One Nation Under God
©2011 By David Talbot
This is going to be a history lesson. One that my liberal/progressive friends will not like or understand. In their mind, no mention of God or religion is acceptable in this modern age, as being prohibited by a clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “The Establishment Clause.”
Since the mid 1950’s, atheists have sought to use this clause to eliminate prayer in schools, prayer at sporting events, any display of a religious symbol on any public property, and removal of “..under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. And, they’ve been successful.
Most recently, these groups, mostly aided by the ACLU have sued in Federal court to remove a cross from a private-public partnership property, on a hilltop overlooking the San Diego Freeway. And they are planning to sue the Federal Government to remove any religious symbols from the graves of fallen soldiers and patriots in National Cemeteries.
From court briefs, one might get the feeling that our founding fathers had this “No Religion in Public” sentiment in mind when they formed the colonies and drafted our national documents.
You’d be wrong.
Of course we all learned about the arrival of the Puritans to America, fleeing England for religious freedom. While most of us know how important religion was in their private lives, most folks are not aware of how significant the Hebrew and Christian Bibles were in the political and legislative life of the colonists.
Ken Spiro, of AISH.Com, has put together a course on religion in colonial America that addresses, in part, the development of legal structures in early America. For example, the New Haven Colony adopted a legal code in 1655 “..which contained some 79 statutes, half of which contained biblical references.” A similar code was adopted in the Plymouth Colony.
The Massachusetts Colony, in 1641, 14 years earlier than New Haven, adopted the “so-called Capitall Lawes of New England, based almost entirely on Mosaic law.”
But did the laws of the early American Colonies have an influence on the framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution?
We can find a clue to their thinking by looking at the institutions of higher learning they attended. Ken Spiro notes, “So popular was the Hebrew Language in the late 16th and early 17th centuries that several students at Yale delivered their commencement orations in Hebrew. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Pennsylvania taught courses in Hebrew.” More remarkable, these universities required Bible study and Hebrew and “..students had the option of delivering commencement speeches in either Hebrew, Latin or Greek.”
So, who attended these Universities? Thomas Jefferson attended William and Mary. James Madison attended Princeton. Alexander Hamilton attended King’s College (Columbia).
Of course this is just an opinion piece, not a college dissertation. So, here’s my opinion: I’m an observant Jew who went to public school. I heard prayer every day at school, said the pledge of allegiance, and suffered no brain damage or impairment of any kind. Before assembly we prayed. Before football games our players prayed. And, I believe the world was a better place for it.
In fact, ever since atheists and the ACLU began their “War on Religion” this country has become an example of everything that’s wrong with the world, and I don’t like it one darn bit.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
talbotnotes@gmail.com
Showing posts with label American Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Sunday, September 12, 2010
www.575magazine.com v 19.0
Debate on the Mosque At Ground Zero
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
www.575magazine.com v 14.0
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling
©2010, By David Talbot
When traveling in Israel the past three years, we’ve observed Israeli police periodically asking individuals for Identity Papers. We notice this as we drive around the country and as casual observers from our apartment terrace over looking the very busy Allenby-Hayarkon intersection in Tel Aviv.
Without exception, these individuals promptly hand over their ID cards and follow the instructions of the police. After a minute or two of what seems like casual conversation, the police hand the documents back and everyone goes on their way.
There are no demonstrations, although Israelis are passionate demonstrators. There are no threats of lawsuits for civil rights violations. There are no Al Sharptons calling for civil disobedience. There is no fear of racial profiling. Why? Because every Israeli knows who the terrorists are and what they plan on doing.
But here in Arizona, and across the country, liberals are reacting like Chicken Little to a new law, passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Brewer, last week Exactly what is it about this new law that has created a firestorm of criticism around the nation?
The new law defines illegal entry to the United States as a crime. But wait, didn’t we all know that already? Doesn’t the very term “Illegal” mean that an activity is criminal? So, there must be something else about this law that has liberals organizing protests, letter writing campaigns, and threatening legal action to make the law null and void.
The law defines “being here illegally” as a crime and establishes penalties for this illegal conduct, including fines and jail time. Further, this law allows law enforcement to ask for proof of immigration status, when a person is suspected of being in this country illegally. This provision of the law is what so many find problematic, with the potential of leading to racial profiling. (Why profiling is bad is totally baffling to Israelis.)
However, law enforcement may only question a persons immigration status when that person is observed, or is suspected of, some other illegal activity. So, a person detained by police for some suspected infraction of the civil or criminal code, may also have his immigration status questioned. If that person cannot prove he or she is here legally, they may be arrested.
Is this a radical departure from prior police procedure? Actually no, it is exactly the same. Except, prior to enactment of this law, persons here illegally were turned over to ICE and deported or set free, pending a hearing. Now, the detained person may be jailed and fined for being here illegally. That is in addition to the civil or criminal charges that person may face from the underlying act.
The question of “legalized racial profiling” is a total fiction fabricated by those who want no restriction on immigration and in fact lobby for open borders. Or, have a need to make political points with their constituents. Truth and accuracy are not critical components in their outrageous commentaries.
This law has shined a spotlight on the real issue, the lack of a national comprehensive immigration policy. To paraphrase President Obama, in the absence of a national policy, states will make policy of their own. In fact, Texas is now considering legislation using Arizona SB1070 as a model for their act.
