As I mentioned once a long time ago (and quite possibly in a galaxy far, far away), I described this blog as an exercise in OCD. When I create an entry, I am posting it to four blogging sites simultaneously -- Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogger, and WordPress. Part of the reasoning behind this decision was a desire to make it available to as wide an audience as possible. Another part was using this as a way to understand the intricacies of each blogging platform.
It seems that I may have been more foresighted than I realized. Those of you reading this on Xanga already know of what I speak, so this is for those reading one of the other sites. Several weeks ago, it was announced that Xanga would be changing at the end of this month. Indeed, there is the distinct possibility that it may disappear completely. In any event, it seems that my next entry may be posted to only three sites instead of four.
If something does happen to Xanga, I shall be . . . disappointed, to say the least. I think I mentioned this previoiusly, but I have found the Xanga interface the easiest to use of all four sites. On the other hand, I do have an advantage over most of my fellow Xangans. I have been reading various notifications of where people are relocating their blogs. Most of the migration seems to be to WordPress. Well, I am already there. Or here, as the case may be.
I have no idea what will happen in a few days. I shall hope for the best; at least I have already planned for the worst.
***jn***
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
17. Happy Bill Of Rights Day!
Last week, I wrote that it was the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Today is another anniversary relating to the Constitution. It was on this date in 1789 that the First Congress passed the first amendments to the Constitution.
Now, I have a question for you. True or false: The first amendment to the Constitution has never been ratified.
Believe it or not, the answer is true.
Congress passed 12 amendments on this date, and sent them to the states for ratification. The third through 12th of these amendments were ratified by at least nine states on December 15, 1791, and are now known to us as the Bill Of Rights. The second took a little longer to ratify -- 203 years, as a matter of fact. It was finally ratified by 3/4 of the states (now 38) in 1992, and is now known as the 27th Amendment.
But the first of those 12 amendments (referred to as either "Article The First" or "Congressional Apportionment Amendment") was never ratified by the necessary three fourths of the states. It was ratified by only 11 states -- the last being Kentucky, in 1792. At the time, there were only 15 states, and 11/15 represented 73.3% of the states.
Technically, Article The First is still pending before the legislatures of the several states, as was the 27th Amendment until it was ratified in 1992. And there is another little twist. It was widely believed that Connecticut never voted to ratify any of the first proposed amendments at the time, but records of votes in the Connecticut Archives clearly show that Connecticut's state legislature voted to ratify Article The First in 1789 and 1790. If the Archivist Of The USA were to accept that ratification vote as valid, it would mean that it was ratified by 3/4 of the states as of 1792, and would become part of the Constitution. (I would guess that it would be added to the end of the list, and become the 28th Amendment.)
And what is Article The First? Well, here is the text of the amendment, as taken from Wikipedia:
"Article The First . . . After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."
Simply put, this amendment deals with the size of the House Of Representatives, and expands upon Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the original Constitution. Currently, the size of the House is set by federal statute, using what is called the method of equal proportions. In other words, each of the 425 House districts is as equal in size as feasible, given that each state has at least one Representative. If my understanding of the applicable laws is correct, ratification of Article The First would not have any affect on the current makeup of the House. Any changes in the apportionment process would probably not take affect until after the 2020 Census. (Again, this is just my opinion, based on my reading. As the saying goes, Your Mileage May Vary.)
[NOTE: After a little additional research, I have discovered that my title is not entirely accurate. There is a Bill Of Rights Day, but it is December, to commemorate the ratification of the Bill Of Rights. As I do not have a more accurate title that I find satisfactory, it will remain until and unless I can think of a better title.]
***jn***
Now, I have a question for you. True or false: The first amendment to the Constitution has never been ratified.
Believe it or not, the answer is true.
Congress passed 12 amendments on this date, and sent them to the states for ratification. The third through 12th of these amendments were ratified by at least nine states on December 15, 1791, and are now known to us as the Bill Of Rights. The second took a little longer to ratify -- 203 years, as a matter of fact. It was finally ratified by 3/4 of the states (now 38) in 1992, and is now known as the 27th Amendment.
But the first of those 12 amendments (referred to as either "Article The First" or "Congressional Apportionment Amendment") was never ratified by the necessary three fourths of the states. It was ratified by only 11 states -- the last being Kentucky, in 1792. At the time, there were only 15 states, and 11/15 represented 73.3% of the states.
Technically, Article The First is still pending before the legislatures of the several states, as was the 27th Amendment until it was ratified in 1992. And there is another little twist. It was widely believed that Connecticut never voted to ratify any of the first proposed amendments at the time, but records of votes in the Connecticut Archives clearly show that Connecticut's state legislature voted to ratify Article The First in 1789 and 1790. If the Archivist Of The USA were to accept that ratification vote as valid, it would mean that it was ratified by 3/4 of the states as of 1792, and would become part of the Constitution. (I would guess that it would be added to the end of the list, and become the 28th Amendment.)
And what is Article The First? Well, here is the text of the amendment, as taken from Wikipedia:
"Article The First . . . After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."
Simply put, this amendment deals with the size of the House Of Representatives, and expands upon Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the original Constitution. Currently, the size of the House is set by federal statute, using what is called the method of equal proportions. In other words, each of the 425 House districts is as equal in size as feasible, given that each state has at least one Representative. If my understanding of the applicable laws is correct, ratification of Article The First would not have any affect on the current makeup of the House. Any changes in the apportionment process would probably not take affect until after the 2020 Census. (Again, this is just my opinion, based on my reading. As the saying goes, Your Mileage May Vary.)
[NOTE: After a little additional research, I have discovered that my title is not entirely accurate. There is a Bill Of Rights Day, but it is December, to commemorate the ratification of the Bill Of Rights. As I do not have a more accurate title that I find satisfactory, it will remain until and unless I can think of a better title.]
***jn***
Monday, September 17, 2012
16. Happy Constitution Day!
It was 225 years ago today -- which also happened to be a Monday, as a matter of fact -- that the Constitutional Convention finished their work, and the US Constitution was signed. Of course, that was not the end of the matter. It still needed to be presented to the states, and ratified by nine of them before it would go into effect. (That happened on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution.)
I have done some reading on how the Constitution came into being, and the more I read about it, the more I am convinced of one thing. I am more and more truly amazed that the Constitutional Convention produced a finished product, let alone that it was ratified and became the supreme law of the United States.
As best as I can tell, most of America's leaders at the time agreed that the Articles Of Confederation were proving to be an inadequate foundation for the national government. The major point of contention seemed to be how to deal with those inadequacies. Some felt that a mere revision of the Articles was all that was necessary, while others thought that the Articles had to be replaced with an entirely new document. (And I suspect that there was probably a broad spectrum of viewpoints between those two.) (Make that a very broad spectrum.)
It took the entire summer of 1787 to create the Constitution, but on September 17 of that year, the Constitutional Convention agreed to the following resolution:
"In Convention Monday, September 17, 1787.
"Present The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
"Resolved, That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should be afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.
"Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution.
"That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected:
"That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed, and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.
"By the unanimous Order of the Convention
"George Washington -- President
"William Jackson -- Secretary."
As with the previous entry on the Declaration Of Independence, I am quoting from a collection published by Fall River Press in 2002.
***jn***
I have done some reading on how the Constitution came into being, and the more I read about it, the more I am convinced of one thing. I am more and more truly amazed that the Constitutional Convention produced a finished product, let alone that it was ratified and became the supreme law of the United States.
As best as I can tell, most of America's leaders at the time agreed that the Articles Of Confederation were proving to be an inadequate foundation for the national government. The major point of contention seemed to be how to deal with those inadequacies. Some felt that a mere revision of the Articles was all that was necessary, while others thought that the Articles had to be replaced with an entirely new document. (And I suspect that there was probably a broad spectrum of viewpoints between those two.) (Make that a very broad spectrum.)
It took the entire summer of 1787 to create the Constitution, but on September 17 of that year, the Constitutional Convention agreed to the following resolution:
"In Convention Monday, September 17, 1787.
"Present The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
"Resolved, That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should be afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.
"Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution.
"That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected:
"That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed, and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.
"By the unanimous Order of the Convention
"George Washington -- President
"William Jackson -- Secretary."
As with the previous entry on the Declaration Of Independence, I am quoting from a collection published by Fall River Press in 2002.
***jn***
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
15. The Declaration
To whomever may be reading this, Happy Independence Day!
I knew that I wanted to post an entry today, and after giving the matter some thought, I decided that there could be nothing more appropriate than to post the reason we celebrate July 4 as a national holiday.
That reason, of course, is the Declaration Of Independence. As R.B. Bernstein put it, "the last American word in the argument between Great Britain and its American colonists." Or as I described it in a previous entry, an indictment of charges of tyranny against King George III of England.
