(The following was published in the Newsleader on March 5, 2010)
I serve as moderator of a coffee/discussion group that meets weekly. Recently we had as our guest author Sharon Schulte who has written a new book entitled "The Children Remember". The book is a compilation of memories of Minnesota people who were children during World War II. Sharon went throughout the state interviewing and recording the thoughts and memories of people who are now in their sixties, seventies and older to make a record of how life was at that time. I recommend the book. It is available on Amazon.com as well as most normal book sellers. It is so revealing and reflective of a simpler time when our attitudes were so different. The discussion that followed her presentation was the inspiration for this essay.
I too was a child during that time. I can remember rationing stamps, war bonds, and other sacrifices. As kids we saved tin foil. We would peel the waxed paper off gum wrappers and start a big ball of tin foil to help make ammunition. Being a youngster at that time meant that I felt my life was normal. I didn't realize we were giving up anything because of the war. I do remember the fear however. We lived near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and we were told that spot was a great target for the bad guys. I was aware of friends of my parents going off to war. I was acutely aware of the fact that some never returned. Families of servicemen and women had flags which had stars for the number of family members who were serving in the military. They were flown proudly. The military was respected above anything else. It was a great treat to see anybody in their uniform.
The purpose of this writing is just to ask the question, "What happened?" What was the change that caused the American people to lose their regard for the military? How is it possible that while we have thousands of men and women in foreign lands putting their lives on the line for us, our lives here at home continue as normal? No one is sacrificing with rationing stamps. No one is buying war bonds. No Hollywood movie star is making movies about war heroes and helping the war effort by selling bonds. They are instead making nice with our enemies and committing treason. Fifty years ago they would have been arrested and tried as criminals. At the very least they would have been shamed out of existence. It truly is a different world.
I believe some of the changes have occurred because the Press has taken such a turn to the left that they no longer reflect the thinking of the majority of American people. TV networks report what they want you to hear and skew the news to their agenda. The "Educational Community" has become an apologist for all things liberal to the detriment of this country as a whole.
We all need to think about our feelings. I believe we need to return to a time when patriotism was the rule rather that the exception. We need to hold our military in higher esteem. We need to see the so-called Hollywood elite as what they truly are, for the most part, morons.
Finally, if we are to send troops into any war, we need to win it. Stop this nonsense of limited war. By any definition, war is an all out action. If it is worth the single life of an American soldier, it is worth winning. We have wasted far too many lives trying to be modern day war fighters. Let us end this now or just leave. If the idiots in these countries want to keep on killing each other over some perceived difference in their religions, let them have at it. Then, if any country harbors terrorists who attack this country, we should just take that country out swiftly and completely without a single American boot on the ground. We don't need to send troops. Then we would truly have a different world.
Ron Scarbro September 26, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
SEPTEMBER MORON OF THE MONTH
I couldn't wait any longer after hearing this latest bit of stupidity from the mouth of one who should know better. I am talking about none other than former President Jimmie Carter, this month's "Moron of the Month". There are many reasons why he would qualify for this month's dubious honor but one statement that he recently uttered leaves all of the other ridiculous things he has said in the dust. That statement was to accuse the Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, of racism. You will remember Rep. Wilson was the one who yelled out "You Lie" during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress earlier this month. Carter went on to say that the outburst was another example of white America's inability to accept a black man as President.
First of all Mr. Carter, white America elected a black man as President. The black vote, while it is significant, could never elect a President. To be elected to the Presidency, you must carry many segments of the population. You have to generate millions of dollars to even consider a run at the White House. Where do you think that money came from? For better or worse, all America elected Barak Obama as President. His acceptability as President will be what he does as President, not the color of his skin.
Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times, is also spreading this particular bit of hate speak in her column. Maureen probably doesn't know any better and not that many people read her nonsense anyway. While that is no excuse, it at least puts her comments into perspective. Former President Carter is another story however.