Although a recent poll showed 71% of Arizona residents favor the new law, we welcome new residents and visitors regardless of Race, Religion, National Origin, Political Affiliation, and all legal immigration categories. Come and stay for a day, week, month, year, or a lifetime. But if you are in this country illegally and commit a crime here in Arizona, you’re going to jail.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Shalom.
David Talbot
©2010, By David Talbot
When traveling in Israel the past three years, we’ve observed Israeli police periodically asking individuals for Identity Papers. We notice this as we drive around the country and as casual observers from our apartment terrace over looking the very busy Allenby-Hayarkon intersection in Tel Aviv.
Without exception, these individuals promptly hand over their ID cards and follow the instructions of the police. After a minute or two of what seems like casual conversation, the police hand the documents back and everyone goes on their way.
There are no demonstrations, although Israelis are passionate demonstrators. There are no threats of lawsuits for civil rights violations. There are no Al Sharptons calling for civil disobedience. There is no fear of racial profiling. Why? Because every Israeli knows who the terrorists are and what they plan on doing.
But here in Arizona, and across the country, liberals are reacting like Chicken Little to a new law, passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Brewer, last week Exactly what is it about this new law that has created a firestorm of criticism around the nation?
The new law defines illegal entry to the United States as a crime. But wait, didn’t we all know that already? Doesn’t the very term “Illegal” mean that an activity is criminal? So, there must be something else about this law that has liberals organizing protests, letter writing campaigns, and threatening legal action to make the law null and void.
The law defines “being here illegally” as a crime and establishes penalties for this illegal conduct, including fines and jail time. Further, this law allows law enforcement to ask for proof of immigration status, when a person is suspected of being in this country illegally. This provision of the law is what so many find problematic, with the potential of leading to racial profiling. (Why profiling is bad is totally baffling to Israelis.)
However, law enforcement may only question a persons immigration status when that person is observed, or is suspected of, some other illegal activity. So, a person detained by police for some suspected infraction of the civil or criminal code, may also have his immigration status questioned. If that person cannot prove he or she is here legally, they may be arrested.
Is this a radical departure from prior police procedure? Actually no, it is exactly the same. Except, prior to enactment of this law, persons here illegally were turned over to ICE and deported or set free, pending a hearing. Now, the detained person may be jailed and fined for being here illegally. That is in addition to the civil or criminal charges that person may face from the underlying act.
The question of “legalized racial profiling” is a total fiction fabricated by those who want no restriction on immigration and in fact lobby for open borders. Or, have a need to make political points with their constituents. Truth and accuracy are not critical components in their outrageous commentaries.
This law has shined a spotlight on the real issue, the lack of a national comprehensive immigration policy. To paraphrase President Obama, in the absence of a national policy, states will make policy of their own. In fact, Texas is now considering legislation using Arizona SB1070 as a model for their act.
Although a recent poll showed 71% of Arizona residents favor the new law, we welcome new residents and visitors regardless of Race, Religion, National Origin, Political Affiliation, and all legal immigration categories. Come and stay for a day, week, month, year, or a lifetime. But if you are in this country illegally and commit a crime here in Arizona, you’re going to jail.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Shalom.
David Talbot
Sunday, April 11, 2010
www.575magazine.com v13.0
Profanity
©2010 By David Talbot
The Readers Digest is one of my favorite publications. It contains a lot of information presented in a condensed format including “How to” tips for dealing with many everyday annoying situations.
So, I’m flipping through the pages of the August 2009 issue, during a biology break today, and I come across “How to Get a Person on the Phone” on page 97.
This article is a list of little things a person can do to defeat the automated answering services of virtually every company, service, and governmental organization in this modern world. It’s what comes right after “Press 1 for English……”
I won’t repeat the entire list of suggestions, just one: “Swear. Some systems put anyone who is using profanity at the front of the line.” My mind jumped to George Carlin and his routine of the 7 dirty words you can’t use on TV. I wondered which ones the author may have contemplated? I also wondered who may have programmed profane words into the answering software so that it, a machine, would recognize the vocalizations as profanity in the first place?
We seem to be living in an angry, profanity infused world these days. I can’t go to any mall or shopping center and pass by a group of teens and not be astonished by the crude and insensitive comments I hear come out of the mouths of these kids. And that’s from the girls!
Facebook, and other social networking sites, reveal posts crammed full of four letter words that make me wonder if our society has sunk into the depths of depravity rivaling ancient Rome. Teens, boys and girls, sending text messages of themselves engaged in sexual conduct (Sexting) is the new fad. These digital recordings are posted on You Tube where they have a world wide audience.
So, I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that The Readers Digest is recommending profanity as a way to get somebody’s attention. But given the state of our society, I don’t think that anybody would really notice, not even an answering machine.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2010 By David Talbot
The Readers Digest is one of my favorite publications. It contains a lot of information presented in a condensed format including “How to” tips for dealing with many everyday annoying situations.
So, I’m flipping through the pages of the August 2009 issue, during a biology break today, and I come across “How to Get a Person on the Phone” on page 97.
This article is a list of little things a person can do to defeat the automated answering services of virtually every company, service, and governmental organization in this modern world. It’s what comes right after “Press 1 for English……”
I won’t repeat the entire list of suggestions, just one: “Swear. Some systems put anyone who is using profanity at the front of the line.” My mind jumped to George Carlin and his routine of the 7 dirty words you can’t use on TV. I wondered which ones the author may have contemplated? I also wondered who may have programmed profane words into the answering software so that it, a machine, would recognize the vocalizations as profanity in the first place?