On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted three resolutions that had been introduced by Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee. The first of these resolutions was a declaration that the 13 colonies "are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states." Two days later, the Continental Congress approved a declaration primarily written by Thomas Jefferson.
And now, I have gone on for far too long. I give you Mr. Jefferson's words.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
ACTION OF SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such as been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent shall be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither; and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes upon us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.
In every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in war, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
One final note: My source for this is a book published in 2002 by Fall River Press that combines the Declaration, the Articles Of Confederation, and the Constitution and all of its amendments in a single volume, with an introduction by the aforementioned Mr. Bernstein. I am following all capitalization, spelling, and punctuation as it appeared in that volume.
***jn***
I knew that I wanted to post an entry today, and after giving the matter some thought, I decided that there could be nothing more appropriate than to post the reason we celebrate July 4 as a national holiday.
That reason, of course, is the Declaration Of Independence. As R.B. Bernstein put it, "the last American word in the argument between Great Britain and its American colonists." Or as I described it in a previous entry, an indictment of charges of tyranny against King George III of England.
On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted three resolutions that had been introduced by Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee. The first of these resolutions was a declaration that the 13 colonies "are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states." Two days later, the Continental Congress approved a declaration primarily written by Thomas Jefferson.
And now, I have gone on for far too long. I give you Mr. Jefferson's words.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
ACTION OF SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such as been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent shall be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither; and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes upon us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.
In every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in war, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
One final note: My source for this is a book published in 2002 by Fall River Press that combines the Declaration, the Articles Of Confederation, and the Constitution and all of its amendments in a single volume, with an introduction by the aforementioned Mr. Bernstein. I am following all capitalization, spelling, and punctuation as it appeared in that volume.
***jn***
Sunday, September 11, 2011
14. Remember
Without a doubt, there will be untold numbers of entries posted to the blogosphere about this 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. While I have known that I wanted to write something to mark the day, I am still uncertain of what that would be.
I think Bill Cunningham has said it best on his Sunday night talk show recently -- several times, as a matter of fact. We need to remember that this was the day that Islamic extremists murdered over 3000 people. And while he has used the phrase "3000 Americans," I believe that is not completely accurate. If I remember correctly, there were people of many nations that died because of the actions of this wretched hive of scum and villainy.
We need to remember the heroism of the passengers of United Flight 93, who prevented the day from being an even greater tragedy.
We need to remember that irrespective of those who will always claim that Islam is a "religion of peace," there have been very few (if any) of these peace-loving Muslims who will repudiate the actions of the extremists.
I have been trying to think of what else I should say, but the right words are not coming to mind. Only one other thing comes to mind.
We not only need to remember, we need to be ever-vigilant, so that an atrocity of this magnitude never happens again.
***jn***
I think Bill Cunningham has said it best on his Sunday night talk show recently -- several times, as a matter of fact. We need to remember that this was the day that Islamic extremists murdered over 3000 people. And while he has used the phrase "3000 Americans," I believe that is not completely accurate. If I remember correctly, there were people of many nations that died because of the actions of this wretched hive of scum and villainy.
We need to remember the heroism of the passengers of United Flight 93, who prevented the day from being an even greater tragedy.
We need to remember that irrespective of those who will always claim that Islam is a "religion of peace," there have been very few (if any) of these peace-loving Muslims who will repudiate the actions of the extremists.
I have been trying to think of what else I should say, but the right words are not coming to mind. Only one other thing comes to mind.
We not only need to remember, we need to be ever-vigilant, so that an atrocity of this magnitude never happens again.
***jn***
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
13. Goodbye To Borders
No, this is not an entry on immigration, illegal aliens, or anything along those lines. I am talking about a different kind of Borders this time.
When it was announced a few weeks ago that the Borders chain of bookstores would be liquidating and going out of business, I was more than a little dismayed, to say the least. Well, I suspect that is a sentiment shared by many of you. For me, what makes the closure particularly disappointing is that the two Borders stores in Louisville are probably the bookstores that are the most easily accessible to me.
Unfortunately, that will not be the case for long. I stopped by one today, and I was told that they had just been given their 10-day notice. So it appears that, at least in Louisville, the two remaining Borders stores (and probably the two remaining Waldenbooks stores) will close for good just before Patriot Day (September 11).
While I have not been looking forward to the chain's closing, I have been taking opportunity of the discounts at the liquidation sales. I have managed to score a number of good deals, but here are three in particular that I thought might be of interest:
Glenn Beck's Common Sense -- Inspired by Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet that laid out the case for revolution against England. Beck takes a new look at Paine's pamphlet, and applies the same arguments that Paine made in 1776 to contemporary government. The book also reprints Paine's Common Sense, most likely for comparison.
The Original Argument by Glenn Beck and Joshua Charles -- This book updates a number of The Federalist Papers into modern language. In the book's introduction, Beck draws a parallel between the US Constitution and the latest technology, saying (and this is a rough paraphrase) that if the Constitution was the latest high-tech gadget, The Federalist Papers would be its user manual. The essays presented are grouped according to topic, instead of being presented in strict chronological order, as they usually are.
365 Ways To Drive a Liberal Crazy by James Delingpole -- Delingpole has two primary means of driving liberals crazy. One is with the truth, because, to borrow from my second-favorite Jack Nicholson line, liberals cannot handle the truth. The other is with humor, because most liberals do not seem to have much in the way of a sense of humor. One suggestion that I particularly like is apparently intended for July 4. It specifically mentions that it is the birthday of President Calvin Coolidge before giving this quote from him: "It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."
There are far more books that I wish I could buy while Borders is still open. What I really wish is that Borders could have found a way to remain open. And part of me is hoping that Barnes & Noble will take a look at one of the locations here in Louisville and decide that it would be a great location for a third store.
***jn***
When it was announced a few weeks ago that the Borders chain of bookstores would be liquidating and going out of business, I was more than a little dismayed, to say the least. Well, I suspect that is a sentiment shared by many of you. For me, what makes the closure particularly disappointing is that the two Borders stores in Louisville are probably the bookstores that are the most easily accessible to me.
Unfortunately, that will not be the case for long. I stopped by one today, and I was told that they had just been given their 10-day notice. So it appears that, at least in Louisville, the two remaining Borders stores (and probably the two remaining Waldenbooks stores) will close for good just before Patriot Day (September 11).
While I have not been looking forward to the chain's closing, I have been taking opportunity of the discounts at the liquidation sales. I have managed to score a number of good deals, but here are three in particular that I thought might be of interest:
Glenn Beck's Common Sense -- Inspired by Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet that laid out the case for revolution against England. Beck takes a new look at Paine's pamphlet, and applies the same arguments that Paine made in 1776 to contemporary government. The book also reprints Paine's Common Sense, most likely for comparison.
The Original Argument by Glenn Beck and Joshua Charles -- This book updates a number of The Federalist Papers into modern language. In the book's introduction, Beck draws a parallel between the US Constitution and the latest technology, saying (and this is a rough paraphrase) that if the Constitution was the latest high-tech gadget, The Federalist Papers would be its user manual. The essays presented are grouped according to topic, instead of being presented in strict chronological order, as they usually are.
365 Ways To Drive a Liberal Crazy by James Delingpole -- Delingpole has two primary means of driving liberals crazy. One is with the truth, because, to borrow from my second-favorite Jack Nicholson line, liberals cannot handle the truth. The other is with humor, because most liberals do not seem to have much in the way of a sense of humor. One suggestion that I particularly like is apparently intended for July 4. It specifically mentions that it is the birthday of President Calvin Coolidge before giving this quote from him: "It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."
There are far more books that I wish I could buy while Borders is still open. What I really wish is that Borders could have found a way to remain open. And part of me is hoping that Barnes & Noble will take a look at one of the locations here in Louisville and decide that it would be a great location for a third store.
***jn***
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
12. The Root Of The Problem
I have been watching, as I suspect most of you have been doing, the various bits of wrangling over the impending debt crisis. And as I have been thinking about it, I have been formulating a modest proposal to prevent any future recurrence of the posturing that we have been witnessing over the past few weeks.
First, I think I should state my basic premise for this proposal. I believe that the problem is not that the United States is taking in far too little in taxes. The problem is that there is far too much spending taking place. And I think that the root of the problem is that the bureaucracy has become far too bloated, and needs to be brought under control.
I think part of this problem is that it is far too easy for any governmental agency, bureau, or department to expand its area of authority and/or responsibility. There seems to be nothing in place to put limits on their authority. And their ability to issue regulations is an usurping and an arrogation of the legislative power of Congress.
The solution, as I see it, is that there needs to be put into place some form of controlling and limiting the bureaucracy. And these controls and limits need to be enacted in such a way that they cannot be easily overridden. To enact these controls, then, would most likely require an amendment to the US Constitution.
