I was listening to the radio last night as I was driving to the grocery store. Some clown of a commentator (yes, when I say "radio" I mean "AM") did the greatest thing I've ever heard him do. He shut up. And instead of talking, he aired an old Ronald Reagan speech. The speech was titled "A Time For Choosing", made in support of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and it was regarded as Reagan's first foray into politics. I sat there in my car with my milk and some beer and some potato chips.
And wow.
Here's the text and here's the recording. If, like me, you've been disgusted by politics lately; if the bitter partisanship or the tremendous deficit spending is getting you down; if you're concerned about the Patriot Act or government incursions on an individual's right to smoke in their own home; if you've been thinking dark thoughts about moving to New Zealand, listen to this speech.
Why is it refreshing to be reminded that government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem? Why is it invigorating to hear that the foundation of all that America has achieved has been freedom? Freedom of property, freedom of religion (or from religion), freedom to protest and to not be censored. Why is it refreshing? I think I just reminded myself.
If a football analogy will be permitted, Reagan hikes the ball, passes to Bush 41, Bush 41 runs to the outside, no, no, he fumbles, hit by Clinton, Clinton's running the other way... gets distracted by a fan, and W has the ball! W's running with it, he's going up the middle, he's, wait... where have we seen running like this?
C'est la vie. It's easy to be pissed about politics. It's even easier to wonder why candidates refuse to follow this simple vision, fighting over the mantle of "Reagan's heir" and ignoring the substance that made him so popular. But, if I could, once more, borrow from the Gipper,
"Don't get cynical. Don't get cynical... Look at yourselves and what you've done, and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there who want what you want, who want it to be that way. Who want it to be a shining city on a hill."
Oh, and if you were bored by this, you might try a simpler blog.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Hey, he had it coming.
Ok, I just had to comment on this one. You know I did.
Since I've discovered that some of my regular readers are linkophobic, it's an article that encapsulates the Left's eventual mindset. Essentially, it argues that our soldiers support the war in Iraq because they are brainwashed mercenaries or naive simpletons who need to believe what they're told.
Now, to be clear, I agree with some of the article.
I happen to be one of those who thinks that is IS possible to support the troops but not their mission. This is only logical. Surely it is possible to realize how much the American serviceman (of every branch) sacrifices, while at the same time, disagreeing over the necessity of that sacrifice. Of course, unlike the author, I think that staying the course in Iraq is imperative, for a variety of reasons, explained below.
Firstly, there seem to be two real political options: stay the course, and phased withdrawal. It was always accepted (I hope) that the neo-con vision of a new, democratic, and westernized Iraq was always a very risky proposition. If we succeed, the entire Mid-East region is changed in a very fundamental way, and if we fail it fails in equal proportion.
Given those two options (and I recognize the existence of other "options", I just doubt their basis in reality), what is the "best" course for th U.S. to pursue? Hell if I know. I'm just an unemployed college grad.
But it seems disingenuous to me to represent our armed services as mercenaries who have only signed up for college benefits and money. And hey, when did we start paying "the soldiers a decent wage"? Maybe the officers get a decent wage, but the last time I checked (and most of you know I've been checking) a Private (E1) makes about $15,000 a year or less. I don't know too many folks (Arkin excepted) who would argue that that's a "decent wage".
More to the point, arguing that "the troops also need to support the American people", because "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform" is ridiculous. For those of you who failed 8th grade English, ridiculous means "causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable".
Unfortunately, I don't think Arkin's position will be ridiculed forever. Sure, it will be today, but tomorrow it will be mainstream left-wing thought. It almost seems like a lament when he argues that, "We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon." The implication being that the troops should be grateful to the American public for their kind indulgence.
Now, again, I have no answers to the Iraq situation. And from our politicians, I've only heard two, which are, "more of the same" and "run away". But surely, it's not too much to ask that we keep our rhetoric out of the sewers and in the realm of the realistic, the achievable, or the desirable. If criticism is warranted (and it may well be) is it oo much to ask that, instead of targeting the average joe who's trying to make needs meet on >$20,000 a year, we lay the decision makers in our sights? A low blow is a low blow, whether it's for a good cause or not.
And, as always, if the above has bored you into a repetitive alpha state, here's proof that Bobby McFerrin is not, in fact, a human being.
Since I've discovered that some of my regular readers are linkophobic, it's an article that encapsulates the Left's eventual mindset. Essentially, it argues that our soldiers support the war in Iraq because they are brainwashed mercenaries or naive simpletons who need to believe what they're told.
Now, to be clear, I agree with some of the article.
I happen to be one of those who thinks that is IS possible to support the troops but not their mission. This is only logical. Surely it is possible to realize how much the American serviceman (of every branch) sacrifices, while at the same time, disagreeing over the necessity of that sacrifice. Of course, unlike the author, I think that staying the course in Iraq is imperative, for a variety of reasons, explained below.
Firstly, there seem to be two real political options: stay the course, and phased withdrawal. It was always accepted (I hope) that the neo-con vision of a new, democratic, and westernized Iraq was always a very risky proposition. If we succeed, the entire Mid-East region is changed in a very fundamental way, and if we fail it fails in equal proportion.
Given those two options (and I recognize the existence of other "options", I just doubt their basis in reality), what is the "best" course for th U.S. to pursue? Hell if I know. I'm just an unemployed college grad.
But it seems disingenuous to me to represent our armed services as mercenaries who have only signed up for college benefits and money. And hey, when did we start paying "the soldiers a decent wage"? Maybe the officers get a decent wage, but the last time I checked (and most of you know I've been checking) a Private (E1) makes about $15,000 a year or less. I don't know too many folks (Arkin excepted) who would argue that that's a "decent wage".
More to the point, arguing that "the troops also need to support the American people", because "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform" is ridiculous. For those of you who failed 8th grade English, ridiculous means "causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable".
Unfortunately, I don't think Arkin's position will be ridiculed forever. Sure, it will be today, but tomorrow it will be mainstream left-wing thought. It almost seems like a lament when he argues that, "We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon." The implication being that the troops should be grateful to the American public for their kind indulgence.
Now, again, I have no answers to the Iraq situation. And from our politicians, I've only heard two, which are, "more of the same" and "run away". But surely, it's not too much to ask that we keep our rhetoric out of the sewers and in the realm of the realistic, the achievable, or the desirable. If criticism is warranted (and it may well be) is it oo much to ask that, instead of targeting the average joe who's trying to make needs meet on >$20,000 a year, we lay the decision makers in our sights? A low blow is a low blow, whether it's for a good cause or not.
And, as always, if the above has bored you into a repetitive alpha state, here's proof that Bobby McFerrin is not, in fact, a human being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