We seem to be living in an angry, profanity infused world these days. I can’t go to any mall or shopping center and pass by a group of teens and not be astonished by the crude and insensitive comments I hear come out of the mouths of these kids. And that’s from the girls!
Facebook, and other social networking sites, reveal posts crammed full of four letter words that make me wonder if our society has sunk into the depths of depravity rivaling ancient Rome. Teens, boys and girls, sending text messages of themselves engaged in sexual conduct (Sexting) is the new fad. These digital recordings are posted on You Tube where they have a world wide audience.
So, I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that The Readers Digest is recommending profanity as a way to get somebody’s attention. But given the state of our society, I don’t think that anybody would really notice, not even an answering machine.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Shalom,
David Talbot
Saturday, January 02, 2010
A New Year's Resolution
A New Year's Resolution
©2009 David Talbot
Every December, I make resolutions, all with good intentions, that nevertheless seem to get pushed into the background of mydaily life after the holidays have come and gone. Things like: I’m going to loose 10lbs this year, save a little more, travel more, etc. You’re probably familiar with this annual ritual.
This year is different. A member of my family is dying of cancer. The particulars are only important to the family. However, the current situation has caused me to make a new resolution this year. And I have already made good on my commitment.
I know, you probably expect me to say something like: I resolve to be kinder, laugh more, cry often, love deeply, say I’m sorry, worry less, enjoy life, and other things we see in countless emails throughout the year. While these are admirable suggestions, that’s not what I did.
When our relative got the diagnosis, we also learned there is no Will, no Advance Directives, no Health Care Power of Attorney, and no idea what to do next. And, my relative is not capable of doing any “end of life” planning at this late date. He’s comfortable with the notion that “everybody knows what I want.”
As the extended family met to discuss medical options and legal issues, it became clear that most of us had not done any end of life planning. That’s when I made my 2010 New Year’s resolution, to take care of my immediate family.
My wife and I sat down with an attorney and completed all the documents necessary to insure that “everybody knows what we want.” This includes physicians, hospitals, the legal authorities, and all our relatives. It didn’t take long and it didn’t cost much. It’s a comforting thought that we have taken care of all the details. Now our children won’t be burdened, at the worst possible time, and our assets will transfer to our loved ones quickly at minimum expense.
Estate Planning requires that a person face certain facts about their own mortality. However, it is a beautiful expression of how much you care for your family, not just here and now, but for a long time in the future.
So, for 2010, resolve to: be kinder, laugh more, cry often, love deeply, say your sorry, worry less, enjoy life, and take care of your family by doing a little advanced planning.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. Happy New Year.
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2009 David Talbot
Every December, I make resolutions, all with good intentions, that nevertheless seem to get pushed into the background of mydaily life after the holidays have come and gone. Things like: I’m going to loose 10lbs this year, save a little more, travel more, etc. You’re probably familiar with this annual ritual.
This year is different. A member of my family is dying of cancer. The particulars are only important to the family. However, the current situation has caused me to make a new resolution this year. And I have already made good on my commitment.
I know, you probably expect me to say something like: I resolve to be kinder, laugh more, cry often, love deeply, say I’m sorry, worry less, enjoy life, and other things we see in countless emails throughout the year. While these are admirable suggestions, that’s not what I did.
When our relative got the diagnosis, we also learned there is no Will, no Advance Directives, no Health Care Power of Attorney, and no idea what to do next. And, my relative is not capable of doing any “end of life” planning at this late date. He’s comfortable with the notion that “everybody knows what I want.”
As the extended family met to discuss medical options and legal issues, it became clear that most of us had not done any end of life planning. That’s when I made my 2010 New Year’s resolution, to take care of my immediate family.
My wife and I sat down with an attorney and completed all the documents necessary to insure that “everybody knows what we want.” This includes physicians, hospitals, the legal authorities, and all our relatives. It didn’t take long and it didn’t cost much. It’s a comforting thought that we have taken care of all the details. Now our children won’t be burdened, at the worst possible time, and our assets will transfer to our loved ones quickly at minimum expense.
Estate Planning requires that a person face certain facts about their own mortality. However, it is a beautiful expression of how much you care for your family, not just here and now, but for a long time in the future.
So, for 2010, resolve to: be kinder, laugh more, cry often, love deeply, say your sorry, worry less, enjoy life, and take care of your family by doing a little advanced planning.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. Happy New Year.
Shalom,
David Talbot
Monday, November 30, 2009
Compulsory Military Service?
Compulsory Military Service?
©2009 David Talbot
I remember when I was a teenager, back in the 60’s. The traditional rite of passage for young men was reaching their 18th birthday, marching down to the Post Office, and registering for the draft. I was proud to register, and so were all my friends.
Somewhere in the late 60’s, serving in the military went out of fashion and the draft was discontinued. We all know the reasons: Vietnam, counter-culture, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. We lost our innocence in the 60’s and never got it back. The all-volunteer Army was born.
Since the 60’s a lot has happened to America and the spirit of serving our country. We have become a country of “What’s in it for me” instead of “What you can do for your country.” Fortunately, the US Military has been able to attract enough volunteers to man the “peacetime” service. But something is missing.