My proposed amendment would have three sections. The first section would deal with the creation of any future governmental agency, bureau, or department. The second section would deal with controlling any agency after its creation, including any agency that currently exists. The third section
SECTION 1 -- The creation of any new governmental agency, bureau, or department would be treated like any amendment to the Constitution. It would first have to pass each house of Congress by a two-thirds majority, then approved by three-fifths of the states. Such approval by the states would also have to be done within one year of the proposal's passing in Congress. I might also give the states the option of giving the approval either by the state legislatures, or by a ballot referendum by the voters of each state.
My reasoning here is that as the Constitution was originally written, the several states had a much larger role in governing the country. Giving the states a say in the creation of any new agency would return some of that role. More importantly, it would (I hope) serve as a check on Congress creating an agency that the country as a whole would not want.
SECTION 2 -- Dissolving or abolishing any governmental agency, bureau, or department, including those already in place, would require only a simple majority of Congress. And if a simple majority of the states so direct, Congress would have to consider the matter of abolishing an agency.
Here, I want to make getting rid of an agency, especially one that has outlived its usefulness, much easier than creating one. Again, I want to give the states more of a check on the power of Congress. I might even consider the idea that it would take only a simple majority of the states to abolish an agency. Give any agency notice that it not only has to worry about Congress, but also the several states.
SECTION 3 -- This would mandate that any regulations created by any agency that have the force of law would have to be approved by Congress before taking effect. The Senators and Representatives were elected to pass legislation; these bureaucrats were not.
I must admit, the last section needs a little more thought. But I decided that I wanted to post this before the August 2 deadline.
As for why I feel this needs to be an amendment to the Constitution, I want it to be difficult for any agency to find ways around any restrictions placed upon them. I also want it difficult for anyone to try removing those restrictions once they are in place.
Does this sound like it might be at least a step in the right direction?
***jn***
First, I think I should state my basic premise for this proposal. I believe that the problem is not that the United States is taking in far too little in taxes. The problem is that there is far too much spending taking place. And I think that the root of the problem is that the bureaucracy has become far too bloated, and needs to be brought under control.
I think part of this problem is that it is far too easy for any governmental agency, bureau, or department to expand its area of authority and/or responsibility. There seems to be nothing in place to put limits on their authority. And their ability to issue regulations is an usurping and an arrogation of the legislative power of Congress.
The solution, as I see it, is that there needs to be put into place some form of controlling and limiting the bureaucracy. And these controls and limits need to be enacted in such a way that they cannot be easily overridden. To enact these controls, then, would most likely require an amendment to the US Constitution.
My proposed amendment would have three sections. The first section would deal with the creation of any future governmental agency, bureau, or department. The second section would deal with controlling any agency after its creation, including any agency that currently exists. The third section
SECTION 1 -- The creation of any new governmental agency, bureau, or department would be treated like any amendment to the Constitution. It would first have to pass each house of Congress by a two-thirds majority, then approved by three-fifths of the states. Such approval by the states would also have to be done within one year of the proposal's passing in Congress. I might also give the states the option of giving the approval either by the state legislatures, or by a ballot referendum by the voters of each state.
My reasoning here is that as the Constitution was originally written, the several states had a much larger role in governing the country. Giving the states a say in the creation of any new agency would return some of that role. More importantly, it would (I hope) serve as a check on Congress creating an agency that the country as a whole would not want.
SECTION 2 -- Dissolving or abolishing any governmental agency, bureau, or department, including those already in place, would require only a simple majority of Congress. And if a simple majority of the states so direct, Congress would have to consider the matter of abolishing an agency.
Here, I want to make getting rid of an agency, especially one that has outlived its usefulness, much easier than creating one. Again, I want to give the states more of a check on the power of Congress. I might even consider the idea that it would take only a simple majority of the states to abolish an agency. Give any agency notice that it not only has to worry about Congress, but also the several states.
SECTION 3 -- This would mandate that any regulations created by any agency that have the force of law would have to be approved by Congress before taking effect. The Senators and Representatives were elected to pass legislation; these bureaucrats were not.
I must admit, the last section needs a little more thought. But I decided that I wanted to post this before the August 2 deadline.
As for why I feel this needs to be an amendment to the Constitution, I want it to be difficult for any agency to find ways around any restrictions placed upon them. I also want it difficult for anyone to try removing those restrictions once they are in place.
Does this sound like it might be at least a step in the right direction?
***jn***
Monday, July 4, 2011
11. Let Freedom Ring!
To my fellow Americans who may be reading this, I hope you are having, or have had, a very happy Independence Day. To anyone else who might be reading this, I trust that you enjoy your countries' national days as much as we do ours.
It was 235 years ago that John Adams, later to become our second President, wrote to his wife Abigail as to how he thought the day should be commemorated in the future. He said, "I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."
I definitely think we Americans took Adams's musings to heart in celebrating Independence Day. If we could bring him back, 185 years after his death, I wonder what he would think of how the country he helped found celebrates its founding.
[TRIVIA: Today is the anniversary of the deaths of three American Presidents -- John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom died in 1826; and James Monroe, who died in 1831. It is also the birthdate of one other President -- Calvin Coolidge, who was born in 1872.]
Back in April, I wrote an interpretation of the Declaration Of Independence, partially as a way of better understanding it myself. As I mentioned in that particular entry, I imagined it as if I were explaining it to a group of elementary school students. Since I posted that entry, I have taken another look or two at the Declaration, and I have one more opinion about it:
It is an indictment.
The Continental Congress was sitting as a grand jury, and the Declaration Of Independence was the true bill that they returned. In essence, they accused George III of tyranny, and the main section of the Declaration is a list of specific charges against him.
Once I reached this conclusion, I began another train of thought. There are those who believe that Barack Obama is just as great a tyrant as George III was, if not greater. If a Declaration Of Independence were being written today, what would be the specific charges of tyranny leveled against Obama?
***jn***
It was 235 years ago that John Adams, later to become our second President, wrote to his wife Abigail as to how he thought the day should be commemorated in the future. He said, "I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."
I definitely think we Americans took Adams's musings to heart in celebrating Independence Day. If we could bring him back, 185 years after his death, I wonder what he would think of how the country he helped found celebrates its founding.
[TRIVIA: Today is the anniversary of the deaths of three American Presidents -- John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom died in 1826; and James Monroe, who died in 1831. It is also the birthdate of one other President -- Calvin Coolidge, who was born in 1872.]
Back in April, I wrote an interpretation of the Declaration Of Independence, partially as a way of better understanding it myself. As I mentioned in that particular entry, I imagined it as if I were explaining it to a group of elementary school students. Since I posted that entry, I have taken another look or two at the Declaration, and I have one more opinion about it:
It is an indictment.
The Continental Congress was sitting as a grand jury, and the Declaration Of Independence was the true bill that they returned. In essence, they accused George III of tyranny, and the main section of the Declaration is a list of specific charges against him.
Once I reached this conclusion, I began another train of thought. There are those who believe that Barack Obama is just as great a tyrant as George III was, if not greater. If a Declaration Of Independence were being written today, what would be the specific charges of tyranny leveled against Obama?
***jn***
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
10. The Pledge, According To Norcross
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States Of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Today is Flag Day. It was on this date in 1777 that the Continental Congress passed the Flag Resolution, which stated, "Resolved, that the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation."
I knew that I would be writing something today. I also knew that, after I wrote about the interpretations of the Pledge Of Allegiance from Red Skelton and John Wayne, I have been thinking of my own interpretation. And it seems to me that Flag Day would be the right time to post this entry.
Now, keep in mind that I have drawn my inspiration from both Mr. Skelton and Mr. Wayne, and there may be places where I may -- no, make that will -- sound similar to both. And there may be a couple of other inspirations that will creep in as well.
So without further ado, here is my interpretation of the Pledge Of Allegiance:
I . . .
Me, an individual, one of some 300 million such individuals who call this great country home.
Pledge . . .
Promise, swear, affirm, or aver. Give my solemn word of honor.
Allegiance . . .
Loyalty or fealty, respect, devotion. My alignment with the principles and tenets of this country.
To the Flag . . .
Old Glory. The Stars And Stripes. The Star-Spangled Banner. Thirteen red and white stripes that symbolize how our country began, and 50 white stars on a blue field that represent who we are today. Wherever it flies, from Detroit to Houston, from New York to LA, from the sands of Iwo Jima to the Sea Of Tranquility on the Moon, it stands as a beacon of hope and a symbol of liberty for all. May it always remain such a symbol.
Of the United States Of America,
We began as 13 very different colonies, coming together to overthrow the bonds of a common tyrant. We formed a union, believing that the union would be greater than the sum of the individual colonies. Or to use the line often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "We must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately."
After winning our independence as a nation, we grew, extending to new territories the same concepts of liberty that were behind the founding of this country. And each of these new states were treated as equals; it does not matter if a state was one of the original 13, or if it was one of those that most recently joined the Union, all are the same.
