the surge - a bold,risky move now that the New York Times and John Murtha have reported its success.

Like I said, John McCain is no maverick.

As of now, he's the mean little boy nobody really likes but they think they have to elect him club president because his daddy is going to buy the land the clubhouse sits on. He's saying, "You have to nominate me, because now I have something you want." (the perceived ability to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.)

Well, I would rather take my chances. It doesn't really follow that the only way to defeat Hillary Clinton is to run "Hillary Lite" in the body of an old man, rather than to present a real alternative. The real conservative pickin's may have grown slim by now, but of those still in the race, Mitt Romney is our last best chance to salvage this election.

I deeply resent the attempt to strong-arm conservatives into betraying their principles to present a candidate who is little more than a lesser evil. I have already had my chance to place my vote, and now my future is in the hands of those in later voting states, and I have deeply resented that, too, when South Carolina and Florida caved and pulled what was manifestly the wrong lever. And I will resent it again if not enough Republicans have the courage to stride into the voting booth to mark their ballots for the best candidate rather than slink in to darken the bubble beside McCain's name because we have let the media and the political talking heads resign us to the "fact" that he is our best chance to beat Hillary or Obama.

If that happens, we will have lost before November even gets here.

I beg of my conservative compatriots in key states to have the courage I just mentioned. To vote YOUR voice and ignore those coming out of your TV or radio speakers. To place your faith in the ability of the American people to choose wisely (they have done it before).

To do the right thing. Because if we can't do the right thing at this stage, what does that say for the future?

My Brush With Greatness

I almost had a heart attack today.

While re-reading a printout I had of an Ann Coulter column, I saw something I had evidently skipped over upon the first perusal.

This is how the column began:

"When I wrote a ferocious defense of Sen. Joe McCarthy in Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism , liberals chose not to argue with me. Instead they posted a scrolling series of reasons not to read my book, such as that I wear short skirts, date boys, and that "Treason" was not a scholarly tome."

What I didn't really absorb the first time is that she was talking about online reviewers panning the book with personal attacks rather than debating its claims. That part about the scholarly tome suddenly made me recall that, while on Amazon some time ago, I checked out some discussions about Ann, and that one of them was a ridiculous essay meant to prove that Ann's book was not scholarly. And, suddenly short of breath I recalled that I had posted a scathing response to the poster. The idea that Ann herself had read this discussion and maybe also my rebuttal was absolutely paralyzing.

Then I noticed the date of the column - November 7th. I had posted my response after Thanksgiving. Too bad. For a moment there, I had felt pretty incredible.

But I looked up the discussion a few minutes ago, to see if what I wrote was something I would be embarrassed to have The Ann read, or something I could have been proud of.

And I don't think it was too bad. So I think I'll repost the whole exchange here. First, the post by one calling himself Christopher K. Halbower:

"I'm of the opinion that they[Coulter's books] are not scholarly. I'll make my case below. However, I will preface this topic by saying that I am open minded. If a stronger case exists that proves Miss Coulter's books are scholarly, I'll certainly adopt that argument.

{Please note: Miss Coulter's political views are not really relevant as to whether her works are scholarly.}It is easy to dismiss Miss Coulter's literature on the basis of scholarly research.

For example, her book "Treason" is 368 pages long, has a relatively large font size and covers 60 years of history. She publishes a book almost every year.

Now, compare that with, say, Seymour Hersh's "Price of Power". This book is over 800 pages long, has a relatively small font size and covers 4 to 5 years of history. Hersh spent over 10 years researching this book.

Coulter's book is not cited in a single scholarly work. Hersh's book is cited in 92 other books.

"Treason" cannot be found in univserity libraries and therefore isn't being studied by tomorrow's historians. "Price of Power" is the definitive work on Kissinger's role as National Security Advisor; tomorrow's historians are almost certainly studying it.

And this is just one example. I could take any other scholarly work and compare it to Coulter's literature and arrive at the same conclusions: a)William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"; Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"; Josephus Flavius' "The Jewish Antiquities" and so on.

Coulter's works will not survive this generation because

1. they are not scholarly (see my above arguments)
2. the scholars of tomorrow are not studying them today
3. they are comtemporaneous without being scholarly and thus are not "timeless".

-Chris

Well, there's nothing more annoying than an earnest boob trying to prove his own scholarliness by name-dropping and liberal usage of words he doesn't really know his way around, so I felt compelled to research and respond.

Here's my post:

Does "scholarly" mean "full of crap?" Because if it does, your assertion that Seymour Hersh's works are scholarly while Ann's are not is certainly dead-on.

Here are some definitions of "scholarly" (Did you REALLY imagine you could post a credible discourse on the scholarliness or lack thereof of an author's works without beginning with an established, accurate definition of the word "scholarly"? REALLY? Wow.)

1. of, like, or befitting a scholar: scholarly habits.
2. having the qualities of a scholar: a scholarly person.
3. concerned with academic learning and research. -adverb
4. like a scholar.

"ˈscholarly - adjective: having or showing knowledge
Example: a scholarly person; a scholarly book"

Which certainly applies to Ann and her works - and how.

Doesn't say anything about said knowledge coming from unverifiably anonymous sources, or sources that are professional crooks, or sources that are reputable but misquoted, or slander, innuendo and outright lies, so I'm not sure whether that particular definition can be applied to Hersh's work or not.

Oh, wait, nope. This definition of the root word, scholar, precludes Mr. Hersh:

1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Knowledge based on crap can hardly be called profound, now, can it?

There are some notable omissions in these definitions. I see no mention of the standards of number of pages or font size which are evidently essential factors in judging the scholarliness of a work.

I am surprised to discover that Shakespeare cannot be considered "scholarly." But apparently, it's true - he wrote 37 plays in a lifetime of 52 years, not even counting his poetry - and if Ann's writing 6 books in 10 years precludes her from scholarliness, than poor William has no chance.

He's certainly no Seymour Hersh.

"the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

"..best understood as the Geraldo of print investigative reporters."

"there is hardly anything [in the book] that shouldn't be suspect."

"Hersh and his article lack integrity."

"Hersh used [supposedly authentic documents he discovered] to get NBC to sign a $2.5 million contract to make a Kennedy documentary, and when the network pulled out Hersh signed with ABC for the same amount. But when ABC had the documents tested, they turned out to be phony." (say, is Dan Rather scholarly?)

"a little fast and loose with the facts."

"Particularly arguable are the innuendoes in which he indulges and the conclusions to which he jumps on the basis of his raw material."

"If the standard for being fired was being wrong on a story, I would have been fired long ago."

If that's scholarly, the adjective is completely unworthy of being attached to Ann. Most of those quotes, all describing Hersh, came from liberals. The last was spoken by Hersh himself.

"almost every episode or statement on Kissinger ascribed to him by Hersh [was] a distortion, an exaggeration, a misinterpretation, or an expletive-deleted lie."

This quote is from a man cited by Hersh as a major source for his book.

I tremble to contemplate the stellar quality and unimpeachable credibity that must mark the 92 works that cited this guy.

And again, the scholarly thing to do would have been to open your thesis with a definition of the word scholarly. Just for next time.