What’s missing is the spirit of service that we all had, back when I was young. And the country is suffering for it. Is there anyplace on earth that still has a system of compulsory military service?
Before I answer that question, here’s a test: What country has more companies on the Nasdaq than all of Europe, India, China, Korea, and Japan, combined? What country has global venture capital 2.5 times the United States and 30 times Europe?
According to Dan Senor’s new book[1], the answer to the above is Israel, tiny Israel, with a population of 7,400,000 residents living in a country the size of New Jersey. So, what does this have to do with compulsory military service?
In Israel, every high school graduate (with very few exceptions) are obligated to join the Israeli Military: males for 3 years and females for 2 years. These 21 year old men and women return from military service and resume their college or university educations, with real world experience and a drive to become leaders in Israeli society and business.
Israel’s corporate CEO’s, Managers, and Investors have become very astute in reading military resumes, in addition to college transcripts. They’ve become experts in finding the talent for running their firms in an environment of constant threats from Israel’s neighbors, no natural resources, and no internal energy sources.
At 25 years of age, these college graduates are individuals whose management skills were tested on the battlefield. They learned decision making skills, based on incomplete and sometimes contradictory information, and will sacrifice their current creature comforts for the success of a long term project. The talents these individuals learn in their military service carries them from the battlefield to the classroom, and from the classroom to the corporate environment.
Mr. Senor interviewed CEO’s of Ebay, Intel, Google, and Cisco (Which has purchased 9 Israeli start-ups this year), requesting a comparison of recent graduates of American and Israeli Universities. With out exception, these CEO’s replied they would select an Israeli over an American, hands down. Due in large part to the Israeli military experience.
On a recent CNBC Economic presentation, Mr. Senor was asked if the Israeli success was due, in part, to the political environment in Israel. To which he replied: “The U.S. and Israel are moving in opposite directions.” Israel , especially since 1990 has moved from a more socialist environment that was stagnant for a couple of decades, to a more entrepreneurial system encouraging a higher percentage investment of their GDP in new and innovative ventures than the United States.
In conclusion, am I recommending a resumption of the Military Draft for America? No, is the short answer. But, there are a few things we must do if we are to resume our position as the world leader in start-up, innovative business applications. “Start-Up Nation” is a good place to start.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Shalom
[1] Start-Up Nation, The story of Israel’s Economic Miracle.
©2009 David Talbot
I remember when I was a teenager, back in the 60’s. The traditional rite of passage for young men was reaching their 18th birthday, marching down to the Post Office, and registering for the draft. I was proud to register, and so were all my friends.
Somewhere in the late 60’s, serving in the military went out of fashion and the draft was discontinued. We all know the reasons: Vietnam, counter-culture, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. We lost our innocence in the 60’s and never got it back. The all-volunteer Army was born.
Since the 60’s a lot has happened to America and the spirit of serving our country. We have become a country of “What’s in it for me” instead of “What you can do for your country.” Fortunately, the US Military has been able to attract enough volunteers to man the “peacetime” service. But something is missing.
What’s missing is the spirit of service that we all had, back when I was young. And the country is suffering for it. Is there anyplace on earth that still has a system of compulsory military service?
Before I answer that question, here’s a test: What country has more companies on the Nasdaq than all of Europe, India, China, Korea, and Japan, combined? What country has global venture capital 2.5 times the United States and 30 times Europe?
According to Dan Senor’s new book[1], the answer to the above is Israel, tiny Israel, with a population of 7,400,000 residents living in a country the size of New Jersey. So, what does this have to do with compulsory military service?
In Israel, every high school graduate (with very few exceptions) are obligated to join the Israeli Military: males for 3 years and females for 2 years. These 21 year old men and women return from military service and resume their college or university educations, with real world experience and a drive to become leaders in Israeli society and business.
Israel’s corporate CEO’s, Managers, and Investors have become very astute in reading military resumes, in addition to college transcripts. They’ve become experts in finding the talent for running their firms in an environment of constant threats from Israel’s neighbors, no natural resources, and no internal energy sources.
At 25 years of age, these college graduates are individuals whose management skills were tested on the battlefield. They learned decision making skills, based on incomplete and sometimes contradictory information, and will sacrifice their current creature comforts for the success of a long term project. The talents these individuals learn in their military service carries them from the battlefield to the classroom, and from the classroom to the corporate environment.
Mr. Senor interviewed CEO’s of Ebay, Intel, Google, and Cisco (Which has purchased 9 Israeli start-ups this year), requesting a comparison of recent graduates of American and Israeli Universities. With out exception, these CEO’s replied they would select an Israeli over an American, hands down. Due in large part to the Israeli military experience.
On a recent CNBC Economic presentation, Mr. Senor was asked if the Israeli success was due, in part, to the political environment in Israel. To which he replied: “The U.S. and Israel are moving in opposite directions.” Israel , especially since 1990 has moved from a more socialist environment that was stagnant for a couple of decades, to a more entrepreneurial system encouraging a higher percentage investment of their GDP in new and innovative ventures than the United States.
In conclusion, am I recommending a resumption of the Military Draft for America? No, is the short answer. But, there are a few things we must do if we are to resume our position as the world leader in start-up, innovative business applications. “Start-Up Nation” is a good place to start.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Shalom
[1] Start-Up Nation, The story of Israel’s Economic Miracle.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Question and Answer
Posted By Pat Haruff on Yahoo Group "Homeowners of Sunland Village" 4/22/08
It just keeps climbing, yesterday it was $117 a barrel.