And to the Republic for which it stands,
Republic -- A form of government where the citizens choose those who will lead them. It is those elected leaders are accountable to the citizens, and not the citizens who are accountable to the leaders. And if those leaders ever forget that little fact, they not only could, but they should face the wrath and displeasure of those who put them in power at the ballot box.
One Nation,
Our ancestors came from every corner of Earth, all seeking what is now called The American Dream. The Great Seal of this country carries the Latin phrase E pluribus unum -- out of many, one.
Under God,
Our government does not allow the establishment of a state religion. People living in America have the freedom to choose whatever form of worship they want, and the variety of churches, synagogues, and cathedrals are testament to every faith known to mankind. But the freedom of religion should never be equated with the freedom from religion. Our government, whether federal or local, should be allowed to recognize and acknowledge the role religion has played and continues to play in the life of our nation without it being seen as an endorsement of any one religion.
Indivisible,
Our nation was forged in the fires of revolution. That unity was sundered in the throes of a civil war that pitted neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, and brother against brother. But that civil war not only shattered this nation; it served as the furnace that reforged it into something even stronger than it was before.
With Liberty . . .
The underlying concept of America is personal liberty. The opportunity to live your life as you see fit to do so, as long as doing so does not violate the laws of the land.
And Justice . . .
We are a nation of laws. Not forced upon the people by a king or other hereditary lord, but debated and written by the representatives elected by the people, and often proposed by the people to and through their representatives. Our courts see to it that those laws are carried out fairly and justly; that all who come to them seeking redress or justice are treated equally, irrespective of race, creed, color, or status.
For All.
We believe that justice denied to anyone is an injustice to everyone. Our government is not perfect, but we try to see that when an inequity arises, it is dealt with as best as we possibly can. One part of the Preamble to our Constitution states, "in order to form a more perfect Union," and while that goal may never be fully achieved, it does not mean that we do not try.
Okay, that is what the Pledge Of Allegiance means to me. What do those words mean to you?
***jn***
Today is Flag Day. It was on this date in 1777 that the Continental Congress passed the Flag Resolution, which stated, "Resolved, that the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation."
I knew that I would be writing something today. I also knew that, after I wrote about the interpretations of the Pledge Of Allegiance from Red Skelton and John Wayne, I have been thinking of my own interpretation. And it seems to me that Flag Day would be the right time to post this entry.
Now, keep in mind that I have drawn my inspiration from both Mr. Skelton and Mr. Wayne, and there may be places where I may -- no, make that will -- sound similar to both. And there may be a couple of other inspirations that will creep in as well.
So without further ado, here is my interpretation of the Pledge Of Allegiance:
I . . .
Me, an individual, one of some 300 million such individuals who call this great country home.
Pledge . . .
Promise, swear, affirm, or aver. Give my solemn word of honor.
Allegiance . . .
Loyalty or fealty, respect, devotion. My alignment with the principles and tenets of this country.
To the Flag . . .
Old Glory. The Stars And Stripes. The Star-Spangled Banner. Thirteen red and white stripes that symbolize how our country began, and 50 white stars on a blue field that represent who we are today. Wherever it flies, from Detroit to Houston, from New York to LA, from the sands of Iwo Jima to the Sea Of Tranquility on the Moon, it stands as a beacon of hope and a symbol of liberty for all. May it always remain such a symbol.
Of the United States Of America,
We began as 13 very different colonies, coming together to overthrow the bonds of a common tyrant. We formed a union, believing that the union would be greater than the sum of the individual colonies. Or to use the line often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "We must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately."
After winning our independence as a nation, we grew, extending to new territories the same concepts of liberty that were behind the founding of this country. And each of these new states were treated as equals; it does not matter if a state was one of the original 13, or if it was one of those that most recently joined the Union, all are the same.
And to the Republic for which it stands,
Republic -- A form of government where the citizens choose those who will lead them. It is those elected leaders are accountable to the citizens, and not the citizens who are accountable to the leaders. And if those leaders ever forget that little fact, they not only could, but they should face the wrath and displeasure of those who put them in power at the ballot box.
One Nation,
Our ancestors came from every corner of Earth, all seeking what is now called The American Dream. The Great Seal of this country carries the Latin phrase E pluribus unum -- out of many, one.
Under God,
Our government does not allow the establishment of a state religion. People living in America have the freedom to choose whatever form of worship they want, and the variety of churches, synagogues, and cathedrals are testament to every faith known to mankind. But the freedom of religion should never be equated with the freedom from religion. Our government, whether federal or local, should be allowed to recognize and acknowledge the role religion has played and continues to play in the life of our nation without it being seen as an endorsement of any one religion.
Indivisible,
Our nation was forged in the fires of revolution. That unity was sundered in the throes of a civil war that pitted neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, and brother against brother. But that civil war not only shattered this nation; it served as the furnace that reforged it into something even stronger than it was before.
With Liberty . . .
The underlying concept of America is personal liberty. The opportunity to live your life as you see fit to do so, as long as doing so does not violate the laws of the land.
And Justice . . .
We are a nation of laws. Not forced upon the people by a king or other hereditary lord, but debated and written by the representatives elected by the people, and often proposed by the people to and through their representatives. Our courts see to it that those laws are carried out fairly and justly; that all who come to them seeking redress or justice are treated equally, irrespective of race, creed, color, or status.
For All.
We believe that justice denied to anyone is an injustice to everyone. Our government is not perfect, but we try to see that when an inequity arises, it is dealt with as best as we possibly can. One part of the Preamble to our Constitution states, "in order to form a more perfect Union," and while that goal may never be fully achieved, it does not mean that we do not try.
Okay, that is what the Pledge Of Allegiance means to me. What do those words mean to you?
***jn***
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
9. Gutsy? Not Really
I have been meaning to write about this subject for a few weeks now. The subject at hand is the death of Osama Bin Laden. I am hoping that the delay in writing has given me some time for at least a little insight and reflection.
First things first, though. To the SEALs who carried out the mission, I have one thing to say: Well done, gentlemen. Well done, indeed. I wish I could tell each and every one of you this in person. Because of security concerns, I know that it is highly unlikely that I will ever be able to do so, but rest assured, the planet Earth is a far better place now that Bin Laden is no longer among the living.
One thing I did notice was the number of people talking about the "gutsy call" or the "gutsy decision" that Barack Obama made when he authorized the strike on Bin Laden's compound.
Really?
Osama Bin Laden was an enemy of the United States, indeed an enemy of the free world. He was the one who not only claimed responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001, he boasted of his evil accomplishment. He wanted to impose his own narrow view of Islam on the rest of the world. He had nothing but contempt and hatred for our values, and I do not think I exaggerate if I say that it was his desire to destroy our way of life.
Given that, how is the decision to go forth with a mission to kill him such a "gutsy move"? How is it anything but the right decision to make?
I would like to draw a parallel with World War II. In 1943, US Naval intelligence in the Pacific intercepted and decrypted a memo that Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (the commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor) would be making an inspection tour throughout the South Pacific. This tour would bring him close to the Solomon Islands.
When presented with the information, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the mission to "Get Yamamoto." From what I read about this mission in David Kahn's book The Codebreakers, the primary concern in whether or not to carry out the attack was that the US did not want Japan to suspect that the US had broken their codes. (A cover story that was given when the news of Yamamoto's death was later announced was that coastwatchers had spotted a high-ranking Japanese officer boarding a plane at Rabaul.)
Note that FDR did not hesitate in ordering this attack. He knew that there were risks involved in the operation, and he judged the successful outcome worth any of the risks. If FDR were around today, and he heard about how Obama dithered over whether or not to go ahead with the operation to kill Bin Laden, I strongly suspect that his comments would be less than complimentary. I know that President Harry Truman, never one to mince words, would have been more than a little derisive in his commentary. And I would say that his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as far more gutsy than anything that Barack Obama could ever make.
I also find myself somewhat bewildered, and perhaps even annoyed, at the barrage of information released after Bin Laden was killed. Announce that he was killed, fine. Giving a vague -- and I mean a very vague -- description of the operation, no problem. But I see no need for the detailed history of the operation that was reported following the death. We do not need to be telling Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization how we carried out this attack. I would think that we might want to use those same tactics again some day.
I think I am particularly angered over the disclosure of the intelligence windfall obtained in the raid -- the computers, flash drives, files, and so forth. There is no need for the American people to know this, at least not at this time. To draw another parallel with World War II, the details of how the Allies broke Germany's Enigma Code were not made public until the 1970s -- at least 25 years after the war ended. By contrast, I almost suspect that people in the Obama administration were talking about the intelligence windfall before it was even delivered to the analysts at the CIA, NSA, and other intelligence agencies.
The disposition of Bin Laden's body -- the burial at sea -- was a good move. His followers do not have a martyr's grave to use as a shrine. But in my opinion, the corpse was treated with far more reverence than it deserved. I think it should have simply been thrown over the railing of the USS Carl Vinson. Better yet, I think that the body should have been fed into a wood chipper, and the remains shot out into the ocean -- and that a video should have been made.