In my almost seven decades on this planet I have seen tremendous strides in the overall acceptance of different peoples in America. Like Carter, I was raised in the South. I remember how it was and it was ugly. But I have seen the change and the change has been for the better. The state of the black man in America has never been more positive. His life has never been more secure, safe, and filled with potential. There is no other place in the world where black people have more opportunity or more potential for personal wealth and success. This is not the result of runaway racism. No this is the result of brotherly love, compassion, and acceptance of others who might be different from ourselves.
Are we completely out of the woods concerning racism in this country? Certainly not. Are we making tremendous advances in our ability to live together and get along? Absolutely. Is the state of Black America served in any positive way by the likes of Jimmie Carter and his stupid remarks? I think you would agree with me that Carter has set race relations back years by his outburst.
I have two words for you Mr. Carter. Go Away. You were an unsuccessful president and it took years of hard work to overcome your mismanagement of America. Don't compound your errors by continuing to inflict yourself on this country. You, Mr. Carter are insignificant and your legacy is fixed in the minds of most thinking Americans. The vast majority of our country does not care what you think about anything least of all your opinion of racism in this country. Be kind to the country which gave you so much and just fade away into your retirement. Just go away.
Ron Scarbro September 18, 2009
First of all Mr. Carter, white America elected a black man as President. The black vote, while it is significant, could never elect a President. To be elected to the Presidency, you must carry many segments of the population. You have to generate millions of dollars to even consider a run at the White House. Where do you think that money came from? For better or worse, all America elected Barak Obama as President. His acceptability as President will be what he does as President, not the color of his skin.
Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times, is also spreading this particular bit of hate speak in her column. Maureen probably doesn't know any better and not that many people read her nonsense anyway. While that is no excuse, it at least puts her comments into perspective. Former President Carter is another story however.
In my almost seven decades on this planet I have seen tremendous strides in the overall acceptance of different peoples in America. Like Carter, I was raised in the South. I remember how it was and it was ugly. But I have seen the change and the change has been for the better. The state of the black man in America has never been more positive. His life has never been more secure, safe, and filled with potential. There is no other place in the world where black people have more opportunity or more potential for personal wealth and success. This is not the result of runaway racism. No this is the result of brotherly love, compassion, and acceptance of others who might be different from ourselves.
Are we completely out of the woods concerning racism in this country? Certainly not. Are we making tremendous advances in our ability to live together and get along? Absolutely. Is the state of Black America served in any positive way by the likes of Jimmie Carter and his stupid remarks? I think you would agree with me that Carter has set race relations back years by his outburst.
I have two words for you Mr. Carter. Go Away. You were an unsuccessful president and it took years of hard work to overcome your mismanagement of America. Don't compound your errors by continuing to inflict yourself on this country. You, Mr. Carter are insignificant and your legacy is fixed in the minds of most thinking Americans. The vast majority of our country does not care what you think about anything least of all your opinion of racism in this country. Be kind to the country which gave you so much and just fade away into your retirement. Just go away.
Ron Scarbro September 18, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
SOME MORE WORD FATIGUE
Recently during the reporting of Edward Kennedy's death a phrase was thrown about which I began to examine. That phrase was public service. The Senator had 47 years of public service. Now I am not going to pick on Kennedy. History, if allowed to be truthful, will deal with the Kennedys. No, this essay will deal with some more words which seem to have selective meanings. In other words, they have definitions which satisfy the agenda of the user of those words. Politicians use the term public service and I would use the phrase feeding at the public trough. As we go forward in this writing I think you will get my drift.
The next word is lobbyist. That word sounds so professional, so clean, so legitimate. What if we used the true term and called them bribers or extortionists? Another good definition might be influence peddler. After all, what do they do? They buy legislation for their clients. Groups like the AMA, the AARP, the Trial Lawyers, and too many more to count throw money around Washington to make sure that their client's turf and wealth are protected. When this practice is done by a lobbyist it appears so legal. But we should call it what it is.