Maybe there will be a positive result to all of this....for years there has been talk about employees being able to do their jobs from home by computers, faxes,phone, etc but mostly nothing has been done.
Maybe this crisis will force corporations to evaluate the situation and just maybe there will finally be less cars on the freeway and that would also save tax money as we would have no need to build more freeways!
What do you think????
Pat Haruff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Answer, Tue., April 22, 2008
This is a complex issue. The price of a barrel of oil is partly a factor of demand and partly a factor of international currency rates. The drop in the dollar is as much to blame for the price of oil as is demand (ie Consumption) and production limitations (ie OPECholding back production to create increased cost.)
The issue of telecommuting employees is also a complex issue. Many corporations already allow selected employess to telecommute, jobshare, and other alternatives to the "Drive to the Office." But only so many jobs lend themselves to the telecommute. And, if we stop Manufacturing job losses to foreign companies, on foreign soil, and those jobs come back to the USA, those jobs cannot be telecommuted.
However, Americans are in love with their cars, and their cars are big guzzlers of gas. Ever notice how empty the HOV lanes are? Well hardly anyone car pools. Lite Rail will not solve the problem either. Since Lite Rail was approved, thousands of new homes have been constructed all over the valley making lite rail a non-issue. Urban planning in the Valley has always been sideways looking to solve problems of the moment, not forward looking to solve problems of the future. Solutions to high energy prices have to have complex solutions to these complex problems. Jobs, currency values, housing, banking and finance are problem areas that can be fixed with laws and policies.
Attitudes, about cars, commuting, and work, are impossible to legislate and will require a generation, or more, to change, maybe more. Taking a few, even many cars off the road will only work if we stop the insane building of super communities like Anthem. When you take 5,000 cars off the road and build 100,000+ new homes in Florence, you end up with 200,000 new gas guzzlers to contend with even if they don't drive more than 10 miles to work or recreation.
David Talbot
It just keeps climbing, yesterday it was $117 a barrel.
Maybe there will be a positive result to all of this....for years there has been talk about employees being able to do their jobs from home by computers, faxes,phone, etc but mostly nothing has been done.
Maybe this crisis will force corporations to evaluate the situation and just maybe there will finally be less cars on the freeway and that would also save tax money as we would have no need to build more freeways!
What do you think????
Pat Haruff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Answer, Tue., April 22, 2008
This is a complex issue. The price of a barrel of oil is partly a factor of demand and partly a factor of international currency rates. The drop in the dollar is as much to blame for the price of oil as is demand (ie Consumption) and production limitations (ie OPECholding back production to create increased cost.)
The issue of telecommuting employees is also a complex issue. Many corporations already allow selected employess to telecommute, jobshare, and other alternatives to the "Drive to the Office." But only so many jobs lend themselves to the telecommute. And, if we stop Manufacturing job losses to foreign companies, on foreign soil, and those jobs come back to the USA, those jobs cannot be telecommuted.
However, Americans are in love with their cars, and their cars are big guzzlers of gas. Ever notice how empty the HOV lanes are? Well hardly anyone car pools. Lite Rail will not solve the problem either. Since Lite Rail was approved, thousands of new homes have been constructed all over the valley making lite rail a non-issue. Urban planning in the Valley has always been sideways looking to solve problems of the moment, not forward looking to solve problems of the future. Solutions to high energy prices have to have complex solutions to these complex problems. Jobs, currency values, housing, banking and finance are problem areas that can be fixed with laws and policies.
Attitudes, about cars, commuting, and work, are impossible to legislate and will require a generation, or more, to change, maybe more. Taking a few, even many cars off the road will only work if we stop the insane building of super communities like Anthem. When you take 5,000 cars off the road and build 100,000+ new homes in Florence, you end up with 200,000 new gas guzzlers to contend with even if they don't drive more than 10 miles to work or recreation.
David Talbot
Monday, March 24, 2008
America, Then and Now
I received this from a neighbor CE, and asked for comments from a group of friends and former colleagues. Here's the article, comments follow:
------------------------------------------------
Everyone has a different opinion on the war and our current President. But this article probably makes sense to some of you who remember. Read it and give it some thought.
What a difference 60 years makes..!!! President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.
It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders. Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter the people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty.
Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining. You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President.
Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made up beat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance and with prayers for our country and our troops! Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve. It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the Land of Oz.
We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing. America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Comment 1: By KL.....
I couldnt agree more David. Our country has become fat and lazy. 911 woke them up a little, but it was no time till they went back to sleep. God help us if they dont wake up soon. This war will never be over, and we need to be the ones that choose the field of battle, if we dont, they will.Communism is Micky Mouse compared to Islam. I have read their "devils book", and there is no compromise with them. My opinion.....k
Comment 2: By.....JT
When we went to war against Japan on December 8, 1941, it was in response to their attack against the U. S. Naval Base, Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, then a territory of the United States. This was a direct attack on our own naval facility, where American lives were lost, not to mention something like a third of our entire navy materiel. There was no question about who had attacked us and that it was real war.
When the United States went to war against Iraq, some people thought it was in retaliation against the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the twin towers in New York City. However, all but four of the terrorists who attacked on that day were not Iraqi's. They were Saudi Arabians! Why in the world do we wage war against a nation against whom we had practically no beef?