I know that there have been some complaints about the disposition of the body. That it wasn't given the proper treatment according to Muslim traditions. That it wasn't treated with the proper respect. Big deal. The war criminals executed after the Nuremburg Trials were cremated after their deaths, and the ashes scattered, so that their graves could not become memorials. (I have not done too much research on the subject, but I think it is safe to say that the wishes of their next of kin were not taken into consideration.) As I said in the previous paragraph, Bin Laden did not deserve a fraction of the respect he was given.
As for the decision not to release any photos of Bin Laden after he was killed because they were allegedly "too gory" or "too gruesome" -- I believe the appropriate line here would be, "Give me a break!" I suspect that most Americans want to see proof that Bin Laden is dead, irrespective of how gruesome or gory they might be. Indeed, I suspect that there are some who would think that the gorier the photo, the better.
As a matter of fact, I rather doubt that the photos are as gory as some might have you believe. Fangoria magazine recently published its 300th issue; I believe that the current issue is either #303 or #304. I would be willing to wager that you could pick up any one of those 300-plus issues, and you would find photos that would be far more gory, gruesome, shocking, and disturbing than what the administration would have you think the Bin Laden death photos are.
Eliminating Osama Bin Laden was a good thing. Earth is a far better place with his absence. I just wish that his elimination did not leave me with the feeling that Barack Obama used this mission more as an opportunity to make him look good, rather than getting rid of one of the world's most wanted terrorists.
***jn***
First things first, though. To the SEALs who carried out the mission, I have one thing to say: Well done, gentlemen. Well done, indeed. I wish I could tell each and every one of you this in person. Because of security concerns, I know that it is highly unlikely that I will ever be able to do so, but rest assured, the planet Earth is a far better place now that Bin Laden is no longer among the living.
One thing I did notice was the number of people talking about the "gutsy call" or the "gutsy decision" that Barack Obama made when he authorized the strike on Bin Laden's compound.
Really?
Osama Bin Laden was an enemy of the United States, indeed an enemy of the free world. He was the one who not only claimed responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001, he boasted of his evil accomplishment. He wanted to impose his own narrow view of Islam on the rest of the world. He had nothing but contempt and hatred for our values, and I do not think I exaggerate if I say that it was his desire to destroy our way of life.
Given that, how is the decision to go forth with a mission to kill him such a "gutsy move"? How is it anything but the right decision to make?
I would like to draw a parallel with World War II. In 1943, US Naval intelligence in the Pacific intercepted and decrypted a memo that Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (the commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor) would be making an inspection tour throughout the South Pacific. This tour would bring him close to the Solomon Islands.
When presented with the information, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the mission to "Get Yamamoto." From what I read about this mission in David Kahn's book The Codebreakers, the primary concern in whether or not to carry out the attack was that the US did not want Japan to suspect that the US had broken their codes. (A cover story that was given when the news of Yamamoto's death was later announced was that coastwatchers had spotted a high-ranking Japanese officer boarding a plane at Rabaul.)
Note that FDR did not hesitate in ordering this attack. He knew that there were risks involved in the operation, and he judged the successful outcome worth any of the risks. If FDR were around today, and he heard about how Obama dithered over whether or not to go ahead with the operation to kill Bin Laden, I strongly suspect that his comments would be less than complimentary. I know that President Harry Truman, never one to mince words, would have been more than a little derisive in his commentary. And I would say that his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as far more gutsy than anything that Barack Obama could ever make.
I also find myself somewhat bewildered, and perhaps even annoyed, at the barrage of information released after Bin Laden was killed. Announce that he was killed, fine. Giving a vague -- and I mean a very vague -- description of the operation, no problem. But I see no need for the detailed history of the operation that was reported following the death. We do not need to be telling Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization how we carried out this attack. I would think that we might want to use those same tactics again some day.
I think I am particularly angered over the disclosure of the intelligence windfall obtained in the raid -- the computers, flash drives, files, and so forth. There is no need for the American people to know this, at least not at this time. To draw another parallel with World War II, the details of how the Allies broke Germany's Enigma Code were not made public until the 1970s -- at least 25 years after the war ended. By contrast, I almost suspect that people in the Obama administration were talking about the intelligence windfall before it was even delivered to the analysts at the CIA, NSA, and other intelligence agencies.
The disposition of Bin Laden's body -- the burial at sea -- was a good move. His followers do not have a martyr's grave to use as a shrine. But in my opinion, the corpse was treated with far more reverence than it deserved. I think it should have simply been thrown over the railing of the USS Carl Vinson. Better yet, I think that the body should have been fed into a wood chipper, and the remains shot out into the ocean -- and that a video should have been made.
I know that there have been some complaints about the disposition of the body. That it wasn't given the proper treatment according to Muslim traditions. That it wasn't treated with the proper respect. Big deal. The war criminals executed after the Nuremburg Trials were cremated after their deaths, and the ashes scattered, so that their graves could not become memorials. (I have not done too much research on the subject, but I think it is safe to say that the wishes of their next of kin were not taken into consideration.) As I said in the previous paragraph, Bin Laden did not deserve a fraction of the respect he was given.
As for the decision not to release any photos of Bin Laden after he was killed because they were allegedly "too gory" or "too gruesome" -- I believe the appropriate line here would be, "Give me a break!" I suspect that most Americans want to see proof that Bin Laden is dead, irrespective of how gruesome or gory they might be. Indeed, I suspect that there are some who would think that the gorier the photo, the better.
As a matter of fact, I rather doubt that the photos are as gory as some might have you believe. Fangoria magazine recently published its 300th issue; I believe that the current issue is either #303 or #304. I would be willing to wager that you could pick up any one of those 300-plus issues, and you would find photos that would be far more gory, gruesome, shocking, and disturbing than what the administration would have you think the Bin Laden death photos are.
Eliminating Osama Bin Laden was a good thing. Earth is a far better place with his absence. I just wish that his elimination did not leave me with the feeling that Barack Obama used this mission more as an opportunity to make him look good, rather than getting rid of one of the world's most wanted terrorists.
***jn***
Friday, April 29, 2011
8. Is It Over Yet?
Is it over yet?
By "it," I mean the royal wedding over in England. Is it safe to turn on the TV or radio again?
Now, I have nothing against the happy couple. I wish them well, and I especially hope that they escape the predations of the cockroaches of the Fourth Estate that plagued the groom's late mother.
Having said that, I will now state for the record something that I believe I have at least implied in my prior entries. I am an American. I do not have a monarch; I have a president. Admittedly, the current holder of that office is an extremely pathetic one, but he is still a president.
If I remember correctly, America had a slight difference of opinion with Britain back in 1776. As a matter of fact, it was that little disagreement that led to this country having a form of government headed by someone chosen by the governed, and not by someone who holds the post by circumstances of birth.
In other words, while it is entirely possible that a future leader of America is getting married today, that wedding most certainly did not take place in Westminster Abbey. So why is the American media devoting so much coverage to the event?
In all honesty, I have never understood the fascination that the British monarchy has for some of my fellow Americans. I will concede some measure of nostalgia on the part of those who have emigrated from Britain, and possibly the same for those with some British ancestry. But why does a good part of the rest of the country hold such a fascination for something that has little if anything to do with America? It would be nice if some of these people showed the same amount of interest next year during the presidential election campaign.
While I think I have managed to avoid most of the journalistic excess, I have encountered my share of coverage. There was one story that I found particularly amusing. A young member of the Buckingham Palace Guard had made some, shall we say, less than complimentary remarks online about the bride. Cameron Reilly was relieved of all duties connected with the wedding. One of his fellow soldiers called him "incredibly naive," saying that it was a huge honor to serve at the Royal Wedding.
Yes, it does sound like a case of engaging the mouth (or the keyboard) before the brain, but part of me thinks that he just wanted to stay at home and watch the whole thing on TV.
***jn***
By "it," I mean the royal wedding over in England. Is it safe to turn on the TV or radio again?
Now, I have nothing against the happy couple. I wish them well, and I especially hope that they escape the predations of the cockroaches of the Fourth Estate that plagued the groom's late mother.
Having said that, I will now state for the record something that I believe I have at least implied in my prior entries. I am an American. I do not have a monarch; I have a president. Admittedly, the current holder of that office is an extremely pathetic one, but he is still a president.
If I remember correctly, America had a slight difference of opinion with Britain back in 1776. As a matter of fact, it was that little disagreement that led to this country having a form of government headed by someone chosen by the governed, and not by someone who holds the post by circumstances of birth.
In other words, while it is entirely possible that a future leader of America is getting married today, that wedding most certainly did not take place in Westminster Abbey. So why is the American media devoting so much coverage to the event?