This then brings us to the next phrase, campaign contribution. Humorist and philosopher Will Rogers once said many years ago, "We have the finest Congress money can buy." Nothing has changed except for the amount of money flowing into the hands of a few elected representatives of the people who become very wealthy in just a short time in Washington. Consider this. You feel very strongly about a particular candidate for office so you decide to contribute $100.00 to his or her campaign. Let's just say that a large corporation also feels very strongly that this same candidate, if elected, could be very instrumental in forwarding their agenda. So you both contribute but the corporation gives $10,000.00 to the campaign. Your candidate is elected and you want to access your new Representative for an issue that is in opposition to the corporation's agenda. Who do you think is going to be favored with both the access and the favorable legislation? The one hundred dollar contributor doesn't have a chance. In other words, money talks.
Of course the next of many words is campaign war chest. That is nothing more than the wealth amassed by the "bribe-e" contributed by the "bribe-er". This amassed money serves to insure that the particular Representative will continue to have the means to defeat any challenger in the future. A statement credited to an Assemblyman in California, Big Daddy Jesse Unruh, was that money is the mother's milk of politics. Unfortunately and sadly that seems to be very true.
I could go on about how words are changed to reflect the agenda of the user. It is not the exclusive province of politicians. Advertisers do it. Salesmen do it. What we the people must do though is not just blindly accept what Washington is selling and examine the true meaning of the words that they are using. If you are satisfied with legislation being passed by people who accept bribes, then this rant is probably not for you, but if, like me, you are fed up with this practice, then scream loudly and long until it is brought under some kind of control. We cannot compete with big labor unions, or teacher's groups or big pharmaceuticals, but we can remember on election day. Your one vote is worth more than all the money the bribers can spend. Spend your vote wisely.
My final word today is skeptic. That pretty much identifies me and I hope all who read these musings.
Ron Scarbro September 7, 2009
The next word is lobbyist. That word sounds so professional, so clean, so legitimate. What if we used the true term and called them bribers or extortionists? Another good definition might be influence peddler. After all, what do they do? They buy legislation for their clients. Groups like the AMA, the AARP, the Trial Lawyers, and too many more to count throw money around Washington to make sure that their client's turf and wealth are protected. When this practice is done by a lobbyist it appears so legal. But we should call it what it is.
This then brings us to the next phrase, campaign contribution. Humorist and philosopher Will Rogers once said many years ago, "We have the finest Congress money can buy." Nothing has changed except for the amount of money flowing into the hands of a few elected representatives of the people who become very wealthy in just a short time in Washington. Consider this. You feel very strongly about a particular candidate for office so you decide to contribute $100.00 to his or her campaign. Let's just say that a large corporation also feels very strongly that this same candidate, if elected, could be very instrumental in forwarding their agenda. So you both contribute but the corporation gives $10,000.00 to the campaign. Your candidate is elected and you want to access your new Representative for an issue that is in opposition to the corporation's agenda. Who do you think is going to be favored with both the access and the favorable legislation? The one hundred dollar contributor doesn't have a chance. In other words, money talks.
Of course the next of many words is campaign war chest. That is nothing more than the wealth amassed by the "bribe-e" contributed by the "bribe-er". This amassed money serves to insure that the particular Representative will continue to have the means to defeat any challenger in the future. A statement credited to an Assemblyman in California, Big Daddy Jesse Unruh, was that money is the mother's milk of politics. Unfortunately and sadly that seems to be very true.
I could go on about how words are changed to reflect the agenda of the user. It is not the exclusive province of politicians. Advertisers do it. Salesmen do it. What we the people must do though is not just blindly accept what Washington is selling and examine the true meaning of the words that they are using. If you are satisfied with legislation being passed by people who accept bribes, then this rant is probably not for you, but if, like me, you are fed up with this practice, then scream loudly and long until it is brought under some kind of control. We cannot compete with big labor unions, or teacher's groups or big pharmaceuticals, but we can remember on election day. Your one vote is worth more than all the money the bribers can spend. Spend your vote wisely.
My final word today is skeptic. That pretty much identifies me and I hope all who read these musings.
Ron Scarbro September 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