Then, when people began to question the president's judgement, he said the war was because the Iraqi's had weapons of mass destruction. We found that not to be true as well. Iraq is not an oil trading partner of the United States. So, I ask again...why are we sending our young people to Iraq to fight and lose their lives there - nearly 4,000 to date?
I do not have the answer to that question, unless the answer is to devastate a generation of our youth or to waste vast sums of our money. Oh, the next comment we hear is that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Iraq. Our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan in order to find Osama there. As far as terrorist training bases, why would we attack Iraq when Russia, Syria and Romania are far more important players in that game?
The American people are not hearing the full truth. We need to bring our troops home. When a real enemy emerges, we need to deal with him at that time. Until then, we need to defend our own borders, support our troops, train them, rebuild our defenses and defend our country. It is not the business of the United States to make war around the world for everyone else.
Bless our troops. They have given unselfishly. Let us honor their bravery.
My response to JT......
Thank you for the reply and for your comments. Very thought provoking and very well written. Your list of countries providing training bases for terrorists could also include some countries in South and Central America. Here in our house we are also confused by the administrations pursuit of relations with China, North Korea, and Vietnam and yet we continue to ignore Cuba. At this point in history, Cuba today poses about as much a military threat to the United States as Andorra, Luxemburg, or Vatican City.
While I have serious concerns about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq right away, I agree that we are in a situation that we cannot possibly win. How we extricate our forces without a major civil war is going to take a great deal of finesse that is not readily apparent in this administration.
As for the number of soldiers killed in Iraq, more than 10 times that number of civilians are murdered here in the United States every year. Is that a rationale for remaining in in Iraq? No? I worry more about the flooded VA system, the devastation by the mismanagement our Reserves and National Guard forces, and fiscal mismanagement of military appropriations for the war.
The point of the article was to describe the differences in public and press attitudes between the 1940's and today. So far no one has mentioned how much opposition there was to our entry into WWII here in this country in the late 1930's and 1940's. My impression is that the article was not accurate, but the speed of news and the access to media is what is truely different today. In 1944, it took a long time to get an article from the front lines to the front page. Today, if a camel farts in Afghanistan, it's on You Tube in 30 minutes, in an email in 5 minutes, and around the world at the speed of light. (Sorry, I don't mean to be crude.)
Comment 3: By...........BW
My take on this is: a huge part of the problem with those not involved in the fight can go about their daily activities. No one sacrifices like it says below but more important, we’ve got all these fucking people that get everything for nothing, no contribution, effort to work-nothing. As long as we keep doling it out, they’re going to have their hands out.
BW
Comment 4: By.....JF
As the author says ......."There were a lot of things different back then."
For reasons, too many to list, many Americans have become very scheptical of their politicians, the President included, and therefore find it hard to believe all that they are told by them. The same thing goes for our media. I agree with the idea that we're being forced to confront fanatic Islamists, but I think it's harder for most people to see this group of people spread around the world as our "mortal enemies" versus the relatively localized Hitler and his Nazis or Tojo and his Japs and the atrocities they performed on a daily basis until they were defeated.
Comment 5: By.....BQ
Absolutely dead on—and heavy on the dead—the fear I have is that like your people, during hitlers rise, the majority of Americans have a belief that “it will all be ok”-“god wouldn’t let this happen” We need to be reminded by to 10s of millions who were slaughtered in NON-WAR action that “Man’s Inhumanity To Man” can never be underestimated when it comes to religion or race--bq
Additional Comments by......JT
I'm sorry to sound off on you. I just get really upset when I know 4,000 of our young folks have given their lives for a cause most of us probably don't understand.
Yes, you do bring up a good thought regarding U S relations with all the asian communist countries but not recognition of Cuba. Our congressman wants to recognize Cuba, but there seems to be a lot of Washington opposition for some reason. No clue from me about why, as I am also mystified........
I am aware that during 1938, 1939, and 1940 there was much anti-war sentiment in the United States not to become involved in Europe's business. The people really believed Woodrow Wilson's WWI would be "the war to end all wars" as he promised them. I have read many, many articles telling about how Roosevelt had promised Winston Churchill that the United States would enter the European theatre of the war but he needed a really good excuse as the people didn't support it. He created a "situation" with the Japanese through trade restrictions which, as history showed, culminated in their retaliation.
Communications are a true wonder, aren't they? You are right about the camel. Do you remember when having a telephone was a luxury?
------------------------------------------------
Everyone has a different opinion on the war and our current President. But this article probably makes sense to some of you who remember. Read it and give it some thought.
What a difference 60 years makes..!!! President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.
It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders. Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter the people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty.
Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining. You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President.
Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made up beat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance and with prayers for our country and our troops! Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve. It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the Land of Oz.
We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing. America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Comment 1: By KL.....
I couldnt agree more David. Our country has become fat and lazy. 911 woke them up a little, but it was no time till they went back to sleep. God help us if they dont wake up soon. This war will never be over, and we need to be the ones that choose the field of battle, if we dont, they will.Communism is Micky Mouse compared to Islam. I have read their "devils book", and there is no compromise with them. My opinion.....k
Comment 2: By.....JT
When we went to war against Japan on December 8, 1941, it was in response to their attack against the U. S. Naval Base, Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, then a territory of the United States. This was a direct attack on our own naval facility, where American lives were lost, not to mention something like a third of our entire navy materiel. There was no question about who had attacked us and that it was real war.