In all honesty, I have never understood the fascination that the British monarchy has for some of my fellow Americans. I will concede some measure of nostalgia on the part of those who have emigrated from Britain, and possibly the same for those with some British ancestry. But why does a good part of the rest of the country hold such a fascination for something that has little if anything to do with America? It would be nice if some of these people showed the same amount of interest next year during the presidential election campaign.
While I think I have managed to avoid most of the journalistic excess, I have encountered my share of coverage. There was one story that I found particularly amusing. A young member of the Buckingham Palace Guard had made some, shall we say, less than complimentary remarks online about the bride. Cameron Reilly was relieved of all duties connected with the wedding. One of his fellow soldiers called him "incredibly naive," saying that it was a huge honor to serve at the Royal Wedding.
Yes, it does sound like a case of engaging the mouth (or the keyboard) before the brain, but part of me thinks that he just wanted to stay at home and watch the whole thing on TV.
***jn***
Sunday, April 17, 2011
7. All I Know Is What I Read On The Internet
If you are thinking the title of this entry sounds a little familiar, it is an homage to humorist Will Rogers, who opened his performances with the line, "All I know is what I read in the papers." If he were performing today, he might well use the variation in the title -- but I would be willing to bet that he would still be reading the papers.
I began thinking about Will Rogers after a couple of seemingly random incidents. In my mind, they seem to serve as proof of Gabriele Veneziano's theory of quantum physics; that everything is connected. And as I have discovered, sometimes those connections can be quite astounding.
The first incident President Obama's speech on the deficit last week. The relevant point is during the speech, when cameras cut to various shots of the audience. One of these shots caught Vice President Biden as he was apparently nodding off -- completely asleep, it appears. (He was not the only one; a couple of women behind Biden can also be seen apparently visiting the realm of Morpheus.)
The second incident happened last night. I have a book of quotes by Will Rogers, and for some reason, I picked it up and started flipping through it. As it happened, I opened the book to the page that held this quote:
"Why sleep at home when you can sleep in Congress?"
Or as Rogers might say if he were around today, Why sleep at home when you can sleep while listening to the President?
***jn***
I began thinking about Will Rogers after a couple of seemingly random incidents. In my mind, they seem to serve as proof of Gabriele Veneziano's theory of quantum physics; that everything is connected. And as I have discovered, sometimes those connections can be quite astounding.
The first incident President Obama's speech on the deficit last week. The relevant point is during the speech, when cameras cut to various shots of the audience. One of these shots caught Vice President Biden as he was apparently nodding off -- completely asleep, it appears. (He was not the only one; a couple of women behind Biden can also be seen apparently visiting the realm of Morpheus.)
The second incident happened last night. I have a book of quotes by Will Rogers, and for some reason, I picked it up and started flipping through it. As it happened, I opened the book to the page that held this quote:
"Why sleep at home when you can sleep in Congress?"
Or as Rogers might say if he were around today, Why sleep at home when you can sleep while listening to the President?
***jn***
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
6. Simply Declaring
Recently, I have been reading the Declaration Of Independence. I am certain that I have read at least parts of it over the years, but I wanted to get a better feel for it. I wanted to know for certain that I understood what I thought I understood.
I thought that the best way of knowing would be if I could put the Declaration into my own words, much like the explanations of the Pledge Of Allegiance that were the topic of a previous entry. And so, I have written my own description of the Declaration Of Independence.
When I wrote this description, I envisioned it as a presentation to a group of students; probably elementary school students. More than likely, they had heard of the Declaration, but had not yet studied it. Here is how I would describe it to them:
"It is easier to understand the Declaration Of Independence when you realize that it can be broken down into three sections. In the first section, the Continental Congress is explaining why this step is necessary:
"We, the United States Of America, are declaring our separation and independence from Great Britain. In doing so, we feel it only just, right, and proper that we present our reasons and arguments for doing so to the rest of the world. We have the following grievances against the present King of Great Britain:
"The second section is a list of those grievances, which the Continental Congress hoped would demonstrate how King George III had violated the rights of the colonists repeatedly. Those charges and grievances, they felt, were proof that he was no longer fit to rule the colonies.
"The Continental Congress also mentioned that they had made appeals to the people of Great Britain, hoping that they might convince the British Parliament and the King to reverse his stand on the colonies.
"In the third and final section, the Continental Congress stated why they finally concluded that any connections with Great Britain must be broken:
"We have tried to resolve these grievances and differences many times, only to have those overtures rejected at every attempt. We regret that we must do this, but as a last resort, we hereby declare that the United States are now free and independent, and that all ties to and with Great Britain are hereby dissolved."
How well does this stand as an interpretation of the Declaration Of Independence?
***jn***
I thought that the best way of knowing would be if I could put the Declaration into my own words, much like the explanations of the Pledge Of Allegiance that were the topic of a previous entry. And so, I have written my own description of the Declaration Of Independence.
When I wrote this description, I envisioned it as a presentation to a group of students; probably elementary school students. More than likely, they had heard of the Declaration, but had not yet studied it. Here is how I would describe it to them:
"It is easier to understand the Declaration Of Independence when you realize that it can be broken down into three sections. In the first section, the Continental Congress is explaining why this step is necessary:
"We, the United States Of America, are declaring our separation and independence from Great Britain. In doing so, we feel it only just, right, and proper that we present our reasons and arguments for doing so to the rest of the world. We have the following grievances against the present King of Great Britain:
"The second section is a list of those grievances, which the Continental Congress hoped would demonstrate how King George III had violated the rights of the colonists repeatedly. Those charges and grievances, they felt, were proof that he was no longer fit to rule the colonies.
"The Continental Congress also mentioned that they had made appeals to the people of Great Britain, hoping that they might convince the British Parliament and the King to reverse his stand on the colonies.
"In the third and final section, the Continental Congress stated why they finally concluded that any connections with Great Britain must be broken:
"We have tried to resolve these grievances and differences many times, only to have those overtures rejected at every attempt. We regret that we must do this, but as a last resort, we hereby declare that the United States are now free and independent, and that all ties to and with Great Britain are hereby dissolved."
How well does this stand as an interpretation of the Declaration Of Independence?
***jn***
Monday, April 11, 2011
5. The Multiple Learning Curve
This endeavor, as the saying goes, is a learning experience. As in the sense of a button I saw years ago, which said, "Oh, NO! Not another learning experience!"
If I mention one other datum, you might have a better idea comprehending my initial statement. This endeavor is also an exercise in OCD. These entries are crossposted to four different blogging sites -- Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogspot, and WordPress, not to mention that notifications of new entries are posted to my Facebook page. Learning the various quirks of each site, and trying to overcome said quirks, can be just a little . . . well, I would have to say that the feeling is somewhere between "irritating" and "annoying."
Getting things to look the way I want on each site has probably been the first learning curve. As you might well imagine, each of the sites has its own ways for customizing the look of an individual blog. So far, Xanga has been the easiest to nudge, tweak, or otherwise sledgehammer into looking the way I want. I selected its most no-frills approach, and after that, it was merely a matter of adjusting the colors. I may still need to adjust a color or two a little, but I think I have that site looking the way I like it.
With LiveJournal, I believe I may have looked at just about every theme they offer before I selected one -- and looked through them again when I decided that I did not like my first choice after all. I need to adjust the color on the links, but I believe that it should not be too difficult a task.
I am still trying to find a look that I like on both Blogspot and WordPress. I have not yet found anything that I can say that I like; it is more a case of going with something that I do not overly dislike. I may have to spend a few hours looking at all the alternatives on each site, then seeing how I might be able to customize a choice.
(Incidentally, if you are curious enough to wonder how each site looks, that can be easily satisfied. My username on each site is the same -- "jamesnorcross." Simply go to the address bar of your browser, and replace the site where you are currently viewing -- be it Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogspot, or WordPress -- with one of the others.)
While getting the look right for each site has been interesting, I have been more surprised by how the last two entries looked when I posted them. I write the entry first, then copy and paste the text into a "New Entry" page on each site. And I adjust the time so that it is the same for each site. (I did mention that this was an exercise in OCD, did I not?)
When I posted "Sum Qui Sum, Et Qui Omnis Sum," the entry included the code for the results of the online quiz I took. With Xanga and LiveJournal, the images of the results posted just as I thought they would. With Blogspot and WordPress, however, the images did not appear. Instead, what you see are the blocks of code that should have been translated into the images. There must be a simple reason why everything did not post correctly, but I am still trying to determine what that reason might be.
I had a different surprise when I posted "The Pledge, According To Red And The Duke." Each site handles the posting of links a little differently. LiveJournal makes the links automatically; Xanga and Blogspot need a little nudging to change plain text into a link. The big surprise was when the entry posted on WordPress. Instead of the expected links, what actually appeared were the videos from YouTube.
As I said, I am trying to master multiple learning curves at the same time, and hoping that I will not be too surprised by what I might see once I click the "Save" button.