When the United States went to war against Iraq, some people thought it was in retaliation against the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the twin towers in New York City. However, all but four of the terrorists who attacked on that day were not Iraqi's. They were Saudi Arabians! Why in the world do we wage war against a nation against whom we had practically no beef?
Then, when people began to question the president's judgement, he said the war was because the Iraqi's had weapons of mass destruction. We found that not to be true as well. Iraq is not an oil trading partner of the United States. So, I ask again...why are we sending our young people to Iraq to fight and lose their lives there - nearly 4,000 to date?
I do not have the answer to that question, unless the answer is to devastate a generation of our youth or to waste vast sums of our money. Oh, the next comment we hear is that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Iraq. Our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan in order to find Osama there. As far as terrorist training bases, why would we attack Iraq when Russia, Syria and Romania are far more important players in that game?
The American people are not hearing the full truth. We need to bring our troops home. When a real enemy emerges, we need to deal with him at that time. Until then, we need to defend our own borders, support our troops, train them, rebuild our defenses and defend our country. It is not the business of the United States to make war around the world for everyone else.
Bless our troops. They have given unselfishly. Let us honor their bravery.
My response to JT......
Thank you for the reply and for your comments. Very thought provoking and very well written. Your list of countries providing training bases for terrorists could also include some countries in South and Central America. Here in our house we are also confused by the administrations pursuit of relations with China, North Korea, and Vietnam and yet we continue to ignore Cuba. At this point in history, Cuba today poses about as much a military threat to the United States as Andorra, Luxemburg, or Vatican City.
While I have serious concerns about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq right away, I agree that we are in a situation that we cannot possibly win. How we extricate our forces without a major civil war is going to take a great deal of finesse that is not readily apparent in this administration.
As for the number of soldiers killed in Iraq, more than 10 times that number of civilians are murdered here in the United States every year. Is that a rationale for remaining in in Iraq? No? I worry more about the flooded VA system, the devastation by the mismanagement our Reserves and National Guard forces, and fiscal mismanagement of military appropriations for the war.
The point of the article was to describe the differences in public and press attitudes between the 1940's and today. So far no one has mentioned how much opposition there was to our entry into WWII here in this country in the late 1930's and 1940's. My impression is that the article was not accurate, but the speed of news and the access to media is what is truely different today. In 1944, it took a long time to get an article from the front lines to the front page. Today, if a camel farts in Afghanistan, it's on You Tube in 30 minutes, in an email in 5 minutes, and around the world at the speed of light. (Sorry, I don't mean to be crude.)
Comment 3: By...........BW
My take on this is: a huge part of the problem with those not involved in the fight can go about their daily activities. No one sacrifices like it says below but more important, we’ve got all these fucking people that get everything for nothing, no contribution, effort to work-nothing. As long as we keep doling it out, they’re going to have their hands out.
BW
Comment 4: By.....JF
As the author says ......."There were a lot of things different back then."
For reasons, too many to list, many Americans have become very scheptical of their politicians, the President included, and therefore find it hard to believe all that they are told by them. The same thing goes for our media. I agree with the idea that we're being forced to confront fanatic Islamists, but I think it's harder for most people to see this group of people spread around the world as our "mortal enemies" versus the relatively localized Hitler and his Nazis or Tojo and his Japs and the atrocities they performed on a daily basis until they were defeated.
Comment 5: By.....BQ
Absolutely dead on—and heavy on the dead—the fear I have is that like your people, during hitlers rise, the majority of Americans have a belief that “it will all be ok”-“god wouldn’t let this happen” We need to be reminded by to 10s of millions who were slaughtered in NON-WAR action that “Man’s Inhumanity To Man” can never be underestimated when it comes to religion or race--bq
Additional Comments by......JT
I'm sorry to sound off on you. I just get really upset when I know 4,000 of our young folks have given their lives for a cause most of us probably don't understand.
Yes, you do bring up a good thought regarding U S relations with all the asian communist countries but not recognition of Cuba. Our congressman wants to recognize Cuba, but there seems to be a lot of Washington opposition for some reason. No clue from me about why, as I am also mystified........
I am aware that during 1938, 1939, and 1940 there was much anti-war sentiment in the United States not to become involved in Europe's business. The people really believed Woodrow Wilson's WWI would be "the war to end all wars" as he promised them. I have read many, many articles telling about how Roosevelt had promised Winston Churchill that the United States would enter the European theatre of the war but he needed a really good excuse as the people didn't support it. He created a "situation" with the Japanese through trade restrictions which, as history showed, culminated in their retaliation.
Communications are a true wonder, aren't they? You are right about the camel. Do you remember when having a telephone was a luxury?
Monday, July 16, 2007
FOUL-MOUTHED ENTERTAINERS
From: "REAL NEWS" <thenewsman@ij.net>
By Michael Reagan, Reprinted from NewsMax.com, July 13, 2007
A CULTURE WAR OF WORDS
If anybody doubts America is engaged in a culture war and losing it they need only to take a look at the series of concerts promoting Al Gore's global warming hoax last weekend. They would have learned that the war is being waged in the sewers. America is facing an army of foul-mouthed, tattooed guttersnipes who have the gall to proclaim they want to save the planet by putting on performances laced with some of the foulest language ever heard from astage. As those who made the mistake of watching any of these concerts here or abroad discovered, the enemies of culture are unable to complete a sentence without using the "F" word at least once, along with liberal sprinklings of the "S" word.
And their foul-mouthed rhetoric was not the least of it: Theaudiences ate it up and the performers knew that when they spewed their obscene filth they were giving their decadent fans exactly what they wanted. That fact has not escaped the people who run the nation's TV networks; nowadays it's hard to find a TV drama that does not seed the dialogue with "F" words. If you have watched hit series such as"Deadwood" you quickly learned that the "F" word was among the milder epithets. That series introduced terms never before heard outside ofmen's locker rooms or prison cells.
I went to a lot of concerts years ago. I never heard Frank Sinatra or any other performer use a single obscenity during their performances. Moreover, if any of them had uttered anything as foul as the "F" word, they would have been driven off the stage. If you think I'm making too big a thing about the incredible degradation of language, keep in mind it represents the decline in the level of civility since the culture warriors declared war on decency. The widespread use of the "F" word is a symptom of the disease. The America in which I grew up had standards, and people's public behavior was judged by how well they measured up to those standards. One was expected to toe the line when it came to the way they communicated with one another. We were expected to show our respect to our fellow Americans by avoiding offensive words. Once upon a time one was expected to be a gentlemen or lady, and those terms -- now treated with scorn -- described people who had the utmost of respect for those around them and showed it in their everyday behavior. Those who deviated from the accepted standards were told to "keep a civil tongue in your mouth."
That's no longer true. Comedians vie with each other to use the most extreme obscenities and sexual innuendos. What was once called "street language" is now considered normal discourse. Things once considered sacred are now seen as common place. Sex is no longer an expression of love between a man anda woman -- today it's seen as recreation, like a game of golf, to beportrayed on stage and screen without restraint.
In any civilization that desires to survive, simple decency and courtesy are crucial elements. In a society headed for the sewer, anything goes. And when anything goes -- when the most extreme forms of language and behavior come to be seen as normal -- civilization is transformed into barbarism. That's what's at stake in the culture wars. A society bereft of standards that demand civilized behavior among its people is a societywhere the individual is deemed worthless as being anything but a consumer for the degraded wares of the smut peddlers and a source of income to pay for the schemes of those who sell Marxist snake oil such as global warming as a means of subjugating the populace. And the more addicted to slime that populace becomes, the easier it is to subjugate them.--Mike Reagan
By Michael Reagan, Reprinted from NewsMax.com, July 13, 2007
A CULTURE WAR OF WORDS
If anybody doubts America is engaged in a culture war and losing it they need only to take a look at the series of concerts promoting Al Gore's global warming hoax last weekend. They would have learned that the war is being waged in the sewers. America is facing an army of foul-mouthed, tattooed guttersnipes who have the gall to proclaim they want to save the planet by putting on performances laced with some of the foulest language ever heard from astage. As those who made the mistake of watching any of these concerts here or abroad discovered, the enemies of culture are unable to complete a sentence without using the "F" word at least once, along with liberal sprinklings of the "S" word.
And their foul-mouthed rhetoric was not the least of it: Theaudiences ate it up and the performers knew that when they spewed their obscene filth they were giving their decadent fans exactly what they wanted. That fact has not escaped the people who run the nation's TV networks; nowadays it's hard to find a TV drama that does not seed the dialogue with "F" words. If you have watched hit series such as"Deadwood" you quickly learned that the "F" word was among the milder epithets. That series introduced terms never before heard outside ofmen's locker rooms or prison cells.
I went to a lot of concerts years ago. I never heard Frank Sinatra or any other performer use a single obscenity during their performances. Moreover, if any of them had uttered anything as foul as the "F" word, they would have been driven off the stage. If you think I'm making too big a thing about the incredible degradation of language, keep in mind it represents the decline in the level of civility since the culture warriors declared war on decency. The widespread use of the "F" word is a symptom of the disease. The America in which I grew up had standards, and people's public behavior was judged by how well they measured up to those standards. One was expected to toe the line when it came to the way they communicated with one another. We were expected to show our respect to our fellow Americans by avoiding offensive words. Once upon a time one was expected to be a gentlemen or lady, and those terms -- now treated with scorn -- described people who had the utmost of respect for those around them and showed it in their everyday behavior. Those who deviated from the accepted standards were told to "keep a civil tongue in your mouth."
That's no longer true. Comedians vie with each other to use the most extreme obscenities and sexual innuendos. What was once called "street language" is now considered normal discourse. Things once considered sacred are now seen as common place. Sex is no longer an expression of love between a man anda woman -- today it's seen as recreation, like a game of golf, to beportrayed on stage and screen without restraint.
In any civilization that desires to survive, simple decency and courtesy are crucial elements. In a society headed for the sewer, anything goes. And when anything goes -- when the most extreme forms of language and behavior come to be seen as normal -- civilization is transformed into barbarism. That's what's at stake in the culture wars. A society bereft of standards that demand civilized behavior among its people is a societywhere the individual is deemed worthless as being anything but a consumer for the degraded wares of the smut peddlers and a source of income to pay for the schemes of those who sell Marxist snake oil such as global warming as a means of subjugating the populace. And the more addicted to slime that populace becomes, the easier it is to subjugate them.--Mike Reagan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)