***jn***
If I mention one other datum, you might have a better idea comprehending my initial statement. This endeavor is also an exercise in OCD. These entries are crossposted to four different blogging sites -- Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogspot, and WordPress, not to mention that notifications of new entries are posted to my Facebook page. Learning the various quirks of each site, and trying to overcome said quirks, can be just a little . . . well, I would have to say that the feeling is somewhere between "irritating" and "annoying."
Getting things to look the way I want on each site has probably been the first learning curve. As you might well imagine, each of the sites has its own ways for customizing the look of an individual blog. So far, Xanga has been the easiest to nudge, tweak, or otherwise sledgehammer into looking the way I want. I selected its most no-frills approach, and after that, it was merely a matter of adjusting the colors. I may still need to adjust a color or two a little, but I think I have that site looking the way I like it.
With LiveJournal, I believe I may have looked at just about every theme they offer before I selected one -- and looked through them again when I decided that I did not like my first choice after all. I need to adjust the color on the links, but I believe that it should not be too difficult a task.
I am still trying to find a look that I like on both Blogspot and WordPress. I have not yet found anything that I can say that I like; it is more a case of going with something that I do not overly dislike. I may have to spend a few hours looking at all the alternatives on each site, then seeing how I might be able to customize a choice.
(Incidentally, if you are curious enough to wonder how each site looks, that can be easily satisfied. My username on each site is the same -- "jamesnorcross." Simply go to the address bar of your browser, and replace the site where you are currently viewing -- be it Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogspot, or WordPress -- with one of the others.)
While getting the look right for each site has been interesting, I have been more surprised by how the last two entries looked when I posted them. I write the entry first, then copy and paste the text into a "New Entry" page on each site. And I adjust the time so that it is the same for each site. (I did mention that this was an exercise in OCD, did I not?)
When I posted "Sum Qui Sum, Et Qui Omnis Sum," the entry included the code for the results of the online quiz I took. With Xanga and LiveJournal, the images of the results posted just as I thought they would. With Blogspot and WordPress, however, the images did not appear. Instead, what you see are the blocks of code that should have been translated into the images. There must be a simple reason why everything did not post correctly, but I am still trying to determine what that reason might be.
I had a different surprise when I posted "The Pledge, According To Red And The Duke." Each site handles the posting of links a little differently. LiveJournal makes the links automatically; Xanga and Blogspot need a little nudging to change plain text into a link. The big surprise was when the entry posted on WordPress. Instead of the expected links, what actually appeared were the videos from YouTube.
As I said, I am trying to master multiple learning curves at the same time, and hoping that I will not be too surprised by what I might see once I click the "Save" button.
***jn***
Saturday, April 9, 2011
4. The Pledge, According To Red And The Duke
When you hear the name Red Skelton, the first thing that most likely comes to mind is comedy. And while he was a master of comedy, something that I remember even more about Red Skelton is his explanation of the Pledge Of Allegiance.
A few days ago, I discovered a video clip of this performance on YouTube. I am not particularly surprised that it is on YouTube (in multiple versions, no less); I am perhaps more surprised that I did not think to search for it earlier. According to the introduction on one clip, Skelton first performed the sketch on his CBS variety show on January 14, 1969. That introduction also mentioned that it has been read into the Congressional Record twice.
In the performance, Skelton talked about his grade school principal, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lasswell, and how one day Mr. Lasswell lectured the students following the recitation of the Pledge Of Allegiance. Mr. Lasswell had the impression that the students were finding the recitation monotonous. "If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word."
With that, he began to break down the Pledge phrase by phrase, word by word, explaining the meaning behind each word and phrase. Mr. Lasswell's words certainly had an impact on Skelton, for him to remember them so clearly decades later.
Skelton ended the performance by saying, "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge Of Allegiance -- 'Under God.' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?" I would think that this calmly stated line from this gentle man has to be the most stinging rebuke ever delivered to those who feel that freedom of religion means freedom from religion.
As I have said, I found multiple versions of this performance on YouTube. The link below, however, probably has the best audio and video quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM
I am somewhat uncertain as to how I stumbled across this performance. When I did, though, I found a link to another interpretation of the Pledge Of Allegiance, this one by John Wayne. It starts with the Duke reciting the Pledge. Then, as a chorus begins reciting it again, he asks, "What do those words mean to you?" He then proceeds to give his own phrase-by-phrase breakdown of the Pledge. One line that I particularly like describes America as "A land where . . . the ballot box is the sword, and the people, its wielder." Wayne's description is different from Skelton's, but no less accurate. His interpretation can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jf3MQpffBc&NR=1
There is one other version of the Pledge Of Allegiance that I found while watching the above two interpretations. This one features Don La Fontaine, the narrator of probably thousands of movie trailers. If you have ever heard a trailer that begins, "In a world where . . . ," then you are familiar with La Fontaine and his distinctive voice. This one does not have any interpretation, just La Fontaine reciting the Pledge, and the US Army Band playing in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfjZj4NY7EM
***jn***
A few days ago, I discovered a video clip of this performance on YouTube. I am not particularly surprised that it is on YouTube (in multiple versions, no less); I am perhaps more surprised that I did not think to search for it earlier. According to the introduction on one clip, Skelton first performed the sketch on his CBS variety show on January 14, 1969. That introduction also mentioned that it has been read into the Congressional Record twice.
In the performance, Skelton talked about his grade school principal, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lasswell, and how one day Mr. Lasswell lectured the students following the recitation of the Pledge Of Allegiance. Mr. Lasswell had the impression that the students were finding the recitation monotonous. "If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word."
With that, he began to break down the Pledge phrase by phrase, word by word, explaining the meaning behind each word and phrase. Mr. Lasswell's words certainly had an impact on Skelton, for him to remember them so clearly decades later.
Skelton ended the performance by saying, "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge Of Allegiance -- 'Under God.' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?" I would think that this calmly stated line from this gentle man has to be the most stinging rebuke ever delivered to those who feel that freedom of religion means freedom from religion.
As I have said, I found multiple versions of this performance on YouTube. The link below, however, probably has the best audio and video quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM
I am somewhat uncertain as to how I stumbled across this performance. When I did, though, I found a link to another interpretation of the Pledge Of Allegiance, this one by John Wayne. It starts with the Duke reciting the Pledge. Then, as a chorus begins reciting it again, he asks, "What do those words mean to you?" He then proceeds to give his own phrase-by-phrase breakdown of the Pledge. One line that I particularly like describes America as "A land where . . . the ballot box is the sword, and the people, its wielder." Wayne's description is different from Skelton's, but no less accurate. His interpretation can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jf3MQpffBc&NR=1
There is one other version of the Pledge Of Allegiance that I found while watching the above two interpretations. This one features Don La Fontaine, the narrator of probably thousands of movie trailers. If you have ever heard a trailer that begins, "In a world where . . . ," then you are familiar with La Fontaine and his distinctive voice. This one does not have any interpretation, just La Fontaine reciting the Pledge, and the US Army Band playing in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfjZj4NY7EM
***jn***
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
3. Sum Qui Sum, Et Qui Omnis Sum
Before I get to the main point of this entry, I suppose I should start with a little information about myself.
My political leanings are on the conservative side. I suspect that Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity would all say that I am to the left of them, but I also suspect that they would not find any differences of opinion worth that much of a quibble.
With that out of the way, let us proceed to the meat of this entry.
During some recent explorations of the blogosphere, I encountered several entries that posted the results of a quiz that determined the blogger's political identity. The results I encountered stated, "My Liberal Identity Is . . . ," but I was curious enough to click the link to About.com. I saw that they had a companion quiz to determine one's conservative identity, I decided to indluge my curiosity, and I took the quiz.
What were my results? Well, I believe the correct phrase at this point is, "Drumroll, please":
<div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;border:1px solid rgb(133,143,174);background-color: rgb(250,241,218);width: 200px;"> <div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;background-color: rgb(12,12,132);overflow:auto"><div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;float:left;display:inline;width:50px;margin-right:5px;"> <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="padding:0px;margin;0px;" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/G/3/conservative-results-pic.jpg" alt="Quiz: What Kind of Conservative Are You?" width="50" height="50" style="border:0px;padding:0px;margin;0px;" /></a></div> <h1 style="font-family: 'Georgia';font-size:16px;color:white;padding-top:3px;margin-top:3px; margin-left: 8px;margin-bottom:2px;">My Conservative Identity:</h1></div> <div style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif;padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;color:black;"> <p>You are an <em> <strong>Anti-government Gunslinger</strong></em>, also known as a libertarian conservative or Tea Partier. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’"</p> </div> <div style="padding: 0px;background-color: white;"> <p style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif; padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:10px;color:black;">Take the quiz at
<a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="color:blue;" rel="nofollow">About.com Political Humor</a></p></div></div>
I must confess that on a few of the questions, I could have gone with more than one answer. for instance, one question asks, "If you could time-travel to any historical event and bring one thing with you, what would you choose?" My answer was "September 10, 2001 -- with a no-fly list," but I could have just as easily answered "The beginning of the 1990s bull market -- with today's stock quotes" or "Ronald Reagan's inauguration -- with a cloning device." On the other hand, when asked, "If you were a candidate for political office, what would your theme song be?", the only answer that was right for me was The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again."
I took the quiz a second time, giving mostly other answers to see what my results would be. This second time, the results were as follows:
<div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;border:1px solid rgb(133,143,174);background-color: rgb(250,241,218);width: 200px;"> <div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;background-color: rgb(12,12,132);overflow:auto"><div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;float:left;display:inline;width:50px;margin-right:5px;"> <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="padding:0px;margin;0px;"><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/G/3/conservative-results-pic.jpg" alt="Quiz: What Kind of Conservative Are You?" width="50" height="50" style="border:0px;padding:0px;margin;0px;" /></a></div> <h1 style="font-family: 'Georgia';font-size:16px;color:white;padding-top:3px;margin-top:3px; margin-left: 8px;margin-bottom:2px;">My Conservative Identity:</h1></div> <div style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif;padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;color:black;"> <p>You are a <em> <strong>Free Marketeer</strong></em>, also known as a fiscal conservative. You believe in free-market capitalism, tax cuts, and protecting your hard-earned cash from pick-pocketing liberal socialists.</p> </div> <div style="padding: 0px;background-color: white;"> <p style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif; padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:10px;color:black;">Take the quiz at <br /><a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="color:blue;">About.com Political Humor</a></p></div></div>
I suspect that more than likely, I fall somewhere between those two particular conservative examples.
I am also a little disappointed that there were not different images for the different results.
***jn***
My political leanings are on the conservative side. I suspect that Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity would all say that I am to the left of them, but I also suspect that they would not find any differences of opinion worth that much of a quibble.
With that out of the way, let us proceed to the meat of this entry.
During some recent explorations of the blogosphere, I encountered several entries that posted the results of a quiz that determined the blogger's political identity. The results I encountered stated, "My Liberal Identity Is . . . ," but I was curious enough to click the link to About.com. I saw that they had a companion quiz to determine one's conservative identity, I decided to indluge my curiosity, and I took the quiz.
What were my results? Well, I believe the correct phrase at this point is, "Drumroll, please":
<div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;border:1px solid rgb(133,143,174);background-color: rgb(250,241,218);width: 200px;"> <div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;background-color: rgb(12,12,132);overflow:auto"><div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;float:left;display:inline;width:50px;margin-right:5px;"> <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="padding:0px;margin;0px;" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/G/3/conservative-results-pic.jpg" alt="Quiz: What Kind of Conservative Are You?" width="50" height="50" style="border:0px;padding:0px;margin;0px;" /></a></div> <h1 style="font-family: 'Georgia';font-size:16px;color:white;padding-top:3px;margin-top:3px; margin-left: 8px;margin-bottom:2px;">My Conservative Identity:</h1></div> <div style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif;padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;color:black;"> <p>You are an <em> <strong>Anti-government Gunslinger</strong></em>, also known as a libertarian conservative or Tea Partier. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’"</p> </div> <div style="padding: 0px;background-color: white;"> <p style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif; padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:10px;color:black;">Take the quiz at
<a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="color:blue;" rel="nofollow">About.com Political Humor</a></p></div></div>
I must confess that on a few of the questions, I could have gone with more than one answer. for instance, one question asks, "If you could time-travel to any historical event and bring one thing with you, what would you choose?" My answer was "September 10, 2001 -- with a no-fly list," but I could have just as easily answered "The beginning of the 1990s bull market -- with today's stock quotes" or "Ronald Reagan's inauguration -- with a cloning device." On the other hand, when asked, "If you were a candidate for political office, what would your theme song be?", the only answer that was right for me was The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again."
I took the quiz a second time, giving mostly other answers to see what my results would be. This second time, the results were as follows:
<div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;border:1px solid rgb(133,143,174);background-color: rgb(250,241,218);width: 200px;"> <div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;background-color: rgb(12,12,132);overflow:auto"><div style="padding:0px;margin;0px;float:left;display:inline;width:50px;margin-right:5px;"> <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="padding:0px;margin;0px;"><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/G/3/conservative-results-pic.jpg" alt="Quiz: What Kind of Conservative Are You?" width="50" height="50" style="border:0px;padding:0px;margin;0px;" /></a></div> <h1 style="font-family: 'Georgia';font-size:16px;color:white;padding-top:3px;margin-top:3px; margin-left: 8px;margin-bottom:2px;">My Conservative Identity:</h1></div> <div style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif;padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;color:black;"> <p>You are a <em> <strong>Free Marketeer</strong></em>, also known as a fiscal conservative. You believe in free-market capitalism, tax cuts, and protecting your hard-earned cash from pick-pocketing liberal socialists.</p> </div> <div style="padding: 0px;background-color: white;"> <p style="font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman',serif; padding:4px;margin:0px;font-size:10px;color:black;">Take the quiz at <br /><a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-conservative-quiz.htm" style="color:blue;">About.com Political Humor</a></p></div></div>
I suspect that more than likely, I fall somewhere between those two particular conservative examples.
I am also a little disappointed that there were not different images for the different results.
***jn***
Saturday, March 26, 2011
2. Who Would You Choose?
I feel quite certain that at one time or another, any of you reading this have encountered the "Who would you choose?" question. You are told that you could save the life of only one of two people close to you, and asked which one you would save. (And more often than not, the question is asked when both of the choices are present.)
I have a variation on this question, which I would like to present for your possible entertainment and/or amusement.
You find yourself in an unfamiliar room, and a total stranger enters. He tells you that you will be presented with a choice. One of two people is going to die. You do not know either of them. You do not know anything about either of them, other than what the stranger is about to tell you. Once the stranger finishes presenting the information, you will have 30 seconds to make your decision.
Since you have no way of determining otherwise, assume that what the stranger tells you is the truth.
The stranger tells you that the two individuals are both government employees, who have misused and abused their positions in unspecified ways.
One works for the TSA as an airport security screener.
One is an agent for the IRS.
As perhaps a twisted show of humor, the stranger then begins playing the Final Jeopardy! music.
You have 30 seconds.
Which one do you choose?
Who lives? Who dies?
Who do you consider the lesser of two evils?
***jn***
I have a variation on this question, which I would like to present for your possible entertainment and/or amusement.
You find yourself in an unfamiliar room, and a total stranger enters. He tells you that you will be presented with a choice. One of two people is going to die. You do not know either of them. You do not know anything about either of them, other than what the stranger is about to tell you. Once the stranger finishes presenting the information, you will have 30 seconds to make your decision.
Since you have no way of determining otherwise, assume that what the stranger tells you is the truth.
The stranger tells you that the two individuals are both government employees, who have misused and abused their positions in unspecified ways.
One works for the TSA as an airport security screener.
One is an agent for the IRS.
As perhaps a twisted show of humor, the stranger then begins playing the Final Jeopardy! music.
You have 30 seconds.
Which one do you choose?
Who lives? Who dies?
Who do you consider the lesser of two evils?
***jn***
Friday, March 18, 2011
1. Introduction, And Welcome
To all who have discovered this particular corner of the Internet, greetings, and I bid you welcome.
My name is James Norcross.
I must confess that the writing of this particular entry is more difficult than I envisioned. The primary reason is probably because I have already dispensed with the purpose of the entry in the first two sentences.
I was hoping to write something insightful, intriguing, and possibly entertaining. In other words, something that might entice anyone reading this initial entry to make a return visit to this page.
Naturally, as soon as that glimmer of a thought coalesced into something resembling even a semi-coherent form, the muse immediately decided that someone else was in even more dire need of inspiration, and flitted away. (Come to think of it, which of the nine sisters would be the muse of blogging, anyway?)
Perhaps this is a sign that I should simply end the entry here.
In that case, I shall end this brief entry as I began it. I bid you welcome, and I hope you will return.
***jn***
My name is James Norcross.
I must confess that the writing of this particular entry is more difficult than I envisioned. The primary reason is probably because I have already dispensed with the purpose of the entry in the first two sentences.
I was hoping to write something insightful, intriguing, and possibly entertaining. In other words, something that might entice anyone reading this initial entry to make a return visit to this page.
Naturally, as soon as that glimmer of a thought coalesced into something resembling even a semi-coherent form, the muse immediately decided that someone else was in even more dire need of inspiration, and flitted away. (Come to think of it, which of the nine sisters would be the muse of blogging, anyway?)
Perhaps this is a sign that I should simply end the entry here.
In that case, I shall end this brief entry as I began it. I bid you welcome, and I hope you will return.
***jn***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)